Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
91 online now:
dwise1, jar, Michael MD, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (7 members, 84 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,285 Year: 4,397/6,534 Month: 611/900 Week: 135/182 Day: 15/27 Hour: 3/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How will creationists react to the first human-chimp hybrid?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4830 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 61 of 138 (449489)
01-18-2008 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Rahvin
01-17-2008 6:21 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
Believe what you want, it doesn't really change the facts.

The bible says Eve is the mother of all living which is in essense what Michrondrial Eve is saying. So what you have is science supporting the inerrancy of the written word. It does not change the fact that Eve is the mother of all living, etc...

The space in front of the light would be stretching at a speed faster than light travels. It would be like trying to go the wrong way on an escalator that's moving at 100 MPH. You'll never get to the top, regardless of what happens to your body.

No, the space light is travelling thru is stretching causing light to stretch. The universe is accelerating away faster than light speed yet light of these receeding galaxies are visible? right? therefore lights speed had to of increased for this light to still be visible. Then when this light returns to normal space the light wave shrinks to normal space and these galaxies become visible. Is not this why general relativity is said not to be violating special relativity?

What i'm trying to say is do we really know for sure that uranium in the earth was created in a star. No, If cosmic rays are bombarding elements suspended in space then the uranium within the earth could of been formed in space and have nothing to do with age of the earth just that it was formed before the earth was and has nothing to do with the age of mitochondrial Eve.

...unless there isn't a "design" at all, and evolution is the natural process by which new species arise from pre-existing ones.

You just don't see it happening no new species arising from pre-existing ones. ring species are still the same kind, dogs still the same kind, its just not happening, etc....thats why creationists are not the delusional ones making up myths tha mitochondrial eve is old based off istope dating, etc...So many assumptions just to pretend the earth is an old earth and not a young earth. for a new gene to be programmed takes incredible amount of information that is not answered by natural processes. Mutations is a decrease in information not a gain, etc...your belief the chimps are our cousins does not explain how those extra chromosomes were created. Intelligent Design says it can not happen by chance but by an Intelligent designer. Just the speech alone can not be explained by natural selection. Natural selection does not create new information, etc..

The bible is quite clear when the creatures were created God said it was good. Only God could of created all the creatures suddenly without any transitional fossils from the beginning without any mistakes. Its been said life is de-evolving not evolving creatures are going extinct and no new kinds are being created. This is fact, etc...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 6:21 PM Rahvin has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by molbiogirl, posted 01-18-2008 3:36 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 01-18-2008 12:32 PM johnfolton has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1880 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 62 of 138 (449490)
01-18-2008 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by johnfolton
01-18-2008 3:19 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
"Johnfulton". "Bret". "Charley". "Craig". "reversespin". "The Golfer". "Tim". "Tom". "whatever".

We haven't any time for your nonsense here.

Take a hike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2008 3:19 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2008 9:47 AM molbiogirl has taken no action
 Message 65 by AdminNWR, posted 01-18-2008 9:55 AM molbiogirl has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 138 (449492)
01-18-2008 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Rahvin
01-17-2008 6:21 PM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
Oh look, you're trying to explain basic science to a creationist.

How sweet.

Betcha a dollar that he'll never understand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 6:21 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Rahvin, posted 01-18-2008 10:21 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4830 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 64 of 138 (449533)
01-18-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by molbiogirl
01-18-2008 3:36 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
"Johnfulton". "Bret". "Charley". "Craig". "reversespin". "The Golfer". "Tim". "Tom". "whatever".
We haven't any time for your nonsense here.

Take a hike.

Right attack the messenger not answer the questions but pretend you have answers, when the transistional fossils nessary are missing and Mitochondrial Eve supports the biblical Eve.

If chimps had mitochondrial Eve then their would of likely been some humpin going on. You all believe incorrectly the mutation rate is over large periods of time when you have facts it happens quicker for mitochondrial dna verses the dna shared by the parents. It should be obvious to you that you've been lied to perhaps you just don't like to hear the truth. So you instead attack the messenger rather than the message? Do you like playing the hypocrite why not just join the young earthers. Join the winning team whose message is based on science not myth delusion, etc...

de·lu·sion /dɪˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by molbiogirl, posted 01-18-2008 3:36 AM molbiogirl has taken no action

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 138 (449535)
01-18-2008 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by molbiogirl
01-18-2008 3:36 AM


Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
molbiogirl writes:

Take a hike.


