Other species may be more appropriate ancestors, than apes - what then?

Anguspure · Nov 19, 2019

The Barbarian said:
They based this on 1% of the swine genome!? That's instructive, isn't it?

The reasons we know humans are apes,

we and chimpanzees are genetically more similar to each other than either of us is to other apes

the huge number of transitional hominins in the fossil record

The chromosomes in humans and apes line up perfectly, with one chromosome fusion in humans

anatomical details that show our relationship

morphological shifts that show how human skulls developed from ape skulls

No point in denial. If you'd like to learn more about any of these, let me know.

The error is not in the indentification of similarity, nor is it in the recognition of common origin.
The error is considering this as evidence of common descent by Natural selection acting on random mutation.

Anguspure · Nov 19, 2019

loveofourlord said:
you didn't define, it's just classic pratts. But fine give examples of why you think they are wrong, maybe you got something new going.

What I have recognised is bog standard evolutionary mumbo jumbo, that it is denied is disingenuous:
Three reasons why junk DNA makes evolutionary sense
How evolution builds genes from scratch

Vestigial organs: Remnants of evolution
Your Appendix: Evidence of Evolution

loveofourlord · Nov 19, 2019

Anguspure said:
What I have recognised is bog standard evolutionary mumbo jumbo, that it is denied is disingenuous:
Three reasons why junk DNA makes evolutionary sense
How evolution builds genes from scratch

Vestigial organs: Remnants of evolution
Your Appendix: Evidence of Evolution

No I understand why it's evidence for evolution and why creationists lie about it not being, I'm wondering if you know either of those things.

Vestigal organs:
evolution: Organs and parts of bodies that no longer have their original usage, AKA apendix helping digest plant material, whale bones that used to be feet, among others.
Creationist lie: Apendix isn't a vestigal organ, because it helps with immune system. Whale feet bones *forget what they are called hehe* arn't vestigal because they are used in sex.

Truth they no longer have their use, but doesn't mean they can't have a different usage, lie, that because they have a use means they arn't vestigal. See the difference?

Junk DNA:
Evolution: Big parts of our DNA are full of broken or useless genes such as 4% of our DNA being scent, but we can't use most of them, ERV's, and other vestigal DNA from our past, that no longer have a use. Things we know they are junk, because we know what they used to be and so on.
creationist lie: Because the amount of junk DNA isn't as big as originally thought they must all have usage that we don't know of so arn't junk DNA.

Notice the difference? In both cases the creationists lies arn't even related to evolutionary theory or what the claim is. THis is why I laugh at creationists lies, a cursory understanding of evolution would show that they arn't even wrong about their claims, they are just lieing or trying to decieve gullable people into believing evolution is wrong.

Mattin91 · Nov 19, 2019

Calling non-coding regions Junk DNA was one of the biggest blunders in modern biology.

What is noncoding DNA?

Scientists discover a role for 'junk' DNA

There is no viable human ancestor. And Intelligent Design reveals itself. The human body plan is an upper and lower torso, four limbs and a head. Dogs, cats, horses and so on have the same body plan. The instructions to build the basic forms would be the same with slight variations.

Living things don't just look designed, they are designed.

Anguspure · Nov 19, 2019

loveofourlord said:
No I understand why it's evidence for evolution and why creationists lie about it not being, I'm wondering if you know either of those things.

Vestigal organs:
evolution: Organs and parts of bodies that no longer have their original usage, AKA apendix helping digest plant material, whale bones that used to be feet, among others.
Creationist lie: Apendix isn't a vestigal organ, because it helps with immune system. Whale feet bones *forget what they are called hehe* arn't vestigal because they are used in sex.

The misunderstanding, if there is one, does not come from Creationist but from devoted Evoltuionists using these examples of ignorance as evidence for Evolution.
The Apendix is a great example for me personally because it was used by a devoted Evolutionist as an example of the evidence for Evolution. He tried to ram it down my throat on those grounds.
If you don't like what you see; a miss use of these things, as Evidence for Evolution, then perhaps the devotees need to be set straight.

Truth they no longer have their use, but doesn't mean they can't have a different usage, lie, that because they have a use means they arn't vestigal. See the difference?

None of which is evidence for common descent, rather if we assume common descent then we might be able to fit this evidence into our narrative.

Junk DNA:
Evolution: Big parts of our DNA are full of broken or useless genes such as 4% of our DNA being scent, but we can't use most of them, ERV's, and other vestigal DNA from our past, that no longer have a use. Things we know they are junk, because we know what they used to be and so on.
creationist lie: Because the amount of junk DNA isn't as big as originally thought they must all have usage that we don't know of so aren't junk DNA.

