Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   ID/Creationism - Comparison of Human and Chimp Genomes
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 83 (357934)
10-21-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by eggasai
10-19-2006 5:56 PM


Re: Pause for effect
That's the Darwinian tree of life assumption, the problem is that it was concluded we descended from apes before biology was even a seperate discipline in science.
In fact, the word "biology" originated in the early nineteenth century (don't you people ever check your facts? --- it took me fifteen seconds to look that up) and unlike creationism, our common descent from apes has survived, and, indeed, been confirmed by, the rise of the biological sciences, increased knowledge of the fossil record, et cetera.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by eggasai, posted 10-19-2006 5:56 PM eggasai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by eggasai, posted 10-22-2006 7:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 83 (358178)
10-22-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by eggasai
10-22-2006 5:22 PM


Re: Pause for effect
It is an old saw, it's wrong and evolutionists know it and keep saying that 98%-99% of the Chimpanzee and human DNA is the same...
Well, in fact what Wounded King said was "it is an old estimate based on a crude technique and one acknowledged to be crude".
And we can all see that.
I don't see what you're trying to achieve by pretending otherwise. Whom do you hope to convince?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by eggasai, posted 10-22-2006 5:22 PM eggasai has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 83 (358187)
10-22-2006 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by eggasai
10-22-2006 7:23 PM


Re: Pause for effect
I'm not taling about the word, I am talking about Biology as a specialized discipline.
So you claim that the word existed but the discipline did not ... ?
In Darwin's day they simply refered to it as naturalists.
... or you're claiming that the discipline existed but people called its practitioners "naturalists"?
What is more I was talking about the Darwinian tree of life diagram, the only diagram in his book On the Origin of Species. Don't you people read the posts you respond to?
Not only did I read it, I quoted it. You wrote: "the problem is that it was concluded we descended from apes before biology was even a seperate discipline in science."
Don't you read your own posts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by eggasai, posted 10-22-2006 7:23 PM eggasai has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 83 (358781)
10-25-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by eggasai
10-24-2006 7:07 PM


What is infinitly more important is that you are not accounting for the divergance of humans and chimpanzees except for the Darwinian natural selection + random mutation = evolution. The fact is that mutations explain nothing except neutral affects, death, disease, disorder and an minor beneficial affect for a short space of time.
Mutations do not explain anything about the 145 Mb of differences in the chimpanzee and human genomes. The mutation rate would have to be too high, there affects would be too deleterious when they had an affect and the benefits would never have been outweighed by the costs.
But this is mere assertion.
We know what the creationist dogma is. You don't need to repeat it. But can you provide a shred of a scrap of a scintilla of evidence for it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by eggasai, posted 10-24-2006 7:07 PM eggasai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by eggasai, posted 10-25-2006 5:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 83 (358872)
10-25-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by eggasai
10-25-2006 5:30 PM


On the contrary, the Chimpanzee Genome Project has provided considerable evidence that the DNA of chimps and humans is 3x more diverse then we have been led to believe. Just to see if you are cognizant of the issues, how much of the DNA in the genomes of chimpanzees and humans is the same?
About 95%, according to the latest techniques. This figure will of course only be meaningful in context: for example, by seeing what the same techniques say about, for example, differences between chimps and gorillas.
"Pollard's analysis showed that HAR1 is essentially the same in all mammals except humans. There were only two differences between the chicken and chimp genomes in HAR1's sequence of 118 bases (bases are subunits of DNA, the As, Cs, Ts, and Gs that spell out the genetic code). This similarity means the DNA sequence remained unchanged over hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history, an indication that it performs a biologically important function. But sometime after the human lineage diverged from its last common ancestor with chimpanzees 5 to 7 million years ago, HAR1 began to change rather dramatically.
"We found 18 differences between chimps and humans, which is an incredible amount of change to have happened in a few million years," Pollard said."
You will notice that the geneticist Pollard does not conclude from this that evolution did not take place.
One of these days ....
... as creationists have been saying for the last century-and-a-half ...
... evolutionists will begin to see that they grossly underestimated what would be required for apes to evolve into humans. Creationist dogma huh? Tell me something then, how does a gene that is so highly conserved for 310 million years suddenly alter 18 nucleotides in a regulatory gene 118 nucleotides long?
Uh ... natural selection? Remember that?
I guess that's why the fossil record shows that "suddenly" (i.e. over the course of 4 million years) the cranial capacity of the lineage under question tripled.
You are behaving as though it's a big mystery that there should be lots of evolution in humans in the genes affecting the brain. This is what we would expect to see, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by eggasai, posted 10-25-2006 5:30 PM eggasai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by eggasai, posted 10-25-2006 8:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 83 (358905)
10-25-2006 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by eggasai
10-25-2006 8:47 PM


