PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Chimp/Genome opposing view

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since I couldn't say it any better myself...

A recent article from the Washington Post had the headline: “New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory.”1 In it, Rick Weiss and David Brown boast about evolution’s “power to predict the unexpected” and how well the theory of evolution stands up to “some tough new tests.” They also marvel at the audacity of the Dover, Pennsylvania, USA school board to question evolution by putting it “on par with ‘alternative’ explanations such as Intelligent Design.”2

Although there are some new evolutionary arguments discussed, the article offers the usual hype that “evolution has been proven” and the creationists should just give up and go home.3

Front and center in the article is the report on the recent sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and the 96% similarity to human DNA. Evolution supporters now insist that the 4% difference came as no surprise and “proves” that humans and apes share a common ancestor in spite of the fact that it is essentially double the difference of previous estimates.4 One would suspect that researchers such as Morris Goodman must have been disappointed. Goodman and his research team had noted much higher similarity between coding DNA from chimps and humans. Indeed, they saw the similarity as so great that the researchers even suggested that chimpanzees should rightfully be placed in the same genus as man.5

In addition, there are numerous significant differences between the chimp and human genomes.6

A new evolution argument based on the chimpanzee genome
Nonetheless a new argument that makes use of the chimpanzee sequence has arisen. Researchers were able to “predict the number of harmful mutations in the chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species’ DNA and the two animals’ population size.” The work was done by Eric Lander and colleagues who confirmed that “a harmful mutation is unlikely to persist if it is serious enough to reduce an individual’s odds of leaving descendants by an amount that is greater than the number one divided by the population of that species.”

Scientists had previously determined the values for mice and are working them out for dogs. As it turns out, dogs have a population number between apes (which are fewer) and mice (which are more numerous) and likewise have an intermediate number of harmful mutations. Exactly why this is such a great victory for evolution is far from clear.

First, such a hypothesis is also completely consistent with a creationist model. The number of harmful mutations (sometimes referred to as “genetic load”) that a population can carry should be proportional to the size of the population and be limited by how deleterious the mutation is. Predicting the number of harmful mutations only demonstrates common features of population genetics, which is a mathematical, operational science accepted by creationists and evolutionists alike. The fact that this can be done using different species does not provide evidence of common ancestry between the different species. It simply demonstrates the role of population size on the amount of genetic load that a population can bear. Since creationists recognize deterioration and mutations since the Fall, there is no uniquely evolutionist prediction here.

Second, predicting the maximum genetic load of a population does not really help with evolution’s greatest obstacle. The important issue is not the number of harmful mutations that can exist in a population but the number of necessary “beneficial” mutations that can become fixed in a population. One would expect that a similar rule applies to beneficial mutations. In other words, for such a beneficial mutation to become fixed in the population, it will have to increase an individual’s fitness. Further, just because an individual has a beneficial mutation for one gene does not mean that it will not have a harmful mutation in another gene.

The same population dynamics that make it difficult to eliminate slightly harmful mutations also make it difficult for beneficial mutations to become present in all members of the population.7 Since any mutation begins in one chromosome in one individual in the whole population, it is believed to take many thousands to millions of generations to become fixed unless it is a massive advantage like resistance to a toxin or diseases.8 In this or other cases, the population must go through a huge population bottleneck (serious decrease in the population size), which then means that it takes many generations to rebuild the population. This also would eliminate other putative evolving genes which have not become fixed (i.e., universal) in the population.

Thus, scientists believe that most mutations that become fixed in the population do so through random genetic drift. Indeed, this is the explanation offered for the majority of the fixed differences between chimpanzees and man in the report on the chimp genome sequence.9 A conclusion from evolution by random genetic drift is that genetic variation is eventually lost in a population as one or the other form of a gene is lost.10 Therefore, both random genetic drift and population bottlenecks severely limit the genetic variation which is the raw material of evolution by natural selection.

Rather than a glowing demonstration of the “power” of evolution, this argument highlights its intrinsic weakness. Moreover, there is no evidence for common ancestry provided from such analysis.

“Junk” DNA: the argument that refuses to die
Weiss and Brown interviewed John West of the Discovery Institute (the leading intelligent design think tank) for their article and asked for examples of “non-obvious, testable predictions made by the theory of Intelligent Design.” West correctly noted an ID prediction that “junk” DNA would be shown to have functions since “an intelligent designer would not fill animals’ genomes with DNA that had no use.” However, the authors appeared unsatisfied with this answer perhaps because it demonstrates that ID could qualify as science. They rebut West with the statement that although “some ‘junk’ DNA has indeed been found to be functional in recent years … more than 90 percent of human DNA still appears to be the flotsam of biological history.” The authors imply that there is 90% of human DNA which is still “junk.” This is completely false.

While only about 1% of human DNA codes for the amino acid sequence of proteins,11 substantially more than 10% has been assigned functions. In addition to the genes, there are stretches of DNA that serve as regulatory regions which help determine when, where and how much of each protein is made. Much of the repeating sequences have functions, including the telomeres that protect the end of chromosomes as well as the satellite DNA at the centromere, which serves as the binding site for the protein complex that separates chromosomes during cell division.12 Other repetitive elements including Alu and L1 are believed to have functions serving as cohesion binding sites and DNA repair respectively. Still more, possibly 30% or more, DNA functions during development.13 Altogether this brings the percent of functional DNA significantly higher. The amount of functional DNA is expected to climb as more and more functions are uncovered.

Giraffes: the myth that refuses to die
In discussing the role of natural selection in evolution, the Washington Post writers used the giraffe as a prime example.

Giraffes do not decide to grow long necks to browse the high branches above the competition. But a four-legged mammal on the savannah once upon a time was endowed with a longer neck than its brother and sisters. It ate better. We call its descendants giraffes.

The giraffe is often used as an example of contrast between Lamarck’s idea of acquired characteristics with Darwin’s natural selection. According to Lamarck, as the giraffe stretched its neck to reach leaves on taller trees, it passed this trait on to its offspring. Darwin’s Origin seemed to accept Lamarck’s idea of inheritance (which we now know to be wrong) to explain the fact that giraffes had a variety of neck lengths. (Today, in the neo-Darwinian view, the reason for variety is ultimately mutation—genetic copying mistakes). But he added the seemingly obvious factor of natural selection. The scenario is that during drought, short-necked giraffes would be selected against which would leave only those with long necks to survive and reproduce.

This classic example of the power of evolution, however, cannot possibly work in the way most people have believed. In a very interesting article about selection and the giraffe,14 Craig Holdrege reviews some very serious challenges to the widely accepted story of the origin of the giraffe’s long neck. Some of the problems include:

If only leaves from the highest branches were available to giraffes for food, then multiple species of browsing and grazing animals including antelope would have been eliminated. This is not the case.

Giraffes with long necks are larger overall and would require more food than the ones that were smaller and had shorter necks.

Male giraffes are typically up to a meter taller than the female giraffes. Baby giraffes of both genders are obviously short until they grow up. If the selection pressure for long necks is so great, it would seem to favor the elimination of the females. More importantly, what do the baby giraffes eat until they grow up? This type of selective pressure would seem to eliminate the offspring.

Giraffes today do not exclusively eat from the high branches. In fact, giraffes often eat at or below shoulder height.

From the perspective of drinking water, giraffes would actually seem to have necks that are too short since it is very awkward for them to bend over to reach the ground. To do so requires that their legs are splayed quite far apart in order for them to bring their head to ground level. Being able to reach water during a drought seems to be more important than reaching high branches for food.

An additional point that was not included in Holdrege’s article is that there is no fossil record demonstrating that giraffes with short necks ever existed.

There is also a problem of new structures being required in addition to the neck lengthening. A very large blood pressure, about double that of a normal mammal, is required to pump blood to the brain when the giraffe is upright. But when the giraffe bends down to drink, this blood pressure would be expected to blow its brains out. However, the giraffe neck has a rete mirabile (Latin for “wonderful net”), a complex network of blood vessels, which helps to equalize the pressure. Giraffe legs also have a thick sheath of skin, like an astronaut’s G-suit, to prevent the high blood pressure from forcing blood to leak through capillaries.

Thus, this classic story of Darwinian evolution is largely myth. In spite of a number of scientific studies documenting the feeding behavior of giraffes and that it is inconsistent with the widely held explanation for the origin of the long neck, this notion persists. Media reports and textbooks which continue to promote it ensure its survival. In addition, there are many other aspects of giraffe biology that are better interpreted within a creationist framework.15

Conclusion
The writer of Ecclesiastes wisely noted, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV). In spite of media hype and exaggeration; regardless of “new analyses” and claims of “tough new tests,” there is still no good evidence to prove “from goo to the zoo” evolution. Upon further inspection, many such claims tend to support a creation model instead.

References and notes
1 Washington Post, Monday, Sept. 26, 2005.
2 Sheppard, P., Defending “design” in Dover (Pennsylvania, USA). The Dover School Board was not putting evolution on par with Intelligent Design. They only wanted a statement read informing students about an ID book that was available in the library. ID was not taught in the classroom at all. Students were only made aware of available resources on it.
3 DeWitt, D.A., Hox Hype: Has macroevolution been proven?
4 DeWitt, D.A., Greater than 98% chimp/human DNA similarity? Not anymore, TJ 17(1):8–10.
5 Wildman, D.E., Uddin, M., Liu, G., Grossman, L.I. and Goodman, M., Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100(12):7181–7188, 2003.
6 DeWitt, D.A., Chimp genome sequence very different from man. A more detailed analysis of the chimp genome study is currently in press in the next issue of TJ.
7 Spetner, L.M., Not By Chance, The Judaica Press, Brooklyn, NY, 1996, 1997. See online review.
8 Remine, W.J., Cost theory and the cost of substitution—a clarification, TJ 19(1):113–125, 2005.
9 The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, “Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome,” Nature 437:69–87, 2005.
10 Futuyma, D.J., Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed., p. 299, 1998.
11 Venter et al., The Sequence of the Human Genome, Science 291:1304–1351.
12 There are numerous articles and reviews about “junk” DNA function in TJ and Q&A: “Vestigial” Organs.
13 Batten, D., No joy for junkies; Sarfati, J., DNA: marvelous messages or mostly mess?
14 Holdrege, C., The Giraffe’s Short Neck, In Context #10, pp. 14–19 (Fall 2003) by The Nature Institute.
15 Hofland, L., Giraffes … animals that stand out in a crowd, Creation 18(4):10–13, 1996.

Decided to paste the whole thing as some of the links in this forum that I have tried to follow before end up being broken.  As I've stated before, scientists have not found anything that creationists didn't already predict to be found and found some things they weren't expecting.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:24 AM on December 2, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A recent article from the Washington Post had the headline: “New Analyses
Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory.”1 In it, Rick Weiss and David Brown
boast about evolution’s “power to predict the unexpected” and how well the theory
of evolution stands up to “some tough new tests.” They also marvel at the audacity
of the Dover, Pennsylvania, USA school board to question evolution by putting it
“on par with ‘alternative’ explanations such as Intelligent Design.”2
Although there are some new evolutionary arguments discussed, the article offers
the usual hype that “evolution has been proven” and the creationists should just
give up and go home.3
Front and center in the article is the report on the recent sequencing of the
chimpanzee genome and the 96% similarity to human DNA. Evolution supporters now
insist that the 4% difference came as no surprise and “proves” that humans and apes
share a common ancestor in spite of the fact that it is essentially double the
difference of previous estimates.4 One would suspect that researchers such as
Morris Goodman must have been disappointed. Goodman and his research team had noted
much higher similarity between coding DNA from chimps and humans. Indeed, they saw
the similarity as so great that the researchers even suggested that chimpanzees
should rightfully be placed in the same genus as man.5

Considering that chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor 6 million years
ago the 4% difference is more than resonable. If we use a 15yr average for each
generation that equates to 800,000 generations of separation 6 million/15*2).  
Perfectly reasonable.
In addition, there are numerous significant differences between the chimp and
human genomes.6

Predictably these differences increase with each animal that is less similar to
humans’.  Gorillas’ genomes are less similar to humans’ than the chimps’ are. Rats’ genomes are
less similar than  gorillas’. Lizards’ are less similar than the rats’. Trout's are less similar than lizards’.  Octupi's are less similar than trout's.
Interestingly, octopi, which have the brain capacity to figure out how to unscrew jar lids and
perform similar amazing feats, possess brains and eyes that while being as complex
as some avian and mammalian brains, are also quite different. Why would a
creator use similar templates to create advanced features on humans and chimps when
he has the power to use a completely different template to create the same advanced
features on certain cephalopods? Evolution can explain this, creationism can't.
A new evolution argument based on the chimpanzee genome:
Nonetheless a new argument that makes use of the chimpanzee sequence has arisen.
Researchers were able to “predict the number of harmful mutations in the chimpanzee
DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species’ DNA and the two
animals’ population size.” The work was done by Eric Lander and colleagues who
confirmed that “a harmful mutation is unlikely to persist if it is serious enough
to reduce an individual’s odds of leaving descendants by an amount that is greater
than the number one divided by the population of that species.”
Scientists had previously determined the values for mice and are working them out
for dogs. As it turns out, dogs have a population number between apes (which are
fewer) and mice (which are more numerous) and likewise have an intermediate number
of harmful mutations. Exactly why this is such a great victory for evolution is far
from clear.
First, such a hypothesis is also completely consistent with a creationist model.
The number of harmful mutations (sometimes referred to as “genetic load”) that a
population can carry should be proportional to the size of the population and be
limited by how deleterious the mutation is. Predicting the number of harmful
mutations only demonstrates common features of population genetics, which is a
mathematical, operational science accepted by creationists and evolutionists alike.
The fact that this can be done using different species does not provide evidence of
common ancestry between the different species. It simply demonstrates the role of
population size on the amount of genetic load that a population can bear. Since
creationists recognize deterioration and mutations since the Fall, there is no
uniquely evolutionist prediction here.

