Forbidden Archeology: Beyond Creation vs. Evolution

[USincognito]

We don't. That was never the case outside a small, cherry-picked area of the DNA. I believe we're down in the 80s percentage wise now, if not lower, counting junk DNA, which is anything but junk.
Forbidden Knowledge

Wrong, wrong and your "source" is garbage.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wrong. Try again. Nobody has proven anything is wrong with, much less misrepresented in that article.

It isn't up to us to prove the legitimacy of your sources. It is up to you to show that the article is consistent with the science found in the primary literature.

 

[Loudmouth]

We don't. That was never the case outside a small, cherry-picked area of the DNA.

It's true for more than 90% of the chimp and human genome:

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

That's 40 million mutations (substitutions + indels) in a 3 billion base genome. Do the math.

I believe we're down in the 80s percentage wise now, if not lower, counting junk DNA, which is anything but junk.
Forbidden Knowledge

Peer reviewed papers, please.

 

[pat34lee]

Once again, please find a valid use source.

No. Prove this one is wrong or outlandish and I will consider it.

 

[pat34lee]

It isn't up to us to prove the legitimacy of your sources. It is up to you to show that the article is consistent with the science found in the primary literature.

Legitimacy, no. But unless you can prove it wrong factually or cannot be trusted for whatever reason, it stands as a source.

 

[pat34lee]

Wrong, wrong and your "source" is garbage.

Then it should be easy to show me proof. I think you have none, which is why all the whining about garbage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Prove this one is wrong or outlandish and I will consider it.

I believe that I already did. Tell me what part of my explanation you did not understand and I will make it clearer to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then it should be easy to show me proof. I think you have none, which is why all the whining about garbage.

No one is whining, except for you. You used a poor source. If your claims were correct you could make the same claims with a proper source. Here is as hint:

Think peer review.

 

[Loudmouth]

Legitimacy, no. But unless you can prove it wrong factually or cannot be trusted for whatever reason, it stands as a source.

No, it doesn't. Secondary sources never stand as valid scientific sources.

 

[pat34lee]

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

Notice they begin with a big assumption. Two actually. The first being that we are related to chimps, and closely at that. And the assumptions go on:

"Because the chimpanzee lies at such a short evolutionary distance with respect to human, nearly all of the bases are identical by descent and sequences can be readily aligned except in recently derived, large repetitive regions."

So... what did they do with the "recently derived, large repetitive regions"? Ignored them, of course. Something that you can't do in science, but is regularly done when trying to prop up evolution.

 

[pat34lee]

No, it doesn't. Secondary sources never stand as valid scientific sources.

No matter. If we accept such fantasies to restrict what sources we can use, then we will eventually be restricted to a few, pre-approved leftist or evolutionist sites. This is about content, not debating authorship.

 

[Loudmouth]

Notice they begin with a big assumption. Two actually. The first being that we are related to chimps, and closely at that. And the assumptions go on:

"Because the chimpanzee lies at such a short evolutionary distance with respect to human, nearly all of the bases are identical by descent and sequences can be readily aligned except in recently derived, large repetitive regions."

So... what did they do with the "recently derived, large repetitive regions"? Ignored them, of course. Something that you can't do in science, but is regularly done when trying to prop up evolution.

How does the presence of difficult to align repetitive DNA pose a problem for the theory of evolution?

Also, you can align DNA sequences without assuming that they are related. I don't know why you brought these up. If you have to assume that two genomes are related in order to compare them, then how are creationists able to compare DNA sequences?

 

[Loudmouth]

No matter. If we accept such fantasies to restrict what sources we can use, then we will eventually be restricted to a few, pre-approved leftist or evolutionist sites. This is about content, not debating authorship.

Where do your creationist sources get their scientific material from? Obviously, they aren't doing the science themselves, so they have to get it from somewhere, right?

All I am asking is for you to use the same primary sources your creationist friends are using. If they are good enough for your creationist friends, then why can't you use them?