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.
Sorry, but I don't follow. If the design was to make bases change into more similar bases (which it sort of is, because that's how chemistry works), why does this say anything about the genetic differences between humans and chimps. Are the differences the result of mutation or not?ok. one possible explanation (out of two that i can think of) is that those bases have a similar functional meaning, therefore its possible that the designer desinged those bases to change into more similar bases than to other kinds of bases. in such a way a new mutation has more chance to make no harm to the gene (unlike the other kinds of mutations). so if we see A in human and G in chimp it may be the result of design feature rather than mutation.
I don't have to show you the evidence as you showed it to me in your own work. You showed me that they all have the same gene.We can deal with this unrelated subject after you address your previous incorrect assertions: there is no genetic evidence for evolution, and GULO is a problem for evolution because bats, guinea pigs and primates all have the same gene. Please show some intellectual integrity and support your assertions.
-_-I don't have to show you the evidence as you showed it to me in your own work. You showed me that they all have the same gene.
I found this interesting information out there then I'll give some thoughts after:-_-
1. GULO is a pseudogene in humans, meaning that it has acquired many mutations which render it useless.
2. GULO (both functional and nonfunctional versions) is present in many animals, including birds, meaning that its origins date back extremely far in the past. As in, the organisms mentioned likely all inherited it from a shared ancestor far back in the past.
So, where is the problem for evolution?
This is a very common misconception for many. There are two types of science. There is the operational sciences which can be subjected to the processes you refer to. Then there are the historical which is what we are looking at. In the historical we are looking for causes of past events. That requires a different method.
I found this interesting information out there then I'll give some thoughts after:
This excerpt from a paper written by Tomkins was then thoroughly debated over here:
Have ARJ taken to lying now? • r/Creation
But what if the problem is that in his original hypothesis it was a bottom up theory in that you had a tree that branched out from bottom up. Then what happens if we discover its top down in that we get the Phylum going down in the taxonomic structure in respect to the time of discovery. Whether we are looking at the phylogenetic inspection of genetics, anatomical or fossilized we have this same problem as well as many other problems. I like to call it Horizontal Cross Spontaneous Creations.
So there is that
I don't have to show you the evidence as you showed it to me in your own work. You showed me that they all have the same gene.
Seems
Odd that the Atheists or should I say "new Atheist" or should I say "Dawkins Children" want to forment there fustrations around Christianity.
Let me ask you something brother?
How much time have you spent on the Islamic Forums?
I wonder.
Then what about the genes that don't fit with this particular tree like the GULU gene?
We have trees that work for this and trees that work for that but we have no tree that actually works lol.
Did you actually read the whole thing?
Yeah, and Aceofspades25 dismantles Tompkins "argument" as he has done in numerous other bogus papers produced by Tompkins.
Sandwalk: When will they ever learn?
One of the creationists at the forefront of the claim that humans and chimps are far less similar than 98% has been the notorious Jeffrey Thomkins.
Earlier this year he published a "paper" which exposed the massive flaw in his algorithm which computes the similarity between humans and chimps.
He was looking specifically at the GULO pseudogene and he made the astounding claim that for this sequence (28,800 base pairs), his algorithm had computed that humans and chimps were only 84% identical.
I downloaded the exact sequences he was working with and counted up the differences for myself. There were 519 SNPs and 61 indels making them 98% identical. Astoundingly Jeffrey (using his algorithm) had arrived at a number which was over 7x the actual mutation count!
He made similar erroneous claims (with results just as ridiculous) for gorillas and the 13,000 bases upstream of GULO for both chimpanzees and gorillas.
I have been trying to get Jeffrey to acknowledge his errors for months now (see discussion here) and to date his is still obstinate about his algorithm being correct and basic maths being wrong.
r/junkscience - Human - Chimp similarity take 2!
He even has a tete a tete with Tompkins who simply slinks away from the debate.
My first reply to Jeffrey Tomkins • r/NaturalTheology
if there are about 3 millions scientists in the world (i think there is more)this number give us about 100,000 who dont believe in evolution.
just for comparison: how many scientists believe in a flat earth?
also remember that most biologists also belive in higher power. are you saying that most biologists also have "psychological trauma"?
Creationists who tout Tompkins as their new 'science savior' pretty clearly just think that because he talks the talk, he is 100% correct on all his claims. Fact is, he has been shown to be wrong and/or deceptive in pretty much every one of his 'papers' attempting to debunk some aspect of evolution.
That may be true but being an atheist requires you to believe in three things:
1. Universe from nothing or eternal universe ... magic stuff
2. Life from non-life ... magic green dragon stuff
3. Macro Evolution ... Lucky Charms stuff
I like all three in my sci-fy stuff or cerals or other things but not for a belief system.
I go with science.
yes I have seen the numbers its actually higher then that and growing but I don't have the links handy. Its a problem for me my notes are meant right now for a different purpose. For making a website so everyone can grab this info. Trust me when I say I am working hard on it every day.
3. Advanced life from basic life with no intelligent information.
Speaking of the math, I am still waiting for your equations and calculations re: abiogenesis.Internal struggle. I know the math and the science but part of me still doesn' like it.
I would challenge everyone to do this simple task Google quantum physics and evolution the first three articles that pop up you should read in full two of them are written by atheists one of them is written by a creationist you tell me after reading all three in full which one has more credibility it is a disturbing exercise to say the least.
The Wikipedia link doesn't count.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?