The best evidence for Creationism

[Loudmouth]

There are many phenotypical differences between man and chimp (hips and neck).

There are many phenotypic differences between humans. Your point?

Our immune systems react quite differently. Probably the biggest differences are in gene expression.

Immune systems differ between humans, as does gene expression. Your point?

Does observing change prove evolution?

Does observing change DISPROVE evolution as Inan3 argues? If so, please explain.

It seems like a jump to evolution.

Then show me one DNA difference between humans and chimps that could not be accomplished by evolution.

 

[Gracchus]

So if I change my behavior can I adapt like a peppered moth?

If the change in your behavior involved changing your pigmentation with make-up! It's not unheard of. The military issues camouflage sticks, for instance.

But the peppered moth is not an example of adaptation. Individual moths don't change color. It is an example of evolution. The species changes color. I realize this is not convenient for your argument. So sorry!

"Evolution" is something that happens when something goes wrong ...

There are some who argue that evolution has selected for DNA copying errors. It increases variability, which allows for changing environments. In short, what's beneficial today, might be deleterious tomorrow.

... in the cell is selected by its environment (if it is selected). The mutation is preserved if it is further selected by the population and allowed to reproduce. What is gained is often at a price (loss of previously existing trait)

That is so. Whales cannot breathe water, for instance.

this is sometimes referred to as genetic degradation.

More often as TANSTAAFL*!

It can take thousands of years for a population to remove a negative mutation ...

It has been demonstrated mathematically that it may never be eliminated.

... (much too much time for the evolutionary time frame for ape to man evolution).

Well, it took as long as it took. There is no evidence it happened too quickly. And I think you are assuming that the evolution to human is a success. It is very possible that we are just about smart enough to destroy ourselves, and not quite smart enough to avoid it.

Perhaps some bug-eyed monsters in a galaxy far, far away will make the transition to intelligent life without the need for any divine salvation.

*There ain't no such thing as a free lunch

 

[diychristian]

There are many phenotypic differences between humans. Your point?

There are more differences between apes and man than there are human to human. What is your point? We are 92% genetically similar to sea slugs and 40% genetically similar to lettuce. What's our common ancestors with them? Just because something is similar doesn't mean there was a common ancestor.

Immune systems differ between humans, as does gene expression. Your point?

The magnitude of differences between chimps and man is so great that it makes one ask "Do we really have a common ancestor?"

Does observing change DISPROVE evolution as Inan3 argues? If so, please explain.

Not any more than proves it.

Then show me one DNA difference between humans and chimps that could not be accomplished by evolution.

Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution

Then I think it is highly improbable that an ape evolved its' foot, knee, hip, neck, rib cage, and lungs simultaneously to enable it to walk effeciently.

 

[diychristian]

But the peppered moth is not an example of adaptation. Individual moths don't change color. It is an example of evolution. The species changes color. I realize this is not convenient for your argument. So sorry!

The moths remained moths. The species adapted to the environment and then returned to their previous state. Of course I'm speaking generally;before and after the industrial era there was both dark and light colored peppered moths.

There are some who argue that evolution has selected for DNA copying errors. It increases variability, which allows for changing environments. In short, what's beneficial today, might be deleterious tomorrow.

Sounds like a crap shoot. Its a miracle anything survives.

It has been demonstrated mathematically that it may never be eliminated.

Well, it took as long as it took. There is no evidence it happened too quickly. And I think you are assuming that the evolution to human is a success. It is very possible that we are just about smart enough to destroy ourselves, and not quite smart enough to avoid it.

Well it seems that it took about 6 million years to make 15 million changes to the genome. I am having trouble drinking the evolutionist's Kool Aid so I can't say it was a success.

Chimpanzee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discovery Institute - Bioethics - Articles/News - The U.N. Monkeys Around

 

[Trogool]

The moths remained moths. The species adapted to the environment and then returned to their previous state. Of course I'm speaking generally;before and after the industrial era there was both dark and light colored peppered moths.

Sounds like a crap shoot. Its a miracle anything survives.

It has been demonstrated mathematically that it may never be eliminated.

