Obviously what he gave you was better than "the pyramid was only built with 20,000 slaves since we found only one villiage that holds that many."
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The evidence for evolution
- Thread starter CACTUSJACKmankin
- Start date
No, it's a point to be made. I need more details from you than DETAILS.
You post serves only to fillibuster this thread and it does NOTHING in return.
How can you even ask details when, most of the time, you only give one or two scriptures in return?
You post serves only to fillibuster this thread and it does NOTHING in return.
How can you even ask details when, most of the time, you only give one or two scriptures in return?
Upvote
0
RichardT
Contributor
TR based bibles only.
I really wish he could get into specifics, because the way he stated it is very general and I could take hours and hours debunking all of it.
didn't I?
Ok. I'll try.
Ok.
Ok.
That's what I'm doing right now. Currently reading this : http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
lol -_-
Upvote
0
Let's discuss each evidence one at a time:
The DNA they are talking about is found in the nucleus of the cell.
This technique is the same used in forensics.
What does DNA do? It codes for the production of amino acids that make up proteins that provide structure and catalyze chemical reactions.
The code for making amino acids (codon) is redundant.
See the inverse table here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codon#RNA_codon_table
Because multiple codons can make the same amino acid, proteins can have vastly different codes and perform the same function. So, a mutation can occur and the amino acid has a very good chance that it will code the same and not potentially change the protein into something that would kill the organism. These mutations accumulate over time because they don't do anything good or bad, thus there's no selective pressure.
Since different sequences can code for the same protein and these mutations accumulate, you would expect that only related species would have protein sequences that are even close.
The protein cytochrome c is found in almost every organism. It has been calculated that there are a possible 2x10^93(2 followed by 93 zeros) possible functional sequences. Again, the only reason that organisms would have even similar sequences is if they are related.
That's pretty conclusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being#Evolution
The DNA they are talking about is found in the nucleus of the cell.
This technique is the same used in forensics.
What does DNA do? It codes for the production of amino acids that make up proteins that provide structure and catalyze chemical reactions.
The code for making amino acids (codon) is redundant.
See the inverse table here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codon#RNA_codon_table
Because multiple codons can make the same amino acid, proteins can have vastly different codes and perform the same function. So, a mutation can occur and the amino acid has a very good chance that it will code the same and not potentially change the protein into something that would kill the organism. These mutations accumulate over time because they don't do anything good or bad, thus there's no selective pressure.
Since different sequences can code for the same protein and these mutations accumulate, you would expect that only related species would have protein sequences that are even close.
The protein cytochrome c is found in almost every organism. It has been calculated that there are a possible 2x10^93(2 followed by 93 zeros) possible functional sequences. Again, the only reason that organisms would have even similar sequences is if they are related.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy
That's pretty conclusive.
Upvote
0
RichardT
Contributor
Similarities and differences between spiecies which means that they are closer in the evolutionnary timescale, again, seems like an asumption more than anything.
"Since DNA contains the coding for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human and yeast DNA to be only slightly similar."
If common decent were true, are you sure this would be a good prediction? I don't see any logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages if common decent were true.
Or if God created an animal like humans. Through observation, we can see that apes share many characteristics with us, so we can assume that the DNA/RNA would be similar.
Upvote
0
But there's also the mutation part, the closer we predict species are, the more their proteins are similar. Their proteins don't need to be simiar to be functional.
To say it's an assumption is like taking your DNA comparing it with your cousin's, reading the difference and saying it's an assumption that you and your cousin are related. Could there be other possible explanations? of course there always could be, Evolution just happens to be one that also explains almost every other biologic phenomena.
To say it's an assumption is like taking your DNA comparing it with your cousin's, reading the difference and saying it's an assumption that you and your cousin are related. Could there be other possible explanations? of course there always could be, Evolution just happens to be one that also explains almost every other biologic phenomena.
Upvote
0
The key is functional redundancy. They can take human cytochrome c, put it in yeast, and the yeast funtioned just as well.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy
There is no design purpose for unrelated organisms to have similar cytochrome c because there are SO MANY (i assure you that you encounter nothing in your daily life that there is 10^93 of) sequences that all work the same.
Upvote
0
RichardT
Contributor
"Hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates but it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. The α-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of chickens (17.5 percent) than that of vipers (5.6 percent), their fellow reptiles. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels."
This comes from AiG (I edited it a bit), and this is the scource used :
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 95:11, 804; cited in New Scientist 160(2154):23, 3 October 1998.[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
Upvote
0
Okay Here's what the paper says:
NAR is shark
IgVh, VL, and TCR is camel
NAR is shark
IgVh, VL, and TCR is camel
Which is fine because sharks and camels have a common ancestor over 400 million years ago.
The similarities that do exist could have been derived independantly. This is not a problem because they aren't all that similar as is pointed out in the first quote.
Upvote
0
Cyt c is found in almost every organism. It's the same protein, just a different sequence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytochrome_c
It's important, that's why everything has it.
If I have completely failed to answer, please restate the question.
Upvote
0
Just so you know Richard T:
Your side is only able to refute, and not very well.
You don't have anything but the "unknowable" to replace it with. That's such an easy argument...
So while you think refuting "bad Science" is "lifting up the Bible." We'll keep you up to date and comfortable.
Your side is only able to refute, and not very well.
You don't have anything but the "unknowable" to replace it with. That's such an easy argument...
So while you think refuting "bad Science" is "lifting up the Bible." We'll keep you up to date and comfortable.
Upvote
0
Up to date. It might not be you in your family that leaves Creation behind, but you kids have an extremely high chance. I probably ruined it though just telling you this.
and comfortable because Creationism hasn't lead to armchairs.
and comfortable because Creationism hasn't lead to armchairs.
Upvote
0
Upisoft
CEO of a waterfal
Or that species were created. If what you say is true, then we have:
1. 2x10^93 functional codings of Cyt C.
2. There are mutations
Prediction: There should be different, but stiff functional variants of Cyt C DNA sequence
Test: (according your data) There is only one such.
Your theory failed...
-----------------
Now my theory.
1. God reused Cyt C and put it in every organism
2. It happened recently, so the mutations could not alter the sequence.
Prediction: There will be only one functional sequence.
Test: (according your data) Yey! Bingo!
Theory confirmed...
Upvote
0
Functional Redundancy. There are 2x10^93 Functional sequences. Yeast cyt c is 40% different from ours.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy
But there's so many possible functional sequences, why would they be even 10% similar unless they derive from common ancestory?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
