Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[xianghua]

No. Rather, it's an equivocation fallacy.

so if a spinning motor doesnt need a designer then a car also doesnt need one.

 

[Speedwell]

so if a spinning motor doesnt need a designer then a car also doesnt need one.

Right. If a "car" can come into existence by purely natural forces then we wouldn't be able to tell if it had a designer or not. The only way to tell if an object had a designer is to look for signs of human manufacture

 

[Astrophile]

so if we will find a ferarri with a broken mirror we cant conclude design because of the broken mirror? if we have a broken gene than its just means that that gene were lost in the past because of a simple mutation. so the design scenario can explain it by a lost feature. and i dont think that any creationist has a problem with that.

It would be more like finding an old Ferrari with a broken mirror, and then finding that all later Ferraris of that group of models had the same mirror broken in the same way. Of course, this wouldn't disprove design, but it would suggest that there was something very odd, and not particularly intelligent, about the designer's methods. Also it would be an example of Lamarckian design, the inheritance of an acquired characteristic. In Darwinian design, the Ferrari would have been built with a broken mirror, and all future Ferraris would inherit that trait.

 

[dad]

Except that there is no evidence of design.

No evidence you posted either? Maybe the letters were spontaneously generated, and brought to the net via esp by a randomly spontaneously combusted spore of a space mushroom?

 

[hecd2]

hold down for a moment. you bring up too many claims at once.

That's because there is such a vast quantity of evidence for evolution.

i want to stay in focus here so please pick up a single claim and we will discuss about it.

OK, let's discuss the GULO gene broken in the same way across the Haplorhini including humans.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if a spinning motor doesnt need a designer then a car also doesnt need one.

Still engaging in the equivocation fallacy.

 

[Brightmoon]

The bacterial flagellum base is made up of other bits and pieces cobbled together. One of those pieces works in other bacteria as an injection system for toxin. Your supposition that this was somehow designed is rather silly .

 

[Brightmoon]

T
this being explained in detail to a judge, who isn’t scientifically literate, in a court case where this evidence is important, is online in the ID Dover trial transcripts. Google them. They’re fascinating reading

 

[xianghua]

It would be more like finding an old Ferrari with a broken mirror, and then finding that all later Ferraris of that group of models had the same mirror broken in the same way. Of course, this wouldn't disprove design, but it would suggest that there was something very odd, and not particularly intelligent, about the designer's methods. Also it would be an example of Lamarckian design, the inheritance of an acquired characteristic. In Darwinian design, the Ferrari would have been built with a broken mirror, and all future Ferraris would inherit that trait.

actually we can compare it with a car that is able to replicate itself. so if we will find such a car with a broken mirror we can consider it to be the original car and not a new one. its an ongoing process and not a new car that were designed from scratch.

 

[xianghua]

Right. If a "car" can come into existence by purely natural forces then we wouldn't be able to tell if it had a designer or not. The only way to tell if an object had a designer is to look for signs of human manufacture

but if it was designed by an alien it will not be the prodcu of human manufacture. are you saying that we will not be able to tell if the object was designed if it was made by an alien?

 

[Speedwell]

but if it was designed by an alien it will not be the prodcu of human manufacture. are you saying that we will not be able to tell if the object was designed if it was made by an alien?

We might not be able to tell if it was designed. We might not recognize the evidence of manufacture left by an alien manufacturing process.

 

[xianghua]

That's because there is such a vast quantity of evidence for evolution.

we will see about that

OK, let's discuss the GULO gene broken in the same way across the Haplorhini including humans.

what about it? are you saying that we cant get a convergent loss (with the same mutation)?

 

[xianghua]

The bacterial flagellum base is made up of other bits and pieces cobbled together. One of those pieces works in other bacteria as an injection system for toxin.

not realy. those parts are similar but not identical. they just have homologous sequences. its like comparing a watch with a compass. both shared many similar parts (like hand and a round shape). but we cant go from a compass to a watch in small steps. even if they were able to reproduce.

Your supposition that this was somehow designed is rather silly .

are you saying that a spinning motor doesnt need a designer?

 

[VirOptimus]

not realy. those parts are similar but not identical. they just have homologous sequences. its like comparing a watch with a compass. both shared many similar parts (like hand and a round shape). but we cant go from a compass to a watch in small steps. even if they were able to reproduce.




are you saying that a spinning motor doesnt need a designer?

