Delusions of Evolution

Norcalblogs.com ^ | April 04, 2009 | by OneVike

[OneVike]

You mam are an idiot. Good night.

[Ichneumon]

[On the one hand, we have freedumb2003, whose definition of theory in a scientific context matches the one used by the scientific community, who would probably be in a position to know it and get it right, on the other hand we have you and your own personal definition of it, which is at odds with how science actually uses the term, not to mention that you're the guy who can't even get it right when you try to make an objective, verifiable claim like the degree of DNA similarity between snakes/monkeys/humans...]

No, He’s not correct, and your validation is as about as worlthless as his.

And the scientific community? Your personal "definition" supercedes the one that scientists themselves actually use. How "special" of you. I'm sure you consider your definition of a scientific term to be somehow "better" than that used by scientists, but hey, you're entitled to think whatever you like, no matter how ludicrous it might be.

F= M whatever is a freakin’ formula, not a theory..

"F= M whatever"? ROFL! Can't even remember one of the most elementary and foundational equations of physics, eh? No wonder you're out of your depth on these science discussions.

And why are you misrepresenting what freedumb2003 actually wrote? Besides the obvious motive, I mean... What he actually said was, "And, to some degree F=ma is a theory (using the lay definition)". He was clearly *NOT* claiming that it was a theory in the scientific sense. Why are you now attempting to claim that he did? Please explain your actions.

TTOE is a theory, not science.

Now you're just being goofy (or very confused). Theories are very much a part of science. Indeed, it would be impossible to have science without them. Theories are the very heart of science. Why do you keep posting nonsense like this? Do you think it's advancing your cause any, or helping to bolster your credibility on this subject? If so, you're very mistaken. Quite the contrary, in fact.

TTOE is indeed a theory, and it is indeed science. Deal with it, and stop wasting everyone's time trying to clumsily split semantic hairs.

And, I am also right in the degree of DNA simularity between humans and other animals being greater than of apes.

No, you are not, and repeating the false claim only digs you deeper.

It speaks volumes that you YET AGAIN FAIL TO MAKE EVEN A TOKEN ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM when challenged, even when you could make an easy $1000 if you could.

You clearly can't, and what's worse, YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T. Yet you persist in blustering and repeating the claim. Why do you do this? Do you really think this is acceptable behavior for one who is trying to present himself as on the side of righteousness?

Been through that argument before as well.

Yes, and you failed before as well. You've been playing these games here for years.

Posting biased crap will not help you there either.

If you can point out where I have actually posted any "biased crap", I'll be more than glad to retract it and apologize. Unlike yourself.

Now let's cut to the chase again. You very falsely claimed that "You have more DNA in common with a snake than you do a monkey." This is very, very wrong. You've been challenged to support this false claim, or to retract it and apologize. You could even earn $1000 for demonstrating that it's true, not to mention demonstrating a fact that, if true, really *would* be a big blow against current theories evolutionary origins. And yet you run away from the challenge, you don't even make a token attempt to support it. This is, unfortunately, typical anti-evolutionist behavior. Do you think this is helping your case, or helping your credilibity? I'd really like an answer to this question.

Not only do you fail to support your false claim when (repeatedly) asked to do so, you actually brashly *repeat* and *broaden* the false claim. This, too, is unfortunately typical anti-evolutionist behavior -- trying to "win" an argument by bluffing so doggedly that their opponents just give up due to the futility of trying to get the anti-evo to debate honorably. Do you really think this is helping your case, or your credibility?

One more time, Nathan: Support or retract your false claim that "You have more DNA in common with a snake than you do a monkey." Your credibility is on the line. Show us that an anti-evo can actually be honorable for a change, instead of gameplaying and evading. It would be refreshing.

[thatjoeguy]

The order of creation doesn’t allow for much time to pass between the ‘days’ however much time you want to give them. The plants and trees were created on the third day and the sun and stars on the fourth.

JB

[Justice]

The bible says nothing about Adam and Eve having any daughters, aunts uncles cousins sister-in-laws, brother-in-laws, neices or nephews

Actually Gen 5:4 does say they had daughters. It's likely that these were the wives of at least some of their sons. (They had other sons too).

