A thread on evolution

Jimmy D said:

Well, you didn't address my post.....

Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of Primates Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence - ScienceDirect

Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees

Conservation and evolution of gene coexpression networks in human and chimpanzee brains

Phylogenetic relations of humans and African apes from DNA sequences in the psi-eta-globin region

When you've finished demonstrating why the data presented in these is incorrect I can find a few thousand more for you.

Click to expand...

here is my reply: to most of your articles. LEt me start with a question...

Does homologous or other genetic similarities between chimps and humans prove common ancestry?

Genome projects supporting human/chimp common ancestry typically refuse to accept the differences in the gene sequencing:

“Let’s use an example from English to illustrate what we mean. Here are two sentences with exactly the same letters:
Charles Darwin was a scientific god.
Charles Darwin was a scientific dog.
While the letters in the two sentences are identical and the order is virtually the same (greater than 90 percent), the slight difference in order yields opposite meanings. In the same way, only a slight difference in the order of the letters (A, T, C, and G) in living things may yield creatures that are far apart on the hypothetical evolutionary tree. For example, while some studies show that the DNA similarity between humans and the most similar ape may be about 90 percent, other studies show the DNA similarity between humans and mice is also about 90 percent.”



above quote and below graphic from -I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, © 2004, pp. 149. Used by permission of Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.

As you can see above, similarities in genetic structure typically can mean that the designer allowed us to consume food within a certain food chain structure and resultantly designed various organisms with similar genetic structure to digest food easier. It does not prove common ancestry any more that a “pot evolving from a teaspoon.

we are less similar to chimp *(given the study belows accuracy) than cats are to dogs (81.9% shared homologous genes)


so if you can prove that cats evolved from dogs using these methods than you can prove humans evolved from chimpanzees.

(see following table 1 for the cats genetic charts-)
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675.full

Geneticist Richard Buggs

"To compare the two [human and chimpanzee] genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million 'letters' align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless "junk DNA". However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.
Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.
In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single 'letter' is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.
We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This "copy number variation" causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%."


from:

404


72% is alot different than say 96-99% similarity.

at this point all that need to be realized is that gene ordering is important, and it's the alignments that are way off.

here is a stack of references to that support this importance in ordering:

"Jachowicz et al., "Heterochromatin establishment at pericentromeres depends on nuclear position," Genes & Development, 27: 2427-2432 (2013); Verdaasdonk et al., "Centromere Tethering Confines Chromosome Domains," Molecular Cell, 52: 1-13 (December 26, 2013); Filion et al., "Systematic Protein Location Mapping Reveals Five Principal Chromatin Types in Drosophila Cells,"Cell, 143: 212-224 (October 15, 2010); Giacomo Cavalli, "From Linear Genes to Epigenetic Inheritance of Three-dimensional Epigenomes," Journal of Molecular Biology (2011); Justin M. O'Sullivan, "Chromosome Organizaton in Simple and Complex Unicellular Organisms," Current Issues in Molecular Biology, 13: 37-42 (2011); Dirar Homouz and Andrzej S. Kudlicki, "The 3D Organization of the Yeast Genome Correlates with Co-Expression and Reflects Functional Relations between Genes," PLoS One, 8: e54699 (January, 2013); Stephen A. Hoang and Stefan Bekiranov, "The Network Architecture of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Genome," PLoS One, 8: e81972 (December, 2013)."

the above and dozens more references found
on evolutionnews.org
http://www.evolutionnews.org (click here for solid sources)

Cats share 90% homologous genes with humans.

in fact cats share 81.9% homologous genes with dogs! (no kidding)

Governmental Genome project on Cats (click here)

does this mean we evolved from cats? OR cats from Dogs?

You see how genetic similarity can be misleading.

shall we look for pig-human transitions as well:
shall we look for pig-human transitions as well (click here)
you can see we obviously didn't evolve from Cats or pigs, and cats didn't obviously evolve from dogs.

so all of these studies are misleading, as misleading as a pot evolving from a teaspoon.

VirOptimus said:

I think there are a saying from some old book, "you will know them by their fruits".

Click to expand...

the Bible also says do not judge.

VirOptimus said:

You have no arguments, and what little you had are already obliterated by several posters.

Click to expand...

you are free to your opinion, but that is all it is. I just refuted several peer reviews in a single post, and here you are picking and poking like a little kids with no answers. Again, lets be grown up in our debates. No need to naughty wordage and mean spirited replies.

VirOptimus said:

So, when will you stop judging science?

Click to expand...

it's isn't science. Because it's not observed. There is nothing to judge.

Skreeper said:

No I do not believe that. I currently do not know how DNA or life arose like everyone else.



I cannot say that both are impossible. Maybe highly improbable but that does not mean it cannot happen.

If you want to know what we currently know about life from non-life you should look up abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

dawkins says everything came from nothing. Are you saying he is wrong, as well as the other phd scientist in the video in the op?

VirOptimus said:

No you didnt. You dont even understand what peer-review are.

Its not my opinion, I know Im right because I have studied the science.

Click to expand...

I have been debating here for 10 years and no one has been able to answer the single question. And prove a transition. Just pictures and opinions, no peer review proving so.

VirOptimus said:

Science is a method to describe physical reality. Just because you dont like it and dont understand it doesnt make it wrong.

Click to expand...

again I love science, because God created everything science explores. Don't put words in my mouth, it's dishonest.

PsychoSarah said:

Not into "not believing in a deity". I've repeatedly tried to delude myself into believing in and afterlife and the like, though. Thus far, I have failed. Besides, willfully lying to oneself never results in any belief change, since one is always aware of doing it.

Click to expand...

so you are deceiving yourself, basically. There is a veil over your eyes, the only ones who come to God are the ones that have been drawn by God. IF he doesn't draw you, you will never have faith. I would try to be more open, and humble regarding the lack of evidence in how the universe began, abiogenesis, chemical evolution, macro evolution, and stellar evolution. All unobserved.

VirOptimus said:

Yes they have, its just that you are to ignorant to understand the answers.

Click to expand...

again no logic in your replies. just hating on me.

VirOptimus said:

Well you cant, as you really dont understand it.

And I dont think you should talk about dishonesty as you refused to acknowledge "quote mine" as a term and then use it (correctly) in another post elsewhere on this very forum. That is dishonesty.

Click to expand...

again no logic in your answers. Just finger pointing. I can tell you are frustrated. And the first thing in debate is not the let it get to you. When you get emotional is when you make mistakes. And start appealing to that emotion, like you are here. Just trying to help you.