Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genetic evidence of primate evolution
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 29 (10401)
05-27-2002 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by John Paul
05-24-2002 2:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Yes SLP you do have a selective memory- or do you have the genome deciphered yet? BTW, you only think you rebutted Mike Brown's premise.
Creationists see the difference in chromosomes as a tell-tale indication primates and humans did not share a common ancestor. Primates have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.

And people with Down's Syndrome have 47 chromosomes ... they
DO share ancestry with the rest of us don't they ????
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

Evolutionists like to claim the difference is due to chromosomal fussion. If this was the case then with our knowledge of genetic engineering we should be able to effect this change and test the hypothesis.

I think you'll find there are groups pressuring on ethical
grounds against such things ... christians perhaps ? I
dont' know.
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

As it stands today there is no way to objectively test the premise that humans and primates shared a common ancestor. If you want to believe humans and primates did share a common ancestor that's fine. Just don't call it science unless you are ready to call the Common Creator hypothesis science, also.

Show me how the common creator hypothesis can be tested AT ALL
please.
Evolutionary theory came about BECAUSE of observations in
the natural world. It was not put forward, and then evidence
sought. It was put forward as an explanation of observations
already made.
The common creator hypothesis comes from the stated common
creator in the Bible, and then data has been interpreted to
fit (although I'm not sure what data + interpretations there
are in relation to this).
That is why evolution is scientific and common creatorism
isn't.
Evolution is a theory created to explain observed facts.
Common creatorism is a belief, founded in the judeo-christian
religions, for which evidence is sought.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 05-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by John Paul, posted 05-24-2002 2:08 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 7:21 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 21 of 29 (10547)
05-29-2002 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by John Paul
05-28-2002 7:21 PM


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Yes SLP you do have a selective memory- or do you have the genome deciphered yet? BTW, you only
think you rebutted Mike Brown's premise.
Creationists see the difference in chromosomes as a tell-tale indication primates and humans did not
share a common ancestor. Primates have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter:
And people with Down's Syndrome have 47 chromosomes ... they
DO share ancestry with the rest of us don't they ????
John Paul:
Not all people with Down's have 47 chromosomes. Are you saying ape-like organisms evolved from humans? Or are
Down's people intermediates? Rudiments from our past?

Some do.
But you have stated that differing numbers of chromosomes preclude common
ancestry. I have provided OBSERVED evidence that this is NOT the case.
I'm not suggesting that Down's syndrome itself is anything to do with the
evolution of apes and man. I am citing it as evidence that an organism
can produce offspring with a different number of chromosomes to itself.
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Evolutionists like to claim the difference is due to chromosomal fussion. If this was the case then with
our knowledge of genetic engineering we should be able to effect this change and test the
hypothesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter:
I think you'll find there are groups pressuring on ethical
grounds against such things ... christians perhaps ? I
dont' know.
John Paul:
I for one care very little to what Christians say about ethical grounds. It has been my experience that most
"Christians" are so in name only. (BTW, I'm not a Christian)

You seem to care very little what anyone else thinks ... and I know you are not
a christian (you've said so elsewhere) ... never said you were
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
As it stands today there is no way to objectively test the premise that humans and primates shared a
common ancestor. If you want to believe humans and primates did share a common ancestor that's
fine. Just don't call it science unless you are ready to call the Common Creator hypothesis science,
also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter:
Show me how the common creator hypothesis can be tested AT ALL
please.
John Paul:
The same way today's ToE is tested- inference of the evidence.

OK, so show me the evidence, and explain how a common creator is inferred from
it.
quote:

Peter:
Evolutionary theory came about BECAUSE of observations in
the natural world. It was not put forward, and then evidence
sought. It was put forward as an explanation of observations
already made.
John Paul:
But it was put forward before we knew what life was made of. Now that we know the ToE does not follow
observations. Also ID was put forward about 200 years ago based on the observed evidence. Go figure.

Explain how we KNOE that ToE does not follow observations (and who are 'we'), please.
What observed evidence, 200 years ago, lead to ID ?
quote:

Peter:
The common creator hypothesis comes from the stated common
creator in the Bible, and then data has been interpreted to
fit (although I'm not sure what data + interpretations there
are in relation to this).
John Paul:
Science is basically the search for truth through our never-ending quest for knowledge. If the Bible is indicative of
reality science should be able to help us make that determination. BTW, evidence doesn't talk, it has to be
interpretted.

Science is not a search for truth ... truth is subjective, science strives for objectivity
in the face of man's innate subjective nature ... that's why you need peer review and
discussion.
BTW -- why do you think I wrote 'data + interpretations' ?
quote:

Peter:
That is why evolution is scientific and common creatorism
isn't.
John Paul:
The Creation model of biological evolution is as scientific as the ToE.

So according to YOU personally it's NOT scientific at all then ?
quote:
Peter:
Evolution is a theory created to explain observed facts.
John Paul:
It fails to do so. Explaining someting and being able to demonstrate it are two different elements. If explanations
counted for something I would have aced all of my scholastic tests.

