[_ Old Earth _] Creation and Evolution Presentation

[Vaccine]

What do we do when some people say evolution is a fact and others say it is a lie? There are many scientists that will say its a fact and have a lot of evidence to support their claim Darwin was right. There are some scientists that say it's a lie and have evidence to support their claimDarwin was wrong. Shall we appeal to a higher authority? Or perhaps would the quality of the evidence be weighed? I wonder what the piles of evidence will look like 30 years from now. ;)

Two scientists meet to have a discussion. One scientist brings a bag of assumptions, the other brings a bag of facts. It's obvious which bag is bigger (endless assumptions) and which scientist would run out of material first (facts). But does burying someone with endless assumptions really accomplishing anything? Perhaps we should let the facts speak to us.

For example: A Dinosaur fossil with soft tissue was discovered. http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=46413

It's assumed they went extinct millions of years ago. Soft tissue doesn't last more than a few thousand years. Why would anyone ignore what is known about decomposition in exchange for assumptions?

Another example:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.-Stephen Jay Gould Harvard professor, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.

MOST leave the record looking much the same as when they entered. If Gould had any commitment to truth he would have acknowledged Darwinian evolution did not happen, instead he exposed his commitment to . Should we ignore this fact and bury it with assumptions?

"Non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.
By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004)."
​

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/
​

ENCODE discovered 80% of the genome has biological function. ID was right, evolution was wrong.

I was reading about Olaus Roemer, and his boss Jean-Dominique Cassini. Seems Olaus was hired to be assistant but made a discovery, that light does not travel instantaneously. His boss who held to the established belief light was instantaneous, predicted when IO would come from behind Jupiter, and Olaus predicted his boss was wrong by 10 minutes. Turns out Olaus was correct and his boss was wrong. As we know light is not instantaneous. Cassini never accepted that idea, in spite of the evidence he held to the established belief.

Dr Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has spent almost 30 years doing everything she can to keep creationism and Intelligent Design Theory from being taught in public schools. In spite of her efforts, she says 20-25% of biology teachers, not math teachers, not english teachers, but 20-25% of biology teachers believe in Intelligent Design Theory. She didn't say where she got that figure. I couldn't find anything on teachers, but gallop polls for the public indicate a sharp decline in theistic evolution, a sharp rise in creationism, and flat line for evolution.
There's a reason 20-25% of biology teachers reject evolution in favor of intelligent design, it makes a lot of sense. It makes sense language in DNA and a rotary motor driving bacteria flagellum are the products of intelligence, not nature. Unless one thinks nature does have intelligence. [MENTION=96193]Doulos Iesou[/MENTION] the genetic code is a well documented immaterial event. Guanine, Cytosine, adenine, and thymine are not information, any more than ink is information. It's the sequence of those chemicals that reveals the immaterial code, just as the arrangement of the ink on paper expresses an immaterial concept. I would invite you to examine the evidence again. Take a critical look at what is fact and what is assumed. New discoveries in genetics and microbiology are transforming biology for the better. Darwin's theory is breaking down, just as he said it would, in the light of irreducible complexity.

 

[felix]

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, Felix. In each pair, one chromosome comes from the mother and the other from the father. Twenty-two of the pairs are the same in both men and women, and these are called autosomes. The twenty-third pair consists of the sex chromosomes, so called because they are the primary factor in determining the gender of a child.

The sex chromosomes are known as the X and Y-chromosomes. Females have two X chromosomes (XX) and males have one X and one Y chromosome (XY). The Y chromosome is about one-third the size of the X chromosome. A sperm, the reproductive cell produced by the male, can carry either one X or one Y chromosome. Basic biology, right? Okay. Let's continue.


An egg, the reproductive cell produced by the female, can carry only the X chromosome.

Before you can explain whether Mary’s DNA was passed onto Jesus, you should understand a little more about DNA. Mitochondria are DNA passed only thru the female on from one generation to the next. Do your research on the term and what it means. Confirm that without mitochondria there is no life. Then come back and let's talk further.

Jesus is basically referred as second Adam. There was no "Mary's egg" to begin with. Only Word of God who became Flesh.
Word of God Himself is life, He does not require any mitochondria to become Flesh.

 

[Vaccine]

There is the genetic evidence, which shows that humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than to an other organisms. And we know that works, because we can check it by organisms of known descent.

Nobody knows that, it's a conclusion. And a conclusion usually based on a small cherry picked portion of the genomes.
One study says we're closer to chimps, another says we're closer to orangutans:
In a study published online in Genome Research, in coordination with the publication of the orangutan genome sequence, scientists have presented the surprising finding that although orangutans and humans are more distantly related, some regions of our genomes are more alike than those of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126131548.htm


But those studies are wrought with issues:
Since However, greater frequency of phylogenetic inconsistencies or unresolved nodes occur in these subset trees, compared with the entire concatenated data set.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110317172047.htm

Comparative genomic analyses of primates offer considerable potential to define and understand the processes that mold, shape, and transform the human genome. However, primate taxonomy is both complex and controversial, with marginal unifying consensus of the evolutionary hierarchy of extant primate species
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1001342

.....marginal unifying consensus. If there were a common ancestor that should have turned out better.


