No more strawmen, please

[Bushido216]

Actually, it is pixels on a computer screen. Handwaving would at least have something in the way of meaning to it. But I agree SHOW US your evidence. Show us in the DNA this commmon ancestor.

Or better yet, show us how DNA is formed. So that the DNA can "change" so that apes and humans can "evolve" from a common ancestor.

Think down-syndrome light.

 

[JohnR7]

Think down-syndrome light.

What about down-syndrome? My brother is a expert on that.

 

[Mustelidae]

Interesting bit on DNA.

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/artificialdna.htm

That´s good.
Tears down a false argument or two.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

That´s good.
Tears down a false argument or two.

Unlikely. Creationists will just whine, "See, it needs an intelligent designer!".

 

[Philosoft]

What about down-syndrome? My brother is a expert on that.

Down Syndrome is a classic example of adding genetic material to the genome of a viable organism. IIRC, while Down's individuals are often sterile, there have been recorded births. Of course any offspring have a 50% chance of having Down's themselves.

 

[tschultz866]

(shout out to Pete)Hey Pete! We meet again!

Well people I'm back for the weekend!
(the crowd cheers....ok maybe not)
Pete since we have such a beautiful history I'll pick on you first.

<rant on>

I think the creationists in this thread have nicely demonstrated one of the frustrating difficulties in dealing with creationists on the subject of evolution. So many are willing to demand specific answers for certain things that either require incredible depth of knowledge or answers have yet to be found.

Yet, at the same time, they frequently ignore existing evidence or answers that have been found. For example, there's currently a thread on endogenous retroviruses, which is startling evidence for common ancestry, yet creationists have given it a wide berth. Why not go there and learn and try to tackle some of the issues being raised?

Well I would and I will when I get a better understanding of it.
Honestly I don't fully understand the article or win-ace's post(I did read them). For now I'll give it a go anyway. They're saying that since apes have this "viral scar" and we do also that it proves that we came from apes?
Now it's been said that human and apes DNA is about 98% or something to that tune. So why couldn't they both get the same viruses at the same time?
Like say they were air born virri? Apes would get in fected as well as humans?
I don't know that's just a stab in the dark. I don't know much about genetics but I plan on learning more.

Or, you have sites like talk.origins which contain extensive articles (complete with even more extensive lists of references to further reading) like the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution and the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (both of which contain evidence of chimp/human common ancestry, btw). Yet, most creationists appear not to have heard of such resources of information and even fewer are willing to do a little reading.

Well Pete I'm almost done with section 2 of that 29+ evidences.
And thus far I haven't been to impressed. I'd be careful in suggesting that for your evidence.

Lastly, when I see creationists ask seemily innocuous questions like "how did DNA evolve" or "where's the evidence for human evolution", I can't but get the feeling these people wouldn't even be able to understand the evidence even if presented it. Why? Because the answers to these questions are bloody complicated. Heck, I doubt most people would know what DNA stands for without the help of a Google search, let alone how it even works. Or what the differences between Homo erectus, Homo habilus, and Homo neanderthalensis are. Yet, they still demand all the answers on a silver platter.

Well...you're right in the majority probly..but evolutionists are the same way.
They take what they've learned in school and just accepted it as truth/fact and so don't just pin that on creationists because it's the same on both sides.
(quick dictionary.com search on DNA(it wasn't on the first page of google...it was DNA stocks?)) DNA is "deoxyribonucleic acid"! Homo erectus is when they were supposed to up walking on 2 feet right? and habilus is between and homo neanderthalensis is like fred flintstone? I think..you dont have to reply to that...I'm just being goofy...[/QUOTE]

My advice to these people is simple: Read. Go to a library and start looking up books and journals. Go to web sites like talk.origins, pour over the material there. And look up references. Don't just come to a web forum and expect to get all the answers in a nice, neat package. It ain't going to happen. Not because the answers don't exist, but rather that the scope required to answer such questions is beyond what you'll get with a few simple paragraphs on a forum.

<rant off>

Well Pete....I think you're right. I also think that you're a very intelligent person(lil misguided imo). Like I've said before people have to be in order to be able to follow all the twists and turns. But it's an elaborate novel for adults...who know what homo neanderthalensis's are. I think that people should do what you've done Pete! gather all the evidence and decide for your selves. I'm not saying that I won't give it my best go to make it difficult for you though...


