Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not the kind,of,evolution we are talking about. I've already admitted that we and other cretures,can adapt and change to our environment like a,moth changing colors. But it's still a moth. We can't and haven't observed or reproduced any other type of evolution.And, as usual, you are quite wrong. We have evidence of "evolution at work" in both the laboratory and in the field, in real time....!
Once again, you keep using that word as if it were magic. It's not. You're not actually addressing the evidence.
Red herring. We're talking about a specific issue here - 203,000 ERVs shared by humans and chimpanzees. You need to actually address that particular fact.
It's very dishonest to keep repeating things as if they haven't been addressed repeatedly.
>> As has been pointed out numerous times, the problem with "common design" is that it's an ad hoc proposition that lacks predictive or explanatory power and cannot be falsified thus rendering it unscientific. You would also need to explain things like:
- Why humans and chimpanzees share 203,000 ERVs
- Why all primates, including humans, share a broken GULO gene.
- Why whales have a broken gene package for hind leg development and develop hind limb buds in utero. <<
I posted that an hour before you posted your comment. I also responded to one of your posts earlier today.
>> Ah, the ad hoc "common design" fallacy. Tell us rjs, if God used common design, how do we falsify that proposition? In order to be scientific we need a potential falsification. I can think of thousands of potential falsifications for common descent, but I can't think of any for common design because it's ad hoc and can explain everything.
Also, in order to be scientific, it needs have explanatory power beyond childishly obvious assertions. For instance you need to explain why God inserted 203,000 endogenous retroviruses into the human and chimp genomes in such a way that mimics common ancestry. You also need to explain why all primates have a broken GULO gene that is broken in the exact same way. You need to explain why placental mammals have gene remnants for yolk sac production. You need to explain why whales have a broken gene package for hind leg development and why embryonic whales develop hind limb buds in utero, etc. etc. etc. <<
It's a very dishonest tactic to pretend that issues have not been addressed previously and to keep raising them.
Pointing things out numerous times means little if the thing pointed out is an unwarranted debatable conclusion based more on wishful thinking than irrefutable science:
In short, that idea has been unceremoniousluy debunked!
Whales had Legs?
Vacuous verbiage. My point about "common design" being ad hoc, unfalsifiable and lacking predictive and explanatory power remains.
>> until you discover that broken vitamin C genes are also found in creatures such as guinea pigs and bats. So far we have not found any evolutionist who wants to claim common Vitamin C mutations must mean man ascended from guinea pigs or bats! <<
The non-functioning exons in primates are different than the non-functioning exons in guinea pigs. Either McKay doesn't know what he's talking about or he's relying on the ignorance of his audience.
>> As demonstrated in this report... <<
Tomkins?He was using a buggy version of BLASTN which is why he was getting results that no other person could replicate. Here's a guy on Reddit who took Tomkins to task until Tomkins slunk away.
First of all, I would just like to deal with the claim that "The 28,800 base human GULO region is only 84% identical to chimpanzees"
Here is the 28,800 sequence I have for humans which I obtained from UCSC: https://db.tt/HfIezTFL
Could you verify that this is the same as yours?
Here is the result from balsting this sequence against the chimp genome:
https://db.tt/awG5OLsG
Please download this zipped HTML file and verify the result for yourself. It quite clearly reads that 97% of the query was covered and that these covered areas are 97% identical.
There are three results from this search:
Immediately we can see that this isn't looking good for that figure of 84%!!
- Result 1: 6671/6772(99%) identities 19/6772(0%) gaps
- Result 2: 2007/2064(97%) identities 22/2064(1%) gaps
- Result 3: 18957/19517(97%) identities 182/19517(0%) gaps
Ah, you have no idea what I'm talking about so you link to a random YouTube video with Phillip Gingerich. Here, let me educate you so you can respond with something germane.
http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2006/05...-legs-got-sleek-and-conquered-the-oceans.html
Some folks just can't cotton to reading anything by Dawkins. I'd recommend Finding Your Inner Fish, since it deals specifically with why humans are still fish and monkeys.
Evolutionists will go to any extreme to fit the findings to the predictions to make then seem as if evolution has predictive power
Look what they did with Lucy!
Did Shubin predict that pod of fully intact whale fossil skeletons would be found in the Andes mountains
Not the kind,of,evolution we are talking about. I've already admitted that we and other cretures,can adapt and change to our environment like a,moth changing colors. But it's still a moth. We can't and haven't observed or reproduced any other type of evolution.
Why would Shubin be on that project? Whale fossils in mountains is explained by plate tectonics. What does this have to do with anything though?
Thank you Steve for a civil answer and here's my reply . The only person I know who is honest is myself to myself and I try to be .
