Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why CAN'T we allow all the data (for and against) shape the theory, not the other way around?
How ridiculous.
But I am not at all surprised that creationists take the musings of children above the accumulated knowledge of science.
It is all they can muster in support of their ancient middle eastern tales.
By the way - when I took my kid to the zoo for the first time, she looked at a chimp and said 'they look like us.' She was 5. I guess some kids are smarter than others.
I hear people who think we came from apes! I say you mean Neandertals...... look it up they are humans and there skeliton seems the same has ape! But there not! That way they 100% humans.
And the more you read the facts the more you can see we did not start from ape! I use this when I talk to everlusion believers and then give them a creation magazine I buy has i keep them to pass out.
We have recently found 1,307 orphan genes that are completely different between humans and chimpanzees, and these from just four areas of tissue samples. We can only imagine the vast numbers of differences that will be revealed once more areas of the anatomy and physiology are analyzed (see J. Ruiz-Orera, 2015, “Origins of De Novo Genes in Humans and Chimpanzees”, PLoS Genetics. 11 (12): e1005721)
Orphan genes, as many here know, are found only particular lineages of creature or sometimes only in a specific species or variety within a species. What is really interesting is they appear to have no evolutionary history. Despite that we have come to know these genes are incredibly important! Their expression often dictates very specific qualities and processes allowing for specialized adaptations of particular tissues, like the antisense gene, NCYM, which is over-expressed in neuroblastoma; this gene inhibits the activity of glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β), which targets NMYC for degradation (Suenaga Y, Islam SMR, Alagu J, Kaneko Y, Kato M, et al. (2014) NCYM, a Cis-antisense gene of MYCN, encodes a de novo evolved protein that inhibits GSK3β resulting in the stabilization of MYCN in human neuroblastomas. PLoS Genet 10: e1003996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003996). Some contribute to specific proteins unique only to that species or to varieties within a species.
This genetic curiosity has been being studied for around 20 years with little insight as to why they are there at all (where did they come from), and we are just beginning to see how they function, but the doubted thousands of additional differences this will add to the human/chimp difference scenario is staggering.
Any thoughts?
If I might butt in here, what you are arguing against, actually just raising questions about, is Darwinism. There's no serious argument that evolution doesn't happen, things adapt over time, sometimes dramatically in a short space of time. Don't let the random criticisms throw you, some of the posters don't know how to argue for evolution, all they are doing on here is insulting creationists. I know people who have come on here for years and literally learned nothing about genetics or comparative genomics. Actual creationists are pretty scarce these days and I haven't seen a serious Intelligent Design argument in quite some time.Seriously, pshun, you don't think your purpose on this thread to argue against evolution isn't completely clear? Why try to hide it? In fact, until this post, I didn't think you would want to hide that fact.
Why would you choose coming in so late to misrepresent me? I said I was "not debating creationism", and that is not the same thing as arguing against "evolutionism". In fact I am not arguing against evolution at all but rather against the "evolutionism" that sneaks through. My point is, make all the data available and then let the thinker decide for themselves.
I believe in evolution, I see it every day, and in so many ways, but that does not mean I accept every premise made by every evolutionist (again that's quite different)...I am not throwing out the baby with the bath water. The OP asks how similar are we? I am presenting data concerning our differences...all of which is true. We are also very similar in many ways, that not equaling one came from the other, nor that both came from a common ancestor. Those conclusions are inducted from having already accepted the hypothesis (which I also did for decades)...
I believe we need to accent our differences as much as our similarities...does such objectivity pose a problem?
So you are implying that you have knowledge of genetics, yet you declare that evolution does not happen because fossil bats 'look like' modern bats.
Hilarious.
Ever read Dunning and Kruger's paper?
If I might butt in here, what you are arguing against, actually just raising questions about, is Darwinism
. I know people who have come on here for years and literally learned nothing about genetics or comparative genomics.
Keeping in mind that mark subscribes to his own personal definition of 'Darwinism' that would be more appropriately catagorized as metaphysical naturalism.
Did you read the paper? Did you comment on anything substantive? Do you ever?Pot, meet kettle.
