but what about the fused chromosome? I mean.. to have two chromosomes fused together that are separated in the other species.. and end markers showing up in the middle. You can argue about this character's particular bias and such.. but what about the chromosomes?
I agree, WW - Miller seems to be offering the same answer that he's challenging. Dawkins (although more extreme) does a similar disservice to his own ideas, contending no more than "things are the way they are because that's the way they are" to rephrase his logic.
==============
How funny though - I know I'm the only one to see this so I don't expect you to get it Ham, but that video is titled "How to Shut Up Pesky Creationists".....did they even listen to or watch it? It's a perfect illustration of how the debate always goes.
Well, Miller - having been a "Roman Catholic theist" at one time myself I can say from experience it doesn't do a lot for your brain and it does take a certain amount of time to recover and reconnect after any lengthy exposure to RCism. I can only hope that he too is in successful recovery, for there but for the grace of God ...
I would tend to compare the broader view of the information in Genesis favorably in light of his contention(s) though, so no naysayer am I, no knee jerk jump off from me, no sir.
Adam and Eve come into being in chapter 2. There's a lot of action before that.
Given that the writer of Genesis wasn't 1. a Roman Catholic theist or 2. a Dr, of anything and certainly not a 3.4.5 scientist, biologist or genius
The flow of the information in Genesis would flow with a development of life and it's formation on earth. I know many "creationists" don't think that or see that, so I gueeeeeess I get the rush to judgment.
All the arguments about days and cells clouds the larger story of Genesis - it's not a school text book that will be revised next year based on whatever piece of scientific croutons are crumbled before next publication deadline.
It's a record of magnanimous measure - the entire creation of the earth and all the surrounding universe, by a "God" who also creates a man and woman
Two like no other before and to which a specific relationship was established by their creator.
I say that because Genesis itself doesn't cover any of the kinds of information that it's normally compared against or in favor of. It tells it's own story, it's own way. But Miller's information actually could follow the same path, IMO.
I didn't choose the name of the video. Ignoring the title-which could have been stamped on it by somebody else- who knows. And ignoring the religious or lack of religious inclinations or faulty methods, assuming there are some, of the speaker- what about the DNA?
So we find two less pairs of chromosomes in man. They can be shown to be a fused set from a simian neighbor- and they show "end pieces" in between the two ends where they have been fused together.
Has anyone found a good, solid counter-argument to the claim that this is proof that man evolved from the simians by sharing a mutated version of the DNA?
And the argument he puts forward seems to rely on being able to find the exact site on the chromosome where the fusion occurred.
Are there any thoughts, disclaimers or valid counter-arguments to this?
A few personal thoughts about this- I don't take this presentation like what he's saying is "see, see, you're WRONG, you dumb intelligent creationists.."
I think the intelligent design camp views this as a chess game, and suddenly they have been issued a check, which very well might be checkmate..
maybe the assertion is that the "intelligent design" people don't exactly have all of the facts straight..
maybe things got intelligently designed slightly a different way than they think.
I'm not inclined to counter argue the point - it may in fact actually support an intelligent fusion of the suspect chromosomes, by intelligent design.
I guess I'm missing something, where does it mean that this means man is "evolved" from his simian neighbors? I don't think that this is proof of that, Ham, I was kind of surprised that he/we/anyone make that jump. Related, in a way we are related to animals, God's creation. All the debate can cloud that, and asset the separation and differences, but I have to say I believe there are significant differences in the upper register of our intelligence stack.
That things change based on environment, conditions, choice, goes without saying. "Evolution" isn't rocket science, to me. But the evidence doesn't prove that's the process that produced man, from simians, monkeys, salamanders or bees. I'm not suggesting a white haired God in flowing robes built Adam out of a clay pit as the alternative. I just don't think this proposal "proves" man evolved from (you name it) Maybe we did. This doesn't prove it.
If someone can duplicate it that would be interesting.
I think the most interesting part of this presentation- well, given he is convinced that there is scientific evidence that supports the idea of evolution- is that it fundamentally does not effect his spirituality.
He still practices Roman Catholicism.
Still believes in a creator, God..
on the other hand- the "opposition" with bible literacy and inerrancy, and so on would consider their very existence to be threatened if what he says is true.
