Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[Larniavc]

No. The bits that you make up that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, we reject.

E.g.

Hold on, is that an actual photo? But surely that means evolution is really real (for reals, this time).

Who knew that Kirk Cameron (who let’s face is about as close to God’s right hand as anyone) was right all along.

 

[Brightmoon]

Surely the lie is to start with Nature rather than with God. Who after all is the basis of all reality.

Creationists have no issue with useful science. Macroevolutionary theory and Abiogenetic theory are deceptions in the hands of many evolutionists because they imply to these theories a certainty that does not exist for them and label scientific what cannot be demonstrated with the scientific method in repeatable peer reviewed experiments.

Also Evolutionary theory is pretty much irrelevant to the useful work done by science over the last few centuries in the areas of industrial production and product development, in medicine, in construction, communications, space flight and indeed military technologies.

You know what you said was nonsense, right?

Medicine ? Modern Medicine wasn’t possible without common descent

vaccines- polio ,eradication of version 2 and smallpox by originally using a mutated live virus. Smallpox also has a macroevolutionary component because we eventually used cowpox to vaccinate against smallpox.

Organ transplants and prosthesis development - they use animals to perfect the surgical techniques and they used to use some organs in humans . Xenotransplantation, organ transplants, and
prothesis development only possible because we understood that we shared a close kinship with other animals .

Antibiotics used in medicine because we understood that we shared that close kinship with fungi, plants and bacteria. Penicillin is named after the fungus it originally came from
I could go on but I’ll stop here

 

[sfs]

Because most of mutations replace cytosyne / guanine into thymine and if we are thousands of years old our DNA would be containing mostly thymine

Please show your calculations. What is the rate of mutations to T? What is the rate from T?

Also there are spots which try to back off the mutation in our genes which means it was better before mutation occured that's impossible according to theory of evolution .

I'm not sure what this means. Why would deleterious mutations be impossible according to the theory of evolution?

 

[Brightmoon]

abiogenesis is not evolution.

Having said that, there is current genetic research that states that the last universal common ancestor LUCA was a Unicellular thermophilic anaerobe

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hair keeps people warm in cold and allows people to carry more parasites. Because humans have lived all over the earth including very warm climates where hair would be no advantage and very cold climates where they could make clothes to protect them from the cold the value of hair is less evident for temperature control. It is an advantage to have less hair from the point of view of lice, parasites etc.

Biologically speaking, humans are just as hairy as other apes, in terms of the number of hairs (hair follicles) per area of skin. The difference is that human hair is mostly very short and fine. Two reasons this hair has been retained are that, contrary to what you suggest, it helps reduce the biting of bugs, and it improves the detection of bugs on the skin, compared to hairlessness. See The Not-So Naked Ape.

 

[Wet Squirrel]

Please show your calculations. What is the rate of mutations to T? What is the rate from T?

I'm not sure what this means. Why would deleterious mutations be impossible according to the theory of evolution?

 

[sfs]

This does not really constitute predictions.

Sure it does. Before we compared the human and chimpanzee genomes, I could tell you what we would find. The English word for that is "prediction". And the prediction was correct. Your problem is that I can make predictions and you can't, so you want to dismiss them.

Based on an understanding of Chimp and Human DNA as they are you then "predict" that the ti/tv ratio is 2.1.

No. Based on common descent of humans and chimpanzees, I could predict how human and chimp DNA would differ. Based on special creation, you can't make a prediction.

Based on common descent, I can predict how chimp and bonobo DNA will differ. Based on special creation, you can't make a prediction.

Based on common descent, I can predict how macaque and baboon DNA will differ. Based on special creation, you can't make a prediction.

Based on common descent, I can predict how gorilla and orangutan DNA will differ. Based on special creation, you can't make a prediction.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Why is it that I can make predictions about DNA I've never seen and you can't?

Claiming to understand something you cannot duplicate is the falsity of modern biological science. A theory explains something when it can identify the causation to make this thing occur so that is can be duplicated.

Um, right. You were appointed to be the arbiter of what constitutes a scientific theory when, exactly? We, the actual scientists getting paid to do science by science departments and science funders and to publish it in scientific journals, we think evolution is science. You don't. Whose opinion should carry more weight, do you think?

 

[sfs]

No, don't link to a 35 minute video -- unless you're paying me, I'm not going to spend 35 minutes watching a video. Present the numbers. What's the mutation rate to T? What's the rate from T? You have to know these basic facts in order to make your claim, so what are they?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ptolemy made accurate predictions about star and planet movement and still worked with a faulty model.

It wasn't really faulty - there's nothing intrinsically wrong with picking a geocentric viewpoint, and epicycles are a very effective solution - but a heliocentric model is just far simpler to work with.