Nooo....These predictions are made using the human genome as a constant with
the idea being that because humans are so similar to the chimps their genomes
would also be similar.  Using this logic, one need only factor in variables like population size to
come up with a model that is predictable for both species.  Further examination of
the chimp genome of course shows the predictions to be true.  Using the author's
logic that posits the determinations are based solely on common features of population
genetics, one should be able to make the same predictions using more dissimilar
organisms--which can easily be proven to be not true.  The bottom line is
that evolution predicts that the more similar two organisms are, the more recent the
shared common ancestor.  Your genome is more similar to your brother's genome than it is
to your cousin's.  Your genome is more similar to your cousin's than it is to an
Inuit's.  Your genome is more similar to an Inuit's than it is to a chimp's.  Your
genome is more similar to a chimp's than it is to a gorilla's.  Evolution predicts
this, creationism doesn't.
Second, predicting the maximum genetic load of a population does not really
help with evolution’s greatest obstacle. The important issue is not the number of
harmful mutations that can exist in a population but the number of necessary
“beneficial” mutations that can become fixed in a population. One would expect that
a similar rule applies to beneficial mutations. In other words, for such a
beneficial mutation to become fixed in the population, it will have to increase an
individual’s fitness. Further, just because an individual has a beneficial mutation
for one gene does not mean that it will not have a harmful mutation in another
gene.
The same population dynamics that make it difficult to eliminate slightly harmful
mutations also make it difficult for beneficial mutations to become present in all
members of the population.7 Since any mutation begins in one chromosome in one
individual in the whole population, it is believed to take many thousands to
millions of generations to become fixed unless it is a massive advantage like
resistance to a toxin or diseases.8 In this or other cases, the population must go
through a huge population bottleneck (serious decrease in the population size),
which then means that it takes many generations to rebuild the population. This
also would eliminate other putative evolving genes which have not become fixed
(i.e., universal) in the population.

The author is trying to forward an argument from ignorance.  He basically lists
factors against a gene becoming fixed in a population without covering any of the
factors that favor a gene becoming fixed in a population.   Since all he had to do
was google "population genetics" to find the information that would clear up his
"dilemma" or a least allow him to make a more balanced presentation, I can only
conclude that he is either willfully ignorant or clueless about the methodology of
20-21st century highschool term-paper  research.

Thus, scientists believe that most mutations that become fixed in the
population do so through random genetic drift. Indeed, this is the explanation
offered for the majority of the fixed differences between chimpanzees and man in
the report on the chimp genome sequence.9 A conclusion from evolution by random
genetic drift is that genetic variation is eventually lost in a population as one
or the other form of a gene is lost.10 Therefore, both random genetic drift and
population bottlenecks severely limit the genetic variation which is the raw
material of evolution by natural selection.
 
Why does the author use the ambiguous term "most" when he applies it to genetic
drift. Why not a reasonable approximation of a ratio? Why no mention of
environmental pressure and its correlation with the selection of phenotypes in a
population? What about a natural selection? What about the interaction of
environmental pressures, natural selection and genetic drift?
Rather than a glowing demonstration of the “power” of evolution, this
argument highlights its intrinsic weakness. Moreover, there is no evidence for
common ancestry provided from such analysis.

No shyt sherlock. Of course no biologist with a rudimentary understanding of
population genetics would forword such an argument without including other factors like natural selection. Without appeals to ignorance and strawman arguments, creationists would have no arguments.  Oh wait...They also love their false dichotomy arguments!!!
“Junk” DNA: the argument that refuses to die
Weiss and Brown interviewed John West of the Discovery Institute (the leading
intelligent design think tank) for their article and asked for examples of
“non-obvious, testable predictions made by the theory of Intelligent Design.” West
correctly noted an ID prediction that “junk” DNA would be shown to have functions
since “an intelligent designer would not fill animals’ genomes with DNA that had no
use.” However, the authors appeared unsatisfied with this answer perhaps because it
demonstrates that ID could qualify as science. They rebut West with the statement
that although “some ‘junk’ DNA has indeed been found to be functional in recent
years … more than 90 percent of human DNA still appears to be the flotsam of
biological history.” The authors imply that there is 90% of human DNA which is
still “junk.” This is completely false.
While only about 1% of human DNA codes for the amino acid sequence of proteins,11
substantially more than 10% has been assigned functions. In addition to the genes,
there are stretches of DNA that serve as regulatory regions which help determine
when, where and how much of each protein is made. Much of the repeating sequences
have functions, including the telomeres that protect the end of chromosomes as well
as the satellite DNA at the centromere, which serves as the binding site for the
protein complex that separates chromosomes during cell division.12 Other repetitive
elements including Alu and L1 are believed to have functions serving as cohesion
binding sites and DNA repair respectively. Still more, possibly 30% or more, DNA
functions during development.13 Altogether this brings the percent of functional
DNA significantly higher. The amount of functional DNA is expected to climb as more
and more functions are uncovered.

Ok first the guy says that an intelligent designer would not fill an organism's
genome with DNA that had no use. He then he proceeds to account for 11% of the DNA
and adds "possibly" 30% more that can be accounted for.  All he can say for the
remaining 59% is that it might be accounted for as more and more functions are
uncovered (uncovered by creationists no doubt--).
Isn't this exactly the type of reasoning that creationists rail against when they
take pot-shots against perceived holes in the fossil record?  Talk about
hyppocrites.  Also, how would the author explain the 130 billion base pairs in the
marbled lungfish genome? The human genome only has 3.1 billion base pairs. How do
creationist's explain this disparity?
I could go on but I think I've shown that this guy is not trying to present a balanced critique against the theory of evolution.  Like the majority of creationists who write articles like this, he is only interested in presenting a one-sided propoganda piece chock-full of logical fallacies misinformation and glaring omissions. Like so many creationists, he clearly is not interested in presenting the truth.  How sad for him and how sad for his religion.

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 1:39 PM on December 6, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:24 AM on December 2, 2005 :

An additional point that was not included in Holdrege’s article is that there is no fossil record demonstrating that giraffes with short necks ever existed.


Wrong.  Actually there is more evidence for shortnecked species than long-necked.

Griaffidae through time

One species of short-necked still exists.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:03 PM on December 6, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I could go on but I think I've shown that this guy is not trying to present a balanced critique against the theory of evolution.

And the evolutionist is?  How many posts on this forum (by evolutionists) have you seen that list both sides of every argument they present?  What was the word you used?  Oh yes, hypocrite.

Considering that chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor 6 million years
ago the 4% difference is more than resonable. If we use a 15yr average for each
generation that equates to 800,000 generations of separation 6 million/15*2).  
Perfectly reasonable.


If it was so reasonable, why then was it greater than predicted?  

Predictably these differences increase with each animal that is less similar to
humans’.  Gorillas’ genomes are less similar to humans’ than the chimps’ are. Rats’ genomes are
less similar than  gorillas’. Lizards’ are less similar than the rats’. Trout's are less similar than lizards’.  Octupi's are less similar than trout's.
Interestingly, octopi, which have the brain capacity to figure out how to unscrew jar lids and
perform similar amazing feats, possess brains and eyes that while being as complex
as some avian and mammalian brains, are also quite different. Why would a
creator use similar templates to create advanced features on humans and chimps when
he has the power to use a completely different template to create the same advanced
features on certain cephalopods? Evolution can explain this, creationism can't.


Creationism doesn't try to explain what God was thinking when he determined this.  The problem with your argument is two-fold.  1)  You assume the relationship between the species by their genes and then use their genes to prove your assumption.  2) If evolution is a natural process then the assumption would be that your cephalopods WOULD have the same advanced features as the laws of science would act upon all creatures equally.  If we all evolved from the same muck, evolution should mean we should all be the same as we all (from the beginning) faced the same environment.

Your genome is more similar to an Inuit's than it is to a chimp's.  Your
genome is more similar to a chimp's than it is to a gorilla's.  Evolution predicts
this, creationism doesn't.


And, exactly, how did evolution predict this in the first place?  Again, they predicted that creatures with the most likenesses would have the most closely related genes.  Well duh!

The author is trying to forward an argument from ignorance.  He basically lists
factors against a gene becoming fixed in a population without covering any of the
factors that favor a gene becoming fixed in a population.   Since all he had to do
was google "population genetics" to find the information that would clear up his
"dilemma" or a least allow him to make a more balanced presentation, I can only
conclude that he is either willfully ignorant or clueless about the methodology of
20-21st century highschool term-paper  research.


I've read this multiple times now and I still don't see exactly how you are refuting his point.?.?.

Why does the author use the ambiguous term "most" when he applies it to genetic
drift.


Which term do you prefer?  If anyone has the exact ration that he is looking for, please feel free to post it and tell us where you found it.  Thanks.

No shyt sherlock. Of course no biologist with a rudimentary understanding of
population genetics would forword such an argument without including other factors like natural selection. Without appeals to ignorance and strawman arguments, creationists would have no arguments.  Oh wait...They also love their false dichotomy arguments!!!


Vulgarity not withstanding... you seem to be validating his point.  Although I have to wonder to who's (whom's?) ignorance you think he is appealing.  I've yet to find this strawman to which you attest either.  Lastly, he provided no false dichotomy.  Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word correctly.  At no point does he say that his argument disproves evolution.  Perhaps you are inferring more than what was implied.

Sinc,
  Ed


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:16 PM on December 6, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wrong.  Actually there is more evidence for shortnecked species than long-necked.

Griaffidae through time

One species of short-necked still exists.


From Indiana.edu website The okapi is the only known living relative of the giraffe...  A chimp may be a relative of a gorilla, but it is NOT a gorilla.    




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:31 PM on December 6, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And the evolutionist is?  How many posts on this forum (by evolutionists) have you seen that list both sides of every argument they present?  What was the word you used?  Oh yes, hypocrite.


Please spare me the self righteous indignation.  The gentleman who wrote the article, David A. Dewitt, is the director for the Center of Creation Studies at Liberty University. It is obvious that he was writing it for a more formal medium than Internet message boards. The article is displayed prominently on the AIG website. If you can find a scientific site that willfully avoids the facts to forward and "evolutionist agenda" in a manner similar to that which Mr. Dewitt uses to forward his creationist agenda then please pate the link.  

If it was so reasonable, why then was it greater than predicted?


Uhm...Because that's the way science works...New imformation allows science to be flexible.  A better question would be, "Why should the 4% difference matter if it can easily fit a model where two genomes of 3 billion base pairs each are separated by 800,000 generations?"  

Creationism doesn't try to explain what God was thinking when he determined this.


So what does creationism try to explain?  How is it scientifically relevent?  Are you here to promote the scientific merits of creationism or just take potshots at evolution?

The problem with your argument is two-fold.  1)  You assume the relationship between the species by their genes and then use their genes to prove your assumption.


NOOOO...Please don't put words in my posts.  I posit that chimps and humans are similar based on their homologies, behavior, and other similarities like an inablility to produce their own vitamin C.  The genetic record confirms this.



2) If evolution is a natural process then the assumption would be that your cephalopods WOULD have the same advanced features as the laws of science would act upon all creatures equally.  If we all evolved from the same muck, evolution should mean we should all be the same as we all (from the beginning) faced the same environment.


Huh?...What generally accepted definition of evolution makes the claims you are making? How about cephalopods branched off long before chordates gained a notochord? How about cephalopods evolved in a marine envirmonment and mammals evolved in a terrestrial environment.

And, exactly, how did evolution predict this in the first place?  Again, they predicted that creatures with the most likenesses would have the most closely related genes.  Well duh!


Now you are being silly.  Evolution predicted that chimps and humans might share a common ancestor for precisely the reason I gave above (and then some) way before scientists knew what DNA was let alone what it did. The knowlege that has been gained from genetics in the last 50 years confirms what evolution has predicted.

I've read this multiple times now and I still don't see exactly how you are refuting his point.?.?.

I've shown where he shows a bias by ommitting information that would change is conclusions.  I have shown that he formulates a bad argument when he tries to debunk the prediction of harmful genes in the chimp's DNA using human DNA.

Which term do you prefer?  If anyone has the exact ration that he is looking for, please feel free to post it and tell us where you found it.  Thanks.


