Why Evolution is True (3)

[Subduction Zone]

those are presuppositions that beg the question as to the validity of evolution. you must prove feathers evolved from scales. I already proved that impossible with the peer review that you never downloaded and read.

seeing you dont read what is presented why should I read your posts or links?

again I could be wrong that you downloaded the article and read how there is design in aviary feathers but I seriosly doubt it.

No, I don't.

Especially since it is not claimed that feathers evolved from scales.

Do you see how incredibly illogical your demand is?

And there was no begging the question on the validity of evolution. The validity of evolution was proven long long before we were worrying about such details.

ETA: You also are much less likely to make foolish mistakes as you did in this post if you understood the nature of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way gradyll, the article I gave was a valid article. It lists its sources and gives links to many of them. Most of the links are to peer reviewed articles in well respected scientific journals.

 

[46AND2]

well we share 90% homologous genes with cats.

and it's very hard to find a chart of the percentage of homologous genes shared between chimps and humans.

I have spent a half hour looking.

what they tend to do is pick and choose certain genes that are similiar and then give a percentage of 96-98% similarity. But I did find one study

shows only 60-70% similarity,
https://answersingenesis.org/answer...analysis-of-chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/

shows 60-70% similiarity:

ProgettoCosmo - An automatic Comparison of the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes

again is this is wrong, please show a chart of percentage of similiar homologous genes between humans and chimps.

other figures here:

Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

Funny. You are not even aware that the 90% homologous similarity with cats is measured the same way as the 96-98% of apes. When you measure it differently, and dishonestly as creationists did, you get the 60-70% you quoted.

In short, you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[createdtoworship]

Funny. You are not even aware that the 90% homologous similarity with cats is measured the same way as the 96-98% of apes. When you measure it differently, and dishonestly as creationists did, you get the 60-70% you quoted.

In short, you are comparing apples to oranges.

your issue here is with the geneticist I referenced not me. so you have to show some citation if you want us to follow your point. besides homologous genes are never mentioned in the 94-99 percent studies.

and it looks like a fellow evolutionist disagrees with you


http://www.christianforums.com/t7838788/#post66217832

 

[Subduction Zone]

you issue here is with the geneticist I referenced not me. so you have to show some citation if you want us to follow your point.

No, you compared different methods. You won't find that sort of mixing in one article.

 

[createdtoworship]

By the way gradyll, the article I gave was a valid article. It lists its sources and gives links to many of them. Most of the links are to peer reviewed articles in well respected scientific journals.

why read your peer review when you ignore mine?

 

[46AND2]

Funny. You are not even aware that the 90% homologous similarity with cats is measured the same way as the 96-98% of apes. When you measure it differently, and dishonestly as creationists did, you get the 60-70% you quoted.

In short, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Very basically, here is the difference (for example):

Humans: ABCDEF
Chimps: A-CDEF

In this case, let's say, the "B" was lost in the genome of the chimp. There is still 5/6 bases the same, for 84%.

The way the creationists attempted to compare them was like this:

Humans: ABCDEF
Chimps: ACDEF

Where the B in humans is allegedly "homologous" to the C in chimps, the C to D, etc. They then count the similarity as only 1/6, or 16%.

In reality, the gene is MUCH more similar than what the creationists give it credit for...and when the creationists compare the entire genomes, the similarity is deceptively low, due to the way they "measured" the two genomes....

They have done no such similar study on the cat to human genome. So your cat % was done the way that scientists do it, like in my first example, and the chimp figure you gave was done like the second example, and you are trying to compare the two and claim that this means that we are more closely related to cats.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you compared different methods. You won't find that sort of mixing in one article.

please explain what exactly was mixed. this is a test to see if you are paying attention

 

[46AND2]

your issue here is with the geneticist I referenced not me. so you have to show some citation if you want us to follow your point. besides homologous genes are never mentioned in the 94-99 percent studies.

No, my issue is with YOU comparing two different methods of measurement.

I would have had less of a problem with you comparing "your" geneticist's method of measuring chimp to human, with the same method used on cat to human.

I'd still disagree with the method, but quite sure that if you measured them the same way, the cat would be less than the 60-70% figure you quoted for chimp to human.

But then, you'd have never made the argument in the first place...

 

[46AND2]

please explain what exactly was mixed. this is a test to see if you are paying attention

I just did, in the post prior to this one to which I'm responding.

 

[createdtoworship]

Very basically, here is the difference (for example):

Humans: ABCDEF
Chimps: A-CDEF

In this case, let's say, the "B" was lost in the genome of the chimp. There is still 5/6 bases the same, for 84%.

The way the creationists attempted to compare them was like this:

Humans: ABCDEF
Chimps: ACDEF

Where the B in humans is allegedly "homologous" to the C in chimps, the C to D, etc. They then count the similarity as only 1/6, or 16%.

In reality, the gene is MUCH more similar than what the creationists give it credit for...and when the creationists compare the entire genomes, the similarity is deceptively low, due to the way they "measured" the two genomes....

