|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 01/31/2006 : 10:11:16
|
I am having an email debate with a creationist. More to the point, one who writes books to debunk evolution. I have and will not engage him in that debate. I keep offering him a formal debate in writing. He keeps on dodging my offer. Not unexpectedly I should add. My point has been to show how he sets up a false dichotomy by making a God belief incompatible with the idea that evolution. I have been aiming at the philosophical core of his beliefs based on fallacies of logic.
He is John Schroeder and his book is:
Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom
Anyhow, while I don't want to debate evolution with him in email since it would be, well, just another email debate on evolution, I will keep pushing for a formal debate hosted by SFN. I have told him many times that we would absolutely set up a structure for the debate that would include him in the process and all must be agreeable to the terms.
But now I need some help. I would like to address this one claim that he has made.
quote:
Me:
John, did you know that chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to any of the other apes?
John replies:
David, did you know that their DNA and human DNA is comprised of three-billion (3,000,000,000) base pairs of four different chemicals? Did you know that the 4% difference in their and our DNA is in two-hundred and forty-million (240,000,000) base pairs? That's why they're still monkeys, always have been monkeys, and don't plan on being anything else but monkeys. You need to look into
one of evolution's many dirty little secrets - Haldane's Dilemma. If monkeys really were closely related to us, David, the medical profession would be harvesting their organs for physically needy humans. Be sure to keep me informed when they start.
Sigh, I will be sure to inform him that apes are not monkeys. Any comments or help on the rest of the above quote would be appreciated. I don't have the time to do the research myself…
Thanks!
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 10:17:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If monkeys really were closely related to us, David, the medical profession would be harvesting their organs for physically needy humans
Why would this be true? Further, we do harvest organs from animals that aren't related to us. Perhaps we don't use monkeys because they are endangered? Or perhaps that they may have higher intelligence and may therefore feel emotions or are sentient?
Further further, the medical profession would rather use exact matched (i.e. humans), and they can't even get that quite right (yet).
I find that arugment by him to be quite empty. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 01/31/2006 10:20:30 |
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 10:33:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
If monkeys really were closely related to us, David, the medical profession would be harvesting their organs for physically needy humans
Why would this be true? Further, we do harvest organs from animals that aren't related to us. Perhaps we don't use monkeys because they are endangered? Or perhaps that they may have higher intelligence and may therefore feel emotions or are sentient?
Further further, the medical profession would rather use exact matched (i.e. humans), and they can't even get that quite right (yet).
I find that arugment by him to be quite empty.
Not to mention it is already hard enough to find compatible humans between humans. |
"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
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 11:16:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
If monkeys really were closely related to us, David, the medical profession would be harvesting their organs for physically needy humans
Why would this be true? Further, we do harvest organs from animals that aren't related to us. Perhaps we don't use monkeys because they are endangered? Or perhaps that they may have higher intelligence and may therefore feel emotions or are sentient?
Further further, the medical profession would rather use exact matched (i.e. humans), and they can't even get that quite right (yet).
I find that arugment by him to be quite empty.
Yeah maybe? Or maybe we are not related to monkeys/apes and you are just grasping for straws. Not willing to use monkeys for research because of their frail emotions... Oh please... Tell that to the 1000's of monkeys who go through BAX every night on their way to medical labs across the country. Besides the monkeys don't care at all about our emotions so why should we care about theirs? They spit and hiss at anyone who get's close to their gage. Not a very nice way to greet a long lost relative wouldn't you say? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 11:18:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
I am having an email debate with a creationist. More to the point, one who writes books to debunk evolution. I have and will not engage him in that debate. I keep offering him a formal debate in writing. He keeps on dodging my offer. Not unexpectedly I should add. My point has been to show how he sets up a false dichotomy by making a God belief incompatible with the idea that evolution. I have been aiming at the philosophical core of his beliefs based on fallacies of logic.
