Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Fine. If that is the case let's see the peer reviewed paper where they explain how they did that.
Oh wait, you don't have a peer reviewed paper.
Upvote
0
-
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.
What about the DNA evidence?
- Thread starter bhsmte
- Start date
Fine. If that is the case let's see the peer reviewed paper where they explain how they did that.
Oh wait, you don't have a peer reviewed paper.
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,006
- 1,742
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Thats because i searched and could not find one. But as i said how is it acceptable for your side to present evidence that is not peer reviewed and then dispute evidence on the basis that it is not peer reviewed. In this case just about all evidence presented on this site will be invalid. If peer reviewed papers have not been done well i cant do much about that. But if science sites put this info out there and they are done by the experts then that's all you can go by. What about you present a peer reviewed paper that disputes the evidence we have presented.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, it is not acceptable for our side to present non-peer reviewed evidence.
You have to remember that some of the evidence we present is very old and was peer reviewed long ago.
Please give a link to the so called "science sites" where you first found this. I am betting that it is a creationists site.
You have not presented any evidence. All you have presented is some baseless claims. So how can I present a paper that disputes it. Plus how new is this news? If it is very new their hasn't been time to write a paper to oppose it.
Please, no insane requests.
Upvote
0
Did you even really read the bolded pasts.
They were red blood cells. As in 'they used to be and are not currently'. Past tense.
There. Is. No. DNA. No red blood cells. I know creationists often get mad when people treat you like you're idiots, but it gets really hard not to when you don't even display basic reading comprehension skills.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,006
- 1,742
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
How is it an insane request that i ask for the same level of quality referencing that you are asking of me.
Ok heres even more non religious and science links.
The National Center for Biotechnology Information advances science and health by providing access to biomedical and genomic information.
Soft-tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyr... [Science. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Molecular analysis supports controversial claim for dinosaur cells : Nature News & Comment
The site below is http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/9/1637.full
The Paradox of the “Ancient†Bacterium Which Contains “Modern†Protein-Coding Genes
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
What is wrong with you?
I have told you more than once that we have to follow the same rules that you do.
Now the so called problem of soft tissues has been dealt with numerous times. What did you not understand about the previous times that it was explained how your claims were overblown?
Calling the tissue "soft" was a bit of an overstatement since they first had to be dissolved in acid before the soft tissues were found to be there. They are of a very stable material that was preserved as the bone was fossilized. The finding was surprising but is not evidence of a young Earth. It is too late at night to dig up the articles that you have already ignored at least once.
So I will check in the morning. Please think carefully before you answer.
What did you not understand last time when all of this was explained to you? There is no point in me or others getting articles for you if you are simply going to ignore the answers that show you to be wrong.
One important point to remember before you make any foolish claims, the scientist that found this is a Christian who does not think in any way that her find indicates a young Earth.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,006
- 1,742
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
This was an extract from a peer reviewed paper about comparing apes to humans in the gene code (DNA)
The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."
Nonetheless, they found that:
Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.
Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:
The top map is the Chimpanzee Y chromosome and the lower map is the human Y chromosome.
"Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.
There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes in the Chimpanzee Y chromosome to become the human Y chromosome.
The two chromosomes are so different it is like comparing the chromosomes of humans to those of chickens.
The regions of both chromosomes are color coded to identify the gene family or DNA type as follows (MSY means male specific region of the Y chromosome):
The same research paper also revealed that the human Y chromosome has at least 35 more genes than the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Below is the gene table:
The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have 41 more genes.
This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes. In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.
But apes do not have any "gene generating system."
Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."
This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.
Evolution says things can still happen with vast amounts of time and small incremental changes. Then the discovery of the skulls at Georgia which is saying we may only come from 1 species of ape-man means there are massive gaps to allow those changes. Besides scientists have never found any mechanism in ape or human that can create new genes let along the complex codes needed to become human.
The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."
Nonetheless, they found that:
- The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.
- The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.
Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.
Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:
The top map is the Chimpanzee Y chromosome and the lower map is the human Y chromosome.
"Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.
There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes in the Chimpanzee Y chromosome to become the human Y chromosome.
The two chromosomes are so different it is like comparing the chromosomes of humans to those of chickens.