Notice the difference? In both cases the creationists lies arn't even related to evolutionary theory or what the claim is. THis is why I laugh at creationists lies, a cursory understanding of evolution would show that they arn't even wrong about their claims, they are just lieing or trying to decieve gullable people into believing evolution is wrong.

Clearly you are not telling the truth.
Spin it however you want but the quotes speak for themselves.
For example, Biologist and text book writer Kenneth Millar wrote in "Life's Grand Design": The human genome is littered with psuedo-genes, gene fragments, 'orphaned' genes, 'junk' DNA ans so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to any thing that resembles intelligent design....If the DNA of a human being or any other organism resembled a carefully constructed computer program, with neatly arranged and logically structured modules each written to fulfill a specific function, the evidence of intelligent design would be overwhelming. In fact the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and command that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival."

The truth is that our ignorance of DNA far exceeds our knowledge, and clearly there is a whole lot more going on in the biological OS, as well as processes that transcend that than we know.
Regardless of what DNA may or may not do, the term "junk" is almost as unhelpful as the term "evolution" in identifying what is really going on.

Once again, however the term and (mis?)usage was not coined, and is not used as evidence, by people who affirm Creation.

The Barbarian · Nov 19, 2019

Anguspure said:
The error is not in the indentification of similarity, nor is it in the recognition of common origin.
The error is considering this as evidence of common descent by Natural selection acting on random mutation.

It comes down to evidence. And direct observation shows that it is indeed natural selection acting on random variation.

Would you like to see how we know?

loveofourlord · Nov 19, 2019

Anguspure said:
The misunderstanding, if there is one, does not come from Creationist but from devoted Evoltuionists using these examples of ignorance as evidence for Evolution.
The Apendix is a great example for me personally because it was used by a devoted Evolutionist as an example of the evidence for Evolution. He tried to ram it down my throat on those grounds.
If you don't like what you see; a miss use of these things, as Evidence for Evolution, then perhaps the devotees need to be set straight.

None of which is evidence for common descent, rather if we assume common descent then we might be able to fit this evidence into our narrative.

Clearly you are not telling the truth.
Spin it however you want but the quotes speak for themselves.
For example, Biologist and text book writer Kenneth Millar wrote in "Life's Grand Design": The human genome is littered with psuedo-genes, gene fragments, 'orphaned' genes, 'junk' DNA ans so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to any thing that resembles intelligent design....If the DNA of a human being or any other organism resembled a carefully constructed computer program, with neatly arranged and logically structured modules each written to fulfill a specific function, the evidence of intelligent design would be overwhelming. In fact the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and command that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival."

The truth is that our ignorance of DNA far exceeds our knowledge, and clearly there is a whole lot more going on in the biological OS, as well as processes that transcend that than we know.
Regardless of what DNA may or may not do, the term "junk" is almost as unhelpful as the term "evolution" in identifying what is really going on.

Once again, however the term and (mis?)usage was not coined, and is not used as evidence, by people who affirm Creation.

so your response to being showed the lies is to repeat them, how very much like a creationist. You showed you care not for truth or reality but instead cling to lies you would rather have. Vestigal organs fit evolution because we KNOW what they were once known to be, this is literally what evolution says. So repeating the lie shows willfull lying at this point.

And your ignorance of DNA doesn't mean it isn't junk DNA. Everything he said is exactly what junk DNA is it is full of things we KNOW THE USE FOR, and like vistigil organs IT NO LONGER HAS THAT USE. A junk yard is a place for items we know the use for, but no longer have them. You can turn a toilet into a planter, but doesn't change the fact it's no longer a toilet.

Anguspure · Nov 20, 2019

The Barbarian said:
It comes down to evidence. And direct observation shows that it is indeed natural selection acting on random variation.

Would you like to see how we know?

Go ahead. But of course Darwin's molecular fiddler works within species, that is the extent of the evidence and Creationism does not deny it. We have been created within a dynamic system and NS is the mechanism that allows the flourishing of diverse populations in an ever changing world.

But it is unreasonable to extrapolate beyond what is observed to infer common descent of all taxa and invention of new functions.

Anguspure · Nov 20, 2019

loveofourlord said:
so your response to being showed the lies is to repeat them, how very much like a creationist. You showed you care not for truth or reality but instead cling to lies you would rather have. Vestigal organs fit evolution because we KNOW what they were once known to be, this is literally what evolution says. So repeating the lie shows willfull lying at this point.

