Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[rjs330]

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....!

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.

 

[Radrook]

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.

Are we descended from bats?
Bats have the same Gulo characteristic as humans.
To remain consistent you would need to claim human ancestry from bats.

 

[USincognito]

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:

Vacuous verbiage. My point about "common design" being ad hoc, unfalsifiable and lacking predictive and explanatory power remains.

In short, that idea has been unceremoniousluy debunked!

>> 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.
You can read the whole thing here.

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:

• 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

Immediately we can see that this isn't looking good for that figure of 84%!!​

Whales had Legs?

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

 

[Radrook]

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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FNaturalTheology%252Fcomments%252F2625uu%252F

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:

• 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

Immediately we can see that this isn't looking good for that figure of 84%!!​

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

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.

 

[4x4toy]

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.

 

[Radrook]

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!

 

[4x4toy]

1:08:35 - 1:10:24

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Evolutionists will go to any extreme to fit the findings to the predictions to make then seem as if evolution has predictive power

No need to go to the extreme. The predictive ability is quite clear. Dr. Shubin was able to accurately predict where he and his team would find Tiktaalik. Evolution also predicts a fused chromosome in the human genome, which is also a falsifiable test, one of many that evolution passes with flying colors. Evolution accurately predicts a nested hierarchy in the fossil record, which is also confirmed with DNA.

Look what they did with Lucy!

Using proven liars that admit to intellectual dishonesty on their own site is not going to help your case.

 

[4x4toy]

Did Shubin predict that pod of fully intact whale fossil skeletons would be found in the Andes mountains

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Did Shubin predict that pod of fully intact whale fossil skeletons would be found in the Andes mountains

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?

 

[SteveB28]

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.

So, if a moth species can change its characteristics, it's genetic make-up, to such an extent that a new moth species can form, please explain how that process cannot continue indefinitely......

You are the person who says....'yes, I know you can step onto one rung of a ladder, but it's impossible you could climb its length!'

 

[SteveB28]

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?

I'm afraid that this is just more of his third grade strategy of making smart aleck remarks, in lieu of any honest debate.

 

[SteveB28]

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 .

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.

 

[USincognito]

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.

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Should we act like primates?

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is a theoretical construction which may or may not, reflect the observed reality.

No, it's not. It is a fact of biology. It is a fact of genetics, comparative anatomy, etc.

You don't find mammals with feathers.
You don't find reptiles with an inner earbone
You don't find amphibians with hair.
You don't find cats that share more ERV's with humans then primates do.

Nested hierarchies are an observed fact.

We all can have our own opinion.

That's not an opinion. Just like it is not an opinion that we can use DNA to see if your dad is your actual biological dad. Facts are not a matter of opinion.

Not sure whether the fossils will fit any painting we paint.

Your personal beliefs don't matter. Your ignorance on the matter is also not an argument against solid science.

Also, the facts of genetics paint the canvas. "We" don't paint anything.

Fossils are found with no observable ancestry, a hole in the painting.

Please read with attention. I didn't not say that fossils are found with "observable ancestry". I said that the fossils that are found are consistent with the facts of genetics concerning common ancestry.

We don't find fossils in places they shouldn't be or with traits they shouldn't have, if evolution is correct.

Fossils don't prove evolution. They support it. They are consistent with it.

The fossil record is not linear and simple to understand, the fossil record contains
abrupt appearances of species.

Which is, again, consistent with evolution and the rarity of fossilization.

Nevertheless, we see clear progression in a lot of fossil lines. Like the several fossils of whale ancestors, where we can literally see the nostril blowhole move from the front of the face, back when it was a land animal, to the top of the head, where it currently sits in modern whales.

Nobody knowledgeable about how fossils form, expects to see a fossil from "every generation". Just like nobody expects you to be able to provide a picture of your face of every second of your life to "prove" that you are ageing.

The fossil record record also contains abrupt extinctions.

Yes. Which is not a problem.

There are innumerable absences of species in the fossil record also.

Yes. Which is not a problem either. In fact, it is expected, considering how rare fossilization is. There are plenty of extinct species that we will never know about, because there are no fossils and not extant specimen to study.

This is, again, not a problem for evolution theory.

This is also the problem with trying to understand the fossil record.

No, it's not.

Sudden appearances of species has always been the problem.

No, it's hasn't. No matter what creationists say.

The terrestrial environment in deeper time is almost impossible to explain.

Only if you close your eyes to the evidence from fields like geology, etc.
Ignorance is not an argument against the science.

This is a highly theoretical domain.

No. It is an empirical domain.

 

[mmksparbud]

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.

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's seems to be the way that science understands it.

It's what the math suggests. It's also what the practical applications demonstrate.
Exactly because it is deterministic, we can use it to build technology.

If the laws of physics weren't deterministic, we wouldn't be able to build a machine that lands a robot on Mars.

Hopefully this is true, though not sure whether this is true in quantum physics.

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.

A particle can pop-up out of nowhere and disappear again.
But a rock cannot.

Not sure how you can differentiate between randomness and determinism here.

Which is strange, because it is explained in the very post you are replying to.

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.

Not without evidence. WITH evidence, from in the lab.
You understand what "controlled conditions" means, right?

We are discussing whether an event is a random event, not whether science is able
to conclude whether the event is determined or not.

Do you misunderstand on purpose?
You're being rather unreasonable.

If scientists can't even manage under controlled conditions to get ERV's to consistently insert in the same spot, it is completely unreasonable that ERV's would insert in the same spot in the wild.

Catastrophic failure in your argument.

No.

You have drawn a relationship between two separate ideas, randomness and prediction.

They go hand in hand.

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.

Actually, that is false.
You can NOT predict the sex of an unborn child. What we can do today, is identify it sooner then we could before. But we can only identify it after it is already determined. We can not predict it.

Randomness is not related to whether the outcome of an event is predictable or not.

Actually, it is. Randomness is predictable only within the context of probability.
When we do 10.000 dice rolls, the outcome will be consistent with a probability distribution of 1 in 6.

The range of the probability is only limited by the physical possibilities of the 'random' event. In a 6-side dice role, the outcome can only be 1 to 6. It can not be a 7.

If we cannot predict the outcome of an event, this does not imply that the event is a random event.

Off course it doesn't. Since it is dependend on why the outcome is unpredictable.

The event could be a determined event with too many variables, the outcome of this
event is unpredictable.

Right. And in that case, it would be perfectly fine to call it random.
Exactly because the outcome is depenend on many, many circumstantial parameters, which are independent from eachother and thus unrelated in every sense of the word.
Parameters that we can not control (not even under controlled conditions).

Your confusing the idea of a random event, with the unrelated prediction of the outcome of an event.

No, I'm not.

The relationship between a random event and prediction was an absurd
relationship.

If you are going to claim that it can be determined/predicted why an ERV inserts in spot Y instead of spot X, then please support that claim.

If you are going to claim that this is why humans and chimps share that enormous amount of ERV's, without having a common ancestor who had the initial infections, then please support that claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

WOOSH.

That's the sound of the point, flying over your head.

You know what else we don't have a choice about?

About acting like humans.
Humans are primates, mammals, tetrapods, etc.

"acting like a primate", doesn't mean "crawling in trees and flinging fecies at eachother".

 

[4x4toy]

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.

Ha , I corrected my greatest error , it's all gravy since .. Except for a few minor thorns and thistles ..