proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

The chromosome 2 fusion explains why humans have 1 less pair of chromosomes than chimps.

true. but it's not evidence for a common descent.

 

[TBDude65]

true. but it's not evidence for a common descent.

Yeah...that’s quite literally the conclusion one would draw from that evidence since it would be a prediction born from the theory of evolution. You can’t assert facts out of existence because you don’t like them

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

true. but it's not evidence for a common descent.

Yes actually, It is. Human Chromosome 2 shows all the telltale signs that it is a fusion of Chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b, complete with a telomere appearing smack-bang in the middle where it would expect to be found, exactly as if it were the result of two chromosomes fusing... How is that not evidence??

What's more - what kind of shoddy workmanship is that for an allegedly "Intelligent" designer? Who does half a job & leaves dodgy half-baked ham-fisted work like that laying around for others to see??

..... how embarrassing ..... -_-

 

[xianghua]

I explained, with plots, in post #265. If there are details there you don't understand, ask.

ok. i found the paper you are talking about here (figure 4):

Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees

this figure refer to the similarity between mutations rate among chimp and human. so the rate of change for a specific type of mutation (a<-->t for instance) is similar between chimp and human. the paper itself doesnt say that this finding is evidence for a common descent. the author even mentioned why some type of mutations occur frequently higher than others:

"The excess of transversions at CpG sites may be related to oxidative damage, since guanosine residues have been shown to be more susceptible to transversions than are other bases, when exposed to oxygen radicals in vitro"

so basically the similarity is because of a similar genetic traits. and a similar genome can be the result of a similar designer.

That's an entirely subjective conclusion. "Looks designed to me" is not an objective test of a hypothesis.

ok. let's check this argument. are you saying that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design?

image from here:
Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

Really? Why? How does it differ from common descent in this regard? Does creationism predict that examples like this will have different molecular mechanisms in different parts of the tree or the same mechanisms? How does that compare with the prediction of common descent for the same cases?

if the design model is true- then we should find many cases of genes that are shared between far sepcies but not in some species between them. as we can find in a human design. it's true that evolution may explain this non-hierarchy by claiming for gene loss, but it fit with the creation model as well. the problem is that any phylogenetic finding cant falsified evolution. therefore evolution predict nothing in this field.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

ok. let's check this argument. are you saying that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design?

the image from here:
Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

Does it naturally occur?

 

[xianghua]

Yes actually, It is. Human Chromosome 2 shows all the telltale signs that it is a fusion of Chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b, complete with a telomere appearing smack-bang in the middle where it would expect to be found, exactly as if it were the result of two chromosomes fusing... How is that not evidence??

very simple. take a look at this figure:

are you see now why this fusion isnt evidence for a common descent rather then a common designer?

 

[TBDude65]

very simple. take a look at this figure:

View attachment 208502
do you see now why this fusion isnt evidence for a common descent rather then a common designer?

No, and it would help your “model” if the words in it were correctly spelled

 

[Wakalix]

ok. i found the paper you are talking about here (figure 4):

Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees

this figure refer to the similarity between mutations rate among chimp and human. so the rate of change for a specific type of mutation (a<-->t for instance) is similar between chimp and human. the paper itself doesnt say that this finding is evidence for a common descent.

That's right. It didn't. We are capable of drawing conclusions from evidence without the conclusions being handed to us. Are you?

the author even mentioned why some type of mutations occur frequently higher than others:

"The excess of transversions at CpG sites may be related to oxidative damage, since guanosine residues have been shown to be more susceptible to transversions than are other bases, when exposed to oxygen radicals in vitro"

so basically the similarity is because of a similar genome. and a similar genome can be the result of a similar designer.

How are you getting "similar genome" from "guanosine residues are more susceptible to transversions"?

ok. let's check this argument. are you saying that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design?

image from here:
Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

First, we humans often interpret reality in comparison to our designed devices. This does not mean that reality itself is actually a designed device.
Second, yes, that's right! A spinning motor is not evidence of design. This is because you don't need design to explain why there are spinning motors.

if the design model is true- then we should find many cases of genes that are shared between far sepcies but not in some species between them. as we can find in a human design.

By "human design," do you mean things that humans design?

it's true that evolution may explain this non-hierarchy by claiming for gene loss, but it fit with the creation model as well.

It is entirely possible for similar traits to develop independently. This is called convergent evolution.

the problem is that any phylogenetic finding cant falsified evolution. therefore evolution predict nothing in this field.

I'd say "pot calling the kettle black," but this is more "black hole calling the Sun black."

 

[Wakalix]

No, and it would help your “model” if the words in it were correctly spelled

They were making an analogy to stationery. Evolution is just words on paper, you know?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

very simple. take a look at this figure:

View attachment 208508

are you see now why this fusion isnt evidence for a common descent rather then a common designer?

Nope! I can understand why it would seem like it wouldn't matter - in fact, until ENCODE came along to rain on your parade, it was a mystery why we only had 23 pairs while all the other great apes had 24 pairs. Once we had the tools to drill down to that resolution and examine the differences, the genetic scar of that chromosome fusion was exactly evident!

