Is it a hoax?

[xianghua]

Prove it. Also, please include a definition of orthologous. I have tried to educate you on how the word is used, but it has proven to be a worthless cause. Perhaps you can educate yourself.

lets use your definition: "Orthologous means the base that was inherited from the common ancestor"

the problem with this criteria is that you need to believe in a common descent. so you assume that those insertions arent the result of a common descent- and therefore you conclude that they arent orthologous. it's a subjective claim.

They are random enough that they won't produce the same insertion more than 99% of the time. This is directly observable.

and again; according to this criteria- since there are about milions of deletions and insertions in both chimp and human geneome, they arent in the same position too. unless you can define a limit between an orthologous position and a non orthologous one. can you do that?

 

[tas8831]

The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO.

And your opinion is relevant and meaningful because...?

However, the “tree of life” that I have seen do not provide indisputable evidence of what specifically evolved from one species to another species starting with the first cell and consummating with the last species. It is speculation and I do believe the sequence or the timing can be proven. Furthermore, all trees do not agree with one another, which one is correct, if any?

Whenever I see someone claim that tree of life are mere speculation, I know I am in the realm of those that know nothing of the subject.

At all.

 

[tas8831]

Not only is abiogenesis nonsensical, but the idea all life on this planet derived from the single cell that came into existence through this preposterous event is even more absurd. The real model of life would look like an orchard of trees. God created the original organisms; those organisms have changed and evolved since that moment.

Great addition to the discussion.

Evidence-free, pure speculation, nothing but uninformed opinions and assertions.

IOW - typical evangelical anti-science post.

 

[tas8831]

Science cannot re-create events that have past.
But it can imagine that it can. Fiction always wins.
Even when they lose to new fictions, it's called a win.

No need to recreate anything. This is common knowledge. To imply that 'science' must 'recreate' the past to understand is to engage in a rather sad logical fallacy (at best).

 

[tas8831]

Still waiting for some atheist to tell me what evolved first DNA or Protein

Still waiting for some theist to explain and provide a tested mechanism for how Jehovah turned dust of the ground into organic polymers.

Been waiting for about 20 years.

, i asked once my bio teacher and he was bullying me for rest of year .

I'm sure that happened.

 

[tas8831]

Because they have the same designer? Why does the human body have many of the same elements as the earth? Same designer perhaps?

Why would a designer pout the same errors in its designs?

What designer designs a submarine (whale) with the same parts as a truck (hippo)?

 

[tas8831]

why not? there are many evidence for design in nature and many evidence against evolution. for instance: the kinesin motor is like a robot that walk on two:

So, do you also think that vesicles are blue?

How - EXACTLY - is that evidence of design?

 

[tas8831]

There is no need to recreate events. Why do you think that needs to be done?

Forensic scientists do not have to murder another person to prove that someone murdered someone.

There is no fiction in science. But guess where there is fiction.

It is amazing to me that the same creationists keep making the same claims - like this nonsense about recreation - over and over, month after month, year after year, regardless of how many times and how many different people explain to them the shallowness, naivete, and even dishonesty of their mantras.

 

[Loudmouth]

lets use your definition: "Orthologous means the base that was inherited from the common ancestor"

the problem with this criteria is that you need to believe in a common descent. so you assume that those insertions arent the result of a common descent- and therefore you conclude that they arent orthologous. it's a subjective claim.

We don't assume that these insertions are from common descent. We CONCLUDE that these insertions are from common descent because that is what the evidence indicates. It has nothing to do with belief.

and again; according to this criteria- since there are about milions of deletions and insertions in both chimp and human geneome, they arent in the same position too.

Prove it. Find an ERV insertion that is said to be orthologous and show us that it is not at the same position.

 

[PsychoSarah]

https://evolutionnews.org/2010/03/signs_in_the_genome_part_2/

Known source that lies about evolution, and only puts it in the name to sound like a legitimate source. Almost makes me wish you'd source National Geographic again.

no. i actually refer to insertions and deletions. in those cases any erv isnt a true orthologous.

