Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[Radrook]

I'm not ridiculing the video. I am stating, clearly, that a video made by a non scientist with zero scientific training, is worth jack all and, as I said before, you are taking the thread off-topic. The OP topic is about the fact that humans evolved from ancestral monkeys.
But you don't care since you'll continue to spew your non-scientific vitriol without a care in the world and will continue to think that you know better than all the scientists in the world because the scientific facts don't mesh with your religious views.

Religious views? LOL! My views aren't religious by default. You prefer to classify them as religious in order to make the argument appear to be that of science vs religion. However, it isn't science vs religion. It is quackery vs reason. It is the unscientific vs the truly scientific.

Additionally, confidently hoist on your own petard, you once again choose to attack the person instead of the value of the information offered. That is simply ad hominem and proves NOTHING. In order to prove something, need to focus on the information, to expose it as bogus, to show that IT and IT alone is flawed in order to refute its validity.

But unfortunately, you prefer to immediately focus on the person presenting the info as if that refutes it. Sorry but that is not how argumentation works. By attacking the person instead of the person's argument you prove absolutely NOTHING except that you are unfamiliar with the principles of argumentation and that therefor you believe that ad hominem is not a fallacy when it definitely is.

You also seem to be functioning under the quaint delusion that scientists are to be totally trusted in the declarations simply because they are scientists . Sorry but being a scientist does not guarantee honesty. there are many diverse examples where scientists can be shown to be striving might and main to foist fraud on not just the public, but on and their trusting fellow scientists as well. So your naive premise is seriously flawed.

 

[Radrook]

Why? It's not like this god you believe in, never commanded the killing of babies. Or did it himself, for that matter.

(that is, according to the mythology, off course)

You are familiar with the concept of the creator or deity that I hold? How?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Once more it isn't the medium in which the message is conveyed. That is irrelevant and clearly demonstrates that you lack the basic requirement to reason cogently

I'ld say it can be very relevant.

The source of the information, says a lot about its trustworthyness.
Fundamentally, yes, all claims fall and stand on their own merrit, no matter where they come from.

But rational reason also informs us that not all claims deserve the same consideration. And the source of the information, is one of the parameters that determines this.

For example, I'll trust a medical diagnose more when it comes from an actual doctor, as opposed to when it comes from my car mechanic.

It is the message itself-the info that is conveyed that either stands or falls on its own merit.

As said, fundamentally, that is correct.
As such, it is not necessary, and even counter productive, to post youtube clips when making a specific point, if the clip is the only content of the post.

I have no problems with you posting a youtube clip or linking an article as a reference, but please make the specific point in your own words IN the post (as, by the way, the forum rules and general 'netiquette' require you to.....)

If indeed it is bogus, then prove it.

Errr.... no. Your point isn't valid "unless proven false".
First, make your specific claim and explain the evidence in support of the claim.

Note the word "explain".

Otherwise your reply constitutes only a criticism of the medium and leaves the argument which you immediately and mindlessly seek to ridicule totally intact.

Likewise, if your point is embedded "somewhere" in the clip, nobody knows what it is, specifically. Unless you make the point, in your own words, and only post the clip as a reference.

About being off topic? Well, that depends on whether the claim that evolution is a process is totally devoid of divine guidance or not.

Nothing in evolution theory says it is.
If you wish to claim that there is a "divine guidance", then point out where it is and how it can be supported. Merely claiming it, is not enough.

There are those who are deistic evolutionists. But your stance seems to be atheistic evolutionist.

That makes no real sense.
There are no "supernatural" aspects in the evolution model, for the exact same reason as there are no such aspects in the models of germ theory, atomic theory, gravity, etc.

Not because these models are "atheistic" or because the supernatural is "denied to exist". But rather, only for the reason that it can't be shown to be a part of it.

There's no "god" variable in E = mc² either. Is that now an "atheistic" equation?

The foundation of that atheist position is of necessity abiogenesis

Abiogenesis / the origins of life, is not within the scope of evolution theory.
You know this, off course, because I'm positive that that's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions already.

which you, strangely, claim is irrelevant to your position but without which your claim, obviously, becomes totally meaningless.

What claim?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are familiar with the concept of the creator or deity that I hold? How?

I assumed you are a bible believing christian.
As you seem to be arguing against evolution theory, I also assumed that you are a somewhat fundamentalist bible believing christian, who considers certain parts of the OT to be literal history, like genesis etc.

If that is not the case, I'll happily retract my comment and apologise.

 

[Radrook]

I'ld say it can be very relevant.

The source of the information, says a lot about its trustworthyness.
Fundamentally, yes, all claims fall and stand on their own merrit, no matter where they come from.

