You can't argue with DNA

[ragarth]

i don't know what you guys are talking about... want to explain please??

I've been out for a day, but running through the posts I didn't see an answer to this question. I made a rather detailed post on what ERV's are back a bit, here's the link:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50936323&postcount=37

Click the button the spoiler tag to see the information, I put it under a spoiler tag to protect AV's innocence (don't want to spoil creation for him with facts!)

 

[MarkSB]

I haven't read the whole thread. Just wanted to interject: isn't like 80% of the human genome called "junk DNA", meaning it has no known function. That to me makes a statement that we don't know everything there is to know about the human genome.

 

[ragarth]

I haven't read the whole thread. Just wanted to interject: isn't like 80% of the human genome called "junk DNA", meaning it has no known function. That to me makes a statement that we don't know everything there is to know about the human genome.

This isn't entirely accurate. Yes, junk dna is a catchall for dna that we don't yet know the function of, but it's also used to refer to dna that does not directly code for genes, so regulatory dna also falls under this name as well. You are absolutely correct however in that we do not know everything about the human genome. Indeed, we actually know very little about it.

 

[MoonLancer]

I haven't read the whole thread. Just wanted to interject: isn't like 80% of the human genome called "junk DNA", meaning it has no known function. That to me makes a statement that we don't know everything there is to know about the human genome.

possible, but scientists do know what the human genome looks like regardless its 100% mapped, and based on that pattern, our DNA came from a common ancestors of chimps. This is because of ERV. we have virus ?rna? in our dna that was passed down from our ancestors. The only alternative is God created both us and the ancestors of chimps with RNA built into our dna to make it appear we are related.

 

[mark kennedy]

Could you maybe do the research for us since you thought of the question?

Why not take some other less controversial lineage, like say the domestic cow. There are a number of related species, such as our American bison.

There are bound to be studies that could be looked up easily enough.

Or do you feel that bison and domestic cattle are each the product of a unique creation?

I have developed an interest in the subject over the years, I'm especially interested in arctic wildlife. I found a website that told of a polar bear/grizzly offspring. Apparently even though they don't care for one another, they can still interbreed.

I'll buy bisons and cows, that's no issue for me. My guess is that cows have a strong tendancy to return to the original ancestral form probably more like the bison then the domestic cow. That's because there is a strong tendancy to revert back to the wild type. One of the biggest problems with these hybrids is infertility, Darwin called it the bane of horticulture....any hoot.

Now the reason human evolution from apes is virtually my only issue with TOE is because it's the only one that really crosses a doctrinal Rubicon. Adam and Eve being our first parents is clear as day in the New Testament, cows and bison simply are not an issue for me.

 

[mark kennedy]

possible, but scientists do know what the human genome looks like regardless its 100% mapped, and based on that pattern, our DNA came from a common ancestors of chimps. This is because of ERV. we have virus ?rna? in our dna that was passed down from our ancestors. The only alternative is God created both us and the ancestors of chimps with RNA built into our dna to make it appear we are related.

Why do evolutionists continue to make the same fallacious arguments. For one thing the ERVs are actually pretty striking evidence of independant lineage. Look at the comparison of the Class I ERVs.

With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Genome Biol. 2006). They can be found in African great apes but not in humans. What is more the ERV virus is nearly extinct in the human genome with only a couple that actually work. The only thing that ERVs are proof of is the lengths evolutionists will go to to conflate and confuse the evidence.

For almost half a century it was believed that Chimpanzee and Human DNA was virtually identical. This is now known to be false. The Comparison of Human Chromosome 21 and Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 revealed that 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. These included gross structural changes affecting gene products far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins) (Nature, 27 May 2004).

I have encountered these arguments so many times and found them to be so utterly false its hard to take them seriously.

 

[BananaSlug]

This may be more helpful...

 

[Hespera]

I have developed an interest in the subject over the years, I'm especially interested in arctic wildlife. I found a website that told of a polar bear/grizzly offspring. Apparently even though they don't care for one another, they can still interbreed.

