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.
Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away.
Hmm.. Who should we believe.. YOU or our LYING EYES!!
These bind specifically to DNA fragments in extant material, and some of the isolated dinosaur cells showed internal, positive binding in the same pattern as seen in modern cells, suggesting some original dinosaur DNA is preserved
(Argumentum Ad Vercundiam / Ad Populum / Ab Auctoritate Logical fallacies galore....)
Barbarian chuckles:
But here's a way to test it:
The Discovery Institute publishes a list of "Scientists Who Doubt Darwin." Project Steve is a list of scientists with PhDs in biology or a related field, who accept evolutionary theory, and are named "Steve" or some variant of that name, like "Stephanie."
Go through the Discovery Institutes's list, counting the Steves with PhDs in biology or a related field and compare. Last time I checked, the doubters comprised about 0.3% of the scientists who accept evolutionary theory. That's not three percent; it's three-tenths of a percent.
Pretty much says it all, um? Do you now see why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationism?
"If you do, it wasn't a very smart move for you to be posting this:"
"As you now realize, that was a huge mistake for you. The bandwagon argument is logically faulty to begin with.
Apparently you missed the word MINORITIES in the phrase FASTEST GROWING MINORITIES!
"And as you have seen, it's also factually wrong; only a tiny percent of biologists doubt evolutionary theory."
You simply CANNOT know such a thing.. The only way you could possibly KNOW what biologists actually BELIEVE were to be if you were God and could READ THEIR THOUGHTS... (But then again, you are amazing with your ability to correct God about HIS Creation! Maybe it was YOU who were there in the beginning and NOT God! LOL.... Arrogant much? You cant KNOW what people believe by what they CLAIM to believe!! Every Person in North Korea KNOWS that Kim Jong Il is the Most Intelligent kindest and the most benevolent human on the planet.. Just ASK THEM!!! Saddam Hussein won his election by 11 million to ZERO!! EVERY SINGLE IRAQUI voted for Saddam! He must have been the best president ever..
THE SAME KIND OF CULTISH MADNESS is happening in "Science" today. We live in an age of intellectual fascism where a few people who happen to control the narrative set the agenda and anyone who dares to stray from the group think / mob rule will be sanctioned, have funding withdrawn., tenure denied, ridiculed, intimidated, fired, or demoted.. it happens over and over and over today..
It amounts to a few crazy ideologues who happen to share a neurotic agreement who try to shove square pegs into round holes and force it to be taught to every single public school science student in the land.. The students who get branwashed and indoctrinated become scientists teachers and professors THEMSELVES and the vicious cycle continues.. But the emperor has no clothes, and the rotting corpse of Darwinism is stinking up the joint and everyone knows it is pure garbage.. Even you..
"Last time I checked, the doubters comprised about 0.3% of the scientists who accept evolutionary theory."
Go and watch the movie "expelled" again to refresh your memory as to why they CLAIM to believe in the myth of Evolutionism...
You've been fooled by fossilization. You see, when things are fossilized, the organic structures are largely replaced by minerals. What's amazing is that the mineralized structures of what were RBCs, sometimes contain some organic molecules. No hemoglobin; that all decayed. But some fragments of hemoglobin remain. Now and then we find fossilized scales or even hair. But it's not keratin. It's minerals. The elastic "tissue" isn't tissue at all, but collagen. "Tissue" has a very specific meaning in biology. It's a group of cells, organized to one or more functions.
And so far, no DNA. If you read the paper, you see that.
So fragments of DNA, which is what you'd expect. If there was DNA, they would be able to sequence genes from dinosaurs. Which would give you information you really wouldn't want to see; as you already know, heme from dinosaurs confirms that dinosaurs are most closely related to birds. I would love to see actual DNA found, rather than mere fragments of DNA (which are already known to last much longer than DNA). But I don't think that's going to happen. Would be interesting, though.
Being told ignorant assertions is not "Learning something new" It is the opposite.. It is ANTI Knowledge...
Here is a good Article by Kim Balogh (FOR OUR READERS)
I'm guessing that she knows a lot more than you do on this subject as does Tomkins.. LOL
The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for “ape to human evolution” theory to adequately explain.
For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome
and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.
There are laws of embryology that directly contradict “ape to human evolution.” One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes.
The laws of genetics prevent “ape to human evolution” from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes.
But “ape to human evolution” relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes,
So called “gene duplication” is not evidence that organisms can create new genes.
Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through “gene duplication,” this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.
Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that “chromosome fusion” of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of “chromosome fusion” in mammals.
But apes do not have any “gene generating system.”
Similarities in no way mean likeness
"So fragments of DNA, which is what you'd expect."
WHY WOULD YOU "EXPECT" TO SEE DNA IN A 100 MILLION YEARS OLD CREATURE?
You've been fooled by fossilization. You see, when things are fossilized, the organic structures are largely replaced by minerals. What's amazing is that the mineralized structures of what were RBCs, sometimes contain some organic molecules. No hemoglobin; that all decayed. But some fragments of hemoglobin remain. Now and then we find fossilized scales or even hair. But it's not keratin. It's minerals. The elastic "tissue" isn't tissue at all, but collagen. "Tissue" has a very specific meaning in biology. It's a group of cells, organized to one or more functions.
And so far, no DNA. If you read the paper, you see that.
So fragments of DNA, which is what you'd expect. If there was DNA, they would be able to sequence genes from dinosaurs. Which would give you information you really wouldn't want to see; as you already know, heme from dinosaurs confirms that dinosaurs are most closely related to birds. I would love to see actual DNA found, rather than mere fragments of DNA (which are already known to last much longer than DNA). But I don't think that's going to happen. Would be interesting, though.
Fragments of DNA molecules yes. Actual intact DNA, no. That would be a surprise. But so far, no such thing has been demonstrated, as you now realize.
Well, let's take a look.
But then again, you think she knows more than God about his creation so I wont put it past you.
Because she says so...
True of different varieties of horses. So you're saying some horses aren't horses?
Let's take a look...
Human and chimp chromosomes are more similar than the chimp is similar to gorilla and orangutan chromosomes. So strike one for your doc.
And yet the gene for lactose tolerance evolved in humans. The Milano Mutation, providing immunity to hardening of the arteries evolved recently enough that we know the specific person who first had it. Strike two for our doc.
Gene duplication, followed by mutation. One common way. Would you like to see some examples? Another way is by mutation of non-coding DNA (sometimes called by creationists "junk DNA")
Want some examples?
Nope. In humans, for example, morphology is different due to a change in the pacing of genes. We stay juvenile longer than other apes, and so we as adults retain many juvenile ape characteristics. No new genes in that; just a change in pacing. Over a hundred years ago, D'Arcy Thompson demonstrated this:
Chimp skulls change a lot in maturity. Humans not so much. So smaller face and jaws, upright posture due to the foramen magnum retaining a forward position, and larger braincase, relative to the size of the skull.
She got that wrong, too. Strike three.
Global analysis of human duplicated genes reveals the relative importance of whole-genome duplicates originated in the early vertebrate evolution
BMC Genomics. 2016; 17: 71.
Abstract
Background
Gene duplication is a genetic mutation that creates functionally redundant gene copies that are initially relieved from selective pressures and may adapt themselves to new functions with time. The levels of gene duplication may vary from small-scale duplication (SSD) to whole genome duplication (WGD). Studies with yeast revealed ample differences between these duplicates: Yeast WGD pairs were functionally more similar, less divergent in subcellular localization and contained a lesser proportion of essential genes. In this study, we explored the differences in evolutionary genomic properties of human SSD and WGD genes, with the identifiable human duplicates coming from the two rounds of whole genome duplication occurred early in vertebrate evolution.
See above. Strike 4.
Chromosome analyses of domestic mammals were started over 50 years ago. Their importance in animal breeding was pointed out by Ingemar Gustavsson, who identified a centric fusion (Robertsonian translocation) between chromosomes 1 and 29 in the Swedish Red and White cattle [10]. Five years later, an adverse influence on fertility of the carriers was documented [11]. Since this discovery, the development of veterinary cytogenetics of livestock species has been very rapid. It was found that 1/29 centric fusion is widespread in cattle breeds, with an exception of Holstein-Friesian cattle [12]. In horses, X monosomy appeared to be the most frequent chromosome abnormality [6], while in pigs reciprocal translocations were predominant.
Chromosome Abnormalities in Domestic Animals as Causes of Disorders of Sex Development or Impaired Fertility | IntechOpen
Strike five on your doc. She's not doing very well, is she?
A team led by scientists from the University of Chicago (UChicago) has published a study (“Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza“) in Nature Ecology and Evolution that challenges one of the classic assumptions about how new proteins evolve. The research shows that random, noncoding sections of DNA can quickly evolve to produce new proteins. These de novo, or from scratch, genes provide a new, unexplored way that proteins evolve and contribute to biodiversity, according to the scientists.
