Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 159 (8167 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-25-2014 11:54 PM
57 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MarkG
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 741,987 Year: 27,828/28,606 Month: 2,885/2,244 Week: 289/710 Day: 160/72 Hour: 10/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   How will creationists react to the first human-chimp hybrid?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 10 of 138 (448856)
01-15-2008 2:33 PM


could this be sufficent to demonstrate our 'obvious' family ties with our cousins? Would this be rather convincing evidence for humans and chimps being of one 'kind'?

No, Mitochondrial Eve and Mitochondrial Adam supports the creationists belief in one man and one woman. I agree with you that we share a common creator but not that we share a common ancestor.

The lack of transistitional fossils in the fossil record to a creationists is scientific evidence that proves God is the common denominator. The creationists don't have problems with claudistic similarities for we share a common creator however the transistional evidence is still missing in spite of the evolutionists denying its not missing.

P.S. Evolutionists in their delusion has come up with words like claudistic similarities but this still does not explain the missing transistional fossils. Claudistic similarities to a creationists means we all have a common creator which of course why a chimp is still a chimp.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 01-15-2008 2:47 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 17 by teen4christ, posted 01-15-2008 3:23 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 38 of 138 (448983)
01-15-2008 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by teen4christ
01-15-2008 3:23 PM


Mitochondrial DNA is only inherited through your maternal side

The answers from genesis folk actually agree with you but they point out that the Y chromosome is inherited through the male so it can be used in the same way to look for Adam.

Technically if Eve was made from Adams rib then mitochondrial came from Adam thru Eve to all living.

The bible says Eve is the mother of all living humans and Mitochondrial Eve supports the human race goes back to Eve akjv genesis 3:20. I've not heard of any chimp having Eve's mitochondria so the evidence is no mitochondrial evidence to support Eve is not the mother of all living !!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------

Its apparently possible to trace all modern humans back to one father also. The Y chromosome is inherited only through the male, so can be used in the same way to look for an 'Adam'

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/mitochondrial_DNA.asp

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by teen4christ, posted 01-15-2008 3:23 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by sidelined, posted 01-15-2008 10:11 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 40 by molbiogirl, posted 01-15-2008 11:47 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 42 of 138 (449024)
01-16-2008 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by molbiogirl
01-15-2008 11:47 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
Both Y chromosomes and mtDNA represent only a very, very tiny fraction of the whole picture.

It appears the mutation rate of mitochondrial Eve is more accelerated than they first believed making the human race approximately 6000 years old.

However nuclear DNA which is inherited by both parents thus is not as subject to mutations as is mitochondrial Eve.

P.S. Thus its a very big part of the picture because its not lost in ten generations within the gene pool, etc... ;)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Unlike nuclear DNA, which is inherited from both parents and in which genes are rearranged in the process of recombination, there is usually no change in mtDNA from parent to offspring. Although mtDNA also recombines, it does so with copies of itself within the same mitochondrion. Because of this and because the mutation rate of animal mtDNA is higher than that of nuclear DNA,[2] mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking ancestry through females (matrilineage) and has been used in this role to track the ancestry of many species back hundreds of generations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA

The mitochondrial Eve data does not force the belief that there was only one woman from whom we all descended—in other words, it doesn’t prove the Bible—but—a very important ‘but’—it is most definitely consistent with it. In other words, had there been more than one mitochondrial ‘surname’, it would have been a severe challenge to the biblical scenario.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by molbiogirl, posted 01-15-2008 11:47 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2008 3:16 AM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 44 by molbiogirl, posted 01-16-2008 4:12 AM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 45 of 138 (449042)
01-16-2008 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by molbiogirl
01-16-2008 4:12 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
The answering from genesis folk said the mutation rate today is more accelerated than assumed thus one could also assume Mitochondrial Eve was 6,000 years old. The evolutionist assumed the mutation rate it says by their interpretation of the fossil record.

I mean we all know there is no evidence to support an old earth in that no evidence of cold fusion within the earth to establish when the radioisotope clocks were initially wound up, etc...For all we know these isotope clocks were wound up before the earth was formed in some kind of big bang?

But by making assumptions no leaching of these clocks in this way they
assume everything is old and that they call science. The creationist to a creationists are giving the correct spin on the age of the fossil the evolutionists are not aging the fossil by the fossil as baumgardener has been questioning why commercial labs are fudging out up to 40000 years of 14C so everyting appears old. Give the rate boys a thumbs up, etc....