I'll buy bisons and cows, that's no issue for me. My guess is that cows have a strong tendancy to return to the original ancestral form probably more like the bison then the domestic cow. That's because there is a strong tendancy to revert back to the wild type. One of the biggest problems with these hybrids is infertility, Darwin called it the bane of horticulture....any hoot.

Now the reason human evolution from apes is virtually my only issue with TOE is because it's the only one that really crosses a doctrinal Rubicon. Adam and Eve being our first parents is clear as day in the New Testament, cows and bison simply are not an issue for me.

Seems easy to get past that just be accepting the Adam and Eve story as metaphorical.

If you are going to take it all literally then you have to accept that rivers can clap their hands. Or that god would have hands, for that matter.

And you will have to accept that Pi=3.0, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. So it seems to me; why not?

For me, if scripture blatantly contradicts reality, or seems to, maybe a person is just reading it wrong. Sorta like spell check or something.

They used to talk about stars falling. We now know that is not reasonable. So ok that was metaphorical.

I could deal with Christianity, maybe believe in it. if that is the way it works. That a person can think and figure out what is metaphorical.
I know some thoughtful intelligent Christians who express it pretty much like that. Others who feel the opposite. I'm still studying this.

I am really interested in arctic wildlife too. I wish I were at the Univ of Alaska. I want to see muskoxen and etc. i heard they have some right on campus there! Why are you interested? Ever been up north? So far my furthest north is North Dakota.

 

[Hespera]

Why do evolutionists continue to make the same fallacious arguments. For one thing the ERVs are actually pretty striking evidence of independant lineage. Look at the comparison of the Class I ERVs.

With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Genome Biol. 2006). They can be found in African great apes but not in humans. What is more the ERV virus is nearly extinct in the human genome with only a couple that actually work. The only thing that ERVs are proof of is the lengths evolutionists will go to to conflate and confuse the evidence.

For almost half a century it was believed that Chimpanzee and Human DNA was virtually identical. This is now known to be false. The Comparison of Human Chromosome 21 and Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 revealed that 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. These included gross structural changes affecting gene products far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins) (Nature, 27 May 2004).

I have encountered these arguments so many times and found them to be so utterly false its hard to take them seriously.

Has anyone but you found them to be false? This is largely a research u and people take falsification pretty seriously. They dont just prattle on with obsolete nonsense.

 

[Hespera]

That's because there is a strong tendancy to revert back to the wild type.

One more thing if you dont mind. I wonder what is your explanation for this tendency to revert to wild type.

 

[Tomk80]

Has anyone but you found them to be false? This is largely a research u and people take falsification pretty seriously. They dont just prattle on with obsolete nonsense.

Mark has read the research, he just hasn't got sufficient knowledge to accurately report it to others and draw accurate conclusions from it. I'll try to get a post up on the things he quotes this evening, but have to get to my salsa classes first

edited to add: Okay, just came home, it's not around midnight and I've got to work tomorrow. I'll try to put up a post later this week.

 

[mark kennedy]

Has anyone but you found them to be false? This is largely a research u and people take falsification pretty seriously. They dont just prattle on with obsolete nonsense.

I really don't know what you are trying to say but obviously you don't understand the material. The homology argument based on comparisons of ERVs is wrong and the DNA of chimps and humans is not 98% the same, it's 96% at best.

I have spent years reading and researching this and have done so from almost exclusively scientific sources. I don't know who you are talking about when you say 'you and people' but I simply stated clear indisputable facts. The statement in the OP is obviously false and this same false statistic has been propagated for decades even though it is know to be false they still want to put it out there.

 

[Hespera]

That should have teen a capital U. As in University.

Dont give me "that obviously you dont understand stuff ok? If you have something you dont need to be condescending.

IF you have something valid, then publish it and be famous. Your ideas are indisputable. so it should not be a problem.

Who are "they" who you say knowingly perpetuate a falsehood over the decades?

I trust you are not going to offer an ad hom against the world scientific community and claim that you know better than them all.

 

[mark kennedy]

Seems easy to get past that just be accepting the Adam and Eve story as metaphorical.

