Evolutionist lies

[Late_Cretaceous]

The tail is real, the clue is in where it attaches to the pelvis.

The fact that the arches are the same developmentally, and that their growth is controlled by the same hox genes is pretty conclusive evidence that they are the same structures. Also, highly suggestive of common decent.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

This is a cute new tactic. Take evidence for evolution, and argue that it is actually evidence against evolution. Maybe Smidlee could take transitional fossils and make the claim that their existance disproves evolution.

 

[seanHayden]

I would like to balk at evolution and its implications,

what are the implications of evolution?
are they actually scientific implications?
or are they projections into the ethical or moral sphere?

I thought I made that clear--in a goofy way--the implication being that I might have come from a monkey. <--turns his nose up and grimaces.

Ethical implications, hmm, I don't know, isn't that interesting. Do we see ethical standards in other animal societies? It would be easy to transfer our own sense of ethics to the behavior of other pack animals, but I'm not sure this is correct.

Can of worms....

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Quote:
I'ts the same with Human embryos having tails .... yes, by appearance, Human embryros have tails but appearance is cause by how the embryro develops ... The spine cord grows faster than the rest of the body.
Your evidence for this?

Human embryuos not only have what APPEARS to be a tail, but what is ACTUALLY a tail... that is resorbed into the embryo as it grows.

Proof? Well, first of all, every human has a coccyx, or tail, it is just internal. Look at any chart of skeletal anatomy to find it.

Further proof? SOME humans are born with actual tails, where the resorbtion pocess never occured. So, take your pick, this is EITHER

a mutation resulting in new information,

OR

evidence of an evolutionary history where our ancestors had tails, with occasional throwbacks occuring.

Take your pick. Either suits the evolutionst POV, both are evidence against "as we are now creationism"

 

[Assyrian]

I'ts the same with Human embryos having tails .... yes, by appearance, Human embryros have tails but appearance is cause by how the embryro develops ... The spine cord grows faster than the rest of the body.

This should be very easy to resolve. If the 'tail' is simply a misinterpretation because the spine grows faster than the rest of the body, then the embryo should have the same number of vertebrae, with the bones simply being larger in proportion to the body than they are later.

If the embryo has more vertebrae, and the vertebrae at the end are lost, reabsorbed into the body, then it is a real tail.

X-ray image of an atavistic tail found in a six-year old girl.

The five sacral vertebrae S1-S5 are the ones found in the coccyx, though normally they are much smaller. Vertebrae C1-C3 are extra, embryonic tail vertebrae that weren't reabsorbed.

At between four and five weeks of age, the normal human embryo has 10-12 developing tail vertebrae which extend beyond the anus and legs, accounting for more than 10% of the length of the embryo (Fallon and Simandl 1978; Moore and Persaud 1998, pp. 91-100; Nievelstein et al. 1993). The embryonic tail is composed of several complex tissues besides the developing vertebrae, including a secondary neural tube (spinal cord), a notochord, mesenchyme, and tail gut. By the eighth week of gestation, the sixth to twelfth vertebrae have disappeared via cell death, and the fifth and fourth tail vertebrae are still being reduced. Likewise, the associated tail tissues also undergo cell death and regress.

See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny_ex4

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I wonder if Smidlee can provide EVEN ONE REFERENCE for his statements.

How about showing where you got the idea that the spine grows faster then the rest of the body.

 

[mark kennedy]

Someone in a different thread made the claim that both creationists and evolutionists support their theories through willful use of lies. I'd be very interested to examine this some more, particularly in reference to evolutionist lies.

While a couple of hoaxes spring to mind, piltdown man and the Chinese bird/raptor intermediate fossil, I don't think they count because once they were discredited, evolutionists apeared to drop them like hot rocks.

What I'm interested in are examples where the person making the statement KNOWS that the statement is untrue, but makes it anyway.

Anyone got any stories?

I have one, this statement is flatly contradicted in the article they are announcing:

"What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Comparing the genetic code of humans and chimps will allow the study of not only our similarities, but also the minute differences that set us apart."​

http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/chimpgenome/index.html

From the article:

"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."

"Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species.

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions"​

Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005

There are an additional 20 Mb (mega bases) that are an additional 20 million nucleotides when taken together, some of which are as long as 4 million base pairs. If you do the math it's about 145 Mb in two genomes that are about 3 billion nucleotides long, that comes to around 95%. What's the difference between 99% and 95% you may be wondering...oh...about 100 million base pairs is all.