The answering from genesis folks said: In other words, had there been more than one mitochondrial ‘surname’, it would have been a severe challenge to the biblical scenario.

I'm taking a little trip so just don't lose your cool, later, etc....

Enjoy !!!!!!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Evolutionists have guessed at when their mitochondrial Eve lived via the idea of the ‘molecular clock’—i.e., that there is a more or less fixed rate of mutational substitutions per year in any population. How do they know what this rate is—in other words, how is the ‘molecular clock’ calibrated? By using evolutionary assumptions about the timing of events based on their interpretation of the fossil record.

Creationists have correctly countered both Eve’s ‘age’ and the Neandertal assertions by saying that the molecular clock calibrations are way off.2 Since, for example, the creationist’s (true) Eve lived only a few thousand years ago, the mutational substitutions in mtDNA must have happened at a much faster rate than assumed by evolutionists to date.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by molbiogirl, posted 01-16-2008 4:12 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rahvin, posted 01-16-2008 10:39 AM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 47 of 138 (449191)
01-17-2008 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rahvin
01-16-2008 10:39 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
It's Creationists who are making the assumption here: that mutational rates (and radioisotope decay, etc) were all somehow "different" in the past...but they provide no evidence for this idea other than the Bible, and never any mechanism for the acceleration or slowdown in mutation.

Wrong they quoted from Gibbons and Parsons, why is it that evolution is only a circle game, etc...

That is when the radioisotope heavy elements like Uranium and Carbon were originally "wound up" - before the Earth had even formed.

So we agree the elements that make up the earth were created before teh earth was created thus the earth itself could of been formed only 6,000 to 13,000 years ago. I mean the evidence is supporting a young earth, etc...

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand any of that, except for the assertion that scientists are for some reason falsifying results. I assume you have proof of this?

Yep, Creationists have been telling you for years its a young earth but the problem has roots in fraud in pretending its an old earth. Baumgardener explains commercial lab prodical is to fudge out 14C from fossils dated because its too hard to explain away any other way. In other words labs believe its intrinsic but has to explain it as contamination. Such fraud in science no reason for a creationists to believe in the lie the earth is old, etc...

http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

So, Creationism is true because Mitochondrial Eve proves Genesis. We know how long ago Mitochondrial Eve lived because Genesis tells us - the mutational rate that shows she's older must have simply happened at an accelerated rate.

Nice circular reasoning.

No Creationists used real facts not making up a mutation rate off assumptions that the earth is old. Whats wrong with a young earth, if the facts support a young earth then its time to replace the theory of evolution with biblical science !!!!!!!! Why lie to our kids and say the earth is old when the scientific evidence supports a young earth, like diamonds having 14C if the earth was old so much evidence to support the earth is a young earth, etc...

I think the problem is scientists know the theory of evolution does not answer the missing transistional fossils thus rather than allow creation sciences to be taught are going to go to Intelligent Design which is not addressing the young age of the earth.

Gibbons, A. ‘Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock’. Science 279(5347):28–29, January 2, 1998. Return to text.
Parsons, T.J. et al ‘A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region’, Nature GeneticsVol. 15: 363–368, 1997; as cited in ref. 4.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rahvin, posted 01-16-2008 10:39 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 10:56 AM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 54 of 138 (449281)
01-17-2008 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rahvin
01-17-2008 10:56 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
Remember how everybody whines about nuclear waste, and how it wont stop being radioactive for millions of years? We know exactly the rates of radioactive decay, and if they were as fast as you're asserting, we wouldn't have to worry much about spent nuclear fuel.

Never said we did not agree that they decay only that you don't know the moment they were still being wound up before the earth was. Everything just decays other than 14C which is due to cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. This I know confuses you in respect to cold fusion not happening due to the sediment particle prevents this from happening within the earth.

Somehow I'm disinclined to believe a site that purports the global flood to have actually occurred, contrary to what we observe in nature.

If you disagree with the hydroplate theory you should take up Walt Brown challenge on one of his telephone debates. He's looking for people to come to the plate and discuss the sciences of just this kind of stuff however you'd better know what your talking about because once he believed in what you espouse.

Recorded Phone Debate

For anyone who disagrees with the hydroplate theory (explained in Part II of this book), the recorded phone debate is appropriated. Anyone, regardless of their scientific credentials, can engage Dr. Brown, provided they have read the theory. For details, see page 404.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

The problem is that Creationists are unwilling to understand what a transitional fossil would even look like. The problem is that Creationists don't understand how rarely fossilization occurs, and that we don't expect to see an example of every generation of organism.

