What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[Speedwell]

as i said: i have no problem to claim that mammals appeared after trilobites. as you can see above: trucks were also designed after cars. but again: it doesnt prove any evolution. just a different creation event.

You can't just make things up. You have to base the tree on what actually happened. It's a matter of fact that the first powered vehical was a truck and the second was a bus.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Xianghua,

I have no desire to endlessly repeat the same thing over and over again. For instance I have told you my view about God and about natural evolution many times, and yet you ask me again. Why the same questions over and over that we have already answered?

This thread is not about the existence of God. It is about common ancestry of chimps and humans, which can be shown to be true, regardless of the existence of God.

I remind you again that you have refused to mention how or when you think origins happened. You refuse to stand for anything. Why?

May I remind you that you have not given one single argument in the months that you were here that show that any other explanation is more likely than evolution. Not one. And I think you even agree that you have not given one argument for any alternate view. All your arguments about the improbability of evolution could also be argued against your view.

( And no repeating again the odds of a protein formation by a straw man path, while ignoring the odds of the protein appearing by an out-of-thin-air-kaboom method of creation, and ignoring the path that scientists claim, is not a valid answer.)

Tell me what are the odds that the horse genome suddenly appeared out of thin air? Does not every statistical argument you ever used on evolution show overwhelmingly that this view is far less likely?

its actually very relevant. otherwise we can just claim that a full functional gene can evolve at once. but no one claim this because the chance for this is very low. so they believe that many genes evolved from other genes. so we need to calculate the number of functional sequences among the sequence space and then we can calculate how much time it will take.

The overwhelming majority of molecular biologists have found that there was enough time for evolution to occur. Since I am an engineer, not a microbiologist, I will not be dragged into a detailed discussion outside my field. I will only explain to you that the process involves redundancy and genes with multiple uses that get reworked for different functions. The actual process is much more complicated than the process you represent. If you want to debate the actual claim of scientists, then learn what they are actually saying, and debate those who make the claim. I am simply the messenger, relaying to you that molecular biology has shown an overwhelming consensus that it is possible.

(And please don't respond by saying some people with a degree disagree. "Consensus" does not mean 100% agreement.)

the best explanation for the existance of a motor is of course design rather then a natural process or stepwise evolution. so its simply incorrect.

Can I remind you that you have agreed that living things can do some things that non-living machines cannot do? Therefore, that fact that a non-living machine has a restriction is not proof that a living thing has the same restriction.

We have been over this before and you have agreed with the above paragraph. So why do you just repeat the same refuted argument again?

also remember that till now in this thread no one gave any calculation or possible stepwise way to evolve even a single complex system. so again you have no evidence for that claim.

Also remember that you have given no calculation that the genome for the horse suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

Do you have a single argument for the view that the horse genome appeared suddenly out of nothing?

and i already showed that we can find such hierarchy in cars too:

View attachment 218699

That was not my point.

Again, the order of fossils in the fossil record shows that things came into existence at different times. Do you or do you not agree with this statement?

(Ignoring the statement and responding to something else does not count as an answer.)

as i said: i have no problem to claim that mammals appeared after trilobites.

Break out the champagne!
Bring in the band!
Let's celebrate!
After a year, Xianghua and I finally found a second thing we agree with! Here is what we have accomplished in a year of attempting to find something to agree on:

1. Animals can do some things that non-living things cannot do.
2. The first Trilobites existed long before the first mammals.



Can we also agree that Eohippus was long before Merychippus which was long before Equus?

 

[xianghua]

i will try to do it short to stay in focus.

May I remind you that you have not given one single argument in the months that you were here that show that any other explanation is more likely than evolution. Not one. And I think you even agree that you have not given one argument for any alternate view. All your arguments about the improbability of evolution could also be argued against your view.

again: this is simply incorrect. the flagellum is a spinning motor. we know that a motor is evidence for design. even scientists call it a motor. so you belieive that a motor can evolve naturally. fine. but great claim need a great proof.

we have 2 options:

1) a spinning motor can evolve naturally.
2) a spinning motor need a designer.

what possibility do you think is more likely? i choose the second one.

 

[pitabread]

the flagellum is a spinning motor. we know that a motor is evidence for design.

You're once again committing the false equivalence fallacy. We know that artificially built motors are evidence for design given that they have signs of human manufacture. Not the least of which we can see them being artificially built if we so desired.

Whereas a bacterial flagellum is in no way the same as an artificially manufactured motor, and therefore not directly comparable.

Hence, this is not a valid argument.

even scientists call it a motor

So? Scientists can also recognize the vast difference between something like the bacterial flagellum versus the type of motor that resides in a car.

Trying to make an argument purely based on semantics isn't going to work, since most people can easily recognize the difference between the types of objects described as "motors".

 

[Speedwell]

i will try to do it short to stay in focus.



again: this is simply incorrect. the flagellum is a spinning motor. we know that a motor is evidence for design. even scientists call it a motor. so you belieive that a motor can evolve naturally. fine. but great claim need a great proof.

we have 2 options:

1) a spinning motor can evolve naturally.
2) a spinning motor need a designer.

what possibility do you think is more likely? i choose the second one.

The true options are:

1) A spinning motor can evolve naturally.
2) A manufactured spinning motor has a designer.

We can't tell if a naturally evolved spinning motor has a designer or not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

i will try to do it short to stay in focus.



again: this is simply incorrect. the flagellum is a spinning motor. we know that a motor is evidence for design. even scientists call it a motor. so you belieive that a motor can evolve naturally. fine. but great claim need a great proof.

we have 2 options:

1) a spinning motor can evolve naturally.
2) a spinning motor need a designer.

what possibility do you think is more likely? i choose the second one.

