That thread cracks me up. 'triplet codons'. Wow. Mark even does not understand that a triplet of bases is a codon. Wow.
Upvote
0
For Mark Kennedy. Why is a finch a bird? Why is a human not an ape?
- Thread starter Edx
- Start date
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
What never ceases to amaze me is that evolutionists will lie through their teeth. The whole thread was just them correcting everything I said no matter what it was and I do mean it didn't matter what it was if I said it it was wrong.
Then we get to this pretty straightforward formula, 2 x 10^-8/bp/generation. It comes to 2 per 100,000,00 base pairs per 20 year generation. Nothing all that complicated about it but sfs pops in and wants to argue the bp doesn't mean base pair.
It's disgusting, not an honest arguement from the thread to be had. It was on long ad hominem arguement, which is to be expected since the evidence completely refutes Darwinian a priori assumptions of a common ancestor for men and apes.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Dude, I don't know who you think you are but there is nothing wrong with how I use human or ape. In fact I have pointed out to you a number of times the differences between austropithecines, habilines and hominid ancestors which is something you know very little about and could care less.
You are devoid of substantive reasoning to support your arguements but all you have to do to be considered 100% right is to be proevolution and anticreationist. You need not be factual or even knowledgable as long as you take the partyline.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I argued throughout the thread that triplet codons made random mutations a viable adpative mechanism. They just did the disingenuise semantical shell game you are dabbling in and never had to look at the actual evidence.
The problem here is not a mental malfunction, it's a moral one. I have seen some pretty disingenuise arguements on here but they just lied through their teeth. Shamefull really, I shouldn't be supprised that it was celebrated by the regulars on here.
Here is one example of many of the extreme mental contortions they will go through rather then admit they don't know:
{X}(bp) x {Y}(gen) x {Z}(mutations)/(bp)/(gen)
= {X}{Y}{Z} (bp)(gen)(mutations)/(bpxgen)
= {X}{Y}{Z} (bpxgen)(mutations)/(bpxgen)
= {X}{Y}{Z} mutations.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=97&m=136
My God that is priceless, let a creationist try to pull something like that on here and you guys would eat him alive. But it's ok as long as it's proevolution even if its not true.
Upvote
0
You mean aside from not defining them?
If I say a duck is not a bird, and then if you were to show me animals and fossils of various birds, and I just tell you such and such an animal is fully bird while another is fully duck, you'd expect me to be able to define what a duck and a bird are. You'd expect me to define my terms or what Im claiming makes no sence whatsoever.
If I say I am not a human, you'd expect me to define what a human is. If I just dodged the question using and any arbitary criteria I like to make the claim that im so special and different that I can say Im not a human, youd expect me to be able to say what human is.
If someone says they arent an ape, they need to say what an ape is. If they cant, what do they base this idea on? The word means absoluetly nothing until they define it.
All you have said is humans have a bigger brain than other apes. Everytime I ask WHY that would make us non-apes you ignore me. A finch and an ostridge share far less in commen with each other than what you're going on about yet these are still called birds.
My position is that you are treating humans differently for no reason at all other than your own religious beliefs need you to make humans special. And the fact that you seem to refuse to deal with the consequences of this logic of yours by answering the questions on what it would mean to use it on other animals also shows me how weak and evidently unscientific your postion is.
Yea yea, whatever. Theres no content here. All of the above is fluff to avoid answering my questions I put to you, all you can do is rant and rave about your paranoid conspiracy theories.
Bottem line is Mark, you havent defined your terms. Thats very bad science especially since these words are very important to your arguments, and you use these words all the time. You've also shown me you have a twisted and distorted view of how to classify organisms, one which you refuse to talk about in any depth at all. The reason you dont do this is becuase if you did it would fast become even more apparent just how wrong you are.
Upvote
0
I read the thread. It was quite humorous. You kept insisting that RNA codons were amino acids and that amino acid sequences were translated into proteins. The reality is that codons are translated into amino acids and strung together in sequence which FORMS a protein.
No he didn't. You were told he didn't. You kept insisting he did, and using as evidence a quote where he didn't
He said the result of the formula was not a measurement of base pairs, but a measurement of mutations. The formula tells you how many mutations (not base pairs but mutations) you get per single base pair per generation. This was made clear to you a number of times.
You made many mistakes, ignored corrections, tried to incorrectly correct professionals who pointed out your very basic mistakes, and called people liars after you lied about things they said. That pretty much sums it up.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It's 2 x 10^-8 which is roughly the observed mutation rate for hominids when looking at single nucleotide substitutions. It comes to about 16 million single nucleotide mutations in the respective genomes or 35 Mb total. Then you factor in 90 Mb worth of indels and immediatly evolutionists start hand waiving saying NO NO NO, you can't do that, all mutations count as one.
This is the formula that was under dispute 2x10^-8/bp/generation. What you are looking at is someone trying to get rid of bp which is base pairs and instead of the unit being base pairs it could be millions of base pairs or one, it's the same thing.
