Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 5:37 AM
21 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,246 Year: 5,283/19,786 Month: 1,405/873 Week: 301/460 Day: 1/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Psuedogenes are good for Creationism!
desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 33 (101455)
04-21-2004 3:40 AM


Long living trees
There are trees that can out live people by a long shot though.
They are not mammals,but they live,and are alive.
Look at the Red Wood forrest.
I am not sure that trees can sin? I don't think they do.
But then again,I couldn't really know that could I?
Mutations found in DNA are caused (in my opinion) by people
who did not listen to God,when he said,O.K., you may now
stop marrying relatives.Sin shortens life span.
Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AdminNosy, posted 04-21-2004 4:41 AM desdamona has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 17 of 33 (101477)
04-21-2004 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by desdamona
04-21-2004 3:40 AM


Topic!
I would suggest, Des, that you try much harder to stick to the topic.

You would also do better if it looked like you were actually responding to posts rather than just typing away about whatever comes into your head.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by desdamona, posted 04-21-2004 3:40 AM desdamona has not yet responded

  
desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 33 (101480)
04-21-2004 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
04-21-2004 3:36 AM


assess for ourselves
problem is that you have to be ready to assess the evidence yourself.
(by Crashfrog)

Yes,but we humans have been known to make mistakes.


Desdamona
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2004 3:36 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2004 4:52 AM desdamona has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 33 (101482)
04-21-2004 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by desdamona
04-21-2004 4:48 AM


Yes,but we humans have been known to make mistakes.

True enough. But as far as anyone can tell, we're the only ones to talk to. (After all anyone who says God exists is human themselves, and could be mistaken!)

Nobody's saying our knowledge is perfect. The point of the scientific methodology is that there's always a community of scientists looking over your shoulder, checking your work. That's the best way I can think of to keep the mistakes to a minimum, don't you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by desdamona, posted 04-21-2004 4:48 AM desdamona has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by desdamona, posted 04-21-2004 5:59 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 33 (101505)
04-21-2004 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
04-21-2004 4:52 AM


trust no man completely
God is really there to talk to,the people just are not there.
God didn't move away,people did.
People really want proof,and they want evidence that they can see.
Most people today believe that the bible is a bunch of fairy tales,
yet little children can believe it.
I don't know much about Psuedogenes,only that some people think they help prove God exists while others disagree.


Desdamona
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2004 4:52 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Mike
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 33 (102341)
04-24-2004 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
04-18-2004 2:52 AM


CrashFrog says (sorry, I don't know how to quote in the little boxes like you do. I'm new):

"This isn't exactly true. It's not (for instance) the fact that both apes and humans have pseudogenes that suggests common descent. It's the fact that they have a lot of the same pseudogenes. For instance apes and humans both have a broken gene that could synthesize Vitamin C if it worked. In both humans and apes, the gene is broken in the same place.

What process would break the gene in the same way, twice, in a number of seperate species? The obvious conclusion is that apes and humans share heredity to some degree."

So, combining Raymon's and Frog's logic, we can therefore conclude that the mutation pseudogenizing the gene for making vitamin C occured after the flood. Since all apes and humans share this mutation, they are all descended from a post-flood species, via speciation within "kinds". So, on the ark there was one representative of the ape/human "kind", which was either apelike or humanlike. Since we know human were there (Noah), this kind must have been human, and all apes are therefore descendents of Noah and his family, along with all of humankind. The logic is internally consistent, and therefore I will agree that the study of pseudogenes can shed tremendous light upon biblical history, including a novel and effective way for defining "kinds".

Mike


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2004 2:52 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2004 1:42 AM Mike has responded
 Message 25 by Coragyps, posted 04-24-2004 12:34 PM Mike has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 33 (102347)
04-24-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mike
04-24-2004 12:23 AM


So, on the ark there was one representative of the ape/human "kind", which was either apelike or humanlike.

Or, both. After all since humans are apes, it's like you're asking for something "either doglike or mammal-like."

Also the problem that you have with this theory is that there are ape fossils. If all fossil sediment is a product of the flood, then we know that apes predate the flood and cannot be decendants of the humans on the Ark - they predate the Ark.

Added by edit: You say you're new, and your post is ambiguous, so let me just mention, I'm an evolutionist. I didn't write the above to support the Noaic flood, but rather, to show the inconsistencies in any attempt to reconcile a Biblical flood and human-ape heredity.