Do you understand the difference between 50.1% and 99%?  Huh?  Then hopefully you can understand where I'm coming from.


Vulgarity not withstanding...


Enough with the self-rigteous indignity already...My rant was directed at the author of the article who as a college professor should know better than to write such biased drivel.


you seem to be validating his point.

Really? Please elaborate.

Although I have to wonder to who's (whom's?) ignorance you think he is appealing.  I've yet to find this strawman to which you attest either.

He argued against an explanation of genetic drift as it applies to establishing a fixed gene or marker in a population, that no biologist who understands the subject would use.  He used a strawman.

Lastly, he provided no false dichotomy.  Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word correctly.


Uhm...Yes he did

"If only leaves from the highest branches were available to giraffes for food, then multiple species of browsing and grazing animals including antelope would have been eliminated. This is not the case."

Would only leaves at the highest branches have to be avialable or giraffes to evolve a long neck?  Could they have not evolved their necks and taken advantage of an the unexploited leaves on the high branches while the low branch leaves remained to be exploited by all the low leaf competitors?

Now what were you asking me about the false dichotomy?

At no point does he say that his argument disproves evolution.  Perhaps you are inferring more than what was implied.


No...The implication of what he is trying to say is clear.  What is also clear is you don't really have a clue about what he is trying to say.  Either that or you are being intellectually dishonest.

Sinc,
 fred

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 3:29 PM on December 6, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How very gnostic of you.  Anyone who doesn't understand what you are saying is being intellectually dishonest.  Anyone mind sharing a help of self-righteousness?  And who said I was being indignant?

How about cephalopods branched off long before chordates gained a notochord? How about cephalopods evolved in a marine envirmonment and mammals evolved in a terrestrial environment.

Precisely.  According to evolution, two identical animals (at one point or another) under the exact same conditions grew into two different species.  Yet they had the exact forces at work on them.  Therefore it can not be according to natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever.  Evolution, at its very core, says we all evolved from the same matter.  Follow every single species back far enough and you'll find a common ancestor.  Some just decided to be a juniper.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:15 PM on December 6, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How very gnostic of you.  Anyone who doesn't understand what you are saying is being intellectually dishonest.


You made the claim that David Dewitt was not trying to disprove evolution with this article.  For you to make this assertion defies reasonableness. Maybe he didn't spell it out but the implication is there with all his clumsy half-baked arguments.  

Anyone mind sharing a help of self-righteousness?


Huh? What are you trying to say?

And who said I was being indignant?


It is apparent that you are being overly sensitive about an article that you didn't even write.  It was a poorly written piece...Get over it.

Precisely.  According to evolution, two identical animals (at one point or another) under the exact same conditions grew into two different species.


Huh? Now you are either making stuff up or being idiotic.  What about the part where the two populations are separated and begin to experience different environmental pressures and opportunities?  Huh?

they had the exact forces at work on them.


Huh...Where are you getting this from? Do you think Wooly Mammoths evolved under the exact same conditions that Asian elephants evolved under?

Therefore it can not be according to natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever.


Of course not by the definition of evolution that you are using.  But then no right-minded person who has a basic understanding of the theory of evolution would use your definition.


Evolution, at its very core, says we all evolved from the same matter.  Follow every single species back far enough and you'll find a common ancestor.  Some just decided to be a juniper.


It is obvious that you lack even a rudimentary understanding of the theory of evolution. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting these ridiculous assertions about what you think it means.  I suggest you try learning more about the theory of evolution before you pass anymore judgement on what you think it means.  

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you make claims like, "...As I've stated before, scientists have not found anything that creationists didn't already predict to be found and found some things they weren't expecting..."?

When it comes to the theory of evolution you don't know what you are talking about...And I think that you know this.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 7:12 PM on December 6, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So then, it is your assertion that evolution does NOT claim that all living creatures evolved from single cell organisms (which themselves were somehow brought to life from inert matter) that once lived in the oceans?  You claim that there were multiple organisms of different types originally that evolved in different places under different circumstances requiring different sustenance and with different predators and difficulties.  You are correct.  I had no idea that this was what is currently being taught by evolutionists.  I appear to be out of the loop.  I also believe that you have a skewed definition of the term indignant.  I'm not upset in the least.  I thought we were having a discussion here.  At no point have I been upset or resorted to cussing or calling you idiotic.  I haven't resorted to using vague terms or innuendo.  Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.  In which case you are forgiven.

Sinc,
  Ed


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:45 AM on December 7, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So then, it is your assertion that evolution does NOT claim that all living creatures evolved from single cell organisms (which themselves were somehow brought to life from inert matter) that once lived in the oceans?


You are confusing the study of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution.  Evolution is simply a change in frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.  For example, If we determine that a trait is determined by the inheritance of a gene with two alleles--"A" and "a".  When the parent generation has 95% "A" and 5% "a" and the offspring generation has 85% "A" and 15% "a", we have an occurance of evolution between the generations.  From this example we can see that the entire population's gene pool has evolved towards the direction of a higher frequency of the "a" allele--this means that it was not just the offspring who inherited the "a" allele who evolved but the entire population.

You claim that there were multiple organisms of different types originally that evolved in different places under different circumstances requiring different sustenance and with different predators and difficulties.


Nooo, What I am saying is that you can have a population with members that undergo separation and isolation---most likely because some sort of physical barrier is formed like a lava flow.  Once separated the two populations experience different evironmental pressures and opportunities. Evolution in the separated populations can occurr as a result any combination of the processes I listed below.
1.   recombination          
2.   mutation                
3.   genetic drift            
4.   non-random mating
5.   natural selection
6.   gene flow

You are correct. I had no idea that this was what is currently being taught by evolutionists.  I appear to be out of the loop.


No offense, but the ideas that you posted on what evolution is are definitely out of the scientific loop.

I also believe that you have a skewed definition of the term indignant.  I'm not upset in the least.


In the opening salvo of your response to my post you made the claim that the posts of "evolutionists" on this board are unbalanced and alluded that I was being hypocritical. This I believe established an indignant tone for the rest of your post.  Keep in mind that when I made characterized the author and creationists in general as hypocritical, I supported my claim with evidence. Also, as I pointed out in a subsequent post, your characterization was based on a comparison of the internet posts of "evolutionists" with a formal article written by a creationist. Any reasonable person knows that internet posts are not held to the same standards as published articles.

I thought we were having a discussion here.  At no point have I been upset or resorted to cussing or calling you idiotic.


Ok maybe idiotic was unfounded. However, if the post I was refering to was not idiotic, it was definitely ignorant. As for "cussing", Please...If it makes you feel better, next time I'll say "No doodoo Dick Tracy."

I haven't resorted to using vague terms or innuendo.Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.


Did I accuse you of this or are you just pointing this out for the sake of pointing it out?  

In which case you are forgiven.


I can't think of anything that I've done that requires your forgiveness but if it makes you feel better I'll accept it.


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:24 AM on December 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Front and center in the article is the report on the recent sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and the 96% similarity to human DNA. Evolution supporters now insist that the 4% difference came as no surprise and “proves” that humans and apes share a common ancestor in spite of the fact that it is essentially double the difference of previous estimates.4 One would suspect that researchers such as Morris Goodman must have been disappointed. Goodman and his research team had noted much higher similarity between coding DNA from chimps and humans. Indeed, they saw the similarity as so great that the researchers even suggested that chimpanzees should rightfully be placed in the same genus as man.5

I don't understand your point, chimpanzees are still the most genetically similar animal to man, this was predicted by the theory of evolution, where do your sources refute this point?  From here:
HumanChimp
"At the DNA level, the human and chimpanzee genomes are almost 99% identical at the DNA bases where the two genomes align to each other. By taking into account the insertions and deletions that have occurred in each species since their divergence from a common ancestor ~5 to 6 million years ago, they still share 96% of their sequence. At the protein level, 29% of proteins have the identical sequence and the average protein has accumulated just one human-specific amino-acid change. To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between human and chimpanzee is approximately 10 times less than the number of differences found between the previously sequenced genomes of mouse and rat. The results provide a strong support for Darwin's 1871 conclusion that humanity's closest relatives are the African apes; it is an example of a testable prediction about evolution – made even before the discovery of DNA's role in heredity — that is confirmed by experiment."

In addition, there are numerous significant differences between the chimp and human genomes.6

Yes there are differences, which explains how chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor and why they are different.  From the same source as above:
"Comparing the human and chimp genomes reveals how different regions of the genome change over time. By comparing the patterns of variation within the human population to that seen between human and chimp, we can identify regions of the human genome that have unusual patterns of variation. This is often an indication of recent selection for a trait that confers an advantage to its host. "

So these differences show us how we evolved differently from the chimpanzee.  From here:
HumanChimpII
"An earlier study of a British family with an inherited, severe deficit in speech discovered the cause of the disorder -- an altered form of FOXP2.  "It turns out chimps have the same (genetic) sequence as that family with the speech deficit," Waterston said. Comparing the human and chimp genomes, he said, shows that the speech-friendly form of FOXP2 really took hold in humans some 150,000 years ago.  "That gene went through a selective sweep," said Evan Eichler, a co-author and top genome scientist who recently joined Waterston at the UW. That's genome-speak, Eichler explained, for saying that those humans who got the chatty form of FOXP2 went on a reproductive binge and overwhelmed those who remained genetically at a loss for words."

So yes, there are differences, differences explained by evolution.

First, such a hypothesis is also completely consistent with a creationist model.

What is the creationist model?!?  There isn't one!  

Further, just because an individual has a beneficial mutation for one gene does not mean that it will not have a harmful mutation in another gene.

Doesn't mean it will either...If the beneficial mutation still gives it a slight edge in reproductive success, the harmful gene will eventually be eliminated in sucessive generations, thats how natural selection works.

The same population dynamics that make it difficult to eliminate slightly harmful mutations also make it difficult for beneficial mutations to become present in all members of the population.7 Since any mutation begins in one chromosome in one individual in the whole population, it is believed to take many thousands to millions of generations to become fixed unless it is a massive advantage like resistance to a toxin or diseases.8

I don't follow the point, beneficial and harmful are relative terms depending on the environment.  A relatively small mutation that is harmful in one niche could allow part of the population to exploit a new niche, thereby being a beneficial mutation in this new environment.  The above statement shows a lack of understanding of natural selection.

In this or other cases, the population must go through a huge population bottleneck (serious decrease in the population size), which then means that it takes many generations to rebuild the population. This also would eliminate other putative evolving genes which have not become fixed (i.e., universal) in the population.

Not if the population split and lived in 2 different environments, subject to different natural selection criteria.

Thus, scientists believe that most mutations that become fixed in the population do so through random genetic drift. Indeed, this is the explanation offered for the majority of the fixed differences between chimpanzees and man in the report on the chimp genome sequence.

Simply not true!  From here:
SelectiveSweep
"Using the comparison of the chimpanzee and human genomes as a reference, a scan of the human genome for unusual patterns of genetic variation within the human population reveals regions of recent (up to 250,000 years ago) 'selective sweeps'. Selective sweeps occur when a variation arises in a population and is so advantageous that it sweeps through the population within a few hundred generations to become the 'normal' genotype. At least six regions in the human genome have strong signatures of a sweep associated with positive selection. Follow up studies have been launched to pinpoint the cause of this selection. Interestingly, one of these regions contains more than 50 genes, while another contains no known genes — a so-called "gene desert" — but which has been associated with obesity in previous studies. A seventh region with moderately strong signals contains both the FOXP2 and CFTR genes. FOXP2 has been implicated in the emergence of speech in humans, while CFTR – the cause of cystic fibrosis when mutated – is thought to be a target of positive selection in European populations."

So the major differences in human and chimpanzee evolution are not thought to be caused by genetic drift but by positive selection of advantageous traits, natural selection.  Your source is absolutely wrong.
Look up selective sweep.

If only leaves from the highest branches were available to giraffes for food, then multiple species of browsing and grazing animals including antelope would have been eliminated. This is not the case.

Glaring error here, a mutation that gave the giraffe a longer neck and allowed it to graze on leaves higher up isn't contingent on the lower vegetation drying up.  With a longer neck, the giraffe could exploit a niche in the environment that the other grazing animals could not.  It is effectively in a new environment because it isn't competing with the other grazers, they can both co exist.  Evolution doesn't say that once a portion of a population evolves, the parent population must die off.  The source you quote doesn't understand evolution.

Giraffes with long necks are larger overall and would require more food than the ones that were smaller and had shorter necks.

And they could get this food by feeding on a food source the shorter necked grazers could not, while leaving the lower lieing vegetation to their shorter necked bretheren.

Male giraffes are typically up to a meter taller than the female giraffes. Baby giraffes of both genders are obviously short until they grow up. If the selection pressure for long necks is so great, it would seem to favor the elimination of the females. More importantly, what do the baby giraffes eat until they grow up? This type of selective pressure would seem to eliminate the offspring.

