Why Evolution is True (3)

[dad]

People do not 'believe' in evolution they 'accept' it as being the best explanation of why things are like they are.

Others accept creation as the best explanation as the best explanation.

You I take it would prefer to go with magic, miracles and the supernatural, none of which are explainable,

Blame the limited comprehension of man in this physical world.

 

[dad]

The successful reproduction of the common ancestor of today's flatworms and you and me is of course the reason we are here.

Thanks for stating your beliefs.

You are the result of 3 and half billion years of successful reproduction, which is why reproduction and everything related to it is often on your mind. If love, relationships, mating and raising a family weren't on your mind so often your line would be more likely to disappear.

Yeah yeah yeah, might as well say Santa coughed, and we grew from his saliva.

This also encompasses things that make you an attractive mate to the other sex, which covers directly or indirectly the majority of everything else you think about.

I suspect Adam found Eve attractive. No need to bow at the altar of evolution.

Status for instance covers everything from career to pride to reputation to social confidence to 'keeping up with the Jones's next door'.

We get it that you attribute everything including the kitchen sink to your belief.

Whether you recognise that or not is your problem, but you are what you are: an organism programmed by its evolutionary history towards the goal of survival and successful reproduction.

In your dreams, whether you wake or not is up to you. Give the head a shake, we're here to help.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, you've expanded your answer.

54% christian in the UK sounds a bit low to be honest. But, and this is a big but, being a christian doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does in fundamentalist america. Here it's just a box that you tick on a form in the same way you might say your local football club is Blackburn Rovers. It doesn't mean you actively follow the club. Do you see?

I watched a lecture by Daniel Dennett, in which he quote a study done in Britain recently on religious identity. He mentioned, when those identifying as Christians in the UK were asked this question; Do you believe Jesus was God? Over have of the Christian respondents said; no.

Dennett's conclusion from this, is there are far less than the advertised 54% Christians in the UK.

I will see if I can find the video, in which he mentions the source.

 

[dad]

It has taken 6 million years for us to be as little as 2-4% different. Cats are anywhere from 2.5 to 5 times more different from us than chimps are. Pretty simple logic.

Perhaps we should think of DNA more as how God created us. (and how it now works in this present physical only world). In heaven there were creatures, some looked like a man with the head of a lion, an eagle, an ox, etc. Perhaps we could for the sake of trying to comprehend how we were created, think of that as 'dna'. Influence from God. Just like those living beings reflected certain parts of the Living God perhaps in the way they were made, so do creatures here! That would help explain why what you refer to as letters in a sequence started out with similarity. They are alive and created. The similarity in this state and time and under our laws carries on a certain way, and is passed down.

No pond of Darwin needed, no missing supposed common ancestor, no flatworms having sex that led to mankind..etc etc.


The first step in recovery is to admit you have only belief.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Thanks for stating your beliefs.
Yeah yeah yeah, might as well say Santa coughed, and we grew from his saliva.


I suspect Adam found Eve attractive. No need to bow at the altar of evolution.




We get it that you attribute everything including the kitchen sink to your belief.

In your dreams, whether you wake or not is up to you. Give the head a shake, we're here to help.

Well, that is why you will reach old age not understanding anything any better than you did as a child. But, as I said, that's your problem.

 

[dad]

Well, that is why you will reach old age not understanding anything any better than you did as a child. But, as I said, that's your problem.

Accepting a mystery common ancestor you claim but cannot produce is no mark of understanding. Not sure who sold you that bridge! Believing in your heart that you are relatives with a potato does illustrate clearly however where you stand with the One who gives understanding.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I watched a lecture by Daniel Dennett, in which he quote a study done in Britain recently on religious identity. He mentioned, when those identifying as Christians in the UK were asked this question; Do you believe Jesus was God? Over have of the Christian respondents said; no.

I can quite believe that. Most people in the UK who identify themselves as christian know next to nothing about religion and never think about it except when they are asked what religion they are. They certainly don't go to church except for weddings or funerals. If you confronted the average UK citizen withe a full blown american fundamentalist they'd regard him or her as a care in the community case.

Dennett's conclusion from this, is there are far less than the advertised 54% Christians in the UK.

