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.
I just thought it was funny he got indignant when I quoted his own statement. You guys will flame anything you hear from a creationist, even if it originally came from you. The backpedaling is funny to.Yes, and in that same post, he implies that the possibility
is NOT the right answer.
I just thought it was funny he got indignant when I quoted his own statement. You guys will flame anything you hear from a creationist, even if it originally came from you.
No less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:
The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)
Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.
The reason they are not questioned isn't the weight of the evidence, indicating chimpanzee-human common ancestry, but the animosity toward anything remotely theistic being suggested as a cause:
Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. (Novum Organum)This grand theatrical production has been performing for over a century now, it's history littered with fabrication.
Have a nice day
Mark
Do you have any idea how rare de novo genes are, especially when it comes to brain related genes? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.In what way does the presence of de novo genes that come about via mechanisms we understand do anything at all to undermine the simple observed facts and logical conclusions of those facts I presented earlier? Are you suggesting that if a child were to be born with a DNA sequence that neither of their parents had, it would necessarily mean that child was specially created by a god and not the product of the observed mechanisms that we understand? Do you think that has ever happened?
Look, if you have something to present that shows a god doing some creating and diversifying, feel free to present it. Our observations do not lead to that conclusion. The god hypothesis is an add-on that lacks evidence and is supported solely by incredulity.
Do you have any idea how rare de novo genes are, especially when it comes to brain related genes?
It's clear that if they arose it was from a presently unknown mechanism. Now there are de novo genes known to have occurred, the arctic cod antifreeze gene for example. It's a pattern of simple repeats that coevolved no less then four times, so it does happen. You wont find anything like that in such highly conserved brain related genes. There are molecular mechanisms for DNA repair, virtually none for rewriting DNA. In brain related genes, changes like this result in disease and disorder. A de novo brain related gene is inconceivable, but must be assumed, idols of the theater of the mind, nothing more.It doesn't matter how rare they might be. Do you have any evidence that they arose by any other mechanism than those we've observed?
No point in clarity, he demanded a citation for his own statement, demand it from him.No...it wasn't his statement. Context.
He said the explanation (for the fusion observation) could be;
Either A
Or B
Or C
You said in your statement that it was A (or that there is evidence of A)
Since he thinks C is a no brainer, he wants you to support this:
It is A (or there is evidence of A)
with citation.
It is YOUR support for A for which he wants a citation...not his statement that A exists as a possibility.
I can't make it any more clear than that.
Because there won't be any, his original statement and failure is going to get buried in posts like this. Way to hold one another accountable, for obvious errors in logic.No point in clarity, indeed.
Apparently.
Because there won't be any, his original statement and failure is going to get buried in posts like this. Way to hold one another accountable, for obvious errors in logic.
If he erred, I'd have held him accountable.
But the point of his post was:
A is highly unlikely and unsupported
B is highly unlikely and unsupported
C is parsimonious.
You said A was supported. He just wanted you to back that up.
I suspect you get the point, but just can't admit to such a silly mistake. Neither will your 'brethren' hold you accountable, and you know that, so what's the point in conceding, right?
That's nice. So what? That humans are closely related to our fellow apes has been known since the time of Linnaeus. There really wasn't any reason scientifically to not classify humans as apes. As I noted in an earlier post, we have all the characteristics that all other apes share.A. F. Dixson, in The Natural History of the Gorilla (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1981) reminds us that Biologists have traditionally used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea and this did NOT include humans, but more recently, they redefined the taxa to include them, now considering them all “hominid” (see also Michael J. Benton's, Vertebrate Palaeontology, Wiley-Blackwell, 2005).
But why would these scientists (not science itself) re-define a term in order to support...
is because under the actual definition (as always argued for up to this point) the elusive non-demonstrable never observed 'ancestor of the gaps' could not be assumed (as it must be).
That's not my point and I did get his argument, vague and rambling as it was. But when I actually quoted what he said in passing he demanded a citation, I had literally cut and pasted the statement to my response. It's always flame on with you guys, I sometimes enjoy when the flame thrower blows up in your face.If he erred, I'd have held him accountable.
But the point of his post was:
A is highly unlikely and unsupported
B is highly unlikely and unsupported
C is parsimonious.
You said A was supported. He just wanted you to back that up.
I suspect you get the point, but just can't admit to such a silly mistake. Neither will your 'brethren' hold you accountable, and you know that, so what's the point in conceding, right?
So this is what you have here, no surprise it's indecipherable. You mention ERVs, thought to have been the result of highly dangerous germline viral invasions and responsible for 8% of the human genome. The GULO gene that is really just a broken protein coding gene that is supposed to produce vitamin C, easily dismissed as a gene breaking at a mutational hot spot. Then there's that fusion thing, all you really have is a TAG sequence and you don't have any time even for that. Big on rhetoric, short on substance, gotta hand it to you, you are if nothing else, consistent.That's nice. So what? That humans are closely related to our fellow apes has been known since the time of Linnaeus. There really wasn't any reason scientifically to not classify humans as apes. As I noted in an earlier post, we have all the characteristics that all other apes share.
Asinine verbiage (ancestor of the gaps) aside, this is a really poor attempt at revisionist history and just bad science. Observations are not limited to in real time and before our eyes. We know that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor because of the numerous lines of evidence supporting it's existence. That includes the fossil record, genetic similarity, shared ERVs, molecular vestiges like GULOp, the chromosome 2 fusion, etc.
You are guilty of quote mining. You took only a part of the entire sentence and pretended it supported a claim it did not support. That you are unwilling to admit this and wish to continue pretending you have done nothing wrong despite the evidence speaks volumes.Because there won't be any, his original statement and failure is going to get buried in posts like this. Way to hold one another accountable, for obvious errors in logic.
Quote mining what, it's been nothing but a casual exchange, not quote intensive. Your going to have to dig a little deeper in your bag of fallacious rhetoric to find a slogan that applies.You are guilty of quote mining. You took only a part of the entire sentence and pretended it supported a claim it did not support. That you are unwilling to admit this and wish to continue pretending you have done nothing wrong despite the evidence speaks volumes.
That's not my point and I did get his argument, vague and rambling as it was. But when I actually quoted what he said in passing he demanded a citation, I had literally cut and pasted the statement to my response. It's always flame on with you guys, I sometimes enjoy when the flame thrower blows up in your face.
Lol. You've had the full sentence repeated several times, in context, and you still want to pretend you're not quote mining? You may not respect other posters, but have some respect for yourself.Quote mining what, it's been nothing but a casual exchange, not quote intensive. Your going to have to dig a little deeper in your bag of fallacious rhetoric to find a slogan that applies.
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?