The problem is that I read their literature and I know exactly how they measure divergance and what the mutation rate would have to be and the measel virus doesn't mutate that fast.
These people lie about the evidence in these discussions. Where they can't lie is in the literature because if they tried to pull that in a scientific publication they would be crucified.
Most of the people on here are too misinformed to know what the debate is really all about. The group I ran into on there knew exactly what was going on. They knew that 20 bps fixed per year for 7 million years is absolutly impossible.
The mutation rate provides between 60bp and maybe 180bp, it seems like a lot. What would be required is 400 bp per generation for 7 million years to account for the divergance between humans and apes.
That's why they lie about it.They can't explain the truth
Upvote
0
The point is that an insertion or a deletion modifies more than a single base pair. So, there is not a simple, one-to-one correspondence between base-pair differences and the number of mutations. Since calculating the average number of base pairs involved in such a mutation has not been done, then you cannot necessarily come up with such a formula that includes indels. This is a pretty simple concept.
Nobody claimed that. They claimed that the formula gave you the number of mutations per base pair per generation for single nucleotide mutations.
You keep assuming that every single base pair difference is attributed to a single mutation. This is not the case, the vast majority of the cited differences are due to insertions and deletions.
Nobody has lied. You have become confused, however.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
You are being absolutly ridiculas and irrelavant. Dude get a clue, I don't care about birds.
If you were able to say you were not human then you would offer one of the most important evidences that you are human, speach. If you typed this at a keyboard you have demonstrated yet another uniquely human trait, specific tool design and precise dexterity in tool use. Finally, if I challenged you to define anything with a reasonable expectation of comprehesion on your part either you are human or I am insane.
Defining the traits that are uniquely human is neither difficult nor absent from my arguments. I refuse to play your little head trip games since the terms 'human' and 'ape' have neither philosophical nor scientific defintions. You are playing games with poor rethorical devices and no rules.
I don't bother with orinthology because I see no reason to learn another branch of evolutionary biology when mainstream science lies about the one I spent the last two years learning. You can't trust the status quo, you have to be willing to find out where they have the truth buried.
[/quote]My position is that you are treating humans differently for no reason at all other than your own religious beliefs need you to make humans special. And the fact that you seem to refuse to deal with the consequences of this logic of yours by answering the questions on what it would mean to use it on other animals also shows me how weak and evidently unscientific your postion is. [/quote]
Like there is a shred of scientific reasoning in any of this meager circular logic. I can back up everything I have said on human origins and uncovered lies buried so deep even they no longer know what the original lie was. I used to think this was about evidence and then I seen it twisted and distorted so much that that explanation didn't make any sense anymore.
Save your petty rudeness for the newbies, I'm not impressed.
Lies, that is what I am telling you about, lies. Ok, I do know how the various degree of humanism are defined scientifically. I don't bother relating them to you because you just talk in circles around anything meaningfull anyway.
Being wrong is not what keeps supprising me about all of this. It's how easy it is to be right if you just stick to your guns. You just want to run the conversation in circles because you have no clue what the crucial question are or why they are important.
In the future, when you start a thread that calls out someone by name, have a point.
Upvote
0
But Mark, you are ignoring the premise of this thread and insist on going off on tangents. Then you claim that everyone else is deceitful!
Why is a finch a bird? Why is a human not an ape?
Why is a finch a bird? Why is a human not an ape?
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
To you first question, I don't care about birds. To your second question:
AMONG mammals, humans have an exceptionally big brain relative to their body size. For example, in comparison with chimpanzees, the brain weight of humans is 250% greater while the body is only 20% heavier (MCHENRY 1994 
. The dramatic evolutionary expansion of the human brain started from an average brain weight of 400–450 g 2–2.5mya million years (MY) ago and ended with a weight of 1350–1450 g 0.2–0.4 MY ago (MCHENRY 1994 ; WOOD and COLLARD 1999 . This process represents one of the most rapid morphological changes in evolution. It is generally believed that the brain expansion set the stage for the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions and that it was caused by adaptive selection (DECAN 1992 , yet the genetic basis of the expansion remains elusive. (Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens, Cell 2004)
Upvote
0
Describing what makes humans different from other apes is not an argument that we are not apes. After all, taxonomy gets more specific the closer you get to species, and defines smaller and smaller groups with greater and greater precision. We expect humans to be different from other apes, as we expect apes to be different from other primates.To you first question, I don't care about birds. To your second question:
AMONG mammals, humans have an exceptionally big brain relative to their body size. For example, in comparison with chimpanzees, the brain weight of humans is 250% greater while the body is only 20% heavier (MCHENRY 1994 
The question is, what specific set of characters uniquely identify apes as different from all other species. As taxonomy defines a nested hierarchy, it would be simplest to assume the traits of the containing clade Catarrhini, and only specify the further refinements. But you don't necessarily have to.
