|
Author
|
Topic: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap
|
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
Message 31 of 244 (261133)
11-18-2005 8:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by mark24
11-17-2005 3:09 PM
|
|
Mark: The point is one of your own admits the similarities are at least 5 million years apart. IOW, they are disimilar. Now here is the kicker; presto.... 5 million years is exactly what we claim as to when the split occurred. IOW, only by outlandish assumption and you guys call it evidence. The Creationist model is better supported. Any similarity supports one Almighty Creator working from a common design. Your error is the assumption that similarity = evidence for the resolve. Its also called rhetoric. Human evolution is absurd - an extraordinary claim lacking any credible evidence much less extraordinary evidence. Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by mark24, posted 11-17-2005 3:09 PM | | mark24 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 9:14 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied | | | Message 33 by mark24, posted 11-19-2005 4:30 AM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied | | | Message 34 by mick, posted 11-19-2005 2:50 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied | | | Message 35 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-21-2005 6:46 AM | | Cold Foreign Object has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
old earth 5,000,000 years?
5 million years is exactly what we claim as to when the split occurred That would be stunning, if (a) it occured for every species on the planet. The problem is that the brances from other species in general, and apes in particular, are not so "convenient" and thus this is shown as nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, and (b) the 5 million years was part of some standard creationist model. The YECs seem to have it more somewhere between 10k and 5k years, and OECs seem to adjust to modern science, so I am at a loss for who has this in a creationist model? enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Herepton,
The point is one of your own admits the similarities are at least 5 million years apart. So?
Your error is the assumption that similarity = evidence for the resolve. So why did you try to show that human/chimp chromosomes were more dissimilar at the genetic level than they are? What would you gain from that if it isn't evidence, anyway? Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
outlandish assumptions of the molecular clock?
Hi Ray
herepton writes: The Creationist model is better supported Well it goes without saying that a creationist model can easily be invented to be 100% consistent with any data. For example it is perfectly possible that every single thing in existence was all created by God this morning in such a way as to make it look as though evolution had occurred. That's a good reason why supernatural creation should never be considered a null hypothesis.
herepton writes: 5 million years is exactly what we claim as to when the split occurred. IOW, only by outlandish assumption and you guys call it evidence What are the outlandish assumptions of the molecular clock? You make it sound as though these (unidentified) assumptions are applied uncritically by evolutionary biologists, but this is quite untrue. Any biologist using a molecular clock will test the assumptions to see if they are valid. For example, from Yoder and Yang, Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:1081-1090 (2000):
Yoder and Yang writes: Protein-coding genes of the mitochondrial genomes from 31 mammalian species were analyzed to estimate the speciation dates within primates and also between rats and mice. Three calibration points were used based on paleontological data: one at 20-25 MYA for the hominoid/cercopithecoid divergence, one at 53-57 MYA for the cetacean/artiodactyl divergence, and the third at 110-130 MYA for the metatherian/eutherian divergence. Both the nucleotide and the amino acid sequences were analyzed, producing conflicting results. The global molecular clock was clearly violated for both the nucleotide and the amino acid data. Models of local clocks were implemented using maximum likelihood, allowing different evolutionary rates for some lineages while assuming rate constancy in others. Surprisingly, the highly divergent third codon positions appeared to contain phylogenetic information and produced more sensible estimates of primate divergence dates than did the amino acid sequences. Estimated dates varied considerably depending on the data type, the calibration point, and the substitution model but differed little among the four tree topologies used. We conclude that the calibration derived from the primate fossil record is too recent to be reliable; we also point out a number of problems in date estimation when the molecular clock does not hold. Despite these obstacles, we derived estimates of primate divergence dates that were well supported by the data and were generally consistent with the paleontological record. Estimation of the mouse-rat divergence date, however, was problematic. If you were able to actually explain what the assumptions of the molecular clock are, and explain why you think they are outlandish, then you might be able to put together a stronger argument. But critiquing the assumptions of the molecular clock has no bearing on the validity of the "creationist model", whatever that is supposed to be. Mick
|
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member
|
The Creationist model is better supported.
Please, then, state this model plainly.
Any similarity supports one Almighty Creator working from a common design. Sure. That's why the bozo gave chimps, too, an appendix, a coccyx, a recurrent laryngeal nerve and inverted retinas. Presumably, then, finding differences supports numerous creators working from different designs? We've got one designer doing cephalopod eyes and another doing vertebrate ones; one designer for bat lungs and another for bird lungs; one working on horizontal tail flukes for cetaceans while another designed vertical ones for ichthyosaurs.