"For example, 2000 gene sequences common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes were compared.1 Theoretically, the results should have constructed a tree that revealed evolutionary relationships. However, different genes aligned in different sequence among the 6 types of life forms. No tree is possible in such an analysis. Ultimately, there appears to be no consistent relationship among these animals. Evolution is undone."

http://blueprintsforliving.com/molecular-phylogeny-prove-evolution-false/

 

[Vaccine]

Jesus is basically referred as second Adam. There was no "Mary's egg" to begin with. Only Word of God who became Flesh.
Word of God Himself is life, He does not require any mitochondria to become Flesh.

I got hung up on where Adam got his mitochondria, but if God can raise up descendants of Abraham from stones, I figure giving Adam mitochondria wasn't an issue.
Isn't Jesus lineage important for prophecy? Can you elaborate?

 

[felix]

Jesus is basically referred as second Adam. There was no "Mary's egg" to begin with. Only Word of God who became Flesh.
Word of God Himself is life, He does not require any mitochondria to become Flesh.

I got hung up on where Adam got his mitochondria, but if God can raise up descendants of Abraham from stones, I figure giving Adam mitochondria wasn't an issue.
Isn't Jesus lineage important for prophecy? Can you elaborate?

The seed is basically child or offspring. There are several ways one can become a child.

• Birth (Gen 4:1)
• Adoption (Gal 4:5)
• Given (Isa 9:6)
• Taken (Exod 2:10)

Christ is given to us as a gift by God for our salvation of Mankind.

 

[Sparkey]

He does not require any mitochondria to become Flesh.

:toofunny

 

[Sparkey]

I got hung up on where Adam got his mitochondria, but if God can raise up descendants of Abraham from stones, I figure giving Adam mitochondria wasn't an issue.

Adam did not come from a womb. If he did? Then there is no longer any doubt about Evolution. I simply don't see it that way. Did God breath life into his nostril?

[Gen 1:27 YLT] 27 And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.

Ask God what He did. He is not a man that He may lie.

 

[Sparkey]

It's kinda a big deal for Prophecy Jesus lineage to have been traced. I never thought being fully human and fully God would have any conflict with scripture or biology.

It is a big deal. The Promise may be traced from Eve and through David. Consider just how many Scriptures (ie. Ruth) that have been given toward establishing the very central point of his linage with such certainty. :yes

When we study the essence of what AntiChrist teaching is it boils down to Jesus coming in flesh. If he was not in flesh his death could not be substituted for ours. God told flesh that death was the penalty for transgression.

Hebrews 2:14 Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He (Jesus) Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.
New American Standard

Romans 5:12,15-17, 19, 21 Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, no one being able to stop it or to escape its power because all men sinned... many died through one man's falling away (his lapse, his offense)… For the sentence following the trespass of one man brought condemnation… because of one man's trespass (lapse, offense) death reigned through that one… by one man's disobedience (failing to hear, heedlessness, and carelessness) the many were constituted sinners… sin has reigned in death.
AMPLIFIED

Genesis 3:14-15 And the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, you are cursed above all domestic animals and above every wild living thing of the field; upon your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust and what it contains all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring (seed) and her Offspring (seed); He will bruise and tread your head underfoot, and you will lie in wait and bruise His heel.”
AMPLIFIED

Galatians 3:13-16 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-- for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"-- 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.
New American Standard

Ephesians 1:10 He planned for the maturity of the times and the climax of the ages to unify all things and head them up and consummate them in Christ, both things in heaven and things on the earth.
AMPLIFIED

Galatians 4:4 But when the proper time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born subject to the regulations of the Law.
AMPLIFIED

John 5:26-27, 30 “For even as the Father has life in Himself and is self-existent, so He has given to the son to have life in himself and be self-existent. 27 And He has given him authority and granted him power to execute (exercise, practice) judgment because He is a Son of man… 5:30 I am able to do nothing from myself independently, of my own accord--but only as I am taught by God and as I get His orders. Even as I hear, I judge I decide as I am bidden to decide. As the voice comes to Me, so I give a decision, and My judgment is right (just, righteous), because I do not seek or consult My own will; I have no desire to do what is pleasing to Myself, My own aim, My own purpose, but only the will and pleasure of the Father Who sent Me.”
AMPLIFIED

Jesus is a man who came in the flesh. After his disciples got to know him? They realized the truth that those who saw him saw God. This does not mean that Jesus was not tempted nor does it mean that he did not die. That man died on a cross. Power had been given to him and death could not hold him. This is the essence of his promise to us: Death shall not prevail against us.

If Jesus did not come in the flesh (he did) we, of all men, are most miserable.

 

[Barbarian]

Nobody knows that, it's a conclusion. And a conclusion usually based on a small cherry picked portion of the genomes.

No, that's wrong. And the first evidence from genetics was a whole-genome DNA hybridization test. And we know that all of those tests are valid; they work on organisms of known descent.

One study says we're closer to chimps, another says we're closer to orangutans:

No. All studies, including the one you cite, indicate chimps.

In a study published online in Genome Research, in coordination with the publication of the orangutan genome sequence, scientists have presented the surprising finding that although orangutans and humans are more distantly related, some regions of our genomes are more alike than those of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0126131548.htm

But those studies are wrought with issues:

We do not yet have perfectly complete evidence, but the idea that if we don't know everything, we can't know anything, is obviously wrong. If there are some inconsistencies in the historical record about the precise location of George Washington during the Battle of Trenton, that does not indicate that George Washington did not cross the Delaware River with his army and surprise the Hessian forces at Trenton. Indeed, like those bits of DNA, even the inconsistencies in the battle reports are evidence that he was there.