They wouldn't have had relatives of the other types you mention.

[Ichneumon]

I know you get a big kick out of these pointless word games you endlessly play in order to have a cheap reason to claim "gotcha!" through the disingenuous use of the fallacy of equivocation, but most people just find it childish and tiresome, for obvious reasons. So if you're wondering why your lame attempts at "barbs" get ignored so often, that's why.

If on the other hand you're really so honestly confused as to think that "science doesn't deal in Truth" means that scientists don't think (or shouldn't think) that a claim can even be verified as true or false, then nicely ask me to explain the distinction and I'll be glad to help you out. If you're not that confused, on the other hand, well, enjoy your gameplaying, I'll go back to ignoring your antics.

[presently no screen name]

You are concerned about capitalization and what language Jesus spoke while defending evolution. LOL Get real or get lost w/your trivia and a@@hole comments.

[goat granny]

Are you saying God created incest?

[goat granny]

Spell check is our friend. what is mam? God bless and good night to you also...I will not call you a name on this forum...:O)

[divine_moment_of_facts]

What is your take on Space Aliens.. Did they “evolve” too?

[Justice]

You're going according to our 21st century standards which weren't in effect all through history. It probably wasn't considered incest back then...but a necessary way to populate the earth.

The chromosomes hadn't broken down yet...even just a couple hundred years ago it wasn't unusual for, say, cousins to marry but it's anathema now.

I've read some of your comments on this thread. You really should try to tone down the cynicism when people come up with possible explanations based on the Bible. You claim that these people are saying they know everything about God and you judge them for self-righteousness. They are just coming up with possible explanations, many of which are based on scripture. I don't see anyone claiming to know everything.

[OneVike]

Theories are very much a part of science. Indeed, it would be impossible to have science without them.

Lets see what one of the biggest defenders of evolution has to say about this so called theory that is scientifically provable. Ok?

One of the biggest defenders of the theory of evolution is a scientist named, Michael Ruse. In 2005 five he wrote a book titled "The Evolution Creation Struggle". Mr Ruse wrote his book as a defense against the growing evidence that supports intelligent design. Here is and excerpt from what he wrote on page 287 of his book,
"My area of expertise is the clash between evolutionists and creationists, and my analysis is that we have no simple clash between science and religion, but rather a clash between two religions."

Let me say that I totally agree with Mr Ruse on his analogy, this is a battle between two religions. Now while both religions can use some of the same technologies to scientifically prove certain portions of their belief systems, they are still religions that need the followers to have faith.

The difference is one religion has millions of variations with many different names to entice many different people depending upon the many different desires of man. Ultimately, this religion boils down to a belief that man is or can be God. So this religion try's as it has for thousands of years to dispel any notion that the true God of the Universe is the sole Creator and Judge of that which He created.

The other religion say's that the universe and everything in it, including man, was created by the one and only "I Am", who was and is and is to come. This religion has for 3500 years based its belief upon the Scriptures, first the Hebrew Scriptures and then later upon the New Testament Scriptures. This religion has been forced by those who would discount it as nothing more then an emotional collection of fables and fairy tales to seek ways of debating for the minds of the intellectually educated masses of modern society. In doing so they have mastered the same methods used by evolutionists, and now stand toe to toe in their ability to convince the educated they are right.

So now we are all at the point of time where we could argue and debate each other until God Himself returns and creates enough heat to melt the very elements both sides debate over. However you look at it, both sides are ultimately putting their money on their ability to have more faith then the other side. Christians admit that our belief in God does come down to faith, now we have one of the leading proponents of the other side admitting the same thing.

The great unwashed in the middle are the true targets of both sides. I for one bring these subjects up so that I may convince one or two of the undecideds every once in a while that my side is right. If by the grace of God I can change the belief of one who has committed their faith to the religion of evolution, then Praise to God we will have one less soul burning in hell when Christ returns.

[presently no screen name]

God gave us the Bible to show us his power

YOUR his power SHOULD BE His power. Since you correct spelling and caps by others - I thought you'd appreciate one showing you where you slipped. Twenty lashes. ta ta and all that jazz.