“Using a big genome comparison, we show that noncoding sequences can evolve into completely novel proteins. That’s a huge discovery,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, the Edna K. Papazian distinguished service professor of ecology and evolution at UChicago and senior author of the new study.
Random Non-Coding DNA Can Quickly Evolve to Produce New Proteins
Strike six.
We can test that on organisms of known descent. Turns out genetic similarity does indicated close relationship. It's how you can find long-lost relatives by DNA analysis, for example.
Strike 7.
DNA analysis shows that humans and chimpanzees are genetically more like each other, than either is to other apes:
Well, let's take a look.
But then again, you think she knows more than God about his creation so I wont put it past you.
Because she says so...
True of different varieties of horses. So you're saying some horses aren't horses?
Let's take a look...
Human and chimp chromosomes are more similar than the chimp is similar to gorilla and orangutan chromosomes. So strike one for your doc.
And yet the gene for lactose tolerance evolved in humans. The Milano Mutation, providing immunity to hardening of the arteries evolved recently enough that we know the specific person who first had it. Strike two for our doc.
Gene duplication, followed by mutation. One common way. Would you like to see some examples? Another way is by mutation of non-coding DNA (sometimes called by creationists "junk DNA")
Want some examples?
Nope. In humans, for example, morphology is different due to a change in the pacing of genes. We stay juvenile longer than other apes, and so we as adults retain many juvenile ape characteristics. No new genes in that; just a change in pacing. Over a hundred years ago, D'Arcy Thompson demonstrated this:
Chimp skulls change a lot in maturity. Humans not so much. So smaller face and jaws, upright posture due to the foramen magnum retaining a forward position, and larger braincase, relative to the size of the skull.
She got that wrong, too. Strike three.
Global analysis of human duplicated genes reveals the relative importance of whole-genome duplicates originated in the early vertebrate evolution
BMC Genomics. 2016; 17: 71.
Abstract
Background
Gene duplication is a genetic mutation that creates functionally redundant gene copies that are initially relieved from selective pressures and may adapt themselves to new functions with time. The levels of gene duplication may vary from small-scale duplication (SSD) to whole genome duplication (WGD). Studies with yeast revealed ample differences between these duplicates: Yeast WGD pairs were functionally more similar, less divergent in subcellular localization and contained a lesser proportion of essential genes. In this study, we explored the differences in evolutionary genomic properties of human SSD and WGD genes, with the identifiable human duplicates coming from the two rounds of whole genome duplication occurred early in vertebrate evolution.
See above. Strike 4.
Chromosome analyses of domestic mammals were started over 50 years ago. Their importance in animal breeding was pointed out by Ingemar Gustavsson, who identified a centric fusion (Robertsonian translocation) between chromosomes 1 and 29 in the Swedish Red and White cattle [10]. Five years later, an adverse influence on fertility of the carriers was documented [11]. Since this discovery, the development of veterinary cytogenetics of livestock species has been very rapid. It was found that 1/29 centric fusion is widespread in cattle breeds, with an exception of Holstein-Friesian cattle [12]. In horses, X monosomy appeared to be the most frequent chromosome abnormality [6], while in pigs reciprocal translocations were predominant.
Chromosome Abnormalities in Domestic Animals as Causes of Disorders of Sex Development or Impaired Fertility | IntechOpen
Strike five on your doc. She's not doing very well, is she?
A team led by scientists from the University of Chicago (UChicago) has published a study (“Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza“) in Nature Ecology and Evolution that challenges one of the classic assumptions about how new proteins evolve. The research shows that random, noncoding sections of DNA can quickly evolve to produce new proteins. These de novo, or from scratch, genes provide a new, unexplored way that proteins evolve and contribute to biodiversity, according to the scientists.
“Using a big genome comparison, we show that noncoding sequences can evolve into completely novel proteins. That’s a huge discovery,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, the Edna K. Papazian distinguished service professor of ecology and evolution at UChicago and senior author of the new study.
Random Non-Coding DNA Can Quickly Evolve to Produce New Proteins
Strike six.
We can test that on organisms of known descent. Turns out genetic similarity does indicated close relationship. It's how you can find long-lost relatives by DNA analysis, for example.
Strike 7.