Since However, greater frequency of phylogenetic inconsistencies or unresolved nodes occur in these subset trees, compared with the entire concatenated data set.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0317172047.htm

In other words, the whole data set is compelling, but there are a few places we haven't figured out. And this, the creationist says, means if we don't know everything, we don't know anything. Which is obviously hooey.

.....marginal unifying consensus.

With the science just a few decades old. Remarkably, we have a consensus, after a rather short period. When more sequencing is done, it will become stronger and stronger.

If there were a common ancestor that should have turned out better.

It is turning out better. The more we look, the better it gets.

"For example, 2000 gene sequences common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes were compared.1 Theoretically, the results should have constructed a tree that revealed evolutionary relationships. However, different genes aligned in different sequence among the 6 types of life forms. No tree is possible in such an analysis. Ultimately, there appears to be no consistent relationship among these animals. Evolution is undone."
http://blueprintsforliving.com/molec...olution-false/

Because a creationist website says so. Unfortunately, when all sequences are compared, a compelling phylogenetic tree is obvious. Because mutation is random, one expects occasional similarities or differences in DNA strands from chance alone. Your site cherry picked as many of those as possible, and presented them for anyone who didn't know enough to realize how it works.

This is why creationists are often considered dishonest. It's an old game:

Frank T. Awbrey and William M. Thwaites listed Parker's molecules in their
article, "A Closer Look at Some Biochemical Data that 'Support' Creation"
(_Creation/Evolution_ Issue VII, 1982, pp 14-17):

Molecule Nearest Relative to Humans
-------- --------------------------
Fetal Hemoglobin Horse
Tear Enzymes Chicken
Albumin Bullfrog
Blood Antigen A Butterbean
Cholesterol Level Gartersnake
Milk Chemistry Donkey

[NOTE: The current edition of Parker's Creation: The Facts of Life is
a revised edition published in 1994. In that revised edition, this claim for all the molecules listed above has been removed, except for the chicken tear enzyme, lysozyme...Fetal Hemoglobin --
Hemoglobin has four globin molecules, each arranged around
a central iron atom and a porphyrin ring. Human fetal
hemoglobin has two alpha globins and two gamma globins,
each with 146 amino acids. Horses don't have gamma globins.
Chimpanzees do, and it is identical to that of humans.
So creationists conclude that a molecule that doesn't exist
is more similar to a human molecule than is an identical
chimpanzee molecule.
Tear Enzymes --
The enzyme referred to here is lysozyme, which is found in
human milk, tears, leukocytes, etc. Variants exist in
tissues of other species, for example, in chicken egg
whites. Chicken lysozyme differs from human lysozyme by
51 out of 130 amino acids. Chimpanzee lysozyme is identical
to human lysozyme. Either creationists have ignored the
literature or they apparently believe that 51 is less than zero.
Albumin --
Human and chimpanzee albumin differ by six out of 580 amino
acids. Human and bullfrog albumins differ so much that they
don't cross-react in immunological tests.
Blood Antigen A --
This is one of the molecules that determine blood types.
They are called glycoproteins because they have sugars
attached to a protein. Butterbeans contain a sugar
configuration that is similar enough to the glycoprotein
sugar that it can react with antibodies directed against
the A blood type if the butterbean sugar is at a high
concentration. Chimpanzees have blood antigens that are
identical or nearly identical to those of humans. Having
no blood, butterbeans obviously have no blood antigens.
Cholesterol Level --
Cholesterol is a simple lipid (a wax) and its structure
doesn't vary among species. Furthermore, its concentration
can vary several hundredfold in an individual human
depending upon diet and genetic background. Therefore, it
is a useless molecule for determining genetic similarity.
This datum isn't just wrong, it's nonexistent.
Milk Chemistry --
No direct comparison of human and chimpanzee milk chemistry
could be found. However, it was found that human milk
proteins (whey and casein) are much more like macaque milk
than donkey milk. Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are
identical. Even this limited comparison disproves the
creationist claim that the donkey is our nearest relative
based on milk chemistry.
http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/bullfrog.html

But the best of what you're touting here, has to be Duane Gish's bullfrog story:

Dr.
Duane Gish responded:

"If we look at certain proteins, yes man then, it can be assumed
that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things.
But, on the other hand, if you look at certain proteins, you will
find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a
chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll
find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a
chimpanzee."

This was immediately followed by Dr. Doolittle's response, "Oh bullfrog!
I've heard that gibberish before, I have to tell you." This was the first
recorded use of "Bullfrog" that I am aware of. Then Doolittle indicated a
book full of amino acid sequences from thousands of proteins taken from
many hundreds of species and offered Gish all his worldly belongings, a '63
VW and half a house, if Gish could find just one protein in chickens or
bullfrogs that is more closely related to human proteins than chimpanzee
proteins...At the 1983 National Creation Conference, Schadewald confronted Gish in person and asked for his references. Gish insisted that the bullfrog and
chicken proteins were real and promised to send documentation. He never
delivered on that promise...(years of attempts to get Gish to present his evidence later) "In his final remarks, Kitcher demanded that Gish either produce
references for the chicken and bullfrog proteins or admit that they do not exist. Gish ignored the challenge, which apparently disappointed many in the audience who had read my editorial, for Gish's final remarks
were punctuated with sporadic cries of 'Bullfrog!'"
(same source)

 

[felix]

He does not require any mitochondria to become Flesh.

