Posted on 07/13/2009 9:55:26 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
In 2003, the human genome was heralded as a near-complete DNA sequence, except for the repetitive regions that could not be resolved due to the limitations of the prevailing DNA sequencing technologies.[1] The chimpanzee genome was subsequently finished in 2005 with the hope that its completion would provide clear-cut DNA similarity evidence for an ape-human common ancestry.[2] This similarity is frequently cited as proof of man's evolutionary origins, but a more objective explanation tells a different story, one that is more complex than evolutionary scientists seem willing to admit...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Put up or shut up Gutless wonder.
You claimed to have assembled an argument that falsified an entire field of study; a field of study that you are too ignorant of to even summarize the basic precepts of.
Apparently the idiotic author of this drivel you like to post was not too impressed with this argument as he left what many consider to be the STRONGEST argument for common descent (ERV data) entirely untouched.
People are still using ERV data to construct phylogenies. By what criteria do you consider this methodology “outdated”?
I didn’t boast about anything. I despise the leftist Temple of Darwin universities that issued my degrees. As far as I’m concerned, beyond the doors they opened, they represent nothing more than busy work. The only reason why I brought them up is because your fellow Temple of Darwin fanatics keep asking for my academic credentials. And every time I finally relent and list my degrees, then some yahoo like you comes along and chastises me for supposedly “bragging” about them. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As for the Origins debate, I understand the nature and content of the debate enough to engage the Temple of Darwin. If you don’t like it, tough.
And yes, HIV does not cause AIDS, humans don’t cause global warming, and mindless inanimate matter is not the cause of either life or intelligence. And btw, the data is on my side on all of the above. You may now insert that into your little Darwin pipe and smoke it. At first it will make you think you are hallucinating. Don’t worry, this is to be expected. That’s what happens when someone who has been dreaming fairytales their whole life wakes up to reality for the first time.
What about my previous and quite thorough refutation of your lame and outdated ERV arguments do you not agree with?
Or better yet, why don’t you explain “in your own words” why ERVs are “what many (Temple of Darwin fanatics) consider to be the ‘STONGEST’ argument for common descent...” You won’t dare do it because you know what happened last time, and it still smarts. Otherwise you would have risen to the challenge a long time ago. But if you do muster up the courage to venture an argument, do try to keep your arguments current—there’s a reason why call you Snoozer.
You are one of the best trolls I have ever came across.
I complained that your idiotic source couldn't even deal with what most consider to be the strongest evidence of common descent.
Your claim was that you had already refuted this argument, although what that had to do with the author not including anything about the subject I am at a loss to explain.
Your claim was that you had already refuted this argument, and I challenged you to...
a) explain why biologists think that ERV’s are evidence of common descent.
and
b) where they are mistaken.
You have FAILED to do either, as you know less than nothing about the subject and your supposed refutation was embarrassing even for you.
It seems you infer my questions to ZULU, xcamel, and Ira Louvin that I brought up abiogenesis to derail the discussion on evolution (I assume you mean macroevolution or Darwinian evolution, perhaps even neodarwinism). Of course, anyone who wishes to read my posts of this thread will clearly see I have not brought up abiogenesis as a topic of discussion.
If you wish I will be glad to discuss Macroevolution or neodarwinianism or abiogenesis or cosmology with you. Take your pick. I sure I will find your remarks scintillating. ZULU, xcamel, and Ira seem to have left the building and did not want to discuss or answer my simple questions. Perhaps you would like to answer the questions I posited in posts 104, 121 132, 134 or 142. These questions involve asking how these characteristics or qualities evolved in biological systems (that is macroevolution). I am just a simple farmer/rancher, so be gentle as you hoist my head on your scientific pike(metaphorically speaking). I'll check back with you in an hour or so. I do so look forward to our discussion. Perhaps I will learn something from you. I am always trying to learn from people with greater understanding of these subjects than I have. It is, as they say, the spice of life. ______
You haven’t been on any of the fair tax threads — they come from the same very shallow gene pool.
My Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Which means one.
You got that right. Reason does not lead to faith. However, faith can deduce reason.
“Your bible” is an incorrect translation.
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_beginning.htm
What a laugh, the first time I crossed paths with your Darwin-adled arguments, you brought up ERVs as the supposed best evidence of common descent. I demonstrated that ERVs are better explained by common DESIGN back then, and I have continued to update my argument ever since.
You, on the other hand, continue to cling to the same outdated Temple of Darwin ERV arguments, even though the most recent studies demonstrate that almost the entire genome is functional (not to mention the specific and increasingly largescale functions of ERVs that continue to be identified), thus rendering your dumb-dumb fossil/”junk” ERV arguments moot.
And lets not forget the Temple of Darwin argument that ERVs are ancient remnants of previous exogenous retrovirus infections. Your Evo co-religionists cannot support this, they simply assume it without evidence. The creation argument of course makes much better sense. Namely, that ERVs are conserved because they were likely designed into our genomes at the time of creation to pick up the genetic elements to escape the genome, to become retroviruses that non-randomly insert themselves into genomes to facilitate genetic diversity both within and between species, and perhaps even to provide specific genetic information for organisms to better adapt to particular environments.
OK Dreamer, now it’s your turn. Why don’t you start by describing in YOUR OWN WORDS why ERVs are one of the “strongest arguments” for common descent.
*I have continued to update my argument ever since.*
I would love to read your most current argument. Can you paste it in as a reply or provide a link to it?
Ok. Now you have something. Pure garbage, but hundreds of posts later you finally came up with something.
What purpose is genetic diversity if evolution is impossible?
You previously claimed that only DE-evolution is possible.
Are you saying that retrovirus are agents of DE-Evolution?
Your so called explanation also does NOTHING to explain the pattern of similarity and divergence such that an ERV found only in some humans will look “younger” than an ERV found in all humans; and why an ERV found in all humans will look “younger” than an ERV found in both chimps and humans; which will look “younger” than an ERV found in all primates.
How do you attempt to explain this pattern?
Explaining why God might have wanted ERV’s in our genome, and how they could have “escaped” to become RNA virus does nothing to explain why Biologists say they are evidence for common descent.
The guys you referred to in your previous post.
So pointing out that liberals shutting down debate is now shutting down debate?
Absolutely brilliant liberalism, not that anyone here, for one minute wasn’t onto you on day one DevNet.
So pointing out the obvious liberals shutting down debate is now shutting down debate?
It was you and yours who try to get those they disagree with banned as soon as they say something you don’t like.
No, that's just more of your liberal projecions.
Absolutely brilliant liberalism, not that anyone here, for one minute wasn't onto you on day one DevNet.
What have I said that was liberal? I do know that you won’t say but I have to ask anyway.
Since you and yours like to try to shut down debate does that make you liberal too?
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.