It's not metaphorical, the focus in Genesis is on lineage, not figurative but literal history.

If you are going to take it all literally then you have to accept that rivers can clap their hands. Or that god would have hands, for that matter.

I've studied the Bible my entire adult live, I do the differences between factual and figurative language.

And you will have to accept that Pi=3.0, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. So it seems to me; why not?

I have no idea where you were going with that and I don't think you did either.

For me, if scripture blatantly contradicts reality, or seems to, maybe a person is just reading it wrong. Sorta like spell check or something.

For me this Darwinian myth of stone age tool making apes contradicts reality.

They used to talk about stars falling. We now know that is not reasonable. So ok that was metaphorical.

Some times it's a light in the sky, some times it can refer to demonic or angelic hosts. A text without a context is a pretext.

I could deal with Christianity, maybe believe in it. if that is the way it works. That a person can think and figure out what is metaphorical.
I know some thoughtful intelligent Christians who express it pretty much like that. Others who feel the opposite. I'm still studying this.

The general rule of thumb is that if it's figurative there with be a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context. In order for it to be figurative it must be clear what the imagary is comparing itself to. One prime example of how some of my thinking actually runs against even mainstream Christian thought. There is a book in the wisdom literature of Solomon, it's called the Song of Solomon. People historically and virtually unanimously consider this song to be entirely figurative. I think it's a love story about two young people, one of them his son perhaps, who are taking care of their resonsibilities so they can live together as husband and wife.

I am really interested in arctic wildlife too. I wish I were at the Univ of Alaska. I want to see muskoxen and etc. i heard they have some right on campus there! Why are you interested? Ever been up north? So far my furthest north is North Dakota.

I tried to get there for years but the only way I could have done it was to work on fishing boats or moving furniture. I was in Washington state thinking about making the leap when one of the fishing boats there went down with all hands and for me that was that. In a couple of weeks I'm going to move to Colorado Springs Colorado, I'm going to be stationed at the Army base there. Being in the Army I can jump what they call a MAC flight to Alaska and just might decide to do it one of these days. Right now I'm more interested in exploring the Rockies.

 

[mark kennedy]

That should have teen a capital U. As in University.

Dont give me "that obviously you dont understand stuff ok? If you have something you dont need to be condescending.

The Chimpanzee Genome Consortium concluded the indels accounted for 2% to 3% of the divergence and I quoted, cited and linked the source. The OP is obvious wrong about it being 98%, Time magazine and Nature's web site called Web focus also said it was 98% when the paper clearly says it is 96% at best. Would you like the citations and links?

IF you have something valid, then publish it and be famous. Your ideas are indisputable. so it should not be a problem.

Creationists don't get published in scientific journals.

Who are "they" who you say knowingly perpetuate a falsehood over the decades?

Darwinians like Louise Leaky who created the myth of stone age apemen in Kenya. There was Auther Keith who based his carrier on Piltdown hoax and then since the discovery of DNA they have pushed this homology argument but refuse to accept the inverse logic.

I trust you are not going to offer an ad hom against the world scientific community and claim that you know better than them all.

Here's the thing, read what they publish not was they speculate about, they'll get it accurate in print. Other times they fabricate statistics and can't be trusted to make objective statements. Now I'm not accusing anyone of anything here, I'm not hostile to TOE and I'm a little better read and scientificlly literate then the flame artists on here would ever admit. Genetics is the undiluted, genuine article of science and causes no conflict with Christian conviction whatsoever. Darwinian evolution is based on false naturalistic assumptions that defines science as if it were essentially atheistic which is absurd.

 

[Hespera]

Well Mark, you say a lot of things that i think are utterly false, distorted, or plain weird. But i dont really want to get into it with you.

I'm glad you enjoy the rockies. I love nature, luckily for me i lived in a beautiful area when i was young... not so much now alas. Look at google images of Sai Kung! much nicer than the midwest here.....

 

[BananaSlug]

Genetics is the undiluted, genuine article of science and causes no conflict with Christian conviction whatsoever.[/B] Darwinian evolution is based on false naturalistic assumptions that defines science as if it were essentially atheistic which is absurd.