As far as I see it.. the ball is now in the fundamentalist's court. I haven't seen a reply yet.. maybe they have, I just haven't found it.
I'd like to see a reasonable reply framed..
maybe find something else in the human genome..
assassinating the character, or the motives of one whom one is debating to soften the relevance of some proposed facts.. I mean, that's Congress. not a debate..
Why the earth is less than 15,000 years old. The fundamentalists issued a counter-argument.
1. The rotation period of the earth is lessened by a measurable degree, every year..
and this is the missing part of the argument:
2. Given that this rate has at all times been constant:
3. If we went back six million years, taking into account the (constant) effect of atmospheric drag, with the speed of rotation back then, dinosaurs would have to be flying off the earth due to the centrifugal force.
Personally.. I think they assumed point number two. Maybe there was not always a nice, rich atmosphere, and lots of water vapor from the oceans to cause this kind of drag on the earth's rotation..
That was a highly polished presentation I saw as well- pictures of dinosaurs flying off of the earth, due to the extreme rotation of the earth..
I think that was a poor argument.
Maybe they haven't come up with a good counter argument for the current challenge.. the human genome evidence seems fairly convincing to me. But I'm not a geneticist.
I don't think the difference between human and great ape chromosomes says ANYTHING about whether that difference is the result of random chance or intelligent design...
God is free to create, and He takes responsibility for what He has created.
I think humanity being created in God's image means that human beings have a degree of freedom and a degree of responsibility that the other animals DON'T have.
That degree is not absolute. No people have the freedom to dictate the circumstances in which they find themselves, but everybody has a degree of freedom to decide how they will respond in those circumstances. That's why freedom and responsibility are the same thing.
If God created human beings by taking some great apes and splicing some of their genes to produce critters who have a degree of freedom and a degree of responsibility, that makes sense to me!
I think humanity being created in God's image means that human beings have a degree of freedom and a degree of responsibility that the other animals DON'T have.
I dunno. On the other hand..
Animals do seem to have a very limited amount of freedom.. mainly influenced by man's encroachment on their environment.. here I could agree.
then.. we had a cat who gave birth to seven offspring. Absolutely, positively without the influence of man. In other words, a degree of freedom- technically she did not need us. For anything. She would have gone out slaying rabbits to feed her offspring if she had to.
Why the earth is less than 15,000 years old. The fundamentalists issued a counter-argument.
1. The rotation period of the earth is lessened by a measurable degree, every year..
and this is the missing part of the argument:
2. Given that this rate has at all times been constant:
3. If we went back six million years, taking into account the (constant) effect of atmospheric drag, with the speed of rotation back then, dinosaurs would have to be flying off the earth due to the centrifugal force.
Personally.. I think they assumed point number two. Maybe there was not always a nice, rich atmosphere, and lots of water vapor from the oceans to cause this kind of drag on the earth's rotation..
That was a highly polished presentation I saw as well- pictures of dinosaurs flying off of the earth, due to the extreme rotation of the earth..
I think that was a poor argument.
Maybe they haven't come up with a good counter argument for the current challenge.. the human genome evidence seems fairly convincing to me. But I'm not a geneticist.
I believe the Bible is true, but I don't believe it is "inerrant". The truth is poetic, expressed primarily by simile and metaphor, and only secondarily by proposition. That's where the fundamentalists get it wrong. They take EVERYTHING as propositionally true.
As far as I see it.. the ball is now in the fundamentalist's court. I haven't seen a reply yet.. maybe they have, I just haven't found it.
I'd like to see a reasonable reply framed..
As far as I see it,
we should all have a chance to have a life and log in and respond in between events in it.
You're making it sound like a few hours with no response means everyone is stymied.
Why the earth is less than 15,000 years old. The fundamentalists issued a counter-argument.
(snip)
There's quite a few positions taken by people who believe the Bible is accurate.
ONE is the "young earth creation" position.
The one time I encountered a Christian who held this position, I did my best to correct him.
Other than him, I've heard of people who've held it, but most of the time when I hear
about it, it's from someone who doesn't believe it-
who is saying
"The Bible can't be true because the evidence supports an Earth being a LOT older than
thousands of years-it looks like it's millions or billions of years old."
