The science of creationism: where is it?

[juvenissun]

Juv sez..."Good, at least you realized what's left.
Now, give the same data an interpretation according to creationism. That is it. Everything fits perfefectly. QUOTE//////////////////

Hespera sez... Could you give us a quick definition of what you mean by evolution and by creation? Seems like everyone on the creationist side has a different definition for each of those terms.


Also... i think its kind of pointless to argue "my interpretation is better". I think the theologists like to talk like that, concerning the bible.

How about it you, as a scientist, self proclaimed or otherwise, wade in and defeat science on its own terms ? Science defeats its own theories all the time, using its own standards. so with truth reality and god on your side, you should be able to do this!

IF evoluiton is false it should be a cinch to bring up a bit of data to falsify it.

however.....

THAT is one thing you cant do, which i expect is why you try a different approach, one that just goes round and round on opinions.


if you want to argue like 'them scientists say this rock is old but i say its young", I guess i will just sort of watch from time to time and see how long that goes on.

Very loose definition:

Creationism: Everything is created by God.
Evolutionism: Everything is not created by God.

 

[juvenissun]

Oooh, let me, let me!

Actually, I'll pick three.

Wikipedia if you don't understand anything.

The similarities and differences between Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens, relative to where they originated. H. Neanderthalensis being native to colder climates, and also, physically better adapted to colder climates than H. Sapiens. At first glance, they'd apear human, but their DNA and skeletal anatomy are actually very different. (Our genome is actually a lot more similar to the chimp genome than H. Neanderthalensis.).

The fusion of two chimp chromosomes in our genome. Human chromosome #2, has telomeres in the middle. (Telomeres are like end caps for chromosomes, only found in the centre of chromosomes if those chromosomes are the result of a fusion of two other chromosomes.)

Atavism. Atavism is similar to when certain traits (Say blue eyes or a certain shaped nose) skip a generation. Say, someone may share common features with their grand parents, or great great grand parents, that were absent for the inbetween generations. Atavism takes this a step further, it turns on parts of an animal's genome that have been dormant for a very long time, resulting in things like chicken with teeth, humans with tails, snakes with legs, whales and dolphins with hind limbs. Of course, we only find atavisms for traits that an animal has had in its evolutionary history. You'll never find atavism say... giving a whale feathers, or an orangutan wings.

I'd be supprised if you can explain any of them from a creationist perspective.

Sorry, my hand is full. I am not a biologist.

 

[juvenissun]

Fine...love to.

The presence of retroviral insertions in both the genomes of humans and other primates. Their shared nature and identical locations are overwhelming evidence in support of the theory that posits that humans and the other primates shared a common ancestor.

Your creationist "interpretation"? That your god just 'magicked' them there to make scientists look silly...?

This topic is way over my head. But I will try. If you are tired of me, then please stop at any time.

What is the "shared nature" and the "identical locations"? (Please don't let me read articles, I won't. I want to hear from you.). The blue text is what I called the interpretation, and I ignore it.

 

[Hespera]

juv..."Very loose definition:

Creationism: Everything is created by God.
Evolutionism: Everything is not created by God.QUOTE//////////////////

hespera sez...

Ok.

Creationism exists only in the imagination of theists.

Evolution refers to how life developed on earth.

"isms" are intangible, and you are defining them in terms of physical objects. I find your definitions to be completely useless.

And you know nothing about biology but propose to debate evolution.

 

[corvus_corax]

This time, if you wish me to tell you something, you need to try harder.

No I don't.
You just need to address the problem at hand.
Namely-

Creation Science is a contradiction in terms.

Of course, you won't because you can't.

 

[Hespera]

Corvus sez...No I don't.
You just need to address the problem at hand.
Namely-
Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Creation Science is a contradiction in terms.
​

Of course, you won't because you can't.QUOTE////////////////

Hespear sez...

It is kind of fun to see the magic bullet words that get used to solve this.

one says 'different state past"
another says "goddidit"
and there is.. "evolutionists interpret the data wrong"
and too "conspiracy"
and dont forget.."scientists are all deluded by the devil"

Any of those magic bullets will shoot down evolution because it was wrong all the time anyhow.

 

[Alunyel]

Very loose definition:

Creationism: Everything is created by God.
Evolutionism: Everything is not created by God.

LOL!

So what's Gravityism? Or Germism? Or Relativityism? Or Electromagneticism?

Stop trying to apply the way your religion works to scientific theories. It doesn't work like that.

We're not "Evolutionists" any more than we're "Gravityists" or "Germists".

