A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists

[shernren]

Let me ask you a simple question, astridhere:

As a creationist, which would you predict has more DNA per cell: a human or a pufferfish?

 

[tyronem]

Let me ask you a simple question, astridhere:

As a creationist, which would you predict has more DNA per cell: a human or a pufferfish?

An interesting but irrelevant question. Creation does not require a prediction in this.

 

[shernren]

A prediction made after the research has been done is a poor prediction indeed! And yet those are all the predictions I ever see creationists make.

 

[tyronem]

A prediction made after the research has been done is a poor prediction indeed! And yet those are all the predictions I ever see creationists make.

Clearly you have not read many creationist research papers

For example Hydroplate theory correctly predicted the shape of caverns in the sea floor and the standard plate tectonics theory incorrectly predicted these shapes, these predictions were made years before proper exploration was done.

Although you do actually have to do the research before you can make predictions about what your theory should answer.

 

[shernren]

So it should be a simple matter for a creationist to tell me which they expect to have more DNA per cell: a human, or a pufferfish?

(This is directly relevant to the question of junk DNA, by the way.)

 

[tyronem]

So it should be a simple matter for a creationist to tell me which they expect to have more DNA per cell: a human, or a pufferfish?

(This is directly relevant to the question of junk DNA, by the way.)

You misunderstand the creationist position because actually it's totally irrelevant to the creationist position, each were created separate so in actual fact how much DNA per cell does not matter.

There is no such thing as junk DNA as biologists are just beginning to find out. (Funny how they always climb mount improbable to find the creationist has been sitting there all along).

 

[Magnus_the_Red]

each were created separate so in actual fact how much DNA per cell does not matter.

Prove it.

There is no such thing as junk DNA as biologists are just beginning to find out.

*Citation Needed

(Funny how they always climb mount improbable to find the creationist has been sitting there all along).

Oh look. Egoism. Cute.

 

[shernren]

There is no such thing as junk DNA as biologists are just beginning to find out. (Funny how they always climb mount improbable to find the creationist has been sitting there all along).

For a creationist who supposedly has been sitting on Mount Improbable all along, you've got surprisingly little courage to predict what biology should observe. Very well, then, perhaps you may do a little better with English comprehension.

"Certain untranscribable and/or untranslatable DNA base sequences appear to be useful in a negative way ... "
​

1. Was this said by a creationist or an evolutionist?
2. When was this said?

 

[tyronem]

Aside from this being a Christian only forum, I will answer your questions.

Prove it.

On Day 5 God created the sea creatures
On Day 6 God created Land animals and Man

Don't believe me? Pick up a Bible and read it for yourself

*Citation Needed

Science Daily reports that there is no such thing as Junk RNA « Wintery Knight

Oh look. Egoism. Cute.

Oh, look, arrogance. Cute... Fallacious arguments can always be turned back on themselves.

 

[tyronem]

For a creationist who supposedly has been sitting on Mount Improbable all along, you've got surprisingly little courage to predict what biology should observe. Very well, then, perhaps you may do a little better with English comprehension.

"Certain untranscribable and/or untranslatable DNA base sequences appear to be useful in a negative way ... "
​

1. Was this said by a creationist or an evolutionist?
2. When was this said?

Why should I predict something that only an evolutionist relies upon?

Why would I use the evolutionist model for life as it directly pertains to origins to predict something that only the evolutionist is worried about?

1. Why does it matter
2. Who cares?
3. "Junk DNA" turns out to be useful, not useless as your statement negatives the positive.

Science Daily reports that there is no such thing as Junk RNA « Wintery Knight

 

[Zeena]

So it should be a simple matter for a creationist to tell me which they expect to have more DNA per cell: a human, or a pufferfish?

(This is directly relevant to the question of junk DNA, by the way.)

Quantity is quality?

 

[sfs]

HERV-K is found in an orthologous position in gorilla and chimp genomes but not in the human. Humans contain an intact preintegration site at this locus. All the woffley computations are done and presto..this must have been a result of HGT as no other explanation keeps the primate phylogeny in tact.

No, that conclusion doesn't follow at all. In fact, it would be extremely strange if no ERV insertions were shared between gorilla and chimp but missing in humans. Chimpanzees are the closest relatives of humans, but if you look in detail, you will find that they are closest genetically for only about two-thirds of their genomes. In one-sixth of the genome, humans are more closely related to gorillas than to chimpanzees, and in one-sixth chimpanzees are most closely related to gorillas. This occurs because the time between gorillas branching off and the human-chimpanzee split was short, and there was a lot of genetic variation being carried in the ancestral population that was still present when humans and chimpanzees separated; the process is known as "incomplete lineage sorting".

Here is a blooper that demonstrates this so called ERV connection is not as clear as what some evolutionists would like to make out it is.

Novel Endogenous Retrovirus in Rabbits Previously Reported as Human Retrovirus 5
"Human retrovirus 5 (HRV-5) represented a fragment of a novel retrovirus sequence identified in human RNA and DNA preparations. In this study, the genome of HRV-5 was cloned and sequenced and integration sites were analyzed. Using PCR and Southern hybridization, we showed that HRV-5 is not integrated into human DNA. A survey of other species revealed that HRV-5 is present in the genomic DNA of the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and belongs to an endogenous retrovirus family found in rabbits."

Some lab samples were contaminated with other DNA, and from this you conclude what, exactly? That we don't know anything about DNA? Yes, lab mistakes happen, and they're eventually figured out, when the results don't make sense in the larger picture. The larger picture is that we have confidently identified thousands of ERVs in many species. Are you seriously suggesting that we should throw out all of those results because of one instance of lab contamination?

I'd say evolutionists need as much faith in researchers to accept any of this, as it does not appear to be credible at all.

I will respect you faith in the ERV connection, if you can respect my faith that is appears to have a non credible base.

Sorry, you don't appear to have a good enough foundation in genetics to be in a position to come to reliable conclusions about the subject. I'm happy to respect you, but I can't think of any reason why I should respect your views about genetics, any more than you should respect my views about opera or synchronized swimming.