[presently no screen name]

one less soul burning in hell when Christ returns.

and they will be eternally grateful to you. And you, too, will hear the words ... Good and faithful servant.

[Ichneumon]

When studying the human genome and its similarity to that of the chimp, scientists have recently concluded that 96% of our genome is similar. However, most people are unaware that this percent pertains to the regions of our DNA that result in proteins.

This is false. The 96% pertains to the entire genome, including both protein-coding regions and non-coding regions.,

The percentage of synonymous similarity for just the protein-coding regions is even higher, upwards of 99.7%. P> The percentage of similarity for non-coding regions is slightly lower than the overall 96%, but not by very much, since it comprises most of the genome. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but it'd be roughly 95% similar based on the above figures.

It seems logical that if a protein performs a certain function in one organism, then that same protein should perform the same function in a variety of organisms. This is evidence for a common designer as much as for a common ancestor.

If you're working ONLY from a single overall percentage of similarity, yes, you're right. But it's the specific *nature* of the many kinds of similarities and differences that clearly indicate evolutionary origins and not "common design". Common design produces very characteristic patterns of similarities and differences, and so does evolutionary common descent. Every conceivable method of examining the patterns of differences and similarities in the DNA between species matches the patterns that would be produced by evolutionary common descent, not the kind that would be produced by common design.

But most of the DNA sequence performs an unknown function and has been largely dismissed as “junk DNA.” However, increasing evidence supports the view that “junk” DNA performs an important role. For example, a recent report unexpectedly found specific sequence patterns in “junk” DNA which scientists have termed “pyknons.”1 It has been suggested that these pyknons may be important in determining when and where proteins are made. Within this “junk DNA” there may be large differences between man and chimp. The areas of greatest difference appear to involve regions which are structurally different (commonly called “rearrangements”) and areas of heterochromatin (tightly packed DNA).

While it has been long known that some kinds of non-coding DNA serve some kind of function in the genome, and new kinds are being discovered from time to time, the above paragraph vastly overstates the case. There are many kinds of independent lines of evidence which indicate that the majority of non-coding DNA is indeed non-functional, and not merely "all functional for which the function is not yet known".

Four of the more powerful lines of evidence are 1) the non-conservation of most non-coding DNA between lineages, 2) the existence of species (such as the fugu fish) in which almost all of these regions have been naturally eliminated with no detriment to the species, 3) experiments in which gigantic swatches of non-coding DNA have been snipped out from mice with no detriment to the test animals, and 4) a good understanding of how many of these sequences arise via "stutters" during cell replication and other kinds of errors during DNA copying and/or viral infections, etc. -- they clearly weren't "designed in" from the start. Large sections of our DNA is identifiable as the harmless remnants of such genetic malfunctions. For example, 42% of the human genome consists of retrotransposon copies.

Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:
*The amount of chimp DNA is 12% larger than what it is in humans.

This is "often not reported" because it is not true.

The fully sequenced human genome contains 3,107,677,273 basepairs. The fully sequenced chimpanzee genome contains 3,350,447,512 basepairs. This is 7.8% larger.

This is hardly surprising, however, nor significant, nor any kind of problem for evolution, nor does it invalidate the kinds of simimlarities and differences which are compared in order to trace evolutionary relationships.

It's not surprising because as I mentioned above, glitches in DNA replication (as well as transposons and other mechanisms) can easily add "stuttered" repetitions to the genome, increasing its size by "padding" it with numerous repetitions. Also as mentioned above, it's easy for large sections of DNA to get accidentally dropped, and when these are non-essential, non-functional sequences, the deletion gets passed on to future generations without incident. The amount of difference in overall genome size between humans and chimps is of the amount one would expect given six million years of evolutionary divergence.

*Several hundred million bases (individual components of the DNA) of the chimp genome are still unanalyzed.

You're being pretty vague here. What do you mean by "unanalyzed"? The chimp genome has been fully sequenced, if that's what you mean.

*In many areas of the DNA sequence, major “rearrangements” seem apparent. These account for perhaps 4–10% dissimilarity between chimps and humans.

Yes, but again this is no problem for evolutionary biology, and is indeed to be expected. I'm not sure what your point might be.