Ridiculous!  The giraffes are already in a different niche than the other grazers, with many levels for feeding.  You don't just have leaves at 4 feet, then leaves at 18 feet, you have a range of vegetation in between.   A female giraffe would have just as much to eat at her meter shorter height as the male and it would still be out of reach of the other grazers.
And the comment about baby giraffes not having enough to eat?!?!  Come on, you're not really buying THAT are you?  Gee, baby lions can't compete with their adult counterparts in hunting, I guess they would just be selected against.  You don't see the absurdity in this arguement?!?  Mammals produce milk to feed their young, by the time the baby giraffe is ready to eat leaves, it's taller than the other grazers, it can eat leaves that grow at it's height.  

Giraffes today do not exclusively eat from the high branches. In fact, giraffes often eat at or below shoulder height.

But it's their main source of food.  What's the point here?

From the perspective of drinking water, giraffes would actually seem to have necks that are too short since it is very awkward for them to bend over to reach the ground. To do so requires that their legs are splayed quite far apart in order for them to bring their head to ground level. Being able to reach water during a drought seems to be more important than reaching high branches for food.

This source doesn't know much about giraffes either.  Why does being able to reach water in a drought seem to be more important that reaching food in higher branches?  Especially when giraffes get most of their moisture from leaves and can go for over a month without water.  

An additional point that was not included in Holdrege’s article is that there is no fossil record demonstrating that giraffes with short necks ever existed.

Wrong.  From here:
Giraffe
"Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe."

And from here:
GiraffeII

"The following table gives a partial list of giraffes and their relatives as they appear in the fossil record. The table is arranged, like the fossil record, with the most recent fossils at the top.

To summarize: we begin with a deer-like creature, Eumeryx, in the Oligocene. In the Miocene we see creatures such as Samotherium which look much like a modern okapi --- or like a giraffe with a short neck. In the Upper Miocene we se animals such as Honanotherium, which are intermediate in form between short-necked giraffids and the very long neck of the modern giraffe."

So fossils of short necked giraffes exist and intermediate necked giraffes exist.  Once again, your sources are wrong.

There is also a problem of new structures being required in addition to the neck lengthening. A very large blood pressure, about double that of a normal mammal, is required to pump blood to the brain when the giraffe is upright.

And evolution is a much better explaination than "Goddidit".

Thus, this classic story of Darwinian evolution is largely myth.

No, your claims are all wrong, demonstratably so.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:33 AM on December 9, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And the evolutionist is?  How many posts on this forum (by evolutionists) have you seen that list both sides of every argument they present?  What was the word you used?  Oh yes, hypocrite.

Not Hypocritical, objective.  Science goes where the data leads, creationists have already determined the outcome and must fit all available evidence into this outcome or their faith is undermined.

If it was so reasonable, why then was it greater than predicted?

Because that's how science works.  It's still pretty darn close to the original prediction and the point still stands, chimps and humans are the closet genetically similar organisms, just as evolution predicted.

Creationism doesn't try to explain what God was thinking when he determined this.

Then creationism isn't science and is useless as far as practical applications go.

The problem with your argument is two-fold.  1)  You assume the relationship between the species by their genes and then use their genes to prove your assumption.

No, we hypothesized the relationship between organisms based on comparative anatomy, the best explaination of common structures that have the same flaws, the same jury rigged appearance instead of well thought out design, is evolution.  There is no reason other than evolution that the nested hierarchy established by comparative anatomy should mirror exactly the nested hierarchy established by genetics besides evolution.  Two different lines of evidence converge exactly in support of the theory of evolution.

2) If evolution is a natural process then the assumption would be that your cephalopods WOULD have the same advanced features as the laws of science would act upon all creatures equally.  If we all evolved from the same muck, evolution should mean we should all be the same as we all (from the beginning) faced the same environment.

How do you figure?  The same environment?  No way, the first organisms where in a different environment when they floated an inch above their contemporaries, when they some of them drifted toward a flat rock formation and some of them drifted toward a jagged rock formation, there must have been literally millions of different environments in that primordial sea.  and each different environment affected those original organisms differently.

And, exactly, how did evolution predict this in the first place?  Again, they predicted that creatures with the most likenesses would have the most closely related genes.  Well duh!

You don't understand, we can now see why genes changed, when they changed, we're starting to understand the exact mechanisms of mutation.  And these changes reflect what we see in the fossil record.  No sign of the hand of God.  Why on earth would God have to give similar organisms similar genetic structures?!?

I've read this multiple times now and I still don't see exactly how you are refuting his point.?.?.

The guy doesn't understand population genetics, that is obvious.

Precisely.  According to evolution, two identical animals (at one point or another) under the exact same conditions grew into two different species.  Yet they had the exact forces at work on them.  Therefore it can not be according to natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever.  Evolution, at its very core, says we all evolved from the same matter.  Follow every single species back far enough and you'll find a common ancestor.  Some just decided to be a juniper.

Untrue, you still don't understand evolution!  There are no identical animals!  They all have minor variations in their genetic structure!  Humans on average have 50 - 100 neutral mutations in their genetic structure.  

Really, how can you argue against evolution if you have no idea how it works?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:02 PM on December 9, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is also a problem of new structures being required in addition to the neck lengthening. A very large blood pressure, about double that of a normal mammal, is required to pump blood to the brain when the giraffe is upright.

And evolution is a much better explaination than "Goddidit".


I'll lay this out in layman's terms.  
1) Giraffe's have long necks.
2) Giraffe's have about double the blood pressure as in normal mammals.
3) Giraffe's have special one-way valves in their neck so that they may lower their head below shoulder level (otherwise the blood pressure would be too great).
4) Giraffe's have elastic blood vessels at the base of their brain to allow for the sudden differences in pressure.
5) They have a very large heart muscle to create the necessary blood pressure.

For an "evolving" giraffe to "grow" a longer neck he would have to develop the larger heart which would kill him if he didn't "grow" the necessary vessels and valves to regulate the heart.  All these items must have "evolved" at the same time.  I know we're not going to argue that he evolved a large heart first and the blood pressure shot his head up and his neck grew in to fill the void.  Which takes more faith?  That all of these things "evolved" simultaneously or that they were created by an intelligence that knew all these things would be required.  I just don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:03 PM on December 9, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll lay this out in layman's terms.  
1) Giraffe's have long necks.
2) Giraffe's have about double the blood pressure as in normal mammals.
3) Giraffe's have special one-way valves in their neck so that they may lower their

head below shoulder level (otherwise the blood pressure would be too great).
4) Giraffe's have elastic blood vessels at the base of their brain to allow for the

sudden differences in pressure.
5) They have a very large heart muscle to create the necessary blood pressure.

For an "evolving" giraffe to "grow" a longer neck he would have to develop the

larger heart which would kill him if he didn't "grow" the necessary vessels and

valves to regulate the heart.  All these items must have "evolved" at the same

time.  I know we're not going to argue that he evolved a large heart first and the

blood pressure shot his head up and his neck grew in to fill the void.  Which takes

more faith?  That all of these things "evolved" simultaneously or that they were

created by an intelligence that knew all these things would be required.  I just

don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.


Ed, every part of the giraffe system evolved gradually. As the neck grew longer the heart grew bigger. Never all at once or even in a couple of hundred generations. There are millions of years and probably hundreds of thousands of generations separating a Giraffe from the Okapi. To clarify this let's look at the Chimp and Human genomes.  As the article that you cut and pasted pointed out, the chimp and human genomes differ by only 4%. Considering that the evidence we have suggests that humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago the 4% difference is totally reasonable. For this discussion let's say that on average a new generation of chimps and humans occurs every 15 years. If we divide 6 million by 15 we get 400,000.  This means that humans would have to go back 400,000 generations to get to the chimp/Human common ancestor and chimps would have to do the same.  In other words, there are 800,000 generations separating the 4% difference in humans and chimps. If we divide 800,000 by 4 percent we get 0.0005. This is a very small number Ed that could easily be less than the amount that you differ genetically from your father or son (I use this last example only as a point of reference since we both know that evolution effects populations and not individuals).

Ed, thus far you have been unable to present any convincing arguments for creationism.  You have been unable to present a creationist model that explains the diversification of species scientifically and all your objections have been answered with reasonable scientific answers that fit within the parameters allowed by all the available scientific data.  In my opinion this leaves you with two choices.  Your first choice is to study and learn about biology, genetics and the theory of evolution so that you might gain a better understanding of the subject that would enable you to debate more effectively.  Your second choice would be to stop defending your faith and Lord with clumsy attempts at disproving a solidly entrenched scientific theory that you are ignorant about(No offense--We are all ignorant about many things).  You only bring scorn and ridicule when  you do this.  I know plenty of Evangelicals who spend a lot of their time helping drug addicts, homeless people and other less fortunate types. I recently read about a large convention of evangelical preachers who were gathered to think of ways to help sufferers of AIDs. This is the type of behavior that makes secular guys like myself want to defend Christianity or donate time and money to the cause if not learn more about Jesus.  This is the type of behavior that Jesus was talking about when he gave his Sermon on the Mount.  And this is the type of behavior that will only bring scorn and ridicule to the unreasonble and irrational individuals who question it.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 2:25 PM on December 9, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The 0.0005 difference I listed in the previous post should be 0.0005.

Sorry.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 2:31 PM on December 9, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmmm. Let's try it this way...0.0005 should have 7 zeros between the decimal point and the 5 instead of 3.

For some reason the application won't let me post the 7 zeros.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 2:35 PM on December 9, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not following your math... If you are saying 8000 / .04 then you get 2000.  If you are saying 8000 / 4% then you get 25.  In any case, using your .0005, what exactly is it?  What exactly does that number suppose to represent?

Additionally, what information are you using to determine that chimps and humans split 6 million years ago.  Studies on eoliths and pseudoliths have (using "accepted" dating techniques) found tools, arrowheads, etc that appear to be 20 to 30 million years old.  Who do scientists believe made these?

As for the giraffes, very few scientists hold to the idea that the elongated neck came about from the "stretching for food" theory promoted by Darwin.  The most popular theory currently en vogue is "sexual selection".  In either case we have fossils of short necked "giraffes" and we have long necked giraffes.  We have no fossils of (and remember, there's been "millions" of years of evolution at work here) mid-necked giraffes (yes, made that term up).  What we have is fossils that resemble giraffes and we have giraffes.  Everything in the middle is speculation.

As for the "findings" of the evolutionists in question I quote Jean-Baptiste Lamark, noted evolutionist pre-dating even Darwin himself.  "In order to obtain a certain result, You must want to obtain precisely that result; if you want to obtain a certain result, you will obtain it .... I need only such people as will obtain the results I need." I'm sure they found what they were looking for.

Sidenote:  I find it quite funny that you mention these evangelists who are trying to help AIDs sufferers as being such an example of Christianity.  Setting aside for the moment all of the people who got AIDs from blood transfusions before we started testing for it... how many people, following Christianity as taught by Jesus and the Apostles would have gotten AIDs.  Obviously, through birth or occassional transfusions, some people have gotten AIDs that did nothing to acquire it (although that is probably not true of the people they aquired it from).  However, if this planet adhered to the precepts of Christianity, AIDs would've wiped itself out by now.  

Take all the suffering in our world today.  Remove from it all the suffering that would end if all humans practiced Christianity as taught in the Bible.  How much suffering would be left?  Murder?  gone.  Rape?  gone.  Thievery?  gone.  Lying?   gone.  STDs?  gone.  Gossiping?   gone.   Cheating?   gone.   Hunger?  wouldn't be surprised if it were gone  (take into account how many people have more money than they can wisely spend AND all the food that farmers are paid NOT to produce just here in the United States).  Take all the money currently spent on soldiers, police, lawyers, politicians, pork (political, not pigs ) and spend it on healthcare and education.  How many diseases would've been cured by now?  How many people with diseases for which cures have been found would've been able to get the treatment needed?  Christianity needs no greater advocate than looking at those who do not follow it.

"[Critics of Christian missionaries] forget, or will not remember, that human sacrifices and the power of an idolatrous priesthood - a system of profligacy unparalleled... infanticide a consequence of that system - bloody wars, where the conquerors spared neither women nor children - that all these have been abolished; and that dishonesty, intemperance, and licentiousness have been greatly reduced by the introduction of Christianity." - Charles Darwin



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:20 PM on December 9, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And you're right, apparently it doesn't like putting more than three zeroes in a row.  :P

math was eight hundred thousand divided by .04 (4/100ths) is twenty million.  and eight hundred thousand divided by four percent is twenty five.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:59 PM on December 9, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 12:03 PM on December 9, 2005 :

I'll lay this out in layman's terms.  
1) Giraffe's have long necks.


And they have the same number of vertebrae in their necks that you do.


2) Giraffe's have about double the blood pressure as in normal mammals.


About 260/160, certainly a BIG red flag for your doctor, but people walk around with this blood pressure.

3) Giraffe's have special one-way valves in their neck so that they may lower their head below shoulder level (otherwise the blood pressure would be too great).


So do you.  
Gray's Anatomy - Jugular Vein
It is provided with two pairs of valves, the lower pair being placed at its entrance into the subclavian vein, the upper in most cases about 4 cm. above the clavicle. The portion of vein between the two sets of valves is often dilated, and is termed the sinus. These valves do not prevent the regurgitation of the blood, or the passage of injection from below upward.

