Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 8:40 AM
31 online now:
Aussie, GDR, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Stile, Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,578 Year: 9,614/19,786 Month: 2,036/2,119 Week: 72/724 Day: 4/68 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   ID/Creationism - Comparison of Human and Chimp Genomes
derwood
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 46 of 83 (361093)
11-03-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Meddle
10-26-2006 7:06 PM


Re: Pause for effect
quote:
The problem with the 98.5% similarity between humans and chimp was that it was based on DNA hybridisation, since that was the only method available at the time

That is partly true - there were direct DNA sequence comparisons available at the time of the publication of the hybridization paper implicated (Sibley and Ahlquist) that produced similar results. The S&A paper gained a lot of attention because it employed the entire single-copy genome and its authors were accused of fudging their data.
Multiple publications came out after that fracas all indicating similar numbers.

Some pre-hybridisation papers:

Chimpanzee Fetal G-gamma and A-gamma Globin Gene Nucleotide Sequences Provide Further Evidence of Gene Conversions in Hominine Evolution.
Slightom et al., 1985
Mol Biol Evol 2(5):370-389.
This paper found a 1.4-2.25% nucleotide difference, depending on
which sets of alleles are compared.(1.8 kilobases). That is
97.75-98.6% identity.

Primate Eta-Globin DNA and Man's Place Among the Great Apes. Koop et
al., 1986.
Nature 319:234-238.

This paper found a 1.7% distance measured by direct comparison of
aligned nucleotide sequences (2.2 kilobases in a pseudogene). That is 98.3%.

Just one paper of many post-dating it that come to similar conclusions:

A Molecular View of Primate Supraordinal Relationships from the
Analysis of Both Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequences. Stanhope et
al., 1993. In Primates and Their Relatives in Phylogenetic
Perspective. MacPhee, ed.

This book chapter discusses Epsilon globin gene, (~4 kilobases), 1.1%. That is 98.9% identity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Meddle, posted 10-26-2006 7:06 PM Meddle has not yet responded

    
NewYorkCityBoy
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 83 (361383)
11-04-2006 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meddle
09-11-2006 9:33 PM


I'm new at this site so i might be wrong but,2% of gene distance although it may seem small is actually a very big difference, since even a banana shares 50% of its genes with us. And its just a .5% gene distance that determines all of the different fruits. I personally don't believe in evolution, but in i.d. because there can only be new species of an animal not a new type of animal. for example a cat can "evolve" in to a tiger,lion,cheetah,tabby; but it cant change into a completely new animal like a dolphin. people believe that dolphins evolved from a land mammal like a cow or something, but that's impossible. Because even if it was evolving its nose into a blow hole slowly over millions of years, the animal would have become extinct before the blow hole every had time to fully evolve, since a dolphins blow hole is not connected to its throat it has no problem using it, but a land mammal evolving a blow hole would drown before it every had time to fully evolve it. Also dolphins r completely hairless and have and oily skin to protect them. A land mammal trying to slowly evolve this would die before it could fully adapt. And y is there no fossil evidence showing dolphins ever evolving. Maybe its because they were always there? I don't like how people act like evolution is a scientific fact when it is only a theory. And yes chimps are similar to humans, but what about there differences, do scientist try and ignore this? i don't understand y people think that birds evolved from reptiles. How could this be true if reptiles do not have the DNA to make feathers. And is the fact that reptiles are still around today contradict this theory.
please reply-- this is my first post and i have a lot to learn!

Edited by AdminPhat, : spellcheck, dude


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by DrJones*, posted 11-04-2006 2:46 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 11-04-2006 2:48 AM NewYorkCityBoy has responded
 Message 55 by Jon, posted 11-04-2006 7:43 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1867
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 48 of 83 (361384)
11-04-2006 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by NewYorkCityBoy
11-04-2006 2:23 AM


because there can only be new species of an animal not a new type of animal

So you accept that 1+1+1 = 3 but not that 1 X 30 = 30.

I don't understand y people think that birds evolved from reptiles.

People don't think this, the theory is that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

And yes chimps are similar to humans, but what about there differences, do scientist try and ignore this?

Of course they don't, but the similarities out number the differences.

How could this be true if reptiles do not have the DNA to make feathers.

Again not reptiles, dinos. And Archeoteryx would disagree with you about not having the DNA for feathers.

And is the fact that reptiles are still around today contradict this theory.

You are descended from your parents and their parents, did they suddenly die the moment you were born?

also: spelling and grammer are your friends.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-04-2006 2:23 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2265 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 49 of 83 (361385)
11-04-2006 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by NewYorkCityBoy
11-04-2006 2:23 AM


Welcome to the boards.

And its just a .5% gene distance that determines all of the different fruits

Could you explain what you mean here? Are you saying that all different varieties of banana are only seperated by 0.5% divergence or that all fruiting plants are? In either case some sort of reference to back this up would probably be a good idea.

I personally don't believe in evolution, but in i.d. because there can only be new species of an animal not a new type of animal.