For what it's worth, there seems to be little if any indication that major rearrangements (wherein a section of DNA is successfully relocated to another chromosome or another location on the same chromosome) make any significant difference to how the DNA operates, any more than the location of subroutines in a program makes any difference.

*Chimps have 23 chromosomes and humans have only 22 (excluding sex chromosomes for both species)

True, and actually, this is a great example of how the specific details of similarities and differences between the genomes of various species indicates evolutionary origins, not "common design".

See this post of mine on the subject: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/914961/posts?page=242#242

Short form: One chromosome in the human genome shows clear and unmistakable signs of having been formed by the end-to-end fusion of two smaller chromosomes in a common ancestor which had 24 chromosomes, and not via some original human(s) having been designed with 23 chromosomes from the start. For details, see the link.

Thus, the physical and mental differences between humans and chimps are most likely due to the differences in purpose and function of the so-called junk DNA.

Huh? Your "conclusion" does not follow from your earlier observations. You have yet to actually make a case for this assertion.

This understanding should leave us more mindful of the awesome complexity of the Creator and His creation of DNA.

Maybe so, but the DNA of countless species clearly indicates, in many different, independent and cross-confirming ways, that life on Earth has reached its present form via evolutionary common descent.

[Just mythoughts]

Maybe so, but the DNA of countless species clearly indicates, in many different, independent and cross-confirming ways, that life on Earth has reached its present form via evolutionary common descent.

Scoffing at such a pompous not so clear indications. I do realize that you are devoted to amassing what you are calling indicators but for what and to what end? You really think you can disprove what the Heavenly Father absolutely had His children pen and preserve all these generations?

I think this thing called evolution has hit rock bottom and we have now entered the ascension phase, at least for the time appointed.

[ColdWater]

Depending on what poll you read, this vast amount of technology has convinced 30% to 40% of believers that God must have used evolution in His creative process.

According to latest polls, 40% believe in evolution and 25% do not believe in evolution.

[goat granny]

You should read Leviticus 20: It lists all the types of sexual sin that is forbidden by God. Since He is eternal and doesn't change, I think your wrong about incest being OK with God. Interbreeding among close relatives leads to the people depicted in Deliverance...It multiplies the possibility of deleterious genes being manifest..<.> ..I cannot speak to the idea of chromosomes being broken down. That is supposition.. I think God had rules for the ancient people and many were based on hygeine. For instance, hand washing, not eating pork (as it carries disease, even to this day if not throughtly cooked.) etc. You also must have read that the last post to me was not only misspelled, but did a little name calling... When out of arguments yell and call names...I don't think I called anyone an idiot..But thats not the worse I have been called in my 70 years...not even close.. :O)

[ColdWater]

not eating pork (as it carries disease, even to this day if not throughtly cooked.)

From foodnetwork.com (quoted. The 'You' is not direct at youP).

-----------------------------------------------------------

You may be a little confused at this point about how long to cook pork. In the past, we were warned to cook it to well done (that is, 170 F) in order to take care of any trichinae parasites, which are killed at 137 F. These days, however, modern advances in pork production have all but eliminated trichinosis in this country. In fact, the few cases reported here in recent years have been traced to either wild game (bears, especially) or privately raised pigs. You no longer need to overcook pork in order to feel good about eating it.

[goat granny]

Your cute but show me in my replies where I called anyone an idiot like I was. Without the name calling, spell check is your friend would not have been mentioned...ta ta and all that jazz. :O)

[goat granny]

Food network was not around in the days of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy, etc etc etc..So I don’t see how your comments about a TV show is relevent...But thank you for the modern information...I cook my pork very well. Being born in the late 1930’s I was taught well...We had an Ice Box and there was no such thing as a supermarket. My brother work at the pountry shop. You went in and looked in the eye of the chicken or rabbit you wanted for supper, came back in an hour and it was dead and dressed and ready for dinner. My brother job as a teenager was killing and dressing Live animals.Life was not what people are use to today...The ice man had a horse drawn wagon piled with 25 or 50 pounds of ice. You put a sign in your window how much you wanted.. I didn’t live in a rural area, I was brought up in Detroit, Michigan. At that time the population was over 2,000,000,