:toofunny

Yes, He does not require any mitocondria to become Flesh. That doesn't mean He became flesh and blood without mitocondria. It means, Mary has no part in the Word of God who is God Himself.

 

[Sparkey]

It means, Mary has no part in the Word of God who is God Himself.

I've heard your take on this before, felix. Enough already, please.

Alternatively, you may back up your assertion that Jesus is some kind of strange flesh, not like any other man, with scripture. That alone is the foundation of what we, as Christians, may firmly stand. I will insist that this particular doctrine of yours is not going to remain in the Christianity and Science forum though. If you'd like to begin a thread about DNA, I'll be happy to join you there. But not here.

~Moderator

 

[Doulos Iesou]

What do we do when some people say evolution is a fact and others say it is a lie? There are many scientists that will say its a fact and have a lot of evidence to support their claim Darwin was right. There are some scientists that say it's a lie and have evidence to support their claimDarwin was wrong. Shall we appeal to a higher authority? Or perhaps would the quality of the evidence be weighed? I wonder what the piles of evidence will look like 30 years from now. ;)

I assure you that pile of evidence is only growing and growing to conclude what we already know.. that evolution happened and that the world is about 4.56 billion years old. I believe it will be so thoroughly demonstrated that teaching anything else in a biology class would be akin to a crime for teaching children outright lies. To me the evidence is really that strong, and I don't base my conclusions off of anomalies like Creationists do.

Two scientists meet to have a discussion. One scientist brings a bag of assumptions, the other brings a bag of facts.

How about the gigantic assumption that Genesis is literal and that scientist MUST fit every single observation they make into that dogma.

It's obvious which bag is bigger (endless assumptions) and which scientist would run out of material first (facts). But does burying someone with endless assumptions really accomplishing anything? Perhaps we should let the facts speak to us.

Here is some for you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

For example: A Dinosaur fossil with soft tissue was discovered. http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=46413

It's assumed they went extinct millions of years ago. Soft tissue doesn't last more than a few thousand years. Why would anyone ignore what is known about decomposition in exchange for assumptions?

See this is just the kind of poor science that I often see from Creationists, it's not building a system of facts, it's grabbing little anomalies to try to attack evolution with. Or grabbing these rare instances (which have plausible alternative explanations) and then using it to confirm their already previously held belief. Fossilization of soft tissue can happen over a long period of time if it is covered in sediment and protected from other animals and the sun, thus isolating it from the normal means of decomposition which then allows it to go through the long process of fossilization. We can then use radiometric dating on these fossils to conclude that they most assuredly are far older than 6,000 years but 68 million years old rather.

Tell me, when bodies are dug up from just several years ago, do they usually have soft tissue on them? No. It requires rare conditions.

Another example:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.-Stephen Jay Gould Harvard professor, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.

We have only to look at the Fossils that we do have, and the species do have directional change. For instance, when we make a distinction between the Homo heidelbergensis and the Homo Erectus we distinguish them as different species, but the Homo heidelbergensis is merely a distinction we make to point out the gradual change hominids of the genus Homo made.

MOST leave the record looking much the same as when they entered. If Gould had any commitment to truth he would have acknowledged Darwinian evolution did not happen, instead he exposed his commitment to . Should we ignore this fact and bury it with assumptions?

So only people who have a commitment to the truth will give up evolution? Wow..

"Non-functionality of “junk DNA†was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.
By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA†were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004)."
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/
ENCODE discovered 80% of the genome has biological function. ID was right, evolution was wrong.

Is this supposed to be compelling evidence?

I was reading about Olaus Roemer, and his boss Jean-Dominique Cassini. Seems Olaus was hired to be assistant but made a discovery, that light does not travel instantaneously. His boss who held to the established belief light was instantaneous, predicted when IO would come from behind Jupiter, and Olaus predicted his boss was wrong by 10 minutes. Turns out Olaus was correct and his boss was wrong. As we know light is not instantaneous. Cassini never accepted that idea, in spite of the evidence he held to the established belief.

Fallacy of the weak analogy.

Dr Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has spent almost 30 years doing everything she can to keep creationism and Intelligent Design Theory from being taught in public schools. In spite of her efforts, she says 20-25% of biology teachers, not math teachers, not english teachers, but 20-25% of biology teachers believe in Intelligent Design Theory. She didn't say where she got that figure. I couldn't find anything on teachers, but gallop polls for the public indicate a sharp decline in theistic evolution, a sharp rise in creationism, and flat line for evolution.

How about some evidence for that 20-25% of biology teachers accepting ID?

Also, this is a prime example of the bandwagon fallacy. "Creationism is on the rise, therefore it is true.."

History has demonstrated people prefer not to believe what is true, but what is ideal for them individually. Many don't like the thought of us being primates, but it doesn't matter what we like, what matters is what is true.

There's a reason 20-25% of biology teachers reject evolution in favor of intelligent design, it makes a lot of sense.