On the last census 59% identified themselves as christian, but by american standards I doubt if more than 10% would really qualify. Church attendance is about 2 or 3% I believe.

I will see if I can find the video, in which he mentions the source.

That would be interesting.

 

[46AND2]

The first step in recovery is to admit you have only belief.
[/SIZE]

Dude, you were just talking about mythical man/beast chimeras. I'll take evidence of the real world over LaLa Land any day of the week.

 

[Loudmouth]

then try to find an article proving the percentage of homologous genes that are similiar between humans and chimpanzees. I know they exist but I couldn't find any. I bet you cant either. so no I dont think you can help.

A base by base comparison is about 98% for DNA that humans and chimps share, and 95% when including insertions or deletions of DNA in each lineage.

When we look at the gorilla genome,

"In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other; this is rarer around coding genes, indicating pervasive selection throughout great ape evolution, and has functional consequences in gene expression."
Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

This means that in an overall comparison, the chimp genome is more like the human genome than it is the gorilla genome. Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with other apes.

The dishonesty comes in when creationists try different comparisons to make it look like the expected pattern is not there. The standard measurement is a base to base comparison.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps we should think of DNA more as how God created us. (and how it now works in this present physical only world). In heaven there were creatures, some looked like a man with the head of a lion, an eagle, an ox, etc. Perhaps we could for the sake of trying to comprehend how we were created, think of that as 'dna'. Influence from God. Just like those living beings reflected certain parts of the Living God perhaps in the way they were made, so do creatures here! That would help explain why what you refer to as letters in a sequence started out with similarity. They are alive and created. The similarity in this state and time and under our laws carries on a certain way, and is passed down.

No pond of Darwin needed, no missing supposed common ancestor, no flatworms having sex that led to mankind..etc etc.


The first step in recovery is to admit you have only belief.

And yet you can't offer us a scrap of evidence showing that such an approach produces useable results.

Geneticists do use the theory of evolution, and they can demonstrate that it works. The theory of evolution accurately predicts what we see in the field of biology. Creationism does not.

 

[Loudmouth]

again, everything you propose is regarding macro evolution as it relates to scientific evidence. Yet how can something that is unobserved (macro evolution) constitute even to be a scientific theory, without observation?

Fossils are observed.

Genome sequences are observed.

The dynamic of heredity is observed in populations.

These are the observations that scientists use to test the scientific theory of evoluiton.

Did you forget that you don't observe the the theory? Are you aware that a theory is an explanation of the observations?

observation meaning evidence that man came from monkeys, or whales from Dog like creatures etc.

That evidence is fossils, genetics, and the pattern of shared features. All of these are observations.

If it is unobserved the hypothesis cannot be tested.

You don't observe the hypothesis.

lastly, if items that are unobserved can be classified as empiricle science, then so too, can God. Or religion etc. They can all be classified as science at that point.

Fossils are observed. Genomes are observed. Population genetics is observed.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

A perfect example of just how dishonest creaitonists are. They present the 70% similarity alongside the 98% similarity and pretend that they are the same thing. Are they? Not even close. The 70% similarity that creationists claim comes from an ungapped analysis which does not include indels when alinging sequence. This means that a 1 base indel towards the middle of their sequence can produce massive differences where none exist. For example (indel in red):

Sequence A: GTCTCTTTGCCGGCT
Sequence B: GTCTCTTTAGCCGGCT

An ungapped analysis would report 10/15 matching up. A gapped analysis would report 14/15.

ungapped: 10/15
GTCTCTTTGCCGGCT
********--*-*---
GTCTCTTTAGCCGGCT

gapped: 14/15
GTCTCTTT-GCCGGCT
********-*******
GTCTCTTTAGCCGGCT

 

[createdtoworship]

And gradyll as a bonus I could even explain how your signature uses an appeal to authority fallacy.

well thats one of the most minimal fallacies out there, all science uses an appeal to authority.

but go ahead.

 

[Loudmouth]

on evolutionnews.org

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

Let's look at the lies, shall we? First one:

Dr. Venema argues that high human-chimp genetic similarity is at least 95%, and that this shows common our ancestry.

