Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Apes vs. Man What are your thoughts??
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 16 of 68 (5577)
02-26-2002 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by BoneLady
02-26-2002 12:40 PM


Bucane: Well the topic that I would like to get going is with Chimps and Gorillas being as close as they are genically to humans wouldn't it suggest that humans have evolved from apes??
With this alone as an observation, it could suggest either common design or common decent. Evolutionists love to cast the illusion by saying 1% similarity! and seldom state it in hard numbers. A 1% difference amounts to about 30 million different nucleotides. That’s a lot of individual nucleotides that have to become fixed in the entire population over such a short period of time, evolutionarily speaking (3-5 my).
But when you lift the hood and do a hard examination of the data, the evidence strongly suggests common decent is false. I have documented such evidence here:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm
To summarize, when scientists compare DNA between humans and simians, they arrive at a mutation rate that requires at least 40 offspring per couple average through the lineage! A recent study cited by evolutionist Scott Page yields a requirement of ~250!
Regarding shared mistakes in pseudogenes, this argument has been thoroughly refuted by Woodmorappe:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/tj14_3-jw_pseudo.pdf
Some highlights from Woodmorappe’s article:
1) The shared mistake argument is built completely on the assumption that pseudogenes in general are non-functional, and specifically the pseudogene in question is non-functional. Yet there is growing evidence that pseudogenes serve some function.
2) Woodmorrape gives many counter-examples showing the subjective nature of pseudogene comparison, and shows that evolutionists need to shop around for the closest match and then present it as their argument for shared mistakes.
3) On a more technical level, pseudogenes show remarkable constraint. That is, they are not as garbled as one would expect if they truly represent a non-functional (ie neutral) DNA sequence that can tolerate mutations.
BoneHeadLady: The trick is to get them to stay in one spot long enough to actually discuss the evidence in detail. They tend avoid doing that, because most of them don't know anything about the actual evidence that paleoanthropologists know; they only "know" what they are told by other creationists who themselves have no experience or training and do not read the professional literature.
This point is irrelevant, since most laymen evolutionists as well as creationists do not read the professional literature. The real reason evos out-number creationists on debate boards is because Christians do not feel a strong need to justify their faith, while evolutionists feel an overwhelming need to justify their faith (in chance and blind processes). Yes I know, evolution is not a religion! We beg to differ. Flame away!
BTW, BHL, I do read the professional literature. Perhaps you would like to take a shot at my mutation rate article? I need another evo decal on the side of my plane!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by BoneLady, posted 02-26-2002 12:40 PM BoneLady has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by BoneLady, posted 02-26-2002 6:05 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 18 by LudvanB, posted 02-26-2002 6:24 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 21 by mark24, posted 02-26-2002 6:37 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 54 by Peter, posted 03-01-2002 6:17 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 19 of 68 (5592)
02-26-2002 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by BoneLady
02-26-2002 6:05 PM


It's in jest. Comments on the mutation rate problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by BoneLady, posted 02-26-2002 6:05 PM BoneLady has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 20 of 68 (5593)
02-26-2002 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by LudvanB
02-26-2002 6:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
Fred,evolution is not a religion and the only reason you "beg to differ" is because you seek to bring evolution science down to your level...religion. Evolutionist outnumber creationists on these boards because YECS are a small minority of christians as a whole,let alone in the entire world. In other word,most christians abroad dont even subscribe to YEC nonsense,wisely recognizing the Bible as a dissertation of man's undestanding of the Divine and not a inerant codex of history dictated to man by God Itself.
To believe that a code can arise in a naturalistic medium is certainly a religious belief that requires far greater faith than believing in a code coming from an Intelligent Sender.
Perhaps you can identify one example of a code arising naturalistically in the history of man? The fact that there are no counter observations means that it is a valid law of nature that information cannot arise without a sender, or in a materialistic medium, as Dr Werner Gitt (an information scientist and Director at the German Institute of Technology) has proposed.
Information science is the nail in the coffin for Neo-Darwinism.
[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 02-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by LudvanB, posted 02-26-2002 6:24 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by LudvanB, posted 02-26-2002 6:37 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 29 by toff, posted 02-27-2002 3:53 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 33 by Peter, posted 02-27-2002 7:45 AM Fred Williams 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