Well, duh. The Bible doesn't give a year. Positions by most intelligent Christians all
reflect that. Even the actual Scopes Monkey Trial had that in the testimony.
(The real thing, not the movie that propagandized against Christians.)
It is POSSIBLE that the Earth is young but was created to APPEAR old.
All the evidence would match that.
I reject it as less logical than the position that it actually IS that old.
Hhowever, when someone claims the evidence doesn't show the Earth being that old,
I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't understand the science,
and was just going by someone else's grasp of things
(which wasn't a tight grasp either.)
(snip)
what about the DNA?
So we find two less pairs of chromosomes in man. They can be shown to be a fused set from a simian neighbor- and they show "end pieces" in between the two ends where they have been fused together.
Has anyone found a good, solid counter-argument to the claim that this is proof that man evolved from the simians by sharing a mutated version of the DNA?
And the argument he puts forward seems to rely on being able to find the exact site on the chromosome where the fusion occurred.
Are there any thoughts, disclaimers or valid counter-arguments to this?
In fairness,
any "good, SOLID" response would require me to both have access to the entire genome mapping
of a number of animals,
and enough of a background to read them as if I was skimming through a Greek-English Interlinear.
I can point out what was NOT said, and unsupported claims by the speaker.
I don't have access to sufficient evidence to completely overthrow his claim.
(In a court of law, the other side would be required to provide it, in the US, under "disclosure.")
First of all,
the claim is that man and simians both evolved from proto-simians, not men from apes.
(I refuse to mischaracterize his position and I refuse to allow mine to be mischaracterized.)
Second of all,
the key to proving a case would be COMPARISON.
"Here you see the DNA sequencing of 10 sample humans. Here you see the sequencing of 10 sample
I'm not inclined to counter argue the point - it may in fact actually support an intelligent fusion of the suspect chromosomes, by intelligent design.
I guess I'm missing something, where does it mean that this means man is "evolved" from his simian neighbors? I don't think that this is proof of that, Ham, I was kind of surprised that he/we/anyone make that jump. Related, in a way we are related to animals, God's creation. All the debate can cloud that, and asset the separation and differences, but I have to say I believe there are significant differences in the upper register of our intelligence stack.
That things change based on environment, conditions, choice, goes without saying. "Evolution" isn't rocket science, to me. But the evidence doesn't prove that's the process that produced man, from simians, monkeys, salamanders or bees. I'm not suggesting a white haired God in flowing robes built Adam out of a clay pit as the alternative. I just don't think this proposal "proves" man evolved from (you name it) Maybe we did. This doesn't prove it.
If someone can duplicate it that would be interesting.
I agree.
I do not support the teaching of "creation" in schools.
I support "full disclosure" on evolutionary theory.
There's lots of problems with the suppositions,
but nobody teaches them in schools along with the theory.
So, kids think the theory is unflawed.
They're taught, for example, that peppered moths are
proof of physiological changes in species in reaction
to environment. The claim: their skin changed shades in response
to their environment changing, so now they camouflage
into pollution. However, the claims don't have any
actual support. It is SPECULATED that they rest in
those places. It is CLAIMED that this is proof of
change. It is IGNORED that both types of peppered moths
existed before pollution, both existed after pollution
set in, and both types' populations rose and fell
TOGETHER. This argues AGAINST theory-which says the
lighter shades should be reproducing at smaller rates
than the darker shades due to the shades increasing
survival chances for the darker moths. The thing
I find detestable is the actual staging of photos-
where peppered moths were put against low parts of
trees-where they NEVER rest- to show the darker ones
camouflage better at rest and see how this matches
our theories? In its own way, it's as vile as the
Disney filmers shoving the lemmings to their deaths
to support the claim that lemmings jump to their deaths.
IF evolution with descent actually IS how all species
got here, there's a LOT for science to explain before
I like this thread! I find myself conversing with a squirrel, a wolf and a frog. Perhaps I should revert to the identity I bore in a previous lifetime (pre-internet), the Dink Duck! What a fable Aesop could make of this thread!