And your ignorance of DNA doesn't mean it isn't junk DNA. Everything he said is exactly what junk DNA is it is full of things we KNOW THE USE FOR, and like vistigil organs IT NO LONGER HAS THAT USE. A junk yard is a place for items we know the use for, but no longer have them. You can turn a toilet into a planter, but doesn't change the fact it's no longer a toilet.

I am knowledgeable enough about DNA to know that we have so very much to learn about biological systems that to write off something as "junk" is simply a display of ignorance, be it based upon the evolutionary prediction that we can expect to observe lots of "junk".

loveofourlord · Nov 20, 2019

Anguspure said:
I am knowledgeable enough about DNA to know that we have so very much to learn about biological systems that to write off something as "junk" is simply a display of ignorance, be it based upon the evolutionary prediction that we can expect to observe lots of "junk".

Again your repeating the lie once again, please don't repeat the lie and pretend your making a argument. WE KNOW THEY ARE JUNK BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT THEY DO. that makes them junk, you can't then go say, "Well your ignorance of what they d...." stop right there we know what they do, so to repeat the lie of we don't know what they do is showing your knowledge of DNA is lacking and your just projecting the dunning krueger effect.

You might be right about certain parts of the DNA labled as junk have a usage, the 4% of our DNA that is scent related from our ancestors that we can't use and are NON functioning, isn't going to magickally turn out to have some use, the broken non coding genes for things in other animals that have a use arn't going to magcikally have a use, stop repeating a lie over and over again. Thats like saying that's like being Seventh Day Advent Hoppists, because it can't be a error in the translation of the bible it must be correct, even though we have translations that show the original meaning *cookie for anyone that gets it.*

You are so desperate to disprove evolution that you will repeat a old lie please stop, your making a fool of yourself.

Mattin91 · Nov 20, 2019

The Barbarian said:
It comes down to evidence. And direct observation shows that it is indeed natural selection acting on random variation.

Would you like to see how we know?

False. The math is not there. Constant, lucky rolls of the dice? No. Intelligent, guided design. No more, no less. Evolution is the number one argument for atheism. It is a religious belief that must be defended for as long as possible. The so-called evidence amounts to wishful thinking followed by assumptions that exclude other ideas. Molecular switches. Scientists are still trying to figure them out. In science journals, I see "may" or "maybe" or we "don't know." These molecular switches have precise functions and are not just on and off. If a switch does not work, or fails, and stays on, disease can occur.

Here, as elsewhere, name calling occurs in an attempt to stop further questioning of the religion of evolution. And why promote this? To turn human beings into nothing more than walking bags of chemicals. Who die and are no more. To distort the truth about man, who is not just a body but body and soul. That is the truth, and after death, the judgment. Choose salvation.

loveofourlord · Nov 20, 2019

Mattin91 said:
False. The math is not there. Constant, lucky rolls of the dice? No. Intelligent, guided design. No more, no less. Evolution is the number one argument for atheism. It is a religious belief that must be defended for as long as possible. The so-called evidence amounts to wishful thinking followed by assumptions that exclude other ideas. Molecular switches. Scientists are still trying to figure them out. In science journals, I see "may" or "maybe" or we "don't know." These molecular switches have precise functions and are not just on and off. If a switch does not work, or fails, and stays on, disease can occur.

Here, as elsewhere, name calling occurs in an attempt to stop further questioning of the religion of evolution. And why promote this? To turn human beings into nothing more than walking bags of chemicals. Who die and are no more. To distort the truth about man, who is not just a body but body and soul. That is the truth, and after death, the judgment. Choose salvation.

people promote evolution because it's the truth, at least as they see it, argumentum ad consequentiam is not a argument, how you like the consequences or implications of something has no bearing on it's truthfulness. Why are so many creationists arguments based upon fallacies and bold assertions. You keep saying the math is not there, which shows your lack of understanding of evolution and how it works, you can not look at something backwards and say, "This was impossible to have happened." It has happened no matter how unlikly if evolution is true. Thats like saying, "The odds of you winning the lottery were so low you must have cheated." you don't know all the potential outcomes that there were, you don't know all the roads not taken. If you look at goo to you, that seems imposssible, but there were near infinite ways that the goo could have taken.

Mattin91 · Nov 20, 2019

I have seen this before, in other very long, and I mean very long threads that boiled down to Evolutionists writing: "Why don't you believe us? We've been posting the same things for years."

I've read it all. And that is the final word? Humans are here and it must be evolution? The so-called facts are neutral? There are no facts. No one was around a billion years ago or even a million years ago. The 'magic trick' behind evolution is millions of years = anything. Life as it is today.

