Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[pitabread]

xianghua, you do realize that this:

id cant predict the difference among creatures for the simple fact that we dont know how the original genome (of any species) was look like.

Blatantly contradicts this:

we can just tell that many creatures (if not all of them) were very similar to each other at their original state.

If you don't know the makeup of the originally designed genomes, you have no way of knowing how similar they would have been to each other.

(Although I suppose you could just be arguing for a homogeneous population of organisms with near-identical genomes which then subsequently diverged from that original population into different species we see today. Which, ironically, is the 'common ancestor' scenario of biological evolution.)

 

[Brightmoon]

( snip)



realy? take the olfactory system for instance. how many mutations we need to evolve a minimal olfactory system from a non olfactory system? if evolution is true it should be very easy to answer such a question.

The olfactory system is basically one way for your nervous system and brain to detect and respond to a chemical dissolved in water . It’s a slightly different form of taste that uses the nose to detect these chemicals in the air ( that’s why the inside of your nose is wet and why food doesn’t taste good when you have a cold,). This ultimately evolved over billions of years from Bacteria which can also sense chemicals in water .

 

[sfs]

95% similarity instead of 99% is a bit different.

Since we're looking at differences, the fact that there are five times as many of them is what matters.

because they are indeed mutations, but not all of them, just most of them.

How many of them? Remember, there are five times as many.

i think i lost you here. to be clear: id cant predict the difference among creatures for the simple fact that we dont know how the original genome (of any species) was look like. we can just tell that many creatures (if not all of them) were very similar to each other at their original state.

I think you lost yourself. You just claimed that the reason baboon and humans are more different in their DNA than chimps and humans is that baboons have been around longer, accumulating mutations. If that's true, then baboons have accumulated a lot of mutations since they were created, and their DNA must be quite different from that of any other species, regardless of what their original genome looked like. That follows from your claim. So what should we see when we compare baboon DNA to that of another monkey?

You see, I'm trying to take your proposed explanations for genetic data seriously, and asking what they would imply if they were true. But you really don't want to do that, do you?

1) since evolution cant explain it this is indeed evidence for design.

You haven't shown that evolution can't explain it. (The fact that some guy you're talking to on the internet declines to offer an explanation does not imply that evolution cannot be responsible for the olfactory system.) Even if your premise were true, your conclusion wouldn't follow from it anyway.

i just mention a fact: evolution is a small part in biology.

No, you didn't mention a fact; you invented a falsehood.

there are many creationists biologists who know biology just as well without believing in evolution.

Also false. There are a handful of creationist biologists, few of whom seem to be particularly competent.

 

[xianghua]

How many of them? Remember, there are five times as many.

it may be as high as 80-90% or even more.

If that's true, then baboons have accumulated a lot of mutations since they were created, and their DNA must be quite different from that of any other species, regardless of what their original genome looked like.

are you referring to the genetic diversity of the baboon genus itself?

You see, I'm trying to take your proposed explanations for genetic data seriously, and asking what they would imply if they were true. But you really don't want to do that, do you?

what do you think im doing right now?

You haven't shown that evolution can't explain it.

why not? we know from our experience that complex systems required several parts for their minimal function. the same is true for a complex biological system that is no less complex and
sophisticated. so we know that such systems cant evolve stepwise, and therefore cant be explain by evolution. and the fact that you cant tell how many amino acids changes required for the evolution of the olfactory system is another support for this claim.

Also false. There are a handful of creationist biologists, few of whom seem to be particularly competent.

i think we are talking about several thousand biologists. this isnt a"handful". for comparison: how many geologists believe in a flat earth? i think that "zero" is the correct answer. so or so: science is base on evidence and not on argument from authority.

 

[pitabread]

science is base on evidence and not about argument from authority.

You were the one who claimed there are "many creationists biologists who know biology just as well without believing in evolution". Are you backtracking on that statement now ?

 

[sfs]

it may be as high as 80-90% or even more.

Okay, let's step through this. Humans and chimpanzees differ (at the single-base level) by ~1%. Your position is that this is largely the result of mutations since they were created. So in each species, 0.5% of bases have mutated. Humans and baboons differ by 5% by the same measure. You are now suggesting that 80-90% of the difference is the result of accumulated mutations. Let's pick 90%, meaning that 4.5% out of the 5% difference comes from mutations. So at the remaining 0.5% of the genome, baboons have different bases because they were created that way. At another 0.5% of sites, humans have had a mutation. That leaves a total of 4% of sites which are different because they have mutated since the baboon was created. Now we get to the question I asked: if 4% of the baboon's DNA has mutated since it was created, then shouldn't we expect baboon DNA to be at least 4% different from that of any other species?

what do you think im doing right now?

