Incredible - a single cell

[nolidad]

If you’re going to list verifiable facts then these that you listed , are not them.1 Lucy or rather her species Australopithecus afarensis is most likely the ancestor of genus Homo . That the Australopithecines are the ancestors of genus Homo is a fact.
2 There is a 97-99% genetic similarity between the other great apes and humans . I do know where yo got that 80% from and that guy deliberately used an incorrect procedure to get that number.
3 Not a single person has come up with a way to categorize design so that last statement is meaningless .
4 chimps do use human blood when they need operations . They do have to match ABO type and Rh factors .
5 Mischaracterizing modern developmental biology as a long discredited 19th century theory is a mistake on your part not the scientific community’s . It’s called beating a dead horse
You’ve actually showed that you read a lot of creationist disinformation not that you’ve disproved common descent.

1. Even believers in evolutionism debate whether Lucy is the branching between apes and man. We have a choice whom to follow. It used to be the Leakeyites and Johannsonites, today, I do not know what the divide is called amongst evolutionists.

2. If you do not know where I got that 80% from, how do you know deliberately used an incorrect procedure? Actually he counted far longer base pairs and not just in areas where there was a genetic similarity- but when all was said and done- man and ape are between 75 and 80% similar. Your numbers are old news using poor quality techniques.

3. should I list a few dozen evolutionary websites that talk about similarity in form and structure and ability? I intentionally did not use the word design because they hate that word because it impliea a designer and most scientists reject that!

4. Well I could not find any literature through 9 pages on a google search that confirms this. But I did find that pig blood is far better transfusable to man than ape blood is!

5. Well just because evolutionsts say Creation science research is disinformation does not make it wrong! It just means you are indoctrinated into your philosophy. And sorry, but evolutionists themselves keep bringing up Haekle. Not me! They keep saying that embryos undergo a superficial hisotry of evolution. They still even use some of Heakles drawings!

I challenge you to take one article from a recent acts and facts from ICR and disprove it using the scientific method! I won't hold my breath.

remember common descent is by inference due to morphological grounds.

But here are a few articles ICR reports on citing secular research!~

This first one is my favorite- it absolutely and empirically destroys that 98.5% similarity!

DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

Australopithecus Was a Well-Adapted Tree Climber

 

[Brightmoon]

1. Even believers in evolutionism debate whether Lucy is the branching between apes and man. We have a choice whom to follow. It used to be the Leakeyites and Johannsonites, today, I do not know what the divide is called amongst evolutionists.

2. If you do not know where I got that 80% from, how do you know deliberately used an incorrect procedure? Actually he counted far longer base pairs and not just in areas where there was a genetic similarity- but when all was said and done- man and ape are between 75 and 80% similar. Your numbers are old news using poor quality techniques.

3. should I list a few dozen evolutionary websites that talk about similarity in form and structure and ability? I intentionally did not use the word design because they hate that word because it impliea a designer and most scientists reject that!

4. Well I could not find any literature through 9 pages on a google search that confirms this. But I did find that pig blood is far better transfusable to man than ape blood is!

5. Well just because evolutionsts say Creation science research is disinformation does not make it wrong! It just means you are indoctrinated into your philosophy. And sorry, but evolutionists themselves keep bringing up Haekle. Not me! They keep saying that embryos undergo a superficial hisotry of evolution. They still even use some of Heakles drawings!

I challenge you to take one article from a recent acts and facts from ICR and disprove it using the scientific method! I won't hold my breath.

remember common descent is by inference due to morphological grounds.

But here are a few articles ICR reports on citing secular research!~

This first one is my favorite- it absolutely and empirically destroys that 98.5% similarity!

DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

Australopithecus Was a Well-Adapted Tree Climber

. i NEVER use ICR for anything other than to laugh at it . I’ve seen their pseudoscience nonsense essays for about 30 years now and they are a complete and utter waste of time if you actually understand how much of a con job they put you through.

 

[Tone]

I think it is more about ancient religious beliefs hiding the truth about natural phenomena from scientifically illiterate laymen. After all scientists do have the evidence to support their claims

Sounds like a bunch of confusion to me...they are observing the unnatural and making guesses about it and then filtering it all through their own biased minds...

 

[Brightmoon]

Sounds like a bunch of confusion to me...they are observing the unnatural and making guesses about it and then filtering it all through their own biased minds...

that’s exactly what creationists do which is why no one uses their info to do actual research or to build technology.

Common descent is directly responsible for insulin from pigs and cows being used for human diabetes when I was a child . If the scientific or medical community had believed the separate creation superstition ,they wouldn’t have attempted to use animal insulin in a human and millions of people who lived long lives would have died before their time. The same thing with open heart surgery. It was originally done in dogs .

