Question for a Creationist

[Loudmouth]

Receiving an organ off a person in the street as you put it, is totally different. I am not talking about tissue match to help with immune system issues (rejection). I am talking about arterial mapping, pressures, muscle thickness etc. Are you trying to say that a chimp heart would work properly in a human and anatomically be easy to install?

Are you saying that if chimps and humans share a common ancestor that their hearts should be exactly the same size and identical in every way?

You do realize that evolution is CHANGE through time, correct? So how does citing differences disprove evolution when differences is exactly what evolution is said to produce?

Am I saying that if Chimps and Humans came from a common ancestor, that I believe they would be identical in every way? Well of course not, but I would expect far more commonalities.

Why?

Look at the ancestors of Wolves, Dogs. Now they have the same eyes, inner ears, skin, the fur is the same, the bone density is the same, their organs are the same.

Could you transplant a chihuahua heart into an adult Great Dane and expect the Great Dane to survive?

Also, wolves and domesticated dogs diverged only 100,000 years ago, or even more recently. Chimps and humans diverged 5 to 7 million years ago which is 50 to 70 times further back in history.

So, with Chimps and humans coming from a common ancestor AND being VERY closely genetically matched, I would expect to see at least ONE commonality.

Using your definitions, I could argue that there is not a single commonality between any two humans. You count any deviation as a lack of commonality. Since every person is different, none of them have a single commonality.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Again, that depends on interpretation. Even a difference of 100 genes can seem closely related but may not be. You do know that a single gene can affect how thousands of others work? Evolution scientists knew the fossil record was being falsified all the time. The lineage of the horse was also proved wrong, so they went to genetics to try and reinforce their case. Now geneticists are arguing with evolution scientists saying their interpretations are wrong, they just don't understand the mechanics properly. We have seen how they then turned to vestiges, all of which are proving to be false. Richard Dawkins then turned to an idea which he calls 'bad design'. He claimed that the Human eye is designed badly, it's back to front with the retina, blood vessels and nerves. Eye EXPERTS have called him a nut, because the eye in Humans is perfect and SHOULD be back to front. We have seen teeth (claimed to be our ancestors) found to be from modern pigs. We have seen Orangutan jawbone segments claimed to be ancient man. The sooner evolution scientists become honest and humble, the better.

Judas Priest! Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

 

[Frenchfrye]

how did the separation between asexual creatures and sexual reproduction?

 

[nuttypiglet]

The tooth was never really accepted by the scientific community.

As for Piltdown Man - peer-review is a great thing. It helps keep the nonsense out.

Well there are many others I could spend all day quoting. How about a fossilized bird/lizard from a chinese farmer, accepted by scientists and even national geographic. Of course, nobody wanted to take responsibility for the embarrassment, but it did fool experts. If it wasn't for the fact that the farmer wanted to sell more, it would never have been realised.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Judas Priest! Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

from science, where else

 

[Loudmouth]

Well there are many others I could spend all day quoting. How about a fossilized bird/lizard from a chinese farmer, accepted by scientists and even national geographic.

No, it was presented by NG and roundly rejected by the scientific community. NG is not a scientific peer review journal, btw. When real scientists got their hands on it instead of journalists the fraud was quickly exposed. Interestingly enough, one half of that fossil does belong to a transitional bird.

Are you really going to try and convince us that the thousands of transitional fossils that have been found are all fakes?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

from science, where else

AIG is not science.

 

[USincognito]

Richard Dawkins then turned to an idea which he calls 'bad design'. He claimed that the Human eye is designed badly, it's back to front with the retina, blood vessels and nerves. Eye EXPERTS have called him a nut, because the eye in Humans is perfect and SHOULD be back to front.

Do you have a citation for this outrageous claim? (hint - our poorly engineered eyes were understood long before Dawkins)

We have seen teeth (claimed to be our ancestors) found to be from modern pigs.

This is the "I read something on the Internet" or "I saw this on a Youtube video" version of the Nebraska man story. If you're interested in learning what really happened, please ask. (hint - they were peccarys, not pigs and the species in question was extinct)

We have seen Orangutan jawbone segments claimed to be ancient man.

This is the "I read something on the Internet" or "I saw this on a Youtube video" version of the Piltdown man story. If you're interested in learning what really happened, please ask. (hint - the big brain first vs. bipedalism first debate hadn't been settled as there were few hominid fossils in 1912)

 

[USincognito]

Nonsense. Look, genetically they say we are cousins with chimpanzees, and yet there is nothing similar about us at all. If you study the anatomy of chimps, nothing is the same. Even the middle ear and eyes are different.

It's really just the opposite. Bone for bone, muscle for muscle, internal structure for internal structure, were very similiar and many of our structures match.

And you got a citation for the middle ear and eyes claim?

 

[nuttypiglet]

No I have no citations, I did my own research into the anatomy of the chimp piece by piece. Just layer them, start with the bone structure, including density, curvature and length, then overlay the nerves, blood vessels, muscles, etc. Then match the organs and go into the blood chemistry. If you look at all the genetic changes required to alter a chimp to human, then I'm afraid there wouldn't be enough time. That is if you are honest about chance mutation and effect. Now that is to get from chimp to human, but from our ancestor to human would be a lot more challenging. All those changes required with no intelligent input, and eventually each one was just right.

Richard Dawkins mentions this in one of his books (the eye design mess) but here are the words from his own mouth.

Oh it won't let me post links yet. Nevermind, go to Youtube and search RICHARD DAWKINS BAD DESIGN EYE and it will be the top link, an interview.