[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-24-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mike, posted 04-24-2004 12:23 AM Mike has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Mike, posted 04-26-2004 2:21 PM crashfrog has responded

  
desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 33 (102356)
04-24-2004 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
04-21-2004 3:36 AM


Ex- Atheist
for those with courage please check this site out at: www.ex-atheist.com


Desdamona
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 04-21-2004 3:36 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by JonF, posted 04-24-2004 10:47 AM desdamona has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 04-24-2004 12:40 PM desdamona has not yet responded
 Message 27 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-24-2004 12:59 PM desdamona has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 24 of 33 (102389)
04-24-2004 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by desdamona
04-24-2004 2:32 AM


Re: Ex- Atheist
for those with courage please check this site out at: www.ex-atheist.com

I checked it out. Some interesting stuff. Absolutely nothing relevant to this thread or the frog's post (to which you replied).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by desdamona, posted 04-24-2004 2:32 AM desdamona has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 25 of 33 (102404)
04-24-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mike
04-24-2004 12:23 AM


Mike writes:

I will agree that the study of pseudogenes can shed tremendous light upon biblical history, including a novel and effective way for defining "kinds".


Woohoo! Tell the folks at the Institute for Creation Research about that! They'll be so excited! Or maybe not.

Hi, new guy! There's a "style guide" thread on here that'll help you with formatting stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mike, posted 04-24-2004 12:23 AM Mike has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 26 of 33 (102405)
04-24-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by desdamona
04-24-2004 2:32 AM


Re: Ex- Atheist
Hrrmph! He obviously was never a true atheist!

Des, try to stay on topic......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by desdamona, posted 04-24-2004 2:32 AM desdamona has not yet responded

    
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 27 of 33 (102408)
04-24-2004 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by desdamona
04-24-2004 2:32 AM


Re: Ex- Atheist
Des, this isn't one of the fora you have been restricted to at this time. And this is off topic spamming. Continuation will get you suspended.


AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by desdamona, posted 04-24-2004 2:32 AM desdamona has not yet responded

    
Mike
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 33 (102823)
04-26-2004 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
04-24-2004 1:42 AM


damn fossils
Frog says:
"Also the problem that you have with this theory is that there are ape fossils. If all fossil sediment is a product of the flood, then we know that apes predate the flood and cannot be decendants of the humans on the Ark - they predate the Ark.

Added by edit: You say you're new, and your post is ambiguous, so let me just mention, I'm an evolutionist. I didn't write the above to support the Noaic flood, but rather, to show the inconsistencies in any attempt to reconcile a Biblical flood and human-ape heredity."

Hmmm, the fossils are a problem for this theory. I was trying to come up with a hypothesis that would be consistent with the scientific evidence and the flood story. (Ignoring other evidence, like radiometric dating, etc., etc.) According to creationists, are ALL fossils from the flood? or do they still happen occasionally post-flood?

By the way Frog, I was trying to be deliberately ambiguous. I was playing devil's advocate with my own brain to see if I could tie in the pseudogene data with the flood story. I thought if I was ambiguous the thread would not immediately turn into a polarized angry shouting match as is often the case. I too, of course, believe in evolution.

Thanks for the welcome!

Mike


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2004 1:42 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 04-26-2004 4:27 PM Mike has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 33 (102850)
04-26-2004 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Mike
04-26-2004 2:21 PM


Re: damn fossils
According to creationists, are ALL fossils from the flood? or do they still happen occasionally post-flood?

According to creationists, most of the sediments (and the fossils in them) are the result of flooding. Some are post-flood.

Which ones? They won't say.

By the way Frog, I was trying to be deliberately ambiguous.

It was pretty unambiguous to me that you were an evolutionist. I just wanted you to be sure I was, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Mike, posted 04-26-2004 2:21 PM Mike has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 30 of 33 (102858)
04-26-2004 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Raymon
04-19-2004 5:03 PM


Re: Doesn't smell right.
Raymon writes:

Saying humans are the best at anything always strikes me as fishy. (Except for language, abstract reasoning, etc) After all, with humans we have a sample size of 6 billion individuals and we have a much better idea of when people were born. These two facts alone mean that we know the upper bound of our age with high percision. We have no such advantages when trying to determine the longest lifespan of other mammals. Add to that the fact that our technology is aimed at helping people live the longest. With domesticated animals our tech is aimed at getting the most use out of them.
But these objections are based purely on theoretical ground. If you actually know of research that's looked into this, I'll of course bow to the evidence.

We have kept many many many animal in captivity for a long time. We have thousands upon thousands of biologists working around the world observing animal in their natural habitats. So far, not a single biologist have observed any mammal that could live as long as humans.

No, there is no single experiment that can show this. This conclusion was drawn out after centuries of observations of other animal species. Until someone actually find any mammal [edited from "animal" to "mammal"] out there that can live longer than human beings...

[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-26-2004]


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Raymon, posted 04-19-2004 5:03 PM Raymon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Loudmouth, posted 04-26-2004 5:03 PM Lammy has responded

    
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019