|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 12:33:23 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
True, True, Unrelated to evolution!
Did you get to the end of my post? Can you answer my question:
quote:
If the earth is old, then (macro)evolution is at least a plausible hypothesis.
Can you agree to that statement? If not, why not?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 12:33:50 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3148
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Natural selection and microevolution are unrelated to evolution? Yes, any 5th grader can figure that out. The former two occur regularly, the latter has never occurred.
quote:
Well, it was nice chatting with you. Actually, you answered only one of my six questions. Not much of a chat. 
quote:
Have a nice day. You too, HHV5. And God bless!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 12:45:37 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
There's also natural selection. quote:
Surely that's microevolution, at least. True, True, Unrelated to evolution!
Do horses and donkey's share a common ancestor? If yes, continue with the next questions.
Are the genetic differences between horses and donkeys due to microevolutionary changes? If yes, continue.
Can microevolutionary changes result in a genetic barrier between divergent populations? Yes/No.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 12:56:49 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 183
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
If you want me to continue discussion you'd better get a better handle on things.
Your answers are way off and demonstrate a serious lack of understanding. About 98% of what you state is based on evolutionary presumptions and speculations which you obviously consider worthy evidence in the place of empirical evidence - which has been absent in all your assertions. And you strangely state "Only a creationist would avoid the obvious consequences of claiming that DNA can not change." And just where did I or any creationist say that?
Or this, "we share hundreds of thousands of ERV's in the same genomic position as chimps. The only lucid explanation for this is a common ancestor." The only lucid explanation?! It is normal that two species sharing very similar morphological traits would have a lot genetic similarity as well. More hand-waving on your side. They are 2 separate species and design explains both the similarities and the differences. Evo just says, "looks like this therefore it came from this", (which as I keep pointing out is an inherent logical fallacy) with the underlying assumption that chimps preceded humans. Check this for example. Oops.
Then - "For someone who likes to accuse others of speculation you sure like to indulge in it. " You didn't look it up did you!! I knew you wouldn't. You don't appear to be interested in truth or reason - only in protecting your materialist world-view.
"I have heard of those things, but I have yet to see you offer these probabilities with your math and the assumptions that the probabilities are based on. When will we see those? " You already did in the transitional thread.
Whatever.
I'm forced to agree with Sir Fred Hoyle :quote:
"Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always, with intense conviction. Although the new believers had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4) My bold. A keenly succint and accurate portrayal by Sir Hoyle.
You're grasp of the principles of logic is lacking and your primary science text book and source of misinformation - Talkorigins - is way out of date and way off, not to mention downright dishonest.
I don't care to indulge you any further here.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 1:14:58 PM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
"Or this, "we share hundreds of thousands of ERV's in the same genomic position as chimps. The only lucid explanation for this is a common ancestor." The only lucid explanation?! It is normal that two species sharing very similar morphological traits would have a lot genetic similarity as well. More hand-waving on your side. They are 2 separate species and design explains both the similarities and the differences."
- If any similarity/difference is attributed to "God created them that way", then there's really no way to discuss anything.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 1:17:29 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Your answers are way off and demonstrate a serious lack of understanding. About 98% of what you state is based on evolutionary presumptions and speculations which you obviously consider worthy evidence in the place of empirical evidence - which has been absent in all your assertions. And you strangely state "Only a creationist would avoid the obvious consequences of claiming that DNA can not change." And just where did I or any creationist say that?
The 98% is not based on evolutionary presumptions. It is based on the facts. The human and chimp genomes have been sequenced, and those genomes have been compared. If 2% of DNA can be changed without being deleterious then why is this a problem for evolution? There are also 6 billion unique human genomes. If DNA has to be as specific as creationists claim then how can there be 6 billion different genomes that all result in a human?
quote:
Or this, "we share hundreds of thousands of ERV's in the same genomic position as chimps. The only lucid explanation for this is a common ancestor." The only lucid explanation?!
You also share hundreds of thousands of ERV's with your parents and siblings. Do you really think that this is because each of you were independently infected hundreds of thousands of times and that the retroviruses independently inserted in the same positions every time? The reason that you share hundreds of thousands of ERV's with your family is due to common ancestry. The multiple ERV's in your family are due to a single insertion in your common ancestor. The same is true when the comparison is done between species.
quote:
It is normal that two species sharing very similar morphological traits would have a lot genetic similarity as well.
Why? Couldn't an omnipotent deity produce two species that are very similar but do not have the same codon usage?
quote:
More hand-waving on your side. They are 2 separate species and design explains both the similarities and the differences.
Similarities are due to common ancestry and differences are due to accumulated mutations and selection that occurred once the species diverged. This produces a nested hierarchy, the same pattern of homology that is seen in living species, in the genomes of living species, and in the morphology of fossil species.
quote:
Evo just says, "looks like this therefore it came from this", (which as I keep pointing out is an inherent logical fallacy) with the underlying assumption that chimps preceded humans. Check this for example. Oops.
Chimps did not precede humans. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor. According to evolution, if this is true then we should find fossils in the fossil record that have a mix of human and chimp characteristics. This prediction is found to be true. Those fossils are considered transitional. It is not a matter of "this came from this". It is a matter of predictions. IF this came from this THEN we should see this. Those predictions are found to be true.
quote:
Then - "For someone who likes to accuse others of speculation you sure like to indulge in it. " You didn't look it up did you!! I knew you wouldn't. You don't appear to be interested in truth or reason - only in protecting your materialist world-view.
I couldn't find the article online, so I doubt that you have read it. What it is getting at is that Australopithecinces are not in our direct lineage. This is very true, they probably are not. However, they have retained features that one one expect from a species in our lineage, the transitional features that one would expect to see if humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
quote:
"I have heard of those things, but I have yet to see you offer these probabilities with your math and the assumptions that the probabilities are based on. When will we see those? " You already did in the transitional thread.
Post #?
quote:
I'm forced to agree with Sir Fred Hoyle :quote:
"Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always, with intense conviction. Although the new believers had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4) My bold. A keenly succint and accurate portrayal by Sir Hoyle.
You're grasp of the principles of logic is lacking and your primary science text book and source of misinformation - Talkorigins - is way out of date and way off, not to mention downright dishonest.
Evolution does not state that a rabbit emerged from a primordial soup. This is a strawman argument. Fred Hoyle should have stuck to physics.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Genetic Information - 7/25/2008 1:19:19 PM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Actually, you answered only one of my six questions. Not much of a chat.
quote:
Have a nice day. You too, HHV5. And God bless!
I wasn't aware there was a list of questions for me to answer.
All well.
God bless you too!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
