Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Brightmoon]

First of all chimps don’t change into humans or visa versa . We share a common ancestor and all that took was for 2 populations of a species to diverge . Since creationists have this weird non scientific definition of information I’m not sure what you mean.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Been there, done that. That's why we teach evolution in schools and not ID.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever for macroevolution. It is a myth. Pretending it is so will not change that fact.

If the ToE was false we wouldn't have the medicine we have today. ID doesn't get us anything, it's completely useless.

Nonsense. Evolutionism has nothing to do with the advancement of science. If anything it has hindered it with such abject silliness as Junk DNA, not to mention such scams as Haeckels embryos, which are still brainwashing our children to this day, over a century after being exposed as fraudulent.

Dan

 

[Brightmoon]

Junk DNA is a sort of inaccurate name for non coding DNA . We USED to think that it has no use but we’ve corrected that so long ago that your point in even bringing it up is silly. Haeckels embryos ? The pharyngula stage in vertebrate development is obvious if you look at photos of it in different organisms. Again that is some creationist taking an overstatement by a long dead researcher and making a tempest in a teapot out of it.
Any polyploid species is evidence of macroevolution. Don’t know why creationists keep lying about macroevolution

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Uh, no. Tomkins' comparisons of human and chimp genomic sequences was based on an incorrect methodology. That's it.

Since you provide no references, are you referring to this from 2012?

Human chimp dna similarity re-evaluated - creation.com​

Or this from 2013?

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes​

Or this from 2013?

Rogue data fell tree of life - creation.com​

Or, this from 2016?

Analysis of 101 Chimpanzee Trace Read Data Sets
​

Or, this from 2017?

Debunking the Debunkers​

Or, this from 2017?

The Untold Story Behind DNA Similarity​

Or, this from 2018?

Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Usually when the term information is used with respect to life forms it refers to DNA content/sequences. For which the mechanisms described in the prior linked site explain how DNA can be duplicated and modified.

Very well. Explain macroevolution of a chimp to a human, or vice versa, based on the DNA content/sequences.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

What exactly is evolutionary geology? Rocks don’t evolve.

Evolutionary geology is the science of geology as misapplied by evolutionists.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

First of all chimps don’t change into humans or visa versa . We share a common ancestor and all that took was for 2 populations of a species to diverge . Since creationists have this weird non scientific definition of information I’m not sure what you mean.

Okay, show us how either one evolved from a common ancestor. But first prove there was a common ancestor.

Dan

 

[Brightmoon]

There are about 25 protohuman species . Here’s one that they think is one of the ancestors of both the other great apes and humans

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Junk DNA is a sort of inaccurate name for non coding DNA. We USED to think that it has no use but we’ve corrected that so long ago that your point in even bringing it up is silly.

Really? It has not been that long ago:

"For Gregory and a group of like-minded biologists, this idea is not just preposterous but also perilous, something that could yield bad science. The turn against the notion of junk DNA, they argue, is based on overinterpretations of wispy evidence and a willful ignorance of years of solid research on the genome. They’ve challenged their opponents face to face at scientific meetings. They’ve written detailed critiques in biology journals. They’ve commented on social media. When the N.I.H.’s official Twitter account relayed Collins’s claim about not using the term “junk DNA” anymore, Michael Eisen, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, tweeted back with a profanity." [Carl Zimmer, "Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?". New York Times, 2015] ​

Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?​

As you can see, even as late as 2015 some evolutionists were none to happy with Collins finally admitting that the notion of Junk DNA was little more than hubris.

Haeckels embryos ? The pharyngula stage in vertebrate development is obvious if you look at photos of it in different organisms.

I cannot believe I am reading that. You really should consider getting up to date.

Again that is some creationist taking an overstatement by a long dead researcher and making a tempest in a teapot out of it.

Hackel's drawings lingered in textbooks as late as 2015; and many evolutionists still refuse to let go. That is hardly an honest mistake. Evolutionism Icons DIE HARD!

Any polyploid species is evidence of macroevolution. Don’t know why creationists keep lying about macroevolution

That is not evidence of anything, except maybe a common designer.

Dan

 

[Jimmy D]

Hackel's drawings lingered in textbooks as late as 2015;

Is that really true?

 

[Jimmy D]

That is not evidence of anything, except maybe a common designer.

What's a common designer?

 

[pitabread]

Very well. Explain macroevolution of a chimp to a human, or vice versa, based on the DNA content/sequences.