Also, you havn't explained anything either me or Hes said, from a creationist perspective, as you said you would.

Why not?

Oh. Because you can't.

 

[juvenissun]

juv..."Very loose definition:

Creationism: Everything is created by God.
Evolutionism: Everything is not created by God.QUOTE//////////////////

hespera sez...

Ok.

Creationism exists only in the imagination of theists.

Evolution refers to how life developed on earth.

"isms" are intangible, and you are defining them in terms of physical objects. I find your definitions to be completely useless.

And you know nothing about biology but propose to debate evolution.

This illustrates the power of wisdom given to creation scientist.
Do you (or someone else) want to try the same on geology?

 

[Hespera]

juv sez...

This illustrates the power of wisdom given to creation scientist.
Do you (or someone else) want to try the same on geology?QUOTE////////////



hespera sesz...

You are a funny guy for sure. You were given the wisdom of an oxymoron?

Try the same as what on geology?

you want to debate geology?

 

[biggles53]

This topic is way over my head. But I will try. If you are tired of me, then please stop at any time.

What is the "shared nature" and the "identical locations"? (Please don't let me read articles, I won't. I want to hear from you.). The blue text is what I called the interpretation, and I ignore it.

OK, in layman's terms...

Within the genome of humans and of the other great apes there are the remnants of ancient viral infections. These viruses (retroviruses) are unusual in that they leave behind markers of their earlier presence. These markers are then passed down from generation to generation, as they have become part of the genetic makeup of the host.

Now, as you have probably been made aware, part of the explanation of the ToE and of common ancestry is that we (humans) share a common ancestor with the other primates. If this is indeed the case, then we should see a number of features in ours and the genomes of those other primates.

One of these predictions has been described by Alunyel - ie, that we should see a 'fusing' of two chromosomes from our earlier ancestor, in order to give us the 23 pairs that we possess - and we do see this - at chromosome #2.

The other thing we should see is that, if we have a common ancestor, the retroviral 'markers' should also be present in our ancestral 'cousins' - and they are!

And, not only are they in the IDENTICAL location in the genome as in ours, but the TYPES (oh yes, there's more than one!) of insertions that are shared, match EXACTLY the phylogeny (the 'tree of life' pattern) as suggested by ALL the other evidence supporting the ToE and shared`ancestry.

In short, many in the biological sciences assert that the evidence provided by these ERV's is ON ITS OWN overwhelming support for the theory....

Questions...?

 

[juvenissun]

OK, in layman's terms...

Within the genome of humans and of the other great apes there are the remnants of ancient viral infections. These viruses (retroviruses) are unusual in that they leave behind markers of their earlier presence. These markers are then passed down from generation to generation, as they have become part of the genetic makeup of the host.

Now, as you have probably been made aware, part of the explanation of the ToE and of common ancestry is that we (humans) share a common ancestor with the other primates. If this is indeed the case, then we should see a number of features in ours and the genomes of those other primates.

One of these predictions has been described by Alunyel - ie, that we should see a 'fusing' of two chromosomes from our earlier ancestor, in order to give us the 23 pairs that we possess - and we do see this - at chromosome #2.

The other thing we should see is that, if we have a common ancestor, the retroviral 'markers' should also be present in our ancestral 'cousins' - and they are!

And, not only are they in the IDENTICAL location in the genome as in ours, but the TYPES (oh yes, there's more than one!) of insertions that are shared, match EXACTLY the phylogeny (the 'tree of life' pattern) as suggested by ALL the other evidence supporting the ToE and shared`ancestry.

In short, many in the biological sciences assert that the evidence provided by these ERV's is ON ITS OWN overwhelming support for the theory....

Questions...?

Let me repeat what I understand first:

The observation is: In human genome, we found a feature which can only derived from the change of ape(?) genome.

Then the conclusion goes: human and ape(?) must have a common ancestor.

Is this precisely right? Please correct me, so I can go on with my argument.

To make it better, if you can, please plug in the exact animal name for the "ape(?)".

And also a very simple (?) question about the idea of common ancestor. If I had the correct understanding, would it be more correct to say that human is derived (evolved) from ape(?), rather than has a common ancestor with ape(?)?

 

[juvenissun]

juv sez...

This illustrates the power of wisdom given to creation scientist.
Do you (or someone else) want to try the same on geology?QUOTE////////////



hespera sesz...

You are a funny guy for sure. You were given the wisdom of an oxymoron?

Try the same as what on geology?

you want to debate geology?

Advice: take a logic course. So you can put the question together.

