Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 97 of 252 (814533)
07-10-2017 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by CRR
07-09-2017 8:42 PM


Re: No Contest
CRR writes:
With a wave of the evolutionary wand everything is explained.
Since when are the observed mechanisms of mutagenesis a "magic wand"? Aren't you the one who believes in magic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 8:42 PM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 98 of 252 (814534)
07-10-2017 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
07-10-2017 4:10 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:
If you absolutely know something is the truth revealed by God, it can't be anti-science to treat it as the known truth.
Believing in something really, really hard does not make it known truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 4:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:32 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 102 of 252 (814544)
07-10-2017 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
07-10-2017 5:32 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:
That isn't what I said. I'm talking about KNOWING something is the absolute truth. Sorry you've never had the experience.
You believe through faith that the Bible is God's word. Believing something really, really hard does not make it true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 103 of 252 (814545)
07-10-2017 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Faith
07-10-2017 5:37 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:
Oh dear, another tedious fallacy. Everything I've said is about GOD's own revelation, and all of it is true as stated.
So claims a fallen human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 106 of 252 (814557)
07-10-2017 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
07-10-2017 6:21 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:
Only a leftist wouldn't know the difference between the delusions of mental patients and the truth of God's word.
The Bible was written by what you call "fallen humans", so it can't be accepted as truth by your own criteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 6:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 6:33 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 140 of 252 (814633)
07-11-2017 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
07-10-2017 6:33 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:
Sorry, the Bible was written by human beings UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
So claims a fallen human. You still have nothing according to your own criteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 6:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 153 of 252 (814745)
07-12-2017 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
07-12-2017 12:00 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:
Sorry, you are wrong. As I keep saying, the ability to believe the Bible is the word of God is a supernatural gift from God that overrides the fallen intellect.
So claims a fallen human. By your own criteria you can't believe any such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 12:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 1:36 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 156 of 252 (814756)
07-12-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
07-12-2017 1:36 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:
Being regenerated, born again, means to have your spiritual faculty "quickened" as the KJV puts it, or brought to life, the spiritual faculty that was lost to Adam and Eve at the Fall. That's the connection to the things of God that the fallen nature lacks. It makes possible the faith that saves and the faith that recognizes God's word. We're going to drag around the fallen flesh to death nevertheless, but we do have this regenerated spirit that unbelievers don't have.
Those are the claims of a fallen human who, by your own criteria, can't be believed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 1:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 161 of 252 (815857)
07-25-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by CRR
07-24-2017 7:24 PM


Re: talk about off topic talk ...
CRR writes:
You can always make up an evolutionary fairy tale to "explain" anything, particularly if you ignore real world constraints such time to fixity, and define microevolution broadly enough.
Again, you are projecting. You are the one who believes a supernatural deity magically poofed the universe into being, along with the Earth and life. You believe in a myth with talking snakes and magical trees. We are proposing natural mechanisms for natural phenomenon which is not a fairy tale.
Since it includes included deletion as microevolution without any constraints as to size and rate then as I have said you can simply assume a common ancestor with hundreds of extra genes that got deleted in one or the other line leading to humans or chimps. There you are, all the non-homologous genes explained by microevolution. And the challenge is to show only a single change without considering concurrent changes..
You haven't demonstrated that the new genes in the human lineage lack homologous sequence in the chimp genome.
And the challenge is to show only a single change without considering concurrent changes..
Which differences are you claiming could not be achieved by microevolutionary events? If you can't point to one, then you have failed to meet the challenge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 7:24 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by CRR, posted 07-27-2017 7:42 AM Taq has replied
 Message 163 by CRR, posted 07-27-2017 8:09 AM Taq has replied
 Message 171 by CRR, posted 08-02-2017 4:13 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 165 of 252 (815983)
07-27-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by CRR
07-27-2017 7:42 AM


Re: talk about off topic talk ...
CRR writes:
I have no intention of trying to meet a no win challenge such as you have set up.
Then I will take this as your tacit admission that microevolution does add up to macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by CRR, posted 07-27-2017 7:42 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 166 of 252 (815984)
07-27-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by CRR
07-27-2017 8:09 AM