DNA analysis shows that humans and chimpanzees are genetically more like each other, than either is to other apes:
I've seen it before.. no sense wasting my precious time
You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about it. For example, you don't seem to even know the four key points of Darwinian theory. What do you think they are?
Sorry, but the postmodernist idea that truth is whatever you make it out to be, doesn't play with me.
Shouldn't you first know what evolution and evolutionary theory are, before you tell us about it?
So first tell us which of the four points of Darwinism you think are faulty, and your evidence for that.
You have it mostly backwards. Biochemistry, for example, supports evolutionary theory, not the other way around.
Because it's directly obseved. Think back to earlier posts. What is the scientific definition of "evolution."
That's an error laymen often make. To the unscientific, "theory" means something like "guess." But in reality, a theory in science is an idea or group of ideas that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. You appear to have confused "theory" with "hypothesis." Would you like to learn how they are related and how they are different? It's something people without much scientific training often get confused.
Sloppy thinking, I suppose.
Rather the dishonest creationist game of semantics. "Evolution" has a very specific meaning in science. Originally, it was "descent with modification." Then, with the discovery of genetics, it was "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Creationists often try to avoid the actual pheonomena, and confuse agencies of evolution (like natural selection), or consequences of evolution (like common descent) with the real thing.
Only inheritable variation is evolution.
Only inheritable adaptation is evolution.
Technically, that's what is called "macroevolution." Microevolution is evolution within a species, and macroevoltuion is the evolution of new taxa.
No, that was the one-hit joke of a 1980s pop group. There is no "de-volution." Only change. What did you think "de-volution" is?
Stuff like resistance to viruses, or change in pigmentation, or evolution of a new digestive organ, is adaptive evolution. Not all evolution is adaptive. Some is merely genetic drift or neutral changes that have little or no adaptive consequences.
Actually, all humans evolved from other pimates. There's a huge amount of genetic, fossil, and anatomical data documenting the fact. As you learned, even honest YE creationists admit that the many fossil transitionals of hominids is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
As you learned, it's mutation and natural selection. And direct observation shows that's all that is needed.
I think if you calmed yourself, and tried to put a cogent argument together, you'd probably do better than you're doing.
So far, lots of fun. And we're just starting.
Fields. My first degree was in the area of biology. Without being specific enough to be identifying myself, I did graduate work in immunology and another degree in systems, as it applies to biological systems and human structure and capabilities.
Studied entomology, mainly systematics/parasitology/medical ent. And I completed all my pre-med courses, getting drafted and then married before deciding not to go on there.
Barbarian, regarding creationist admissions of common descent:
Or forming new ones. Or modifying old ones. Usually, breaking genes won't produce new taxa. AIG and ICR admit to new species, genera, and families descending from common ancestors, and sometimes,they go a bit beyond that. That's a load of common descent.
So you want Creationists to believe that MUTATIONS allowed for for an organless Microbe to S L O W L Y evolve into a Microbiologist
with 10 interlocked, interdependent, interconnected VITAL organs
AND their support systems all working perfectly together in tandem and harmony or we DIE when NO ONE can even provide a plausible chronological evolutionary order for man's (Or ANY mammal's) VITAL organs??
You are doing the right thing by avoiding me like the plague.. I am an Evolutionist's worst nightmare.
WHY WOULD YOU "EXPECT" TO SEE DNA FRAGMENTS IN A 100 MILLION YEARS OLD CREATURE?
Well, SHE isn't the one claiming that God made filthy, flea infested, maggot eating, fecal matter throwing foul smelling disgusting apes IN HIS OWN IMAGE... That would be YOU.. And you will answer for it. My job here is to expose your lies, not to judge you for them..
Special pleading noted...
"If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck walks like a duck its a duck."
If It looks like DNA,
seems like DNA
and appears identical to DNA
DNA analysis? Common design = COMMON DESIGNER!!!
Calm yourself. God is a spirit, and as Jesus says, spirits have no bodies. Our likeness to God is in our immortal souls and in knowing good and evil, as God says. You're learning a lot of new things, and it's troubling you. Don't let your fear turn to anger. Face it and learn from it. A Christian should never fear the truth.
Because DNA tends to degrade over time. Just as the hemoglobin in that T-rex broke down into heme and some other fragments, so did the DNA in other fossils. It's not surprising. Physical chemistry says it's theoretically possible for DNA to persist for that long, but it's highly unlikely. Still, if we find it, and there was enough of it to sequence, it would be another nail in the coffin of YE creationism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?