The origin of life and evolution

[pat34lee]

Ummmm the link you are posting in no way supports your position. The guy you are linking fully accepts evolution and the demonstrable fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Are you attempting to dishonestly quote mine?

There are no quotes in my post. My words, and a link.

 

[pat34lee]

Ummmm the link you are posting in no way supports your position. The guy you are linking fully accepts evolution and the demonstrable fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Are you attempting to dishonestly quote mine?

If you would like pertinent quotes from it:

" Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.

More than thirty percent of the chimpanzee Y chromosome has no homolog in humans, and likewise for the human Y in chimpanzees."

 

[pat34lee]

From another source:

" As you can see, every chromosome in the chimpanzee genome, with the exception of the Y chromosome, matched a corresponding region of the human genome by somewhere between 85% and 90%."
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13917

As shown last post, the Y chromosome isn't even close.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If you would like pertinent quotes from it:

" Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.

More than thirty percent of the chimpanzee Y chromosome has no homolog in humans, and likewise for the human Y in chimpanzees."

This doesn't falsify evolution in the least bit. The entire article is in full support of evolution. I'm not surprised you're quote mining and pretending it supports your position. Why do you use such dishonest tactics. You're bearing false witness against the author. Why?

 

[pat34lee]

From another source:

" As you can see, every chromosome in the chimpanzee genome, with the exception of the Y chromosome, matched a corresponding region of the human genome by somewhere between 85% and 90%."
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13917

As shown last post, the Y chromosome isn't even close.

Even worse stuff about chimp and human DNA, for evolution, that is.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/ape_vs_human.php

 

[pat34lee]

This doesn't falsify evolution in the least bit. The entire article is in full support of evolution. I'm not surprised you're quote mining and pretending it supports your position. Why do you use such dishonest tactics. You're bearing false witness against the author. Why?

You have no idea what you're reading is what I see.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You have no idea what you're reading is what I see.

I understand quite well what I am reading. I even pulled up the paper the blog is referring to
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

No where in that blog and in the actual research paper does it say anything that would support your position that evolution is false. You are bearing false witness against not only the blogger but the actual researchers. Why?

 

[USincognito]

You have no idea what you're reading is what I see.

Oh the irony.

Even worse stuff about chimp and human DNA, for evolution, that is.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/ape_vs_human.php

"Darwin conspiracy dot com" isn't a scientific source.

edit - Ugh, I just read that page. It's even worse than I thought it was going to be. They start with ENCODE which doesn't have anything to do with human/chimp common ancestry. They then go on to cite "scientists" and "they" numerous times, but never provide any actual names or citations.

Shoddy.

 

[mark kennedy]

Even worse stuff about chimp and human DNA, for evolution, that is.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/ape_vs_human.php

Love the link, it's been known for years that we are not 98% the same:

The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. (Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels)

By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. (DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22)

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions. (Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome)
​

Even though the paper says otherwise it's often stated that we are 98% is same:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Comparing the genetic code of humans and chimps will allow the study of not only our similarities, but also the minute differences that set us apart. (Chimpanzee Genome, Nature Web Focus)
​

That's an article announcing the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, quoted above. 1.23% and 3% adds up to 95% and some change, not 98%. Time did the same thing:

Different? Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level...Still, the principle of gene-by-gene comparison remains a powerful one, and just a year ago geneticists got hold of a long-awaited tool for making those comparisons in bulk. Although the news was largely overshadowed by the impact of Hurricane Katrina, which hit the same week, the publication of a rough draft of the chimp genome in the journal Nature immediately told scientists several important things. First, they learned that overall, the sequences of base pairs that make up both species' genomes differ by 1.23% (Time, What Makes Us Different?)
​

They don't like talking about the indels, so they just pretend they don't exist.

Oh the irony.

"Darwin conspiracy dot com" isn't a scientific source.

edit - Ugh, I just read that page. It's even worse than I thought it was going to be. They start with ENCODE which doesn't have anything to do with human/chimp common ancestry. They then go on to cite "scientists" and "they" numerous times, but never provide any actual names or citations.

Shoddy.

They cite their sources, mostly from Academic Press, the source material is credible even if the web site might be questionable

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you make a series of robots, which are likely to
have the most similar parts and programming?

Those with the same features and the same uses.
Common design ensures that, as long as you use
the most efficient designs and programming.

