An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[tas8831]

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.

So we can add "evolution" to genetics, science in general, etc., to the list of things that you go all Dunning-Kruger on...

 

[tas8831]

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 simply cannot believe the extent to which anti-evolutionists will go to prop up their failing ideology.

To claim that Venter denies common descent is as honest and accurate as claiming that ICR essays are great science.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Curious - did you even read your own reddit link?

From the opening post:

"I was astounded to read this "paper" by Jeffrey Tomkins (posted to Reddit from ARJ). At first I was astounded because I couldn't believe that GULO had lost 6 exons independently in Humans, Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutan. Then after checking up on the data I was astounded that this author would lie so blatantly (especially when the data is available to the public for verification)."

So, I guess it was sort of cool that you actually linked to a rather sound debunking and humiliation of your YEC hero Jeff Tompkins, whose anti-evolution claims were laid waste to, but I'm guessing you didn't realize that?


And later :

"If this paper's claims were true, this would be a major win for the case against common descent. Unfortunately they aren't and I think the author knows this since the BLASTN search he ran would have told him something very different to the claims he makes in this paper.

His primary concern here seems to be to convince creationists who aren't going to fact check his claims (since the ARJ is read almost exclusively by those looking for anything to confirm their religious beliefs regarding human origins)"

So - thanks for the heads up! Yet another source debunking a claim of Tompkins and showing how dishonest creationists can be!

 

[sfs]

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.

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?

 

[xianghua]

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 these bases share similar function, 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. this is one possible explanation why they look like mutations. so if we see A in human and the same location is G in chimp, its possible that they look like this in the first place, and G may mean a different functional variation of A.

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?

if the above scenario is true it should be the same as the human\chimp comparison.

 

[sfs]

since these bases share similar function

Most of these bases have no function.

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.

This tells me nothing about why transitions are more common than transversions in comparing the two species, or why CpGs are so often different.

This is a non-answer.

 

[xianghua]

Most of these bases have no function.

are you saying that there is no functional meaning for a synonymous codon?

This tells me nothing about why transitions are more common than transversions in comparing the two species, or why CpGs are so often different.

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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

-_- what do you mean "tanonomically restricted"? That would imply that only organisms along a specific lineage have the inactive pseudogene form, but this is not the case. Aside from humans, guinea pigs, some species of bats, and some species of birds have the inactive form. In these cases, it is considered to be caused by independent mutations that resulted in the loss. This is heavily evidenced by the fact that the mutations that render the gene inactive are not the same between these lineages, and various bat, primate, and bird species retain the active form.

It isn't the pseudogene itself that supports shared ancestry; it is the fact that all of these groups have sequences relating to the gene in the first place, despite the fact that it is a pseudogene and thus unnecessary for function in many of them. What creator would bother to put a broken sequence in so many different organisms?

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 again missed the point that it is the presence of GULO in the first place, not how it became broken in each lineage, that is considered evidence for shared ancestry. For you, a person that believes in a creator, it makes absolutely no sense for pseudogenes to exist in the first place.

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.

-_- 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.

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.

-_- 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.

 

[sfs]

are you saying that there is no functional meaning for a synonymous codon?

Who said anything about a synonymous codon? What are you talking about?

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.

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?

 

[xianghua]

What are you talking about?

so what do you mean by "Most of these bases have no function"?

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?

what if they have an effect on the organism?

 

[sfs]

so what do you mean by "Most of these bases have no function"?

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.

what if they have an effect on the organism?

They don't.

Now, try one more time: why do interspecies genetic differences look exactly like a bunch of accumulated mutations?

 

[xianghua]

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

You are basicly arguing for last thursday-ism. Thats not rational.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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.

...or even more parsimonious, they were actually the same organism that underwent speciation according to all the natural methods we already know about

so we can explain it without a common descent.

except you can't really assume an unseen, unexplained and undefined entity to plug into your explanation if you want others to accept it

therefore it cant be evidence for 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.

 

[pitabread]

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.

You do realize that all you are suggesting is that if life was created, it was created to have the appearance of evolution.

 

[sfs]

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?

 

[tas8831]

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.

This is why you ignored my evidence - so you can maintain this desperate tactic. I suggest you actually try reading it this time - you might, MIGHT, not show yourself to be so... I don't even know.. on this subject.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Quantum physics and evolution?

What are you babbling about?

Are you the Deepak Chopra of creationism?

Ummm what are you babbling about?
Of course evolution has something to do with QP duh.

Want to take a crack at this?

 

[FormerAtheist]

Speaking of the math, I am still waiting for your equations and calculations re: abiogenesis.

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.

William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press,)

In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 10^40,000.

But my own calculations were similar and as have been the case very often.

We can see the math over and over again and this is the reason why the math can not be disputed.

Lets get down to it. Lets get down and dirty in the science. Shall we?

If you want to make a case for anatomical morphological inferences based on learned observations and fossil records you can make a descent case for evolution. Moreover if you take into account genetic evidence and molecular data depending on how you line up the genes and which molecules you use for calibration you can also make a reasonable case. But the problem is that all of these methods will conflict within each other and with one another.

That's not the serious problem.
The serious problem is the math.

It can't be done!

 

[FormerAtheist]

1 out of 3. Cool.

You were never an atheist, that much is pretty obvious.

So you are a more powerful atheist then I was?