What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[pitabread]

just replace "cars" with "creatures" and here you go...

Well, the scientific study of living creatures over the last couple hundred years has resulted in the conclusion that they are a result of biological evolution.

So now that that's settled, what else would you like to talk about?

 

[sfs]

its interesting you said that. since in the last time we discussed about evolution i gave you examples that you said should not exist if common descent is true:Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

I hadn't seen that post. I don't believe I've ever said that those results shouldn't exist. I said that transposon insertions shouldn't be scattered randomly throughout a phylogenetic tree. They're not, as the papers you cite themselves indicate.

 

[sfs]

i talk about theoretical case.

Then your comment is off-topic. I'm talking about reality, not your latest imaginary scenario. On this planet, studying the human species that actually lives here, I was able to use common descent to correctly infer something about human biology. What would happen on your imaginary world with 10 million year old human populations is not relevant.

great. lets talk about science.

Sure, let's.

do you agree that if we will find two different self replicating cars, the best conclusion will be a common design rather then a common descent?

Still sorry -- I agreed to talk about science, not about another one of your imaginary worlds.

 

[mark kennedy]

We talk about them quite a lot; there's an extensive and ongoing body of research on large indels.

That reports them, but never explains how mutations a million base pairs long come to be without destroying the host. You have repeatedly rationalized the extent, what was it last time, 97%. No I've yet to see the indels addressed or the deleterious effects of mutations for that matter. The ERVs for me was the last straw, you really expect me to believe that 8% of the human genome is the result of viral germline invasions? Yea you deal with it Steve, your as able as anyone to dismiss the obvious problems with them.

 

[46AND2]

, you really expect me to believe that 8% of the human genome is the result of viral germline invasions?

At this point, after more than a decade of arguing this topic, NOBODY expects you'll ever accept it.

 

[bhsmte]

At this point, after more than a decade of arguing this topic, NOBODY expects you'll ever accept it.

Agree.

Typically, when well evidenced science threatens a tightly held faith belief, that evidence, will only be accepted, when it becomes too painful to keep the defense mechanisms churning and ignoring the same. Right now, it is too painful to acknowledge their faith belief is wrong, or at least needs to be adjusted, so those defense mechanisms are in overdrive.

 

[sfs]

That reports them, but never explains how mutations a million base pairs long come to be without destroying the host.

You've never explained why it should destroy the host. Healthy humans are known to have mutations up to 3 million base pairs long. So how could it be impossible?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am familiar with the trial and error method, though I will still call it the trial and error method.

Evolutionary processes are a particular type of trial-and-error process.

 

[rjs330]

[Staff edit].

Common design fits scriptures creation. Evolution from a common ancestor does not. Common design is a perfect explanation that allows for a designer to create a myriad of creatures from the start. Just like common design fits well with the building of cities. You can easily look at a city and find common designs used to build tall, short, long or wide buildings. They do not all look alike but all contain similar features and architecture that is needed for them to stand and be functional even though they may have a myriad of differing purposes.

Evolution contradicts scripture.

 

[rjs330]

The Apostles did not believe that the scriptures were the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. Most Christians still don't, whether they believe in common ancestry or not, even those who accept the Genesis stories as historical.

The apostles did not teach something else. They and Christ taught from the scriptures and used the scriptures to support what they taught. Yes they also taught new things such as communion. BUT they wrote those things down. We have ZERO evidence that what is taught as tradition is what the apostles taught. If tradition contradicts scripture tradition is wrong. Because scripture is our ONLY evidence of what the apostles taught.

All those fancy definitions are only there to help specify certain things. Just like Trinity is not taught in scripture as a word. We use the word Trinity to help define what is taught. But the apostles taught the authority of scripture as did Christ. And they added to it as moved upon by the Holy Spirit. And they WROTE down what they taught by the Holy Spirit. Thus scripture is the only ultimate authority.

Give me ONE example where you have a tradition that is not taught in the scriptures and show the evidence that the tradition came directly from an apostle.