Response: Dr. Venema overstates the degree of human-chimp similarity and seems to disregard the obvious the possibility of common design for human-chimp functional genetic similarities.​

That is a flat out lie. The chimp genome paper is the definitive comparison. Here is what they found:

"Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."

Our haploid genome is 3 billion bases which puts the 35 million substitutions at 1.2% difference. The 5 million indel events create 5 million gaps of various sizes, bringing the final number to 95%, the percentage of bases that are the same in each genome.

(2) Dr. Venema argues that redundancy in codon-use (e.g., reuse of synonymous codons) is far in excess of what is required for functionality, suggesting common ancestry.

Response: Dr. Venema's argument depends on the standard evolutionary presumption that synonymous mutations are phenotypically equivalent. This is a good example of how evolutionary biologists use molecular biology that is outdated; while synonymous codons do encode the same amino acids, they can have different, and important phenotypic or functional effects relating to gene expression.​

Another lie. Finding a few synonymous mutations that produce different phenotypes does not mean that all synonymous cause a change in phenotype.


I can keep going, if you want.

Cats share 90% with humans.

Notice how you either change the units of comparison, or leave them off.

I could just as easily argue that a feather weighs more than a bowling ball. A bowling ball weighs 7 while a feather weighs 100. What I fail to tell you is that the ball weighs 7 kg while the feather weighs 100 mg. This is the type of dishonest argument that you keep using.

does this mean we evolved from cats?

Please learn how cladistics and evolution works.

You see how genetic similiarity can be misleading.

You are only showing how creationists mislead people on purpose.

 

[createdtoworship]

It has taken 6 million years for us to be as little as 2-4% different. Cats are anywhere from 2.5 to 5 times more different from us than chimps are. Pretty simple logic.

so how can you prove this assertion of you don't have the percentage of common homologous genes between chimp and human?

you say it's 95-99% but this is what you need to prove, and you haven't. In fact you beg the question as to the validity of this view.

If you submit a scientific paper (peer review or other) we may examine it to see if it truly is homologous in content. Until then I will assume it unverified.

 

[Loudmouth]

well thats one of the most minimal fallacies out there, all science uses an appeal to authority.

but go ahead.

Sadly, your posts boil down to "appeal to lying creationist sites".

 

[Loudmouth]

so how can you prove this assertion of you don't have the percentage of common homologous genes between chimp and human?

We already have the numbers.

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

you say it's 95-99% but this is what you need to prove, and you haven't.

We have.

Added in edit: "Overall, human and chimpanzee genes are extremely similar, with the encoded proteins identical in the two species in 29% of cases. The median number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene are two and three, respectively."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate.

however here are some more info:

not to mention the early studies only tested approximately 1% of the genome and pulled figures from that small amount. Later studies show 90-95% and one study shows as low as 70%. Now whats the big deal with a few percentage points off? Well...
Daniel Chriswell, molecular biologist at the Institute for Creation Research, explains:
"“If the human and chimpanzee genomes are 10% different, it rules out the possibility that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. If the difference between the two genomes is 10% then the total number of differences in the DNA sequence would be approximately 300 million nucleotide bases (10% of 3 billion nucleotides present in humans or chimpanzees), meaning that 150 million bases in both the human and chimpanzee have mutated and been fixed in the population since the last common ancestor. If the hypothetical divergence of humans and chimpanzees occurred about 5 million years ago and given that a human generation is about 20 years (and a chimp slightly less), then 250,000 generations have passed from the time humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor. To get 150 million nucleotide changes in 250,000 generations, the two lines of descent would require 600 beneficial mutations fixed in each population of ancestral humans and chimpanzee per generation. However, nearly all mutations are neutral, having no effect and therefore are not selectable, or are slightly deleterious, causing genetic deterioration in a population of organisms. A few beneficial mutations have been observed, such as mutations that confer antibiotic resistance in bacteria and sickle cell trait in humans. But even these mutations are deleterious when the individual is returned to optimal conditions for survival and forced to compete with other individuals lacking the mutation. Recognizing the high genetic cost of fixing any mutation in a population, J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionist, determined mathematically that it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 beneficial mutations in humans through natural selection. If only 1,000 of the mutations are beneficial, then nearly all of the 150 million mutations in the human lineage would be slightly deleterious or neutral. Deleterious mutations would lead to degeneration of the genome resulting in extinction, and the neutral mutations would cause no change. This does not lead to some "great leap forward" to a more adapted creature. Because there is no feasible evolutionary solution to this problem, this whole situation has been termed 'Haldane's dilemma.' Even if the difference in homology of humans and chimpanzees is just 98.5% there still would be 250,000 beneficial mutations to be fixed in both populations in the last 5 million years, far too many than are feasible by Haldane's calculations." (7)
"

above quote from:

http://www.creationconversations.com/profiles/blogs/genetic-brethren-considering

 