Rule 10: Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 62 by molbiogirl, posted 01-18-2008 3:36 AM molbiogirl has taken no action

      
    Rahvin
    Member (Idle past 201 days)
    Posts: 3966
    Joined: 07-01-2005


    Message 66 of 138 (449543)
    01-18-2008 10:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
    01-18-2008 3:48 AM


    Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
    I'm not even going to bother with this one any more. It's not worth the frustration.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2008 3:48 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 20764
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 2.1


    Message 67 of 138 (449592)
    01-18-2008 12:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 61 by johnfolton
    01-18-2008 3:19 AM


    Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
    whatever writes:

    The bible says Eve is the mother of all living which is in essense what Michrondrial Eve is saying. So what you have is science supporting the inerrancy of the written word. It does not change the fact that Eve is the mother of all living, etc...

    The supporting evidence for Mitochondrial Eve tells us she was not the lone female originator of humanity, but rather a female member of a population of early humans who happened to be the only female to leave descendants. Plus she is thought to have lived over a hundred thousand years ago, not 6000 years ago.

    Not only is Mitochondrial Eve not consistent with the Biblical account, arguments of any form that science supports Biblical accounts only reinforces the religious nature of Creationism and works against creationist claims that it is actually science.

    You say a few incorrect things, but they're off-topic, so I'll just very briefly correct them.

    The universe is accelerating away faster than light speed yet light of these receeding galaxies are visible?

    The visible universe was not receding faster than the speed of light at the time it emitted the light we see today. Only the furthest reaches of the visible universe might possibly be receding faster than light speed at the present time, though they were not receding that fast when the emitted the light we see today.

    therefore lights speed had to of increased for this light to still be visible.

    The speed of light is a universal constant no matter what the relative speed and acceleration of a light source might be.

    Then when this light returns to normal space the light wave shrinks to normal space and these galaxies become visible.

    This has no intelligible interpretation.

    Is not this why general relativity is said not to be violating special relativity?

    Neither does this.

    What i'm trying to say is do we really know for sure that uranium in the earth was created in a star.

    It takes enormous temperatures and pressures to fuse atoms into the heavier elements like uranium, conditions present only in supernova.

    No, If cosmic rays are bombarding elements suspended in space then the uranium within the earth could of been formed in space...

    Particle collisions such as those due to cosmic rays can cause nuclear reactions, for example changing nitrogen into carbon, but the creation of uranium really does require the conditions inside supernova.

    You go on to repeat a number of creationist fallacies, which I'll briefly touch on.

    Kinds are just an unintelligible proposition upon which reason cannot operate because it is indistinct and has no definition.

    You make a couple "Oh yeah? Well so are you!" arguments. You call mitochondrial Eve a myth and scientists delusional. Bible stories are called myths and creationists delusional to think they describe actual events, so you just mindlessly echo the charge back, but characterizations such as myth and delusion only work in the absence of evidence, which is true of creationism but not of science.

    You say scientists pretend the earth is old, but pretending fantasies are true is what creationists do. The fact is that the evidence tells us the earth is old.

    Mutations can both increase and decrease information.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 61 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2008 3:19 AM johnfolton has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2008 11:13 PM Percy has replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 68 of 138 (449596)
    01-18-2008 12:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
    01-15-2008 8:25 AM


    What I would think in lieu of ________
    There are several possible future experiments that challange conventional Western religious beliefs regarding the 'miracle of life' and the 'special' status of humans in creation:

    1) Successful human cloning

    Nature clones too. I don't really see that as being phenomenal.

    2) Successful creation of life from non-life

    What? That has never, ever happened. I assume you are going to cite the Urey/Miller experiment, but no life ever came from non-life. At most they synthesized some non-living amino acids. But it takes all 20 amino acids just to make one, single protein. They were a long, long way off.

    3) Successful breeding of human and chimpanzee/bononbo

    Concentrating on 3), would this be sufficent to demonstrate our 'obvious' family ties with our cousins? Would this be rather convincing evidence for humans and chimps being of one 'kind'? I would answer yes, but how would our creationists react to this news? Or would they simply deny the possibility of the succes of such an experiment?

    I'm not a creationist, but I deny the current paradigm of evolution. Should this be a possibility, it would not support that one came from the other. At most, it would support that the DNA sequences are similar enough to allow an offspring. I would be more concerned over the moral implications than anything else.


