DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution

So in other words you’ll not answer any questions or address any of the points that were brought out which refute your statements- got it! Typical-

I can guarantee you that there is nothing contained in any anti-science website--whether the site promotes creationism, anti-vax propaganda, medical quackery, etc.--that would refute any actual science. It is a giant waste of my time to go to such sites with the intent of correcting every single untruth they propagate, because the untruths are infinite. My time is much better spent trying to guide people to where to find the actual scientific information, how to interpret whether a site is dedicated to promoting pseudoscience or whether it conveys legitimate scientific information, and so forth. The stated purpose of any particular anti-science site is irrelevant; they all use the same disinformation tactics. If you want to see anti-science websites refuted, there are people who spend all their time refuting the nonsense, and they have plenty of websites, which you can easily find on Google.

[[If you want to see anti-science websites refuted, there are people who spend all their time refuting]]

Psssst- I’ve read a great many of them and most aren’t worth spit because htey angage in childish Christian bashing over and over and over again ,and their arguments don’t stand up to counter refutations- the few that are worth reading are able to tackle the evidences they disagree with in a mature manner, a civil manner, for the most part, and are respectful of their opponents- Several such sites/authors have a healthy back and forth with reputable scientists who oppose their views as well, and the arguments on both sides usually carry a far greater weight than the those sites who can;t bring themselves to civil discussions- about all you get on those site is silly group think and wolf pack mentality- they simply wave their hands, make outlandish claims, and attack anyone that doesn’t agree- Nope- no thanks- again- that isn’t science- I’ll stick to those few sites that are mature enough to have civil discussions and actually take the time to address people’s concerns rather than saying silly things like ‘there’s nothing of any value on such sites’

ifinnegan: "the keen thing about evolution is it can’t be disproven."

itsahoot: "Or proven so where does that leave you?"

You folks are playing word definition games, and I wonder why?

Surely you know in strict scientific terms, no theory is ever proven, at best it's confirmed.
And no hypothesis is "disproved", though it may well be falsified.

By definition, if a theory is "proved", meaning observed, it's no longer theory, now it's fact.
An example is the globe shaped Earth -- first hypothesis, then confirmed theory, now observed fact.

So basic evolution is a confirmed theory, confirmed by innumerable observations of its predictions, for example that fossils are found in appropriate geological strata.
We don't have confirmed observations of elephants & dinosaurs together.

So words like "proved" imply scientific facts, and "fact" is reserved for confirmed observations -- what we can actually see or detect.
Since we can't watch ancient creatures evolving into new species, that will never be a "fact" only at best a strongly confirmed theory.

But while overall evolution is theory, many aspects of it are observed facts, for example: descent with modifications.
We can see it and we can do it, as in dogs evolved from wolves -- dogs are a new species and within dogs we've evolved many sub-species and breeds.
So "descent with modification" is observed, confirmed fact and so also is natural selection.

But unobservable speciation events in the deep past can only ever be confirmed scientific theory.

I see you can’t break yourself away from the childish liberal tactic of Christian bashjing- I thought we coudl have a civil discussion but I see you’re not up to it- My mistake

Either provide an example of my engaging in Christian bashing, or refrain from making that claim. Accusing someone of doing something which they do not do is an act of bearing false witness--which is mentioned as a big "no-no" several places in the Bible.

had you bothered to read the ‘Christian site’ you would have seen that several of the papers did not focus simply on the non coding areas or the ‘redundant’ areas [yada, yada, yada]

Has it occurred to you that I've actually looked at a sufficient number of anti-science websites to form an understanding of the basic tactics that they all use? They use lies of omission, where they only pick out one or two facts that can be twisted to fit their agenda--aka "cherry-picking data." They then go on to misinterpret the meaning of the few cherry-picked facts that they present, often deriving pages and pages of "interpretation" which is nothing but a false narrative centered on the couple of actual facts they presented. Whether the pseudo-science is focused on promoting creationism, medical quackery, "natural" or "organic" foods, any unnatural eating habits (vegetarianism, veganism), alien visitation, or pick your favorite flavor of pseudoscience to embrace, the methodology is identical.

As I said, I do not need to refute every single untruth promoted by anti-science advocates in order to recognize and reject the pseudoscience. Lies are infinite, but methodology is not.

Bob434: "The importance of the distinction of nephesh chayyah life."

Thanks, though your link did not make the point I was hoping for.
My attention here is focused on Genesus 2 (KJV):

" And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

To me this sounds like evolution from dirt, with God performing His final act of breathing the breath of life into the first fully human soul.
So, if your claim there was no "spiritual death" before Adam's Fall is correct, then an explanation is: that's because there were no fully human living souls at the time.
Adam & Eve were the first.

