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.
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 themtrue. 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??true. but it's not evidence for a common descent.
I explained, with plots, in post #265. If there are details there you don't understand, ask.
That's an entirely subjective conclusion. "Looks designed to me" is not an objective test of a hypothesis.
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?
Does it naturally occur?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
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??
No, and it would help your “model” if the words in it were correctly spelledvery 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?
That's right. It didn't. We are capable of drawing conclusions from evidence without the conclusions being handed to us. Are you?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.
How are you getting "similar genome" from "guanosine residues are more susceptible to transversions"?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.
First, we humans often interpret reality in comparison to our designed devices. This does not mean that reality itself is actually a designed device.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
By "human design," do you mean things that humans design?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 is entirely possible for similar traits to develop independently. This is called convergent evolution.it's true that evolution may explain this non-hierarchy by claiming for gene loss, but it fit with the creation model as well.
I'd say "pot calling the kettle black," but this is more "black hole calling the Sun black."the problem is that any phylogenetic finding cant falsified evolution. therefore evolution predict nothing in this field.
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!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?
-_- 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.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.
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?The article linked clearly states that,
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.-_- 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.
you can call him anything you want. but we still talking about human.
On the creation model, when did the fusion event take place?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?
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??
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.
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.![]()
ok. let's check this argument. are you saying that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design?
in this case they can argue for convergent evolution (mammals evolved twice). so such finding will not falsifed evolution.