 

[Tomk80]

No I have no citations, I did my own research into the anatomy of the chimp piece by piece. Just layer them, start with the bone structure, including density, curvature and length, then overlay the nerves, blood vessels, muscles, etc. Then match the organs and go into the blood chemistry. If you look at all the genetic changes required to alter a chimp to human, then I'm afraid there wouldn't be enough time. That is if you are honest about chance mutation and effect. Now that is to get from chimp to human, but from our ancestor to human would be a lot more challenging. All those changes required with no intelligent input, and eventually each one was just right.

This shows a lack of knowledge on embryology. You don't need multiple genetic changes for bone structure, density etc to all evolve in the same direction of changes. If that were the case, even small mutations in humans would get you a mismatch in bone, muscle and skin structure, leading to severe disabilities.

These tissues develop in the womb through signalling molecules. Change the timing when a single signalling molecule will start to function, and all these layers will change simultaneously, giving rise to new morphologies.

 

[Loudmouth]

No I have no citations, I did my own research into the anatomy of the chimp piece by piece.

Then cite the papers that you used to do your research.

Just layer them, start with the bone structure, including density, curvature and length, then overlay the nerves, blood vessels, muscles, etc. Then match the organs and go into the blood chemistry. If you look at all the genetic changes required to alter a chimp to human, then I'm afraid there wouldn't be enough time.

Evidence please.

Let's just do some basic, back of the envelope calculations. Let's use a low mutation rate at 50 mutations per individual per generation (which is in line with the directly observed human mutation rate). Let's also assume a smallish constant population of 100,000, and a longish generation time of 25 years. According to the chimp genome paper there are 35 million single base substitutions and 5 million indels, so that is 40 million mutations total between the two lineages. Let's assume that half of those occurred in the human lineage, or 20 million mutations total, and those occurred in the last 5 million years since the two lineages diverged.

Let's do the math. In a population of 100,000 with a mutation rate of 50 per individual that is 5 million mutations per generation. With a generation time of 25 years, that is 200,000 generations in 5 million years. With 5 million mutations per generation, and 200,000 generations, that is 1 trillion mutations that have occurred in the populations that are part of our direct lineage. Let me say that again. 1 trillion mutations.

Now, let's compare that to the actual differences between the species. That difference is 40 million mutations, with about half of those mutations occuring in each lineage, so just 20 million mutations that need to have accumulated in the human lineage since diverging from a common ancestor. Compare that to the 1 trillion mutations that have occurred. This means that just 0.002% if the mutations that did occur needed to make it into the modern human population. Let me repeat that. Just 0.002%. And of those 0.002% mutations that did make it into the modern population, many of those are neutral mutations that have no impact on human physiology or morphology.

So, please tell me how there hasn't been enough time. I am all ears.

That is if you are honest about chance mutation and effect.

Honest? You are telling me that you are being honest? Really? I highly doubt that.

All those changes required with no intelligent input, and eventually each one was just right.

Have you heard of the Sharpshooter Fallacy?

 

[nuttypiglet]

like I said, be honest. You are assuming that the mutations are all beneficial and would not cause death, in fact you are assuming MANY things. Your math is terrible

 

[nuttypiglet]

As for giving the information I read, I suggest you spend your own time doing the research. You are asking me because you are implying that I am not being honest and I find that an insult. It's an old tactic of evolutionists which has become quite boring. It's like being back at school and being asked if you can copy my work. Do your own. I spent many months on this.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

like I said, be honest. You are assuming that the mutations are all beneficial and would not cause death, in fact you are assuming MANY things. Your math is terrible

Your own genome contains hundreds of mutations, yet you're typing away.

BTW, did you know that blue eyes are a mutation (OCA2), occurring in the human genome about 6-10,000 years ago?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

As for giving the information I read, I suggest you spend your own time doing the research. You are asking me because you are implying that I am not being honest and I find that an insult. It's an old tactic of evolutionists which has become quite boring. It's like being back at school and being asked if you can copy my work. Do your own. I spent many months on this.

It's clear you spent many months perusing creo/id www's.

Everything you've copy pasta'd so far is classic PRATT claptrap.

 

[Loudmouth]

like I said, be honest.

Follow your own advice.

You are assuming that the mutations are all beneficial and would not cause death, in fact you are assuming MANY things. Your math is terrible

Did you read my post? Here is a snippet for you:

"And of those 0.002% mutations that did make it into the modern population, many of those are neutral mutations that have no impact on human physiology or morphology."

Also, where is my math terrible? Can you please point to the errors?

 

[Loudmouth]

As for giving the information I read, I suggest you spend your own time doing the research.

I have done the research. What you are claiming is simply wrong and contradicted by the facts.

When was the last time you did a PubMed search? Have you ever done a PubMed search? Ever read a primary research paper from a peer review journal? I have read hundreds of primary research papers. What about you? I have a degree in the biological sciences. What about you? I actually work with DNA. What about you? When was the last time you did a ligation reaction using a TA-TOPO vector? Ever done a PCR?

Do you really think that you, with your obvious lack of knowledge in the biological sciences including genetics and anatomy, can overturn one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science because you see things that hundreds of thousands of degreed biologists do not see? Really?

 

[nuttypiglet]

pubmed? lmao I've probably been there far more than you to research my heart condition.
I have a degree in computer science, and that's how I can recognise DNA as designed code. If you are the expert on this code, then enlighten me to how it all started? how many proteins were needed for the first cell, and how did it develop reproduction? Or are you one of those who throw away responsibility and say it arrived on the back of a meteor?

 

[Tomk80]

like I said, be honest. You are assuming that the mutations are all beneficial and would not cause death, in fact you are assuming MANY things. Your math is terrible

No, I'm not. Maybe it would be good to learn about evolution first. Those mutations that are bad, are weeded out of the population through natural selection. That is an observed process. The mutations that brought about the difference between humans and apes, are not the only mutations that occurred during that time period.