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.
This is an excellent post.
[Kenny'sID asks that this be explained in terms a 5 year old would understand.]
When mommies and daddies love each other very much, they make a recipe for a baby. They mix a copy of half of daddy’s recipe with a copy of half of mommy’s recipe to make a baby recipe. The recipe is so long that it takes nine months to make a baby!
And by looking at your recipe later, you can see that you are related to your mommy and daddy because you can see bits of their recipes in you! (Or you’re adopted, but your mommy and daddy still love you!)
And this can go back through the generations. If half of grandpa’s recipe goes into your mom, and half of mom’s recipe goes in you, then one quarter of your recipe comes from grandpa!
Now, if you have first cousins, that means one of your parents was the brother or sister of one of theirs. And those siblings had the same parents… your grandparents. By comparing your recipe to the recipe of your first cousin, you can see that you share a common grandparent. This is called common ancestry. Since recipes get shared in an unbroken chain from ancestor to descendant (that means a baby!), if you have enough information, you can determine whether two recipes have a common ancestor. Fortunately, those recipes are really long, so there is a lot of information.
But sometimes little accidents happen to the recipes. This is really important, but we’ll save that for when you are six. But one particular kind of accident is when you get sick. Sometimes a germ will leave its cooties in your recipe. Ew!
Before, maybe your grandpa had a recipe with a line that said:
Step 146734 Make five itty-bitty toes on the end of each foot.
And afterwards, it might read
Step 146734 Make five itty-bitty toeGERM COOTIESs on the end of each foot.
And now that might be part of your recipe! Because he is your ancestor.
Your friend on the playground might have this in her recipe:
Step 146734 Make five itGERM COOTIESty-bitty toes on the end of each foot.
Do you have a common ancestor with her?
Did you say no? Because the cooties are in the wrong place? Haha, the joke’s on you. The answer is actually yes. All human beings are related. But looking at this one tiny piece of the recipe, we don’t have any evidence that your friend descended from your grandpa. (Don’t ask him about it in front of your grandmother.)
Since grandpa got the cooties in his lifetime, it can only show up in that exact spot in his descendants, or in someone else who coincidentally got the cooties in the same exact place in the recipe. But the recipe is so long this is very unlikely.
But if we look at the whole recipe, you and your friend actually have a lot of recipe cooties in common. Ew! I know. But it’s pretty harmless. Everyone has them. Thousands of them. And because a lot of them are in the same place, we know you share common ancestors. But since a few of them are different (like the one from your grandpa) we know that your common ancestor was further back in generations than your grandpa.
So by comparing the number of shared cooties to the number of unshared cooties, you can see how closely related you are.
And when we compare your cooties to those of a chimpanzee, we find a lot of cooties in different places, but a lot of cooties in the same place! We also have common ancestors, but it wasn’t in your grandpappy’s day or your great great great grandmammy’s day. It was 5 million years ago.
In fact, orthologous cooties fall into a nested hierarchy among primates.
A descendant species has different allele frequencies from the parent species.
Do you not have a search engine where you live?
Who is "we"? I guess the "we" is the proponents of the failed evolution theory. Is it that all who may disagree with the theory are immoral?
That is an interesting example. The argument reaches a false conclusion. Why that is so is not an appropriate discussion for this forum. You can take it to the evolution/creation forum if you want to know. It's a very old argument and there are plenty of people there who can explain it to you in detail. For our purposes here it is enough to say that while the mathematics are correct, they are based on a false description of the theory of evolution. That is to say, a logical argument based on false premises will reach a false conclusion even though the logic is correct. That gives us two possibilities: either the person who constructed the argument did not know that the premises were false or he did know and constructed the argument anyway because he believed it would be persuasive to people who did not know that the premises were false. Which case is unethical? Clearly the second case, IMO. What about the first? What ethical responsibility did the person have to determine the truth of his premises?Do you not have a search engine where you live?
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution
ICR began publishing its popular free newsletter Acts & Facts in June 1972, over 31 years ago. The first two issues were 6-page, single-column, fold-over tract-like papers, black-and-white—not very impressive in appearance. Issue No. 1 contained only news items describing some of our early...www.icr.org
Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!
This is a bad argument and this is not the place to be making it. We have a whole board just for such things. Take it there and we'll show how wrong ICR is. Here we will discuss how unethical they are.Do you not have a search engine where you live?
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution
ICR began publishing its popular free newsletter Acts & Facts in June 1972, over 31 years ago. The first two issues were 6-page, single-column, fold-over tract-like papers, black-and-white—not very impressive in appearance. Issue No. 1 contained only news items describing some of our early...Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!
Yes. Check the credentials of the author of the frozen evolution. Compare them to the religion teacher.
Loudmouth should learn that science proves nothing.
Name calling is unseemly and it is requested that you cease or depart.Loudmouth should learn that science proves nothing.
And as to claiming "beyond a reasonable doubt"? I think not.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
By Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. . In October of 1992, Spectrum Magazine ran an article written by a young physician, Gary Gilbert, in which he attempted to justify his loss of faith on the basis of th…www.educatetruth.com
This thread is not about your article. But about the ethics of the anti-evolution arguments.
Nevertheless, this is an example of something that evolution predicts -- orthologous ERVs will reflect the hierarchy of common descent among related species -- that when tested empirically, confirms the prediction.
Provide facts to disprove the ToE
I have a different eye color than either my brother or sister. Are we therefore different species (still need a definition)?