(assuming your statistic is true) there is a reason why 75-80% of biology teachers reject Creationism and ID and embrace Evolution, it makes a lot of sense.

Starting to see how fallacious that kind of argumentation is?

It makes sense language in DNA and a rotary motor driving bacteria flagellum are the products of intelligence, not nature. Unless one thinks nature does have intelligence.

Or it's the product of billions of years of evolution which you then billions of years later look at and marvel at and conclude... "DESIGN!"

@Doulos Iesou the genetic code is a well documented immaterial event. Guanine, Cytosine, adenine, and thymine are not information, any more than ink is information. It's the sequence of those chemicals that reveals the immaterial code, just as the arrangement of the ink on paper expresses an immaterial concept. I would invite you to examine the evidence again. Take a critical look at what is fact and what is assumed. New discoveries in genetics and microbiology are transforming biology for the better. Darwin's theory is breaking down, just as he said it would, in the light of irreducible complexity.

Creationists have been saying stuff like this ever since the theory was first introduced, and it's strength only continues to grow.

I reject ID and Creationism because I am committed to the truth, and therefore cannot embrace something I know for a fact not to be true. I am open to being proven wrong, but all I see is the same propaganda propounded again and again.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

There is zero evidence for having a common ancestor with chimp. The only claimed evidence by evolutionists (which is not an evidence in itself) so far is "presence of chimps and 3 teeth fossils of chimps in Africa" for an entire period of "8 million years".

This common ancestor with chimp story is not based on evidence but based on a belief system called evolution.

This is a fallacy known as the straw man, you claim "this is all you have for evidence," when this is completely false.

For example, say we discovered you may possibly have a long lost brother. How might we discover with assurance that you are related? Well, we would do this by observing and comparing both of your DNA. This is akin to what we do with Chimps and Humans, except taking into account the amount of time we have been separate and we can see what genes we have in common and then of course what makes us different. However, what we can conclude is that chimps are our closest relatives and not only is this apparent in the DNA but it is apparent to anyone who studies and observes chimps.

 

[felix]

There is zero evidence for having a common ancestor with chimp. The only claimed evidence by evolutionists (which is not an evidence in itself) so far is "presence of chimps and 3 teeth fossils of chimps in Africa" for an entire period of "8 million years".

This common ancestor with chimp story is not based on evidence but based on a belief system called evolution.

This is a fallacy known as the straw man, you claim "this is all you have for evidence," when this is completely false.

For example, say we discovered you may possibly have a long lost brother. How might we discover with assurance that you are related? Well, we would do this by observing and comparing both of your DNA. This is akin to what we do with Chimps and Humans, except taking into account the amount of time we have been separate and we can see what genes we have in common and then of course what makes us different. However, what we can conclude is that chimps are our closest relatives and not only is this apparent in the DNA but it is apparent to anyone who studies and observes chimps.

The DNA of long lost brother will be compared with IBD segments (based on SNPs) broken during recombination which can calculate only within 14 to 20 generations and not with genes. The comparison with chimp is not done the same way how people compare for genetic genealogy or close relationship testing.

 

[Vaccine]

I assure you that pile of evidence is only growing and growing to conclude what we already know.. that evolution happened and that the world is about 4.56 billion years old. I believe it will be so thoroughly demonstrated that teaching anything else in a biology class would be akin to a crime for teaching children outright lies. To me the evidence is really that strong, and I don't base my conclusions off of anomalies like Creationists do.

That's kinda disturbing coming from a brother in christ, akin to a crime? I agree, in the past Creationists believed some odd science, but times have changed I hope. We shouldn't lump everyone in one group and dismiss them, what would Jesus do with them? I am only recently a Creationist, I used to hold to billions of years and evolution.

Here is some for you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Unfortunately, hybridization is not evidence of Darwinian evolution. By definition, hybridization only takes place within a species not between them. Shuffling pre-existing genes until we have a reproductively isolated organism is speciation, but not the kind of progress required to support Darwin's theory. We can call hybridization macro-evolution, it's like calling alleles mutations. An allele is a type of mutation but when a child is born with blue eyes from a parents of brown eyes that's hardly evolutionary progress. Same applies to hybridization, horizontal macro-evolution isn't considered progress by scientists.

Many don't like the thought of us being primates, but it doesn't matter what we like, what matters is what is true.

If the only tools we give a bulider are a hammer and saw can he a build a house? Probably. Are there better tools for the job? Absolutely.
Scientists are only given Darwin's theory to explain biology, so naturally biology is only explaned by Darwin's theory. According to the evolution, we are closely related to chimps.
If we examine Chimp insulin and human insulin are they the same? No. Are they similar? yes. But what about pig insuin? It's closer to human insulin than chimp insulin is.
Yet, relaxins of a pig and whale are almost identical.

"Theoretical Limitations of Molecular Phylogenetics and the evolution of Relaxins" Christian Schwabe vol107b, 1974 p171-172.
View attachment 3588

Depending on which gene we look at humans are closer to elephants and distant to armadillos.
Looking at another gene humans are closer to armadillos than elephants.

Analyzing protein sequences humans were paired of closer to chickens, with the crocidile being the next closest.
"Is a Dog More Like Lizard or a Chicken?," Mike Benton New Scientist, vol. 103, August 16, 1984, p. 19.