4) Giraffe's have elastic blood vessels at the base of their brain to allow for the sudden differences in pressure.


Do you think your blood vessels are rigid?

If you are referring to the rete mirabile, can you name an ungulate without one?

5) They have a very large heart muscle to create the necessary blood pressure.


People with high blood pressure often have enlarged hearts.

For an "evolving" giraffe to "grow" a longer neck he would have to develop the larger heart which would kill him if he didn't "grow" the necessary vessels and valves to regulate the heart. All these items must have "evolved" at the same time.  I know we're not going to argue that he evolved a large heart first and the blood pressure shot his head up and his neck grew in to fill the void.  


Please name one new anatomical structure in a giraffe.

Which takes more faith?  That all of these things "evolved" simultaneously or that they were created by an intelligence that knew all these things would be required.  I just don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.  


Why do you need faith?  Why not study some physiology, palaeontology, and genetics and look at the evidence instead?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:38 PM on December 9, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where have I been? The whole time, I was forgetting my Anatomy class in which we discussed those very same valves that all veins have. And they aren't always to maintain blood pressure. Veins are traffic-ways of blood. If they get 'jammed,' you're screwed. The valves prevent blood from going in the opposite direction it's supposed to, since the skeletal muscle contractions and other movement that normally push blood through veins (not enough pressure from heart to do likewise) might otherwise push the blood backward toward the capillaries.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/9/2005 at 6:59 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:55 PM on December 9, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As for the giraffes, very few scientists hold to the idea that the elongated neck came about from the "stretching for food" theory promoted by Darwin.

I don't understand, you're confusing Lamarck and Darwin.  Darwin did NOT promote the idea that the giraffe's neck elongated due to it stretching for food, Lamarck proposed that idea, and Lamarck was proven wrong.  Darwin said that nature would select those with the longer necks because they could reach higher food sources.  Totally different.  

The most popular theory currently en vogue is "sexual selection".

Fine, show us the flaws in using sexual selection for the evolution of the giraffes long neck.  Looks highly plausible for me and is supported by all the current evidence.  And sexual selection is a mechanism of evolution.

In either case we have fossils of short necked "giraffes" and we have long necked giraffes.  We have no fossils of (and remember, there's been "millions" of years of evolution at work here) mid-necked giraffes (yes, made that term up).  What we have is fossils that resemble giraffes and we have giraffes.  Everything in the middle is speculation.

First you say "An additional point that was not included in Holdrege’s article is that there is no fossil record demonstrating that giraffes with short necks ever existed."  I then showed that there are fossils of short necked giraffes, Palaeotragus and Samotherium, but I also listed Honanotherium which is also in the fossil record and IS a mid-necked giraffe, just what you say doesn't exist!  Do you ever bother to do ANY research?!?  

As for the "findings" of the evolutionists in question I quote Jean-Baptiste Lamark, noted evolutionist pre-dating even Darwin himself.  "In order to obtain a certain result, You must want to obtain precisely that result; if you want to obtain a certain result, you will obtain it .... I need only such people as will obtain the results I need." I'm sure they found what they were looking for.

No, Lamarck was not an evolutionist, noted or otherwise, his theory of use and disuse was conclusively falsified.  And since Lamarck was proven wrong, your point is invalid, Lamarck may have wanted his results and he may have surrounded himself with peopole to obtain the results he wanted, but in the end his results were proven wrong, the scientific method goes where the data leads, and even though Lamrack wanted his theory to be true, it was conclusively disproven, despite his desires.  So once again, your point is invalid, it's not what a scientist wants, but what the facts support.

Christianity needs no greater advocate than looking at those who do not follow
it.


Tell that to the millions murdered by Christians in the name of God.  From here:
ChristianAtrocities
"In 777 , Charlemagne, a devout Christian, after conquering the Saxon rebels, gave them a choice between baptism and execution. When they refused to convert, he had 4500 of them beheaded in one morning. "

"In the fourth century, Emporor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That is more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans during the well known 1st century "Christians to the lions" persecutions."

" English Catholics suffered horribly under Protestant regimes. American historian William T. Walsh writes: "In Britain, 30,000 went to the stake for witchcraft; in Protestant Germany, the figure was 100,000" (, p. 275). In Scotland, too, alleged witches were cruelly put to death. Karl Keating quotes from the : "It is well-known that belief in the justice of punishing heresy with death was so common among the 16th-century Reformers-Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and their adherents-that we may say their toleration began where their power ended" (C.E., s.v., "Inquisition," 8:35). "

Doesn't the Bible say suffer not a witch to live?  yeah, those who weren't christians had it pretty bad until the pious, bible fearing christians decided they didn't deserve to live if they weren't christians...




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:48 PM on December 9, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not following your math... If you are saying 8000 / .04 then you get 2000.  If you are saying 8000 / 4% then you get 25.  In any case, using your .0005, what exactly is it?  What exactly does that number suppose to represent?

Chimps and Humans split from a common ancestor 6 million years ago.Today, a comparison of their respective genomes reveals a difference of about 4%. To calculate if the 4% difference is feasible for a time frame of 6 million years is quite simple...

1. We must first divide 6 million by an acceptable amount that we will use to represent 1 generation for both species.  I used 15 but You can use 10 or 20 if you'd like.   6million/15 = 400,000. We now know that there are 400,000 generations separating humans and chimps from a chimp/human ancestor.

2. Since Chimps and humans evolved independantly  or in separate "directions", we double the 400,000.  This gives us 800,000 which is the amount of generations separating humans and chimps (using a 6 million year time frame and a generation lengh of 15 years).

3. We now want to calculate the average % of change necessary for each generation to arrive at two genomes that differ by 4%.  To do this we divide 4% or .04 by 800,000 which gives us a O.OOO5=>This number could easily be less than the difference between your genome and your fathers...Comprende?...Capeche?..Verstehen?

Additionally, what information are you using to determine that chimps and humans split 6 million years ago.  Studies on eoliths and pseudoliths have (using "accepted" dating techniques) found tools, arrowheads, etc that appear to be 20 to 30 million years old.  Who do scientists believe made these?


The current figure of 6 million years is based on calculations using the molecular clock or molecular clock hypothesis (MCH). this hypotheses deduces elapsed time from the number of minor differences between their DNA sequences. It is sometimes called a gene clock. While it is not an exact science, our model would work for a split of 4 million years or a split of 11 million years.


As for the giraffes, very few scientists hold to the idea that the elongated neck came about from the "stretching for food" theory promoted by Darwin.


Ed...Why do you continue?  This is one of the most ignorant comments that I've ever heard from a creationist. And that is saying a lot!!!!

The most popular theory currently en vogue is "sexual selection".  In either case we have fossils of short necked "giraffes" and we have long necked giraffes.  We have no fossils of (and remember, there's been "millions" of years of evolution at work here) mid-necked giraffes (yes, made that term up).  What we have is fossils that resemble giraffes and we have giraffes.  Everything in the middle is speculation.


Ed...Seriously dude...You don't have a clue about biology, genetics or the theory of evolution...You are just embarrasing yourself.

As for the "findings" of the evolutionists in question I quote Jean-Baptiste Lamark, noted evolutionist pre-dating even Darwin himself.  "In order to obtain a certain result, You must want to obtain precisely that result; if you want to obtain a certain result, you will obtain it .... I need only such people as will obtain the results I need." I'm sure they found what they were looking for.


Are you saying Lamark was an evolutionist?  Wow!!! The profound ignorance of your posts is proof positive of why creationism needs to be kept out of the science curiculum!!!

Sidenote:  I find it quite funny that you mention these evangelists who are trying to help AIDs sufferers as being such an example of Christianity.  Setting aside for the moment all of the people who got AIDs from blood transfusions before we started testing for it... how many people, following Christianity as taught by Jesus and the Apostles would have gotten AIDs.  Obviously, through birth or occassional transfusions, some people have gotten AIDs that did nothing to acquire it (although that is probably not true of the people they aquired it from).  However, if this planet adhered to the precepts of Christianity, AIDs would've wiped itself out by now.


Ed...These guys are helping people who need help. Your judgemental attitude is a big turn off.  
 
Take all the suffering in our world today.  Remove from it all the suffering that would end if all humans practiced Christianity as taught in the Bible.  How much suffering would be left?  Murder?  gone.  Rape?  gone.  Thievery?  gone.  Lying?   gone.  STDs?  gone.  Gossiping?   gone.   Cheating?   gone.   Hunger?  wouldn't be surprised if it were gone  (take into account how many people have more money than they can wisely spend AND all the food that farmers are paid NOT to produce just here in the United States).  Take all the money currently spent on soldiers, police, lawyers, politicians, pork (political, not pigs  ) and spend it on healthcare and education.  How many diseases would've been cured by now?  How many people with diseases for which cures have been found would've been able to get the treatment needed?  Christianity needs no greater advocate than looking at those who do not follow it.


Here's a thought Ed...What if you spent time helping homeless people instead of posting your ignorance on the message boards?

Critics of Christian missionaries forget, or will not remember, that human sacrifices and the power of an idolatrous priesthood - a system of profligacy unparalleled... infanticide a consequence of that system - bloody wars, where the conquerors spared neither women nor children - that all these have been abolished; and that dishonesty, intemperance, and licentiousness have been greatly reduced by the introduction of Christianity." - Charles Darwin


What is your point of pasting a passage that you attribute to Darwin other than to show us that you can copy and paste?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:00 AM on December 10, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tell that to the millions murdered by Christians in the name of God.

I think you've heard enough from me to know my views.  If I stood in front of you today and decided to kill a bunch of people, all the while claiming that I was an evolutionist, would you believe me?  No CHRISTIAN has murdered anyone in the name of God.  

As for your quotations from the Old Testament about witches.  Israel was under laws that no longer pertain.  They were under these laws to keep them apart from the pagans so that there would always be a remnant through which the promised Messiah would come.  After the promise the Old Covenant was done away with as it had fulfilled its purpose.  No Christian would kill someone practicing Wicca.  And people accuse me of posting on things I know nothing about...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:09 AM on December 10, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your current post...

To do this we divide 4% or .04 by 800,000 which gives us a O.OOO5=>This number could easily be less than the difference between your genome and your fathers...Comprende?...Capeche?..Verstehen?


Your original post....

If we divide 800,000 by 4 percent we get 0.0005.

Your sarcasm asside, I'm sure you can understand my confusion.  Wakarimasu ka?

Ed...Why do you continue?  This is one of the most ignorant comments that I've ever heard from a creationist. And that is saying a lot!!!!


I love it when people accuse someone of ignorance but don't actually point out anything wrong with the statement.  I suppose if I post one of your comments and shout "how ignorant!" you'll get all defensive and ask me to PROVE to you how ignorant it is.  

Ed...Seriously dude...You don't have a clue about biology, genetics or the theory of evolution...You are just embarrasing yourself.

See above....

Are you saying Lamark was an evolutionist?  Wow!!! The profound ignorance of your posts is proof positive of why creationism needs to be kept out of the science curiculum!!!


Ok 1) Just because the term hadn't been coined yet doesn't mean Lamark's opinions didn't conform to the general idea of evolution.  2)  If you've read any of my posts you'd see that I fully believe that creationism does need to be kept out of school, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make unless that it is that you agree with me.

Ed...These guys are helping people who need help. Your judgemental attitude is a big turn off.

How am I being judgmental?  If sticking your finger in an electral socket electrocutes you and I say that if you quit sticking your finger in the socket you'll quit being electrocuted would you say I was being judgmental then?  Oh, you say, I can stick my finger in a socket if I want to.  You can't tell me what to do.  I'm not telling anyone what to do.  In fact I'm not really certain how you could misunderstand anything I was saying...

Here's a thought Ed...What if you spent time helping homeless people instead of posting your ignorance on the message boards?


I suppose you are under the misguided notion that I spend twenty four hours a day in front of my computer just waiting to post on this board.  I wonder how much of your disposable income is spent on the homeless and needy.  How about your time?  Do you send someone a buck or hand out some soup and feel better about yourself?  Or do you help someone who is down get back on their feet again?  Do you help to provide jobs so that they don't need handouts?  Do you teach people how to read?  I know where I am when I'm not here.  Read no sarcasm into my questions, they are honest.  I do not look for you to answer them on this board.  The answers are between God and you.  The only question I do ask is that you specify what ignorance you were referring to in the passage that you posted to illustrate your question.

As for my Darwin quote.  I just thought it was interesting.  Almost everyone here has quotes at the bottom of their posts.  I just didn't want to change my usual one to post that one.  I wonder why you don't attack everyone else's quotes.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:30 AM on December 10, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your current post...

To do this we divide 4% or .04 by 800,000 which gives us a O.OOO5=>This number could easily be less than the difference between your genome and your fathers...Comprende?...Capeche?..Verstehen?


Your original post....

If we divide 800,000 by 4 percent we get 0.0005.

Your sarcasm asside, I'm sure you can understand my confusion.  Wakarimasu ka?


