An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[sfs]

ok. one possible explanation (out of two that i can think of) is that those bases have a similar functional meaning, therefore its possible that the designer desinged those bases to change into more similar bases than to other kinds of bases. in such a way a new mutation has more chance to make no harm to the gene (unlike the other kinds of mutations). so if we see A in human and G in chimp it may be the result of design feature rather than mutation.

Sorry, but I don't follow. If the design was to make bases change into more similar bases (which it sort of is, because that's how chemistry works), why does this say anything about the genetic differences between humans and chimps. Are the differences the result of mutation or not?

 

[FormerAtheist]

We can deal with this unrelated subject after you address your previous incorrect assertions: there is no genetic evidence for evolution, and GULO is a problem for evolution because bats, guinea pigs and primates all have the same gene. Please show some intellectual integrity and support your assertions.

I don't have to show you the evidence as you showed it to me in your own work. You showed me that they all have the same gene.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't have to show you the evidence as you showed it to me in your own work. You showed me that they all have the same gene.

-_-
1. GULO is a pseudogene in humans, meaning that it has acquired many mutations which render it useless.
2. GULO (both functional and nonfunctional versions) is present in many animals, including birds, meaning that its origins date back extremely far in the past. As in, the organisms mentioned likely all inherited it from a shared ancestor far back in the past.

So, where is the problem for evolution?

 

[FormerAtheist]

-_-
1. GULO is a pseudogene in humans, meaning that it has acquired many mutations which render it useless.
2. GULO (both functional and nonfunctional versions) is present in many animals, including birds, meaning that its origins date back extremely far in the past. As in, the organisms mentioned likely all inherited it from a shared ancestor far back in the past.

So, where is the problem for evolution?

I found this interesting information out there then I'll give some thoughts after:

Contrary to the popularized claims of some evolutionists and neo-creationists, patterns of GULO degradation are taxonomically restricted and fail to support macroevolution. Current research and data reported here show that multiple GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments. Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. The 28,800 base human GULO region is only 84% and 87% identical compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. The 13,000 bases preceding the human GULO gene, which corresponds to the putative area of loss for at least two major exons, is only 68% and 73% identical to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. These DNA similarities are inconsistent with predictions of the common ancestry paradigm. Further, gorilla is considerably more similar to human in this region than chimpanzee—negating the inferred order of phylogeny. Taxonomically restricted gene degradation events are emerging as a common theme associated with genetic entropy and systematic discontinuity, not macroevolution.

This excerpt from a paper written by Tomkins was then thoroughly debated over here:
Have ARJ taken to lying now? • r/Creation

Was pretty interesting in a geeky kind've way. But in the end when looking for direct connections in these genes we can see people are on both sides of the fence and each side can dig in and grab something that supports their side. I can make an easy ID prediction here and say that we will find genes or have already that will not support a connection to apes or chimps but will instead point to some other direction. We likely have already because I have read of these types of disputes before. The data does not line up neatly at all. And anyone can make an argument for anything. I could tell you we descended from a moon - bat and probably find a gene lol.

 

[USincognito]

This is a very common misconception for many. There are two types of science. There is the operational sciences which can be subjected to the processes you refer to. Then there are the historical which is what we are looking at. In the historical we are looking for causes of past events. That requires a different method.

Oh my.

 

[USincognito]

I found this interesting information out there then I'll give some thoughts after:

Did you actually read the whole thing?

This excerpt from a paper written by Tomkins was then thoroughly debated over here:
Have ARJ taken to lying now? • r/Creation

Yeah, and Aceofspades25 dismantles Tompkins "argument" as he has done in numerous other bogus papers produced by Tompkins.
Sandwalk: When will they ever learn?

One of the creationists at the forefront of the claim that humans and chimps are far less similar than 98% has been the notorious Jeffrey Thomkins.

Earlier this year he published a "paper" which exposed the massive flaw in his algorithm which computes the similarity between humans and chimps.

He was looking specifically at the GULO pseudogene and he made the astounding claim that for this sequence (28,800 base pairs), his algorithm had computed that humans and chimps were only 84% identical.

I downloaded the exact sequences he was working with and counted up the differences for myself. There were 519 SNPs and 61 indels making them 98% identical. Astoundingly Jeffrey (using his algorithm) had arrived at a number which was over 7x the actual mutation count!

He made similar erroneous claims (with results just as ridiculous) for gorillas and the 13,000 bases upstream of GULO for both chimpanzees and gorillas.

I have been trying to get Jeffrey to acknowledge his errors for months now (see discussion here) and to date his is still obstinate about his algorithm being correct and basic maths being wrong.​

r/junkscience - Human - Chimp similarity take 2!

He even has a tete a tete with Tompkins who simply slinks away from the debate.
My first reply to Jeffrey Tomkins • r/NaturalTheology

 

[USincognito]

But what if the problem is that in his original hypothesis it was a bottom up theory in that you had a tree that branched out from bottom up. Then what happens if we discover its top down in that we get the Phylum going down in the taxonomic structure in respect to the time of discovery. Whether we are looking at the phylogenetic inspection of genetics, anatomical or fossilized we have this same problem as well as many other problems. I like to call it Horizontal Cross Spontaneous Creations.

So there is that

Huh?

 

[USincognito]

I don't have to show you the evidence as you showed it to me in your own work. You showed me that they all have the same gene.