Nature magazine knew this because I guarantee you the editors had read the publication. This percentage was repeated recently in Time magazine:

"Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level. When it comes to DNA, a human is closer to a chimp than a mouse is to a rat."​

I know that Time is aware of the Chimpanzee Genome Project because they mention it in the article:

"But that's rapidly changing. Just a year ago, geneticists announced that they had sequenced a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome, allowing the first side-by-side comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA."​

What Makes us Different?
Not very much, when you look at our DNA. But those few tiny changes made all the difference in the world

It's only tiny when you don't report the actual differences. There is also the problem with the human brain being 3 times the size of an apes. In order for this to happen it would require hundreds if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes. What is more the evolution of the apes leading up to humans would not have started evolving until about 2 1/2 million years ago and lineages approach modern cranial capacity about 1.6 million years ago with Turkana Boy and the other Homo Erectus skulls used as evidence. For that to happen in that space of time would have had to have taken nothing less then a miracle of nature or God's special creation less then 10,000 years ago.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Mark, that was interesting. For myself, I have always cited 95% difference in DNA, hand in hand with the analogy that Buckingham Palace, and the average suburban brick home are made of 95% the same building materials, to put it all in context.

Yes, I would agree that saying 98% when 95% has been proven would count as a lie, albeit a small one. Of course, is it evolutionary biologists saying 98% or the copy editor, who doesn;t really think that 3% points makes much difference, and 98% looks more intriguing?

Further research is eeded.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, that was interesting. For myself, I have always cited 95% difference in DNA, hand in hand with the analogy that Buckingham Palace, and the average suburban brick home are made of 95% the same building materials, to put it all in context.

It is a difference of well over 100,000,000 base pairs. That is a big differences and the mutation rate doesn't account for it. They also failed to mention that the human brain is three times that of a chimpanzee and would have required an accelerated evolution of genes involved on an unprecedented scale. That is something the genetic researchers have been saying for quite some time and these people are well aware of it.

"The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. In this sample of 779 kb, the divergence due to base substitution is 1.4%, and there is an additional 3.4% difference due to the presence of indels."

Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels

That was published in 2002 and believe me when I tell you there is conclusive evidence that the 98% figure is completly false. They want you to think that there isn't much difference, just look at the subtitle for the Time article. The very publication Nature was announcing directly contradicted what they said and evolutionists don't mind one bit.

The reason is obvious to me, they don't want to explain how 145 million base pairs diverged because the mutation rate would be off the charts. This becomes especially troublesome when you start to look at the evolution of neural genes. Evolution does not happen the way it would have had to for humans to evolve from apes and they know it.

Yes, I would agree that saying 98% when 95% has been proven would count as a lie, albeit a small one. Of course, is it evolutionary biologists saying 98% or the copy editor, who doesn;t really think that 3% points makes much difference, and 98% looks more intriguing?

Further research is needed

The Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome was done over three years by dozens of world class scientists, many of whom did the Human Genome Project. This was a landmark publication and there is no doubt that their findings are conclusive, the 98% figure is false and the proof is in their paper. They have been saying 98%-99% for decades, if the truth gets out that it's really 95% they will have to actually explain how that's possible. They don't have an explanation, that is why they are putting out this propaganda, the truth is too hard to explain.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Mark, the 98% was an estimate, so not a lie, unless you think the Bibles estimate that makes Pi=3 a lie... Unless you want to call all mechanics, contractors, production workers and anyone estimating things on incomplete data a liar... (That would count you and me as liars every time we talk about God, since we have very incomplete data on the subject)

98% was a close estimate, and depending on how you calculate the differences, it can be closer than the 95% figure.

Could you please site your sources that say the mutation rate to cause those differences is too great? Could you please site your sources that say an increase in brain size would be so hard and take so many mutations?

I have seen scientific papers that seem to say the exact opposite; it would be interesting to compare what they say to what your sources say. That is if you have any scientific sources and are not just making things up.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, the 98% was an estimate, so not a lie, unless you think the Bibles estimate that makes Pi=3 a lie...

No it wasn't, it was a side by side comparison of the nucleotide sequences of the human genome and the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome. Your remark about PI makes absolutly no sense at all.

image credit: U.S. Department of Energy Human Genome Program, http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis.

caption: Cells are the fundamental working units of every living system. All the instructions needed to direct their activities are contained within the chemical DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).