I think the reason I'm not really engrossed in the issue is that one or the other, it wouldn't change the exact reality that I have today, with God and the core experience of my life around both that reality and my resulting "faith".
It would have an impact on some of it but unlike many Christians, I'm not overwhelmed with worry about all the details of "how' God "created" life. It's interesting but not really a deal breaker.
Other people often pose this kind of information as if to say "SO, now, let's just get this straight PLEASE - all this business about your god and your spirit and this jesus is WRONG. Refer to (whatever it is) for details. Please get back to REALITY which is (whatever they say it is).
Uh, no.
I did some browsing - I guess this guy's premise is reasonable - there's a lot of "if" and "probably" and then "so if then it would have to be" kind of verbiage he uses as WW noted, and that seems to make it sound like he's doing a card trick out of the basic facts - so, so if then and if then and probably so then it would HAVE TO BE.....see, that just sets off alarms in my head.
But the basic information appears correct. I'm not a scientist, can't verify any of it other than what I read. It sounds like the basic facts are "true".
Recommended Posts
waysider
Ha! The missing link isn't missing after all. It's just been chillin' with the homeboys and keeping on the down low.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think the speaker is oblivious to the flaws in his own presentation.
1) He assumed a difference was the result of a similarity that pre-existed but changed.
The possibility there was never the similarity doesn't seem to be there.
So, it colours his work.
Furthermore, he began with the assumption that humans are great apes.
This is obvious just from his referring to humans and "the other great apes."
Genetically, humans and great apes have a lot of similarities...
but so do humans and banana slugs, genetically.
That's not a guarantee of anything.
I ended up in the same building as a friend on the same day and found out about
it later. It was a coincidence, not any part of a design.
2) He managed to turn "we know they are similar, so if they are the same, we are
right, and if they are different, we are right" into a position nobody questioned.
Good trick.
3) He derided intelligent design advocates for lacking an answer to a question-
and nobody caught him for lacking the same answer.
Good trick.
In intelligent design, things began a certain way because they were designed that
way and have proceeded as they were designed to proceed.
In by the theory of evolution as an origin of species, things all began from
inanimate matter to single-celled matter to higher forms to incredibly complicated
forms, all because there was some survival benefit to it, and there was absolutely
nothing directing it nor designing it other than what causes genes to be passed on.
Evolutionary biologists will be highly offended if you suggest that there is or
was any kind of direction or directing agency.
So, here we have a particular setup of genes.
The intelligent design person is asked "why is this set up this way?"
They answer "The intelligent designer wanted it so."
The follow-up question: "Why?"
The follow-up answer, in this case, would be "I don't know and I don't care."
The evolutionary biologist is asked "why is this set up this way?"
They answer "Evolution favored this setup- those lacking it didn't breed,
and those who had it bred and passed it along."
The follow-up question: "Why?"
The follow-up answer, in this case, would be "I don't know and I don't care."
He did not know, did not care he did not know, and doesn't seem to have a
problem with this gap in his own explanation.
For a degreed scientist, I think that's a significant blind-spot.
He doesn't have to have an answer to everything,
but he derided the opposing POV for lacking the same answer HE lacked.
Looks like his beliefs about the origin of humans is based on a
leap of faith that has directed his observations.
He's certainly free to do that, but I'd rather he be up-front and honest
about it and skip the hypocrisy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Last I heard,
the idea was that humans have common ancestors with modern apes.
So, there would be no "missing link", just proto-apes with descendants
who are humans and apes.
The "missing link" isn't scientific, and probably never was.
It was, however, claimed by a LOT of non-scientists,
which is how we all heard of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Well said, WordWolf!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
but what about the fused chromosome? I mean.. to have two chromosomes fused together that are separated in the other species.. and end markers showing up in the middle. You can argue about this character's particular bias and such.. but what about the chromosomes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I agree, WW - Miller seems to be offering the same answer that he's challenging. Dawkins (although more extreme) does a similar disservice to his own ideas, contending no more than "things are the way they are because that's the way they are" to rephrase his logic.
==============
How funny though - I know I'm the only one to see this so I don't expect you to get it Ham, but that video is titled "How to Shut Up Pesky Creationists".....did they even listen to or watch it? It's a perfect illustration of how the debate always goes.