No think the evolutionists are guilty of that like creating nebraska man from a pigs tooth, and claiming how rare fossilaization occurs when you have millions of fossils in the public museums however the millions necessary if lifes origins happened from a common ancestor as they say there should be billions upon billions of mistakes in the fossil record. Its a complex code to sort of self program which of course why we see the Intelligent Design movement because your few questionable creatures does not support your theory. In fact the absense of transistional creatures in light of the complexities of DNA proves conclusively there is a God. The truth is all the fossils in the fossil record show they were fully formed the moment they came onto the fossil record as attested by the millions of fossils in the museums of the world today.

The fact that incredibly old samples should not contain any original C14 is the reason C14 dating is useless on very old samples.

Then how do you explain the Russian study where nothing dated older than 9640 years in the yucan peninsula. Page 12 tropical plants I mean if life was tropical and animals were on this planet millions of years how come nothing older than 9640 years. It proof that God exists for if evolution was viable something would of flagged up older given 14C can be measured over 50,000 years but none dated older than 9640 years. Oh....thats right it was those Russians they forgot to fudge the intrinsic evidence, etc... Can't you see the evolutionists have been lying to you? The truth is its a young earth, etc....

shorter form of link

The light from stars we know are millions or even billions of light-years away would have needed to be created en-route, or the speed of light would have needed to be different (which would have made the universe as we see it today an impossibility).

I thought the universe was speeding away faster than the speed of light which begs the question if nothing is really something or is it nothing. The bible actually says that God alone is responsible for the spreading out of the heavens. He says this in his Word in the book of Job another example of the inerrancy of the written Word.

On the fourth creation day where it says "he made" the stars also in my akjv bible "he made" is in italics meaning the translators wanted us to know these 2 words were added by the translators their words not Gods. Why is it that mans words always confuse and Gods Words seem to clarify, etc... I'm not trying to convert you but you seemed to be bringing the entire universe into a young earth. The Word does not say the entire universe (the stars) was created on the fourth day tthese words were added by the translators. While its obvious God made the stars its not correct to say he made them on the fourth day because these two words were added by the translators meaning they are not Gods Words. Thats my take on how we both believe the universe itself can be interpreted to be older than 6000-13000 years old and if the universe is racing away faster than the speed limit of light then light being a property of space would it not too be stretched as nothing is being increased by the stretching of space ?

Edited by AdminNWR, : "fix" url so it won't blow out the margins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 10:56 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 3:05 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 56 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 3:09 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 57 of 138 (449328)
01-17-2008 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rahvin
01-17-2008 3:05 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
There is no "winding up."

In space your uranium is not protected by the sediment particle thus its winding up your partially decayed elements were how much they were wound up in space. This is why 14C in the upper atmosphere is changed by these cosmic energies proving you can not assume uranium is as old as the clock shows but thats what the evolutionists do time and time again because if they did not mitochondrial eve could not be assumed to be old.

Or do you really believe the fossils were created as-is by magic?

No we believe we were intelligently designed suddenly as the fossil record attests. I mean if we were not created suddenly there would be billions of mistakes because of the complexity of design. You have evidence that life came on the scene suddenly but refuse to accept this scientific fact. This is why you try to make Mitochondrial Eve to be old but to do so you have to assume the mutation rates happened over long periods of time when the creationists have shown you in the natural mutation rates are occuring more frequent challenging your old earth delusions.

No, it's not. If that were so, we wouldn't be able to see any stars.

If light is stretching then its still going the speed of light because nothing is nothing then general relativity does not violate special relativity even though light by triangulation has went more miles per second than special relativity in normal space. Right? So space affects light but its not a violation of general relativity because once light enters our solar system it slows down to the speed limit of our normal space. Does this make any sense like you say you would not beable to see the light if it was going away faster than the speedlimit of light, etc....So basically you have particles moving thru space bombarding uranium and all the other elements constantly that the stars themselves might well be made up of the same stuff that makes up the earth. Meaning there might of never been a big bang though its just one theory however these elements are just floating around through space bombarding each other could well be fusing the heavier elements right up to the point the earth was created 6000 to 13000 years ago in agreement with the creationists accelerated evidence in respect to mitochondrial eve.