Your error is the assumption that similarity = evidence for the resolve. Its also called rhetoric. What about the nested hierarchy of similarities? It's also called cladistics.
Human evolution is absurd - an extraordinary claim lacking any credible evidence much less extraordinary evidence. Please do not confuse your lack of familiarity with the evidence with the evidence being lacking.
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
Hi DT ! This is Ray Martinez/Willowtree  I want everyone to know that Darwin's Terrier is my all time favorite Darwinist. He can be charmingly funny while he attempts to refute and tear you apart. I am very glad to hear from you DT ! Where have you been ? How are you ? IF I remember correctly, the LAST time you and I mixed it up at another site....oh yeah....I remember....don't you ? DT...you DO remember don't you ? Tell me you remember what happened the last time we had intercourse ?
Please, then, state this model plainly. The Creationist Model is: What the Bible says (when it is ascertained what that is) plainly corresponds with reality = fact. For example: Genesis says God created Adamkind = perfectly corresponds with reality. Can't see design ? The Bible explains why some cannot but that is another subject. Glad to see you DT. Oh yeah...I just remembered what happened the last time you and I debated.....as we say in America: "your secret is safe". Ray PS: If you forgot just ask your friend Graculus - it was a three-way remember....we both took turns....remember ? LOL ! RM/WT This message has been edited by Herepton, 11-22-2005 05:15 PM
|
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member
|
Hello Ray
This is Ray Martinez/Willowtree Well well well. Still plugging away, eh? Me too.
I want everyone to know that Darwin's Terrier is my all time favorite Darwinist. He can be charmingly funny while he attempts to refute and tear you apart. Thanks, but I take exception to "attempts". 
Where have you been ? Moderating IIDB's E/C board, mostly.
How are you ? Tickety-boo. Yourself?
IF I remember correctly, the LAST time you and I mixed it up at another site....oh yeah....I remember....don't you ? DT...you DO remember don't you ? Tell me you remember what happened the last time we had intercourse ? Well I remember that you got banned from IIDB "for repeated insults and violations of the rules", if that's what you mean. I remember that you tended to go in for nitpicking your opponent, while consistently engaging in ad hominem attacks that often required editing. I'll check back; I'm afraid that while I never forget a screen name, creationists tend to blur together after a while.
The Creationist Model is: What the Bible says (when it is ascertained what that is) plainly corresponds with reality = fact. Yup, same old Willow. Refuses to learn from anything we evilushunists say. And I seem to remember that "[we] have all lost your minds"; are "bored gossips", "atheists ass kissing other atheists", possibly "on drugs", and apparently "invulnerable to common sense".
For example: Genesis says God created Adamkind = perfectly corresponds with reality. Can't see design ? The Bible explains why some cannot but that is another subject. Nice. And I maintain that as Ymir slept, sweating, a man and a woman grew under his left arm, and one of his legs begot a son with the other. But then, I prefer Snorri Sturluson to Moses. If this is reality, you'll have some evidence of it then, yes?
Glad to see you DT. Oh yeah...I just remembered what happened the last time you and I debated.....as we say in America: "your secret is safe". I shall have to check back further than your profile at IIDB, as I do not recall having any secrets.
PS: If you forgot just ask your friend Graculus - it was a three-way remember....we both took turns....remember ? No, like I say, you all tend to blur, with only the most ludicrous claims (eg Karl Crawford's fireflies lighting the Ark) or notable insults to differentiate you by. Can't remember what makes you stand out, apart from retracting an admission of defeat, but that was here. I'll browse through those threads. 
|
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member
|
IF I remember correctly, the LAST time you and I mixed it up at another site....oh yeah....I remember....don't you ? DT...you DO remember don't you ? Tell me you remember what happened the last time we had intercourse ? [...] Glad to see you DT. Oh yeah...I just remembered what happened the last time you and I debated.....as we say in America: "your secret is safe". [...] PS: If you forgot just ask your friend Graculus - it was a three-way remember....we both took turns....remember ? Ah yes, the time I had my arse handed me... for underestimating the quantity of hominin fossils the previous year. Yes, I admit it, I was totally routed and had to drag my sorry ass to church the next day. [/sarcasm] For details, see: Oops! We ran into some problems. | Internet Infidels Discussion Board . See, folks, in Willow / Ray's own strange version of reality, he thinks he won that one. I recommend that thread to anyone interested in debating Ray / Willowtree / Herepton, and more generally, as it contains some fine posts by, eg, Per Ahlberg. TTFN, Oolon / DT This message has been edited by Darwin's Terrier, 11-23-2005 06:05 AM
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Hello Ray
Darwin's Terrier writes: eg Karl Crawford's fireflies lighting the Ark Two of them? Must have been big ones - kilowatt range, at least. 