 

[Brightmoon]

No, don't link to a 35 minute video -- unless you're paying me...

I like your attitude. I was going to spend 35 minutes watching that and exercising my eyes ( eyerolls) but I changed my mind

Even Darwin predicted that we’d find “ape men” fossils and they didn’t find most of them until after Darwin had died

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I had a quick look at this. There is a claim that he is 'Jerry Bergman PhD'. However, it appears that his so-called 'PhD' is from a non-accredited correspondence college. To my eyes, that makes him a fraud for claiming that he has a PhD when he does not.

Then he starts off by defining evolution as 'From the goo to you by way of the zoo' and asking his audience to repeat it. So, he is engaging in the creationist pastime of coming up with ridiculous paraphrases of ToE instead of addressing the actual ToE.

At about 8 minutes in he starts talking about the probabilities of different base substitutions as mentioned here. And, Mr Bergman's analysis is no better than Wet Squirrels. He seemingly has no understanding (or pretends to not) that the filtering of the survival of the fittest means that the larger proportion of mutations to T do not mean in any way that the number of Ts in the genome of an evolving species will increase.

So, there's no need to watch the youtube video. It's no better than Wet Squirrel's post.

 

[Brightmoon]

Typical of creationist science info . Mistakes, Misrepresentation and missing info which is why I said I was going to exercise my eyes.

 

[Brightmoon]

It wasn't really faulty - there's nothing intrinsically wrong with picking a geocentric viewpoint, and epicycles are a very effective solution - but a heliocentric model is just far simpler to work with.

Geocentric models with Epicycles work as far as locating a planet. But once you add gravity into the mix then you’re in trouble . It is a flawed model which works pretty well as a sort of a locator map. That’s science. Once we learn better, we do better

 

[pitabread]

No, don't link to a 35 minute video -- unless you're paying me, I'm not going to spend 35 minutes watching a video. Present the numbers. What's the mutation rate to T? What's the rate from T? You have to know these basic facts in order to make your claim, so what are they?

At the 7:40 mark he claims that a "study" (no reference given) found that conversion to thymine represent 58% of all point mutations. Therefore he interprets this as meaning that mutations will eventually lead to genomes full of nothing but thymine.

 

[Brightmoon]

Again that’s supposing that natural selection wouldn’t prevent that ( honestly I think that a thymine organism is silly)

 

[AnotherAtheist]

At the 7:40 mark he claims that a "study" (no reference given) found that conversion to thymine represent 58% of all point mutations. Therefore he interprets this as meaning that mutations will eventually lead to genomes full of nothing but thymine.

Yep. Once again a creationist strawman version of the ToE without survival of the fittest.

 

[pitabread]

Found a better source of the thymine claim. It's part of a True Origins article that Begman wrote: - Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome -- TrueOrigin Archive

In it he claims this:

Studies of bias revealed that nucleotide mutation tended to go one way more frequently than the other (Freeman and Herron, 2001). Eyre-Walker (2002, p. 178) found that “there are many more GC —> AT than AT —> GC mutations, particularly in genes with high GC3” content. If this bias occurs even to a small extent, mutations would produce more and more thymines until eventually thymies[sic] would dominate the genome.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've been away for a few days since I had to attend the wedding of one of my cousins up in Scotland and I didn't take my laptop with me, so I was without the internet for a three day weekend.

I'll be honest: I didn't miss anything serious since no-one has been able to answer my question.

 

[sfs]

At the 7:40 mark he claims that a "study" (no reference given) found that conversion to thymine represent 58% of all point mutations. Therefore he interprets this as meaning that mutations will eventually lead to genomes full of nothing but thymine.

Thanks. This argument is pretty silly. G/C does indeed mutate to A/T more rapidly than A/T mutates to G/C, but the result isn't that the whole genome turns into A/T. Rather, the A/T composition of the genome increases until the total rate in the two directions is the same. I.e., each G/C has a greater chance of mutating, but there are more A/T basepairs, so the whole thing is in equilibrium. Now the human genome isn't actually in equilibrium, since transposons keep replicating, increasing the G/C content, but it's not that far off, at an A/T fraction of about 60%.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Geocentric models with Epicycles work as far as locating a planet. But once you add gravity into the mix then you’re in trouble . It is a flawed model which works pretty well as a sort of a locator map. That’s science. Once we learn better, we do better

Sure - my point was that, it wasn't flawed for its purpose (predicting the orbits of the planets, etc); as I understand it, it was actually better than Copernican heliocentrism in that it could model elliptical orbits, but for the observational data of the time it was computationally equivalent, if more laborious.