I mean if cosmic rays can form 14C in the upper atmosphere pray what happens to the elements in space constantly getting hit by cosmic rays. I certainly don't see how you could believe their unwinding, but apparently you do because you don't believe the scientific evidence that in respect to Mitochondrial Eve if the accelerations happen much more frequently it supports a young earth, etc...

So you admit that the Bible cannot possibly be infallible, as it has been subject to human translation and copying for a few thousand years.

No the translators explained it was their words. I see no reason to believe the bible is not God breathed. Jerry Falwell bless his heart said he felt some questionable numerical questions but that appears about it, like as silver refined seven times, etc... Eve the Word says was the mother of all living given the inerrancy of the bible, after all these years its interesting its lining up with advanced mutation rates(truth begets truth), etc... The reason no chimps have Eves mitochondrial evidence is chimps are not our common ancestor but we were created by a common creator. With it now known that mutations to mitochondrial dna happens more frequently old suddenly becomes young, etc...

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 3:05 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 6:21 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 100 by BVZ, posted 09-29-2008 10:22 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 61 of 138 (449489)
01-18-2008 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Rahvin
01-17-2008 6:21 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
Believe what you want, it doesn't really change the facts.

The bible says Eve is the mother of all living which is in essense what Michrondrial Eve is saying. So what you have is science supporting the inerrancy of the written word. It does not change the fact that Eve is the mother of all living, etc...

The space in front of the light would be stretching at a speed faster than light travels. It would be like trying to go the wrong way on an escalator that's moving at 100 MPH. You'll never get to the top, regardless of what happens to your body.

No, the space light is travelling thru is stretching causing light to stretch. The universe is accelerating away faster than light speed yet light of these receeding galaxies are visible? right? therefore lights speed had to of increased for this light to still be visible. Then when this light returns to normal space the light wave shrinks to normal space and these galaxies become visible. Is not this why general relativity is said not to be violating special relativity?

What i'm trying to say is do we really know for sure that uranium in the earth was created in a star. No, If cosmic rays are bombarding elements suspended in space then the uranium within the earth could of been formed in space and have nothing to do with age of the earth just that it was formed before the earth was and has nothing to do with the age of mitochondrial Eve.

...unless there isn't a "design" at all, and evolution is the natural process by which new species arise from pre-existing ones.

You just don't see it happening no new species arising from pre-existing ones. ring species are still the same kind, dogs still the same kind, its just not happening, etc....thats why creationists are not the delusional ones making up myths tha mitochondrial eve is old based off istope dating, etc...So many assumptions just to pretend the earth is an old earth and not a young earth. for a new gene to be programmed takes incredible amount of information that is not answered by natural processes. Mutations is a decrease in information not a gain, etc...your belief the chimps are our cousins does not explain how those extra chromosomes were created. Intelligent Design says it can not happen by chance but by an Intelligent designer. Just the speech alone can not be explained by natural selection. Natural selection does not create new information, etc..

The bible is quite clear when the creatures were created God said it was good. Only God could of created all the creatures suddenly without any transitional fossils from the beginning without any mistakes. Its been said life is de-evolving not evolving creatures are going extinct and no new kinds are being created. This is fact, etc...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 6:21 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by molbiogirl, posted 01-18-2008 3:36 AM johnfolton has responded
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 01-18-2008 12:32 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 64 of 138 (449533)
01-18-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by molbiogirl
01-18-2008 3:36 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
"Johnfulton". "Bret". "Charley". "Craig". "reversespin". "The Golfer". "Tim". "Tom". "whatever".
We haven't any time for your nonsense here.

Take a hike.

Right attack the messenger not answer the questions but pretend you have answers, when the transistional fossils nessary are missing and Mitochondrial Eve supports the biblical Eve.

If chimps had mitochondrial Eve then their would of likely been some humpin going on. You all believe incorrectly the mutation rate is over large periods of time when you have facts it happens quicker for mitochondrial dna verses the dna shared by the parents. It should be obvious to you that you've been lied to perhaps you just don't like to hear the truth. So you instead attack the messenger rather than the message? Do you like playing the hypocrite why not just join the young earthers. Join the winning team whose message is based on science not myth delusion, etc...

de·lu·sion /dɪˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by molbiogirl, posted 01-18-2008 3:36 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 74 of 138 (449780)
01-18-2008 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
01-18-2008 12:32 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
Plus she is thought to have lived over a hundred thousand years ago, not 6000 years ago.

That all depends how you calibrate the mutation rates for mitochondrial dna.

