An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[sfs]

Then what about the genes that don't fit with this particular tree like the GULU gene?

What is the GULU gene, and what trees are you talking about? The gene I'm familiar with, GULO, forms quite a nice phylogenetic tree.

 

[sfs]

Well there is that problem with the over 900 scientists of which I am currently converting there info for my website so everyone can have access to there info. Furthermore I intend to break that down by discipline so people can see exactly how many of what field has serious problems with evolution.

There are several million scientists in the world. You're talking about perhaps 0.03% of scientists.

Its all coming but sadly it has taken much more time then I would like. But to say that there are none. No I don't agree with that just looking at the list with my own mind I can see that is not true.

No one said there were none. In fact, you just quoted my post in which I said there were some. Are you reading the posts you're responding to?

But that being said so what about the numbers I have lost count of how many times I have seen this argument put forth and it amazes me.

Well, I'm amazed, too, since your response is so completely disconnected from what we were talking about. To recap:
You claimed there was no genetic evidence for evolution.
I pointed you to an article I wrote showing genetic evidence for evolution.
You ignored the genetic evidence for evolution, and jumped on a throwaway comment to the effect that this kind of evidence was why most geneticists accept common descent. You argued
I pointed out that you had ignored the genetic evidence.
You responded by talking about 900 scientists (not geneticists) who dispute something or other. You also continued to ignore the genetic evidence.

To summarize: 1) You're the one who's arguing based on the number of scientists who support your position, not me. I agree that it's a dumb argument. Address the evidence.
2) You were wrong when you claimed that there was no genetic evidence for evolution. Completely wrong. This fact does not seem to bother you. Why?

 

[FormerAtheist]

What is the GULU gene, and what trees are you talking about? The gene I'm familiar with, GULO, forms quite a nice phylogenetic tree.

The gene that synthesizes vitamin c in chimps and humans.

 

[sfs]

The gene that synthesizes vitamin c in chimps and humans.

That's GULO (L-gulonolactone oxidase(*)), not GULU. And it forms quite a nice phylogenetic tree, at least in primates, which is where I've looked at it in detail.

(*) Hey, I didn't even have to look that one up.

 

[FormerAtheist]

That's GULO (L-gulonolactone oxidase(*)), not GULU. And it forms quite a nice phylogenetic tree, at least in primates, which is where I've looked at it in detail.

(*) Hey, I didn't even have to look that one up.

 

[FormerAtheist]

That's GULO (L-gulonolactone oxidase(*)), not GULU. And it forms quite a nice phylogenetic tree, at least in primates, which is where I've looked at it in detail.

(*) Hey, I didn't even have to look that one up.

It does form a nice phylogenetic tree for primates and clearly you know your science but when we look at bats guinea pigs and some species of birds it becomes a huge problem

 

[sfs]

It does form a nice phylogenetic tree for primates and clearly you know your science but when we look at bats guinea pigs and some species of birds it becomes a huge problem

I've looked at guinea pig GULO too. What's the problem you see?

 

[FormerAtheist]

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.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I've looked at guinea pig GULO too. What's the problem you see?

The same gene is found in the guinea pig the bat and a species of bird how does that work?

 

[pitabread]

....

 

[sfs]

The same gene is found in the guinea pig the bat and a species of bird how does that work?

I don't know what you mean. The GULO gene is broken in primates, in bats and in guinea pigs, but it's broken in different ways. (Turns out I have looked at bat GULO as well.)

Let me see if I can show an image. . .

Nah, it doesn't show up for me. You can look at it here, though. In that image I've plotted the alignment of the GULO region in various species against the mouse DNA sequence. The exons of GULO (the functional parts of the gene) are shown as black blobs on the bottom line. Horizontal gaps in the other lines indicate either an insertion into the other species's sequence, or a deletion from the mouse, and vice verse for vertical gaps.

The bottom line is the guinea pig, the middle set are primates, and the top two are two species of bat. As the picture shows, even in terms of gross structure the gene looks very different in the three sets of organisms, but strikingly similar among the primates.

 

[AirPo]

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.

1. No it doesn't
2. No it doesn't.
3. No it doesn't, and there isn't really such a thing as macroevolution.

 

[sfs]

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.

