|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
 Posted - 11/10/2005 : 13:05:10 [Permalink]
|
"They did it and found human and simian DNA to be 98% similar (give or take 1%). It was on the news recently."
that percentage does not necessarily suggest that the method of evolution was not ID.
as a goofy example that you ought not take seriously, if god molded a lump of clay into a horse, scientists would say "hmm, look how similar that lump is to that horse. theyre 98% the same, except for the shape! gee whiz! science!"
but seriously.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070
this is an interesting read about chimp dna...
http://www.rps.psu.edu/0109/dogs.html
this talks about how dogs are only different by a factor of 7%. it gets a little complicated, as there are different ways of interpreting percentage differences. this article sorts some of those issues out. |
 |
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 13:17:59 [Permalink]
|
"Hey, Patrick-- earlier you said you couldn't find much onf DNA comparisons between humans and chimps (or apes, or whichever). A number of us have posted some links detailing some of those comparisons. Have you looked at them yet? Now that you have this information, what do you think?"
I think that percentage similarities dont really tell you anything. from a molecular and atomic level, i am 100% the same as everything in the universe. that tells you nothing.
a 1% difference can mean a lot in genetics. this is actually a considerable difference with respect to the genome sequence.
youd wonder why chimps and apes, being so similar to us, dont have problems with genetic deseases and cancers and aids and... |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 14:48:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
"They did it and found human and simian DNA to be 98% similar (give or take 1%). It was on the news recently."
that percentage does not necessarily suggest that the method of evolution was not ID.
as a goofy example that you ought not take seriously, if god molded a lump of clay into a horse, scientists would say "hmm, look how similar that lump is to that horse. theyre 98% the same, except for the shape! gee whiz! science!"
but seriously.
Indeed, SERIOUSLY....
That was so lame you should be ashamed.
I thought you way smarter that this.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 14:48:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
"Hey, Patrick-- earlier you said you couldn't find much onf DNA comparisons between humans and chimps (or apes, or whichever). A number of us have posted some links detailing some of those comparisons. Have you looked at them yet? Now that you have this information, what do you think?"
I think that percentage similarities dont really tell you anything. from a molecular and atomic level, i am 100% the same as everything in the universe. that tells you nothing.
a 1% difference can mean a lot in genetics. this is actually a considerable difference with respect to the genome sequence.
youd wonder why chimps and apes, being so similar to us, dont have problems with genetic deseases and cancers and aids and...
Er - they do.
Apes have their own kind of AIDS, name I forget now. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 14:57:00 [Permalink]
|
"Indeed, SERIOUSLY....
That was so lame you should be ashamed.
I thought you way smarter that this."
Relax, dude. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 15:07:36 [Permalink]
|
Patric, from your Apologetic Press link:quote:
The prognosis is dim—unless a healthy kidney and liver are transplanted within the next 12 hours. A call is made to the National Organ Donor Registry, and the gravity of the situation is relayed to several donor officials. Within a matter of hours, a chartered air ambulance delivers the organs in a bright red Igloo™ cooler. As the anesthesiologist begins the necessary preparations for surgery, the patient notices the surgeon walk over and inspect the donated organs. The last words the patient hears as he drifts off to sleep is the surgeon saying, “Well, I guess chimp organs will have to do; after all, we share over 98% of the same genetic material.”
A more blatant appeal to emotion is hard to find.
Skimming through the article there are several arguments that make sense at a cursory examination, but at closer scrutiny are false.
How about this:
quote:
Additionally, complexity does not appear to affect the chromosomal number. The radiolaria (a simple protozoon) has over 800, while humans possess 46. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, have 48 chromosomes. A strict comparison of chromosome numbers would indicate that we are more closely related to the Chinese muntjac (a small deer found in Taiwan's mountainous regions), which also has 46 chromosomes.
This is so stupid it makes me sick.
Anyone coming up with this argument is either willfully ignorant or is blatantly spreading lies. I sure even you can point out the problem in this?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 15:32:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
youd wonder why chimps and apes, being so similar to us, dont have problems with genetic deseases and cancers and aids and...
In their natural environment these animals don't usually live long enough to develop some of these.
Back in the good old days, say 20'000 years ago, humans didn't live much past 35 years, yet were grandparents by that time. Heart decease, cancer, bad backs, type 2 diabetes, arthritis, age-related long-sightedness etc didn't have time to kick in. And by then, the death of the human had no impact what-so-ever on the evolutionary path the species were taking.
And regarding AIDS (and you may correct me if I'm wrong...), didn't the HIV virus originate in primates? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 15:33:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
"Hey, Patrick-- earlier you said you couldn't find much onf DNA comparisons between humans and chimps (or apes, or whichever). A number of us have posted some links detailing some of those comparisons. Have you looked at them yet? Now that you have this information, what do you think?"
I think that percentage similarities dont really tell you anything. from a molecular and atomic level, i am 100% the same as everything in the universe. that tells you nothing.
a 1% difference can mean a lot in genetics. this is actually a considerable difference with respect to the genome sequence.
youd wonder why chimps and apes, being so similar to us, dont have problems with genetic deseases and cancers and aids and...
I think this is called cherry picking. Or something. Look at the link I provided and read it completely. The argument isn't in similarity. It's more complex, but very straightforward.
And if you aren't interested in reading it all let me know. I'll try and summarize it for you-- though seriously, if you're genuinely interested in the question, the link I provided will go a long way towards providing answers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 15:47:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
"So, Patrick, you're a believer when it comes to UFOs, but deny what is probably the most well-supported theory in all of science"
People jump to conclusion here a lot.