The visible universe was not receding faster than the speed of light at the time it emitted the light we see today.

Interesting it brings the entire universe much closer meaning the space separating the galaxies is not bound by lights speed even if light is, etc...

I'm still not convinced the light wave is not stretching too like that its not part of the fabric of space stretching but appears you believe its the nothing of space thats expanding and this is the fabric of space so light not stretching. Thanks though for explaining what you believe is the truth, it makes the universe appear to be much younger in that light. Nuff said about nothing but whatever its appearing stuff is far younger like mitochondrial eve just by how you interprete mutation rates can make her 6,000 years.

P.S. I don't expect you to believe what the answering from genesis folk said about the mutation rates but there is another point of view out there based on how mitochondrial dna mutates based on real data from the sources the answering from genesis folks quoted.

Since chimps don't have mitochondrial Eve's dna it certainly does not prove chimps are our cousins.

Mutations can both increase and decrease information.

I don't see how mutations can increase information to overcome the missing chromosome neccessary for a chimp/ape to become a man. The genetic information too creationists needs a programmer its too complicated hence the intelligent design movement.

We were created in the image of God according to the creationist folk and our image takes genetic information that an intelligent designer programmed within our dna. Mutations can not account for the genetic information necessary its like God is the potter and were the clay. Too me if genetic engineers starts playing with the clay it will be an abomination.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 01-18-2008 12:32 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by DrJones*, posted 01-19-2008 12:01 AM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 01-19-2008 8:39 AM johnfolton has responded
 Message 78 by Quetzal, posted 01-19-2008 9:02 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 83 of 138 (449867)
01-19-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
01-19-2008 8:39 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
Well, actually, it doesn't depend upon how you determine mutation rates as much as how accurately. Analyses based upon evidence yield an age for Mitochondrial Eve greater than a hundred thousand years. An age of 6000 years isn't based upon evidence but upon the Bible and so is not scientific.

The answers from genesis folk are quoting a review in Science Research News. The Parson team was stunned to find 1 mutation every 40 generations.

They expected to find 1 mutation every 600 generations but found science supporting creationists young earth despite the special pleadings of the evolutionists.

These modern day mutation rates are encouraging to the creationists and understandably discouraging to the evolutionist.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The review in Science’s ‘Research News’ goes still further about Eve’s date, saying that ‘using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.’ The article says about one of the teams of scientists (the Parsons team5) that ‘evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations ... they were “stunned” to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations.’4

Evolutionists have tried to evade the force of these results by countering that the high mutation rate only occurs in certain stretches of DNA called ‘hot spots’ and/or that the high (observed) rate causes back mutations which ‘erase’ the effects of this high rate. Therefore, conveniently, the rate is assumed to be high over a short timespan, but effectively low over a long timespan. However, this is special pleading to get out of a difficulty, and the burden of proof is on evolutionists to sustain the vast ages for ‘Eve’ in the face of these documented, modern-day mutation rates. These are indeed encouraging results for creationists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 01-19-2008 8:39 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by AdminNWR, posted 01-19-2008 2:20 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 01-19-2008 4:15 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 86 of 138 (449912)
01-19-2008 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
01-19-2008 4:15 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
We'll at least we agree that a chimp/ape has no mitochondrial eve dna not that at some point some intelligent designer might manipulate genes to create some kind of abomination. Its enough that women have been granted equal rights but chimps?

P.S. You all seem like you want to put the universe in a bottle and say the space inside the bottle increases but not the bottle. Like some are petitioning the courts to grant chimps equal rights. Is the world gone mad or going mad or what, etc... The courts should not of even heard the case that they did shows how far animal right groups are willing to go to have the chimp declared a person.

I mean you create some abomination then some will be petitioning the courts for equal rights.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There remain many significant differences between human and chimpanzee DNA

alleged fusion of two chromosomes to make human chromosome 2
differences in telomere length between humans and apes
chromosomal inversions
differences in repetitive DNA elements
In conclusion, the Patterson study does little to explain the molecular data. Even from an evolutionary perspective there are more plausible alternative explanations than hybridization events. Nor does the study significantly challenge the creationist assertion that humans and chimpanzees never shared a common ancestor. It does, however, demonstrate the incredible lengths to which evolutionists must go to rebuff the truth: humans and chimpanzees are now, and have always been, two different kinds.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0531chimp.asp

Chimps Are Not People, Austrian Court Rules, Group Says”

The Supreme Court of Austria has ruled that a chimpanzee cannot be legally declared a person, reports the Associated Press. But for how long?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/01/19/news-to-note-01192008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 01-19-2008 4:15 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 01-19-2008 8:05 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 88 of 138 (449935)
01-19-2008 9:41 PM


You could look at it all like chimps and humans like two galaxies inside a jar that are said not moving yet while the space between them is said to be increasing.