I challenge anyone to use geologic science to disprove creationism. (paleontology is excluded)

 

[BananaSlug]

Advice: take a logic course. So you can put the question together.

I challenge anyone to use geologic science to disprove creationism. (paleontology is excluded)

Why are you excluding paleontology? Paleontology is a subset of geological science.

 

[BananaSlug]

Let me repeat what I understand first:

The observation is: In human genome, we found a feature which can only derived from the change of ape(?) genome.

No, it occured after the hominid/ape split.

Then the conclusion goes: human and ape(?) must have a common ancestor.

The number of genes they share is more important than the changes.

To make it better, if you can, please plug in the exact animal name for the "ape(?)".

Human/Chimpanzee chromosome comparison.

And also a very simple (?) question about the idea of common ancestor. If I had the correct understanding, would it be more correct to say that human is derived (evolved) from ape(?), rather than has a common ancestor with ape(?)?

Both are true. Humans are still apes. We share a common ancestor with modern apes but did not evolve from them. Our ancestors were not modern chimpanzees but for all practical purposes they were apes.

 

[Alunyel]

Human/Chimpanzee chromosome comparison.

The second Human chromosome might need a small explanation for him to understand it.

In the 2nd chromosome, the two chimp chromosomes on the right are the two that fused together.

This means that at some point in our ancestry, those two chromosomes weren't fused together, and we had 48 chromosomes like other great apes, instead of 46, like we do now.

 

[juvenissun]

Why are you excluding paleontology? Paleontology is a subset of geological science.

Because (geology minus paleontology) is what I know better. In fact, paleontology is OK, as long as we do not talk about anatomy.

 

[juvenissun]

No, it occured after the hominid/ape split.

....

Both are true. Humans are still apes. We share a common ancestor with modern apes but did not evolve from them. Our ancestors were not modern chimpanzees but for all practical purposes they were apes.

Did we "split" from ape? If we did, how come we are still ape?

What is the name of the animal right at the point of the split? You can trace it all the way back until you find one at that splitting point.

OK, take this one to illustrate. Sorry, it is too big.

What is the name of that line-drawing ape(?). Are we talk about the chromosome differences between us and that animal? Or it is one level up where no animal is identified?

 

[Alunyel]

If you get the chance, I highly recommend watching the "Walking With Cavemen" series, by Impossible Pictures. It's very well done, albeit not as impressive as Walking with Monsters, Walking With Dinosaurs or Walking With Beasts.

I think it'll answer a lot of your questions about Human ancestry.

The ape just below the human in that diagram is Austrolapithicus Afarensis. Its skeletal structure was such that it couldn't physically walk like a typical ape, it had to walk bipedally, like us.

We didn't so much "split from ape" as split from a different species of ape. I'm not entirely sure what that species' name was, but A. Afarensis was the first distinct species after that split, in our ancestry.

YouTube - Walking with Cavemen - Part 1 First Ancestors 1 of 3

YouTube - Walking with Cavemen - Part 1 First Ancestors 2 of 3

YouTube - Walking with Cavemen - Part 1 First Ancestors 3 of 3

 

[biggles53]

Let me repeat what I understand first:

The observation is: In human genome, we found a feature which can only derived from the change of ape(?) genome.

Kind of. We have a remnant ERV (the 'marker' of that ancient viral infection) in our genome which is in the EXACT same position as in a chimp's genome. There are other ERV's which we likewise share with gorillas, orangs, etc. The odds of these markers occurring in the same location in two genomes just ONCE by chance goes off the radar - several of them can ONLY be explained by us all having common ancestors that were infected by the virus, and that the markers were passed on to subsequent 'splits' in the evolutionary path.

Then the conclusion goes: human and ape(?) must have a common ancestor

.

99% correct. We ARE apes....

Is this precisely right? Please correct me, so I can go on with my argument.

You're in the right ballpark....

To make it better, if you can, please plug in the exact animal name for the "ape(?)".

The ones we share the markers with? - chimps, gorillas, etc. The original ancestor? We don't have a name for it yet.

And also a very simple (?) question about the idea of common ancestor. If I had the correct understanding, would it be more correct to say that human is derived (evolved) from ape(?), rather than has a common ancestor with ape(?)?

Again, humans ARE apes. Of the other primates we see existing today, we all have an ancient common ancestor...

 

[Washington]

The ones we share the markers with? - chimps, gorillas, etc. The original ancestor? We don't have a name for it yet.

Try "Hominidae," the family consisting of, among others, the great apes, hominids (us), chimpanzees, and orangutans,