The cytochrome-C protein in humans and horses differs by 14 amino acids.
Compared to kangaroo's it differs by eight. When the same strand is examined, turtles appear closer to man than to a reptile such as the rattlesnake
"Evolution of Living Organisms",Pierre Paul Grassé 1977, p. 194

In regards to an estimate of human–chimp genome similarity, it is safe to say it is no more than 87%, and possibly as low as 70%. 23% of the human genome shares no immediate genetic ancestry with chimpanzees.

Ebersberger, I. et al. 2007. Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 24 (10): 2266-2276.

By comparison 75% of human genes have some counterpart in nematodes (worms).
"The Great Apes" New Scientist vol 62, p 27. 1999
The similarities with chimps is purely superficial.
Human eyes are all but identical with an Octupus.
These facts, make complete non-sense of the previous held conclusions based on Darwins theory. Should science throw out evolution or genetics?
Armour is made from desiccated pig thyroid, not chimp thyroids, not because chimps are closer copy, but because pig thyroid hormone is. Fertility testing is done on pig eggs because if the similarities.
It seems medicine is based more on genetics than assumptions from evolution. Darwinian evolution is a wholly inadeuate tool for the job, it completely breaks down on the molecular level.

It makes sense language in DNA and a rotary motor driving bacteria flagellum are the products of intelligence, not nature. Unless one thinks nature does have intelligence.

Or it's the product of billions of years of evolution which you then billions of years later look at and marvel at and conclude... "DESIGN!"

Is it reasonable nature can make a language? Or that atoms would self organize into a motor? Time will not fix this issue. Throwning time at this won't make it go away either. Winning a nobel prize is like the scientific cummunity giving a big stamp of approval to their work. Nobel prize winning scientists are now saying aliens made us because the idea nature made these things is unreasonable to them. We, as Christians, should not make light of this "DESIGN!", but rather engage the scientific community to find common ground.

So only people who have a commitment to the truth will give up evolution? Wow..

I see evolution and punctuated equilibrium as a lie, not a crime. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

I reject ID and Creationism because I am committed to the truth, and therefore cannot embrace something I know for a fact not to be true. I am open to being proven wrong, but all I see is the same propaganda propounded again and again.

That's unfortunate.

Another example:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.-Stephen Jay Gould Harvard professor, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.

We have only to look at the Fossils that we do have, and the species do have directional change. For instance, when we make a distinction between the Homo heidelbergensis and the Homo Erectus we distinguish them as different species, but the Homo heidelbergensis is merely a distinction we make to point out the gradual change hominids of the genus Homo made.

Gradual changes is not supported by the evidence. MOST didn't change, so technically that could be considered an exception, not propaganda.

How about the gigantic assumption that Genesis is literal and that scientist MUST fit every single observation they make into that dogma.

I take the observations and see what they support. Gradual changes doesn't fit the observations, common ancestor doesn't fit the observations, etc.

 

[Barbarian]

Felix has been misled on this:


Human Uniqueness Compared to "Great Apes":
Relative Difference
Pascal Gagneux
Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthopogeny
"Humans have 15 different KIR genes encoding receptors specific for the polymorphic determinants of MHC class I molecules (HLA-A, B and C). Chimpanzees have fixed Patr-A, B, and C genes that are orthologous (identical by descent) to human HLA-A, B, C."

 

[Sparkey]

The whole issue of teachings in state run facilities regarding religious beliefs has been settled in a venue other than ours.

Why bring this old saw out?

If the only tools we give a bulider are a hammer and saw can he a build a house? Probably. Are there better tools for the job? Absolutely.

Never-mind. I see it has been answered. I withdraw the question.

 

[Barbarian]

Unfortunately, hybridization is not evidence of Darwinian evolution.

It is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution. Why do you think it wouldn't be?

By definition, hybridization only takes place within a species not between them.

Wrong. There are many, many examples of inter-species hybridization. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Shuffling pre-existing genes until we have a reproductively isolated organism is speciation, but not the kind of progress required to support Darwin's theory.

It is a critical progress toward phylogenesis, since reproductive isolation means that the two lines will increasingly diverge thereafter.

We can call hybridization macro-evolution, it's like calling alleles mutations.

In the sense that mutations are the cause of alleles. Likewise, hybridization sometimes is the cause of speciation.

An allele is a type of mutation

No, an allele is the result of a mutation.

but when a child is born with blue eyes from a parents of brown eyes that's hardly evolutionary progress.

When a man takes a single step, that's hardly a trip to China. I don't see a point, here.

Same applies to hybridization, horizontal macro-evolution isn't considered progress by scientists.

"Progress" is not part of evolutionary theory. What an odd idea.

Scientists are only given Darwin's theory to explain biology,

No one gave us Darwin's theory. He just discovered it. The reason no other theory has seriously challenged his theory is that no other theory can effectively explain the evidence.

so naturally biology is only explaned by Darwin's theory.

So far. Maybe a better one will come along in the future, but it doesn't seem very likely, does it?

According to the evolution, we are closely related to chimps.

Yep. According to molecular biology, anatomy, fossil transitionals, etc.

If we examine Chimp insulin and human insulin are they the same? No. Are they similar? yes. But what about pig insuin? It's closer to human insulin than chimp insulin is.