The same gene? Well, yes. They all have the GULOp gene. But they don't have the same version of it. The Haplorhine primates have a version with some broken exons. Guinea pigs have a version with different broken exons. Bats have a version with other different broken exons.

Did you not understand the image he posted?

 

[tas8831]

Seems

Odd that the Atheists or should I say "new Atheist" or should I say "Dawkins Children" want to forment there fustrations around Christianity.

Let me ask you something brother?
How much time have you spent on the Islamic Forums?
I wonder.

So you've got nothing?

And last I looked, Muslims were not trying to force Islam down our throats.

 

[tas8831]

Then what about the genes that don't fit with this particular tree like the GULU gene?

We have trees that work for this and trees that work for that but we have no tree that actually works lol.

LOL indeed.

It seems we have yet another expert (non-expert) on phylogenetics.

 

[tas8831]

Did you actually read the whole thing?



Yeah, and Aceofspades25 dismantles Tompkins "argument" as he has done in numerous other bogus papers produced by Tompkins.
Sandwalk: When will they ever learn?

One of the creationists at the forefront of the claim that humans and chimps are far less similar than 98% has been the notorious Jeffrey Thomkins.

Earlier this year he published a "paper" which exposed the massive flaw in his algorithm which computes the similarity between humans and chimps.

He was looking specifically at the GULO pseudogene and he made the astounding claim that for this sequence (28,800 base pairs), his algorithm had computed that humans and chimps were only 84% identical.

I downloaded the exact sequences he was working with and counted up the differences for myself. There were 519 SNPs and 61 indels making them 98% identical. Astoundingly Jeffrey (using his algorithm) had arrived at a number which was over 7x the actual mutation count!

He made similar erroneous claims (with results just as ridiculous) for gorillas and the 13,000 bases upstream of GULO for both chimpanzees and gorillas.

I have been trying to get Jeffrey to acknowledge his errors for months now (see discussion here) and to date his is still obstinate about his algorithm being correct and basic maths being wrong.​

r/junkscience - Human - Chimp similarity take 2!

He even has a tete a tete with Tompkins who simply slinks away from the debate.
My first reply to Jeffrey Tomkins • r/NaturalTheology

Creationists who tout Tompkins as their new 'science savior' pretty clearly just think that because he talks the talk, he is 100% correct on all his claims. Fact is, he has been shown to be wrong and/or deceptive in pretty much every one of his 'papers' attempting to debunk some aspect of evolution.

Funny that he - like all creation 'scientists' - has yet to try to test any creationist claims.

 

[tas8831]

if there are about 3 millions scientists in the world (i think there is more)this number give us about 100,000 who dont believe in evolution.

You forgot the other part - how many of them are in fields relevant to evolution?

just for comparison: how many scientists believe in a flat earth?

Don't know, but I'm sure they are also creationists.

also remember that most biologists also belive in higher power. are you saying that most biologists also have "psychological trauma"?

Are you saying that these biologists that believe in a 'higher power' are actually creationist/fundamentalist/evangelicals?

You seem to have a very hard time staying on task.

 

[sfs]

Creationists who tout Tompkins as their new 'science savior' pretty clearly just think that because he talks the talk, he is 100% correct on all his claims. Fact is, he has been shown to be wrong and/or deceptive in pretty much every one of his 'papers' attempting to debunk some aspect of evolution.

As II Timothy puts it:
"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

 

[tas8831]

That may be true but being an atheist requires you to believe in three things:
1. Universe from nothing or eternal universe ... magic stuff
2. Life from non-life ... magic green dragon stuff
3. Macro Evolution ... Lucky Charms stuff

I like all three in my sci-fy stuff or cerals or other things but not for a belief system.
I go with science.

So where is the science for:

1. Universe spoken into existence by the tribal deity of a tribe that did not exist at the time - magic dopey stuff
2. The process by which silicates are converted to biopolymers and assembled into an adult human male - magic breath stuff
3. The super-fast diversification post-flood via unknown genetic mechanisms - magic superevolution stuff


I can wait.

 

[tas8831]

yes I have seen the numbers its actually higher then that and growing but I don't have the links handy. Its a problem for me my notes are meant right now for a different purpose. For making a website so everyone can grab this info. Trust me when I say I am working hard on it every day.

Why trust you when you are busily ignoring the fact that your copied quote from 1979 didn't mention that the3 reason these 'scientists' were leaving evolution was that they were never actually evolutionists to begin with?

 

[tas8831]

3. Advanced life from basic life with no intelligent information.

What is "intelligent information"?

If this is the sort of tripe that will grace your amazing website, I'm sure that it will be a punchline very soon after it goes live.

 

[tas8831]

I will fight there spirit. There ethic. Their belief system.

1 out of 3. Cool.

You were never an atheist, that much is pretty obvious.

 

[tas8831]

Internal struggle. I know the math and the science but part of me still doesn' like it.

Speaking of the math, I am still waiting for your equations and calculations re: abiogenesis.

 

[tas8831]

I would challenge everyone to do this simple task Google quantum physics and evolution the first three articles that pop up you should read in full two of them are written by atheists one of them is written by a creationist you tell me after reading all three in full which one has more credibility it is a disturbing exercise to say the least.

The Wikipedia link doesn't count.

Quantum physics and evolution?

What are you babbling about?

Are you the Deepak Chopra of creationism?

 

[tas8831]

What's the point of making lots of false claims?

Boosts his YEC cred?