    “There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by cavediver, posted 01-15-2008 8:25 AM cavediver has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 69 by molbiogirl, posted 01-18-2008 1:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
     Message 70 by cavediver, posted 01-18-2008 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

      
    molbiogirl
    Member (Idle past 1880 days)
    Posts: 1909
    From: MO
    Joined: 06-06-2007


    Message 69 of 138 (449605)
    01-18-2008 1:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 68 by Hyroglyphx
    01-18-2008 12:49 PM


    Crack a bio text once in a while.
    But it takes all 20 amino acids just to make one, single protein.

    Oh, you are sooooooo wrong.

    Protamines have a limited number of amino acids. For example, human sperm protamines have only 7 amino acids.

    In fact, it is very, very rare to find all 20 amino acids in a protein.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 12:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 10:23 PM molbiogirl has replied

      
    cavediver
    Member (Idle past 2882 days)
    Posts: 4129
    From: UK
    Joined: 06-16-2005


    Message 70 of 138 (449615)
    01-18-2008 1:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 68 by Hyroglyphx
    01-18-2008 12:49 PM


    Re: What I would think in lieu of ________
    Hi Nem, thanks for your on-topic contribution (they've been thin on the ground in this thread so far)

    Points 1) and 2) I didn't want to discuss here, but just to say that I wasn't referring to Urey and Miller; note that I said 'possible future experiments'. You need to look at where we're at in terms of engineering a cell from more fundemental building blocks. But that's for another thread.

    At most, it would support that the DNA sequences are similar enough to allow an offspring.

    Others have made similar comments here, so I'll address them all with this. Note that this is really targetted at creationists, so you don't really count :)

    The argument runs that dogs only give rise to dogs, cats only give rise to cats, each reproducing according to their own 'kind'. 'Microevolutional' changes are responsible for the entire cat family (lions, tigers and bears domestic cats). We seem to define the cat kind by a combination of morpological similarity and interfertility. Likewise with the dog kind.

    Now, go shave a chimp... I challenge you to claim that there is more morphological difference between that chimp and my brother than between almost countless pairings of cat (or dog) varieties. If we then discover chimp/human interfertility as well, we have the ape kind nicely presented...

    At most, it would support that the DNA sequences are similar enough to allow an offspring.

    And as I have asked earlier in this thread, name a pair of interfertile creatures that are not intimately related (either through recent evolutionary common-ancestor, or through micro-evolutionary change within the relevant kind subsequent to the original progenitor pair leaving the ark)

    Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 12:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 10:41 PM cavediver has replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 71 of 138 (449767)
    01-18-2008 10:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 69 by molbiogirl
    01-18-2008 1:16 PM


    Re: Crack a bio text once in a while.
    quote:
    But it takes all 20 amino acids just to make one, single protein.

    Oh, you are sooooooo wrong.

    Protamines have a limited number of amino acids. For example, human sperm protamines have only 7 amino acids.

    In fact, it is very, very rare to find all 20 amino acids in a protein.

    MBG, a cell only becomes a cell when amino acids are bonded by a peptide chain. That is basic biology. Proteins are defined by their inimitable sequences of amino acid residues. The configuration is about the only thing different -- nine of which that cannot be synthesized by other amino acids -- meaning that they had to have been present during prebiotic conditions.

    So when talking about abiogenesis, it leads to a chicken-egg problem. For instance, enzymes can't exist without genes, and gene's can't exist without enzymes. The only real way to alleviate that conundrum is to assume that RNA came before DNA.

    Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo


    “There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 69 by molbiogirl, posted 01-18-2008 1:16 PM molbiogirl has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 73 by molbiogirl, posted 01-18-2008 11:10 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 72 of 138 (449773)
    01-18-2008 10:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 70 by cavediver
    01-18-2008 1:57 PM


    Re: What I would think in lieu of ________
    Now, go shave a chimp... I challenge you to claim that there is more morphological difference between that chimp and my brother than between almost countless pairings of cat (or dog) varieties. If we then discover chimp/human interfertility as well, we have the ape kind nicely presented.

    Think of it in another context. We are basically taught from a young age to assume that if something looks like another thing, that they must be related, even if distantly. Certainly it is a possibility. But suppose that one does not come from another -- that they simply share genetic similarities.

