Posted on 08/01/2009 7:57:05 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
With the advent of modern biotechnology, researchers have been able to determine the actual sequence of the roughly three billion bases of DNA (A,T,C,G) that make up the human genome. They have sequenced the genomes of many other types of creatures as well. Scientists have tried to use this new DNA data to find similarities in the DNA sequences of creatures that are supposedly related through evolutionary descent, but do genetic similarities provide evidence for evolution?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
That notion is perfectly fine......they're looking at actual mutations....presumably heritable ones.....to draw a connection.
Don’t forget Hitler.....never forget to add Hitler to any list you’re using.
In MY world, someone with a PhD in a science field is called a.....”Scientist”....not an “Associate”.....but that’s biotech for ya.
Don’t forget the Pope and the Catholic Church!
If that makes you feel better then the two of you can explain it to one another.
More of the same.
When the Crevos are shown they are wrong, they stick their fingers in their ears and go “La La La I can’t hear you!!”
The Crevo cited a 1980 paper! That’s almost 30 years ago. The methods compared to today’s methods are like smoke signals compared to computers.
If you want to show that the tests were inaccurate or produced an erroneous result please do so with your sources cited.
Or if you can cite your own verifiable expertise in the use the instruments involved in doing these tests and the interpretation of the results, please do so.
I'll wait but I won't hold my breath. Until you can do more than just bray about a paper that was prepared by your intellectual superiors, I really have no time to waste guessing which card your “pea” of relevance is under.
Re-read post 135 by Stultis. It is all spelled out there.
Do you have any idea how antibodies are structured and how the tests work?
Since you cannot do either you have nothing to add here.
Those aren't the only choices. Say you have an old-fashioned balance scale, but the only weight you have is 10 pounds. You could test things all you want, but the only results you'd ever get is "less than 10 pounds" or "more than 10 pounds." If you said an apple and a watermelon produced the same result on the test, you'd be right, and the test would not be in error. But if you then concluded that an apple and a watermelon were identical, you'd be going beyond what the test told you. Do you understand that?
[[Either you can demonstrate your expertize (or even comprehension) in the matter or you can’t.]]
They can’t- all they can offer is yelling about an ‘old test’ while pretendign the resutls are invalid because it’s ‘an old test’ (I get tested for Crohn’s disease using ‘old test proceedures’ al lthe time- but apparently, all the resutls are invalid simpyl because the test proceedures ‘haven’t been updated’ in many years. Those arguign with you will neither show the tests are actually invalid, nor that scant few homological similarities equate to proof for macroevolution (all while ignoring the vast differecnes which compeltely seperate species, and for which macroevolution has no credible answer to explain how htese differences could occure - but meh- I guess ‘the test is old’ is as good a defense as macroevos can mount [ oh, and ‘how many peer review papers has he or she written? Wha... Wha.... Whaaaaaat? Only a few dozen? Pffffft- then he or she isn’t a ‘valid scientist’ and has no business reviewing science] [because apparently only ‘scientists’ are capable of udnerstanding science- not sure why these folks on htis forum withotu degrees are thusly makign arguments for macroevolution, but meh- whatever- double standards are hte norm I guess)
Yep- let’s find and look for similarities’ and claim macroevolution- after all, differences don’t mean squat evidently- Round rocks and oranges must htusly be related’ due to ‘similarities’
oh yeah- let’s not forget that when arguign for macroevolution- to use lot’s of obscure statements- contradicting statements- like ‘looks similar’ then later’ nearly identical’ then claim it’s ‘not sequence identcal’- which is it? Identical? Similar? ‘somewhat the same’? Evo double speak- attempting to wiggle out of obvious errors!
The article does infact state identical- and the ‘explanation’ that attempts to dismiss it is deceitful (and yet they have the nuts to accuse you of beign deceitful?)
How to defend Macroevolution= Spin Spin Spin!
You should inform yourself before making such statements, do you understand that?
“radioimmunoassay
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 | The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2008 Columbia University Press. (Hide copyright information) Copyright
radioimmunoassay (RIA), highly sensitive laboratory technique used to measure minute amounts of substances including antigens, hormones, and drugs present in the body. The substance or antigen (a foreign substance in the body that causes antibody production) to be measured is injected into an animal, causing it to produce antibodies. Serum containing the antibodies is withdrawn and treated with a radioactive antigen and later with a nonradioactive antigen. Measurements of the amount of radioactivity are then used to determine the amount of antigen present. The technique was developed by Solomon Berson and Rosalyn Yalow . Yalow was awarded the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for her work.”
