You can't argue with DNA

[lesliedellow]

How do you know that?

Because nobody has found telomeres in the middle of any other chromosome of any other species.

 

[Tree of Life]

Before somebody went there, the Moon might have been yellow because it was made of cheese, rather than because it reflected sunlight. You can always dream up alternative explanations, but you had better be able to make it sound more likely than the currently accepted explanation.

Well it's not a clincher for me. I've got other explanations that could work just as well because of my theistic beliefs. Maybe common ancestry is true but maybe not.

 

[Tree of Life]

Because nobody has found telomeres in the middle of any other chromosome of any other species.

It does not therefore follow that:

...if telomeres in the middle of a chromosome served any useful purpose, they would appear there more often...

 

[Gracchus]

I don't read creationist literature. I'm fine going and picking up a book. I am disappointed that no representative of evolution here can give me a simple reason to believe!

One problem you are having is thinking that there must be a simple answer to a simple question. You might get a short answer and not understand it at all, simply because it takes hours or days of study just to understand the answer. And maybe, you just aren't smart enough to understand, or patient enough to spend the time.

It seems obvious that you consider creationists to be your opponents. If you can only defend your view by criticizing theirs then your view is weak.

In all of the discussions on this forum, evidence for evolution is cited, but evidence for creationism is not cited, only objections to the evidence of evolution, which always seem to boil I don't understand it, and I don't want to believe it, and I don't have time to study it.

If you are willing to read, say, Futuyama's Evolutionary Biology, and come back with specific objections to the theory, we might make some headway in these discussions. I do not think you will.

 

[loveofourlord]

stupid quote function. It should be noted when it comes to how you calculate % differences there are big issues, first off they generally only calculate coding regions because none coding are more seceptable to chnage as there is no pressure to remain. Also it depends on what you count as a change.


The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
and
the quirc kbrow nfo xjumpe dove rth elaz ydo g

Only one change in the two of them, but adding a r changes everything aftewards so do you count it as 1 change, or over 30 changes? it's really only 1 change and so on.

But here is how differences could disprove evolution.

if chimp and orangatangs had a genetic or erv change in the same spot, while humans and gorillas didn't have that change it would disprove evolution, because any change a orangatang's ancestor has that is shared with any ancestors would be in all ancestors. you couldn't get say humans and gorillas sharing a change that isn't in chimps, since the ancestor of gorillas would pass that change down to chimps and human lines.

 

[loveofourlord]

Oh and on differences being liniedges..:> Since I have hundreds to thousands of differences form my parents, that proves that I'm not related to them and therefore must be adopted :> I KNEW IT!

 

[SkyWriting]

In the same way and for the same reasons that DNA is incontrovertible, concrete, physical, scientific evidence that two people are related it is also incontrovertible, concrete, physical, scientific evidence that two species are related.

Actually all DNA results are "very likely" and debatable.

And cross species DNA transfers are well documented.

Gene Transfer Between Species Is Surprisingly Common

Transferring genes from one species to another is neither
unnatural nor dangerous - See more at: #GMOFAQ: Transferring genes from one species to another
is neither unnatural nor dangerous

 

[mmksparbud]

If you take the DNA of a monkey and the DNA of a human---the lab results will come back specifying one is the DNA of a monkey, and the other the DNA of a human. It will not come back specifying that the 2 specimens are relatives. They will get the same results back if they take a hair sample of each.

 

[SteveB28]

If you take the DNA of a monkey and the DNA of a human---the lab results will come back specifying one is the DNA of a monkey, and the other the DNA of a human. It will not come back specifying that the 2 specimens are relatives. They will get the same results back if they take a hair sample of each.

If that analysis also examined the genome of each, could we not draw conclusions about similarities?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Evolution can be bad (Planet of the Apes),

I can't honestly bring myself t read all the way through anther of these threads, but will bring this up: PotA was NOT an example of evolution at all. Actually, it was a (really badly done) example of bootstrap paradox time travel...

The crew goes into space, re-lands on Earth (many many years later) to find that mankind is mostly destroyed, apes are in power, etc. If you continue in the series (since it wasn't just one movie/novel) you will find that later, they find more men, who aren't totally braindead, that now worship old nukes. they later set off said nukes, a couple of the apes escape the planet in a spaceship and somehow (due the force of the blast, or something) end up being push backward in time. They arrive on earth sometime between the crew leaving earth originally and the first story. BINGO! The apes didn't evolve, they planted themselves on the planet and took over from there.

Really bad bootstrap paradox, not example of evolution at all.

(Even in the new series, it is not evolution, but genetic manipulation by humans to create the apes.)

That's all. Return to your regularly scheduled train wreck now.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, you can't argue with DNA. It's only too bad for evolutionists the DNA doesn't match what they claim.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

 

[mark kennedy]

No, you can't argue with DNA. It's only too bad for evolutionists the DNA doesn't match what they claim.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

You seem to have discovered one of those truisms that Darwinians ignore so readily. If you know anything about Mendelian Genetics you will know that the focus is hybrids and the strong tendency to revert back to the grandparent form. Then there is the ratio of dominant to recessive traits, close to 3:1, and of course mitosis and meiosis.

There is no law of recurrent variation, there is no need for one, there are two laws already that cover everything this supposed law of science is supposed to. The law of independent assortment and segregation. What Darwinians like to do is to equivocate mutations with adaptive evolution, it's your own fault if you let them fool you with fallacious logic. Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence, in protein coding genes they are deleterious the vast majority of the time:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. Mutations​

It's simplicity on steroids, first you define what a mutation is and then you define what an adaptation is, then the difference is evident and obvious. The actual science isn't the problem with Darwinism, it's the perception that Darwinian logic is science that is at the heart of the error.

DNA repair

Have a nice day
Mark