You have the particulars in front of you and the chant of natural selection + mutations is going to come back and haunt you ...
"One day" ...
How about you save your shrill little song of triumph for when this actually happens.
It will happen once people realize that there are boundries beyond which one species can transpose into an altogether different kind. Mendelian genetics is slowly providing exactly that ...
"One day" ...
Creationists will have to wake up and realize that evolution is not the problem here, it's the answer. That's why evolutionists go to so much trouble to poison the well for curious creationists.
Ah, paranoia.
If you are seriously attempting to blame creationist ignorance on the machinations of the Evil-utionists, could I suggest that the problem lies rather closer to home?
Selection acts if and only if a beneficial affect is produced. What is more natural selection is itself an effect, not a cause.
This is true. I suspect you are looking at this ass-backwards, creationists usually are. Mutations happen all the time. Natural selection usually damps them down. When they are adaptive, they're permitted.
That must be why Homo habilis wasn't even going to be entered into the Homo catagory until they found tools in the same geological strata. He never crossed the cerebral rubicon and he was around until about 1.9 mya. With the advent of Turkana Boy and the other Homo erectus the cranial capacity jumps for less then 600cc to between 900cc and 1100cc. There are other features like the fact that Homo habilis was only about 3 foot tall and aside from bipedalism and dental work he had the body and brain of an ape. Turkana Boy, dated 1.6 mya was fully human with the exception of a cranial capacity of 900cc at full adulthood.
The point is that 4 mya the cranial capacity was just over 400cc and remained static until about 2 mya
I'm afraid I don't see the point of the point, so to speak. If you wish to argue that most of the brain evolution in the human line took place over the last 2 million years, I have no objection. But what of it? It took a lot less time than that to get from a wolve to a chihuahua.
You claim natural selection accounts for this? Fine, show be a beneficial affect from a mutation in a gene involved in neural functions. I'll save you the trouble of rummaging through the standard evolutionist propaganda because if they had an example it would be splattered all over the net.
If you will accept that it is beneficial to have the brain of a human rather than the brain of a chimpanzee, and we do seem to be doing a little better than the chimps, then, of course, the mutations which make the difference between us and chimps are mutations with beneficial effects.
Come on, this is just basic common sense. We have better brains then chimps. This is because we have better genes affecting the development and function of the brain than chimps.
You do not suppose, do you, that the eighteen differences between us and chimps in your Gene Of The Day make us less intelligent then chimps, do you? Remember, this is a gene which usually is highly conserved.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by eggasai, posted 10-25-2006 8:47 PM eggasai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by eggasai, posted 10-26-2006 1:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 83 (359083)
10-26-2006 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by eggasai
10-26-2006 1:04 AM


Funny thing is the research I am reading is saying that the evolution of human brain genes is a special event.
Yes. Did you read beyond the first paragraph of the paper you cited?
quote:
"It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked "extra-hard" during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans.
Varki points out that several major events in recent human evolution may reflect the action of strong selective forces
The evolution of the brain was rapid; it required strong selective forces; strong selective forces were present.
The first step is deconstructing Darwinism and genetics is doing a fine job of that on it's own.
"One day" ... "one day" geneticists will agree with you.
You do not suppose, do you, that the eighteen differences between us and chimps in your Gene Of The Day make us less intelligent then chimps, do you? Remember, this is a gene which usually is highly conserved.
You really are behind in your thinking aren't you? You know what, I'm going to let you just keep wandering in circles like this. I will toss you a bone and let you know that it would have taken hundreds, if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes.
Let's just put it in perspective 83% of the protein coding genes show changes at an amino acid sequence level and I do mean 83% of all the protein coding genes in the human genome. There are at least 40,000 amino acids that diverge between chimps and humans, many in brian development genes.
This is the clicher, you don't have 25 mya to play with or even 2.5 mya. You have the space of time from Homo habilis and Turkana Boy, that's measured in the hundreds of thousands, not millions of years.
At this point it is becomeing clear that you don't even bother to read the literature. As far as I can tell you just get a few jabs and and make assinine remarks. Here's a great idea for you, when you do one of these pedantic and condescending posts of yours, have a point.
This strange rant is not a reply to the quotation which precedes it.
I see you were not even able to attempt a reply to any of the other points I made.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by eggasai, posted 10-26-2006 1:04 AM eggasai has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 83 (359145)
10-26-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by eggasai
10-26-2006 6:33 PM