I'm so glad to see your shtick hasn't changed since JREF Forums. You spent five times the amount of your reply talking about me as you did repeating your debunked arguments.I know exactly what you are claiming and I find it's premise. that similarity proves ancestry, seriously flawed.
After all, there are other creatures besides apes which share that Gulo deficiency and are not claimed to share the same evolutionary ancestry as man based on that same Gulo Enzyme anomaly. But when the similarity is also found in bats, then you refuse to remain consistent.
Even worse you seem to feel that attacking the people or persons soundly refutes their arguments. Please note that no amount of ridicule erases the fact of a scientist drawing flukes on animals simply because he wishes them to appear ancestral to whales. That kind of deceit remains deceit no matter how much chortling you might attempt to convey. Neither does your disdain erase the fact that there are other animals who also share the same Gulo enzyme related to vitamin C synthesis anomaly and yet there is no scientific claim that we descended from a common ancestor.
You see, ridicule is ad hominem, which means attacking the man instead of the argument and is considered a fallacy and of very little persuasive value. Cogent reasoning demands that arguments stand or fall on their own merit. That is basic argumentation principle and if you are not cognizant of such principles of cogent reasoning then it is no wonder that you are easily persuaded to accept things which are clearly shot full of self-contradictions and beliefs based on wishful thinking.
Ummm, BTW
Predictive Power of Evolution?
http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2012/10/30/the-predictability-of-evolution/
LOL!
Excuse me but the predictive power of evolution as explained in that article is simply evolutionists finding fossils and fitting them in with their evolutionary schemes. It is craftily predicted that certain types of creatures would be found in certain areas? The areas which have the fossils they predicted have the fossils they predicted. However, the interpretation that they signify transitional forms is an imposed interpretation. It could just as easily be simply explained as variety and nothing more. In short, evolutionists force their ideas on things they find so as to make the appears as evolutionary and then boast about evolurtion’s theory predictive power. That is called chicanery.
Should we act like primates?
That is a theoretical construction which may or may not, reflect the observed reality.
We all can have our own opinion.
Not sure whether the fossils will fit any painting we paint.
Fossils are found with no observable ancestry, a hole in the painting.
Which is, again, consistent with evolution and the rarity of fossilization.The fossil record is not linear and simple to understand, the fossil record contains
abrupt appearances of species.
The fossil record record also contains abrupt extinctions.
There are innumerable absences of species in the fossil record also.
This is also the problem with trying to understand the fossil record.
Sudden appearances of species has always been the problem.
The terrestrial environment in deeper time is almost impossible to explain.
This is a highly theoretical domain.
We have no other choice, but to act as primates.
Just like we have no other choice, but to act as mammals.
Just like we have no other choice, but to act as tetrapods.
That's seems to be the way that science understands it.
Quantum physics surely is weird and defies everything we call "common sense". However, the weirdness of the quantum world, doesn't manifest in the physics of macr-scopic objects traveling at sub-lightspeeds.Hopefully this is true, though not sure whether this is true in quantum physics.
Not sure how you can differentiate between randomness and determinism here.
Hope your not going to draw any conclusion without the evidence. So what if science
cannot identify any predetermined cause, this does not allow any conclusion.
We are discussing whether an event is a random event, not whether science is able
to conclude whether the event is determined or not.
Catastrophic failure in your argument.
You have drawn a relationship between two separate ideas, randomness and prediction.
Here is an example that should illustrate the relationship that you have imposed.
In ancient times, the sex of an unborn child was unknown, i.e., not predictable.
In modern times, the sex of an unborn child can be known, i.e., predictable.
Randomness is not related to whether the outcome of an event is predictable or not.
If we cannot predict the outcome of an event, this does not imply that the event is a random event.
The event could be a determined event with too many variables, the outcome of this
event is unpredictable.
Your confusing the idea of a random event, with the unrelated prediction of the outcome of an event.
The relationship between a random event and prediction was an absurd
relationship.
Let's not insult the primates.
They do not torture their young, they do not rape them, they do not abort their babies, they do not starve them so they can go party or do drugs, they don't kill them, they have been known to kill, abandon sick or deformed ones as they will not survive. Males will sometimes kill to preserve their own blood line. And only one group has a heavy infant death due to mothers ignoring injured ones or killing them because they have no other way to deal with them, the tamarin monkey. They have twins and can not raise them when there are not enough males to support them. What they do is for the preservation of the species, not for sport, not for inconvenience. Otherwise, mothers have been known to fight to the death to protect their young. We throw them in the garbage--that's a favorite here in Las Vegas.
And that may be your greatest error. The human brain has shown itself, time and time again, very capable of creating 'truths' which are totally out of line with reality. This is why EVIDENCE plays such an important role in aiding us to determine that which is imaginary or false from that which is likely to be correct.
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?