First of all, there is no "common design". There rather is a nested design. Which is quite different.

Secondly, it's not at all "the most efficient".

Thirdly, there is no "programming".

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Ica stones, for example.

/facepalm

You mean, those stones that have been exposed as forgeries several times over?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are no quotes in my post. My words, and a link.

But the link doesn't match your words........ at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here is a list of evolution breakers:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/time_travel/esp_ciencia_timetravel08c.htm
and more:
http://humansarefree.com/2011/04/amazing-evidence-human-specie-is.html

Pick the one you think is the BEST example against evolution theory and we can discuss it.

Gish gallop is a strategy which is only usefull to impress the uneducated public.

So, I suggest you select a handfull of such examples and discuss them openly and honestly, one by one.

Let's see how many of these stay standing.
My money is on "none".

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is no doubting familial connections with every human alive.
I'm talking different kinds. How can you prove any two families of
fossils are related without DNA to check?

"prove" without using DNA? No.
"support" using comparative anatomy and alike? Sure.

It can be quite challenging, or simply impossible, to extract DNA from fossils.
But here's the thing: there are species alive today. Species that we can extract DNA from. And we can use that DNA to compare it to other DNA, using the exact same techniques we use to see how closely 2 humans are related.

There are many animals that could fit within more than one family tree by morphology.
Some animals today look like unrelated animals.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2001-12/animals-look-alike-arent

"morphology"? Are you insisting on ignoring genetic evidence?
Why would we ignore the best tool we have to determine how related species are?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Tricky, you purposely left out my other evidence. why do you feel deception is necessary here?

What other evidence? Here's what triggered my reply:

Because when you put God in the picture, unless you are thinking otherwise, I think the God of the Bible, the God that had the wherewithal to tell us how he did what he did, so he did tell us and that's not the way it went.

It seems to me that you are quite clear about what the foundation is for your opinion on biology. In summary, it seems nothing more then "god says it, i believe it, that settles it"

You misunderstood, it's assumption Christians don't have evidence

For me, that is not an assumption. I have never seen any christian creationist present any evidence at all for their beliefs. And many have tried.

Does that mean that no evidence will be forthcoming in the future? No, off course not. But their comes a point when failure after failure after failure leads me to conclude that there is no such evidence - otherwise I would have been presented with it a long time ago.

I'm more then willing to change my mind on that, but it will have to take actual evidence to do so.

, but I think you'd rather lie to yourselves and others about that because following this, you once again continue to leave my other evidence out completely.

What other evidence?
And why would you accuse me of lying about it? What would I possibly have to gain from that?

Again, why do you find it necessary to deceive?

How is that deceiving? I've never met a creationist that didn't get his claims and beliefs from his religious book.......

It's simply observation.
A creationist doesn't believe in Noah's flood because of evidence pointing to it... They believe it because it's in the bible. If it wasn't for the story in the bible, they would have no reason at all to believe in some global flood.
And the same goes for all Genesis tales.

Do you figure leaving out the full truth will actually make it untrue? Sounds like you are a bit insecure with you stance in this if you have to take lying measures to convince yourself you are right.

And again you accuse me of lying....................

Tell me, was the adam and eve story discovered under a rock? Did a biologist conclude it? Or is it rather ONLY known through a story in a religious book?

And yet you do it again and again, your whole post here is based on conveniently leaving very significant parts of my post out and commenting on what you can pretend is all there is. Are you unable to address my post as it was written? I guess that was too much for you...had to twist it into something else in order to address it? What are you afraid of. Thing is, it's so blatant this time, anyone can see just what you are doing, and why. *tsk

I did no such thing.

Several things convince me, and the Bible is one, and that in conjunction with the OTHER THINGS I MENTIONED.LOL!

You view everything through biblical goggles. It all starts with your bible stories. None of which you would come up with if it wasn't for the bible. You know why? Because there is no extra-biblical evidence to support it. That's why.

You made it clear in the first post I replied to, which I also quoted above here, that you start by believing the bible and subsequently ignore all evidence or science that disagrees with it. That is what you do.

Yes, that also implies that you will happily hold up anything sciency that you think you can use in support of your biblical beliefs.
But it means nothing. Precisely because you start from the answer BEFORE asking the actual question. It's like painting the bullseye around the arrow.