Sure, 40,000 amino acids don't seem like a whole lot until you take into consideration that this is 120,000 nucleotides at the very least.
No, no, no. You don't need three nucleotide changes to change one amino acid. Learn a little genetics before you start lecturing us on it.
Turkana Boys cranium has been compared to modern Chinese and it is only slightly smaller and as far as then can tell to internal proportions are pretty close.
Turkana boy had a cranial capacity of 880 cc; it is estimated that it would have been 910 cc at adulthood.
Average modern human cranial capacity is 1350 cc.
The point being the space between Homo habilis and Tukana Boy is simply not measured in millions of years but hundreds of thousands.
What of it? There is no reason, indeed, why you shouldn't find a habilis LATER than Turkana boy. Oh yes, and there are still monkeys.
* sigh *
You do need hundreds, if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes for this to happen. Like the Cambrian Explosion and every major epoch in evolution as natural history this is invariably the case. Major mophological adaptations in a relativly brief period of time. This is exactly what a creationist would expect, a sharp line of demarkation between originally created kinds.
But this is a complete non sequitur. If there are major morphological adaptions in a relatively brief period of time, then there are not sharp lines of demarkation between kinds. Au contraire if there are major morphological adaptions in a relatively brief period of time, then there are major morphological adaptions in a relatively brief period of time.
Such as wolf ---> chihuahua.
I mean, this is weird. It's as though you'd got hold of historical documents proving that the Egyptians built the pyramids very quickly, and then concluded from this evidence that aliens must have built the pyramids, because Egyptians couldn't have built them that quickly.
Don't take my word for genes involved with neural functions, look up mutations affecting neural functions in the human brain. There is nothing indicating beneficial affects and yet it is here that the burden of proof weighs heaviest upon the evolutionist.
Again, could I point out that the differences between our brains and those of apes are in fact beneficial to us.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by eggasai, posted 10-26-2006 6:33 PM eggasai has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 83 (361440)
11-04-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by NewYorkCityBoy
11-04-2006 3:14 AM


Re: question
"The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory instead of a law.
This is false. The theory of evolution is called a theory because it is a theory. A theory is a well-tested collection of laws and facts explaining natural phenomena.
DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.
And nobody claims that it is.
Why do you suppose these people can't argue against the actual theory of evolution? Are they ignorant of it, or are they lying to you?
If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't.
This is false. It is not a prediction of the theory of evolution that Eskimos should be more hairy than the rest of us. As Eskimos wear clothes, there is no reason why this trait should be selected for.
They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle.
"Dark-skinned Eskimos"? Can we see pictures?
If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool...
No. The theory of evolution does not predict silver people.
Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator.
Yes, of course.
Why do you suppose people tan?
New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science.
A flat lie. Many new species have been developed by science and have been observed arising in nature.
In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.
A complete non sequitur and a blatant lie. Scientists know of many reactions which produce chirality.
The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.
And no-one claims that it does.
Again, why are these people incapable of debating the actual theory of evolution?
The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical within each animal that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.
What the heck does that have to do with anything?
The following proofs will show that evolution is not a scientific fact. The reverse will be proven. Evolution is scientifically impossible. Evolution is simply a theory that was developed one hundred forty years ago by Charles Darwin before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to prove the theory of evolution.
This is a monumental lie.
Here's what scientists have to say about evolution.
"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
---
"Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."
--- Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.
---
"Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy."
--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy.
No such claim has been made.
---
Before you posted this fatuous string of falsehoods, why didn't you make any effort to find out whether it was true?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-04-2006 3:14 AM NewYorkCityBoy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-04-2006 3:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 83 (361668)
11-04-2006 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by NewYorkCityBoy
11-04-2006 3:09 PM