This doesn't sound like ID, it sounds like good old fashioned creationism of the created kinds kind.

Also dolphins r completely hairless and have and oily skin to protect them. A land mammal trying to slowly evolve this would die before it could fully adapt.

Evidence?

How could this be true if reptiles do not have the DNA to make feathers.

Because the idea is that the birds evolved from reptiles and in so doing gained the specific DNA prodcing feathers, there are a number of feathered dinosaur fossils which suggst that rudimentary feathering was already present in the theropods before many more avian characteristics developed (Xing et al, 1999).

And is the fact that reptiles are still around today contradict this theory.

No it doesn't contradict the theory, there is no suggestion that all reptiles evolved into birds, after all some of them evolved into mammals. Modern mammals, modern birds and modern reptiles are all thought to have ancient reptilian ancestors and at some point far enough back a common reptilian ancestor.

this is my first post and i have a lot to learn!

Indeed you do, but being able to recognise that fact is a good first step in remedying the situation.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-04-2006 2:23 AM NewYorkCityBoy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-04-2006 3:14 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
NewYorkCityBoy
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 83 (361390)
11-04-2006 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Wounded King
11-04-2006 2:48 AM


question
i dont want anyone to get mad at me here, but how would the first dinasours that had the DNA it needs to make feathers aquire this DNA.
"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.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. Diamond back rattle snakes cannot be selectively bred until you have one with wings that jumps in the air and flies away. Evolution is impossible.

The same process is done with flowers, fruit and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.

If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. 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. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

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.

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.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth."
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 11-04-2006 2:48 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AdminWounded, posted 11-04-2006 3:51 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded
 Message 52 by AdminPhat, posted 11-04-2006 3:53 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded
 Message 53 by AdminNosy, posted 11-04-2006 4:14 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Jon, posted 11-04-2006 5:07 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2006 10:30 AM NewYorkCityBoy has responded

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 83 (361392)
11-04-2006 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by NewYorkCityBoy
11-04-2006 3:14 AM


Re: question
We strongly discourage people on this forum from making such lengthy cut and pastes from other sites as a form of debate. This is a breach of the forum guidelines.

Additionally virtually none of the points in this cut and paste have anything to do with the subject of this thread and are therefore off topic.

If you are interested in how organisms acquire new traits I suggest you look at some of the threads on mutation such as Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?.

You really need to focus on asking your own questions and making your own arguments.

TTFN,

AW


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-04-2006 3:14 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1911
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 52 of 83 (361393)
11-04-2006 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by NewYorkCityBoy
11-04-2006 3:14 AM


Re: question
Welcome to EvC, New York City Boy..... come to chat and talk if you have a minute. One thing that I want to warn you about is these lengthy cut and pastes...just provide the link.

Edited by AdminPhat, : admin mode



GOT QUESTIONS? You may click these links for some feedback:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Forum Guidelines
    ***************************************
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
    "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"
    AdminPhat


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-04-2006 3:14 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded

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


    Message 53 of 83 (361395)
    11-04-2006 4:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 50 by NewYorkCityBoy
    11-04-2006 3:14 AM


    One other point, NYC Boy
    You should be very careful of where you get your "information".

    There are a large number of websites like the one you've copied from. Some things you should know about them:

    1) They know zilch about the actual science of evolution (or geology or... )
    2) They don't seem to have a grasp of logical reasoning.
    3) They are not above lying to try to convince those who know little about the facts.

    You said you wanted to learn. Start by picking your sources more carefully.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-04-2006 3:14 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded

      
    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 54 of 83 (361397)
    11-04-2006 5:07 AM
    Reply to: Message 50 by NewYorkCityBoy
    11-04-2006 3:14 AM


    Re: question
    i dont want anyone to get mad at me here

    The cut 'n' paste isn't going to help you with that.

    If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. 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. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

    Really? I don't think so. These animals (of the ones that were randomly created from various mutations) were the best suited to survive. They weren't necessarily the best they could be, but just the best out of the population that was around. However, had a Creator made such creatures, you would certainly expect Him to have made them perfect. So, if a Creator did create the animals, shouldn't they be perfect anyway?

    Next, DNA is a sequence of paired AGTC... Don't ask me what pairs to what, 'cause I can't remember that sort of stuff AG? TC? Who knows. Anyway... when in a certain order they make animal one, in a different order they make animal two, etc. With the insane amount of these pairs, there are an insane number of combinations. So in a sense, you could say that it is in the DNA, only depending on the order and grouping, and of course more complicated stuff that I only assume is there but don't really understand.

    Now... that's for that. I'll respond more to what you think when you actually post something in your own words. Until then, I have to wonder how you can do it, when the article you quoted couldn't even pull it off--disprove evolution that is ;).