-_- that's like saying that if I change the spacing in a sentence by adding or removing a letter that it no longer comes from the same source.

The sun did not shine. It was too wet to play. So we sat in the house all that cold, cold, wet day.


The sun did not shine. It was too wet to play. We sat in the house all that cold, cold, wet day.

Clearly, the second sentence is my literary "genius" while only the former one belongs to Dr. Seuss


I can't help but feel that your confusion is my fault, since I occasionally post purposely incorrect arguments in debates just to see if anyone I am debating is knowledgeable enough to actually notice them. Apparently, you took my suggestion that "orthologous genes must be in the exact same position, which requires the same genome length" seriously rather than actually fact check me for what should have been an easy victory. I noticed you only started spouting this stuff after we had that debate.

-_- not that it really matters for comparing human and chimp genomes, which are the same length.

Seriously, anyone that debates me, fact check me frequently. I do these debates to improve my patience, not to win them. Heck, feel free to ask me if a post has flaws I purposely put in it, and I'll always respond to that honestly.

 

[xianghua]

So, do you also think that vesicles are blue?

How - EXACTLY - is that evidence of design?

a self replicaiting walking robot isnt evidencne for design?

 

[tas8831]

No, it's the change of alleles in population over time, mutations are irrelevant.

How do you suppose those alleles came to be?

Extinction is what we would expect to see if all evolution is, is the accumulation of genetic mutations.

Even when deleterious mutations can be selected against, even in large numbers (truncation selection)?

An effect without a cause isn't science, it's supposition.

And labeling something incorrectly due to you idiosyncratic understanding of it is...?

 

[xianghua]

We don't assume that these insertions are from common descent. We CONCLUDE that these insertions are from common descent because that is what the evidence indicates. It has nothing to do with belief.

not realy. you believe that those ervs are the result of viral insertions. you belive that the fixation of such insertion (if it's indeed a viral insertion) is almost a random event and so on. so yes- it's a belief.

Prove it. Find an ERV insertion that is said to be orthologous and show us that it is not at the same position.

do you agree that chimp is different from human by about millions of deletions and insertions? if so any erv isnt in identical position in the genome.

for instance:

abcdefg
compare with:
abccabcdefg

is the letter g in identical position?

 

[xianghua]

-_- that's like saying that if I change the spacing in a sentence by adding or removing a letter that it no longer comes from the same source.

if we are dealing with two books- then no. actually some "biological sentences" "evolved" via convergent evolution. so even according to evolution the same sentence can share many letters without a common source.

 

[tas8831]

Yup.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

When in these forums/debates someone posts bible verses, you know they've lost.

 

[lesliedellow]

a self replicaiting walking robot isnt evidencne for design?

Round and round in circles we go.

 

[PsychoSarah]

if we are dealing with two books- then no. actually some "biological sentences" "evolved" via convergent evolution. so even according to evolution the same sentence can share many letters without a common source.

-_- just going to ignore the important point that your position on what counts as a shared gene is directly influenced by an inaccuracy I put into one of my arguments in a previous debate on purpose?

 

[tas8831]

a self replicaiting walking robot isnt evidencne for design?

Describing a molecule as a "robot" is not evidence of design.

 

[PsychoSarah]

if we are dealing with two books- then no. actually some "biological sentences" "evolved" via convergent evolution. so even according to evolution the same sentence can share many letters without a common source.

However, all sentences past a certain length are, in and of themselves, considered to be unique, which is how programs that detect plagiarism work.

 

[mark kennedy]

How do you suppose those alleles came to be?


Even when deleterious mutations can be selected against, even in large numbers (truncation selection)?


And labeling something incorrectly due to you idiosyncratic understanding of it is...?

The change of alleles happen a lot of different ways, the CRISPR gene no one has the slightest interest in is one way bacteria adapted the immune system. There is exon shuffling and various epigenetic ways of this happening. Virtually none of them apply to highly conserved brain related genes.