To me that's great news.

And no hypothesis is "disproved", though it may well be falsified.

A technique employed by evolutionist for decades.

By pointing to semantic arguments you hope to be able to avoid the whole discussion of fraudulent data that seems to point to the evolutionary theory as being accurate to the exclusion of all data to the contrary.

I suspect there is not one freeper here that does not know the difference between theory and fact, though they would have a hard time recognizing that when talking with evolutionists that regularly quote theory as fact.

BJK: "no hypothesis is 'disproved', though it may well be falsified."

itsahoot: "A technique employed by evolutionist for decades."

It's mostly a semantic difference -- "proof" is used in mathematical theorems and law courts, but not for scientific theories.
There experiments & observations falsify or fail to falsify hypotheses.
Failure to falsify does not "prove" a hypothesis, but it does help confirm it, and strong confirmations promote a hypothesis to an accepted theory, such as basic evolution.

That is the language & logic, such that "debates" over what is "proved" or "disproved" are pointless.

itsahoot: "By pointing to semantic arguments you hope to be able to avoid the whole discussion of fraudulent data that seems to point to the evolutionary theory as being accurate to the exclusion of all data to the contrary."

Of course nobody denies that scientists are as human as the rest of us, and sometimes make "mistakes" which support their preconceived ideas.
But in the past 150+ years data confirming basic evolution theory is, literally, mountainous while confirmed data falsifying it is, well, non-existent.

So now you wish to regale me with tales of hoaxes & cover-ups in the name of science?
My response is this: all you really need is just one fully researched, documented, peer-reviewed & published example of data irrefutably falsifying a theory and that theory gets demoted -- reduced in rank -- back to hypothesis.

As a hypothesis, it may get modified to account for your new data then resubmitted for re-confirmation as a modified theory.
And those kinds of things happen in science every day, including with some evolution ideas.
But basic evolution theory has stood the tests of time because, well, it's pretty basic:

Descent with modifications is observed fact & irrefutable.
Likewise natural selection is seen in nature and can be repeated in laboratories.

Can those lead to speciation?
Well, they did with dogs from wolves, and any number of other domesticated animals.
So that much is fact, but long term must remain theory, since we were not there to see it happen.

itsahoot: "I suspect there is not one freeper here that does not know the difference between theory and fact, though they would have a hard time recognizing that when talking with evolutionists that regularly quote theory as fact."

I think your own posts show you enjoy word-games over what is "proved" or "fact" vs. hypothesis & theory.

Basic evolution is theory confirmed by many, many facts.

“But while overall evolution is theory, many aspects of it are observed facts, for example: descent with modifications.”

Not really. The observed facts are from a separate discipline and used by Evolutionary theorists.

Evolution itself isn’t a discipline.

Name any “observed fact” you mention above and you’ll find it did not come from evolutionists.

It’s application to evolution is essentially assumption, eg descent with modification.

“*Most* non-coding regions are filler.”

You’re 20 years behind the times at least.

Are you no longer in the field?

Did you not read my post?

Thanks for your response, but i didn’t expect obsolete boilerplate.

“As long as the sequences at the ends of the introns remains conserved, the rest can be any sequence at all without changing the function.”

DNA is an amazing molecule (as is RNA) you should look in to it some day.

Too many people, yourself apparently included, think nucleic acids are generic blocks with a static structure.

American in Israel: "Look in nature, clearly there is NO evidence of a massive amount of useless random vestigial DNA experiments hanging off of every organism as DNA mindlessly experiments trying to stumble onto a software upgrade."

Whatever are you talking about?
Of course there is, massively, in every creature's DNA, every DNA mutation which did not kill off its carriers stays with us, and now helping track our ancestry and species relationships.

But in most species most offspring die without ever reproducing, for reasons ranging from predation to starvation, disease or mal-adaptive DNA mutations.
To survive & reproduce individuals need both good genes and good luck -- that's "natural selection".

American in Israel: "In short, what we now know about DNA and how it functions precludes virtually any chance for evolution."

No, the opposite is true, if you simply consider the millions of different species, from bacteria & amoebas to insects & mammals -- an almost infinite variety of different systems that work.
Some are very, very similar between species demonstrating that small differences can work just as well.
Others are very, very different demonstrating that no DNA similarities are needed to do similar functions.

American in Israel: "The heck with transitional fossils, where are the five legged blind dogs or feathered snails?
There is no evidence of experimental organisms in nature."