Just as I said. You have not made one attempt to say your position as to how animals came into existence. Not one. And you made not one attempt in this post.

You say not by evolution. Fine. But you have not made one attempt to offer an iota of evidence that it actually happened some other way. Not one.

You argue here for a designer. Your argument is invalid, as has been shown to you ad infinitum. But even if your argument is true, that would in no way refute evolution. Many say that a designer used evolution as his tool. You cannot say, "No the designer did not use evolution, there is a designer." That in no way refutes Christians who believe in evolution. That in no way says that creation of horses out of thin air is more likely than creating them through slight changes from previous creatures.

Regarding your question, I have answered it many times and my answer has not changed. Living forms can evolve naturally, even those with flagella. Equipment built from drawings by people needs a designer, regardless of whether it has a motor.

Do you agree that it did me no good to answer your question? Do you agree that you will just ignore my answer and ask again?

 

[DogmaHunter]

DNA contains genetic information about characteristics.
Two animals with 99% of the same characteristics would then have 99% of the same DNA.
If all living things came from the same elements at the same time with the same blueprint for life by the same Creator we would expect to see similarities, which is why we share 25% of our DNA with daffodils.
Perhaps some of you were descendants of daffodils.
My family's ancestors were created by God.

But we would not expect to see nested hierarchies.
While evolution, could ONLY result in nested hierarchies.
And nested hierarchies is exactly what we observer.

Every living thing drags in its DNA its genetic history. This is why chickens have "broken" DNA to build teeth. Its ancestors had teeth.
This is why chimps, humans, gorilla's,... have the exact same "broken" gene to produce vitamine C.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its not if it has a living traits. at least according to some guys here.

According to YOU too.... Did you already forget?

You refuse to call the one on the left a "robot" and you refuse to call the one on the right a "human".

In your (imaginary) car example, the actual "car" would be the right thing on that picture (the robot), while the "living thing" would be the human on the left of that picture.

If you refuse to call the human in this picture a "robot", then why would you call the "looks-like-a-car-animal" a car????????

 

[DogmaHunter]

yep. thanks. so this isnt a car in this case. but do you also think that it doesnt show evidence for design in this case?

The evidence of design in an ACTUAL car are the things like:
- made from materials that don't occur in nature (plastic needs to be manufactured)
- use of bolts, electrical circuits, silicon chips,...
- trademark symbols on various parts
- ...


None of these things would be present in a multi-cellular, organic, living organism.

 

[xianghua]

You say not by evolution. Fine. But you have not made one attempt to offer an iota of evidence that it actually happened some other way. Not one.

i will continue here since its very similar discussion:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-self-replicating-watch-argument.8005539/page-39

 

[DogmaHunter]

what make you think that there is enough time to evolve a new structure in such a huge sequence space?

Oldest traces of life are around 3.8 billion years old. Plenty of time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

and i already showed that we can find such hierarchy in cars too:

View attachment 218699

It's been explained to you on countless occasions already that such nested hierarchies DO NOT EXIST in human made productlines. Not even within a single manufacturer. Not even within a single brand of a single manufacturer. Not even within a single model from a single brand from a single manufacturer.

 

[xianghua]

at least i will discuss those points here:

Oldest traces of life are around 3.8 billion years old. Plenty of time.

show me your calculation please.

made from materials that don't occur in nature

so since a wood can evolve naturally (according to you) then a statue made of wood can evolve naturally?:

 

[DogmaHunter]

again: this is simply incorrect. the flagellum is a spinning motor. we know that a motor is evidence for design.

False. A "motor" by itself is not "evidence for (artifical) design". It's the specific attributes / properties of the "motor" that can be evidence for artificial design (or not).

This is why a motor of a Ford Fiesta can be concluded to be the result of artificial design, but not the "motor" of a flagellum.

The motor of a ford fiesta is build from unnatural materials, to start with. It has manufactured parts, in other words.

we have 2 options:

1) a spinning motor can evolve naturally.
2) a spinning motor need a designer.

Yep. The question is: how do you differentiate one from the other?

what possibility do you think is more likely? i choose the second one.

Only because your religious beliefs demand you to.

 

[xianghua]

It's been explained to you on countless occasions already that such nested hierarchies DO NOT EXIST in human made productlines. Not even within a single manufacturer. Not even within a single brand of a single manufacturer. Not even within a single model from a single brand from a single manufacturer.

so what this suppose to be?;

 

[DogmaHunter]

show me your calculation please.

Calculation of what, exactly?

so since a wood can evolve naturally (according to you) then a statue made of wood can evolve naturally?:

1. not alive
2. signs of carving (ie: manufacturing, manipulation)


Try again.

 

[Speedwell]

so what this suppose to be?;
View attachment 218752

An imaginary drawing based on falsehoods. For instance, the solid rocket booster was invented and used before the jet engine was invented. It's trash, just like the fake drawing you made showing cars evolving into trucks.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so what this suppose to be?;
View attachment 218752

Nonsense that you just pulled out of thin air.

 

[Jimmy D]

1) a spinning motor can evolve naturally.
2) a spinning motor need a designer.

A designed object needs to be manufactured.

A spinning motor is assembled from components on an assembly line.

How is a flagellum manufactured?

 

[xianghua]

An imaginary drawing based on falsehoods. For instance, the solid rocket booster was invented and used before the jet engine was invented.

if so its the result of convergent design. on the same base of convergent evolution.