My evidence, the evidence that is just as compelling to me as yours is to you. Denial I have evidence other than the Bible is not going to make that fact go away, or are you just having a very tough time keeping up here?


I told you a good part of what my evidence was already. You really do simply refuse to see what is 100% fact, don't you? I have my evidence and it is just as much evidence to me as yours is to you and for you to discount that fact shows me that you are beyond realistic, and I'm being kind with the assertion. And to pretend you don't even see the evidence I mentioned so you can harp on just the Bible, is way the heck out there.


Once again, you conveniently forgot the other part of my post....absolutely laughable. Stick with using a partial truth or might as well be a lie, to make your point...is not only pitiful but proves your point must be about as weak as they come.

What extra-biblical evidence have you given in support of the biblical claims that you believe?

A quote number is fine as well.

And?

"and"???

If you don't know what that means, then I don't know what to tell you...

Another very arrogant, short sighted comment...you assume you are reasonable and rational and I/others that oppose your view are not. ......no wonder your view is right in your mind. The delusions you use to create things could convince one of just about anything. Walt Disney created it all....run with that, should be interesting to see you make it a fact..

I just understand the difference between rational reasoning and faith-based beliefs.

Sorry if you don't like it. But it is what it is.

Why is it ridiculous? you didn't say?

/facepalm

It's in the very quote you are responding to. Did you miss the numbered points "1" and "2"?

And *I* am the one who ignores what is written, ha?

Science neutral? Science is not anything without the people using it, people are NOT always neutral. I must say, you are very narrow minded.

Science is a methodology. A methodology designed precisely to leave human biases and emotions at the door.

Science only concerns itself with things that can be independently tested and verified. Supernatural entities, defined explicitly as "undetectable" and "untestable" have thus no place in science. Science can't say anything (pro OR contra) about those subjects, because there is no way to assess the truth or falsehood of those things.

So yes, science is neutral when it comes to gods.

Oh, now we are going to leave it to the imagination what exactly you are referring too?

What is the:
1. argument from incredulity

And Especially because what we as man create is not nearly as advanced as what we didn't, yet THAT occurred by accident? Or the more advanced, the better chance it occurred by accident/whatever...makes no sense at all

"I don't understand it, therefor it must be false"

2. argument from ignorance

Or, since I have never once seen anything made by man come about from nothing, OR for no reason at all, OR, in a way we don't understand...in any way other than it being created, I first have to think...the universe must be created too

"I don't know this, therefor god"

3. false premises (false dichotomy etc)

"either a god or an accident"


This is also an interesting sentence:
Also, that Bible warns me not to believe what the world says

Sounds like you believe that the bible tells you to ignore actual evidence.

Don't be ridiculous, you choose what to believe just as anyone does.

No, I don't, nore does anyone else.
Could you "choose" right here and now to believe that Santa is real, and really believe it?

Off course you couldn't.

You just said you choose what you are convinced of

No, I actually said the exact opposite: "...and I don't get to "choose" what is convincing and what not."

, well, that's how you choose what to believe. Goodness, don't get spacey on me on top of everything else.

Please "choose" right here and now that Thor is real in such a way that you really, really believe it. Get back to me on how successfull you were.

No, it's my way of saying if you have faith in something from nothing or whatever you choose to accept as the beginning, then having faith in God is just not that far fetched.

I don't accept anything in particular as "the beginning", because we don't know how the universe began. See? I am not allergic to the words "I don't know".
In fact, I see it as the only proper answer to a question that is currently not answerable. You should try it sometime

 

[Armoured]

Love the link,

You love a link... called Darwinconspiracy? Sure, why not?

 

[Armoured]

The problem isn't one or two examples. These
OOPARTs have shown up from the beginning of
archeology and still show up today. Like missing
link fossils, some few may be fakes, but most are
dismissed and shunned without any consideration.

The Ica stones, for example.

Ooh! Next do the "Dropa Stones"!

 

[pat34lee]

Thirdly, there is no "programming".

You would have a rather expensive paperweight
if your robot didn't include a program to operate it.

 

[pat34lee]

Ooh! Next do the "Dropa Stones"!

Right after Nebraska man.

 

[Armoured]

Right after Nebraska man.

Go ahead. I'm not sure which would be more laughable.