    J0N


    In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-04-2006 3:14 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded

      
    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 55 of 83 (361409)
    11-04-2006 7:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 47 by NewYorkCityBoy
    11-04-2006 2:23 AM


    Modern Examples
    Because even if it was evolving its nose into a blow hole slowly over millions of years, the animal would have become extinct before the blow hole every had time to fully evolve, since a dolphins blow hole is not connected to its throat it has no problem using it, but a land mammal evolving a blow hole would drown before it every had time to fully evolve it.

    Would've it? Aligators and crocadiles don't have blow holes, they still spend time in the water. Hippos also don't have blow holes, yet they can go in the water... I mean, isn't that where they spend most of their time? Oh, and not to mention humans... do you have a blow hole? (well, YOU probably do) but most humans don't, and they can still go in the water ;). Unless... Wisconsin Dells is for looks?

    And y is there no fossil evidence showing dolphins ever evolving. Maybe its because they were always there?

    Were they? Really? I don't remember Dolphinaurus Rex, the dolphin that existed in the days of the dinasours... oiy... he no exist! :eek: They haven't always been around ;).

    Also dolphins r completely hairless and have and oily skin to protect them.

    And hippos? They're covered in hair, right? Oh... they aren't? That's right... "hippos are virtually hairless, with bristles only on their noses, ears, and tails." Nile Hippotamus*

    I don't like how people act like evolution is a scientific fact when it is only a theory.

    You don't seem to understand the definition of a scientific theory. Now, this mistake's been made numurous times on the board, so I won't repeat the rebuttal ;).

    How could this be true if reptiles do not have the DNA to make feathers.

    Really? I was under the impression that the difference between scales and feathers lay in one gene... that bird fella' will be here to back me up on this... I hope :o.

    J0N

    * - Notice, how I actually provided a source for my information :)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by NewYorkCityBoy, posted 11-04-2006 2:23 AM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 56 by Wounded King, posted 11-04-2006 8:15 AM Jon has responded

      
    Wounded King
    Member (Idle past 2265 days)
    Posts: 4149
    From: Edinburgh, Scotland
    Joined: 04-09-2003


    Message 56 of 83 (361413)
    11-04-2006 8:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 55 by Jon
    11-04-2006 7:43 AM


    Re: Modern Examples
    I was under the impression that the difference between scales and feathers lay in one gene

    I think this is a slight misrepresentation. Blocking BMP signalling in a chickens leg will lead to some of the scutes on the leg developing as feathers (Zou and Niswander, 1996). This means that feathers and scutes are very closely related but scutes are distinct from reptilian scales. It has also been suggested that feathers are in fact the primitive structure from which scutes have evolved rather than, as had previously been proposed, the other way round.

    TTFN,

    WK


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by Jon, posted 11-04-2006 7:43 AM Jon has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by Jon, posted 11-04-2006 10:03 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

        
    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 57 of 83 (361435)
    11-04-2006 10:03 AM
    Reply to: Message 56 by Wounded King
    11-04-2006 8:15 AM


    Re: Modern Examples
    I think this is a slight misrepresentation. Blocking BMP signalling in a chickens leg will lead to some of the scutes on the leg developing as feathers (Zou and Niswander, 1996). This means that feathers and scutes are very closely related but scutes are distinct from reptilian scales. It has also been suggested that feathers are in fact the primitive structure from which scutes have evolved rather than, as had previously been proposed, the other way round.

    CRAP! :(


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by Wounded King, posted 11-04-2006 8:15 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16097
    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 responded

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

      
    NewYorkCityBoy
    Inactive Member


    Message 59 of 83 (361537)
    11-04-2006 3:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
    11-04-2006 10:30 AM


    Re: question
    If evolution is true then how come there are not any other smart creatures? I mean it is a well proven fact that dolphins have mucn bigger and HIGHERLY developed brains than humans. 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. Then why arent dolphins smart, in comparison to humans,(sure there smart but on the level of chimps,apes,parrots,etc) but they are cleary not even comparably to human intelligence. Maybe there not as smart because animals simply can not become as smart as humans. A dolphin is at the peak of animal intelligence. Humans are the chosen species and there for are much smarter then any animal. 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. 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.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2006 10:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 65 by Wounded King, posted 11-04-2006 4:10 PM NewYorkCityBoy has responded
     Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2006 9:06 PM NewYorkCityBoy has responded
     Message 72 by Jon, posted 11-06-2006 4:59 AM NewYorkCityBoy has responded
     Message 81 by fallacycop, posted 11-18-2006 11:31 PM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded

      
    NewYorkCityBoy
    Inactive Member


    Message 60 of 83 (361541)
    11-04-2006 3:24 PM


    thx for the argument
    yall have made some very good points about evolution, and i have to admit that alot of it is hard to argue with, but im still not sure im convinced.

    Edited by NewYorkCityBoy, : typo


    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by nwr, posted 11-04-2006 3:30 PM NewYorkCityBoy has not yet responded
     Message 62 by ringo, posted 11-04-2006 3:41 PM NewYorkCityBoy has responded
     Message 71 by Jon, posted 11-06-2006 4:50 AM NewYorkCityBoy has responded

      
    Prev123
    4
    56Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019