 

[rjs330]

No cigar unless you can explain the change of voicing.

Wrong. The most you can say is that the Apostles and early church Fathers believed the stories to be historical (as many non-creationist Christians do now). There is no hint of Protestant fundamentalism in their writings, your blatant revisionism notwithstanding.

There is no change in voicing. It is entirely consistant with how God was speaking to them. It's not unique to that verse. Take a look at the following.
The Lord said to him, “Go down, and bring Aaron back up with you. But the priests and the people must not break through and come up to the Lord. Otherwise, the Lord will break loose against them.” - Exodus 19:24 Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 19:24 - Common English Bible

And this one.
Do not use the Lord your God’s name as if it were of no significance; the Lord won’t forgive anyone who uses his name that way. - Exodus 20:7 Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 20:7 - Common English Bible

Those are God's words, quoting God, and entirely consistant with the verses on the Sabbath.

And thank you for admitting that the apostles believed in the historical OT. I would rather stand with them as they were moved by the Holy Spirit as Apostles rather that stand with men who claim otherwise. They carry far more weight than anyone coming after.

 

[rjs330]

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

I tried this on other thread but never got an answer....

If humans settled a planet with 1.3 times earth’s gravity do you agree that future generations would likely be shorter, more muscular and have other characteristics like denser bones ?

Probably so, but that is not evolution from a common ancestor.

 

[rjs330]

I'm looking for something more substantive than a bare-bones definition. Do you have anything more substantive to offer?



I've never made such a claim. Rather, I've provided examples of the fact that biological evolution is an applied science. In other words, that it has real-world scientific application.

"Common design" lacks a scientific basis, and consequently there are no scientific applications derived from it.



I've most certainly provided demonstrable examples (repeatedly) whereby shared ancestry ancestry has scientific application.

Here is an example of such a post, directed specifically to you. You just gave a hand-waving response to it though, suggesting you probably didn't even read it. Do you want to try again?

I also started an entire thread on the subject, but the creationist response was generally disappointing.



No, common design is not accepted because it has no scientific backing. At best it's been a political movement with a pseudo-scientific veneer.



And you're back to your generic denialism. Interesting.

Once again you use assumptions as do the scientists in your paper. And I quote.

Phylogenetic trees are more than just pretty pictures. They describe a specific data set of relationships between respective species describing both which species/taxa share common ancestry, as well as the relative levels of divergence between each (given via the branch length).

They speak of common ancestry as fact. Yet there is no evidence of it ever occurring. This paper does answer my question. Cannot common design do the same thing? What is learned from this paper that is not assumptive? The trees themselves are nothing but assumptions based upon common design. No real discovery is made here. It's simply pointing out commonalities among creatures. Nothing new is discovered that cannot be discovered by simply recognizing that God designed all life using commonalities of building blocks.

Try again. Give me one scientific breakthrough where evolution was the only answer and common design would have failed.

 

[46AND2]

Once again you use assumptions as do the scientists in your paper. And I quote.

Phylogenetic trees are more than just pretty pictures. They describe a specific data set of relationships between respective species describing both which species/taxa share common ancestry, as well as the relative levels of divergence between each (given via the branch length).

They speak of common ancestry as fact. Yet there is no evidence of it ever occurring. This paper does answer my question. Cannot common design do the same thing? What is learned from this paper that is not assumptive? The trees themselves are nothing but assumptions based upon common design. No real discovery is made here. It's simply pointing out commonalities among creatures. Nothing new is discovered that cannot be discovered by simply recognizing that God designed all life using commonalities of building blocks.

Try again. Give me one scientific breakthrough where evolution was the only answer and common design would have failed.

Common design is an unfalsifiable idea. However, god COULD have also created in such a manner that phylogenetic trees were not observed, thus negating evolution--which requires it.


So, yes, your god COULD HAVE created life such that it fits into nested hierarchies to deceive us, and make MANY people, including those who believe in him, incorrectly believe that evolution is true.