Couldn't be much. Humans and chimpanzees vary by two amino acids in that relatively small and well-conserved molecule. I would be surprised if eutherian mammals differed by much more than that in any two groups. Remember, SNPs are randomly determined so it's not surprising to find that a small molecule (51 amino acids in humans) shows something like that. It is pretty clear from genetic data that swine insulin would be highly unlikely to be identical to that of humans, but it wouldn't be very improbable to find one or two differences.

Larger molecules, because they have a higher "resolution" show much more information than small ones. It's one of the reasons creationists look for small, conserved molecules. By cherry-picking the data, they can "prove" whatever they want.

Yet, relaxins of a pig and whale are almost identical.

Both being ungulates, that's not a surprise.

Depending on which gene we look at humans are closer to elephants and distant to armadillos.

Let's test that. Pick a few large, conserved molecules, and we'll see how that goes. As I said, cherry-picking smaller molecules can lead to errors, the same way that taking a poll with very few, carefully-selected participants can lead to error.

Looking at another gene humans are closer to armadillos than elephants.

Analyzing protein sequences humans were paired of closer to chickens, with the crocidile being the next closest.
"Is a Dog More Like Lizard or a Chicken?," Mike Benton New Scientist, vol. 103, August 16, 1984, p. 19.

Let's take a look at your data. Benton's article doesn't support your claim. That one comes from a certain Muslim interior decorator. Ever been on that site?

The cytochrome-C protein in humans and horses differs by 14 amino acids. Compared to kangaroo's it differs by eight. When the same strand is examined, turtles appear closer to man than to a reptile such as the rattlesnake

"Evolution of Living Organisms",Pierre Paul Grassé 1977, p. 194

For such a small molecule, with only a few non-conserved sites, it's remarkably accurate. Grasse is wrong, of course, about humans and horses. It's twelve. And turtles, being primitive reptiles, should be closer to humans than they are to snakes, which are highly evolved reptiles.

In regards to an estimate of human–chimp genome similarity, it is safe to say it is no more than 87%, and possibly as low as 70%. 23% of the human genome shares no immediate genetic ancestry with chimpanzees.

About 94% based on the human genome data.

"At the level of indivdual protein sequences, humans are about 97-100% identical to the great apes"
http://cmm.ucsd.edu/varki/varkilab/Publications/B84.pdf

By comparison 75% of human genes have some counterpart in nematodes (worms).

That's about what evolutionary theory would predict. Do you have a point?

The similarities with chimps is purely superficial.

And genetic, as you know, chimps and humans are genetically closer to each other than they are to any other animal. Neurologically, they are much closer, too, sharing language abilities, ability to infer mental states in others, and the ability to deceive.

Human eyes are all but identical with an Octupus.

Nope. You've been really blindsided by that. Mostly, I think by creationists who constantly confuse "looks similar" to "is similar." Human eyes are extensions of endoderm, brain tissue, essentially. Octopus eyes derive from ectoderm, I think (Barbarian checks) yep. And the retina is inverted, relative to ours. So it's genetically, anatomically, and functionally quite different.

These facts

Erroneous suppositions, actually, spiced with a few facts that don't mean what your guy assumed they did.

, make complete non-sense of the previous held conclusions based on Darwins theory.

Surprise.

Should science throw out evolution or genetics?

Fortunately, they agree so well that there isn't a choice to make.

Armour is made from deficated pig thyroid, not chimp thyroids, not because chimps are closer copy, but because pig thyroid hormone is.

It's cheaper than killing chimps. BTW, chimp thyroid works just fine.

Darwinian evolution is a wholly inadeuate tool for the job, it completely breaks down on the molecular level.

See above. Surprise, again.

Time will not fix this issue.

God seems to think otherwise. He made it to work that way.

Throwning time at this won't make it go away either. Does it sound reasonable to you nature can make a language?

It sounds reasonable to me that God is capable of creating a nature that did. Creationists are nervous, contemplating a God that powerful.

Or that atoms would self organize into a motor?

He seems to have preferred to use random mutation and natural selection. Why would that be so offensive?

I see evolution and punctuated equilibrium as a lie, not a crime. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Sounds more like projection.

Gradual changes is not supported by the evidence.

Even Gould admits that while rapid evolution is what the fossil record shows, there transitional forms are "abundant." So you'll find no support in the evidence for that belief.

 

[Vaccine]

But what about pig insuin? It's closer to human insulin than chimp insulin is.

Couldn't be much. Humans and chimpanzees vary by two amino acids in that relatively small and well-conserved molecule. I would be surprised if eutherian mammals differed by much more than that in any two groups. Remember, SNPs are randomly determined so it's not surprising to find that a small molecule (51 amino acids in humans) shows something like that. It is pretty clear from genetic data that swine insulin would be highly unlikely to be identical to that of humans, but it wouldn't be very improbable to find one or two differences.

Downplaying contradictions like this doesn't make them go away. For those who don't know genetics has provided considerable discordance across phylogeny trees for the last 30 years. Pig insulin being closer to human than chimp insulin is is just the tip of the iceberg. A theory that only uses evidence tht supports itself and ignores evidence contrary is akin to someone promoting a doctrine based on scriptures that only support their idea and completely ignoring scriptures to the contrary.

