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.
And while we are lining up that's guinea pigs and humans let's throw Whales into the mix and line up the Echolocation programming between bats and Whales that's when things get surreal.
Let's get real for minute. They went from tree to bush in 2 minutes flat ... faster than a Porsche and they nod their heads and laugh at the reality of multiple origin of life and forms. That was an assembly of the biggest names in atheism. If that NASA scientist had said anything about an outside intelligent agent he would have been labeed a kook by everyone including you. So we can go from tree pattern to bush to ... starfish pattern maybe? Who knows? Who cares as long as there is no designer in the mix. Nothing needs to make sense except this one thing .... no matter what there can be no designer.
Is that it?
I found this interesting information out there then I'll give some thoughts after:
Contrary to the popularized claims of some evolutionists and neo-creationists, patterns of GULO degradation are taxonomically restricted and fail to support macroevolution. Current research and data reported here show that multiple GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments. Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. The 28,800 base human GULO region is only 84% and 87% identical compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. The 13,000 bases preceding the human GULO gene, which corresponds to the putative area of loss for at least two major exons, is only 68% and 73% identical to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. These DNA similarities are inconsistent with predictions of the common ancestry paradigm. Further, gorilla is considerably more similar to human in this region than chimpanzee—negating the inferred order of phylogeny. Taxonomically restricted gene degradation events are emerging as a common theme associated with genetic entropy and systematic discontinuity, not macroevolution.
This excerpt from a paper written by Tomkins was then thoroughly debated over here:
Have ARJ taken to lying now? • r/Creation
Was pretty interesting in a geeky kind've way. But in the end when looking for direct connections in these genes we can see people are on both sides of the fence and each side can dig in and grab something that supports their side. I can make an easy ID prediction here and say that we will find genes or have already that will not support a connection to apes or chimps but will instead point to some other direction. We likely have already because I have read of these types of disputes before. The data does not line up neatly at all. And anyone can make an argument for anything. I could tell you we descended from a moon - bat and probably find a gene lol.
Since you're interested in discussing the evidence for evolution, I'd still like an answer to my question: "What should we expect to see if we compare human DNA to baboon DNA? Did humans and baboons also have the same genome originally?3) i have no problem to discuss with you about the evidence for evolution. the problem is that every time we start to discuss about those suppose evidence you suddenly disappeared.
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.
Since you're interested in discussing the evidence for evolution, I'd still like an answer to my question: "What should we expect to see if we compare human DNA to baboon DNA?
Most of these bases have no function.since these bases share similar function
This tells me nothing about why transitions are more common than transversions in comparing the two species, or why CpGs are so often different.its possible that this different between chimp and human means a functional difference, and not as the result of mutations but as the result of functional feature.
Most of these bases have no function.
This tells me nothing about why transitions are more common than transversions in comparing the two species, or why CpGs are so often different.
I found this interesting information out there then I'll give some thoughts after:
Contrary to the popularized claims of some evolutionists and neo-creationists, patterns of GULO degradation are taxonomically restricted and fail to support macroevolution.
Current research and data reported here show that
multiple GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments. Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. The 28,800 base human GULO region is only 84% and 87% identical compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. The 13,000 bases preceding the human GULO gene, which corresponds to the putative area of loss for at least two major exons, is only 68% and 73% identical to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. These DNA similarities are inconsistent with predictions of the common ancestry paradigm. Further, gorilla is considerably more similar to human in this region than chimpanzee—negating the inferred order of phylogeny. Taxonomically restricted gene degradation events are emerging as a common theme associated with genetic entropy and systematic discontinuity, not macroevolution.