Well, Miller - having been a "Roman Catholic theist" at one time myself I can say from experience it doesn't do a lot for your brain and it does take a certain amount of time to recover and reconnect after any lengthy exposure to RCism. I can only hope that he too is in successful recovery, for there but for the grace of God ...
I would tend to compare the broader view of the information in Genesis favorably in light of his contention(s) though, so no naysayer am I, no knee jerk jump off from me, no sir.
Adam and Eve come into being in chapter 2. There's a lot of action before that.
Given that the writer of Genesis wasn't 1. a Roman Catholic theist or 2. a Dr, of anything and certainly not a 3.4.5 scientist, biologist or genius
The flow of the information in Genesis would flow with a development of life and it's formation on earth. I know many "creationists" don't think that or see that, so I gueeeeeess I get the rush to judgment.
All the arguments about days and cells clouds the larger story of Genesis - it's not a school text book that will be revised next year based on whatever piece of scientific croutons are crumbled before next publication deadline.
It's a record of magnanimous measure - the entire creation of the earth and all the surrounding universe, by a "God" who also creates a man and woman
Two like no other before and to which a specific relationship was established by their creator.
I say that because Genesis itself doesn't cover any of the kinds of information that it's normally compared against or in favor of. It tells it's own story, it's own way. But Miller's information actually could follow the same path, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I didn't choose the name of the video. Ignoring the title-which could have been stamped on it by somebody else- who knows. And ignoring the religious or lack of religious inclinations or faulty methods, assuming there are some, of the speaker- what about the DNA?
So we find two less pairs of chromosomes in man. They can be shown to be a fused set from a simian neighbor- and they show "end pieces" in between the two ends where they have been fused together.
Has anyone found a good, solid counter-argument to the claim that this is proof that man evolved from the simians by sharing a mutated version of the DNA?
And the argument he puts forward seems to rely on being able to find the exact site on the chromosome where the fusion occurred.
Are there any thoughts, disclaimers or valid counter-arguments to this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
A few personal thoughts about this- I don't take this presentation like what he's saying is "see, see, you're WRONG, you dumb intelligent creationists.."
I think the intelligent design camp views this as a chess game, and suddenly they have been issued a check, which very well might be checkmate..
maybe the assertion is that the "intelligent design" people don't exactly have all of the facts straight..
maybe things got intelligently designed slightly a different way than they think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I'm not inclined to counter argue the point - it may in fact actually support an intelligent fusion of the suspect chromosomes, by intelligent design.
I guess I'm missing something, where does it mean that this means man is "evolved" from his simian neighbors? I don't think that this is proof of that, Ham, I was kind of surprised that he/we/anyone make that jump. Related, in a way we are related to animals, God's creation. All the debate can cloud that, and asset the separation and differences, but I have to say I believe there are significant differences in the upper register of our intelligence stack.
That things change based on environment, conditions, choice, goes without saying. "Evolution" isn't rocket science, to me. But the evidence doesn't prove that's the process that produced man, from simians, monkeys, salamanders or bees. I'm not suggesting a white haired God in flowing robes built Adam out of a clay pit as the alternative. I just don't think this proposal "proves" man evolved from (you name it) Maybe we did. This doesn't prove it.
If someone can duplicate it that would be interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think the most interesting part of this presentation- well, given he is convinced that there is scientific evidence that supports the idea of evolution- is that it fundamentally does not effect his spirituality.
He still practices Roman Catholicism.
Still believes in a creator, God..
on the other hand- the "opposition" with bible literacy and inerrancy, and so on would consider their very existence to be threatened if what he says is true.
At least that's my impression of the situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
As far as I see it.. the ball is now in the fundamentalist's court. I haven't seen a reply yet.. maybe they have, I just haven't found it.
I'd like to see a reasonable reply framed..
maybe find something else in the human genome..
assassinating the character, or the motives of one whom one is debating to soften the relevance of some proposed facts.. I mean, that's Congress. not a debate..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Why the earth is less than 15,000 years old. The fundamentalists issued a counter-argument.