The regions of both chromosomes are color coded to identify the gene family or DNA type as follows (MSY means male specific region of the Y chromosome):
APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE
APES AND HUMANS CANNOT ADD GENES TO THEIR GENOMES
The same research paper also revealed that the human Y chromosome has at least 35 more genes than the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Below is the gene table:
The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have 41 more genes.
This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes. In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.
But apes do not have any "gene generating system."
Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."
This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.
Evolution says things can still happen with vast amounts of time and small incremental changes. Then the discovery of the skulls at Georgia which is saying we may only come from 1 species of ape-man means there are massive gaps to allow those changes. Besides scientists have never found any mechanism in ape or human that can create new genes let along the complex codes needed to become human.
Upvote
0
It's not an extract from a peer-reviewed paper, it's you (or someone you're copying about) talking about a peer-reviewed paper. Do you have a link to wherever you got this from?
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,006
- 1,742
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Well first of all im not a geneticist so i couldn't have done it and 2nd are you disputing the genetic info, do you know what the info means. So you are discarding it on the basis of not whether its right but because you dont trust the source.
The source comes from a site that says they only use peer reviewed information but then some are Christians behind it so i guess that makes it all invalid.
The information i posted did say at the beginning that this is what the scientist that did the tests found and was in their paper. There is no link to the paper so I guess i cant use it then even though the information is correct. Are you a geneticist.
I am not a genetisists and i would say either are you. So lets break it down to a basic level of understanding. We know that ape and human genetic codes are different. ie chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes. We know that humans have more chromosomes than apes.
How do apes get those extra genes and chromosomes, what is the mechanism. Surely scientist can test this and show the possible mechanism for this to work. If they have been working in this field for years now surely they must have an idea.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,825
- 7,842
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
The information comes from here. The scientific data is very likely correct (or likely very nearly correct); the interpretation, on the other hand, doesn't reflect any knowledge of genetics.
First, much of the differences between the Y chromosomes from the two species is thought to be the result of gene loss in the chimpanzee lineage, not gene gain in the human lineage. Second, there certainly is a well-known mechanism for species to acquire new genes: gene duplication. It's because of gene duplication that humans have almost 30 more copies of a single Y gene than chimpanzees do.
(By the way, I am both a geneticist and a Christian, and I have to say, these arguments against evolution are just awful, both as attempts at science and as apologetics.)
Upvote
0
Did I say I was?
I don't know about you, but I'm immediately suspicious of someone who'll quote a paper, but then not bother to actually link it. Showing sources is a rather basic and easy thing to do, and when it's avoided, it gives the impression of either incompetence or chicanery. Sometimes both.
I'm not, but I'm curious as to how you made that judgment.
While I'm not geneticist, I'd assume the first step is establishing that chimpanzees today have the same number of genes as ones in the past. Does the paper in question address this?
Did you actually bother to look and see, or did you just assume there was no answer, even though scientists have surely been aware of this for quite some time?
Upvote
0
You can't be an evolutionist and a Christian. Jesus himself said a man can't serve two masters.
From Sir Arthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:
Chapter 3
The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942
VISITORS TO GERMANY IN 1934 FOUND AN emotional storm sweeping through masses of the people, particularly the more educated. The movement had much in common with a religious revival. The preacher in this case was Adolf Hitler; his doctrine was, and is, tribalism; he had stirred in the emotional depths of the German people those long-dormant tribal feelings which find release and relief in mutual service; men and women who had been leading selfish lives or were drifting aimlessly were given a new purpose in life: service to their country the Third Reich. It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into
10.
modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!
We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning Hitler's evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf, extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years, and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio Political Foreign Correspondenee), published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that "the German race theory" stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; "it will bring about a real understanding for the first time." "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it." Here we have expounded the perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the "greatest racial sin" that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive "genes" which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German people without impediment. Hitler is also a eugenist. Germans who suffer from
11.
hereditable imperfections of mind or of body must be rendered infertile, so that "the strong may not be plagued by the weak." Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, taught a somewhat similar evolutionary doctrine namely, that if our nation was to prosper we must give encouragement to the strong rather than to the weak; a saving which may be justified by evolution, but not by ethics as recognized and practiced by civilized peoples. The liberties of German women are to be sacrificed; they must devote their activities to their households, especially to the sacred duty of raising succeeding generations. The birth rate was stimulated by bounties and subsidies so that the German tribe might grow in numbers and in strength. In all these matters the Nazi doctrine is evolutionist.