Strawmen we are not. When you all blow me over then we can discuss straw men. I think that evolutionists are have an amazing amount of faith to believe in something so blindly. All I want you guys to do is to admit that your "evolution" requires faith. Well I'd also like you guys to do a few other things, but one step at a time. I do believe in evolution! The change over time of my tenishoes! At the dawn of there creation they were shiny and bright now they are dark and dirty. That is kind of similar to where the earth is at today.

 

[JohnR7]

Down Syndrome is a classic example of adding genetic material to the genome of a viable organism.

Down Syndrome is your classic example for evolutionism? That pretty well settles the whole issue right there. We live in a fallen world. God is going to restore this world. He will get the DNA straightened back out again, one way or the other. He will restore it back to His origional design.

 

[Bushido216]

*original

That's why I said "light". Think mutations on the base-pair level. That's what raw material for evolution.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

(shout out to Pete)Hey Pete! We meet again!
Well people I'm back for the weekend!
(the crowd cheers....ok maybe not)
Pete since we have such a beautiful history I'll pick on you first.

Er, you're starting to sound like you're stalking me...

Well I would and I will when I get a better understanding of it.
Honestly I don't fully understand the article or win-ace's post(I did read them). For now I'll give it a go anyway. They're saying that since apes have this "viral scar" and we do also that it proves that we came from apes?
Now it's been said that human and apes DNA is about 98% or something to that tune. So why couldn't they both get the same viruses at the same time?
Like say they were air born virri? Apes would get in fected as well as humans?
I don't know that's just a stab in the dark. I don't know much about genetics but I plan on learning more.

For a brief description of retroviruses and how they work, I recommend reading the endogenous retroviruses entry at EvoWiki.

In the case of endogenous retroviruses, they are genetic leftovers (viral scars if you prefer) of retroviruses that have infected a host's germline cells. As a result, the retrovirus becomes part of the host's genome and gets passed down from one generation to the next. I don't remember exactly how many endogenous retroviruses are in our genome, but I believe it's in the tens of thousands.

Why it's such a big deal is the size of the genomes (3.2 billion base pairs in the human genome for example) versus the odds of getting identical retroviral insertions at certain points in various primate genomes by accident. What happens is that when one analyzes the shared retroviral insertions between primates, one can build a hierarchy showing the relationships between primates via common ancestry (i.e. humans, chimps and gorillas might share certain endogenous retroviruses, while humans and chimps share others that gorillas don't). In fact, there's a chart here showcasing such relationships.

The other kicker is that the "common genes = common design" argument doesn't work here. Since these genes are not used for protein coding (i.e. design) there is no reason to have all these shared retroviral insertions in all these genomes. It just doesn't make any sense from a design perspective, but makes perfect sense from a common ancestry one.

(Note: I'm typing this out in a hurry since I've got to split in a couple minutes, so someone correct me if I mucked up any explanations.)

Well Pete I'm almost done with section 2 of that 29+ evidences.
And thus far I haven't been to impressed. I'd be careful in suggesting that for your evidence.

I give you credit for at least making the effort to read through it. Although, the only criticisms I've seen from you is that you thought the human tail pictures were faked. If you have other criticisms, you might want to start a thread on it.

Well...you're right in the majority probly..but evolutionists are the same way.
They take what they've learned in school and just accepted it as truth/fact and so don't just pin that on creationists because it's the same on both sides.

Oh, I agree. In fact, I think the majority of people accept the majority of what they are taught simply because to conduct indepth research into everything we *are* taught would be all-consuming and near impossible. Hence, people specialize in different subjects.

BUT, I think a key point is the basis for creationism and evolution. Creationism's basis is purely religious. Without people interpreting Genesis as literal history, this debate wouldn't exist. In fact, I've never heard of a creationist who became one for reasons other than religion. OTOH, biological evolution was borne out of the evidence. Some creationists will contest this point, arguing it's part of some atheist conspiracy, but if you examine the history behind the theory of evolution, it's clear this isn't the case.

So, when people argue against biological evolution, I ask, are they doing so because of the actual science of evolution or because of their underlying religious motivation.

Well Pete....I think you're right. I also think that you're a very intelligent person(lil misguided imo). Like I've said before people have to be in order to be able to follow all the twists and turns. But it's an elaborate novel for adults...who know what homo neanderthalensis's are. I think that people should do what you've done Pete! gather all the evidence and decide for your selves. I'm not saying that I won't give it my best go to make it difficult for you though...