The gene for interleukin-26 gene is only found in humans and chickens, if evolution were true there would be a common ancestor and transitionals. I hope you would reconsider Intelligent Design theory, it takes an open approach to the observations and makes more sense.

It's one of the reasons creationists look for small, conserved molecules. By cherry-picking the data, they can "prove" whatever they want.

..Because a creationist website says so

That one comes from a certain Muslim interior decorator. Ever been on that site?

I provided links for those who were interested.
Science Direct, New Scientist, Academic Press, Molecular Biology and Evolution Oxford Journal were my sources.
When I posted from an article in new scientist involving 2000 genes, you dismissed it as from a creationist site. New scientist is not a creation site and a study involving 2000 genes is not cherry picking.
"Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life",
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

Yet, relaxins of a pig and whale are almost identical.

Both being ungulates, that's not a surprise.

Well they are now, but ungulates used to be only hooved animals. They either had to reject evolution as a failed theory or make a radical change and combine cows, sheep, hippos, goats, etc, with whales and dolphins. So now evolution says a sheep and dolphin are related. There is a better explanation for the genetic information.

Depending on which gene we look at humans are closer to elephants and distant to armadillos.

Let's test that.

If you want to test that all you have to do is click on the picture I posted or this, orthis.
If you click on the picture, you will see the 3 phylogeny trees. There have been many conflicting phylogeny trees produced by genetics, it just isn't common knowledge yet.

The cytochrome-C protein in humans and horses differs by 14 amino acids. Compared to kangaroo's it differs by eight. When the same strand is examined, turtles appear closer to man than to a reptile such as the rattlesnake

For such a small molecule, with only a few non-conserved sites, it's remarkably accurate. Grasse is wrong, of course, about humans and horses. It's twelve. And turtles, being primitive reptiles, should be closer to humans than they are to snakes, which are highly evolved reptiles.

Turtles and snakes are both reptiles, yet turtle's should be closer to humans than they are to snakes? That's contrary to what evolutionists have been teaching bout reptiles and mammals.
And because snakes are highly evolved? Are you suggesting snakes are more evolved than humans and that is why some turtle DNA sequences are closer to humans than snakes?
Downplaying contradictions like this with Darwin's theory doesn't make them go away. I hope you would reconsider taking a more critical approach to Darwin's theory.

About 94% based on the human genome data.
"At the level of indivdual protein sequences, humans are about 97-100% identical to the great apes"

http://cmm.ucsd.edu/varki/varkilab/Publications/B84.pdf

So one study says 97-100% and another says no common ancesrty with chimps for 23% of the genome. Looking at the study that said 97-100%, that study was from 2002 and they didn't have the entire chimp genome sequenced until 2005, so thats invalid. They also cherry picked which parts to compare.
The one I cited was from the Molecular Biology and Evolution Journal, and they said "For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee." The most anyone can honestly claim is 87%. They went on to say this:
…in two-thirds of the cases a genealogy results in which humans and chimpanzees are not each other’s closest genetic relatives. The corresponding genealogies are incongruent with the species tree. In accordance with the experimental evidences, this implies that there is no such thing as a unique evolutionary history of the human genome. Rather, it resembles a patchwork of individual regions following their own genealogy…
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/10/2266.short
Incongruent with the species tree? Resembles a patchwork of individual regions following their OWN genealogy? This from MBE?!? Times are changing, science is realizing evolution only explains changes within a species, not to a species. Maybe genomes following their OWN genealogy makes more sense than pairing a dolphin with a sheep.

"One and a half centuries after Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace outlined our current understanding of evolution, a new scientific era is dawning that enables direct observations of genetic variation. However, pure sequence-based molecular attempts to resolve the basal origin of placental mammals have so far resulted only in apparently conflicting hypotheses."
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/868.abstract

By comparison 75% of human genes have some counterpart in nematodes (worms).

That's about what evolutionary theory would predict. Do you have a point?

Evolution did not predict worms and humans would have 75% of anything in common. My point was evolution is just looking more and more silly in light of molecular phylonegy.

The reason no other theory has seriously challenged his theory is that no other theory can effectively explain the evidence.

After comparing 2000 genes common to that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes Syvanen said:
"Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,"
"Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009).
No other theory is necessary to challenge evolution, a theory that is 50/50 fails all by itself.
This is from pity not sarcasm, but my condolances for any evolutionists out there.
Based on molecular phylonegy, humans have been paired with chickens, Dolphins paired with sheep, sea squirts paired with frogs. You've offered several times to produce a transitional for any two said to be related. In that comparison of 2000 genes Sea squirts were found to be related to frogs, I'd ask you to produce transitionals for those but I don't think any good would come of asking.
View attachment 3592

 

[Sparkey]

Pig insulin being closer to human than chimp insulin

Being a diabetic I've heard of studies like this. They hope to be able to learn to make cheaper (synthetic?) insulin. I don't inject but consider the research useful for this purpose. My sister, also a diabetic, suffered from a wound to the heel of her left foot. They used foreskins that were taken from babies and I joked with her about the "patchwork" material she found under her bruised heel after the repair. Eventually her foot had to be amputated but I still have a lot of appreciation for the science that was used to save her life as well as prolong the comfort of her last remaining years with us. I am convinced that in her case to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

That's just one of the differences that I find in my heart for the various appreciations that I have for both science and for the Bible.