 

[Tone]

that’s exactly what creationists do which is why no one uses their info to do actual research or to build technology

I believe that most scientific/technological breakthroughs originated from those who believe in a Creator or have been highly influenced by Biblical thought.

 

[Tone]

scientifically illiterate laymen

There's that clergy/laity divide again...

 

[Brightmoon]

There's that clergy/laity divide again...

so are you scientifically literate? most people aren’t, especially Americans who seem chest thumpingly proud of the fact that they’re ignorant

 

[Tone]

so are you scientifically literate? most people aren’t, especially Americans who seem chest thumpingly proud of the fact that they’re ignorant

I'm too google for school...

 

[Brightmoon]

I'm too google for school...

that explains a lot

 

[Brightmoon]

Here! this guy goes over what creationists say about Lucy and then gives the mainstream science info about her and others of her species . He puts references to science and to creationist papers in his description box . He’s easy to understand and his info from both are accurate . He also has a series of about 90+ videos on different subjects all about creationist claims and the mainstream science information. I can’t link this is a screenshot

 

[loveofourlord]

If you’re going to list verifiable facts then these that you listed , are not them.1 Lucy or rather her species Australopithecus afarensis is most likely the ancestor of genus Homo . That the Australopithecines are the ancestors of genus Homo is a fact.
2 There is a 97-99% genetic similarity between the other great apes and humans . I do know where yo got that 80% from and that guy deliberately used an incorrect procedure to get that number.
3 Not a single person has come up with a way to categorize design so that last statement is meaningless .
4 chimps do use human blood when they need operations . They do have to match ABO type and Rh factors .
5 Mischaracterizing modern developmental biology as a long discredited 19th century theory is a mistake on your part not the scientific community’s . It’s called beating a dead horse
You’ve actually showed that you read a lot of creationist disinformation not that you’ve disproved common descent.

80% is probably when they stick in non coding and such in, plus depends on definition of simular.

Is

thecatisblack becoming thecatsblack 1 change, or 6 changes and so on.

 

[Brightmoon]

80% is probably when they stick in non coding and such in, plus depends on definition of simular.

Is

thecatisblack becoming thecatsblack 1 change, or 6 changes and so on.

depends on whether the protein formed by the DNA is a nonsense protein and gets dismantled or it actually does something. The nylon eating bacteria had a gene that enabled it to break down nylon by an enzyme and it formed by a simple change like that . Nylon is a chemical with an unusual chemical structure that’s not found in nature . Nylonase can break it apart and the bacteria could eat nylon

 

[Brightmoon]

I believe that most scientific/technological breakthroughs originated from those who believe in a Creator or have been highly influenced by Biblical thought.

No scientist used the Bible as an instruction book in a lab or for doing observations . Not ever! If they did they got it wrong or just confused themselves. Like the 19th century explorers who went looking for evidence of Noah’s flood and found only evidence of local ones. Or like Lyell or Hutton who eventually realized how ancient the earth really was and were honest with themselves enough to know that the Bible didn’t reflect that accurately . That was Darwin’s problem too and he was honest enough with himself to see that nature didn’t back up what he was taught about the Biblical creation. It upset him and it certainly upset his wife. Fast forward to the 21 st century and creationists are still lying about this 300 years later. SMH because to me it looks like a decided lack of integrity in the creationists part

 

[nolidad]

. i NEVER use ICR for anything other than to laugh at it . I’ve seen their pseudoscience nonsense essays for about 30 years now and they are a complete and utter waste of time if you actually understand how much of a con job they put you through.

Well making allegations is really really easy-. Talk is cheap. I have yet to see one of you who love to hurl ad-hominems at ICR actually demonstrate by evidence the lies they supposedly throw on mankind!

Why don't you demonstrate one verifiable con job you allege they have foisted upon us who believe the Bible as written in Genesis 1

 

[nolidad]

No scientist used the Bible as an instruction book in a lab or for doing observations . Not ever! If they did they got it wrong or just confused themselves. Like the 19th century explorers who went looking for evidence of Noah’s flood and found only evidence of local ones. Or like Lyell or Hutton who eventually realized how ancient the earth really was and were honest with themselves enough to know that the Bible didn’t reflect that accurately . That was Darwin’s problem too and he was honest enough with himself to see that nature didn’t back up what he was taught about the Biblical creation. It upset him and it certainly upset his wife. Fast forward to the 21 st century and creationists are still lying about this 300 years later. SMH because to me it looks like a decided lack of integrity in the creationists part

Looks like you don't know much about science.

Pasteur used the bible to prove maggots didn't just appear.

The bible wrote about the hygienic advantages of running water over still water.