Re: talk about off topic talk ...
CRR writes:
I guess I just took the word of geneticists on that one, such as Page Not Found | PLOS Genetics... where the authors claim to have identified 634 human-specific genes and 780 chimpanzee-specific genes.
Genes are determined by RNA sequence, not DNA sequence. By their definition, a gene is a stretch of DNA that is transcribed into RNA. If a stretch of DNA is not transcribed, then it is not a gene. When they say that it is a human specific gene, they are saying that the same RNA sequence is not found among chimp RNA. They are NOT saying that the same DNA sequence is not found in the chimp genome.
Do you understand the distinction?
Let's go to the paper you cited, specifically to Table 2. In that table they compare human and hominoid specific genes and compare the DNA sequence to the syntenic regions in the macaque genome. What do they find? They see about 70 substitutions per 1,000 bases. This means that for hominoid and human specific genes, those genomic regions still share 93% DNA homology to the macaque genome. There is still DNA homology to the macaque genome for human and hominoid specific genes, even though the macaque does not have those homologous genes.
Added in much later edit:
Just for gits and shiggles, I looked up one of the human specific genes to see if there is homologous DNA in the chimp genome. I looked at ENSG00000236197 from Table 2 of the aforementioned paper. I did a BLAT search using the first 700 bp of the gene (upstream region and first exon) through Ensembl's web page and wouldn't you know it, found a match with the chimp genome in the very same region of chromosome 7 where the human gene is found. There's about a 98% match. The link below gets you to the BLAT search which includes a search against the human and chimp genome. The human to human search is to establish where in the genome the human gene is found.
BLAST/BLAT Ticket - Homo_sapiens - Ensembl genome browser 107
Here is a link to the Ensembl page for the human gene, in case anyone is interested.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by CRR, posted 07-27-2017 8:09 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by CRR, posted 07-27-2017 11:50 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 168 of 252 (816049)
07-28-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by CRR
07-27-2017 11:50 PM


Re: Human-chimp non homologues
CRR writes:
Human-chimp non homologues
Try these ones.
Homo sapiens genes vs Pan troglodytes
PLCXD1 (ENSG00000182378) No homologues
I searched for the first one on your list and found a homologue (first 960 bases of gene covering the first exon) in the chimp genome.
BLAST/BLAT Ticket - Pan_troglodytes - Ensembl genome browser 107
If you are wrong about the very first one, I see little reason to go through the rest.
PLCXD1 is also NOT a human specific gene. It is found in many vertebrate species, from frogs to mice to dogs to humans.
HomoloGene - NCBI
In looking at a handful of other genes on your list, none of those are human specific either. You seem to be running a bait and switch.
You are just wrong about those human specific genes. You mistakenly conflated "gene" with "DNA sequence". People make mistakes. The key is to recognize when you make mistakes and stop making them.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by CRR, posted 07-27-2017 11:50 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by CRR, posted 07-28-2017 7:05 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 170 of 252 (816193)
07-31-2017 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by CRR
07-28-2017 7:05 PM


Re: Human-chimp non homologues
CRR writes:
They were all listed as "no homologue" on the Encode website. Sorry, but I trust Encode more than you.
Did ENCODE list them as human specific genes? If not, then your point is meaningless. All you are doing is using a bait and switch.
You claimed that evolution of humans was impossible because there were all of these human specific genes that could not evolve. I proved you wrong by pointing out the fact that chimps have homologous DNA in those same regions. To try and save face, you try to find genes that were lost in the chimp lineage and found in other primate genomes to counter the argument, forgetting that your argument started with human specific genes.
What is it about loss of genes in the chimp lineage that you think argues against evolution?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by CRR, posted 07-28-2017 7:05 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by CRR, posted 08-02-2017 6:09 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 173 of 252 (816287)
08-02-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by CRR
08-02-2017 4:13 AM


Re: Human-chimp non homologues
Do you accept that there are genes in humans that have no homologue in chimps?
Do you accept that you are using a bait and switch?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by CRR, posted 08-02-2017 4:13 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 174 of 252 (816288)
08-02-2017 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by CRR
08-02-2017 6:09 AM


Re: Human-chimp non homologues
CRR writes:
The link I provided compared them to the chimp genome only. Some of them would be human specific genes.
Baloney. Until you show that any of them are human specific genes you are simply using a bait and switch.
How many human specific genes are there? I don't know and neither does anyone else, however there ARE human specific genes as an internet search will show you. Such as Human-specific gene ARHGAP11B.
As I have already shown, those genes are transcribed from DNA shared with other primate species. You can find the Ensembl page for the human specific gene ARHGAP11B here. I did a BLAT search using the first two exons and the upstream region (~1,000 bp) against the human and chimp genomes, which you can view here. As expected, there is homologous DNA (~98% identity) in the chimp genome associated with the human specific gene. They are both found on the same region of chromosome 15.
How many times do we need to repeat this process?
According to this Nature paper, every evolutionary lineage harbours orphan genes that lack homologues in other lineages and whose evolutionary origin is only poorly understood
Yes, they lack homologous RNA, but they share homologous DNA. Do we need to go over this again?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by CRR, posted 08-02-2017 6:09 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by CRR, posted 08-02-2017 6:28 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024