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
macaroniandcheese
Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
[deleted]
[deleted] This message has been edited by brennakimi, 11-23-2005 04:04 PM
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
arguing with willowtree
sorry, brenna stole my login cookie again.
See, folks, in Willow / Ray's own strange version of reality, he thinks he won that one. I recommend that thread to anyone interested in debating Ray / Willowtree / Herepton hey dt, remember this one? it's a classic. http:// EvC Forum: lack of evidence i challenged willowtree to a great debate, based simply on showing evidence. he made the "footlocker" claim regarding transitional hominids, and complained that this was given a "sweatheart pass" while the exodus from egypt was rejected on grounds of lack of evidence. the challenge was that we take turns posting pictures of evidence -- i post a picture of a fossil hominid, he posts a picture of something hebrew from egypt. first one to not be able to post a picture loses. btw -- this challenge still stands, and i'm three ahead. this post was also kinda funny:
quote:
I concede all points to Arach. Read my words: I concede all points to Arach.
the rest of it's just basically a rant against me, darwinists, evolutionists, etc. it's got some pretty harsh words, that well, come off pretty funny.
אָרַח
|
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member
|
Re: arguing with willowtree
Hadn't seen it -- I've been almost exclusively at IIDB for quite a while -- but thanks. Yep, par for the course with Ray, it seems...
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
Re: Hello Ray
Lets get back to business. My Darwinian source (Steve Olson) admits chimp DNA and modern human are far from similar. But lets assume contrary to the evidence - that they are similar. How does similarity support the resolve (human evolution) ? I bet you and I are very similar from the shoulders down, yet we are not related in the slightest. I can post DNA evidence proving a Jewish Cohen lineage descends from Aaron the High Priest. This Priesthood ONLY EXISTS in a context of having been created and instituted by the God of Genesis/Exodus, which only exists in a context that declares the origin of living things was sudden supernatural special creation acts. Any objective non-prejudicial observer looking at both sets of data must conclude that the DNA evidence of the Aaronic Priesthood far out weighs any chimp/human DNA similarities; the latter then being ascribed to one Almighty Creator working from a common design = His m.o. But since chimp/human are not similar - the issue is moot and further proves a major Biblical claim and its context. Ray
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 44 by ringo, posted 11-26-2005 3:35 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has replied | | | Message 49 by Omnivorous, posted 12-04-2005 9:37 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Herepton writes: ... which only exists in a context that declares the origin of living things was sudden supernatural special creation acts.
And that "declaration" has zero value as empirical evidence.
Any objective non-prejudicial observer looking at both sets of data must conclude that the DNA evidence of the Aaronic Priesthood far out weighs any chimp/human DNA similarities.... Of course the Cohens are all closely related because they're all human. Of course they're more closely related to each other than they are to chimps. That says nothing about how closely related all humans are to chimps. In effect, you're saying: I'm more closely related to my brother than I am to you - therefore, I'm not related to you at all. But even the Bible says that you and I are related - our common ancestors include Noah and Adam.
... the issue is moot and further proves a major Biblical claim and its context. No. Even if evolution was totally false, that wouldn't "prove" anything about the Bible. The Bible could still be totally false too.
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 45 of 244 (265531)
12-04-2005 6:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by ringo
11-26-2005 3:35 PM
|
|
Ray writes: which only exists in a context that declares the origin of living things was sudden supernatural special creation acts. Ringo writes: And that "declaration" has zero value as empirical evidence. Then neither does any alleged chimp/human DNA similarity. You cannot have it ONE way, this is called *special pleading*; also known as an exemption of evidence not meaning what it means at face value. If the Cohen lineage in question descends from the Aaronic Priesthood (and it does) THEN the only context that Priesthood exists in enjoys the benefit of the evidence. Atheists always ask for evidence proving Biblical claims. When it is posted they *special plead*. Fine. Then any Darwinist who asserts chimp/human DNA similarity supports apes morphing into men resolve gets the same treatment. You are also the person who asserted that if Christ rose from the dead as He predicted prior to His death that this miracle has no affect towards the veracity of anything else He said = astronomic illogic and nonsense. Although I will recognize that your illogical abilities are "system wide" since you actually believe apes morphed into men. You do believe in miracles - ones that support your worldview. Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by ringo, posted 11-26-2005 3:35 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 12-04-2005 6:56 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has replied | | | Message 47 by ringo, posted 12-04-2005 8:59 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2