A Creation model wouldn't have that genetic scar in the middle of the chromosome, after all, we would be uniquely created, right...? How many species do we observe with telomeres in the middle of a chromosome? You know what a telomere is, right??

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is a theory, so where does that leave us...another "Says you, others would disagree." I'll be happy to leave it at that.

-_- it goes far beyond that when it comes to rejecting a theory without having evidence that goes against it. It's like picking a fraction of .00001% over 99.99999% chance of success.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The article linked clearly states that,

Yes but the point is a long established belief on the evolution of horses was falsified. Now you have a new theory that will soon be falsified when new information comes along. By comparison we have the teachings of Moses that has stood rock solid for over 3500 years. Why would you throw away what is known to be true for a teaching that is far from being proven?

Let me give you an important example. If evolution was so dependable and reliable, then the Paleolithic diet would have more substance. Evolution theory states that the diet evolves along with the species. Yet science fails to be able to establish a proper diet for us based on evolutionary theory. So when the rubber meets the road the theory fails to accomplish its intended purpose. Just like over time horse evolution failed and had to be replaced with a new theory.

You know me and you know I am a theistic evolutionist. But I am presenting an argument against evolution to keep the discussion going. I could easily argue either side of this issue but I choose to argue against Darwin's theory in this situation. Francis Collins chooses to defend the theory, I choose to argue against it to see if we can uncover any of it's inherit weakness.

We support common ancestor and descent by modification. But that does not mean we support the whole montage of theorys that come under the umbrella of evolutionary science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

-_- it goes far beyond that when it comes to rejecting a theory without having evidence that goes against it. It's like picking a fraction of .00001% over 99.99999% chance of success.

The failure rate is more like 99.99%. Esp when you bring in the DNA evidence that shows just about everything science believed to be true 10 years ago is now turning out NOT to be true. Just one example is they use to talk about "JUNK" DNA and now they are finding out that so called junk is not junk at all but used for regulation.

Look at the famous monkey trial debate. Now science is even backing off on that.

"For decades, scientists have agreed that human and chimpanzee DNA is 98.5 percent identical. A recent study suggests that number may need to be revised. Using a new, more sophisticated method to measure the similarities between human and chimp DNA, the two species may share only 95 percent genetic material."

Humans, Chimps Not as Closely Related as Thought?

 

[Allandavid]

you can call him anything you want. but we still talking about human.

Oh I see...can you please present evidence of HUMANS with that extra pair of chromosomes....!?

Now before you answer, you should be aware that that fusion at chromosome 2 was present BEFORE the emergence of modern humans. It is found in the genomes of both Denisovans and Neanderthals...

 

[Astrophile]

very simple. take a look at this figure:

View attachment 208508

are you see now why this fusion isn't evidence for a common descent rather then a common designer?

On the creation model, when did the fusion event take place?

 

[pitabread]

Yes actually, It is. Human Chromosome 2 shows all the telltale signs that it is a fusion of Chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b, complete with a telomere appearing smack-bang in the middle where it would expect to be found, exactly as if it were the result of two chromosomes fusing... How is that not evidence??

In fairness, the evidence of chromosomal fusion isn't evidence for common descent in and of itself; it's merely evidence that at one point that the human ancestral lineage had 24 pairs instead of 23 pairs of chromosomes.

The entire argument around the chromosomal fusion stemmed from creationists using different chromosome counts as evidence of independent design and discounting the fact that fusions can occur and become fixed in a population.

The fact that creationists appear willing to accept chromosomal fusions is a win in and of itself. It demonstrates the evolution of creationist thought.

 

[pitabread]

Esp when you bring in the DNA evidence that shows just about everything science believed to be true 10 years ago is now turning out NOT to be true.

"Just about everything"? Really?

Methinks your statement is steeped in hyberbole.

 

[Allandavid]

In fairness, the evidence of chromosomal fusion isn't evidence for common descent in and of itself; it's merely evidence that at one point that human ancestral lineage had 24 pairs instead of 23 pairs of chromosomes.

The entire argument around the chromosomal fusion stemmed from creationists using different chromosome counts as evidence of independent design and discounting the fact that fusions can occur and become fixed in a population.

The fact that creationists appear willing to accept chromosomal fusions is a win in and of itself. It demonstrates the evolution of creationist thought.

I guess the fusion is indirect evidence. If there were no explanation for the different chromosome count between two closely related species, then the common ancestry theory might have a serious problem. However, given that there is a perfectly satisfactory explanation ( the fusion event), the theory remains intact.

 

[Tanj]

ok. let's check this argument. are you saying that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design?

That spinning motor is a virulence and pathogenesis marker that makes bacteria better at causing disease, or even turns a harmless bacteria into a disease causing one.

You are saying your God designed diseases.

 

[Kylie]

in this case they can argue for convergent evolution (mammals evolved twice). so such finding will not falsifed evolution.

The odds of two groups of organisms evolving at very different points in time with exactly the same identifying features to identify both groups as mammals are so remote that the idea of convergent evolution could be dismissed.

So such a find WOULD falsify evolution.

Care to try again?