Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How will creationists react to the first human-chimp hybrid?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 138 (448935)
01-15-2008 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AdminPhat
01-15-2008 4:22 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
quote:
BTW...if you are able...come to the chatroom when you read this.
Gee, Phat, I wonder if you would have invited this person into chat so quickly if their username was "middleagedmom4christ"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AdminPhat, posted 01-15-2008 4:22 PM AdminPhat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 01-15-2008 6:40 PM nator has not replied
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2008 6:55 PM nator has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 32 of 138 (448940)
01-15-2008 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
01-15-2008 6:02 PM


quote:
Another common creationist tactic. You're ignoring the original point I made, that reproduction "according to its kind" is about genetic inheritance.
Ok, let me see where we lost each other.
quote:
If horses and donkeys can reproduce together, it's because they have similar enough DNA.
Completely agreed.
quote:
They are distant cousins, not just similar artworks. If you deny that, do you also deny the use of DNA for paternity tests?
This is where you lost me.
A paternity test looks for certain genetic markers that should match between the child and its parent, or the child and any relative. While I understand what you are saying, that similarities between the genetic makeup of a horse and a donkey could be accounted for a common ancestor in the past (and please, don't think that I am denying this possibility), I am simply pointing out that the similarities could also be accounted by a common design.
quote:
If chimps and humans can also reproduce together, it's also because they have similar enough DNA. So why would they not be distant cousins instead of just similar artworks?
I never said they could not be distant cousins. All I said was there are things out there that we see that are obviously related not through genetic inheritance but through other means, like similar artworks.
quote:
It seems to me that all you're doing is groping for an excuse to deny your (blood) relatives - and a pretty lame excuse at that.
Well, I wouldn't put it that way, but if you want to describe it that way, fine.
Take a look at the following pictures.
Are the first 2 pictures related? Well, sort of. They are both visual representations of concepts or objects in life. Someone was "creative" enough to draw a relation between those two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 01-15-2008 6:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by molbiogirl, posted 01-15-2008 6:35 PM teen4christ has not replied
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 01-15-2008 6:38 PM teen4christ has not replied
 Message 37 by sidelined, posted 01-15-2008 7:09 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 33 of 138 (448945)
01-15-2008 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by teen4christ
01-15-2008 6:27 PM


Teen, it looks like this discussion is going to derail the thread.
If you'd like to continue a design debate, please take it to the appropriate thread:
Message 1.
Message 1.
Message 1.
Message 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by teen4christ, posted 01-15-2008 6:27 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 34 of 138 (448949)
01-15-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by teen4christ
01-15-2008 6:27 PM


teen4christ writes:
... I am simply pointing out that the similarities could also be accounted by a common design.
"Could also be accounted" isn't what we're going for though. We're looking for the best possible explanation - and a useful explanation, preferably. If my car won't start, it "could be accounted for" by the Martians who want me to be late for work. But the loose battery cable is a more useful explanation. It allows me to actually fix the problem.
Similarly, recognizing the genetic relationship between humans and other animals is useful in medical research.
By the way, why couldn't the genetic markers in paternity testing be accounted for in some other way? Why do you cherry-pick which parts of genetics you want to believe but feel free to make up phoney-baloney "other accounts" for the ones you don't like?

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by teen4christ, posted 01-15-2008 6:27 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 138 (448950)
01-15-2008 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by nator
01-15-2008 6:20 PM


Bloody Shame!
Gee, Phat, I wonder if you would have invited this person into chat so quickly if their username was "middleagedmom4christ"?
How horribly rude and unnecessary!
I enjoy studying languages, and if I saw someone on here talking about languages, I'd invite them into a chat.
Phat enjoys helping troubled teenagers, so of course he'll invite them into chat when he sees them on here! And just because his interest seems to be in people instead of books or making the sale and filling his pocket with loot doesn't make him a bad person!
You never seem to tire with making fun of poor Phat! So shameful.