Your question doesn't make much sense since modern chimps don't evolve into humans (or vise-versa). Rather the two lineages would have shared common ancestry and evolved from that common ancestor.

Regardless, if you're talking about the respective genetic differences in each lineage there are various publications on the subject. There are a few examples on this site: Genome - The Elizabeth H. and James S. McDonnell III Genome Institute at Washington University

And here: Chimpanzee Genome Project

And a specific paper here: Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

 

[pitabread]

Since you provide no references, are you referring to this from 2012?

I was replying from my phone which makes it more difficult to copy-paste various reference material.

Anyway, I was referring to Tomkins claim about chimps and humans only being 70% related. This has been posted and discussed on this site before; you can search for such discussions in the archives. There's also a good Reddit discussion here: r/junkscience - Human - Chimp similarity take 2!

Also, in refreshing my knowledge of the 70% claim, at least part of the issue is also suggested to be a bug in the BLAST software itself resulting in incorrect results when passing too many sequences for comparison. Basically the whole exercise by Tomkins was a mess and not reflective of actual sequence differences between humans and chimps.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

There are about 25 protohuman species . Here’s one that they think is one of the ancestors of both the other great apes and humans View attachment 230316

Think? Anyone can think or believe anything!

First prove that it is possible, then prove that it happened.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Is that really true?

Yes:

• Donald Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology (Columbia University Press, 2013).
• Sylvia S. Mader, Jeffrey A. Isaacson, Kimberly G. Lyle-Ippolito, Andrew T. Storfer, Inquiry Into Life (13th ed., McGraw Hill, 2011).
• Peter H. Raven, George B. Johnson, Kenneth A. Mason, Jonathan B. Losos, and Susan R. Singer, Biology (9th ed., McGraw Hill, 2011).
• Adaptive Curriculum online curriculum submitted to Texas State Board of Education for adoption in 2011.
• Rice University online curriculum submitted to Texas State Board of Education for adoption in 2011.
• Sylvia S. Mader, Biology (McGraw Hill, 10th ed., 2010).
• Sylvia S. Mader, Biology (McGraw Hill 2007).
• BSCS Biology: A Human Approach (Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2006).
• National Geographic, Alton Biggs, Lucy Daniel, Edward Ortleb, Peter Rillero, Dinah Zike, Life Science (McGraw Hill, Glencoe, 2005).

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu/​

Note that most were published in this decade.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

What's a common designer?

Our Creator.

Dan

 

[Brightmoon]

Nope that information has already been confirmed. The ball is in your court. You come up with verifiable evidence that creationist pseudoscience is accurate. If creationist blather turns out( very very very very very rarely) to be accurate then mainstream scientists might grumble but they won’t ignore it. Creationists routinely ignore any information that disproves their allegations. Tomkins screwed up and you blithely ignored it. Macroevolution is speciation, which you should have learned in middle school. But you ignored that in favor of pseudoscience religious beliefs that scientists rejected as factual over a century ago.

 

[Brightmoon]

You have to be careful when creationists quote anything as they’re NOTORIOUS for taking quotes out of context and they tend to quote from outdated inaccurate information as well. There’s also the problem that they’ll edit quotes to make it look like mainstream scientists dispute evolution . It’s called quote mining and it’s a type of lying by omission

 

[sfs]

Just so there is no misunderstanding by new-arrivals, humans and chimps are only about 70% similar. There are many millions of differences, as Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, (PhD Genetics, Clemson U.) explains:

Just so there is no misunderstanding, to a good approximation nothing Jeffrey Tomkins writes about genetics is at all accurate.

 

[sfs]

Baloney. Creation and ID scientists have exposed serious flaws in the evolutionary model,

No, they've repeatedly lied, made elementary mistakes and obfuscated as much as possible.

Venema himself has been exposed as one who is more than willing to stretch the truth a bit:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/d...the-genome-former-biologos-fellow-backs-down/
Perhaps Venema is more concerned with his dogma being exposed if creation scientists are allowed into the peer-review process.

Yup, Venema did indeed overestimate the time period during which we can rule out a unique starting couple for the human race. Turns out we can only rule it out for the last 700,000 years, not 7 million years. That's still long before the appearance of anatomically modern humans, and far longer than anything someone like Tomkins is talking about. And of course genetics provides no reason at all to think there was a first couple So why are you viewing this as support for creationism, or in any way undermining of evolution. (Note, by the way, that I'm one of the geneticists mentioned in this article.)