I saw a close-up photo of an ancient insect trapped in amber. It had wings, legs and compound eyes. How dd it get just the right combination just when it needed it? Every single day, insects to humans need to eat. Take human vision. Our eyes and their spacing, are designed. They did not just fall into place. How and when did the optic nerve develop? How does the brain interpret visual information coming to it? By accident?

Yes, given infinite ways, almost any explanation is possible. That is called storytelling, not science.

loveofourlord · Nov 20, 2019

Mattin91 said:
I have seen this before, in other very long, and I mean very long threads that boiled down to Evolutionists writing: "Why don't you believe us? We've been posting the same things for years."

I've read it all. And that is the final word? Humans are here and it must be evolution? The so-called facts are neutral? There are no facts. No one was around a billion years ago or even a million years ago. The 'magic trick' behind evolution is millions of years = anything. Life as it is today.

I saw a close-up photo of an ancient insect trapped in amber. It had wings, legs and compound eyes. How dd it get just the right combination just when it needed it? Every single day, insects to humans need to eat. Take human vision. Our eyes and their spacing, are designed. They did not just fall into place. How and when did the optic nerve develop? How does the brain interpret visual information coming to it? By accident?

Yes, given infinite ways, almost any explanation is possible. That is called storytelling, not science.

*laughs* you know every post you make hurts your case, all creationists have is, "Uhuh that don't count." and, "How did the first two dogs that evolved meet up!!." seriously if you don't have a clue about evolution, then don't make a fool out of yourself. the insect alone shows pure ignorance, how did that insect know to have everything in the right spot...GEEE I wonder how you knew to have all your parts in the right place.

Mattin91 · Nov 20, 2019

loveofourlord said:
*laughs* you know every post you make hurts your case, all creationists have is, "Uhuh that don't count." and, "How did the first two dogs that evolved meet up!!." seriously if you don't have a clue about evolution, then don't make a fool out of yourself. the insect alone shows pure ignorance, how did that insect know to have everything in the right spot...GEEE I wonder how you knew to have all your parts in the right place.

And I've read that before. In this case, storytelling, not science, is occurring. I can make up any story I want about what happened millions of years ago. When I ask specific questions and get no good answers, I am confident.

loveofourlord · Nov 20, 2019

Mattin91 said:
And I've read that before. In this case, storytelling, not science, is occurring. I can make up any story I want about what happened millions of years ago. When I ask specific questions and get no good answers, I am confident.

If your level of questions are so poor they don't even understand the concept of parents like the one I was responding too, what makes you think I have any trust in any of your arguments.

Mattin91 · Nov 20, 2019

I've read that as well. What you write is called diversion. So, there are two birds in the United States. They look identical. One lives on the west coast, the other on the east coast. They can't breed with each other.

Another example. An experiment was performed with fruit flies being exposed to radiation. The resulting offspring had body parts in the wrong places. They did not suddenly look like something else. Their genetic material was mixed up, that's all. Of course, these fruit flies could not survive in the wild.

I understand inheritance and I also understand Intelligent Design. God was the Intelligent Designer. And more secular, non-God, research shows that this explanation removes the quess-work.

loveofourlord · Nov 20, 2019

Mattin91 said:
I've read that as well. What you write is called diversion. So, there are two birds in the United States. They look identical. One lives on the west coast, the other on the east coast. They can't breed with each other.

Another example. An experiment was performed with fruit flies being exposed to radiation. The resulting offspring had body parts in the wrong places. They did not suddenly look like something else. Their genetic material was mixed up, that's all. Of course, these fruit flies could not survive in the wild.

I understand inheritance and I also understand Intelligent Design. God was the Intelligent Designer. And more secular, non-God, research shows that this explanation removes the quess-work.

radiation isn't how natural mutations work least not at that level, radiation kills at the level they did the experiment often.

well no you don't understand inheritence if your questioning how a insect in amber got all the right parts, it got those parts from millions of years of inheritence from it's ancestors, the point at which bilaterilness of life formed they were basic life forms, and from there it continued, it's a silly argument.

Mattin91 · Nov 20, 2019

I will continue posting. Science cannot see God so it is partly blind. Human beings have got to understand they have a physical and spiritual body. That they are not just bags of chemicals that look the way they do by accident.

NBB · Nov 20, 2019

Evolutionists say man appeared from apes how long ago? but in that short time the most complicated and marvelous and the top thing of the creation was developed?: our minds and feelings. There is nothing like it in nature and i say its more complicated to make than our bodies. But they would like to suggest that it developed in a lot shorter time. Scientists can't even comprehend it, smart people cannot figure out how the mind works, but an unguided simple proccess made it?

Other species may be more appropriate ancestors, than apes - what then?

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Newbie

Active Member

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Crabby Old White Guy

Newbie

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads