ID is not science

[EnemyPartyII]

What observations have you made about evolution?

Comparative physionomy, comparative physiology, comparative genetics, comparative biochemistry, beavioural similarities, and a fossil record that strongly supports common ancestry

I haven't seen any in my backyard.

You should look closer. Ever act of predation or forage is a tiny contribution to evolutionary pressure...

Of course, the more obvious comment to make is that you probably havn't seen many examples of sub atomic physics, or marine biology in your back yard either, although this does not make them any less real as science goes.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

evloution is a hypothesis, that has been contradicted by evidence many times.

examples please?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The kalam argument is flawed. To claim it "proves" a supreme being is ridiculous.

I'm starting a thread on this. About time we had a good thread in Origins that wasn't 6dYEC vs. TE.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

And for the record, ID is not science. It doesn't claim to be science.

It's philosophy. Bad philosophy, based on the teleological argument for the existence of God (see St. Thomas, et al.), but philosophy nonetheless.

I would actually contend that the 'irreducible complexity' argument of Michael Behe has actually harmed the 'fine tuning' argument from Philip Johnson and others originally associated with the ID movement.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And for the record, ID is not science. It doesn't claim to be science.

Then why do ID advocates want it taught in science classrooms?

 

[lopez23]

Thats my main problem with ID and creation proponents. Alot of people want it taught to children as though it has a scientific basis, which completely undermines every scientific study ever done.

I have no problem if creationism or ID are taught in history class along with the belief systems of every other world culture. Teaching the creation myths of genesis would be a great thing to learn about in history class, but there is no science behind it and should be left out of science.

Trying to compare religious creation beliefs with science is basically leading people to a lesser understanding of science and religion. Its like the church saying the earth is the center of the universe, or that the world actually has 4 corners thereby implying its flat, because the bible says thats the case. We all should know these arent true because of science and simple observation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Neither is creationism. All ID and christian creationism say is that god can magically call things into existence whenever he feels like it. That is your premise in believing in creationism and ID. God snaps his metaphysical fingers and goes "poof" whenever he feels like it.

Now if god can do this why wasn't he slighlty more creative? I mean he has the power of the universe at his hand, yet can only come up with one basic set of instructions for all life on earth>>>DNA, RNA,proteins.

Why is all life on earth related? How come you can look at the dna of a chimpanzee and human and get a 98% correlation in base pairs?

Even ID advocates have said there is no scientific evidence supporting ID. Anyone able to find one single scientific study supporting ID? Anyone?

Every life form on earth is related. We are all the same.

Neither is philosophical Darwinism but the assumption of universal descent from a single common ancestor still manages to pass itself off as science. Intelligent design is natural theology and it was the prevailing view of the scientific world until fairly modern times. Now the prevailing view is atheistic materialism and the a priori naturalistic assumptions of secular humanism.

By the way, Chimpanzee and Human DNA is 95% the same at best. That represent something like 100 million base pairs the scientific communitte either doesn't know about or doesn't want to talk about. I'm inclined to think the latter is the case:

Among these, he found that 99.4 percent were identical in humans and chimps. He found a lower correspondence for bases that could be changed without affecting the amino acid, with 98.4 percent identical for chimps and humans and the same for the "junk" DNA outside coding regions. Goodman believes the differences are larger for non-coding DNA because their sequences are not biologically critical.

Chimps are human, gene study implies
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744​

Evolutionists are constantly saying this even though it has been empircally demonstrated that this simply is not the case.

The 2% Difference Now that scientists have decoded the chimpanzee genome, we know that 98 percent of our DNA is the same. So how can we be so different?

http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/chimp-genome/

Discover April 2006​

Not too supprising that a magazine would get such a critical stat wrong. Obvious propaganda but nonetheless a fairly typical error.

In accumulation, tiny genetic changes could help account for the vast differences between humans and chimpanzees, researchers report in the journal Nature. Researchers have found that less than 1.5 percent of the DNA found on chromosome 22 in humans differs from the DNA on the same chromosome in chimps. But those small genetic variations could help explain human evolution. NPR's Joe Palca reports.


(Chimp, Human DNA Maps Reveal Big Role of Tiny Changes, NPR Morning Edition May 27, 2004 )

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1912131​

The paper that they are talking about says:

Human–chimpanzee comparative genome research is essential for narrowing down genetic changes involved in the acquisition of unique human features, such as highly developed cognitive functions, bipedalism or the use of complex language. Here, we report the high-quality DNA sequence of 33.3 megabases of chimpanzee chromosome 22. By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. Furthermore, we demonstrate different expansion of particular subfamilies of retrotransposons between the lineages, suggesting different impacts of retrotranspositions on human and chimpanzee evolution. The genomic changes after speciation and their biological consequences seem more complex than originally hypothesized.

To understand the genetic basis of the unique features of humans, a number of pilot studies comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes have been conducted. Estimates of nucleotide substitution rates of aligned sequences range from 1.23% by bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequencing3 to about 2% by molecular analysis whereas the overall sequence difference was estimated to be approximately 5% by taking regions of insertions or deletions (indels) into account9. Chromosomal rearrangements including duplications, translocations and transpositions have also been identified. However, owing to technological limitations there is not an integrated picture of the dynamic changes of the genome, thus a gold standard is required to evaluate the overall consequence of these genetic changes on human evolution(DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22, Nature 27 May 2004)​

It says right at the top of the article that it's a 5% divergence but in the program they say less then 1.5%. That's what I love about being able to read the actual article, they can't lie about it there.

Type Chimpanzee Genome into your Google search engine and this is at the top of the list:

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.

Nature, Web Focus The chimpanzee genome

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

The article they are announcing found 35 million base pairs (Mb) from single base pair substitutions, 90 Mb from indels and 20 Mb from 9 major chromosomal rearrangements from 2 Mb to 4 Mb in length. That comes to well over 5% and yet in the announcement they say the DNA is 98% the same and they know it's not, that or they never read the article which seems unlikely.

 

[Deamiter]

Interestingly, it's not a grand conspiracy -- the New Scientist makes it clear it's talking about coding sections and clearly states that non-coding regions have higher divergence:

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit...

His correlations are much higher than the 95 per cent similarity reported in 2002 by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology. Goodman does not disagree with those results, he told New Scientist, but points out that the differences analysed by Britten are not important to gene function because 98 percent of the DNA did not code for proteins.

the nature page says elsewhere:

Chimps are almost identical to us, genetically speaking. But perhaps not quite as similar as we thought. It is often said that the two species are 98.5% the same, in terms of single-letter changes in the DNA code. But mapping of the chimpanzee genome shows there are further differences in how DNA chunks are duplicated and rearranged. These differences cause our genome sequences to diverge by 2.7%, while single-letter substitutions add about another 1% of difference.

Interestingly enough, while comparing our genomes bp by bp, 98% of our genome IS shared with chimps... making both statements accurate.

Selectively quoting these sources might make it LOOK like scientists are trying to cover something up, but reading closely for comprehension tells a different story. There are simply different numbers based on what regions you're looking at (coding vs. non-coding) and what types of mutations you're looking at (point mutations are much more useful for attempts to quantify divergence since indels can be thousands of bp long).

 

[mark kennedy]

Interestingly, it's not a grand conspiracy -- the New Scientist makes it clear it's talking about coding sections and clearly states that non-coding regions have higher divergence:



the nature page says elsewhere:

Interestingly enough, while comparing our genomes bp by bp, 98% of our genome IS shared with chimps... making both statements accurate.

That is simply not true, the comparison of base pair to base pair indicates 1.23% due to single base pair differences and 3 to 4% based on indels:

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; this confirms and extends several recent studies. Of course, the number of indel events is far fewer than the number of substitution events ( 5 million compared with 35 million, respectively). (Initial sequence of the Chimpanzee genome, Nature 2005)

That is between 4% and 5% and that isn't counting the chromosomal rearrangements, one as long as 4 million base pairs, which is another 20 million bases just for the big ones. The DNA is not 98% the same and all you would have to do is read the paper to realize that.

Selectively quoting these sources might make it LOOK like scientists are trying to cover something up, but reading closely for comprehension tells a different story. There are simply different numbers based on what regions you're looking at (coding vs. non-coding) and what types of mutations you're looking at (point mutations are much more useful for attempts to quantify divergence since indels can be thousands of bp long).

They clearly said when announcing the Chimpanzee Genome paper that the DNA was 98% the same. When looking at the actual paper it says 1.23% plus 3% which means the DNA would be less then 96% the same. All the real world scientific research is coming up with around 95% but all the press articles are saying 98% to 99%. These are not even mutations, all they are, are comparisons of nucleotide sequences. The indels are not factored into the percentage because they are higher then the single base pair differences.

The point being that they are real world differences and Nature magazine knows this. Do you want to know what the differences really means.

Say someone is spending money in your department and only counting the expenses that cost him 1$ apiece. When you look at the actual books instead of 35 dollars being gone there are actually 125$ gone. When asked why he said 35$ he says I only counted the single dollar expenses.

Like I say, they either didn't read the paper or they deliberately lied about the how much of the DNA is different. I really don't see a third option when what they are saying in the announcement is directly contradicted in the paper.

You do the math, there are 3 billion base pairs in the respective genomes. There are between 125 million base pairs that are completely different, more like 145 when you factor in large scale rearrangements. That is not 98% the same is it?

 

[Deamiter]

Like I say, they either didn't read the paper or they deliberately lied about the how much of the DNA is different. I really don't see a third option when what they are saying in the announcement is directly contradicted in the paper.

You don't think discussing the highly important coding regions that have a much higher similarity counts as a third option?

 

[mark kennedy]

You don't think discussing the highly important coding regions that have a much higher similarity counts as a third option?

Point mutation rates in exons (synonymous sites) and noncoding (introns and intergenic) regions are generally assumed to be the same. However, comparative sequence analyses of synonymous substitutions in exons (81 genes) and that of long intergenic fragments (141.3 kbp) of human and chimpanzee genomes reveal a 30%-60% higher mutation rate in exons than in noncoding DNA. We propose a differential CpG content hypothesis to explain this fundamental, and seemingly unintuitive, pattern.​

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12727904&dopt=Abstract

The mutation rate is supposd to be the same but there is a 30%-60% higher mutation rate in exons than in noncoding DNA. Hmmmmmmm

I do comparisons every chance I get and the fact is that they say 98% the same in the DNA, which is not true. They told us for half a century that we were 98% to 99% the same. Now they are finding out that most of the genes have differences at an amino acid sequence level, particularly in the genes involved in brain development.

You know what really convinced me this was a load of baloney, they same thing that convinced me that the fossil record is jacked up. We have thousands of ancestoral fossils from Asia and Africa from 2 million years ago and the chimpanzee and gorilla have none. We are being told we are 98% the same in our DNA, they know it's more like 95% and the clincher is...evolutionists have no problem with it.

If it's so readily explained then why would they lie? It's not measuring up with the mutation rate for any living thing, except for measles.

 

[gluadys]

It says right at the top of the article that it's a 5% divergence but in the program they say less then 1.5%. That's what I love about being able to read the actual article, they can't lie about it there.

Do you ever really read the context of the figures you like to throw around. There is no contradiction here when you do. The 1.5% difference is in reference to only one chromosome, not all human/chimp DNA.

Researchers have found that less than 1.5 percent of the DNA found on chromosome 22 in humans differs from the DNA on the same chromosome in chimps.​

they never read the article which seems unlikely.

I wonder if you ever read the words around the numbers.

The mutation rate is supposd to be the same but there is a 30%-60% higher mutation rate in exons than in noncoding DNA. Hmmmmmmm

But does this rate occur in the critical DNA sites studied by Morris Goodman? Or is it spread over a larger sample?

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes.​

You cannot claim a contradiction in the numbers when you are comparing apples and oranges. Show that the two numbers you say are in conflict are actually reporting on the same DNA.

 

[Deamiter]

From March 2007 Scientific American, "Not as chimpy: Factoring in the number of gene duplicates (the gene copy number) and not just the difference in equivalent genes, humans and chimps only have a 94 percent genetic similarity.

Some vast conspiracy this is...

Quite honestly, the issue's moot -- it's not as if 98% is possible given known mutation rates but 94% is not. As Mark keeps pointing out, the vast majority of the extra 3-4% is in multi-base pair mutations that can span thousands or millions of base pairs.

We've agreed repeatedly that many of these public resources could be clearer about what they're actually comparing -- but they're hardly lying when they cite research that compares something specific like the difference on a single chromosome (22 really does differ between humans and chimps by less than 1.6%).

It's almost comical that even as Mark claims Nature.com is lying to you because the main page says 98%, if you surf to the main chimp genome page, you see 95% with different units... Since the average reader has absolutely no clue whether 98%, 95% or 25% similarity can be accounted for by mutations in the time since our common ancestor, it's not as if the number actually means anything to the intended audience except "our genome is really similar." A scientist really concerned about exact numbers and units would look to the journal articles and wouldn't have any trouble at all figuring out how many of what mutation have been found in which locations.

It's all a lot like trying to discredit the Bible because it says a the number of fighting men in Israel was 800,000 in 2 Sam 24:9, but 1,100,000 in 1 Chron 21:5.

Since 1 Chron talk about "all the people" and 2 Samuel doesn't, the units could be different with 2 Samuel talking about the existing army only...

Of course a better answer might be that after passing on the story for hundreds of years before writing it down, the numbers were simply changed in the telling and retelling, but that wouldn't make my point about how units are just as important as numbers.

 

[shernren]

You know what really convinced me this was a load of baloney, they same thing that convinced me that the fossil record is jacked up. We have thousands of ancestoral fossils from Asia and Africa from 2 million years ago and the chimpanzee and gorilla have none.

I've called you on this before and you've never given me a substantive answer.

1. We do know what gorilla fossils look like: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gorilla.html

2. We do indeed have chimpanzee fossils:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7917

3. There are good reasons for us to have far less chimpanzee fossils than early human fossils:

Unlike our human ancestors, whose fossil remains are relatively plentiful, chimps have always been conspicuously absent from the fossil record. Many experts doubted such specimens could exist because most chimps live in the rain forests of West and central Africa where acidic soil and high rainfall levels hamper fossil preservation.
Early humans, on the other hand, lived in areas more arid areas conducive to fossil preservation but relatively hostile to chimp survival, such as the East Africa Rift Valley. “It’s the last place you’d expect to find chimps,” says anthropologist Jay Kelley of the University of Illinois at Chicago, US.

4. If you are convinced that there are many hominid fossils that could be better re-classified as chimpanzee and/or gorilla fossils, then go ahead and pick any one you think is most convincingly a chimpanzee or gorilla. As you have seen above, there indeed is a great absence of chimpanzee fossils - but contrary to your conspiratorial thinking scientists are willing to accept chimp fossils wherever there is good evidence for them. If, as you claim, there are thousands of chimp fossils languishing in museums marked as Homo XXX, then there's definitely a Nobel prize in it for the genius who can show that they are chimps - so go ahead!

Until you can show us that you have strong grounds for such re-classification, stop blowing hot air.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you ever really read the context of the figures you like to throw around. There is no contradiction here when you do. The 1.5% difference is in reference to only one chromosome, not all human/chimp DNA.

Researchers have found that less than 1.5 percent of the DNA found on chromosome 22 in humans differs from the DNA on the same chromosome in chimps.​

NPR says:

"tiny genetic changes could help account for the vast differences between humans and chimpanzees, researchers report in the journal Nature. Researchers have found that less than 1.5 percent of the DNA found on chromosome 22 in humans differs from the DNA on the same chromosome in chimps. But those small genetic variations could help explain human evolution. NPR's Joe Palca reports.(Chimp, Human DNA Maps Reveal Big Role of Tiny Changes, NPR Morning Edition May 27, 2004 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1912131

The Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium said:

Estimates of nucleotide substitution rates of aligned sequences range from 1.23% by bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequencing3 to about 2% by molecular analysis whereas the overall sequence difference was estimated to be approximately 5% by taking regions of insertions or deletions (indels) into account. (DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22, Nature 27 May 2004)

Nature Web Focus said:

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. (Nature, Web Focus The chimpanzee genome http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/chimpgenome/index.html )

Chimpanzee Genome Consortium said:

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; this confirms and extends several recent studies. Of course, the number of indel events is far fewer than the number of substitution events ( 5 million compared with 35 million, respectively).