Re: question
If evolution is true then how come there are not any other smart creatures?
'Cos we got there first and colonized the niche.
(To be precise, Neanderthals were also quite clever, but when H. sapiens reached Europe we displaced them.
Being technological top dog is really a one species niche.
I mean it is a well proven fact that dolphins have mucn bigger and HIGHERLY developed brains than humans.
Bigger, yes. More highly developed, obviously not, or they'd be smarter than us, that's what highly developed means.
Every part of the brain that has to do with intelligence such as memmory,emotions,etc is more highley developed in a dolphins brain then in a humans.
Again, obviously not. Otherwise they would be more intelligent than us.
You might want to look up the phrase "encephelization quotient".
A dolphin is at the peak of animal intelligence.
No, humans are.
And if chimps evolved from a common ancestor as humans then how come chimps never became as smart, we both would have had the same amount of time of evolution.
We also have a common ancestor with elephants, if you go back far enough, so why aren't our noses that big?
Answer: different lineages adapt to different niches.
In fact no other primate is even remotly as smart as humans. Sure they can use very simple(and i stress very) tools like twigs and rocks to fish out bugs or crack nuts, but this is mearly monkey see monkey do, or natural instinct. we have never see any of these creatures actually develop a new tool to solve a problem that it didnt see someone else do.
In the first place, do not speak disparagingly about "monkey see, monkey do"; this is something only the smartest animals can do. A rat, for example, cannot learn how to solve a puzzle by watching another rat solving it, nor, even more remarkably, can it learn how to solve a puzzle by having its paws guided through the necessary motions.
In the second place, it is simply false to claim that apes are resticted to imitative learning and instinct.
Consider this experiment. Chimps were showed how to open a box containing food. The workings of the box were transparent, so the chimp could see what the human instructor was doing. Some of the human instructor's actions were not directed towards opening the box, and the chimp could see that, because the box was transparent. The chimpanzees copied the instructior omitting the unnecessary actions.
Monkey see, monkey reason, monkey do something more rational than what monkey saw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-04-2006 3:09 PM NewYorkCityBoy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-05-2006 1:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 83 (362008)
11-05-2006 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by NewYorkCityBoy
11-05-2006 1:26 PM


Re: question
actually the cerebellum is more highly developed and many other parts r just as developed or almost as developed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "highly developed". Do you mean mere size, or some other consideration?
actually when a rat comes across a new food it will not eat it unless it sees another rat eat it.
However, they cannot learn to solve a puzzle by watching another rat (which has already learnt to solve the puzzle) solve the puzzle.
What you describe sounds like a survival instinct, though it must break down occasionally or rats wouldn't be such successful irban omnivores.
(Someone tell Richard Dawkins --- rats have memes too!)
and rats can learn to solve puzzels, for example they can go through a maze and each time they do the same maze they get faster at it.
Rats can of course learn to solve puzzles, they're famous for it, but my point was that they can't learn to solve them by imitation. Rats don't reason, and all their learning must be done by trial and error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-05-2006 1:26 PM NewYorkCityBoy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 83 (362697)
11-08-2006 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Jon
11-07-2006 10:32 AM


Yes, but politeness costs nothing
NYCB has obviously been taken by a real stinker of a YEC website.
He's new to the debate.
He has been polite; and he's been grateful for such information as has been given him. What more could one ask?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Jon, posted 11-07-2006 10:32 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by sfs, posted 11-08-2006 8:59 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 79 by DemonScythe, posted 11-18-2006 8:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2006 9:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 78 of 83 (362766)
11-08-2006 11:42 PM


And Where Are The Creationist/ID Hypotheses?
C'mon.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 82 of 83 (451093)
01-26-2008 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meddle
09-11-2006 9:33 PM


1) In human chromosome 2 there is a telomere sequence and the remnants of a centromere sequence, indicating that this results from the fusion of the chimpanzee chromosomes 2p and 2q.
Just thought I'd add this.
Chromosomes 1 - 5 in humans and their homologues in chimps, gorillas, and orang-utans. Note the fusion in human chromosome 2.
P.S: Thanks to RAZD for reminding me how to do thumbnails.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meddle, posted 09-11-2006 9:33 PM Meddle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2008 4:01 PM Dr Adequate 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