You see this in like kind species genes mutate as generations increase. When like kind gene pools are separated they eventually start having problems interbreeding.

Ring species comes to mind where the mutations of the genes like in two sea gulls gene pools separated over time they can not interbreed because of the increase in mutations separating the two gene pools.

What I'm saying there is more than just one fused chromosome and different genetic information between chimps and humans. As time increases so do the mutations to all the genes ensuring only like kind creatures multiply.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 01-20-2008 8:44 AM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 93 of 138 (450034)
01-20-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
01-20-2008 8:44 AM


johnfolton writes:
You could look at it all like chimps and humans like two galaxies inside a jar that are said not moving yet while the space between them is said to be increasing.

*You* might look at it this way, I very much doubt anyone else will.

No, I'm a bit of a creationists so think God is using string theory propelling them apart causing the space between them to increase. I just thought string theory interesting like light is a wave energy and here is Peter Gariaev looking at wave based genetics. Its almost like our cell functions might well be driven by super string theory and not just chemical reactions not that wave based genetics is yet based on string theory.

As far as the human genonome goes they don't really understand the genonome enough to be playing God. But that won't stop them like all those retro-viruses believed slipping out into the environment from transgenetic hybrid foodstuffs that are believed to be endangering the entire biosphere. If they don't really understand 98 percent of the genonome they should not be playing God.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To ignore, or so poorly understand, the role of this 98% of the human genome is an appreciable error. Moreover, whether we correctly grasp the role of the genetic information represented by the known 2% of DNA is still in question--especially when the other 98% is presently terra incognita, unknown territory

The initially bright promises of the creations of transgenetic research have actually turned out only dangerous hybrid foodstuffs that are extremely hazardous to the biosphere on which our very lives depend.

How are we to transcend this condition of an abundance of flawed and dangerous experiments, where many inconsistent and hazardous results are caused by a lack of any proper understanding of DNA and a dramatic deficiency in grasping the foundational operating principles of the human genome?

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : Having a hard time getting my quoted links in.

Edited by johnfolton, : This is my last attempt to get the links to show up. For some reason was taking my sources?

Edited by johnfolton, : http://www.fractal.org/Life-Science-Technology/Peter-Gariaev.htm
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1284&pc=Science%20and%20Mathematics


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 01-20-2008 8:44 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by johnfolton, posted 01-20-2008 12:10 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 01-20-2008 1:44 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 94 of 138 (450038)
01-20-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by johnfolton
01-20-2008 12:01 PM


deleted was able to post links on previous post.

Edited by johnfolton, :

johnfolton writes:
You could look at it all like chimps and humans like two galaxies inside a jar that are said not moving yet while the space between them is said to be increasing.

*You* might look at it this way, I very much doubt anyone else will.

No, I'm a bit of a creationists so think God is using string theory propelling them apart causing the space between them to increase. I just thought string theory interesting like light is a wave energy and here is Peter Gariaev looking at wave based genetics. Its almost like our cell functions might well be driven by super string theory and not just chemical reactions not that wave based genetics is yet based on string theory.

As far as the human genonome goes they don't really understand the genonome enough to be playing God. But that won't stop them like all those retro-viruses believed slipping out into the environment from transgenetic hybrid foodstuffs that are believed to be endangering the entire biosphere. If they don't really understand 98 percent of the genonome they should not be playing God.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

To ignore, or so poorly understand, the role of this 98% of the human genome is an appreciable error. Moreover, whether we correctly grasp the role of the genetic information represented by the known 2% of DNA is still in question--especially when the other 98% is presently terra incognita, unknown territory

The initially bright promises of the creations of transgenetic research have actually turned out only dangerous hybrid foodstuffs that are extremely hazardous to the biosphere on which our very lives depend.

How are we to transcend this condition of an abundance of flawed and dangerous experiments, where many inconsistent and hazardous results are caused by a lack of any proper understanding of DNA and a dramatic deficiency in grasping the foundational operating principles of the human genome?

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by johnfolton, posted 01-20-2008 12:01 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014