I think everyone should take this approach and as objectively as possible. Prior to getting into the whole debate I had next to no knowledge of biological evolution, other than a vague idea of what it was. In fact, I first stumbled across creationist sites before evolutionist ones. Reading some of those creationist articles, I almost bought into the whole bit hook, line and sinker. But, as I explored both sides of the debate, I realized two things. 1) Creationism is purely religiously motivated. And 2) in the absence of religion, creationism is a bankrupt idea. It just isn't tenable as science.

Strawmen we are not. When you all blow me over then we can discuss straw men. I think that evolutionists are have an amazing amount of faith to believe in something so blindly. All I want you guys to do is to admit that your "evolution" requires faith. Well I'd also like you guys to do a few other things, but one step at a time. I do believe in evolution! The change over time of my tenishoes! At the dawn of there creation they were shiny and bright now they are dark and dirty. That is kind of similar to where the earth is at today.

The problem with asserting that evolution requires "faith" is the faith in evolution is faith in the material evidence and the conclusions that have been derived from such evidence. By the same token, I have "faith" that Neptune or Pluto exist, even though I've never seen them personally.

Yet, when you start to qualify "faith" like that, we realize we take practically everything on "faith". It dilutes the meaning of the word until it becomes meaningless.

 

[Philosoft]

Down Syndrome is your classic example for evolutionism?

No, Mr. I-can't-even-read-a-three-line-post-without-extracting-words-and-concepts-that-appear-nowhere-therein. It's an example of a viable organism that carries additional genetic information.

That pretty well settles the whole issue right there. We live in a fallen world. God is going to restore this world. He will get the DNA straightened back out again, one way or the other. He will restore it back to His origional design.

I wrote a post about this silliness way back when. If what you say is true, the Fall somehow caused oogenesis to be arrested in mid-crossover during Prophase I for no other apparent reason than to increase the frequency of nondisjunction events during ovulation as the female matures. Uncool.

 

[gluadys]

(

Well Pete I'm almost done with section 2 of that 29+ evidences.
And thus far I haven't been to impressed. I'd be careful in suggesting that for your evidence.

Maybe you are not impressed because you don't fully understand the force of the evidence. Take the nested hierarchy, for example (which I believe is near the top of the list).

I often find creationists dismiss it because either they do not understand what a nested hierarchy is or because they do not understand the difference between "may" and "must".

The other major reason creationists are often not impressed by the evidence for evolution is that their understanding of what evolution is is faulty. So they are looking for evidence of something the theory of evolution does not claim. And they do not recognize the evidence they see as evidence for evolution, because they do not recognize real evolution when they see it.

It's as if they have been told "evolution is like a banana" when it's really like an apple. They don't see evidence for the banana they are looking for (because it doesn't exist) and they dismiss the evidence for apple since that's not what they are looking for.

 

[Jet Black]

Well I would and I will when I get a better understanding of it.
Honestly I don't fully understand the article or win-ace's post(I did read them). For now I'll give it a go anyway. They're saying that since apes have this "viral scar" and we do also that it proves that we came from apes?
Now it's been said that human and apes DNA is about 98% or something to that tune. So why couldn't they both get the same viruses at the same time?
Like say they were air born virri? Apes would get in fected as well as humans?
I don't know that's just a stab in the dark. I don't know much about genetics but I plan on learning more.

It is alot more detailed than that. What we are looking at is a viral insertion into the germline of an individual, which then becomes incorporated into the entire population. This is like you catching a retrovirus, it being incorporated into one of your sperm, and that particular sperm fertilising an egg which then goes on to become your child, and that child's DNA being spread around the entire human population.

Now germline insertions in themselves are very rare, and even though there are hotspots (areas where the virus is more likely to implant) these hotspots are only of the order of a few hundred times more likely than anywhere else, and there are billions of locations to choose from. Next the issue is over the "killing" of the virus once it has been inserted, note that the killing of the virus in the different species occurs in the same way. Then since the ERV is not being selected for, we have accumulations of mutations on the ERV, which provide an independent phylogenetic tree which matches up with all the others. Then there is the multiplicity of these ERVs; all the different ERVs agree with one another, or in the case where an ERV is missing, there are clear signs of a deletion.
While apes are similar, they are not that similar, and we are talking about all of them being infected in precisely the same gene locus by the same virus which dies in the same way. It doesn't even just apply to apes, it applies to other more distantly related organisms too.