-_- humans split off from chimpanzees 13 million years ago (and farther back for other apes), so of course there are some genes NOT shared between those lineages. I have no idea what sort of gene you think would in and of itself demonstrate that humans aren't closely related to chimps without implying close relationship with some other species.This excerpt from a paper written by Tomkins was then thoroughly debated over here:
Have ARJ taken to lying now? • r/Creation
Was pretty interesting in a geeky kind've way. But in the end when looking for direct connections in these genes we can see people are on both sides of the fence and each side can dig in and grab something that supports their side. I can make an easy ID prediction here and say that we will find genes or have already that will not support a connection to apes or chimps but will instead point to some other direction.
-_- there will be some genetic similarity between humans and bats because both organisms are mammals. Humans are thus more genetically similar to bats than, say, snakes. What would defy our understanding of evolution would be a fish or something that humans were more genetically similar to than other mammals, etc.We likely have already because I have read of these types of disputes before. The data does not line up neatly at all. And anyone can make an argument for anything. I could tell you we descended from a moon - bat and probably find a gene lol.
Who said anything about a synonymous codon? What are you talking about?are you saying that there is no functional meaning for a synonymous codon?
I understand nothing about your explanation. What is "this base"? I'm talking about all of the bases in the genome. What is "this way"? If mutations of a certain type don't have an effect on the organism, why does the same type appear so often when comparing species?as i said: one possibility is that the designer make it this way that if a mutation will happen at this base it probably will not make any harm. so we see more cases with A alongside G rather then other possible bases.
What are you talking about?
If mutations of a certain type don't have an effect on the organism, why does the same type appear so often when comparing species?
I mean that most of the bases in the genome have no function. They do not affect the health, well-being, life-span or reproductive capacity of the organism.so what do you mean by "Most of these bases have no function"?
They don't.what if they have an effect on the organism?
even if they indeed mutations, as i said in the past: it may be evidence that both genomes were very similar in their creation event. so we can explain it without a common descent. therefore it cant be evidence for a common descent.I mean that most of the bases in the genome have no function. They do not affect the health, well-being, life-span or reproductive capacity of the organism.
They don't.
Now, try one more time: why do interspecies genetic differences look exactly like a bunch of accumulated mutations?
even if they indeed mutations, as i said in the past: it may be evidence that both genomes were very similar in their creation event. so we can explain it without a common descent. therefore it cant be evidence for a common descent.
...or even more parsimonious, they were actually the same organism that underwent speciation according to all the natural methods we already know abouteven if they indeed mutations, as i said in the past: it may be evidence that both genomes were very similar in their creation event.
except you can't really assume an unseen, unexplained and undefined entity to plug into your explanation if you want others to accept itso we can explain it without a common descent.
which is exactly the wrong way around. On one hand, a genome speciating into two is something we have seen occur naturally many numerous times, so mutations is exactly evidence for common descent - on the other hand, an unseen, unexplained and undefined entity creating any genomes whatsoever let alone two nearly identical genomes has never been observed.therefore it cant be evidence for a common descent.
even if they indeed mutations, as i said in the past: it may be evidence that both genomes were very similar in their creation event. so we can explain it without a common descent. therefore it cant be evidence for a common descent.
Okay, now we've finally gotten back to where we were the last time we discusses this. Now on to the question I actually asked: if this possibility is the correct explanation, and humans and chimpanzees once had nearly identical genomes, what will we find when we compare the human genome to that of an orangutan or a baboon?even if they indeed mutations, as i said in the past: it may be evidence that both genomes were very similar in their creation event. so we can explain it without a common descent. therefore it cant be evidence for a common descent.
even if they indeed mutations, as i said in the past: it may be evidence that both genomes were very similar in their creation event. so we can explain it without a common descent. therefore it cant be evidence for a common descent.
Ummm what are you babbling about?Quantum physics and evolution?
What are you babbling about?
Are you the Deepak Chopra of creationism?
To explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 -- below the universal probability boundary, or events which are remotely possible to occur within the history of the universe.Speaking of the math, I am still waiting for your equations and calculations re: abiogenesis.
So you are a more powerful atheist then I was?1 out of 3. Cool.
You were never an atheist, that much is pretty obvious.
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?