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 ...
See, you just proved it!
You’re nothing but an ignorant, obnoxious liar, that has no desire to discuss anything honestly or factually.
If you believe the Earth is in orbit around the Sun then you are not a geocentrist as the word is commonly defined.
Is the Earth in orbit around the Sun?
People use your views to try to discredit creationists and creationism.
:)
Yes!!! This is where future scientists come from! Let them be excited about science and its prospects for their own future. Rote learning of "accepted doctrines" ("programs") is good enuf for robots. But I don't know of any robot that can do science.
Thank you so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind words of support to metmom and me.
Its ok, I'll drag your stinking carcass back home to your mom when they find out where you are.
I understand the subject well enough to deal with the likes of you, Dreamer.
First, just because different species have similar DNA sequences does not necessitate an inference of common descent. This could just as easily infer a common designer, as successful DNA sequences could be used in modular fashion with slight modifications across many species. This also applies to ERVs. Second, the whole evolutionary edifice built around ERVs came crashing down once it was realized that ERVs are not (contrary to evo-religious assumptions) “junk” DNA.
Your materialist co-religionists originally thought that ERVs were evidence of ancient exogenous retroviral insertions that were randomly inserted into our genomes. They were thought to be functionless sequences that just eat up precious cellular energy and resources. They were further thought to persist for no other reason that they were supposedly selfish. They were of course wrong on all counts.
But then they started finding functions for ERVs here and there, and the Evos said, “so what, it just means these sequences got co-opted for a few functions, whereas the vast majority are still “junk.” However, now we know, as CottShop points out above, that ERVs have large-scale functions, thus negating the evo-religious assumption that they are functionless “junk” that persist in the genome because they are somehow “selfish.” Further, the evo-religious assumption that similar ERV sequences between species are evidence of an ancient exogenous RNA infection of a common ancestor is nowhere near a slam-dunk because such similarities (with minor differences) can be just as easily explained by similar designs shared by organisms with similar body plans and functional needs. This renders the argument that some ERVs are younger or older than other ERVs moot, because they would have been designed as similar but slightly different between closely related species at the time of creation. And let’s not forget that we now know that ERVs non-randomly insert themselves into preferred “hot spots” in the host’s genome, thus further strengthening the argument that ERVs are designed with a purpose. And finally, the fact that we have now found LARGE SCALE functions for ERVs is much more in line with Creation/ID, because that is exactly what Creation/ID predicts, whereas the Temple of Darwin fanatics predicted the exact opposite.
C'mon now. I am not stupid. Your statements here are absolutely clear.
POST 323 --- Do you find their views ridiculous or merely wrong? By what criteria would you exclude their nonscientific views from science class while including your own?
POST 329 --- So do you find their Geocentric opinion ridiculous, or just wrong? By what criteria would you exclude their unscientific views but include your own?
I would trust metmom w/ my back.
Not so w/ allmendream.
Nuff said.
Similar DNA generality is not the topic of discussion, it is the presence or absence of ERV’s in the genome and their similarity or divergence that makes it look exactly as if an ERV had incorporated into a common ancestor and changed through mutation subsequently.
The pattern of ERV’s that is consistent with common descent is in no way dependent upon there not being any function for any ERV’s. Moreover the functional ERVs were found because of a high degree of evolutionary conservation between species that is NOT observed with the vast majority of ERV’s. Care to explain this observation?
Why is it that a particular ERV would be found in just people of East Asian descent? Why would that ERV be most similar among Pacific Islanders and less similar when compared between Pacific Islanders and Chinese?
In other words, why would I be able to use this data to establish a DNA sample as being from a person of East Asian Pacific Islander descent?
Your so called explanation doesn't do much to actually explain the data GGG.
I encourage you to post your views and could wish for nothing more than that you shout them from the rooftops.
Every time you say "so what?", you get me into an argument with someone. LOL!
“Evos can only discredit strawmen creationists. Real creationists are far more reasonable than evos can comprehend and far more reasonable than your average liberal agenda in public education evolutionist/atheist.” metmom
Hear that e-s and GDan? You are both strawmen creationists! Metmom obviously considers your views unreasonable as well as an embarrassment.
Excellent posts!
Nevertheless, I would trust metmom w/ my back. Not so w/ you.
"I encourage you to post your views and could wish for nothing more than that you shout them from the rooftops."
And I appreciate you giving me the opportunity once again.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
Uh, no. You appear incapable of even the simplest critical-thought. Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis all testify to the inability to distinguish between geokineticism and geocentrism.
That you conclude that an evo has discredited something that such distinguished scientists openly admit cannot be discredited only testifies to your inability to think critically.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
July 11, eh?
The day we came back from an over week long vacation and I had over four pages of pings to go through, not to mention the other bazillion things I had to do unpacking and stuff, posting on the run, and I missed one.
Actually, more than likely a lot more than one.
Imagine that.
No, I didn’t see it because in all likelihood, something came up and I just never got back to the thread.
Excellent post.
What about their position do you find embarrassing?
What do you think is the fundamental philosophical difference between a geocentric creationist and a heliocentric creationist?
I've never been personally acquainted with a geocentrist, creationist or not.
Does what someone else accuses an anonymous internet poster of count? Not really.
Creationists are regularly accused of all kinds of ridiculous things by evos. I'm not taking the word of one anonymous internet poster on the beliefs of another anonymous internet posted and then say that I know a geocentist.
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.