I totally missed that--even when you pointed it out the second time. My Bad. I appologize for the sarcasm.

Ed...Why do you continue?  This is one of the most ignorant comments that I've ever heard from a creationist. And that is saying a lot!!!!


I love it when people accuse someone of ignorance but don't actually point out anything wrong with the statement.  I suppose if I post one of your comments and shout "how ignorant!" you'll get all defensive and ask me to PROVE to you how ignorant it is.


Ed, your comment on Darwin and giraffe necks was totally incorrect. If you are going to attack Darwin at least get your facts straight.  Why is it that creationists love to attack Darwin and label today's supporters of the theory of evolution as "Darwinists" anyway?  A lot of new knowledge about evolution has been discovered in the last 150 years or so that have passed since Darwin published The Origin of Species(Google "genetics"). Questioning Darwin as a strategy for questioning evolution theory today is about as silly as questioning the politics of James Buchanan as a way of questioning the politics of today's Democrats.


Ed...Seriously dude...You don't have a clue about biology, genetics or the theory of evolution...You are just embarrasing yourself.

See above....


Ed you don't have a enough knowledge about about biology and genetics to make some of the silly claims that you are making about the theory of evolution.  This point is evident in many of your posts.

Are you saying Lamark was an evolutionist?  Wow!!! The profound ignorance of your posts is proof positive of why creationism needs to be kept out of the science curiculum!!!


Ok 1) Just because the term hadn't been coined yet doesn't mean Lamark's opinions didn't conform to the general idea of evolution.  2)  If you've read any of my posts you'd see that I fully believe that creationism does need to be kept out of school, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make unless that it is that you agree with me.


How would you explain species diversification in a science class?


Ed...These guys are helping people who need help. Your judgemental attitude is a big turn off.

How am I being judgmental?  If sticking your finger in an electral socket electrocutes you and I say that if you quit sticking your finger in the socket you'll quit being electrocuted would you say I was being judgmental then?  Oh, you say, I can stick my finger in a socket if I want to.  You can't tell me what to do.  I'm not telling anyone what to do.  In fact I'm not really certain how you could misunderstand anything I was saying...


Ed, I pointed out what I believed to be the righteous and honorable behavior of evengelical christians or fundies who were helping to ease the suffering of people in need. You then used my observation as segue to preach against the behavior of some those suffering. This is judgemental.  And let's be clear...There are plenty of secularists, atheists and non-christians who live healthy and fullfilling lives just as there are plenty of followers of the teachings of Jesus and his appostles who have suffered.  

Here's a thought Ed...What if you spent time helping homeless people instead of posting your ignorance on the message boards?


I suppose you are under the misguided notion that I spend twenty four hours a day in front of my computer just waiting to post on this board.  I wonder how much of your disposable income is spent on the homeless and needy.  How about your time?  Do you send someone a buck or hand out some soup and feel better about yourself?  Or do you help someone who is down get back on their feet again?  Do you help to provide jobs so that they don't need handouts?  Do you teach people how to read?  I know where I am when I'm not here.  Read no sarcasm into my questions, they are honest.  I do not look for you to answer them on this board.  The answers are between God and you.  The only question I do ask is that you specify what ignorance you were referring to in the passage that you posted to illustrate your question.


I appologize.  If you help the less fortunate in the ways you described above than my hat is off to you.  I need to do more.

As for my Darwin quote.  I just thought it was interesting.  Almost everyone here has quotes at the bottom of their posts.  I just didn't want to change my usual one to post that one.  I wonder why you don't attack everyone else's quotes.


Fair enough.  I get a little peeved when creationists drag out Darwin's corpse for the reasons I gave above. You were not doing that in this instance so I appologize.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 1:01 PM on December 10, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, now that we are all on a more even tone.  (Myself included)  First, let's shake off all the sarcasm.  Even reading over my own posts, I see some of them came across differently than intended.  Part of the problem with "tone of voice" not coming through in written text and I can see where fred was coming from in his perspective.  Also, re-reading fred's earlier post I can see that if I hadn't been reading it so late at night (or in my original response, the day after I went through an Nyquil induced sleep :P ), I probably would've figured out that the numbers were just switched in his example.  As for any of my information being out-of-date.  In many instances it is.  While I base all of my information on books (don't have a genomics lab in my basement) I do have to admit that my school days are well behind me and not all of my books are from 2005.  I do have a current question regarding this genome thing, but I've a busy day ahead and will have to wait until I can post it more thoroughly and make sure I don't have any mistakes in it.  

Apo and Entwicke, yes, if I'd really thought about it I should've made the correlation in my research that the information I was reading on Giraffe's was not peculiar to them as mammals.  Although all of the same things I mentioned would've had to grow in strength, whatever at the exact same time that they evolved.  It was a poorly written example.  My apologies.

Fred, as for my comments on Christians and suffering, I'm sure it was partially fueled by Don's comments about sufferings at the hands of "Christians" and you were probably just the recipient of my ire.  I apologize.  I don't understand why people can't figure out the difference between "people who practice Christianity" and "people who call themselves Christians".  Read Mathew 7:21-23 .  Even Christ knew that there would people who would do things in his name, but that were not doing the things that he taught.

However, my original quote was Christianity needs no greater advocate than looking at those who do not follow it.  I still stand by that.  This is not the same as saying "Christianity needs no greater advocate than looking at those who call themselves Christians".  Many people who have called themselves Christians have done horrific things while twisting or ignoring the word of God.  It started with the gnostics in the first century and really took off with the establishment of Catholicism.  

As for my quote on Darwin, I run across quotes from alot of "creationists" to show that many of them have stupid or "hypocritical" things.  I did not pick on Darwin because he was the first, or even best, example of an evolutionist.  It's just a quote I had heard recently (and looked up to verify) that fit in well with the context of my "rant".  I didn't pick Darwin just for sake of picking Darwin.  Again, I understand that my reason for using did not necessarily come across well in my post.  

Look here for further "issues" with the chimpanzee to human genome link in the next couple of days.  'Night all.

Sinc,
  Ed.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:28 PM on December 10, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, on to my promised "further issues"...

To avoid any confusion this will not be in my usual "layman's terms".

Current scientific research has supposedly shown a 96% similarity between Human and Chimpanzee genomes.  Let's be honest, this is based on only a fraction of the total genomes (specifically physiological) and is based mainly on their cellular protein content, NOT their overall genomic content.  What is not included?  Indels for one.  Including indels drops the percentage to 95 (not a big deal you might think, but in genomics it is).  Add to this other genomic regions such as heterochromatin and unresolved alignment gaps and we're down around 90%.

What does this mean?  With a 10% difference the number of differences in the DNA sequence would be around 300 million nucleotide bases (based on 3 billion necleotides found in humans or chimpanzees).  This means that 150 million bases would have mutated in both the humans and chimps since their last "common ancestor".  Hypothetically this occurred somewhere around 5 million years ago (feel free to factor for 6 million if that makes you happy).  Average human generation is considered to be about 20 years.  Ergo, 250,000 generations have occured since then.  To reach the 150 million changes in this number of generations you would need roughly 600 BENEFICIAL mutation (fixed) in each population per generation.  J.B.S. Haldane (evolutionist) determined that in 6 million years one might find 1000 fixed beneficial mutation (in humans).  This is a total amount, not per generation.  How significant is this?

Let's go the other way, let's say that we bump up the percentage to 98.5% (the predicted number, instead of the report's number and well above the "creationist" projected number).  You would need to come up with 90 beneficial mutations (fixed) in each of the two populations PER GENERATION in the last 5 million years.  Not nearly as bad as the 600 that the actual findings support, but it's still a grand total of over 22 million compared with the 1000 that Haldane says is reasonable in that time frame.

If we include not just the amount of similarities, but include the regulation of genes we notice another obstacle to the human/chimp link.  In a comparison of 538 proteins expressed in brain and liver cells in both humans and chimps, 31% showed different levels of expression between humans and chimps.   Two species of mice, on the other hand (Mus musculus and Mus spretus) showed an only 7.5% difference.

Using the very report that is supposed to show the human/chimp link we find that it is highly implausible (bordering on the impossible) that humans and chimps shared any common ancestor in the last 5 to 6 million years.  If a creationist had published that report he would've been laughed out of the building.

And just to show that I enjoy a good quote on either side of the argument....

"The evolution of the brain not only overshot the needs of prehistoric man, it is the only example of evolution providing a species with an organ which it does not know how to use"
Arthur Koestler (British author)



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:48 PM on December 12, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 1:48 PM on December 12, 2005 :
Current scientific research has supposedly shown a 96% similarity between Human and Chimpanzee genomes.  Let's be honest, this is based on only a fraction of the total genomes (specifically physiological) and is based mainly on their cellular protein content, NOT their overall genomic content.  


I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow your statements here.  Here is the link for the original Nature paper.
Nature Human-Chimp Genome comparison paper

The methods and procedures are page 2 of the PDF, page 70 of the issue.   Granted that this is only a draft genome, not a finished product.

Where do you see anything about this being based "mainly on their cellular protein content"?

What is not included?  Indels for one.  Including indels drops the percentage to 95 (not a big deal you might think, but in genomics it is).  Add to this other genomic regions such as heterochromatin and unresolved alignment gaps and we're down around 90%.


If I may ask, where are you getting your information?  It sounds like a Fred Williams argument.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:52 PM on December 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The methods and procedures are page 2 of the PDF, page 70 of the issue.

And one of the first things you'll notice on page 2 is that they used two programs to assemble the data and that the one that was used "made limited use of the human genome sequence to facilitate and confirm contig linking".  Why not use the one they list as "de novo" (in-depth)?  

It sounds like a Fred Williams argument.
The painter from Australia?

And why do evolutionists immediately call for where the data comes from?  Is it easier to dismiss the scientist than the data?

Finally, here is a quote from the paper in question... "We set out to study the mutational events that have shaped the human and chimpanzee genomes since their last common ancestor."  I guess you really will find what you are looking for.   If a scientist had "set out to study how humans and chimpanzee did not share a common ancestor" he would've been accused of bias a fore thought.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:09 PM on December 12, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To avoid any confusion this will not be in my usual "layman's terms".

Current scientific research has supposedly shown a 96% similarity between Human and Chimpanzee genomes.  Let's be honest, this is based on only a fraction of the total genomes (specifically physiological) and is based mainly on their cellular protein content, NOT their overall genomic content.  What is not included?  Indels for one.  Including indels drops the percentage to 95 (not a big deal you might think, but in genomics it is).  Add to this other genomic regions such as heterochromatin and unresolved alignment gaps and we're down around 90%.


Ed, let's be honest.  You are just regurgitating information from an article written by Daniel Criswell at ICR. You really should credit your sources. Here is a link to the actual article for any who are interested...

The article Ed copied and pasted from.

First of all, both the human and chimp genomes have been mapped completely. This information that you are copying from is old.  There is a 96% similarity in the genomes. Not 95% not 90%.  And why would indels have a baring? Especially if they occured after the split? How did you come up with the 5% for heterochromatin and unresolved alignment gaps? Furthermore, why would viral code that was inserted after the split need to be accounted for?  Perhaps you can explain the effect on fixed alleles of viral code that has been imbedded in the human genome? And what about when the chimp and human genomes share the exact same sequence of viral code in the exact same insertion loci in the genome? Why wouldn't this be conclusive evidence of common descent?  What about when the chimp and human genomes share the exact same deletetions of the exact same sequence of code in the exact same loci in the genome?  Isn't this also evidence of common descent? If not why?

What does this mean?  With a 10% difference the number of differences in the DNA sequence would be around 300 million nucleotide bases (based on 3 billion necleotides found in humans or chimpanzees).  This means that 150 million bases would have mutated in both the humans and chimps since their last "common ancestor".  Hypothetically this occurred somewhere around 5 million years ago (feel free to factor for 6 million if that makes you happy).  Average human generation is considered to be about 20 years.  Ergo, 250,000 generations have occured since then.  To reach the 150 million changes in this number of generations you would need roughly 600 BENEFICIAL mutation (fixed) in each population per generation.  J.B.S. Haldane (evolutionist) determined that in 6 million years one might find 1000 fixed beneficial mutation (in humans).  This is a total amount, not per generation.  How significant is this?

Let's go the other way, let's say that we bump up the percentage to 98.5% (the predicted number, instead of the report's number and well above the "creationist" projected number).  You would need to come up with 90 beneficial mutations (fixed) in each of the two populations PER GENERATION in the last 5 million years.  Not nearly as bad as the 600 that the actual findings support, but it's still a grand total of over 22 million compared with the 1000 that Haldane says is reasonable in that time frame.

If we include not just the amount of similarities, but include the regulation of genes we notice another obstacle to the human/chimp link.  In a comparison of 538 proteins expressed in brain and liver cells in both humans and chimps, 31% showed different levels of expression between humans and chimps.   Two species of mice, on the other hand (Mus musculus and Mus spretus) showed an only 7.5% difference.