I wonder if you ever read the words around the numbers.

I sometimes wonder if you understand a word of it.

But does this rate occur in the critical DNA sites studied by Morris Goodman? Or is it spread over a larger sample?

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes.​

You cannot claim a contradiction in the numbers when you are comparing apples and oranges. Show that the two numbers you say are in conflict are actually reporting on the same DNA.

I showed you this direct contradiction on more then one occasion. The fact that evolutionists simply don't want to talk about the actual differences is telling me something.

 

[mark kennedy]

From March 2007 Scientific American, "Not as chimpy: Factoring in the number of gene duplicates (the gene copy number) and not just the difference in equivalent genes, humans and chimps only have a 94 percent genetic similarity.

Some vast conspiracy this is...

Not a vast conspiracy, just a grossly wrong estimate with a single point to be made. If the similarity (homology argument) is persuasive then the inverse logic is intuitivly
obvious.

Quite honestly, the issue's moot -- it's not as if 98% is possible given known mutation rates but 94% is not. As Mark keeps pointing out, the vast majority of the extra 3-4% is in multi-base pair mutations that can span thousands or millions of base pairs.

I'm not so sure, the 98% measured up to the mutation rate pretty well, they just didn't count on all those indels. You don't know what the difference is between 35 and 125?

We've agreed repeatedly that many of these public resources could be clearer about what they're actually comparing -- but they're hardly lying when they cite research that compares something specific like the difference on a single chromosome (22 really does differ between humans and chimps by less than 1.6%).

Estimates of nucleotide substitution rates of aligned sequences range from 1.23% by bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequencing3 to about 2% by molecular analysis, whereas the overall sequence difference was estimated to be approximately 5% by taking regions of insertions or deletions (indels) into account (DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22, The International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium, Nature 27 May 2004)

No matter how many times you say that it wont make it true.

It's almost comical that even as Mark claims Nature.com is lying to you because the main page says 98%, if you surf to the main chimp genome page, you see 95% with different units... Since the average reader has absolutely no clue whether 98%, 95% or 25% similarity can be accounted for by mutations in the time since our common ancestor, it's not as if the number actually means anything to the intended audience except "our genome is really similar." A scientist really concerned about exact numbers and units would look to the journal articles and wouldn't have any trouble at all figuring out how many of what mutation have been found in which locations.

They know how much of the DNA is the same and they give a ball park percentage that is off by nearly 100 million base pairs. Mutations don't account for anything, the only way we evolved from apes is if there was a dramatic overhaul of highly conserved genes. Random mutations is such a ridiculously impossible scenario that they must know how unlikely it is.

It's all a lot like trying to discredit the Bible because it says a the number of fighting men in Israel was 800,000 in 2 Sam 24:9, but 1,100,000 in 1 Chron 21:5.

It's not like a vital material fact regarding essential doctrine is effected. With the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism this is a material fact and damages their theory of random mutations plus natural selection. This theory has in fact been abandoned.

Since 1 Chron talk about "all the people" and 2 Samuel doesn't, the units could be different with 2 Samuel talking about the existing army only...

Of course a better answer might be that after passing on the story for hundreds of years before writing it down, the numbers were simply changed in the telling and retelling, but that wouldn't make my point about how units are just as important as numbers.

Nothing vital or precise is being reported in you anecdotal OT references. It's not the same thing and I noticed a couple of things in you post that caught my attention.

First you address me in the third person.
Second you are spinning the high similarity angle while pooh poohing it's significance.
Then finally you make a half hearted point about imprecise counts from thousands of years ago.

Was there a scientific argument in there because I totally missed that part.

 

[mark kennedy]

I've called you on this before and you've never given me a substantive answer.

1. We do know what gorilla fossils look like: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gorilla.html

Great, a big gorilla that could not pass for a human ancestor except that the cranial capacity is the same, or slightly larger then the Homo habilis specimens.