He is John Schroeder and his book is:
Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom
Anyhow, while I don't want to debate evolution with him in email since it would be, well, just another email debate on evolution, I will keep pushing for a formal debate hosted by SFN. I have told him many times that we would absolutely set up a structure for the debate that would include him in the process and all must be agreeable to the terms.
But now I need some help. I would like to address this one claim that he has made.
quote:
Me:
John, did you know that chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to any of the other apes?
John replies:
David, did you know that their DNA and human DNA is comprised of three-billion (3,000,000,000) base pairs of four different chemicals? Did you know that the 4% difference in their and our DNA is in two-hundred and forty-million (240,000,000) base pairs? That's why they're still monkeys, always have been monkeys, and don't plan on being anything else but monkeys. You need to look into
one of evolution's many dirty little secrets - Haldane's Dilemma. If monkeys really were closely related to us, David, the medical profession would be harvesting their organs for physically needy humans. Be sure to keep me informed when they start.
Sigh, I will be sure to inform him that apes are not monkeys. Any comments or help on the rest of the above quote would be appreciated. I don't have the time to do the research myself…
Thanks!
Inform the rat-bastard that it's already started and quite some time ago.
http://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0302/21/m01.html
University of Missouri is doing work with porcine donors currently. Dr. James Hardy actually did one with a chimp heart in '64.
[edited to add]
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BI108/BI108_2005_Groups/06/introduction.htm
Here, Brown University teaches a course on it.
The main concern seems to be transmittal of virii from the donor to the reciever. And lets not forget that primate to human transplants were banned by the FDA in 1996. The major stumbling blocks to xenotransplantation is the existance of dormant retroviruses in these other animals which may or do activate upon transplantation into a human. (Thus the FDA ban)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5015a1.htm |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 01/31/2006 11:34:24 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 11:47:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
John replies:
David, did you know that their DNA and human DNA is comprised of three-billion (3,000,000,000) base pairs of four different chemicals? Did you know that the 4% difference in their and our DNA is in two-hundred and forty-million (240,000,000) base pairs? That's why they're still monkeys, always have been monkeys, and don't plan on being anything else but monkeys. You need to look into
one of evolution's many dirty little secrets - Haldane's Dilemma. If monkeys really were closely related to us, David, the medical profession would be harvesting their organs for physically needy humans. Be sure to keep me informed when they start.
1. He's missing the forrest because of all the trees. And the difference is 96-99%, depending on how the comparison is made. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared is 99% identicle. WHen you take insertions and deletions into account, it drops to 96%.
2. 4% of three billion is 120M, not 240M.
3. As has been pointed out, it is very difficult to match human to human organs and tissue for transplant. Even when you get a highly compatible match you still must take anti-rejection meds for the rest of your life. His assertion that it should be easy to transplant organs from chimps to humans, if we were closely related, is a fine example of a straw-man argument. No credible person would suggest that xenografting "should" be easy, even among closely related species.
4. Ask him to explain the common endogenous retroviral insertions found in both chimp and human genomes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
5. Ask him to explain the fusion event in human chromosome 2.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
From the link to his book:
quote:
Author John Schroeder has conducted many seminars over the years, clearly refuting the molecule-to-man evolution theory
quote:
The sum total of the evidence will engender an immutable conviction that m-to-m evolution, taught as established fact in the public school system, is, in fact, a monumental deception whose probability and possibility is exactly ZERO!
More straw-man arguments, indicating that his book is nothing but a compilation of such nonsense.
Modern evolutionary theory does not address the origin of life. That is another theory entirely, called abiogenesis, and it is a very new field of study.
Mr Schroeder, apparently, can't muster a real argument against evolution so he must build up straw-men to argue against.
quote:
It is nothing more or less than 21st century sorcery, and because its disciples have intimidated the media and the public into a condoning silence, it has become an intellectual cancer infecting virtually every phase of the public education system.
Yeah... the disciples of evolution have intimidated "the media" AND "the public".
What can you do besides laugh when you read something like that?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 12:15:18 [Permalink]
|
I understands that Haldane's Dilemma builds on the idea that there aren't enough generations to build enough differences in the genome.