Ed, let's see if you know what you are posting about and not just copying and pasting articles form ICR.  Why don't you explain how Haldane came up with his figure of about 1000 fixed beneficial mutations occurring for humans over 6 million years. Do you know if he accounted for the effects of genetic drift?  What about simultaneous mutations occurring in a population? Did Haldane account for this?  What about the effects of non-random sexual selection? What about the effects of recombination is this accounted for by Haldane's figure?
And doesn't your math apply to only mutations of single pairs of nucleotides? Am I missing something?  Are you saying that when a beneficial mutation occurs it only occurs in one nucleotide at a time? For instance could you not have a beneficial frame shift mutation that involves more than one pair of nucleotides at one time?

No offense Ed, but it would have been more honest of you to just post a link.  If you want, I can copy and paste rebuttals to Haldane's dilemma.  But only if you want.



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 7:19 PM on December 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fred,
  That was the best example I have ever seen of posting questions to raise doubt without actually rebutting anything.  I seriously see politics in your future.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:35 PM on December 12, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fred,
 That was the best example I have ever seen of posting questions to raise doubt without actually rebutting anything.  I seriously see politics in your future.


Does this mean you can't you answer any of my questions? Haldane's dilemma is from 1957. A lot of what we know about evolution has changed since then.  Since you have avoided my questions can you at least explain why you think Haldane's dilemma applies.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 03:43 AM on December 13, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If I may ask, where are you getting your information?  It sounds like a Fred Williams argument.


You nailed it.  As I stated in my earlier post, Ed is just regurgitating an article by Daniel Criswell at ICR who basically is just regurtitating the Walter ReMine/Fred Williams arguments that you are aware of.  
The main problems with the Haldane dilemma as Ed is trying to apply it, is that it only addresses beneficial mutations and it only accounts for natural selection.  It doesn't account for simultaneous mutations. It doesn't account for genetic drift ( see Ed's post that started this thread regarding the importance of genetic drift).  It doesn't account for non random- sexual selection and it doesn't account for recombination.  I pointed out flaws specific to Ed's post...er...Criswell's article below.


What does this mean?  With a 10% difference the number of differences in the DNA sequence would be around 300 million nucleotide bases (based on 3 billion necleotides found in humans or chimpanzees).  This means that 150 million bases would have mutated in both the humans and chimps since their last "common ancestor".  Hypothetically this occurred somewhere around 5 million years ago (feel free to factor for 6 million if that makes you happy).  Average human generation is considered to be about 20 years.  Ergo, 250,000 generations have occured since then.  To reach the 150 million changes in this number of generations you would need roughly 600 BENEFICIAL mutation (fixed) in each population per generation.  J.B.S. Haldane (evolutionist) determined that in 6 million years one might find 1000 fixed beneficial mutation (in humans).  This is a total amount, not per generation.  How significant is this?


1. Ed assumes that all the mutations have to be point mutations. There are common neutral mutations that can affect more than one base pair aren't there?

2. Ed assumes that all mutations have to be beneficial to be fixed.  What about neutral mutations?  What about the hitchhiking effect?

3. Ed has no clue what the Haldane effect is.  He does not know how it is formulated. He does not know why it is not used by modern geneticists.

In short, Ed stumbled upon an article that does nothing to invalidate the conclusive genetic evidence that shows humans and chimps share a common ancestor.



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 08:11 AM on December 13, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1)  The very reason that I did not reveal the origination of my research was that as soon as someone pointed out that it was done by a creationist then all productive conversation ceased.  None of the question therein have been addressed.

2)  I have not answered any of Fred's questions because he has not raised any evidence to discount the evidence that was presented.  He has relied on innuendo and "question raising" to bring doubt upon the findings without actually having to address them.  Therefore, since no new information has been brought about, I have nothing to debate.

3)  I find it odd that Fred brings up neutral mutations since (as I'm sure he knows, but doesn't bother to mention) neutral mutations are more likely to change back and forth without becoming fixed and would actually require more mutations to take place than what I was generously allowing for.

4)  Even if Haldane's dilemma were off, how far off does he really think Haldane's figures were?  Haldane allows for 1000 in a 5 million year period.  How far off does the decimal have to be off to justify Fred's contention that 150 MILLION happened in that time on BOTH sides?  Let's be honest.  For this to hold water we MUST assume that there are 600 differences in nucleotides between my son and I.  And another 600 between my dad and I.  And on and on and on.  Even with the generous figures I allowed for the 98.5% that was predicted by evolutionists,  I'd still have to find 90 difference in every single generation.  Without fail.  Same for the chimps.  Every single generation.

5)  As for Fred's thinly veiled critique of my use of another's research to validate a point.  I was not aware that Fred had a genomic's lab in his basement and was relegating his information to studies that he, himself, had made.  Apparently this forum was only to be used by professional scientists.  I missed that in the disclaimer and I apologize if anyone was under the misguided notion that I had actually conducted these tests myself.  If Fred wishes for us not to use the work's of anyone other than ourselves, I will oblige.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:34 PM on December 13, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1)  The very reason that I did not reveal the origination of my research was that as soon as someone pointed out that it was done by a creationist then all productive conversation ceased.  None of the question therein have been addressed.


Your transparent attempt at covering your tracks does not agree with the facts. Look at the post you pasted to begin this thread.  Did I or anybody else dismiss it simply because the author was a creationist?  Did I dismiss this last post that you pasted simply because the author was a creationist?  Your awkward attempt at shifting the blame is embarrassing.  Just credit your sources when you copy and paste and you won't have to make excuses.  

2)  I have not answered any of Fred's questions because he has not raised any evidence to discount the evidence that was presented.  He has relied on innuendo and "question raising" to bring doubt upon the findings without actually having to address them.  Therefore, since no new information has been brought about, I have nothing to debate.


This is just a clumsy bluff Ed and everyone reading your post knows it.  I clearly pointed out several problems with the reasoning behind your conclusion. Your calculations for instance are based only on changes where one mutation affects one base pair...Right off the bat your "math" is invalidated.

3)  I find it odd that Fred brings up neutral mutations since (as I'm sure he knows, but doesn't bother to mention) neutral mutations are more likely to change back and forth without becoming fixed and would actually require more mutations to take place than what I was generously allowing for.


Why do you find it odd?  Are you saying that neutral mutations can't get fixed in a genome? Why don't you demonstrate why they don't apply to the calculations you copied and pasted? And what about the other complaints? Why don't you account for simultaneous mutations? As it stands there are too many unaccounted for variables for your "math" to hold true.  What about population size? Isn't population size an important variable in any equation making claims  about population genetics? What about your starting alele frequency?  Do you really think population genetics is as simple as the "math" in the article that you copied from? Do you really think that every accedited science department in every university in the United States including Notre Dame, Southern Methodist University and Texas Christian University would miss this foundation shaking article that you have pasted?

Quit playing games and answer the questions Ed.

4)  Even if Haldane's dilemma were off, how far off does he really think Haldane's figures were?  Haldane allows for 1000 in a 5 million year period.  How far off does the decimal have to be off to justify Fred's contention that 150 MILLION happened in that time on BOTH sides?  Let's be honest.  For this to hold water we MUST assume that there are 600 differences in nucleotides between my son and I.  And another 600 between my dad and I.  And on and on and on.  Even with the generous figures I allowed for the 98.5% that was predicted by evolutionists,  I'd still have to find 90 difference in every single generation.  Without fail.  Same for the chimps.  Every single generation.


As I have pointed out everything in your article is off. You are probably being obstinate with the hope that it will mask your ignorance on this subject. I think this last point is clearly demonstrated by your last two posts.

Haldane wrote his formula in 1957. Haldane understood that the validity of formula was tenuous at best. Very little was known about genetics in 1957.  Haldane even made this comment about his formula "To conclude, I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision. But I am convinced that quantitative arguments of the kind here put forward should play a part in all future discussions of evolution."

Here is a site that details why your use of Haldane's formula is incorrect.

Haldane's dilemma...Ed's Waterloo

5)  As for Fred's thinly veiled critique of my use of another's research to validate a point.  I was not aware that Fred had a genomic's lab in his basement and was relegating his information to studies that he, himself, had made.  Apparently this forum was only to be used by professional scientists.  I missed that in the disclaimer and I apologize if anyone was under the misguided notion that I had actually conducted these tests myself.  If Fred wishes for us not to use the work's of anyone other than ourselves, I will oblige.
 

Validate a point? Please...You lifted your whole post almost verbatim.  This wouldn't be a problem except you don't even have the integrity to admit your mistake. Never mind the fact that it is plainly obvious  that you don't know the first thing about what you are PASTING. To add insult to injury you again try to shift the blame by misrepresenting my motives. I have not asked you to do anything unreasonable yet you feel compelled to erect a strawman and attack me.




 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 7:25 PM on December 13, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ed's Warterloo


...Hahaha. I don't quite think this could be called Edward's last stand, and I honestly would hope it isn't, but that's nevertheless funny.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/13/2005 at 8:56 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:55 PM on December 13, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your transparent attempt at covering your tracks does not agree with the facts.

I thought I was being transparent to begin with.  I never claimed I had conducted any tests myself.  I simply stated (immediately upon being asked for the source) that I wanted people to debate the evidence, not the scientist behind it. In fact, here is the exact quote that I used "And why do evolutionists immediately call for where the data comes from?  Is it easier to dismiss the scientist than the data?" No one who has been posting in this board for over a month questioned my reasons for this.  They took my argument at face value.   Why do you insist on implying ulterior motives?

I clearly pointed out several problems with the reasoning behind your conclusion.

If by "clearyly pointed out" you mean asked a bunch of questions without supplying any evidence then I concur.

Are you saying that neutral mutations can't get fixed in a genome?

In the very snippit you pasted to prove my point it states "neutral mutations are MORE LIKELY to change back and forth WITHOUT becoming fixed".  Anyone reading this would automatically infer that it must be POSSIBLE for neutral mutations to become fixed for there to be a "less" or "more" likely chance to begin with.  Now you're not even reading the very material you are arguing with.  You're just arguing to argue.

Haldane's dilemma...Ed's Waterloo


Ed's answer...

This wouldn't be a problem except you don't even have the integrity to admit your mistake.

My mistake?  What mistake.  I've done nothing but admit that I did not do any of the testing myself.  I researched the information and posted findings that backed up my stance.  Many of lines in my post were verbatim.  As I stated before (and you are the only questioning my motives) listing the source of my work WOULD have started an endless string of "he's a creationist so his work was biased".   I've been through too many of these arguments to believe otherwise.  As for you NOT dismissing the scientist over the science AFTER I clearly stated that this was the reason that I had not posted my source, well congratulations.

I have a sermon to prepare for and won't be back to this site until Monday.  I look forward to any EVIDENCE posted between now and then.

Sinc,
  Me.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:50 PM on December 14, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought I was being transparent to begin with.  I never claimed I had conducted any tests myself.  I simply stated (immediately upon being asked for the source) that I wanted people to debate the evidence, not the scientist behind it. In fact, here is the exact quote that I used "And why do evolutionists immediately call for where the data comes from?  Is it easier to dismiss the scientist than the data?" No one who has been posting in this board for over a month questioned my reasons for this.  They took my argument at face value.   Why do you insist on implying ulterior motives?


Ed it is silly and insulting of you to assume that we wouldn't debate the evidence. Did I dismiss your first post because it was from a creationionist?  Did anybody? Did I dismiss your second post because it was written by a creationist? Did anybody? Furthermore, why did you acknowledge that the first post was not your own but hide the fact that the second wasn't?  And you accuse me of being a politician?  

If by "clearyly pointed out" you mean asked a bunch of questions without supplying any evidence then I concur.


Ed...All my questions are relevent.  You are the one posting the message.  You are the one that is trying overturn the status quo with your post.  You are the one that is going against every single accredited science department in every single college and university in the US.  You made the claim...Either answer my questions or explain why they are irrelevent...That's how a debate works.  And the last time I checked this site was called YouDebate.com

In the very snippit you pasted to prove my point it states "neutral mutations are MORE LIKELY to change back and forth WITHOUT becoming fixed".  Anyone reading this would automatically infer that it must be POSSIBLE for neutral mutations to become fixed for there to be a "less" or "more" likely chance to begin with.  Now you're not even reading the very material you are arguing with.  You're just arguing to argue.


Ok Ed...Let's see how much you know. You made the following claim in a previous post:

Let's be honest.  For this to hold water we MUST assume that there are 600 differences in nucleotides between my son and I.  And another 600 between my dad and I.

Are you claiming that there is less than a 600 nucleotide difference between you and your Dad?

Are you also claiming that there is less than a 600 nucleotide difference between your son and you?  

My mistake?  What mistake.  I've done nothing but admit that I did not do any of the testing myself.  I researched the information and posted findings that backed up my stance.
 

You call research copying and pasting from one article?  mmmkay...

Many of lines in my post were verbatim.
Oh that's good...Not all of them were vebatim...

As I stated before (and you are the only questioning my motives) listing the source of my work WOULD have started an endless string of "he's a creationist so his work was biased".


Ed you keep making this excuse.  Nobody in this thread has dismissed either of your postings because they were from creationists?  I easily found the sites where you copied your articles and I never dismissed the information in either instance because it was from a creationist author.

