Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[Speedwell]

You're incorrect. Creationist to,recognize that things can change in a creature. That's one of the things designed into,living things. The ability to try and adapt in order to remain alive. God created life and it's one of the evidences of a designer. That life continues adapts in order to survive. But it does not change into something else entirely. Like slowly morph from a bird to a lizard or vice versa.

I'm not sure what you mean by "something else entirely." A bird species could never evolve into a lizard species--that's impossible. It could, however, evolve into a lizard-like species; that is, into a species with somatic features which allowed it to inhabit an ecological niche in which one ordinarily finds lizards. But it could never be a species of lizard. One sees this kind of thing in island ecosystems, in New Zealand, for instance, where birds arrived before mammals and many ecological niches are occupied by bird species in which we on the mainland would be used to finding mammals. But they're still birds.

 

[loveofourlord]

Most others here don't either.
Google-genetically we did not come from apes and you will find about 12,200,000 results.
Final proof we did not originate from apes!
A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.
The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’4
Specific examples of these differences include:
1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7
3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1
5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3
These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity.
In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome. They calculated a mean identity of 98.77% or 1.23% differences. However, this, like other studies only considered substitutions and did not take insertions or deletions into account as the new study by Britten did. A nucleotide substitution is a mutation where one base (A, G, C, or T) is replaced with another. An insertion or deletion (indel) is found where there are nucleotides missing when two sequences are compared.": https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=152540 Have a blessed day.

Oh and I'm willing to go as far to say that I bet you will find all those things you object too in the DNA of species that you would likly argued evolved from a common ancestor through micro evolution or such yet will have all those things you say mean humans and chimpnazee's didn't evolve from a common ancestor.

 

[rjs330]

200,000 identical insertion points....in a genome that offers more than 3 billion.....odds in 13 orders of magnitude.... further shared ERVs with the other primates, in a pattern which exactly matches a nested hierarchy....

And, you poor, poor thing.....all you can do is pretend it isn't there.

Asumptions once,again. ERVs right now show similarity in design. They do,not prove common ancestor. Once again you assume it does.

 

[Radrook]

But it isn't irrelevant. It is very relevant. Religion is the only reason you even know about ID. Because it is fundamentally a religious idea.

Merely stating that you don't present it as a religious idea, doesn't change the demonstrable, verifiable fact that ID is, fundamentally, a religious idea. As opposed to a scientific idea.

ID isn't science. It's religion. To its very core. No matter what you claim.
If you wish to present it as a non-religious but scientific idea, then you're going to have to completely remodel it (and do all the same work that every other actual scientific ideas are subjected to).

But you didn't do that. Instead, you just took the model as-is, with all the arguments from the cdesign proponentsists as-is, and just repeated it.

You even link to the same sources.

To state that you aren't presenting a fundamentally religious idea, is either completely dishonest or incredibly ignorant.




Keyword here: "prevent".

I'ld try to prevent it as well, if I could. But that wouldn't include killing innocent people. Because yes, when Hitler was a child, he was still innocent.



If an all-powerfull, all-knowing, all-intelligent being can't come up with a better way to "prevent" crimes then to kill a bunch of babies, then he deserves neither of those titles.

But let's not pretend as if those were his only motivations for killing a bunch of babies.
Read your bible. Particularly exodus and the part about all the firstborns.



Funny. Your example only applies to religious people.
Because they get their "rules" from an unquestionable authority.

I get my "rules" from an understanding of reality. That means that I can adjust my rules as I gain better insights. As opposed to simply following whatever my perceived authority commands me.



Sorry, you don't get to lecture me on ethics, when you put yourself in a position where there is apparantly some context in which killing babies is not only excusable, but actually morally reasonable or worse still: a moral duty.

But anyway.... didn't you want to get back to topic?

Well, that's not the way I see it. That's the way you see it. In short, you totally ignore my explanations offer your own. So I guess you don't really need me to be telling you what I believe. Just make up your own idea of what others believe and argue with yourself.