2. We do indeed have chimpanzee fossils:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7917

Oh wow! Three whole teeth and a possible fourth, I had no idea...

3. There are good reasons for us to have far less chimpanzee fossils than early human fossils:

Unlike our human ancestors, whose fossil remains are relatively plentiful, chimps have always been conspicuously absent from the fossil record. Many experts doubted such specimens could exist because most chimps live in the rain forests of West and central Africa where acidic soil and high rainfall levels hamper fossil preservation.
Early humans, on the other hand, lived in areas more arid areas conducive to fossil preservation but relatively hostile to chimp survival, such as the East Africa Rift Valley. “It’s the last place you’d expect to find chimps,” says anthropologist Jay Kelley of the University of Illinois at Chicago, US.

4. If you are convinced that there are many hominid fossils that could be better re-classified as chimpanzee and/or gorilla fossils, then go ahead and pick any one you think is most convincingly a chimpanzee or gorilla. As you have seen above, there indeed is a great absence of chimpanzee fossils - but contrary to your conspiratorial thinking scientists are willing to accept chimp fossils wherever there is good evidence for them. If, as you claim, there are thousands of chimp fossils languishing in museums marked as Homo XXX, then there's definitely a Nobel prize in it for the genius who can show that they are chimps - so go ahead!

Human and chimpanzee ancestors were contemporaries during the time of Homo habilis, they lived in south-central Africa. You can have a giant gorilla hanging out with the famous handy man populations but they don't hang out with chimpanzees.

You want a Nobel prize for science then find a genetic mechanism that can expand the size, weight and complexity of a primate brain. That would be Nobel worthy because you would be the first to propose one, let alone prove it.

Until you can show us that you have strong grounds for such re-classification, stop blowing hot air.

Got a newsflash for you buddy, Homo habilis is a chimp with a cranial capacity that is bigger then the modern chimp, just like the gorilla is smaller then it's ancestor.

 

[Deamiter]

They know how much of the DNA is the same and they give a ball park percentage that is off by nearly 100 million base pairs. Mutations don't account for anything, the only way we evolved from apes is if there was a dramatic overhaul of highly conserved genes. Random mutations is such a ridiculously impossible scenario that they must know how unlikely it is.

Wait, mutations don't account for everything? Is there a single difference (just one now) between the genomes that could not be accounted for by a mtation? You're claiming such a thing is impossible without even attempting to show anything of the sort.

Yes, apparently the people who write summaries of the journals don't always check or understand the units. No, 95% is not impossible via mutations (especially given that there is an order of magnitude fewer mutations that account for that 3%)

It's not like a vital material fact regarding essential doctrine is effected. With the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism this is a material fact and damages their theory of random mutations plus natural selection. This theory has in fact been abandoned.

Well it's an important fact, but to say it damages evolution (what the heck is Darwinism anyway?) you'd have to show that the number of mutations (the number of base pairs don't really matter since millions can be changed in one mutation) would be a problem.

You say the theory has been abandoned... well if you're talking about Darwinism, I'm not sure anybody ever claimed to support it (or even define it) in scientific circles. If you're talking about evolution, it's clear that YOU have abandoned it, but then again, as long as I've known you on these boards you've never accepted evolution so I'm not sure you ever abandoned it either.

 

[Mallon]

You want a Nobel prize for science then find a genetic mechanism that can expand the size, weight and complexity of a primate brain.

Once again, I find it astounding that mark should have such a difficult time accepting the transition in brain size from basal hominids to humans when there is no unexplainable gap in cranial capacity in the fossil record.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, I fail to see why this particular issue should be such a sticking point for mark, when he clearly accepts radical and unexplainable 'hyperevolution' of all "kinds" aboard Noah's ark within a span of just 6,000 years (contrasted with several million years for hominid brain evolution). Why is it easy to believe that an animal the size of a cat grew to horse-sized proportions in just 6,000 years, but hominid cranial capacity could not double in size within a few million years? I sense a double-standard, here. I've raised this point with you before, mark, but never got a reply.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Random mutations is such a ridiculously impossible scenario that they must know how unlikely it is.

Not that random mutations is really an accurate reflection of what the theory of evolution is all about, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your story