    If a chimp looks like us, does it necessarily mean that they are related? Or is it also possible that they are the creatures that just so happened to have a similar configuration?

    If you look at homeobox genes, they provide the basis for the positioning of physical characteristics. So if one organism has a similar genetic code, they could be as distant as a giraffe is to a banana but certainly have the appearance of relation.


    “There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 70 by cavediver, posted 01-18-2008 1:57 PM cavediver has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 76 by cavediver, posted 01-19-2008 4:33 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

      
    molbiogirl
    Member (Idle past 1880 days)
    Posts: 1909
    From: MO
    Joined: 06-06-2007


    Message 73 of 138 (449779)
    01-18-2008 11:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 71 by Hyroglyphx
    01-18-2008 10:23 PM


    Re: Crack a bio text once in a while.
    This is OT, so this is my last response to this question.

    MBG, a cell only becomes a cell when amino acids are bonded by a peptide chain.

    You said ALL 20 must be present just to make ONE SINGLE protein. Wrong!

    Proteins are defined by their inimitable sequences of amino acid residues.

    Also wrong. Amino acid substitutions can, and do, lead to perfectly functional proteins.

    So when talking about abiogenesis, it leads to a chicken-egg problem. For instance, enzymes can't exist without genes, and gene's can't exist without enzymes. The only real way to alleviate that conundrum is to assume that RNA came before DNA.

    RNA before DNA is a given. No serious abiogenesis scientist would suggest otherwise. Your protein conundrum is moot.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 10:23 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

      
    johnfolton 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4830 days)
    Posts: 2024
    Joined: 12-04-2005


    Message 74 of 138 (449780)
    01-18-2008 11:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
    01-18-2008 12:32 PM


    Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
    Plus she is thought to have lived over a hundred thousand years ago, not 6000 years ago.

    That all depends how you calibrate the mutation rates for mitochondrial dna.

    The visible universe was not receding faster than the speed of light at the time it emitted the light we see today.

    Interesting it brings the entire universe much closer meaning the space separating the galaxies is not bound by lights speed even if light is, etc...

    I'm still not convinced the light wave is not stretching too like that its not part of the fabric of space stretching but appears you believe its the nothing of space thats expanding and this is the fabric of space so light not stretching. Thanks though for explaining what you believe is the truth, it makes the universe appear to be much younger in that light. Nuff said about nothing but whatever its appearing stuff is far younger like mitochondrial eve just by how you interprete mutation rates can make her 6,000 years.

    P.S. I don't expect you to believe what the answering from genesis folk said about the mutation rates but there is another point of view out there based on how mitochondrial dna mutates based on real data from the sources the answering from genesis folks quoted.

    Since chimps don't have mitochondrial Eve's dna it certainly does not prove chimps are our cousins.

    Mutations can both increase and decrease information.

    I don't see how mutations can increase information to overcome the missing chromosome neccessary for a chimp/ape to become a man. The genetic information too creationists needs a programmer its too complicated hence the intelligent design movement.

    We were created in the image of God according to the creationist folk and our image takes genetic information that an intelligent designer programmed within our dna. Mutations can not account for the genetic information necessary its like God is the potter and were the clay. Too me if genetic engineers starts playing with the clay it will be an abomination.

    Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 67 by Percy, posted 01-18-2008 12:32 PM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 75 by DrJones*, posted 01-19-2008 12:01 AM johnfolton has taken no action
     Message 77 by Percy, posted 01-19-2008 8:39 AM johnfolton has replied
     Message 78 by Quetzal, posted 01-19-2008 9:02 AM johnfolton has taken no action

      
    DrJones*
    Member
    Posts: 2209
    From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Joined: 08-19-2004
    Member Rating: 4.4


    Message 75 of 138 (449788)
    01-19-2008 12:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 74 by johnfolton
    01-18-2008 11:13 PM


    Re: The myth of mitochondrial Eve
    Since chimps don't have mitochondrial Eve's dna it certainly does not prove chimps are our cousins.

    No one is saying it does. The human/chimp split was long long before mitochondrial eve came on the scene, there would be no reason for chimps to have mitochondrial eve's DNA.


    soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
    Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
    Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
    All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
    And so there was only one thing I could do
    Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

    Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
    Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
    If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
    *not an actual doctor

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 01-18-2008 11:13 PM johnfolton has taken no action

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.1
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022