But rational reason also informs us that not all claims deserve the same consideration. And the source of the information, is one of the parameters that determines this.

For example, I'll trust a medical diagnose more when it comes from an actual doctor, as opposed to when it comes from my car mechanic.




As said, fundamentally, that is correct.
As such, it is not necessary, and even counter productive, to post youtube clips when making a specific point, if the clip is the only content of the post.

I have no problems with you posting a youtube clip or linking an article as a reference, but please make the specific point in your own words IN the post (as, by the way, the forum rules and general 'netiquette' require you to.....)



Errr.... no. Your point isn't valid "unless proven false".
First, make your specific claim and explain the evidence in support of the claim.

Note the word "explain".



Likewise, if your point is embedded "somewhere" in the clip, nobody knows what it is, specifically. Unless you make the point, in your own words, and only post the clip as a reference.



Nothing in evolution theory says it is.
If you wish to claim that there is a "divine guidance", then point out where it is and how it can be supported. Merely claiming it, is not enough.



That makes no real sense.
There are no "supernatural" aspects in the evolution model, for the exact same reason as there are no such aspects in the models of germ theory, atomic theory, gravity, etc.

Not because these models are "atheistic" or because the supernatural is "denied to exist". But rather, only for the reason that it can't be shown to be a part of it.

There's no "god" variable in E = mc² either. Is that now an "atheistic" equation?



Abiogenesis / the origins of life, is not within the scope of evolution theory.
You know this, off course, because I'm positive that that's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions already.



What claim?

You need to show why the source of the information makes the information totally irrelevant. You haven't done that.
If a car mechanic provides me with medical advice and cites his sources and they are trustworthy while a physician offers me crap I will trust the car mechanic. About atheistic evolution, it does exist just as theistic evolution exists. You claim that atheistic evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis? That is untrue. Atheistic evolution of necessity devolves back to the moment where abiogenesis occurs. So you are totally misrepresenting atheistic evolution. You ask me to support theistic evolution? Sorry but I a not an evolutionist.

 

[Radrook]

I assumed you are a bible believing christian.
As you seem to be arguing against evolution theory, I also assumed that you are a somewhat fundamentalist bible believing christian, who considers certain parts of the OT to be literal history, like genesis etc.

If that is not the case, I'll happily retract my comment and apologise.

I believe in a creator. I do not claim to know for 100% certainty everything about the creator.
I do believe that the creator used the Bible to communicate with mankind.
I do believe that the Bible contains historical facts. But please keep well in mind that so do all archeologists and historians.

As to the creator ordering the termination of human life-yes, the Bible tells us that he did order the termination of human life and that it included the very young on various occasions. Does it justify that we do the same at a whim. No! that would be like saying that because a high court issues a death sentence that we also have the same right to do so at a whim.

There is an infinite difference between the creator taking a life and we humans deciding to do so.

First, he is the source and sustainer of all life and that grants him the right to terminate it whenever he considers it necessary.

Second, He able to resurrect, so death is viewed as merely a temporary sleep

Third his superhuman faculties allow him to discern on a consequentialist level the almost infinite ramifications of his life terminating actions whereas we are limited in that respect.

Finally, his position as supreme judge of the universe, it doesn't amount to murder just as a court decision to level capital punishment does not involve murder. So since we limited humans are not in that privileged position, we cannot terminate life without risking committing an injustice.

 

[Radrook]

There was no discussion to begin with since you decided to derail this thread.

Good enough!

 

[sfs]

DNA message from creator indicates that evolution is bunk?

Very impressive if indeed authentic.

But it's not authentic. Its source doesn't even pretend to be authentic -- it's from The Daily Currant, "The Global Satirical Newspaper of Record."

(Also -- genetics researchers at Harvard -- seriously?)

 

[Jimmy D]

Accepted is supposed to mean something? There were many idiocies that were once enthusiastically accepted and proclaimed as irrefutable fact which are now considered ridiculous. So your "accepted:" reference means NOTHING.

Yet the Theory of Evolution still stands despite your increduilty.

No, I am not depending on religion. YOU are depending on calling it religious in order to evade responding to my requests for a rebuttal.

Rebuttal to what? You think your 'logic' defeats empirical evidence?

Calling logic religious is simply fear of confronting what logic clearly points out concerning your logically flawed ideas.

Who called logic religious? You seem to be confused.

I merely pointed out that you play a weird game of pretending that you don't have religious motivations for opposing a well evidenced scientific theory.

The only thing tat keeps atheists fanatically proclaiming the ridiculous as science is their pathological aversion to the existence of a creator.