You have to understand, we are not talking about evolution, if we were we would be talking about the change of alleles in populations over time. We are talking about universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. They pretend it's about evidence but they don't care about evidence. They just make these 'slanderous interpretations' of anyone who doesn't make the requisite naturalistic assumptions, or just gets curious enough to question them.Nathan why did you make up that slanderous interpretation of what I posted. I did not say "evolution does not happen". I said that in this organism (not all) there is no factual basis to assume a gradual transmutation from one organism into an entirely different one. Clearly a strong argument can be made for this case in the history of some organisms, but in bats (like with triops cancriformis and others) there actually is not even provisional evidences we can infer this from
You have to understand, we are not talking about evolution, if we were we would be talking about the change of alleles in populations over time. We are talking about universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. They pretend it's about evidence but they don't care about evidence. They just make these 'slanderous interpretations' of anyone who doesn't make the requisite naturalistic assumptions, or just gets curious enough to question them.
Thank you Mark I guess I was not clear. I thought we were still in the general idea of similarities and differences between chimps and humans. If some are saying there is a common ancestor between chimps and humans (one creature from which both stemmed off) then let them produce actual evidence for and from this alleged creature. In fact, let them produce an example of the creature. None of the alleged candidates I have ever seen produced meet the criteria of containing valid evidence for that.
Even among the scientists themselves there is a lot of COULD BE's and MIGHGT BE's but as you know "could be" or "might be" does not equal IS!
All Y-chromosomal studies done (the Y-Chromosome ALWAYS AND ONLY are inherited from the host father of the offspring) only demonstrate the host father of a human IS also human, no matter how far back we go the results are always the same (even from Neanderthals and Denisovans)...the host father was forever a human...there are no midlans and no non or semi human Y-Chromosomes in the geneological histories we can examine (not one).
As for the UNIVERSAL ancestor of all living things they claim, there is also not one iota of actual evidence. In fact because of this many adhere to other obscure theories such as "self-Replicating RNA on the backs of crysals" and even "panspermiating aliens", neither of which LIKEWISE has any actual evidentiary reference or examples in nature or in the Lab. Ventor and Woese actually postulate the possibility (based on how they see inference from the scarce evidence) that there may have been as many as five or more original life forms (by this they mean original single cell sources which BECAME multicellular and transformed into Eukaryotes and so on).
Thought that went without saying.
Did you read the paper? Did you comment on anything substantive? Do you ever?
It doesn't. "Darwinism" has no strictly defined meaning and seems to vary heavily based on context.
Typically, though, if a biologist is referring to Darwinism they aren't referring to methodological naturalism going all the way back to the beginning of time and including the Big Bang (a concept which post-dates Darwin by about a half century).
I just think there's irony in someone who continually lauds comparative genomics yet rejects the science on which certain comparative genomics methodologies are based.
all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)
That one works for me. The neodarwinism of the Modern Synthesis is the same thing.
I don't know who or what you are referring to here but I've never done that, not once. I reject neither science nor the methodologies of genomics, I appeal to them as a matter of course. That is in spite of the fact that I reject the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.
I see no difference between Darwinian natural selection and the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.But again, that's not really what biologists refer to when they use the term "Darwinism". It's usually just meant to refer to Darwin's idea of evolution via natural selection.
Do you accept modern phylogenetics as a science? Do you accept that phylogenetic trees represent common ancestry of species? And do you accept that those phylogenetic trees are valid?
I see no difference between Darwinian natural selection and the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.
It's not a science, it's a way of organizing information nothing more.
I accept that connections are usually made in straight forward inductive ways. Let me inform you were I draw the line if you haven't gotten that. The three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. Organize zoology as you see fit but don't pass that off as proof of universal common descent, it simply reflects that world view.Well... I suppose that explains a lot.
You're dodging the questions I asked.
Do you accept modern phylogenetics as valid? Do you accept phylogenetic trees are valid representations of shared ancestry of species?
I accept that connections are usually made in straight forward inductive ways. Let me inform you were I draw the line if you haven't gotten that. The three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. Organize zoology as you see fit but don't pass that off as proof of universal common descent, it simply reflects that world view.