What facts does ToE fail to explain ?
In what way do you need to DEMONSTRATE anything in order to pass a test ? Tests are based
upon you're ability to understand the ideas behind the subject in question .... I know
I've set tests for my students.
quote:

Peter:
Common creatorism is a belief, founded in the judeo-christian
religions, for which evidence is sought.
John Paul:
Same evidence, different conclusions based on one's worldview.

It's not about your worldview ... I was raised in a christian society, and the
woprldview that was impressed upon me (without my knowledge) was rooted in
judeo-christain belief systems.
Taking a conclusion (there is an IDer), and molding data to fit is NOT scientific.
Taking an observation, figuring out why that should be, working out a way to test
the hypothesis (by finding other evidence perhaps) IS scientific.
Or am I wrong there ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 7:21 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 22 of 29 (10552)
05-29-2002 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by John Paul
05-28-2002 7:21 PM


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Yes SLP you do have a selective memory- or do you have the genome deciphered yet? BTW, you only
think you rebutted Mike Brown's premise.
Creationists see the difference in chromosomes as a tell-tale indication primates and humans did not
share a common ancestor. Primates have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter:
And people with Down's Syndrome have 47 chromosomes ... they
DO share ancestry with the rest of us don't they ????
John Paul:
Not all people with Down's have 47 chromosomes. Are you saying ape-like organisms evolved from humans? Or are
Down's people intermediates? Rudiments from our past?

Some do.
But you have stated that differing numbers of chromosomes preclude common
ancestry. I have provided OBSERVED evidence that this is NOT the case.
I'm not suggesting that Down's syndrome itself is anything to do with the
evolution of apes and man. I am citing it as evidence that an organism
can produce offspring with a different number of chromosomes to itself.
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Evolutionists like to claim the difference is due to chromosomal fussion. If this was the case then with
our knowledge of genetic engineering we should be able to effect this change and test the
hypothesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter:
I think you'll find there are groups pressuring on ethical
grounds against such things ... christians perhaps ? I
dont' know.
John Paul:
I for one care very little to what Christians say about ethical grounds. It has been my experience that most
"Christians" are so in name only. (BTW, I'm not a Christian)

You seem to care very little what anyone else thinks ... and I know you are not
a christian (you've said so elsewhere) ... never said you were
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
As it stands today there is no way to objectively test the premise that humans and primates shared a
common ancestor. If you want to believe humans and primates did share a common ancestor that's
fine. Just don't call it science unless you are ready to call the Common Creator hypothesis science,
also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter:
Show me how the common creator hypothesis can be tested AT ALL
please.
John Paul:
The same way today's ToE is tested- inference of the evidence.

OK, so show me the evidence, and explain how a common creator is inferred from
it.
quote:

Peter:
Evolutionary theory came about BECAUSE of observations in
the natural world. It was not put forward, and then evidence
sought. It was put forward as an explanation of observations
already made.
John Paul:
But it was put forward before we knew what life was made of. Now that we know the ToE does not follow
observations. Also ID was put forward about 200 years ago based on the observed evidence. Go figure.

Explain how we KNOE that ToE does not follow observations (and who are 'we'), please.
What observed evidence, 200 years ago, lead to ID ?
quote:

Peter:
The common creator hypothesis comes from the stated common
creator in the Bible, and then data has been interpreted to
fit (although I'm not sure what data + interpretations there
are in relation to this).
John Paul:
Science is basically the search for truth through our never-ending quest for knowledge. If the Bible is indicative of
reality science should be able to help us make that determination. BTW, evidence doesn't talk, it has to be
interpretted.

Science is not a search for truth ... truth is subjective, science strives for objectivity
in the face of man's innate subjective nature ... that's why you need peer review and
discussion.
BTW -- why do you think I wrote 'data + interpretations' ?
quote:

Peter:
That is why evolution is scientific and common creatorism
isn't.
John Paul:
The Creation model of biological evolution is as scientific as the ToE.

So according to YOU personally it's NOT scientific at all then ?
quote:
Peter:
Evolution is a theory created to explain observed facts.
John Paul:
It fails to do so. Explaining someting and being able to demonstrate it are two different elements. If explanations
counted for something I would have aced all of my scholastic tests.

What facts does ToE fail to explain ?
In what way do you need to DEMONSTRATE anything in order to pass a test ? Tests are based
upon you're ability to understand the ideas behind the subject in question .... I know
I've set tests for my students.
quote:

Peter:
Common creatorism is a belief, founded in the judeo-christian
religions, for which evidence is sought.
John Paul:
Same evidence, different conclusions based on one's worldview.

It's not about your worldview ... I was raised in a christian society, and the
woprldview that was impressed upon me (without my knowledge) was rooted in
judeo-christain belief systems.
Taking a conclusion (there is an IDer), and molding data to fit is NOT scientific.
Taking an observation, figuring out why that should be, working out a way to test
the hypothesis (by finding other evidence perhaps) IS scientific.
Or am I wrong there ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 7:21 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024