Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
270 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 269 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,315 Year: 4,427/6,534 Month: 641/900 Week: 165/182 Day: 45/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Apes vs. Man What are your thoughts??
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4095 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 taken no action
 Message 54 by Peter, posted 03-01-2002 6:17 AM Fred Williams has taken no action

  
BoneLady
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 68 (5587)
02-26-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Fred Williams
02-26-2002 5:10 PM


Were you actually expecting me to respond to that...?

BL

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
BoneHeadLady:...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Fred Williams, posted 02-26-2002 5:10 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Fred Williams, posted 02-26-2002 6:26 PM BoneLady has taken no action

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 68 (5591)
02-26-2002 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Fred Williams
02-26-2002 5:10 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Fred Williams, posted 02-26-2002 5:10 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Fred Williams, posted 02-26-2002 6:31 PM LudvanB has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4095 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 taken no action

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4095 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 taken no action
 Message 29 by toff, posted 02-27-2002 3:53 AM Fred Williams has taken no action
 Message 33 by Peter, posted 02-27-2002 7:45 AM Fred Williams has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4434 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 21 of 68 (5594)
02-26-2002 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Fred Williams
02-26-2002 5:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

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).


Surely the point is that there are nearly 3 BILLION nucleotides that are the same, compared to 30 million that aren't. In any case, the 99% similarity pertains to genes, not nucleotides, so the 1% is actually in the order of 300-500 genes, (assuming a 30,000 to 50,000 gene genome).

What other explanation could there be other than common descent?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-26-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Fred Williams, posted 02-26-2002 5:10 PM Fred Williams has taken no action

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 68 (5595)
02-26-2002 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Fred Williams
02-26-2002 6:31 PM


An interesting exemple would be some diseases that used to be fatal to man,like pneumonia,until we adapted to it. In the old days,it would kill almost anyone who caught it but nowadays,even untreated pneumonia is rarely fatal to anyone but the most frail of individuals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Fred Williams, posted 02-26-2002 6:31 PM Fred Williams has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 02-27-2002 12:53 AM LudvanB has replied

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 68 (5624)
02-26-2002 11:21 PM


Joz: I guess I would be described here as a minority YEC. I am certainly a laymen and confess to a non-scientific background. Yes, I get my reading material from AIG, ICR, etc. I would be happy to provide further details if needed but I think you can see where I stand from the brief intro.

To the topic at hand: Although this thread has already started to drift in another direction, my original question to bucane stands. As Christians, our worldview should start with God. I am curious to know his perception of the Bible.
As for my opinion, we see similarites between different species because we share the same Creator. As an example; I think we share the same tear duct as a chicken (someone may want to confirm that). However, to draw an evolutionary connection is a stretch. Although we see evidence for variation within a 'kind' of species (dog breeds), there is no evidence to support (today or fossil) change into a completly different kind (ape to human).


Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 02-27-2002 12:31 AM Punisher has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1409 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 68 (5632)
02-27-2002 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by gene90
02-26-2002 5:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
We might be making a mistake though, since our systems have been adapting to vitamin c as an essential nutrient suddenly producing it again might cause overdose.

Try it on monkeys first.


Gene! That would never work, DUH!

Don't you know anything about Baraminology?

Humans and primates aren't related AT ALL, so testing this gene therapy on primates first wouldn't give us ANY indication about if it might work in humans.

Specifically, it wouldn't work with Chimpanzees, for sure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by gene90, posted 02-26-2002 5:07 PM gene90 has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1409 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 68 (5634)
02-27-2002 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Punisher
02-26-2002 11:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
Joz: I guess I would be described here as a minority YEC. I am certainly a laymen and confess to a non-scientific background. Yes, I get my reading material from AIG, ICR, etc. I would be happy to provide further details if needed but I think you can see where I stand from the brief intro.

To the topic at hand: Although this thread has already started to drift in another direction, my original question to bucane stands. As Christians, our worldview should start with God. I am curious to know his perception of the Bible.
As for my opinion, we see similarites between different species because we share the same Creator. As an example; I think we share the same tear duct as a chicken (someone may want to confirm that). However, to draw an evolutionary connection is a stretch. Although we see evidence for variation within a 'kind' of species (dog breeds), there is no evidence to support (today or fossil) change into a completly different kind (ape to human).


1) Why is it that, even though you admit to having minimal scientific knowledge, you feel comfortable dismissing the Theory of Evolution?

If you dismiss it on religious grounds, I have no complaint, but to make the kind of statements from personal incredulity that you have implies that you also somehow are attempting to object to the Theory on logical grounds, even though you admittedly do not know much about it.

That is quite a weak place to debate from, I hope you realize.

2) Since you are using the word "kind" in what seems to be a somewhat scientific sense, perhaps you can define "kind" for me.