Well it seems that it took about 6 million years to make 15 million changes to the genome. I am having trouble drinking the evolutionist's Kool Aid so I can't say it was a success.

Chimpanzee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discovery Institute - Bioethics - Articles/News - The U.N. Monkeys Around

Do you know what the word "adaptation" means?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Gracchus]

The moths remained moths.

Yes. There was no speciation. But there was a change in the allele frequency of the gene pool of the interbreeding population. That is one definition of evolution.

The species adapted to the environment and then returned to their previous state.

When the selective pressure changed, and the environment favored the original coloration, the original form replaced the evolved form.

Of course I'm speaking generally;before and after the industrial era there was both dark and light colored peppered moths.

Indeed! If the original form had become extinct, evolved form might have become extinct too, when the environment changed back to the original conditions.

Sounds like a crap shoot.

That is correct.

Its a miracle anything survives.

Not a miracle, but about 99% of all known species are extinct.

Well it seems that it took about 6 million years to make 15 million changes to the genome. I am having trouble drinking the evolutionist's Kool Aid so I can't say it was a success.

Well, you have probably acquired a couple of hundred mutations of your own, alleles that neither of your parents had. So with nearly seven billion persons in the world, that is a lot of variability.

And remember, it was religious people, not scientists, who poisoned the Kool-Aid!

 

[WisdomTree]

What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for Creationism? Also, say whether you're an evolutionist or a Creationist.

Can I be both?

 

[USincognito]

There are more differences between apes and man than there are human to human. What is your point? We are 92% genetically similar to sea slugs and 40% genetically similar to lettuce.

Do you have a citation for these numbers?

What's our common ancestors with them?

That would be the Urbilateria for the sea slug and the Ureukaryotes for lettuce. Shouldn't you know stuff like this before engaging in a debate?

Just because something is similar doesn't mean there was a common ancestor.

Not a big fan of C.S.I. or paternity cases then, huh?

The magnitude of differences between chimps and man is so great that it makes one ask "Do we really have a common ancestor?"

Not really. Muscle for muscle and bone for bone, we're nearly identical and when we analyze genes, we're ~98.5% identical. Plus there's no other explanation for Chromosome 2 and our ERV phylogenies.

Then I think it is highly improbable that an ape evolved its' foot, knee, hip, neck, rib cage, and lungs simultaneously to enable it to walk effeciently.

Thankfully the facts aren't dependant on the personal incredulity of some dude on the Internet.

BTW, what makes you think we evolved all those things simultaneously (and what's up with the rib cage and lungs having anything to do with walking efficiently)?

 

[mathetes123]

Can I be both?

No

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Can I be both?

Theistic evolution.

 

[WisdomTree]

I'm just gonna go with St Augustine and say everything was created in an instant, take that Young Earth and Old Earth views!

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I'm just gonna go with St Augustine and say everything was created in an instant, take that Young Earth and Old Earth views!

Like a Big Bang?

 

[diychristian]

Do you know what the word "adaptation" means?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Adaption is jujist as elusive of a word as. Evolution. Why not give me your definition.

Sent from my phone as well using my fingers.

 

[mathetes123]

Theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution is not compatible with scripture.

 

[Inan3]

No, I did not, LM. This is what I said.

Originally Posted by Inan3
"I realize that but to say that apes and humans have the same ancestor because of a few likenesses and then to ignore and neglect how VAST the differences are is naive to say the least and deceptive at most. More important to the case of evolution being untrue is all the data and information that is excluded rather than that that is included."


I was saying that to ignore or exclude data and information which would falsify evolutionary theory is naive and deceptive.

How do differences between humans and other apes falsify evolutionary theory? The whole point of the theory is to explain WHY SPECIES ARE DIFFERENT. Evolution is change over time. You are trying to say that observing change falsifies evolution. That makes no sense.

On top of that, the differences aren't even vast. They are miniscule. We are talking about a 2% difference where base substitutions are concerned. The commonalities are what humans and chimps inherited from their common ancestor. The differences are what evolved in each lineage. That is how evolution works.