On the contrary, the fossil record tells us that every organism in nature is experimental, and almost every experiment eventually fails, to be replaced by newer experiments.
As for misshaped dogs, they are born on occasion, but almost never live to successfully reproduce.
It's called "natural selection" and is basic to evolution theory.

Bob434: "...even just one of those impossibilities alone would be enough to doom the hypothesis, but taken altogether-
it’s a zero change that it happened-
so the only other possibility is that an intelligent designer was needed to create irreducibly complex lifeforms-
the evidence is clear- God was needed-
I have only ever seen two possible explanations, and one turns out to be impossible on several levels- that leaves only one viable alternative-
and His fingerprints are everywhere"

I disagree with your ideas of "impossible", but may I also suggest, you're asking the wrong questions?
Look at it this way:

Question: Is God perfect?
Answer: yes, by any definition we might concoct.
Question: Did God create the heavens and Earth perfectly according to His intent or plan?
Answer: yes, that's what Genesis 1 tells us.
Question: Did God create His Universe so imperfectly that it ever since requires His constant interventions, corrections, modifications, extinctions & improvements, or did He design His Universe perfectly to do those things naturally, without His constant monitoring & meddling?
Answer: I think God created a Universe good enough to perform most of its basic functions naturally.
Question: Does God ever interfere with natural processes, as in miracles?
Answer: Yes, but so far as we know only to impress flawed humans with His supernatural powers.
Question: does the Bible insist on any specific methodology by which God accomplished His creations?
Answer: not really.

My point is: only a physically imperfect Universe would require God's constant intervention in natural events to accomplish His purposes.
Of course, God does intervene to impress us, that's why we're here.
But also, our free will requires us to work hard to find Him amidst order & chaos in the natural realm.

Here’s a good article to read. (Chromatin structure and function is where it’s at).

A comparative encyclopedia of DNA elements in the mouse genome

The laboratory mouse shares the majority of its protein-coding genes with humans, making it the premier model organism in biomedical research, yet the two mammals differ in significant ways. To gain greater insights into both shared and species-specific transcriptional and cellular regulatory programs in the mouse, the Mouse ENCODE Consortium has mapped transcription, DNase I hypersensitivity, transcription factor binding, chromatin modifications and replication domains throughout the mouse genome in diverse cell and tissue types. By comparing with the human genome, we not only confirm substantial conservation in the newly annotated potential functional sequences, but also find a large degree of divergence of sequences involved in transcriptional regulation, chromatin state and higher order chromatin organization. Our results illuminate the wide range of evolutionary forces acting on genes and their regulatory regions, and provide a general resource for research into mammalian biology and mechanisms of human diseases.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7527/full/nature13992.html

ifinnegan: "Evolution is so ipso facto that any scientific finding can support it and none can falsify it."

No, not ipso facto, but in fact that has proved to be the case.
For example: estimates of the total number of fossils found and now in various museum collections worldwide are in the billions representing hundreds of thousands of species.
The number of fossils clearly identified as contradicting basic evolution theories is: zero.

Is that because of massive fraud or a religious mind-set commitment to outdated science?
I don't think so.
Any scientist would be renowned for finding a better explanation, just consider when Einstein overthrew some of Newton's old ideas.

But it doesn't happen, because many better ideas have come along over the years but none falsify basic evolution theory of speciation through:

Descent with modifications and
Natural selection

ifinnegan: "The observed facts are from a separate discipline and used by Evolutionary theorists."

So you really do enjoy silly word games?
Is that all you got?

Darwin's basic evolution theory took into account none of the science discovered in the past 150 years, which makes it more than amazing his theory still holds water.
Surely in 150 years when nearly everything the best scientists then "knew" has been overthrown, Darwin's ideas should be in the ashcans of history by now, right??

But they're not, because they are simple and obvious: Darwin said, speciation through descent with modifications and natural selection.
Darwin knew nothing about DNA or even Mendelian inheritance and those might easily have falsified Darwin's ideas.
But they didn't, far from it.

"Name any 'observed fact' you mention above and you’ll find it did not come from evolutionists."

So you hope to use word games to convert innumerable scientific confirmations of evolution theory into a negative for evolution, by claiming those confirmations did not come from "evolutionists"??

exDemMom: "*Most* non-coding regions are filler.”

ifinnegan: "You’re 20 years behind the times at least."

Not really.
Yes, estimates of "junk DNA" have been reduced from maybe 90% to something less, but alleged functions of most "junk" are not, as yet, determined, and the fact remains that most mutations within the "junk DNA" regions have no discernable affect on offspring.

Such mutations do however provide useful markers for tracing ancestry & distant relationships.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.