BTW
Nobody is attempting to lecture you.
Pointing out logical flaws in ethics isn't lecturing you. It is merely pointing out logical flaws in ethics. However, and to be forthright,I I do detect a profound need for a lecturing in ethics since you are obviously contentedly unaware of the significance of consequentialist reasoning a well as totally unaware about the pitfalls of deontological or rule thinking which are basic to ethics. .

Such unawareness is indeed in dire need of a lecture or two in order to straighten out the fallacious conclusions which you sophomorically put forth as irrefutable truth or as right merely because you FEEL very strongly about them. I entered college with that same idea and was fortunately unceremoniously disabused of that notion. Of course I could have stormed out of the class, cancelled the course because like you I disagreed. But then I would be still inanely putting forth things as profoundly indisputable truth simply because I feel strongly about them and that isn't good.

I also detect a certain lack of familiarity with the basics of what scientific method includes. Add to all the above-mentioned your persistent propensity to attack the man and not the idea and to create elaborate strawman arguments and we don't really have an intellectual common ground for any productive discussion at all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Asumptions once,again. ERVs right now show similarity in design. They do,not prove common ancestor. Once again you assume it does.

Just because you say it's assumed does not mean you are right. You have not been able to shown, ONCE, that they are only assumptions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, that's not the way I see it. That's the way you see it. In short, you totally ignore my explanations offer your own. So I guess you don't really need me to be telling you what I believe. Just make up your own idea of what others believe and argue with yourself.

I haven't seen you present an ID model that is fundamentally different from the model advanced by organisations like the Discovery Institute.

The model you propose, the "explanations" you give, the sources you link... it's all the same stuff that is fundamentally religiously motivated from the very core.

The model is the model is the model.
You can present me with a car and then scream of the top of your lungs that it isn't a car, but that won't change the fact that it is a car.

BTW
Nobody is attempting to lecture you.
Pointing out logical flaws in ethics isn't lecturing you. It is merely pointing out logical flaws in ethics. However, and to be forthright,I I do detect a profound need for a lecturing in ethics since you are obviously contentedly unaware of the significance of consequentialist reasoning a well as totally unaware about the pitfalls of deontological or rule thinking which are basic to ethics. .

Such unawareness is indeed in dire need of a lecture or two in order to straighten out the fallacious conclusions which you sophomorically put forth as irrefutable truth or as right merely because you FEEL very strongly about them. I entered college with that same idea and was fortunately unceremoniously disabused of that notion. Of course I could have stormed out of the class, cancelled the course because like you I disagreed. But then I would be still inanely putting forth things as profoundly indisputable truth simply because I feel strongly about them and that isn't good.

I also detect a certain lack of familiarity with the basics of what scientific method includes. Add to all the above-mentioned your persistent propensity to attack the man and not the idea and to create elaborate strawman arguments and we don't really have an intellectual common ground for any productive discussion at all.

Since you don't seem able to be consistent in your own request of getting back to topic, I'll do it for you.

I suggest you create a seperate thread in the appropriate sub-forum and poke me with it. Then we'll continue this part of the conversation there.

So, back to topic...... here's a question: please point out in what specific way(s) your "id model" differs from the fundamentally religious model advanced (and developed) by the people over at the Discovery Institute?

Stop claiming that it is different and start actually explaining how it is different. Specifically.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Asumptions once,again. ERVs right now show similarity in design.

Irony.
Your first sentence implies that assumptions are bad.
Your second sentence assumes design.

They do,not prove common ancestor. Once again you assume it does.

It, off course, is not an assumption.

Do you even know what ERV's are? An ERV is the result of the integration of viral DNA into the DNA of the host cell. If this happens in cells that produce sperm or eggs, they become inheritable by off spring. This way, they can become fixed in the gene pool of the entire population.

These ERV's literally are inherited from an ancestor, where that initial integration happened.
So, indeed, when 2 individuals share identical ERV's in identical spots, you know they are related through a common ancestor which was patient 0 of that ERV.