So what do you think about genetics showing the closest living relatives of whales are hippos? Crocodiles are more closely related to birds than lizards? Lungfish are more closely related to humans than other fish?

Evolution causes no conflict with Christian conviction either unless you require a narrow-viewed literal interpretation of the Bible.

Evolution uses naturalistic explanations as all science does. Do you have a problem with "atheistic" Atomic Theory? What about that baby-eating Gravitational Theory? All scientific theories and assumptions use naturalistic explanations because there is no reliable way to test for a supernatural god-being.

 

[Gracchus]

wow. you expect me to read all that mumbo jumbo??

I doubt that anyone expects you to actually read anything.

 

[LightHorseman]

You can't argue with DNA

And yet they do...

 

[Hespera]

The Chimpanzee Genome Consortium concluded the indels accounted for 2% to 3% of the divergence and I quoted, cited and linked the source. The OP is obvious wrong about it being 98%, Time magazine and Nature's web site called Web focus also said it was 98% when the paper clearly says it is 96% at best. Would you like the citations and links?



Creationists don't get published in scientific journals.



Darwinians like Louise Leaky who created the myth of stone age apemen in Kenya. There was Auther Keith who based his carrier on Piltdown hoax and then since the discovery of DNA they have pushed this homology argument but refuse to accept the inverse logic.



Here's the thing, read what they publish not was they speculate about, they'll get it accurate in print. Other times they fabricate statistics and can't be trusted to make objective statements. Now I'm not accusing anyone of anything here, I'm not hostile to TOE and I'm a little better read and scientificlly literate then the flame artists on here would ever admit. Genetics is the undiluted, genuine article of science and causes no conflict with Christian conviction whatsoever. Darwinian evolution is based on false naturalistic assumptions that defines science as if it were essentially atheistic which is absurd.

Oh, I guess I will respond anyway.

lets see.


"Creationists" are not a special caste of person who is discriminated against. Any time anyone wants to come forward with data, they can get published. To say otherwise is just to make excuses for not having any data. You dont have any; nobody has data to back "creationism".

Why are you still worrying about a long ago hoax by an unknown perp, that was uncovered by the self-correcting scientific method. Calling Leay a hoaxer is false. Speaking of HOAXES, the creation industry cranks those out all the time, shamelessly.

There was no "myth of stone age apemen in Kenya".

There are skeietons of bipedal primates with humaoid characteristics.
They are not stone age; the are not apemen; they are not a myth.

I dont get how you can sey that you are not accusing anyone of anything and then accuse that "they" fabricate statistics..cant be trusted...not objective..false naturalistic assumptions. You are exactly accusing science / scientists of doing fraudulent work.

Ad hom of the world scientific community. Or if not then who are "they"? No credibility in that whatever. You know perfectly well that in any field there will be some bad apples; the church, for one, Govt fo another. When someone in science is involved in fraud they get a lot of publicity and their careers are ruined. You want to say they all or most of them do it, that is your myth. To say it is charact4eristic of science is a laie.

"Darwinian" evoltuion is not based on assumptions, is is based on observation. And there is nothing atheistic about it. You can take it whichever way you like, it doesnt deal with creation and more than algebra does.

There is nothing absurd about taking it in an atheistic way anyhow. i do, for one. You can toss out the word "absurd" but that doesnt make it so. just your opinion. For me the sky god didit is the apex of absurdity.

Flame artists... let see... "hoax" "fabricate statistics" "they refuse to accept" "false assumptions" "absurd" "cant be trusted" "not objective". So who is the flame artist?

I've read the same moldy arguments a thousand times elsewhere anyway, and all the same ad homs. The only purpose they serve is to try to subsitute for the one thing that creationism does not have. Facts.


Anyway sum it up: you have some invalid criticism, and you have nothing to advance as actual data that would serve in any way to falsify any aspect of the ToE.

If you have something in the way of DATA, dont pretend you would be discriminated against for being a (gasp shudder) creationist. Anyone with data is welcome at the table.