From Talk.Origins:
quote:
J. B. S. Haldane calculated that new genes become fixed only after 300 generations due to the cost of natural selection (Haldane 1957). Since humans and apes differ in 4.8 × 107 genes, there has not been enough time for difference to accumulate. Only 1,667 gene substitutions could have occurred if their divergence was ten million years ago.
I've seen different numbers for Haldane's Dilemma, some of them taking into account the percentage of good, bad, and neutral mutations, different numbers of generations (500'000) from the common ancestor. But all of them are made to show that the difference in the genome couldn't possibly be attributed to mutations.
|
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. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 12:54:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
If monkeys really were closely related to us, David, the medical profession would be harvesting their organs for physically needy humans
Why would this be true? Further, we do harvest organs from animals that aren't related to us. Perhaps we don't use monkeys because they are endangered? Or perhaps that they may have higher intelligence and may therefore feel emotions or are sentient?
Further further, the medical profession would rather use exact matched (i.e. humans), and they can't even get that quite right (yet).
I find that arugment by him to be quite empty.
Yeah maybe? Or maybe we are not related to monkeys/apes and you are just grasping for straws. Not willing to use monkeys for research because of their frail emotions... Oh please... Tell that to the 1000's of monkeys who go through BAX every night on their way to medical labs across the country. Besides the monkeys don't care at all about our emotions so why should we care about theirs? They spit and hiss at anyone who get's close to their gage. Not a very nice way to greet a long lost relative wouldn't you say?
Yeah, on second thought that part of my answer sounded kind of silly. I retract it.
Now, by "1000's of monkeys" you are not counting chimpanzees, right? They are the topic of discussion, not all monkeys.
Now, since you decided to show up, try answering the rest of it (and the other posts) here.
Is that one part of my quote is the only thing you can argue with in this entire thread? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 01/31/2006 12:59:20 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 13:01:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523).
|
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. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 13:58:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
If monkeys really were closely related to us, David, the medical profession would be harvesting their organs for physically needy humans
Why would this be true? Further, we do harvest organs from animals that aren't related to us. Perhaps we don't use monkeys because they are endangered? Or perhaps that they may have higher intelligence and may therefore feel emotions or are sentient?
Further further, the medical profession would rather use exact matched (i.e. humans), and they can't even get that quite right (yet).
I find that arugment by him to be quite empty.
Yeah maybe? Or maybe we are not related to monkeys/apes and you are just grasping for straws. Not willing to use monkeys for research because of their frail emotions... Oh please... Tell that to the 1000's of monkeys who go through BAX every night on their way to medical labs across the country. Besides the monkeys don't care at all about our emotions so why should we care about theirs? They spit and hiss at anyone who get's close to their gage. Not a very nice way to greet a long lost relative wouldn't you say?
Yeah, on second thought that part of my answer sounded kind of silly. I retract it.
Now, by "1000's of monkeys" you are not counting chimpanzees, right? They are the topic of discussion, not all monkeys.
Now, since you decided to show up, try answering the rest of it (and the other posts) here.
Is that one part of my quote is the only thing you can argue with in this entire thread?
Why bother? Your under the impression that monkeys are given a pardon because of their frail emotions. (sigh) |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 14:00:21 [Permalink]
|
I retracted that...if you insist on bringing it back up, then that would tend to indicate that you have absolutely nothing else to argue with.
I also see that you are now moving to take my comments out of context. Typical.
Not too surprising, either.
But it is my fault for a) stating that and b) not being very clear about what I meant.
But, like I said before, I retract the whole statement.
On second thought, don't bother. I don't want to hear your inane blather.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 01/31/2006 14:02:56 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 14:09:53 [Permalink]
|
To the whole board, I apologize for that statement. It was not based on anything scientific and was an appeal to emotion. That is the common tactic of the creationists, and for some reason I used it too.
Obviously I have some work to do, as we all do, on my critical thinking skills.