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 01-15-2008 6:20 PM nator has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 138 (448960)
01-15-2008 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by nator
01-15-2008 6:20 PM


ADMIN!
WOW.
You deserve a suspension for that one. WAAAY uncalled for....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 01-15-2008 6:20 PM nator has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 37 of 138 (448965)
01-15-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by teen4christ
01-15-2008 6:27 PM


teen4christ
I am simply pointing out that the similarities could also be accounted by a common design.
That is correct only if you can present a reasonable mechanism to explain how common design occurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by teen4christ, posted 01-15-2008 6:27 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 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'
Why 'Adam' never met 'Eve' | Answers in Genesis
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 replied

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

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 39 of 138 (448997)
01-15-2008 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by johnfolton
01-15-2008 8:30 PM


johnfolton
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.
However it is unlikely these good folk will accept that the male Y chromosome is the likely result of degradation of a female X chromosome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2008 8:30 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 40 of 138 (449009)
01-15-2008 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by johnfolton
01-15-2008 8:30 PM


The myth of mitochondrial Eve
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.
Neither the Y chromosome nor mtDNA are truly representative of heritage.
Let me walk you thru this.
The Y chromosome is inherited only by the boys.
You are a son. You inherited your Y from your dad. Therefore, nothing of your mom's side (that Y lineage) is represented. It is lost.
Repeat backwards for 10 generations on your dad's side, keeping in mind, of course, that each female's contribution to that line is completely lost. 10 generations back, you have 1,024 paternal ancestors. Your Y chromosome will represent only one of those 1,024 paternal ancestors.
Both Y chromosomes and mtDNA represent only a very, very tiny fraction of the whole picture.
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2008 8:30 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2008 3:07 AM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 41 of 138 (449018)
01-16-2008 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by teen4christ
01-15-2008 3:32 PM


For example. As a strategy for my laziness, I've taken subroutines and portions of my friends' programs and combine them with my programs that had absolutely nothing to do with their original programs to create, if you'd prefer, "hybrid" programs. All this proves is that if done right we could combine segments of codes to form new protocols because these codes are all written in the same language.
Yes, but that would be more like combining the two genomes by genetic engineering, which I agree wouldn't prove anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by teen4christ, posted 01-15-2008 3:32 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 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.
Mitochondrial DNA - Wikipedia
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.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
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 replied

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

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


Message 43 of 138 (449025)
01-16-2008 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by johnfolton
01-16-2008 3:07 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
It appears the mutation rate of mitochondrial Eve is more accelerated than they first believed making the human race approximately 6000 years old.
This is, of course, not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.
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.
There is. Haven't you been following this? People have mitochondrial genes which differ from one another. This is why it's possible to use 'em as a basis for molecular phylogeny. There would be no point if mitochondrial genes were totally conserved.
* sigh *

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2008 3:07 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 44 of 138 (449026)
01-16-2008 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by johnfolton
01-16-2008 3:07 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
john writes:
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.
Mitochondrial DNA - Wikipedia
This is also from wiki:
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is defined as the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all living humans. Passed down from mothers to offspring for over a hundred thousand years, her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is now found in all living humans: every mtDNA in every living person is derived from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived at different times.
Please note.
They mention Y chromosome Adam, yet they don't mention the problem in tracing ancestral heritage.
She is believed to have lived about 140,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania.[citation needed] The time she lived is calculated based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift.
In for a dime, in for a dollar.
If you accept the science re: mitochondrial Eve, you have to accept the evidence re: the molecular clock.
So there goes your 6,000 years.
In addition, Homo sapiens has been around a lot longer than 140,000 years. More like 500,000. That should tell you something.
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity.
Got that? NOT the most recent common ancestor OF ALL HUMANITY.
You want to know how they know that?
Because tracing lineage thru mtDNA has the exact same kind of problems as tracing it thru the Y chromosome.
It misses hundreds of millions of ancestors.
If you're going to rely on wiki, be sure and read the whole thing next time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2008 3:07 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by johnfolton, posted 01-16-2008 9:12 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 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.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

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

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024