NOTICE THE WORDS “HIGHLY SENSITIVE”, “MINUTE AMOUNTS”.
Do a search of “IMMUNOCYTOCHEMICAL TEST” and you'll see it is being used today and is hardly “OUTDATED” OR INACCURATE.
Say you eat that watermelon and apple while you think about the above.
Old tests? When was the carbon 14 test invented? 1949! Why that was (cipher, cipher, cipher) 60 years ago!
“Either you can demonstrate your expertize (or even comprehension) in the matter or you can’t.”
I’d like to know how the search button became inoperative on so many keyboards in the basement of Darwinism’s Temple.
I’m not surprised you missed the point. What I was getting at was the fact that you’ve set up a false dichotomy: the test was either in error or not. You’re overlooking the option that the test may not have been appropriate for the conclusion Pitman was trying to draw.
That excerpt, for example, supports the idea that the test is very good at detecting whether a substance is present. That doesn’t mean it’s any good at telling you what the substance is, or that better tests haven’t been developed in the past 30 years.
I’m just talking about flaws in your reasoning, not in your knowledge.
“various species were similar” at one point and
“amphibian hypothalamic LH-RH
is identical with the mammalian decapeptide” at another, obviously NOT the same.
Darwinism man speak with forked tongue!
[[A misreading of the results of those “OUTDATED’” tests helps with the spin too.]]
Yep- the hwoel argument was based aroudn somethign pitman never even stated- the argument claimed pitman claimed hte reference stated that two species were ‘identical’ however, this was nothign more than spin and insinuation=- pitman referred to the article to show that the species were different, and no mention of the article stating the claim of identical.
So the argument was based on MISREPRESENTING what pitman was even statign to begin with, then it just became more andm ore of a spin to try to back that first accusation against pitman up- Will we see a retraction of the accusaiton of inneptitude on pitman’s part ro mthose that made the argument? Of course not- they’ll simply keep spinning on the silly argument that pitman ‘misrepresented’ an article when he infact made no such statement that was beign accredited to him- forked toungue is right- my goodness- the article pitman referenced was showing exactly what he was claiming- here’s what he actuially said, and hte article he poitned to backs this up “However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH.” The article infact DOES refute the claims made by common design advocates because it htrows the whole phologentic tree into chaos- pitman never ocne stated that hte article he referenced claiemd identical systems- but by golly, those attackign pitman’s character are certainly goign to do everythign in their power- even misrepresenting him, to try to discredit him
Again- think we’ll see a retraction? I’m not holding my breath
We have shown that immunoreactive amphibian hypothalamic LH-RH is identical with the mammalian decapeptide in chromatographic properties and in its interaction with region-specific LH-RH antisera, while immunoreactive LH-RHs from avian, reptilian, and piscine hypothalami are structurally different (King and Millar, 1979, 1980, 1981). These structural differences of LH-RH-like peptides in submammalian vertebrates have not been determined
Here’s what Stiltis claimed to begi nthe whoel ‘argument’ off with:
“First off (and there doubtless many problems with this which I, as a laymen, am not catching, but I caught enough that it reeks...) the article Pitman cites does NOT say, “mammalian and amphibian “luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone” (LHRH) is identical.” It said (underline added): “
Nope- the article certainly doesn’t state that AND pitman NEVER stated that the article did-
It woudl appear that those who are accusign you of reading comprehension problems are the ones with the problem (unless they are just tryign to be itnentionally deceitful?)
Stultis hten goes o nto state:
“An immunoreaction assay, using only four elements against an unsequenced hormone, can’t possibly prove it’s “identical” with anything.”
And hwo is makign that claim that it can? Certainly NOT pitman- but don’t let stop him- Stultis is now claiming Pitman MUST have been insinuating that that test could- after reading what Pitman was stating however, it is CLEAR that he was not infact statign that and was stating that the tests infact throw the commonly held hypothesis into chaos
I guess when soem wish to ‘refute’ someone, it’s alright to insinuate they are sayign somethign they are NOT when defending macroevolution? And he says ‘pitman was beign deceitful’? Cripes!
I guess hte only way for htem to defend macroevolution is to simply make crap up about issues- NOWHERE was ptiman makign hte claim that hte article was pointing out two species systems’ processes as beign identical- the hwoel ‘argument’ was based on MISREPRESENTING what pitman was statign and why he was statign it!
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.