So, please forgive, and hopefully I will learn from the error and continue to improve myself.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 15:28:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If monkeys really were closely related to us, David, the medical profession would be harvesting their organs for physically needy humans. Be sure to keep me informed when they start.
From Biotechnology Industry Organization
quote:
Monkeys, on the other hand, are undomesticated animals that do not fare well in controlled environments and, therefore, it is difficult to raise them to the same high health standards as pigs. Furthermore, their organs are much too small and, like humans, monkeys mature slowly and tend to give birth to one offspring at a time. Although humans might reject nonhuman primate organs less frequently and vigorously than those of other species because of their genetic similarities, these similarities could facilitate disease spread between the donor and recipient. This threat of disease, and ethical issues associated with the use of nonhuman primates as organ sources, have led some government agencies to consider banning the use of nonhuman primates for xenotransplantation. For example, the United Kingdom (UK) has banned the use of great apes and strongly protests the use of other primates for this purpose.
What applies to the monkeys above also applies to apes. In other words, ONE of the reasons for not using apes is BECAUSE they are so closely related to us. Tell John that he should try to use some facts before submitting snidy comments. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
| Edited by - Hawks on 01/31/2006 15:40:49 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 16:07:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
John replies:
David, did you know that their DNA and human DNA is comprised of three-billion (3,000,000,000) base pairs of four different chemicals? Did you know that the 4% difference in their and our DNA is in two-hundred and forty-million (240,000,000) base pairs? That's why they're still monkeys, always have been monkeys, and don't plan on being anything else but monkeys. You need to look into
one of evolution's many dirty little secrets - Haldane's Dilemma.
As already pointed out, the difference in base-pairs is closer to 1%, making a difference in 30,000,000 of them. The percent difference doesn't really matter that much, however. Haldanes dilemma applies to genes and you can't directly relate the number of changes in base-pairs to how many genes have actually changed.
Isn't it also typical for a creationist to use an old source (ie Haldane) that has been shown to be wrong?
Please, please, please get this guy to accept a formal debate here. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 16:50:20 [Permalink]
|
Kil, does he know that we differ from each other by .01% or 3 million base pairs?
If you need sources on how one goes from an ancestor to either a human or chimpanzee, look for the work of Mary Claire King (early stuff since later stuff is on breast cancer) and Maynard Olsen from the U of WA.
The numbers are in no way any kind of evidence against evolution, only evidence the evolution deniers don't have a grasp on the time frame in which evolution occurs.
And as to how closely related we are to other species, we have been using pig parts in humans for decades. Their blood vessels and heart valves are very human like.
You can also transplant a gene that controls eye development from a rabbit to a fruit fly you took the equivalent gene out of and you get a fruit fly eye just the same. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/31/2006 16:55:28 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2006 : 17:34:32 [Permalink]
|
One thing that has been bothering me for a while, but I haven't gotten around to look up in google.
Perhaps someone of you know links that can provide some answers...
I've been told that the transcription error rate is about 1 in 1 billion base pairs, in a cell division. This number obviously has a large margin of error, but we are in the right magnitude. For the sake of argument (and ease) lets assume 1 in ~3billion.
If this number is per copy, as in cell division, let's start with a fertilised egg. When it divides, one of the cells will have a mutation.
When those two cells divide, we will have one cell with no mutation, two cells with one mutation, and one cell with two mutations.
The third generation of cells will contain:
One cell without mutation,
three cells with one mutation
three cells with two mutations
one cell with three mutations.
How many generations will it take until a female zygote/foetus/infant have developed enough to start making meiosis?
Since male sperms are mass-produced later in life, this means that males contribute with a higher mutation rate than females.
If there is merit to my thoughts above, then the mutation rate for a human will be high indeed. If the genome consists of 90% non-coding base-pairs many of those mutations will be neutral, but there will still be some pretty plenty of them to go around.
(Mind you, I hope you can set me straight: I'm an electronics engineer with computers and astronomy as hobby. I basically flunked my biology course in collage. My astro-biology course at the university only touched the subject on human sexual reproduction ) |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