This is not an assumption. This is merely the obvious conclusion of a logical progression of events.
There is a mechanism to explain how we came to share ERV's with one another. A perfectly reasonable, well-evidenced mechanism. Viral DNA inserts in sex cells and results in ERV in the host cell, ERV is present in egg/sperm, off spring has ERV in their DNA. Then that off spring makes babies, then those make babies, and again babies, babies, babies,... And after a bunch of generations, that ERV is potentially present in most of the population.

It's a perfectly fine explanation. It makes predictions (concerning nested hierarchies, among others), it's testable, it's observable,... it's as solid as it gets.

There is no need to assume that there is some god, oeps sorry "designer", running around injecting identical viral DNA into both chimps and humans.

 

[SteveB28]

Asumptions once,again. ERVs right now show similarity in design. They do,not prove common ancestor. Once again you assume it does.

Except, those ERVs are not part of either species' "design".....they are the remnants of viral infections! They are 'scars' left in the genome from a viral attack.

And here they are in identical locations in the genomes of two species which you would claim are totally unrelated....!

And you have no alternate explanation......because there is none!

 

[rjs330]

Irony.
Your first sentence implies that assumptions are bad.
Your second sentence assumes design.


It, off course, is not an assumption.

Do you even know what ERV's are? An ERV is the result of the integration of viral DNA into the DNA of the host cell. If this happens in cells that produce sperm or eggs, they become inheritable by off spring. This way, they can become fixed in the gene pool of the entire population.

These ERV's literally are inherited from an ancestor, where that initial integration happened.
So, indeed, when 2 individuals share identical ERV's in identical spots, you know they are related through a common ancestor which was patient 0 of that ERV.

This is not an assumption. This is merely the obvious conclusion of a logical progression of events.
There is a mechanism to explain how we came to share ERV's with one another. A perfectly reasonable, well-evidenced mechanism. Viral DNA inserts in sex cells and results in ERV in the host cell, ERV is present in egg/sperm, off spring has ERV in their DNA. Then that off spring makes babies, then those make babies, and again babies, babies, babies,... And after a bunch of generations, that ERV is potentially present in most of the population.

It's a perfectly fine explanation. It makes predictions (concerning nested hierarchies, among others), it's testable, it's observable,... it's as solid as it gets.

There is no need to assume that there is some god, oeps sorry "designer", running around injecting identical viral DNA into both chimps and humans.

Nope it's all assumption. Especially when it comes to chimps and humans. Similarity leads to ERV insertions. Particularly when you consider the vast difference between chimps and humans. Evolution is assumed to be true therefore ERV is evidence of common ancestor.

And yes I assume intelligent design. ERV insertions are evidence of common design.

 

[Speedwell]

Nope it's all assumption. Especially when it comes to chimps and humans. Similarity leads to ERV insertions. Particularly when you consider the vast difference between chimps and humans. Evolution is assumed to be true therefore ERV is evidence of common ancestor.

And yes I assume intelligent design. ERV insertions are evidence of common design.

ERV insertions are the remains of viral infections. Is that part of the "design" too?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Similarity leads to ERV insertions

LOL. How did you come to this conclusion? Did you just make it up?

Evolution is assumed to be true therefore ERV is evidence of common ancestor.

Shared ERVs between species is an accurate prediction that evolution makes. You can say "assumed" all you want but its not a magical word that makes evidence disappear.

ERV insertions are evidence of common design.

No. Design has been repeatedly thrown out of the court room as unscientific nonsense. The ID proponents were utterly humiliated in the Dover case and had to admit under oath that ID is unscientific.

 

[SteveB28]

Nope it's all assumption. Especially when it comes to chimps and humans. Similarity leads to ERV insertions. Particularly when you consider the vast difference between chimps and humans. Evolution is assumed to be true therefore ERV is evidence of common ancestor.

And yes I assume intelligent design. ERV insertions are evidence of common design.

Other than simple wilful ignorance, how do you arrive at the emboldened section....???

How does "similarity" (whatever you mean by that) lead to two separate species having been infected by a virus, which lodges itself in exactly the same positions in their genomes......200,000 times over....!??

For example, if you were infected with HIV, if the virus entered your body, how would this be evidence of your "design"...????