Hitler has sought on every occasion and in every way to heighten the national consciousness of the German people or, what is the same thing, to make them racially conscious; to give them unity of spirit and unity of purpose. Neighborly approaches of adjacent nations are and were repelled; the German people were deliberately isolated. Cosmopolitanism, liberality of opinion, affectation of foreign manners and dress were unsparingly condemned. The old tribal bonds (love of the Fatherland, feeling of mutual kinship), the bonds of "soil and blood," became "the main plank in the National Social program." "Germany was for the Germans" was another plank. Foreign policy was "good or bad according to its beneficial or harmful effects on the German folk now or hereafter." "Charity and humility are only for home consumption" a statement in which Hitler gives an exact expression of the law which limits sympathy to its tribe. "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.
I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.
12.
Even in that result we may harbor a doubt: can unity obtained by such methods be relied on to endure?
There are other aspects of Nazi policy which raise points which may be legitimate subjects of ethical debate. In recent years British men of science have debated this ethical problem: an important discovery having been made a new poison gas, for example is it not the duty of the discoverer to suppress it if there is a possibility of its being used for an evil purpose? My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics. A man of science is responsible for the accuracy of his observations and of his inferences, not for the results which may follow therefrom. Under no circumstances should the truth be suppressed; yet suppression and distortion of the truth is a deliberate part of Nazi policy. Every anthropologist in Germany, be he German or Jew, was and is silenced in Nazi Germany unless the Hitlerian racial doctrine is accepted without any reservation whatsoever. Authors, artists, preachers, and editors are undone if they stray beyond the limits of the National Socialist tether. Individual liberty of thought and of its expression is completely suppressed. An effective tribal unity is thus attained at the expense of truth. And yet has not the Church in past times persecuted science just in this Hitlerian way? There was a time, and not so long ago, when it was dangerous for a biologist to harbor a thought that clashed in any way with the Mosaic theory of creation.
No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. So strong are the feelings roused that it is difficult for even science to approach the issues so raised with an unclouded judgment. Ethically the Hitlerian treatment of the Jews stands condemned out of hand. Hitler is cruel, but I do not think that his policy can be explained by attributing it to a mere satisfaction of a lust, or to a search for a scapegoat on which Germany can wreak her wrath for the ills which followed her defeat of 1918. The Church in Spain subjected the Jews to the cruelty of the Inquisition, but no one ever sought to explain the Church's behavior by suggesting that she had a
13.
lust for cruelty which had to be satisfied. The Church adopted the Inquisition as a policy; it was a means of securing unity of mind in her flock. Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions. When the Huguenots fled to Germany they mingled their "genes" with those of their host and disappeared as an entity. The Jews are made of other stuff: for two thousand years, living amid European communities, they have maintained their identity; it is an article of their creed, as it is of Hitler's, to breed true. They, too, practice an evolutionary doctrine. Is it possible for two peoples living within the same frontiers, dwelling side by side, to work out harmoniously their separate evolutionary destinies? Apparently Hitler believes this to be impossible; we in Britain and in America believe it to be not only possible, but also profitable.
It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.
Chapter 4
Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End
IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).
14.
It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:
If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."
If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr. Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage in a Christian haven.
Upvote
0
Good info. Again, however much diffeence ther emight be between us and chimps, there was about half that difference between us and the Neanderthal, i.e. we're not descended from hominids either.
Upvote
0
There actually are flavors of junk science which are relatively harmless. Evolution is a junk science ideological doctrine with something like 200,000,000 dead human bodies to its credit.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,466
- 4,001
- 47
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
And that post is still from almost a decade before they even started the Neanderthal DNA sequencing.
Don't you have some science fiction art to wow us with? You are losing your touch, snake.
Upvote
0
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
Well, I'd assume its because you clearly don't understand what you were posting. The recollection of the interpretation of the paper or whatever stated the paper said it was looking at the number of genes on the y chromosome. I highly doubt that for two reasons. First, the number reported in that post was incorrect, second, the table included referenced only degenerate genes.
Furthermore, you stated humans came from chimps. Dead giveaway that you don't know what you are talking about. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that. It says both chimps and humans came from a common ancestor. Both chimps and humans have undergone genetic changes from that split. Treating modern chimps as somehow older than modern humans is complete nonsense.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