They have done no such similar study on the cat to human genome. So your cat % was done the way that scientists do it, like in my first example, and the chimp figure you gave was done like the second example, and you are trying to compare the two and claim that this means that we are more closely related to cats.

its the sequences that are in error. you guys ignore the importance of sequencing in the genome. besides you have to remember non creationist sources are saying we share 90 percent homologous genes with cats. so did we evolve from them too?

 

[createdtoworship]

Very basically, here is the difference (for example):

Humans: ABCDEF
Chimps: A-CDEF

In this case, let's say, the "B" was lost in the genome of the chimp. There is still 5/6 bases the same, for 84%.

The way the creationists attempted to compare them was like this:

Humans: ABCDEF
Chimps: ACDEF

Where the B in humans is allegedly "homologous" to the C in chimps, the C to D, etc. They then count the similarity as only 1/6, or 16%.

In reality, the gene is MUCH more similar than what the creationists give it credit for...and when the creationists compare the entire genomes, the similarity is deceptively low, due to the way they "measured" the two genomes....

They have done no such similar study on the cat to human genome. So your cat % was done the way that scientists do it, like in my first example, and the chimp figure you gave was done like the second example, and you are trying to compare the two and claim that this means that we are more closely related to cats.

I just did, in the post prior to this one to which I'm responding.

nope besides you just said the comparison studies used the same homologous methods. are you changing the bars here?

 

[46AND2]

its the sequences that are in error. you guys ignore the importance of sequencing in the genome. besides you have to remember non creationist sources are saying we share 90 percent homologous genes with cats. so did we evolve from them too?

It doesn't matter whether "your" method is the right or wrong way, or not. That is not what the issue is here.

The issue is that you are comparing two different methods; apples and oranges.

And no, we didn't evolve from cats. We didn't evolve from chimps, either. We DO share a common ancestor with both. Our common ancestor with cats was much, much longer ago than our common ancestor with chimps.

 

[46AND2]

nope besides you just said the comparison studies used the same homologous methods. are you changing the bars here?

I said the 90% with cats used the same methods as the 96-98% with chimps. Do try to pay attention. The 60-70% method was different from both.

 

[Subduction Zone]

why read your peer review when you ignore mine?

You don't use peer reviewed articles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

please explain what exactly was mixed. this is a test to see if you are paying attention

gradyll, you have several chores to do first before you can make demands of anyone.


You do not play the victim well.

 

[dad]

And no, we didn't evolve from cats. We didn't evolve from chimps, either. We DO share a common ancestor with both....

Can you say what that ancestor was? Sounds like a dodge.

 

[46AND2]

Can you say what that ancestor was? Sounds like a dodge.

Why does it sound like a dodge? I'm correcting him on his misunderstanding of evolution. No scientist (unless GROSSLY incompetent) ever claims that we evolved from chimps. Our common ancestor with chimps diverged into multiple populations. One population eventually evolved into humans, and another into chimps. Pretty straightforward.

And that ancestor cannot be positively identified because, for one, we can only establish definitive ancestry through DNA analysis, and the divergence was too long ago for DNA to have survived, and two, it is unlikely that said ancestor was fossilized, anyway.

 

[dad]

Why does it sound like a dodge?

Because it is not clear. If I read an article that says flatworms were the oldest living common ancestor of man, that is pretty clear. Wrong and diabolical, but clear. To claim some mystery supposed ancestor that you can't say what it is, seems like a dodge.

Our common ancestor with chimps diverged into multiple populations.

Your real or imagined ancestor? You know who it was?

One population eventually evolved into humans, and another into chimps. Pretty straightforward.

Hilarious. Presto. The unknown ancestor did it all.

And that ancestor cannot be positively identified because, for one, we can only establish definitive ancestry through DNA analysis, and the divergence was too long ago for DNA to have survived,

Or, there was no DNA in the time of Noah and before? But for whatever reason (you don't know) you just do not know who this mystery ancestor was. All by faith! Do you guys ever think about your religion??

and two, it is unlikely that said ancestor was fossilized, anyway.

So you expect there would be no proof for the claimed mystery ancestor..dna..fossils or anything else! Do not call that science. That is ridiculous!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it is not clear. If I read an article that says flatworms were the oldest living common ancestor of man, that is pretty clear. Wrong and diabolical, but clear. To claim some mystery supposed ancestor that you can't say what it is, seems like a dodge.

I doubt if the article said that. You clearly misunderstood it.

Your real or imagined ancestor? You know who it was?

Real. Can you name all of your ancestors? That would be 2 parents, easy, 4 grandparents, still a piece of cake, 8 great grandparents, now it is getting a bit more difficult and we probably have barely covered a hundred years.

Hilarious. Presto. The unknown ancestor did it all. Or, there was no DNA in the time of Noah and before? But for whatever reason (you don't know) you just do not know who this mystery ancestor was. All by faith! Do you guys ever think about your religion??

Noah was a myth. Do we need to keep reminding you of this? And usable testable DNA that shows heritage breaks down fairly quickly. But we have other evidence than the DNA of fossils. We have the fossils themselves. We have the comparable DNA of humans and other apes.

What evidence do you have for your claims? Oh that's right, none.

So you expect there would be no proof for the claimed mystery ancestor..dna..fossils or anything else! Do not call that science. That is ridiculous!

You have no clue what science is, yet you depend upon it every day.