Different people get different results when they Google. I get a NY Times article, a Wikipedia link, and articles in Nature, Discover magazine, arxiv.org and Scientific American. Do you mean the article from creation.com? If so, then the article by the creationist is the one with no credibility.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Ok tr

....

He so here were the three for me minus wiki
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00302
How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution
Evolution quantum mechanics - creation.com

Which one of these three sounds credible?

 

[FormerAtheist]

okay see that's the difference between you and me I was willing to look and read in full 2 atheist articles before I read the creation article

 

[FormerAtheist]

1. No it doesn't
2. No it doesn't.
3. No it doesn't, and there isn't really such a thing as macroevolution.

That's strange then why do we see macro-evolution used all over scientific literature?

 

[sfs]

okay see that's the difference between you and me I was willing to look and read in full 2 atheist articles before I read the creation article

How would reading the "atheist" articles (note that I'm still not sure which articles you mean) make the creationist article any less confused about science?

 

[Jimmy D]

Ok tr

He so here were the three for me minus wiki
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00302
How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution
Evolution quantum mechanics - creation.com

Which one of these three sounds credible?

Lol, I only checked the creationist one out of interest... what a crock.

He prattles on about all the evidence against evolution, yet presents NONE. What a surprise!

That you find an opinion piece so compelling is not surprising.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I don't know what you mean. The GULO gene is broken in primates, in bats and in guinea pigs, but it's broken in different ways. (Turns out I have looked at bat GULO as well.)

Let me see if I can show an image. . .

Nah, it doesn't show up for me. You can look at it here, though. In that image I've plotted the alignment of the GULO region in various species against the mouse DNA sequence. The exons of GULO (the functional parts of the gene) are shown as black blobs on the bottom line. Horizontal gaps in the other lines indicate either an insertion into the other species's sequence, or a deletion from the mouse, and vice verse for vertical gaps.

The bottom line is the guinea pig, the middle set are primates, and the top two are two species of bat. As the picture shows, even in terms of gross structure the gene looks very different in the three sets of organisms, but strikingly similar among the primates.

I don't know what you mean. The GULO gene is broken in primates, in bats and in guinea pigs, but it's broken in different ways. (Turns out I have looked at bat GULO as well.)

Let me see if I can show an image. . .

Nah, it doesn't show up for me. You can look at it here, though. In that image I've plotted the alignment of the GULO region in various species against the mouse DNA sequence. The exons of GULO (the functional parts of the gene) are shown as black blobs on the bottom line. Horizontal gaps in the other lines indicate either an insertion into the other species's sequence, or a deletion from the mouse, and vice verse for vertical gaps.

The bottom line is the guinea pig, the middle set are primates, and the top two are two species of bat. As the picture shows, even in terms of gross structure the gene looks very different in the three sets of organisms, but strikingly similar among the primates.

I don't know what you mean. The GULO gene is broken in primates, in bats and in guinea pigs, but it's broken in different ways. (Turns out I have looked at bat GULO as well.)

Let me see if I can show an image. . .

Nah, it doesn't show up for me. You can look at it here, though. In that image I've plotted the alignment of the GULO region in various species against the mouse DNA sequence. The exons of GULO (the functional parts of the gene) are shown as black blobs on the bottom line. Horizontal gaps in the other lines indicate either an insertion into the other species's sequence, or a deletion from the mouse, and vice verse for vertical gaps.

The bottom line is the guinea pig, the middle set are primates, and the top two are two species of bat. As the picture shows, even in terms of gross structure the gene looks very different in the three sets of organisms, but strikingly similar among the primates.

Very nice presentation and so how does this lineup with your interpretation of the Tree of Life and how does that lineup two molecular clock data and which molecule would you be using for the molecular clock?

 

[sfs]

He so here were the three for me minus wiki
On Quantum Effects in a Theory of Biological Evolution
How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution
Evolution quantum mechanics - creation.com

Which one of these three sounds credible?

The NY Times piece seems quite sensible. The Nature article is a highly theoretical take on a highly abstract question. What do you find in it that doesn't sound credible? Also, how do you know the first two are written by atheists? The creation.com writer claims that the scientific method can't address events in the past, which is pretty clear evidence that he is deeply confused about science.

Anyway, I note that you continue to ignore the genetic evidence I showed you for common descent.