DNA from all organisms is made up of the same chemical and physical components. The DNA sequence is the particular side-by-side arrangement of bases along the DNA strand (e.g., ATTCCGGA). This order spells out the exact instructions required to create a particular organism with its own unique traits.

The genome is an organism&#8217;s complete set of DNA. Genomes vary widely in size: the smallest known genome for a free-living organism (a bacterium) contains about 600,000 DNA base pairs, while human and mouse genomes have some 3 billion. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome.​

DNA: The Molecule of Life

Unless you want to call all mechanics, contractors, production workers and anyone estimating things on incomplete data a liar... (That would count you and me as liars every time we talk about God, since we have very incomplete data on the subject)

This is not an estimate, this was done by dozens of world class scientists that counted the very building blocks of the two genomes, the nucleotides themselves. I don't hold it against people when they don't know as long as they are willing to learn. I think you need to learn what a nucleotide is and what a genome is composed of.

98% was a close estimate, and depending on how you calculate the differences, it can be closer than the 95% figure.

It was a complete seqeunce and this was the intitial sequence being compared. The number of differences can go up but there is no way that they will ever go down. This is a definitive study and you will not find a single scientist or well read individule that says anything to the contrary.

Could you please site your sources that say the mutation rate to cause those differences is too great?

Do you know what a mutation is? A single nucleotide substitution would be when one nucleotde is changed so single nucleotide substitutions are the result of a mutation. The only alternative is to affirm as I do that the differences were allways there. Now if you want a discussion by one of the staff scientists on the mutation rate and what would be expected to be the differences I can help you with that:

For starters, we should be able to predict how different the genomes should be. The seven million years of evolution in each lineage represents about 350,000 generations in each (assuming 20 years per generation). How many mutations happen per generation? Estimating mutation rates is not easy (at least without assuming common descent): it is hard to find a few changed nucleotides out of 3 billion that have not changed. By studying new cases of genetic diseases, individuals whose parents' do not have the disease, however, it is possible to identify and count new mutations, at least in a small number of genes. Using this technique, it has been estimated[1] that the single-base substitution rate for humans is approximately 1.7 x 10^-8 substitutions/nucleotide/generation, that is, 17 changes per billion nucleotides. That translates into ~100 new mutations for every human birth. (17 x 3, for the 3 billion nucleotides in the genome, x 2 for the two genome copies we each carry). At that rate, in 350,000 generations a copy of the human genome should have accumulated about 18 million mutations, while the chimpanzee genome should have accumulated a similar number.

The evolutionary prediction, then, is that there should be roughly 36 million single-base differences between humans and chimpanzees. The actual number could be determined when both the chimpanzee and human genomes had been completely sequenced. When the two genomes were compared[2], thirty-five million substitutions were found, in remarkably good agreement with the evolutionary expectation. Fortuitously good agreement, in fact: the uncertainty on most of the numbers used in the estimate is large enough that it took luck to come that close.
Common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees: mutations
​

Could you please site your sources that say an increase in brain size would be so hard and take so many mutations?

"One of the study's major surprises is the relatively large number of genes that have contributed to human brain evolution. "For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution," said Lahn. "Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes -- and even that is a conservative estimate."​

It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked "extra-hard" during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans. "

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/hhmi-eth122804.php

I would go into the actual paper and the other source material I have looked at but you are still struggling with the basics.

I have seen scientific papers that seem to say the exact opposite; it would be interesting to compare what they say to what your sources say. That is if you have any scientific sources and are not just making things up.

Bring on your sources, I would be happy to compare notes. I cited and linked the Chimpanzee Genome paper and I have about a half a dozen others. You can start with this one made years before the complete genome was sequence:

The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. In this sample of 779 kb, the divergence due to base substitution is 1.4%, and there is an additional 3.4% difference due to the presence of indels.​

Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels

I have cited and linked two scientific papers in peer reviewed scientific journals and quoted one of the scientists involved in the Chimpanzee Genome paper. What have you got to offer?

 

[Assyrian]

Correct me if I'm wrong. An indel is simply a large section of DNA cut out and moved unchanged to another place. Even though there is no change in the nucleotides in the indel other than the whole thing being moved, you want to list the whole indel as part of the differences?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Correct me if I'm wrong. An indel is simply a large section of DNA cut out and moved unchanged to another place. Even though there is no change in the nucleotides in the indel other than the whole thing being moved, you want to list the whole indel as part of the differences?

indels is a general term for either insertation or deletions.
you are describing transposition.