I've been through too many of these arguments to believe otherwise.  As for you NOT dismissing the scientist over the science AFTER I clearly stated that this was the reason that I had not posted my source, well congratulations.


So if one person of a certain stripe happens to be evil then everyone of that stripe must be evil.  How wonderfully unChristian of you Pastor Ed. And not even two weeks til Christmas...Wow


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 7:52 PM on December 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Emyers, you're making a lot of claims that aren't supported or directly contradict the observed evidence.

Current scientific research has supposedly shown a 96% similarity between Human and Chimpanzee genomes.  Let's be honest, this is based on only a fraction of the total genomes (specifically physiological) and is based mainly on their cellular protein content, NOT their overall genomic content.  What is not included?  Indels for one.  Including indels drops the percentage to 95 (not a big deal you might think, but in genomics it is).  Add to this other genomic regions such as heterochromatin and unresolved alignment gaps and we're down around 90%.

Don't know where this came from, but it's wrong, from here:Chimp/Human
"The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence."

Indels have been included in the comparison, and the DNA sequence is still 96%.  And what's this 90% claim, where is the data to back it up?  You haven't provided us with any.

What does this mean?  With a 10% difference the number of differences in the DNA sequence would be around 300 million nucleotide bases (based on 3 billion necleotides found in humans or chimpanzees).  This means that 150 million bases would have mutated in both the humans and chimps since their last "common ancestor".

And from here:
Chimp/Human II
"Small but crucial differences: The researchers said the results confirmed the common evolutionary origin of humans and chimpanzees. Out of the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA coding for chimps and humans, about 35 million show single-base differences, and another 5 million DNA sites are different because of insertions or deletions of genetic code. Waterston estimated that 1 million of those coding changes are responsible for the functional differences between humans and chimps — thus defining our humanness."

So where does your claim for 150 million come from, it is disproven by direct observation, as we actually see about 40 million differences out of 3 billion base pairs.

.B.S. Haldane (evolutionist) determined that in 6 million years one might find 1000 fixed beneficial mutation (in humans).  This is a total amount, not per generation.  How significant is this?

How significant is this?  Not very.  Haldane's research was done in the 50's and is inaccurate.  It has been shown that "Haldane's Dilema" is nothing of the sort.  

Let's go the other way, let's say that we bump up the percentage to 98.5% (the predicted number, instead of the report's number and well above the "creationist" projected number).  You would need to come up with 90 beneficial mutations (fixed) in each of the two populations PER GENERATION in the last 5 million years.  Not nearly as bad as the 600 that the actual findings support, but it's still a grand total of over 22 million compared with the 1000 that Haldane says is reasonable in that time frame.

But Haldane was wrong, so we can disregard all his claims.  You still ignore modern genetics and what it shows us.  Selective sweeps can rapidly fix mutations in just a few humdred generations and all the alleles located near them.  So a number of changes can be fixed in a population at the same time.  This new research has shown us evidence that humans have undergone 7 selective sweeps in the last 250,000 years.  From here:
SelectiveSweeps
"The researchers found six regions in the human genome that have strong signatures of selective sweeps over the past 250,000 years. One region contains more than 50 genes, while another contains no known genes and lies in an area that scientists refer to as a "gene desert." Intriguingly, this gene desert may contain elements regulating the expression of a nearby protocadherin gene, which has been implicated in patterning of the nervous system. A seventh region with moderately strong signals contains the FOXP2 and CFTR genes. FOXP2 has been implicated in the acquisition of speech in humans. CFTR, which codes for a protein involved in ion transport and, if mutated, can cause the fatal disease cystic fibrosis, is thought to be the target of positive selection in European populations."

So once again, we see mechanisms that Haldane was not aware of, his theorectical model is just not valid.

If we include not just the amount of similarities, but include the regulation of genes we notice another obstacle to the human/chimp link.  In a comparison of 538 proteins expressed in brain and liver cells in both humans and chimps, 31% showed different levels of expression between humans and chimps.   Two species of mice, on the other hand (Mus musculus and Mus spretus) showed an only 7.5% difference.

And this disproves human chimp relatedness how?

Using the very report that is supposed to show the human/chimp link we find that it is highly implausible (bordering on the impossible) that humans and chimps shared any common ancestor in the last 5 to 6 million years.  If a creationist had published that report he would've been laughed out of the building.

Not at all, it just means you and your sources don't understand modern genetics and the overwhelming evidence they provide us for humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor 6 million years ago.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:04 PM on December 17, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So if one person of a certain stripe happens to be evil then everyone of that stripe must be evil.  How wonderfully unChristian of you Pastor Ed. And not even two weeks til Christmas...Wow

I'll get back to the rest later, but I'm still trying to figure this one out.  Everyone of a certain stripe?  What stripe are we talking about?  Who accused anyone of being evil?  Pastor Ed?  I'm not an elder and never have been.  What does Christmas have to do with anything?  25th of December was a Roman holiday to celebrate the dedication of the temple to the "god" Saturn that the Catholic church tried to warp into "the birthday of Christ".  No Christian celebrates it as such.  It has no religious significance.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:46 AM on December 19, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

25th of December was a Roman holiday to celebrate the dedication of the temple to the "god" Saturn that the Catholic church tried to warp into "the birthday of Christ".  No Christian celebrates it as such.  It has no religious significance.


Uh, I'm quite sure the vast majority of Christians have no idea what you're saying. Very few people study Theology at a university (not saying you do) and even fewer become pastors or bother to educate themselves about the history of even their own religion.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:38 PM on December 19, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok Ed...let's outline some of the flaws in Crisswell's assertion that chimps and humans don't share a common ancestor.

1. "The homology frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded "indels," which are areas with zero sequence homology. In a recent analysis by Britten et al., inclusion of "indels" in human and chimpanzee sequences reduced the human/chimpanzee homology to 95%.3 However, preliminary research at ICR using genomic databases and the current literature indicates that the sequence homology between humans and chimpanzees may be less than 90%, as more genomic regions, such as heterochromatin (regions of condensed noncoding DNA) and unresolved alignment gaps are included in homology studies."


As Demon pointed out, when insertions and deletions are considered we still have a similarity of over 96% between the chimp and human genomes.  Criswell's hypothetical 90% does nothing for his argument if he can't support it with evidence.  Criswell knows this otherwise he wouldn't have used the term "may be".

2.What is the significance of 98.5% versus 90% homology? If the human and chimpanzee genomes are 10% different, it rules out the possibility that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. If the difference between the two genomes is 10% then the total number of differences in the DNA sequence would be approximately 300 million nucleotide bases (10% of 3 billion nucleotides present in humans or chimpanzees), meaning that 150 million bases in both the human and chimpanzee have mutated and been fixed in the population since the last common ancestor. If the hypothetical divergence of humans and chimpanzees occurred about 5 million years ago and given that a human generation is about 20 years (and a chimp slightly less), then 250,000 generations have passed from the time humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.


Here Criswell uses 5 million years as his point of diversion and 20 years as his generation length.  I think most scientists now are using 6 million years as the point of demarcation and a maximum of 15 years for the generation length.  Until very recently most humans began procreating right after puberty.  So instead of 300 million nucleotide changes between the genomes we are only talking about 120 million or 60 million instead of 150 million each.  Moreover we are talking about 400,000 generations having passed from the time humans and chimps diverged as opposed to 250,000 generations for a total of 800,000 generations as opposed to 500,000 generations. I don't want to go as far as saying that Criswell  was selectively choosing the numbers to gerry-rig his results but I have not found any mainstream scientific website or textbook that uses the 20 year generaton span.  I also have not seen many recent sites that use the 5 million year divergence figure.  Most are using the 6-7 million year time frame.

3. This left 5.4 Mb of corresponding human sequences undetectable in chimpanzee chromosome 22. Assuming the 5.4 Mb of DNA that was unable to be sequenced in the chimpanzee genome was 70% homologous to the corresponding human sequence (very generous for sequences that are not alignable!) and combining this with the 27 Mb of sequenced chimpanzee DNA (assuming this region is 95% homologous, see above) would give a homology of 90% for human chromosome 21 and chimpanzee chromosome 22. If the unalignable region is less than 70%, the homology of human chromosome 21 and chimpanzee chromosome 22 will be even less than 90%. Considering all the elements that determine sequence homology, when an entire sequence comparison is finally made between the human and chimpanzee genomes, the actual amount of DNA sequence homology is almost certainly going to be less than 90%.


I looked at criswell's source and I could not find  the 5.4mb of DNA that was  "unable to be sequenced". I don't see how he came up with this figure as it did not come from the site that he is citing1  Even if it was there, where does he get his 70% homologous figure and how do we know that he is being very generous?

1http://www.genome.org/cgi/reprint/13/3/341

4.What is the significance of 98.5% versus 90% homology? If the human and chimpanzee genomes are 10% different, it rules out the possibility that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. If the difference between the two genomes is 10% then the total number of differences in the DNA sequence would be approximately 300 million nucleotide bases (10% of 3 billion nucleotides present in humans or chimpanzees), meaning that 150 million bases in both the human and chimpanzee have mutated and been fixed in the population since the last common ancestor. If the hypothetical divergence of humans and chimpanzees occurred about 5 million years ago and given that a human generation is about 20 years (and a chimp slightly less), then 250,000 generations have passed from the time humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor. To get 150 million nucleotide changes in 250,000 generations, the two lines of descent would require 600 beneficial mutations fixed in each population of ancestral humans and chimpanzee per generation. However, nearly all mutations are neutral, having no effect and therefore are not selectable, or are slightly deleterious, causing genetic deterioration in a population of organisms. A few beneficial mutations have been observed, such as mutations that confer antibiotic resistance in bacteria and sickle cell trait in humans. But even these mutations are deleterious when the individual is returned to optimal conditions for survival and forced to compete with other individuals lacking the mutation.


If we ignore Haldane's dilemma for just a second, as Ed has suggested, and accept Criswell's other flawed parameters, we still are left with too many unanswered questions for Criswell's assertions to have any value.  How do we know the mutations have to be beneficial?  Isn't it true that the effects of genetic drift and the hitch-hiking effect can cause neutral genes and markings to become fixed in a population? Based on the limited information that he has provided, Criswell's claims cannot be forwarded without invoking Haldane's dilemma--even if we use his flawed math .

5. Recognizing the high genetic cost of fixing any mutation in a population, J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionist, determined mathematically that it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 beneficial mutations in humans through natural selection.5 If only 1,000 of the mutations are beneficial, then nearly all of the 150 million mutations in the human lineage would be slightly deleterious or neutral. Deleterious mutations would lead to degeneration of the genome resulting in extinction, and the neutral mutations would cause no change. This does not lead to some "great leap forward" to a more adapted creature. Because there is no feasible evolutionary solution to this problem, this whole situation has been termed "Haldane's dilemma." Even if the difference in homology of humans and chimpanzees is just 98.5% there still would be 250,000 beneficial mutations to be fixed in both populations in the last 5 million years, far too many than are feasible by Haldane's calculations.


As I have shown, Criswell's conclusions are predicated on the relevance of Haldane's Dilemma. As Demon pointed out, Haldane came up with his formula in the1950s.  A lot of new information regarding population genetics  has been discovered in the years since effectively causing Haldane's dilemma to be irrelevant. Haldane's dilemma basically asserts  that in a population of mammals that is stable with a birth and death rate that are exactly the same, no more than one gene could be fixed in the population per 300 generations because of the cost of substitution. The probelm with this is, Haldane only factored in the effects of natural selection in his figure and ignored other factors like genetic drift, non-random sexual reproduction  and recombination. Furthermore he did not account for mutations being fixed at the same time.  By only accounting for natural selection, Haldane based this figure on the incorrect assumption that  the deaths caused by the newly disadvantageous gene's lower fitness would be above and beyond the deaths caused by the nautral death rate( deaths occurring naturally due to all reasons other than the lowered fitness of the gene). It is also important that he doesn't account for "environmental opportunities" that would allow the newly mutated organism to thrive in a new niche without adversely effecting the parent organism.  
In a nutshell, Haldane's dilemma is based on the false premise that the cost of substitution has to be paid on top of the natural death rate. Haldane's false premise is known as "hard selection" and most biologists today consider the majority of selection to be "soft selection". According to the "soft selection" scenario, the cost of selection is paid for by the natural death rate thus invalidating Haldane's dilemma.2

2http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane3.html

So now even if we consider Criswell's flawed math his house of cards comes tumbling down with Haldane's dilemma.  The genetic evidence that supports chimps and humans sharing a common ancestor is overwhelming. From a probability standpoint the shared ancestory of humans and chimps is a proven fact. Americans are so certain of the science that shows that humans and chimps have a common ancestor that they use it to put monsters like the BTK killer behind bars.  They have also used this science to prevent wrongly accused individuals fom being executed for crimes that they did not commit.  Ed can claim that I have ulterior motives and he can dismiss my questions for whatever reason he chooses but he still can't refute any of the evidence that conclusively shows beyond a reasonable doubt, that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:12 AM on December 20, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.