I am NOT talking about differences or similarities, I'm talking about the data of DNA that is NOT considered or mentioned when making the evolution argument.

 

[diychristian]

Yes. There was no speciation. But there was a change in the allele frequency of the gene pool of the interbreeding population. That is one definition of evolution.

And that some how is proof for common ancestory or evolution in general? This is equivocation with the definition of evolution. I believe you are projecting the abilities of evolution.

When the selective pressure changed, and the environment favored the original coloration, the original form replaced the evolved form.

there was no evolution there was dark and light moths before the industrial era. would you consider the holocaust as evolution there was a massive change in the allele frequency in the population there?

Not a miracle, but about 99% of all known species are extinct.

Why not a hundred percent?

Well, you have probably acquired a couple of hundred mutations of your own, alleles that neither of your parents had. So with nearly seven billion persons in the world, that is a lot of variability.

I'm sure the hundreds of mutations I've acquired are not uncommon, so the variability probably isn't too much. Between people of different skin color its something like less than 0.2% difference in the genome.

And remember, it was religious people, not scientists, who poisoned the Kool-Aid!

It was religious people that helped fund and start scientific endeavors.

 

[diychristian]

Do you have a citation for these numbers?

For the lettuce Discovery Institute - Bioethics - Articles/News - The U.N. Monkeys Around middle of page (it's just a passing remark). The sea slug I would have to take some more time to look up. I wrote it down at a lecture that I attended years ago.

That would be the Urbilateria for the sea slug and the Ureukaryotes for lettuce. Shouldn't you know stuff like this before engaging in a debate?

Would you be able to provide an evolutionary tree showing this? It seems like you are projecting. This is common in alot of evolutionary thought. A little change within a species or even speciation is not proof of molecule to man evolution.



BTW, what makes you think we evolved all those things simultaneously (and what's up with the rib cage and lungs having anything to do with walking efficiently)?[/quote]

It is from an argument that Dr. Ann Gauger put forth on a podcast called "ID the Future" 7/11/2012. Basically that when walking erect the rib cage and lungs would be restricted and wouldn't allow for long periods of bi pedalism.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Theistic evolution is not compatible with scripture.

Reality's not compatible with scripture -- why get picky now?

 

[USincognito]

For the lettuce Discovery Institute - Bioethics - Articles/News - The U.N. Monkeys Around middle of page (it's just a passing remark).

And not a citation. In fact that whole article is based on the shady accounting C/IDers love to engage in when it comes to genetic similarity. Gene to gene comparisons give reults of nearly 99% and that is the measurement that matters. Comparisons of individual bases can give results in the low 90s. They also feign ignorance here:

And never mind that we have 46 chromosomes (gene-carrying structures) in every cell and chimps have 48.​

The chromosonal fusion that results in human 2 is well known and well understood and was long before 2008 when that article was written.

The sea slug I would have to take some more time to look up. I wrote it down at a lecture that I attended years ago.

Again, the metric, not the measurement is what's really important. Unless you noted that as well, we can move on.

Would you be able to provide an evolutionary tree showing this?

Sure. It's going to be a lot of reading on your part, but see below.

It seems like you are projecting.

That word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

This is common in alot of evolutionary thought. A little change within a species or even speciation is not proof of molecule to man evolution.

The very fact that you use a nonsense C/IDer phrase like "proof of molecule to man evolution" tells me I'm probably wasting my time doing so, so instead of giving every link that I normally do, I'm going to give you the two starting points and Bilaterians. The links I'm providing are very easy to navigate.
H. sapiens
Use the "containing group" link to navigate upwards.
Hetrobranchia
Bilateria

It is from an argument that Dr. Ann Gauger put forth on a podcast called "ID the Future" 7/11/2012. Basically that when walking erect the rib cage and lungs would be restricted and wouldn't allow for long periods of bi pedalism.

So it's someone at the Discovery Institute. O.k. I'll see if I can find any actual citations where she claims this.

 

[WisdomTree]

Theistic evolution is not compatible with scripture.

Personal theology is not compatible with scripture.