Archeologists, all used Scripture to find ancient civilizations.

Lyell and Hutton didn't prove an old earth! They just extrapolated what they observed and flung it backweards without regard to any circumstances.

Mt. St. Helens has proven that sedimentary layers are not a sign of age. If one did not know that Mt. Helens blew a little over 30 years ago, They would assume the 1/40th model fo the grand canyon formed over hundreds of thousands of years using standard geolgical textbook definitions. Instead they formed in 3 years!

Darwein only saw variation within a "kind" and extrapolated that to say evolution wassd true.

160 years after his book- we are still missing the missing links! We have opinions, and suggestions and could bes and might bes but no smoking guns!

You cannot prove either creation or evolution by looking at fossil remains ! All you can conclusively prove is that a creature with that bone structure once lived and died!

A former Curator of the Chicago Field Museum ( an ardent evolutionist) once quipped that all museum dio-ramas are 5% information and 95% imagination!

 

[loveofourlord]

depends on whether the protein formed by the DNA is a nonsense protein and gets dismantled or it actually does something. The nylon eating bacteria had a gene that enabled it to break down nylon by an enzyme and it formed by a simple change like that . Nylon is a chemical with an unusual chemical structure that’s not found in nature . Nylonase can break it apart and the bacteria could eat nylon

well I'm just talking about where the figure 98 or 80% comes from, the 98% focuses upon the coding parts of DNA because the rest contains mostly non coding stuff, that is free to mutate at will with no harm, benefits can be gained, but thats a different thing. if you count my example as 1 change, or 5 can drasticly change what % of DNA there is different. A one to one cross check will have massive differences in % of dna simular, vs counting each change as a single one.

 

[Brightmoon]

well I'm just talking about where the figure 98 or 80% comes from, the 98% focuses upon the coding parts of DNA because the rest contains mostly non coding stuff, that is free to mutate at will with no harm, benefits can be gained, but thats a different thing. if you count my example as 1 change, or 5 can drasticly change what % of DNA there is different. A one to one cross check will have massive differences in % of dna simular, vs counting each change as a single one.

counting nonsense DNA or non coding DNA is rather silly if the important DNA for comparison are those which actually do something. For example the promoter ( on switch) for the make-a-nervous-system gene responds to the concentration of a chemical that is concentrated by gravity. That promoter is different for insects and vertebrates even though the gene is the same gene. One promoter responds to a high concentration of another compound the other to a low . This is why insects have their nervous system on the ventral side of their bodies and vertebrates have it on the dorsal side. In this case the promoter determines where the gene functions but it is the same gene . Your boy is trying to claim ( for example) that because the promoters are different that these aren’t the same gene (which is nonsense )

 

[nolidad]

well I'm just talking about where the figure 98 or 80% comes from, the 98% focuses upon the coding parts of DNA because the rest contains mostly non coding stuff, that is free to mutate at will with no harm, benefits can be gained, but thats a different thing. if you count my example as 1 change, or 5 can drasticly change what % of DNA there is different. A one to one cross check will have massive differences in % of dna simular, vs counting each change as a single one.

Also you should know that the 98% came form the researchers intentionally comparing just segments that were similar. They left out all teh segments that, though sequential on the genome were dissimilar. IOW they were setting up a preplanned outcome! It would be like you takiong a ball to a toy factory and only comparing it to balls that they make and ignoring all the other toys! Of course you are going to come up with a high similarity number. It means little but you get a number!

 

[nolidad]

counting nonsense dna is rather silly if the important genes are those which actually do something. For example the promoter ( on switch) for the make-a-nervous-system gene responds to the concentration of a chemical that is concentrated by gravity. That promoter is different for insects and vertebrates even though the gene is the same gene. One promoter responds to a high concentration of another compound the other to a low . This is why insects have their nervous system on the ventral side of their bodies and vertebrates have it on the dorsal side. In this case the promoter determines where the gene functions but it is the same gene . Your boy is trying to claim ( for example) that because the promoters are different that these aren’t the same gene (which is nonsense )

So that gene is different in every creature even though it works in similar fashion! IOW it reduces the similarity between creatures!

And you should read the encode project- as of 2014 they found that human DNA is 80% functioning and back then they expected to find that 100% of human DNA is vital. All genes do something!

 

[Brightmoon]

So that gene is different in every creature even though it works in similar fashion! IOW it reduces the similarity between creatures!
( snip)

it’s the same gene ! They decided to switch the genes between organisms to actually see if they were the same genes and they worked normally . But if the promoters were there they’d ,for example ,organize a nervous system in the wrong place . They did those experiments back in the 90s . All of the major bilaterian body plan genes are the same . So you’re about 20 years too late with your objections