I never denied evolution. I merely suggested its lack of evidential foundation on certain key areas.
Since scientific theories are built upon the evidence, denying the evidence exists (especially when you appear to be ignorant of that evidence) is the same thing as denying the theory itself.quote:
i am not an ID advocate.
Then why are you advocating the position that biological organisms could have been desgined?quote:
i just like to poke skeptics.
Okay, you're a troll. I see.quote:
It is indeed a silly argument, ID. its purely speculation, usually along the lines of: random chemical reactions assembling into the primary biological components to form the first cellular lifeforms is as ridiculous as a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a leer jet.
Yeah, that's a pathetic and ancient creationist argument. They've moved on, and use more sophisticated arguments from ignorance, now. You seem to be as up-to-date on ID as you are on evolution.quote:
the pre-cambrian explosion was an odd period.
The "Cambrian explosion" is a misnomer from a layperson's point-of-view, since the "explosion" took tens of millions of years. What's so odd about it, anyway?quote:
I think that percentage similarities dont really tell you anything. from a molecular and atomic level, i am 100% the same as everything in the universe. that tells you nothing.
Evolutionary theory predicts that apes and humans should be genetically similar. ID makes no such prediction.
And Peptide's discussion of HERVs is a great read (thanks, Cune).quote:
a 1% difference can mean a lot in genetics. this is actually a considerable difference with respect to the genome sequence.
Indeed, chimps are considerably different from humans.quote:
youd wonder why chimps and apes, being so similar to us, dont have problems with genetic deseases and cancers and aids and...
You would wonder about that, because you're ignorant of such diseases (especially Simian Immunodeficiency Virus). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 18:24:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Can you not say that there is not enough evidence to convince me, while at the same time not thinking the theory is false?
Denial of a theory includes both thinking that it's false, and thinking that there's not enough evidence to think it's true. Patrick's denial of evolutionary theory is clearly caused by simple ignorance of the evidence, but that doesn't make it any less a denial, especially when he proposes that he's got enough knowledge of the subject(s) to assert that evolutionary theory can reside "within" ID.
Of course, he might believe evolution to be true in just the same way that he believes that UFOs are either ETs or government secrets: in a vacuous, non-evidenciary fashion which certainly offers no support to those on the front lines of the "culture war." The world doesn't need even one more person who "believes in" evolutionary theory.quote:
quote:
Then why are you advocating the position that biological organisms could have been desgined?
Don't ID advocates advocate that biological organisms must have been designed, not just could have? I see a big difference between the two.
Read some of the Dover transcripts. Professional IDists can't really agree amongst themselves what they're advocating. And the most-sane of them only advocate that a preponderance of evidence suggests design, much like biologists say that huge mountains of evidence suggest nothing more than evolutionary processes.
Be that as it may, Patrick, with statements like "that percentage does not necessarily suggest that the method of evolution was not ID," is asking us to offer proof that some aspect of the biodiversity we see couldn't possibly have been the result of a designer.
It's possible that he's just doing a really crappy job of playing Devil's Advocate (or "poke the skeptic"), but given that the Dover trial showed the depths to which the leading proponents of ID will simply and unashamedly lie for Jesus, one can no longer take "i am not an ID advocate" at face value. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 18:54:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And Peptide's discussion of HERVs is a great read (thanks, Cune).
I took the liberty of bumping the thread with a brief background to it, and what happened after. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/10/2005 19:00:47 |
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 22:02:58 [Permalink]
|
"given that the Dover trial showed the depths to which the leading proponents of ID will simply and unashamedly lie for Jesus"
...oh please... |
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 22:17:59 [Permalink]
|
If random mutation is the key to evolution, where are the fossils which prove the transition? Where is the invertebrate that transcends into the vertebrate? Where is the fish that becomes a lizard, a lizard that becomes a bird and the many mutations in between?
The diversity of species seems aufully vast for random mutation to be the answer. Take a lizard which through random mutation grew a long finger. Then it grew skin followed by feathers. The odds of this are incomprehensible. The odds of a mutation being beneficial are also extremely high. Imagine a lizard with an extremely long finger on each side running through the grass and brush, bouncing up and down like a fishing lure snagging itself constantly until some predator gobbles it up. Until they find the feathered reptile with the long fingers or the other transitionary creatures, evolution will never look like a solid, clear-cut and dry fact. it will remain as believable to me as the Big Bang and zero-point energy. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 00:56:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
If random mutation is the key to evolution, where are the fossils which prove the transition?
This might come as a shock, but you usually have to move your lazy ass to access useful information. quote:
Where is the invertebrate that transcends into the vertebrate? Where is the fish that becomes a lizard, a lizard that becomes a bird and the many mutations in between?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Here you go. Now I did some of your work for you. For the reading and thinking you have to find help by somebody else.quote:
The diversity of species seems aufully vast for random mutation to be the answer.
Says who? You?quote:
Take a lizard which through random mutation grew a long finger. Then it grew skin followed by feathers. The odds of this are incomprehensible.
And that is also not how evolution works.
If you are going to argue against something don't you think the intellectually honest thing would be to first learn what this thing is?quote:
The odds of a mutation being beneficial are also extremely high.
Compared to what? How do you define beneficial? So what are the odds then? References please!
Or do you want to admit that you yet again know nothing of what you are talking about?
|
| Edited by - Starman on 11/11/2005 00:59:42 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