 

[einstein314emc2]

There was an interesting article about D.N.A. evolved in a way that it evolution is quickened, and there are less mistakes transcribing/copying it. I suggest reading it.
"Evolution Encoded", Scientific American, April 2004

Although the fact that humans and apes share a very large percent of D.N.A., (in the upper nineties, depending on species-for instance chimps and humans are about 99% similar) is suppoting evolution, that can be argued away by saying of course the D.N.A. is simmilar, apes are simmilar to humans. But, there is one more fact to be considered. The pseudogenes are also shared between apes and humens, which are completely useless, and therefore have no reason fo being there under ID, but have explanations from evolution.
Here is an excerpt from a debate between Frank Zindler and Duane Gish.

Frank Zindler: You see, the whole problem is he is saying that there is no scientific explanation to these things. He's saying only a magical solution is possible. Now one of the other things that Dr. Gish is required to believe without any contradiction from the evidence that he might someday find, is that humans and the apes were created separately, and that the humans and the apes are totally unrelated to each other. Now one of the problems, of course, that creation science, so-called, has, is to account for the fact that when you analyze the genome of the chimpanzee and that of the human being you find that the genes of chimps and humans are 99% identical. Now I know that Dr. Gish is fond of talking about clouds and watermelons being 99% water, but they aren't related. But, of course, he knows that a cloud is not 99% water, and that what we're talking about is... the recipe [sic] for making a chimpanzee and a human being are 99% identical. We're not talking about the recipe to make a cloud or to make a watermelon. How do you account for this near identity of chimps and humans if they are not related?

Duane Gish: The... it is said and I, I, I simply doubt that it's certainly rigidly true that chimpanzees and humans are 98.4% genetically similar.

Frank Zindler: That's in the gorilla.

Duane Gish: Now that has to be in the genes that governs the structural proteins, the enzymes and things like that, which would certainly not be a shocking surprise to a creationist. After all apes and humans eat the same food, we have the same metabolic problem, we have to do all of these things. Why would not our biochemistry in that sense, be similar? But now Frank, if you're trying to tell me and this audience that a chimpanzee and man are 98.4% similar, I will b'lieve that when you will allow your daughter to date a chimpanzee and so forth. And you know you wouldn't do that because there's a whale of a difference between a chimpanzee and a human.

Frank Zindler: Ha, ha, ha. That's, that's a wonderful ad hominem. I've not heard that one before in all my years of debating. Duane, I'll give you the medal for that one.

(laughter all around)

Duane Gish: All right, now here's another thing. I have articles with me where molecular biologists are pointing out that contradictions between evolutionary phylogenetic trees based upon proteins and things like that, they are absolutely contradictory, they do not follow any... any evolutionary pattern at all.

Frank Zindler: Well, the entire, the overall pattern of molecular studies. Dr. Gish, you know perfectly well, shows a very close parallelism between the molecular evidence of homology and the comparative anatomical and fossil phylogenetic trees that have been drawn up. Now, one thing we better get back to the chimpanzee...

... But I want to ask Dr. Gish, how come not only are the hemoglobins of chimpanzees and humans identical, but we share even pseudogenes. These are genes that are there in our DNA makeup, but the genes are non-functional. They can't do anything. How is it that we got the same useless genes from the creator that the chimpanzee did?

Duane Gish: What is a pseudogene Frank?

Frank Zindler: A pseudogene is a stretch of DNA that codes for a protein, but it lacks one of the control regions, and therefore it can't be turned on to actually produce protein.

Duane Gish: You're saying there's a section of gene that has no function?

Frank Zindler: That's correct.

Duane Gish: It's useless?

Frank Zindler: That's right. It's identical...

Duane Gish: And you say that these have been carried on in the chimpanzee and the human for millions of years.

Frank Zindler: Yes...

Duane Gish: That's nonsense!

Frank Zindler: It's in the literature!

 

[ugabaru]

In fact, I've never heard of a creationist who became one for reasons other than religion. OTOH, biological evolution was borne out of the evidence.

Dr. Stanley Miller, well known for his "protein from primordial soup" experiment in the fifties may qualify as one who became a creationist.

 

[USincognito]

In fact, I've never heard of a creationist who became one for reasons other than religion. OTOH, biological evolution was borne out of the evidence.

Dr. Stanley Miller, well known for his "protein from primordial soup" experiment in the fifties may qualify as one who became a creationist.

Who and what are you responding to? Please, learn a little about how the board works before posting.