Give it up, it has already been tried, its not a design.

See the Dover trial. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

 

[Brightmoon]

Thank you Vir
The Dover trial transcripts are online at talkorigins. Org

 

[Gene2memE]

The bacterial flagellum base is made up of other bits and pieces cobbled together. One of those pieces works in other bacteria as an injection system for toxin. Your supposition that this was somehow designed is rather silly.

Yep, the literature on the evolutionary development of the bacterial flagellum is extensive, and growing.

For example:
Renyi Liu and Howard Ochman PNAS April 24, 2007 Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system

Elucidating the origins of complex biological structures has been one of the major challenges of evolutionary studies. The bacterial flagellum is a primary example of a complex apparatus whose origins and evolutionary history have proven difficult to reconstruct. The gene clusters encoding the components of the flagellum can include >50 genes, but these clusters vary greatly in their numbers and contents among bacterial phyla. To investigate how this diversity arose, we identified all homologs of all flagellar proteins encoded in the complete genome sequences of 41 flagellated species from 11 bacterial phyla. Based on the phylogenetic occurrence and histories of each of these proteins, we could distinguish an ancient core set of 24 structural genes that were present in the common ancestor to all Bacteria. Within a genome, many of these core genes show sequence similarity only to other flagellar core genes, indicating that they were derived from one another, and the relationships among these genes suggest the probable order in which the structural components of the bacterial flagellum arose. These results show that core components of the bacterial flagellum originated through the successive duplication and modification of a few, or perhaps even a single, precursor gene.
​

There you go - a plausible explanation of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. So, we're only a decade behind here

 

[Astrophile]

actually we can compare it with a car that is able to replicate itself. so if we will find such a car with a broken mirror we can consider it to be the original car and not a new one. its an ongoing process and not a new car that were designed from scratch.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the point that you are trying to make. The point that I was making was that it is not a matter of finding just one car with a broken mirror, but of finding a large number of cars with the same mirror broken in the same way. As hecd2 points out,

the only way to explain that is that they all had a common ancestor in which the mutation was present - ie, that they are a clade.

In other words all the Ferraris with the same type of break in the mirror must be descended from a common ancestor with that type of break. This has no bearing on whether the Ferrari was designed in the first place; that is a separate question. In the same way, so far as I can see, the fact that we share a common ancestor with other primates isn't relevant to the question whether we were designed.

 

[Brightmoon]

Astrophile love that stellar evolution diagram . Thought it was just a pretty design at first . Pun intended

 

[hecd2]

OK, let's discuss the GULO gene broken in the same way across the Haplorhini including humans

what about it? are you saying that we cant get a convergent loss (with the same mutation)?

Are you really suggesting that the L-gulonolactone oxidase gene was independently broken in the same way in all the 280+ species of apes, monkeys and tarsiers (which form a related group based on other criteria) but not broken in the same way in any other vertebrate outside that related group. Really?

Especially since the further mutations that have occurred and fixed within the pseudogene since the gene has not been under purifying selection can be used to create a nested hierarchy of the affected species which is consistent with other evidence of relatedness amongst the clade.

As I have said before, the only explanation is that all Haplorhini, including man, have a common ancestor in which the gene function was lost.

 

[xianghua]

Are you really suggesting that the L-gulonolactone oxidase gene was independently broken in the same way in all the 280+ species of apes, monkeys and tarsiers (which form a related group based on other criteria) but not broken in the same way in any other vertebrate outside that related group. Really?

Especially since the further mutations that have occurred and fixed within the pseudogene since the gene has not been under purifying selection can be used to create a nested hierarchy of the affected species which is consistent with other evidence of relatedness amongst the clade.

As I have said before, the only explanation is that all Haplorhini, including man, have a common ancestor in which the gene function was lost.

first of all, we are talking about only few different species, since even according to creationism most species are just variations of the original "kinds". so we only need to deal with about no more than few convergent loss. now, take a look at this figure:

as you can see above, about 6 different exons loss are shared between marmoset and microbat, but surprisingly, without a common descent. this finding prove that we can get the same exon loss without a common descent. therefore a shared exon loss cant be evidence for a common descent.

(reference: A “forward genomics” approach links genotype to phenotype using independent phenotypic losses among related species)