The concept simply doesn't even make enough sense to be framed as a question. I think you are just throwing words at your computer screen in a vain attempt at response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's irrelevant because your grandparents are human. Just like a moth is still a moth no,matter how long a time passes.

God can't be falsified,and neither can the common ancestor.

By claiming that your God cannot be falsified you have just calimed that there is no rational evidence for his existence. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[loveofourlord]

My case is Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthals, Lucy...etc. I can give many more if you really need me to!

You know if your going to try to attack something, don't have half of the things you list real. Lucy and Neanderthals are real, and not a single specimen, they are dozens of specimens.

 

[loveofourlord]

Study reveals culprit behind Piltdown Man, one of science's most ...
www.sciencemag.org/.../study-reveals-culprit-behind-piltdown-man-one-scien..
Aug 9, 2016 - The big-brained, ape-jawed Piltdown Man was hailed as a major missing link ... Now,scientists think they've figured out once and for all that a single .... U.K., who wrote the book ThePiltdown Man Hoax: Case Closed in 2012, .

NEBRASKA MAN: Hoaxes & Frauds Previously Taught in Schools ...
View attachment 183131▶ 12:51

Feb 7, 2014 - Uploaded by JeffTheWatchman
NEBRASKA MAN: Hoaxes & Frauds Previously Taught in Schools ..... this appeared in text books, the .

View attachment 183132Here are the supposed bones of Australopithecus afarensis(Lucy). Notice the lack of facial bones-including the brow ridge, the lack of hand bones, and there are no bones of the feet.

Here is a picture of "Lucy" after the evolutionist have "done their work" with the bones that were found. Now, notice the face, the hands, and the feet. Notice how human like they are. Do you think someone monkeyed with the monkey? Is it so that you would believe in the fallacy of evolution? Truth, it will set you free, brother.

Cool now what about the other dozen we've found since or at the same time?

 

[loveofourlord]

Because there are similiarities. However there are great differences too. Accept the,similarities and dismiss the differences. That's fine. But don't say it shows a common ancestor when the,differences are so,significant.

you would expect differences as chimpanzee's and human's have both been evolving for around 10 million years since the split, so of course they would gain mutations, and other strange things that we don't have, just as we have. But you can look at the simularities that we share with all apes, or have with cimpanzee's that other apes don't have and so on. Differences arn't a problem as they are to be expected.

 

[loveofourlord]

Similarity can be viewed as being the consequence of our being designed by the same designer who followed similar design- schemes for all the kinds he designed. Being intended to reside on the same planet, we were of course provided with many functional similarities.

blah blah blah blah, yeah, that accounts for many simularities, except for all the ones that don't make sense, again we don't just have genes for things that we need that apes also do, we also have genes for things that we don't use, but apes do. Dolphins have genes for smelling on land, but don't use them as they have different genes for smelling in water.

Again this fails because it's like ford making a car using all the parts for a ford truck, but just welding the extra parts to the body, and parts that are simular are still used even when you don't need X part to be the same way as a truck, and be better off making it from scratch. like having a two wheel drive car, that has all the parts for a four wheel, except you can't put it in four wheel still there, wich leads to complications as when they break the car stops working even though they serve no purpose.

 

[Radrook]

blah blah blah blah, yeah, that accounts for many simularities, except for all the ones that don't make sense, again we don't just have genes for things that we need that apes also do, we also have genes for things that we don't use, but apes do. Dolphins have genes for smelling on land, but don't use them as they have different genes for smelling in water.

Again this fails because it's like ford making a car using all the parts for a ford truck, but just welding the extra parts to the body, and parts that are simular are still used even when you don't need X part to be the same way as a truck, and be better off making it from scratch. like having a two wheel drive car, that has all the parts for a four wheel, except you can't put it in four wheel still there, wich leads to complications as when they break the car stops working even though they serve no purpose.

Yakety Yakety yakety yak yak!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yakety Yakety yakety yak yak!

The video is a massive strawman, they got the definition of "vestigial" wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

 

[SteveB28]

Yakety Yakety yakety yak yak!

Explain how identical ERV insertion locations are an example of "similarity in design".




.