 

[mark kennedy]

Correct me if I'm wrong. An indel is simply a large section of DNA cut out and moved unchanged to another place. Even though there is no change in the nucleotides in the indel other than the whole thing being moved, you want to list the whole indel as part of the differences?

That is not what an indel is in comparative genomics. If there is a section in one that is not in the other it is called an insertion, if it's missing it's called a deletion.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisWildermuth http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=27984560#post27984560
Mark, the 98% was an estimate, so not a lie, unless you think the Bibles estimate that makes Pi=3 a lie...



No it wasn't, it was a side by side comparison of the nucleotide sequences of the human genome and the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome.

The 98% figure was out before the completion of either the human genome project or chimpanzee genome project. How are they not estimating that number if the projects that the official number would latter be based on was not even finished yet?

Come on, you could at least acknowledge that.

Biblical Pi

2 Chronicles 4:2
2</SPAN> He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits [a] high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

If these are not estimates, but true measurements, then the Bible got Pi wrong.

If you are upset about the initial estimate of 98% being wrong then you have some serious issues with the Bible too.

 

[mark kennedy]

[/SIZE]

The 98% figure was out before the completion of either the human genome project or chimpanzee genome project. How are they not estimating that number if the projects that the official number would latter be based on was not even finished yet?

The 98% figure was wrong, the only question is how long they knew it and it is clear that they have known it since shortly after the Human Genome Project was completed.

Come on, you could at least acknowledge that.

I don't know what exactly you think I should acknowledge. They knew full well that there were differences they could not account for and 95% probably doesn't cover everything that is different. It's propaganda and politics, they tell people what they want to hear and that's all their is to it.

Biblical Pi

2 Chronicles 4:2
2</SPAN> He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits [a] high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

If these are not estimates, but true measurements, then the Bible got Pi wrong.

If you are upset about the initial estimate of 98% being wrong then you have some serious issues with the Bible too.

I'm not upset, I realize that they lied and why they lied. I was originally shocked that Nature lied until I started following up on some of the polymorphisms. I don't know for sure but I'm stating to think even the 95% number is low.

The PI thing is interesting but it's hardly conclusive, don't make a big deal out of it. The most respected scientific publication being off by 100 million nucleotide, now that's serious.

 

[laptoppop]

Regarding the "pi" issue -- we've already discussed it: http://www.christianforums.com/t3259383
Summary - there are two different possible explanations. The first resolves it to within 2", the second resolves it to within 15 thousandths of an inch.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisWildermuth http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=27998358#post27998358
[/size]

The 98% figure was out before the completion of either the human genome project or chimpanzee genome project. How are they not estimating that number if the projects that the official number would latter be based on was not even finished yet?

The 98% figure was wrong, the only question is how long they knew it and it is clear that they have known it since shortly after the Human Genome Project was completed.
Quote:
Come on, you could at least acknowledge that.

I don't know what exactly you think I should acknowledge. They knew full well that there were differences they could not account for and 95% probably doesn't cover everything that is different. It's propaganda and politics, they tell people what they want to hear and that's all their is to it.

So now it is an estimate, but you&#8217;ve tacked on a conspiracy theory, that somehow, the head of the genome project hid the information, to destroy Christianity... Oh wait, the head of the genome project is a Christian... Guess you&#8217;ll have to make up some other conspiracy theory.

Why do you insist on painting scientists as evil liars? Maybe the non scientists that were trying to use the Bible as a science book were mistaken and there is no conflict between spoken word that is creation and the Bible.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Regarding the "pi" issue -- we've already discussed it: http://www.christianforums.com/t3259383
Summary - there are two different possible explanations. The first resolves it to within 2", the second resolves it to within 15 thousandths of an inch.

So much talk, so little reason...

Is it so hard to admit that the early Hebrew did not have a clue about some things like Pi.

Why do you seem to want the early Hebrew people to have some kind of superhuman knowledge? Is this some kind of Atlantis complex where we feel that we must have come from some smart superhuman people to have any worth?

 

[laptoppop]

So much talk, so little reason...

Is it so hard to admit that the early Hebrew did not have a clue about some things like Pi.

Why do you seem to want the early Hebrew people to have some kind of superhuman knowledge? Is this some kind of Atlantis complex where we feel that we must have come from some smart superhuman people to have any worth?

Not at all. Just that the scriptures came to us from God through men - and He has all knowledge, including knowledge of the future and of reality. Prophecy has often been used by God to establish that these people were not just working on their own intellect and knowledge.

Is it so hard to admit that God can communicate with us?