I've just read the first few pages of that thread. It's not just that he makes the same refuted arguments in this thread that he made in that one, but the words are identical. It's an unthinking cut and paste as though that thread and the complete demolition of his ideas there had never happened. People like Kent Hovind do that over and over and over again. Same MO.
Okay. Now I would like you to please think about this with your truest honesty and objectivity. Here we have a real section of the compared genomes after being fed through one of the Algorithms intelligently designed to find areas of similarity. I am sure you are aware of the GIGO principle.
The programmers (already taught and convinced of the idea that humans ARE apes), designed a program that would ignore the obvious dissimilarity and focus on, in fact select, those areas where the sequence appears to be the same. However it is an unintentional deception and I will show you.
The top line represents humans and the bottom apes. When the algorithms are applied, we can see that in some places they do not match and in others unnatural spaces are created. The spaces do not exist in reality (the actual data). Aside from the more obvious G A difference, after the following AGTC section if we take away all the intelligently contrived spaces the two genomes remain dissimilar for the remaining over 2 billion sequences of base pairs.
Hence in reality, the two genomes are actually almost totally different if we just compare the two as they naturally occur making these two different kinds of creatures. As for containing similar sequences so what. We can find many of these in other creatures as well, and even in some fruits.
In truth we have:
Humans: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC
Apes: AGTCATACCAGTCTACCG
Once again I will remind you that we KNOW that even a change or mutation of a few base pairs can cause incredible changes in form or function and mostly (if occurring within the same creature) can and often does cause horrific medical deformities and conditions (like from particular mental deficiencies, to cystic fibrosis or sickle cell, and so on).
Now in truth, at least in chimps, we see many “shared genes.” But what you are not taught is revealed in some of the studies I already referenced.
a) Many of these genes contain very different sequences in the two creatures (some are larger and some are smaller).
b) Some pf those that are exact have a totally different function and purpose (same gene functions differently). In other words same genes different effects.
c) Many products (particular proteins coded for) are produced from entirely different genes in each creature. In other words same effect from different genes.
Hello Jimmy.
I looked up two of the so called, 'templates', you provided as links above.
If you check the underlined phrase in two of these templates provided below, we seem to be extrapolating to the extreme.
Kenyanthropus platyops (Fossils)
This species was named in 2001 from a partial skull found in Kenya with an unusual mixture of features (Leakey et al. 2001). It is aged about 3.5 million years old. The size of the skull is similar to A. afarensis and A. africanus, and has a large, flat face and small teeth.
Australopithecus garhi (Fossils)
This species was named in April 1999 (Asfaw et al. 1999). It is known from a partial skull. The skull differs from previous australopithecine species in the combination of its features, notably the extremely large size of its teeth, especially the rear ones, and a primitive skull morphology. Some nearby skeletal remains may belong to the same species. They show a humanlike ratio of the humerus and femur, but an apelike ratio of the lower and upper arm. (Groves 1999; Culotta 1999)
I would not speculate on the basis of a partial skull.
not according to those scientists:
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
"By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say."
This does not really constitute predictions. Based on an understanding of Chimp and Human DNA as they are you then "predict" that the ti/tv ratio is 2.1. But a real prediction is when you say that something that is not there now will emerge.
Also transitions and transversions mean that there are differences between chimp and human DNA which is my point really. 40 millions mutational differences are the difference between monkeys playing with sticks and grunting at each other and a space programme.
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. I know someone who can do this is my position and the evidence while pointing to his handiwork is not something that can be systematised by scientists who claim they can explain something which they cannot do.
Because most of mutations replace cytosyne / guanine into thymine and if we are thousands of years old our DNA would be containing mostly thymine .
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 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.
sure. here are 2 cases:
Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)
"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade. Indeed, some recent palaeontological and molecular studies of squamate divergence dates have not mentioned Tikiguania, presumably because of its problematic nature"
so lets ignore a fossil that doesnt fit with evolution.
or:
Protoavis - Wikipedia
" Though it existed far earlier than Archaeopteryx, its skeletal structure is allegedly more bird-like."
doesnt fit with evolution? fine. lets call it "convergent evolution" or "anomaly". but evolution is science, right?
like those once?:
(image from Biological Rotary Motor : Intelligently Designed Apparel and Merchandise)
(image fromhttp://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/atpgradient/first.htm)
so if we will find a ferarri with a broken mirror we cant conclude design because of the broken mirror?
its like asking why, because some cars are designed you think they all must be?
Indeed it is quite common for individual species to be able to hybridise and even produce viable offspring
And gibbons form four genera with different chromsome counts and there are no reports of fertile hybrids between genera. So in just these two families, even if we accept that some hybridisation can occur with viable fertile offspring, then you have a lot more than two "kinds".
And in any case, it's astronomically unlikely that even in a case of two taxa, say humans and chimps, that the same gene will be independently broken in the same way with an identical set of accumulated mutations.
Great - if that's the way you want to go, humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans are a family, so they must all be one kind.thanks. so a better classification of the original creation "kind" is more similar to the family level rather than the species one.
But they are not identical.since we have seen that micro bat and marmoset shared about 6 exon loss without a common descent this is incorrect.hecd2 said:And in any case, it's astronomically unlikely that even in a case of two taxa, say humans and chimps, that the same gene will be independently broken in the same way with an identical set of accumulated mutations.
Chimps are twice as small and their muscles are smaller as well, yet they are about three times stronger. Some of this had to do with where ape genetic plan causes the muscles to be attached (as opposed to the genetic plans for a human).
Now though I am sure he believes in the re-grouping of the two groups into one (now called hominidae) he cannot deny these biological differences.
For example one of the factors may be due to their muscle fibers biologically being more dense.
Other biological discrepancies exist in our biochemistry.
So even on this biochemical level we are distinct.
There are also apparently stark noticeable differences in thyroid metabolism between humans (in all their varieties) and the great Apes (in all their varieties). So biologically, humans are not part of the great apes!
We are two different groups, and will never be, and were never, and thus are not, the same.
See above.Could have been the same in a common ancestor? Fine show me. One could have resulted from mutation? Fine did the ape mutate from the human or the human from the ape? Show me.
What would cause either entire group (each with their unique varieties) to lose an oxygen atom in this significant molecule, or gain one? In my opinion, the genetic plan in each unique creature’s DNA is already distinct at conception.
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?