This sort of nonsense is why nobody takes you seriously (well partly).

 

[sfs]

In short, that idea has been unceremoniousluy debunked!

Well, let's look at the debunking...

As demonstrated in this report, the GULO region is clearly chromatin repressed in a heritable fashion and not transcriptionally active.

In other words, GULO is a pseudogene in humans. No disagreement there.

Based on the current state of genomic information presented in this report, the bulk of evidence indicates that the human GULO gene is pseudogenized via deletions occurring as a result of unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats.

I don't think it's clear that transposable element repeats were responsible, but that's not important. There are definitely large deletions that knock out the human gene. All good so far, and nothing here that debunks the idea that the shared GULO pseudogene is a result of common descent.

These exon deletion events are taxonomically restricted in humans and in each of the different ape species tested.

Okay, here's the debunking, and it's just wrong. (The debunking is bunk -- get it?) I've plotted the sequence for the GULO region, aligned against mouse, for a number of primates (indicated by various shades of blue):

Horizontal gaps indicate a deletion in the primate sequence or an insertion in the mouse gene, while vertical gaps mean the converse. GULO coding exons -- the functional parts of the gene -- are shown by the black blobs on the bottom line. All of the primate sequences show similar loss of coding exons, meaning they share the same defects in the gene -- exactly as predicted by common descent. I don't know who wrote the "debunking", but their statement bears no relation to the actual situation. (Note: you will find a similar pattern if you look at single-base substitutions. 30 nonsynonymous substitutions are shared by human, chimp and macaque, 10 are shared by human and chimp, and 4 are seen only in humans.)

I've also plotted the alignments for guinea pig and two distantly related species of bat for the same gene, which is also a pseduogene in these animals. A casual examination shows that different pieces of coding sequence are missing in different lineages, showing that GULO was knocked out by independent mutations.

 

[Radrook]

Well, let's look at the debunking...

In other words, GULO is a pseudogene in humans. No disagreement there.

I don't think it's clear that transposable element repeats were responsible, but that's not important. There are definitely large deletions that knock out the human gene. All good so far, and nothing here that debunks the idea that the shared GULO pseudogene is a result of common descent.

Okay, here's the debunking, and it's just wrong. (The debunking is bunk -- get it?) I've plotted the sequence for the GULO region, aligned against mouse, for a number of primates (indicated by various shades of blue):

Horizontal gaps indicate a deletion in the primate sequence or an insertion in the mouse gene, while vertical gaps mean the converse. GULO coding exons -- the functional parts of the gene -- are shown by the black blobs on the bottom line. All of the primate sequences show similar loss of coding exons, meaning they share the same defects in the gene -- exactly as predicted by common descent. I don't know who wrote the "debunking", but their statement bears no relation to the actual situation. (Note: you will find a similar pattern if you look at single-base substitutions. 30 nonsynonymous substitutions are shared by human, chimp and macaque, 10 are shared by human and chimp, and 4 are seen only in humans.)

I've also plotted the alignments for guinea pig and two distantly related species of bat for the same gene, which is also a pseduogene in these animals. A casual examination shows that different pieces of coding sequence are missing in different lineages, showing that GULO was knocked out by independent mutations.

Loss of a previously functioning Gulu in two species signifies common descent? I'm sure there are other viable explanations for such similarities which are rejected in favor of to evolutionist one. Neither am I sure that it was really a prediction and not an observation which was later passed off as a prediction to fit the theory. In any case, I will search for an alternate viable explanation and see how you react to it. I will expect you to offer a reason why the viable explanation is rejected.

BTW
Offering a chart full of colored coded lines is meaningless unless you provide a detailed explanation as to why it proves common lineage. Can you explain in detail why it proves common lineage?
If not then it's just cut ad paste and a request for faith..

The Human GULO Pseudogene—Evidence for Evolutionary Discontinuity and Genetic Entropy

Abstract
Modern genomics provides the ability to screen the DNA of a wide variety of organisms to scrutinize broken metabolic pathways. This wealth of data has revealed wide-spread genetic entropy in human and other genomes. Loss of the vitamin C pathway due to deletions in the GULO (L-gulonolactone oxidase) gene has been detected in humans, apes, guinea pigs, bats, mice, rats, pigs, and passerine birds.

Contrary to the popularized claims of some evolutionists and neo-creationists, patterns of GULO degradation are taxonomically restricted and fail to support macroevolution. Current research and data reported here show that multiple GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments.



Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. The 28,800 base human GULO region is only 84% and 87% identical compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. The 13,000 bases preceding the human GULO gene, which corresponds to the putative area of loss for at least two major exons, is only 68% and 73% identical to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively.