[createdtoworship]

I can keep going, if you want.

yeah, please keep exposing the lies. When you are done, let me know.

I will address all of them.

that is if you truly want answers.

(which I doubt you do)

 

[createdtoworship]

Genome projects supporting human/chimp common ancestry typically refuse to accept the differences in the gene sequencing:

“Let’s use an example from English to illustrate what we mean. Here are two sentences with exactly the same letters:
Charles Darwin was a scientific god.
Charles Darwin was a scientific dog.
While the letters in the two sentences are identical and the order is virtually the same (greater than 90 percent), the slight difference in order yields opposite meanings. In the same way, only a slight difference in the order of the letters (A, T, C, and G) in living things may yield creatures that are far apart on the hypothetical evolutionary tree. For example, while some studies show that the DNA similarity between humans and the most similar ape may be about 90 percent, other studies show the DNA similarity between humans and mice is also about 90 percent.”



above quote and graphic from “I don’t have faith enough to be an Atheist” – by frank turek and norman geisler

As you can see above, similiarities in genetic structure typically can mean that the designer allowed us to consume food within a certain food chain structure and resultingly designed various organisms with similar genetic structure to digest food easier. It does not prove common ancestry any more that a “pot evolving from a teaspoon”
-giesler, turek ibid.

we are less similiar to chimp *(given the study belows accuracy) than cats are to dogs (81.9% shared homologous genes)

so if you can prove that cats evolved from dogs using these methods than you can prove humans evolved from chimpanzees.

(see following table 1 for the cats genetic charts-)
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675.full

Geneticist Richard Buggs

To compare the two [human and chimpanzee] genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million 'letters' align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless "junk DNA". However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.
Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.
In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single 'letter' is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.
We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This "copy number variation" causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.


from:

http://www.refdag.nl/chimpanzee_1_282611


72% is alot different than say 96-99% similiarity.

at this point all that need to be realized is that gene ordering is important, and it's the alignments that are way off.

here is a stack of references to that support this importance in ordering:

"Jachowicz et al., "Heterochromatin establishment at pericentromeres depends on nuclear position," Genes & Development, 27: 2427-2432 (2013); Verdaasdonk et al., "Centromere Tethering Confines Chromosome Domains," Molecular Cell, 52: 1-13 (December 26, 2013); Filion et al., "Systematic Protein Location Mapping Reveals Five Principal Chromatin Types in Drosophila Cells,"Cell, 143: 212-224 (October 15, 2010); Giacomo Cavalli, "From Linear Genes to Epigenetic Inheritance of Three-dimensional Epigenomes," Journal of Molecular Biology (2011); Justin M. O'Sullivan, "Chromosome Organizaton in Simple and Complex Unicellular Organisms," Current Issues in Molecular Biology, 13: 37-42 (2011); Dirar Homouz and Andrzej S. Kudlicki, "The 3D Organization of the Yeast Genome Correlates with Co-Expression and Reflects Functional Relations between Genes," PLoS One, 8: e54699 (January, 2013); Stephen A. Hoang and Stefan Bekiranov, "The Network Architecture of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genome," PLoS One, 8: e81972 (December, 2013)."

the above and dozens more references found
on evolutionnews.org
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/does_genome_evi083181.html

Cats share 90% homologous genes with humans.

in fact cats share 81.9% homologous genes with dogs! (no kidding)

Governmental Genome project on Cats
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675/T1.expansion.html

does this mean we evolved from cats? OR cats from Dogs?

You see how genetic similiarity can be misleading.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/03/2887206.htm
you can see we obviously didn't evolve from Cats or pigs, and cats didn't obviously evolve from dogs.