What I really want to be able to do is to know how (what parameters and criterion to use) to tell one "kind" from another.

If you want to use the word "kind" in a descriptive, scientific way, first you must define it.

Thanks in advance.

Allison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Punisher, posted 02-26-2002 11:21 PM Punisher has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1409 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 68 (5636)
02-27-2002 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by LudvanB
02-26-2002 6:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
An interesting exemple would be some diseases that used to be fatal to man,like pneumonia,until we adapted to it. In the old days,it would kill almost anyone who caught it but nowadays,even untreated pneumonia is rarely fatal to anyone but the most frail of individuals.

I don't think we have adapted to pneumonia. Pneumonia kills plenty of people, and the reduction in deaths would be mostly due to better treatment and drugs.

A better example of our species adapting to a pathogen would be the AIDS virus.

There are individuals who test positive for exposure to the HIV virus, but never develop symptoms of AIDS, or develop them very slowly.
By looking at the DNA of these people, scientists have isolated a shared beneficial mutation. Due to genetic variation, some people in the population possess a mutation in the CCR(5) gene which causes these individuals to not develop AIDS if they have two copies of this mutant gene. If they have only one copy of the mutant gene, they have a very slow onset of AIDS.

The ancestry of the people carrying this HIV-resisting mutation is quite fascinating; they very strongly tend to come from countries which were affected by Bubonic Plague. Most of the world's population lacks this mutation.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by LudvanB, posted 02-26-2002 6:37 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by joz, posted 02-27-2002 2:32 AM nator has taken no action
 Message 28 by LudvanB, posted 02-27-2002 3:37 AM nator has taken no action

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 68 (5647)
02-27-2002 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by nator
02-27-2002 12:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
The ancestry of the people carrying this HIV-resisting mutation is quite fascinating; they very strongly tend to come from countries which were affected by Bubonic Plague. Most of the world's population lacks this mutation.

Not sure if this is correct but i remember hearing something about it being carried by 1% of caucasians.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 02-27-2002 12:53 AM nator has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mark24, posted 02-27-2002 4:57 AM joz has taken no action

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 68 (5651)
02-27-2002 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by nator
02-27-2002 12:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
I don't think we have adapted to pneumonia. Pneumonia kills plenty of people, and the reduction in deaths would be mostly due to better treatment and drugs.

A better example of our species adapting to a pathogen would be the AIDS virus.

There are individuals who test positive for exposure to the HIV virus, but never develop symptoms of AIDS, or develop them very slowly.
By looking at the DNA of these people, scientists have isolated a shared beneficial mutation. Due to genetic variation, some people in the population possess a mutation in the CCR(5) gene which causes these individuals to not develop AIDS if they have two copies of this mutant gene. If they have only one copy of the mutant gene, they have a very slow onset of AIDS.

The ancestry of the people carrying this HIV-resisting mutation is quite fascinating; they very strongly tend to come from countries which were affected by Bubonic Plague. Most of the world's population lacks this mutation.


Actually,no one of europeen decent dies of Pneumonia,even untreated by any drugs unless they are of frail health to begin with. I got pneumonia twice in my life and the first time i got,i didn't even treat it...didn't have time to be sick. I felt lousy for a couple of days but once the worse was over i was ok... The same could be said of europeen settlers in southern america...but the native,the disease was 100% fatal,whatever their individual health because they had no genetic imunity at any level to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 02-27-2002 12:53 AM nator has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mark24, posted 02-27-2002 5:02 AM LudvanB has taken no action

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 68 (5652)
02-27-2002 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Fred Williams
02-26-2002 6:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
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.

Clearly, you do not know what the word 'religious' means. I suggest you use a dictionary. A belief that does not entail a deity or the supernatural is not religious. Sorry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Fred Williams, posted 02-26-2002 6:31 PM Fred Williams has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4434 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 30 of 68 (5655)
02-27-2002 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by joz
02-27-2002 2:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Not sure if this is correct but i remember hearing something about it being carried by 1% of caucasians.....

Schraf, Joz,

The "defective" gene has a 32 base pair deletion & about 10% of the caucasian population has that gene. It is a co-dominant gene, meaning if you are homozygous (have two of the mutant genes) you are even better protected against developing full blown AIDS. As Joz says, only 1% ish of caucasians get the double whammy protection (due to homozygosity). This rather puts paid to the idea that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from God, when there's a protection passed on genetically, itself subject to the random vagaries of mate selection.

The gene is very rare in other races, meaning the 32 base pair deletion occurred after the migration from africa. It is thought that the genes relatively high frequency could not be a result of AIDS, but must be a result of selective pressure due to other pathogens.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by joz, posted 02-27-2002 2:32 AM joz has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 03-01-2002 12:47 AM mark24 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