These DNA similarities are inconsistent with predictions of the common ancestry paradigm. Further, gorilla is considerably more similar to human in this region than chimpanzee—negating the inferred order of phylogeny. Taxonomically restricted gene degradation events are emerging as a common theme associated with genetic entropy and systematic discontinuity, not macroevolution

https://bioorigins.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/gulo-pseudogene-evolution-debunked/

 

[sfs]

Loss of a previously functioning Gulu in two species signifies common descent?

Loss of a previously functioning GULO in two species by the same deletion is strong evidence for common descent.

I'm sure there are other viable explanations for such similarities which are rejected in favor of to evolutionist one.

And I'm sure that I'm the empress of Australia. Being sure don't make it so.

Neither am I sure that it was really a prediction and not an observation which was later passed off as a prediction to fit the theory.

I, on the other hand, am quite sure that it was a prediction, since I looked up the alignments myself. In particular, I don't believe anyone has published anything on the alignment of bat GULO with a functioning copy of the gene -- or at least, I've never seen it. So I made the prediction today and I tested it.

BTW
Offering a chart full of colored coded lines is meaningless unless you provide a detailed explanation as to why it proves common lineage. Can you explain in detail why it proves common lineage?

It provides strong evidence(*) for common descent. Insertion and deletion events occur all the time, but two independent insertions or deletions at the identical place in the genome is rare. Seeing one deletion at the same place in two closely related species is therefore pretty good evidence that they both inherited the deletion from a common ancestor. Seeing multiple deletions at the identical place in a half dozen species is immensely unlikely by chance, and therefore extremely strong evidence that the species in question share common ancestry.

(*) Note scientific wording, BTW.

If not then it's just cut ad paste and a request for faith..

I didn't cut and paste anything. I made a plot and posted it here.

In any case, recall that I was responding to a particular claim: "These exon deletion events are taxonomically restricted in humans and in each of the different ape species tested." The claim was, in other words, that different deletions occurred in each ape species tested. I hope it's clear that that claim is incorrect.

 

[Astrophile]

Why do chimps have similar DNA to,humans? Because God,made them that way so they can use the functions given to them by God. God made them with hands and feet and eyes and brains that have some similarities to humans.

So why do chimps have more similar DNA to humans than, for example, gibbons or lemurs?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why do chimps have more similar DNA to humans than, for example, gibbons or lemurs?

Why do snowmen have similar compositions to each other than stone statues?

If God made two mounds of dust, shaped one into an ape and the other into a man, why wouldn't their compositions be similar on the molecular level?

It's the differences that count -- not the similarities.

 

[sfs]

Why do snowmen have similar compositions to each other than stone statues?

If God made two mounds of dust, shaped one into an ape and the other into a man, why wouldn't their compositions be similar on the molecular level?

It's the differences that count -- not the similarities.

Why are there chunks of our genomes where we're more similar to gorillas than to chimpanzees? Why are the chunks the size they are?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are there chunks of our genomes where we're more similar to gorillas than to chimpanzees? Why are the chunks the size they are?

What did I just say, sport?

Think "snowmen."

Do two snowmen, who are 100% -- not just 98 or whatever the number is now -- 100% the same in composition mean one snowman came from another?

Or do they speak of common design?

 

[sfs]

What did I just say, sport?

Think "snowmen."

Do two snowmen, who are 100% -- not just 98 or whatever the number is now -- 100% the same in composition mean one snowman came from another?

Or do they speak of common design?

What did I ask, sport? You said that humans and chimps are similar because they're made of the same stuff, just like two snowmen. I'm asking why the snow in snowman 1 is more similar to the snow in snowman 2 in parts of its body, but more similar to snowman 3 in other parts. Why do the different regions of similarity occur in chunks?

 

[Astrophile]

confidently hoist on your own petard

The correct phrase is 'hoist with his own petard' (Hamlet, III, iv, 209); it literally means 'blown up with his own bomb'. What did you think a petard was?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The correct phrase is 'hoist with his own petard' (Hamlet, III, iv, 209); it literally means 'blown up with his own bomb'. What did you think a petard was?

I'm pretty positive that that should actually be "hoisted by your own petard" in that context.

 

[Astrophile]

If God made two mounds of dust, shaped one into an ape and the other into a man, why wouldn't their compositions be similar on the molecular level?

If God made three mounds of dust and shaped one into an ape, another into a man, and the third into a crocodile, why wouldn't the composition of the crocodile be similar to the ape and the man on the molecular level? By the way, how did God make DNA out of dust, and how did he give all living species different DNA if he made them all out of dust?