Once we know how to distinguish an ape from everything else, then we can verify that humans do or do not have all of those characters.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Here's a chart you will quickly dismiss that illustrates the topic at hand:
(Taken from http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/Taxonomy.html)
(Taken from http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/Taxonomy.html)
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
I think his answer is a large brain. Why this doesn't simply make us an ape with a large brain is beyond me, however.
An erect gait on the other hand, does not distinguish us from apes, because early hominids walked upright, but according to Mark, were just apes that walked upright.
Upvote
0
Aron-Ra
Senior Veteran
- Jul 3, 2004
- 4,571
- 393
- 61
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
I made one little change to your post above. It doesn't make any difference whether we say among mammals or among apes, because humans and chimps are both both.
AMONG apes, humans have an exceptionally big brain relative to their body size. For example, in comparison with chimpanzees, the brain weight of humans is 250% greater while the body is only 20% heavier (MCHENRY 1994 
And I have already pointed out to you (1) that habilines are often confused with australopithecines with good reason, and (2) australopithecines, habilines, paranthropiths, gorillas, chimpanzees, and you are ALL hominids. How many times must I explain this and substantiate it before you'll get it?
Upvote
0
You say that loudly and proudly as if its a good thing, but what it really shows is that you refuse to subject your logic and classification system to any other animal in the natural world except humans. So its really just another silent admission that you literally refuse to be scientific.
Thats all fine of course, but if we follow your logic I can point to ANY criteria of my choosing and decide im not a human anymore.
The family below can say they arent human, and refer to their feet.
Now I asked you this question before and you ignored me, but I'll ask you again for the record:
At what point, and at what time in the future and how different would a lineage of humans have to become before you could say they werent modified humans anymore?
The point Im making is that your arbitrary criteria of "big brain" of seperating us totally from being apes is just not logical if you apply it to anything else.
But you can always find traits, even in individuals, let alone whole species, that are unique to them. But the point is this is a ridiculous system of classification. It could make anyone a "non-human" based on whatever arbitrary criteria you happened to pick.
And I dont know why you ignored my duck / bird anaology. You would expect me to define what a duck and a bird were if I claimed a duck was not a bird, wouldnt you? I think its very interesting you neglected to answer or comment on that, because as far as I can see its the exact argument you use against humans being apes.
Why are you so disingenuous? Like you think people wont call you on it or something? YOU use the terms "human" and "ape". But in science Ape does have a scientific definition. It means Hominid. Its exactly the same thing. Human means the same thing as Homo sapien.
Since both of these words do have scientific defintions why would you try and pretend theres no scientific definition of them?
You dont have defintions and you must define your terms. Thats what Im waiting for you to do.
Really? You honestly cant see why only looking at humans and refusing to look at any other animal is small and narrow minded?
Only you refuse to define either of your central terms.
Was I rude in that paragraph? I said you are you are treating humans differently for no reason at all other than your own religious beliefs require you to. Thats not rude, thats the truth. Why else would you ignore every other animal while still arguing commen descent and evolution is so obviously wrong based on what you write about the human brain?
Oh thats really great. Now you seem to be saying you CAN define your terms, you just dont want to. Good job. How about you define your terms and we can take it from there .
Its only going in circles because you refuse to answer the very very few simple but necessary scientific questions. All Im asking from you is to define your terms, yet you act like Im being totally unreasonable. Do you want to be scientific or not? You have to at least TRY to be, but you arent, you are literally refusing to be.
I did and do, but you keep ignoring it and glossing over it.
It was that you were treating all of the animal kingdom totally different than you are treating humans, and that apparently you refuse to look at the rest of the animal kingdom. The reason you wont is becuase if you did apply the same logic to them your whole argument would fall to pieces. And I think you know that, and thats why you are being as obtuse as possible.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Yes Mark, it's all an evilutionist conspiracy. You, a layperson who didn't know what a prokaryote was a year or two back, who doesn't understand even the most basic elements of genetics (and I invite readers to read through the previously mentioned thread and decide for themselves just how much mark understands on the subject), have clearly disproven evolution.
And the evilutionists you battle, who include working geneticists and other people who know what terribly complex terms like "codons," "proteins" and "nucleotides" actually mean, are trying to suppress your obviously genius argument.
Mark, when people vastly more educated than you point out that you're making the same glaring errors over and over and over and over and over and over...
Maybe it's time to take notice. Instead of blaming atheist conspiracies.
Optionally, have fun continuing to wear the tin hat while exclaiming that evolutionary theory is dead. Being a non-biologist (some of us have degrees in the subject - imagine that Mark, higher learning!), you probably won't fully appreciate how incredibly dumb that sounds.
Also, for the record Mark, I don't think you're a DISHONEST person at all. I just think you're too ignorant to understand your own ignorance, as it were. You're trying to piece together an a priori assumed argument with information that takes a far deeper background in genetics than you presently have.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