Beats the heck out of me.

 

[xianghua]

Now we get to the question I asked: if 4% of the baboon's DNA has mutated since it was created, then shouldn't we expect baboon DNA to be at least 4% different from that of any other species?
.

why? are you also talking about dogs or cats for instance?

 

[sfs]

why?

Because 4% of baboon DNA has mutated to something since it was created (in your scenario). Why would its DNA still look exactly like any other animal's?

 

[xianghua]

Because 4% of baboon DNA has mutated to something since it was created (in your scenario). Why would its DNA still look exactly like any other animal's?

why not? we are talking only about few percent of the genome. the rest (majority) is still the product of the original design. so sure that the baboon DNA will be similar to that of a dog or a cat.

 

[sfs]

why not?

So that's it? That's your creationist explanation for the patterns we see -- the patterns predicted by common descent. "Why not?"

we are talking only about few percent of the genome.

Incorrect. I'm talking about a few percent of the genome. You don't seem to have anything to say about it.

 

[pitabread]

So that's it? That's your creationist explanation for the patterns we see -- the patterns predicted by common descent. "Why not?"

The extent of creationist "explanation": Things are the way they are, because they were created like that. The end.

 

[Skreeper]

why not? we know from our experience that complex systems required several parts for their minimal function. the same is true for a complex biological system that is no less complex and
sophisticated. so we know that such systems cant evolve stepwise, and therefore cant be explain by evolution. and the fact that you cant tell how many amino acids changes required for the evolution of the olfactory system is another support for this claim.

And that's where you're wrong kiddo.

 

[xianghua]

So that's it? That's your creationist explanation for the patterns we see -- the patterns predicted by common descent. "Why not?"


Incorrect. I'm talking about a few percent of the genome. You don't seem to have anything to say about it.

since we can explain it without using a common descent, therefore this evidence cant be consider as evidence for a common descent . very simple. on the other hand: the design scenario can explain many things that evolution cant explain. therefore the best scientific explanation for the existence of nature is the design scenario.

 

[xianghua]

The extent of creationist "explanation": Things are the way they are, because they were created like that. The end.

or under the evolutionery version: Things are the way they are, because they were evolved like that. The end.

i see no difference.

 

[pitabread]

or under the evolutionery version: Things are the way they are, because they were evolved like that. The end.

i see no difference.

That is because you don't understand evolution.

The theory of Evolution includes an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of evolution. In other words, how the process of evolution occurs.

Creationism completely lacks that. This is why any time a creationist is pressed to explain biology in light of creationism, they come up empty as you have here.

 

[xianghua]

That is because you don't understand evolution.

The theory of Evolution includes an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of evolution. In other words, how the process of evolution occurs.

Creationism completely lacks that. This is why any time a creationist is pressed to explain biology in light of creationism, they come up empty as you have here.

so do you think for instance that a human with a dino fossils will falsify evolution? yes or no?

 

[pitabread]

so do you think for instance that a human with a dino fossils will falsify evolution? yes or no?

I think that instead of repeatedly asking these "gotcha"-style debate questions, you should focus on developing a real understanding of the material you are trying to discuss. It would serve you much better and allow you to have a more meaningful conversation.

Besides, there are no human fossils mixed in with dino fossils so the question is irrelevant.

 

[xianghua]

I think that instead of repeatedly asking these "gotcha"-style debate questions, you should focus on developing a real understanding of the material you are trying to discuss. It would serve you much better and allow you to have a more meaningful conversation.

Besides, there are no human fossils mixed in with dino fossils so the question is irrelevant.

so you have no answer to that simple question. thanks for this clarification. but evolution is science. yea right...

 

[pitabread]

so you have no answer to that simple question. thanks for this clarification. but evolution is science. yea right...

I've actually answered this question in the past and we had a discussion about it. Which is why I don't know why you feel the need to keep asking it over and over.

Like I said, the best thing that would serve you right now is spending time to understand the subject rather than trying to debate it.

 

[xianghua]

I've actually answered this question in the past and we had a discussion about it. Which is why I don't know why you feel the need to keep asking it over and over.

Like I said, the best thing that would serve you right now is spending time to understand the subject rather than trying to debate it.

since you cant even answer a to a simple question about this topic i think that the same will be good for you.