 

[rjs330]

How what? How did we estimate the mutation rate variation from the data?

No, we couldn't. We were looking at human population variation and distinguishing the contributions of mutation rate variation and shared genealogical history.

Yes, I know, since I was there when we wrote that.

Sorry, but we're in a better position to determine what a fact is in biology than you are.

Yet you can't show that any of the evolutionary claims of common ancestry ever really happened.

 

[rjs330]

How what? How did we estimate the mutation rate variation from the data?

No, we couldn't. We were looking at human population variation and distinguishing the contributions of mutation rate variation and shared genealogical history.

Yes, I know, since I was there when we wrote that.

Sorry, but we're in a better position to determine what a fact is in biology than you are.

Exactly what kind of mutations were you looking at? No one here is arguing that mutations do not occur. Much like the moth that mutated it's coloring. I think we can all agree that stuff like that occurs. What we disagree with is the mutations being so strong that it creates a new creature eventually. Like the common ancestor eventually evolving into us. It's nonsense and unobservable and can't be shown to ever have occurred. In fact there is no evidence of any kind of change like that.

 

[USincognito]

As to the original question, it is completely irrelevant.

Watermelons are more than 60% water, humans are more than 60% water , does that mean we have a close ancestor to watermelons? No, of course not. But that is what the question is suggesting if you follow the logic.

To compare Chimpanzee DNA to Human DNA is nonsense. Humans were created in the image of God, Chimpanzees were not.

Hmmm, water = DNA? I don't think so.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolutionary processes are a particular type of trial-and-error process.

That's what people imagine, yes.

 

[pitabread]

So, yes, your god COULD HAVE created life such that it fits into nested hierarchies to deceive us, and make MANY people, including those who believe in him, incorrectly believe that evolution is true.

This basically sums up my take away from discussions with creationists. God apparently made life with the appearance of evolution. Why? Creationists can't seem to tell us...

 

[pitabread]

They speak of common ancestry as fact. Yet there is no evidence of it ever occurring.

You're still stuck in denial over this.

This paper does answer my question. Cannot common design do the same thing?

I don't know, can it? You're the one who keeps claiming that "common design" (whatever that is) can do everything evolution can. Yet you continually fail to demonstrate this.

So why don't you demonstrate how "common design" could be applied to construct an algorithm for analyzing genomic data to discovery functional regulatory regions.

Now is your chance. You can prove this once and for all. Give us the real details.

What is learned from this paper that is not assumptive?

This paper describes an algorithm for finding regulatory regions in genomes. So what would be learned from using this algorithm would be finding functional regulatory regions in genomes.

The trees themselves are nothing but assumptions based upon common design.

This sentence is completely nonsensical, not to mention incorrect. There are various methods by which phylogenetic trees are constructed, but none based on "common design" (again, whatever that is).

No real discovery is made here.

You mean besides finding regulatory regions in genomes? I would think those to be pertinent discoveries with respect to biology. Or do you not think studying genomes is important?

It's simply pointing out commonalities among creatures. Nothing new is discovered that cannot be discovered by simply recognizing that God designed all life using commonalities of building blocks.

Except that "simply recognizing that God designed all life using commonalities of building blocks" doesn't get us anywhere. You need to describe how that knowledge would be applied.

Give me one scientific breakthrough where evolution was the only answer and common design would have failed.

I just gave you an example of applied evolution.

If you want to present that "common design" could do the same thing, then by all means do so. Either provide a citation or describe, in detail, how common design is applied in algorithmic approaches to genomic comparison. And none of this mealy-mouthed forum babble; give us real details to work with (process, math, all of it).

Now where 'design' would be applied in biology would be things like genetic engineering. This is where we can see weird examples of chimeric organisms, like glow-in-the-dark rabbits created with jellyfish DNA.

If species on Earth really were the product of a designer creating them independently, I would expect to find a whole host of chimeric organisms like these. Yet, we don't.