1. The rotation period of the earth is lessened by a measurable degree, every year..
and this is the missing part of the argument:
2. Given that this rate has at all times been constant:
3. If we went back six million years, taking into account the (constant) effect of atmospheric drag, with the speed of rotation back then, dinosaurs would have to be flying off the earth due to the centrifugal force.
Personally.. I think they assumed point number two. Maybe there was not always a nice, rich atmosphere, and lots of water vapor from the oceans to cause this kind of drag on the earth's rotation..
That was a highly polished presentation I saw as well- pictures of dinosaurs flying off of the earth, due to the extreme rotation of the earth..
I think that was a poor argument.
Maybe they haven't come up with a good counter argument for the current challenge.. the human genome evidence seems fairly convincing to me. But I'm not a geneticist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't think the difference between human and great ape chromosomes says ANYTHING about whether that difference is the result of random chance or intelligent design...
God is free to create, and He takes responsibility for what He has created.
I think humanity being created in God's image means that human beings have a degree of freedom and a degree of responsibility that the other animals DON'T have.
That degree is not absolute. No people have the freedom to dictate the circumstances in which they find themselves, but everybody has a degree of freedom to decide how they will respond in those circumstances. That's why freedom and responsibility are the same thing.
If God created human beings by taking some great apes and splicing some of their genes to produce critters who have a degree of freedom and a degree of responsibility, that makes sense to me!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. On the other hand..
Animals do seem to have a very limited amount of freedom.. mainly influenced by man's encroachment on their environment.. here I could agree.
then.. we had a cat who gave birth to seven offspring. Absolutely, positively without the influence of man. In other words, a degree of freedom- technically she did not need us. For anything. She would have gone out slaying rabbits to feed her offspring if she had to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I believe the Bible is true, but I don't believe it is "inerrant". The truth is poetic, expressed primarily by simile and metaphor, and only secondarily by proposition. That's where the fundamentalists get it wrong. They take EVERYTHING as propositionally true.
The truth is, I dunno either!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
at last, someone agrees with me..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
As far as I see it,
we should all have a chance to have a life and log in and respond in between events in it.
You're making it sound like a few hours with no response means everyone is stymied.
There's quite a few positions taken by people who believe the Bible is accurate.
ONE is the "young earth creation" position.
The one time I encountered a Christian who held this position, I did my best to correct him.
Other than him, I've heard of people who've held it, but most of the time when I hear
about it, it's from someone who doesn't believe it-
who is saying
"The Bible can't be true because the evidence supports an Earth being a LOT older than
thousands of years-it looks like it's millions or billions of years old."
Well, duh. The Bible doesn't give a year. Positions by most intelligent Christians all
reflect that. Even the actual Scopes Monkey Trial had that in the testimony.
(The real thing, not the movie that propagandized against Christians.)
It is POSSIBLE that the Earth is young but was created to APPEAR old.
All the evidence would match that.
I reject it as less logical than the position that it actually IS that old.
Hhowever, when someone claims the evidence doesn't show the Earth being that old,
I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't understand the science,
and was just going by someone else's grasp of things
(which wasn't a tight grasp either.)
In fairness,
any "good, SOLID" response would require me to both have access to the entire genome mapping
of a number of animals,
and enough of a background to read them as if I was skimming through a Greek-English Interlinear.
I can point out what was NOT said, and unsupported claims by the speaker.
I don't have access to sufficient evidence to completely overthrow his claim.
(In a court of law, the other side would be required to provide it, in the US, under "disclosure.")
First of all,
the claim is that man and simians both evolved from proto-simians, not men from apes.
(I refuse to mischaracterize his position and I refuse to allow mine to be mischaracterized.)
Second of all,
the key to proving a case would be COMPARISON.
"Here you see the DNA sequencing of 10 sample humans. Here you see the sequencing of 10 sample
orangutans...10 gorillas...10 apes....10 lemurs....10 domestic dogs...10 domestic cats...
10 birds...10 fish....10 frogs....10 crocodiles....
You can see that the humans and all these primates have the following sequences in common.
You can see that all the other animals do NOT have them in common.
Therefore, they are sequences exclusively in common to apes and humans-but not any other animals.
This suggests common ancestry of humans and apes."
We didn't get that.
It's actually bad science.
He didn't isolate his variables.
He's GOT the information. He's GOT the training.
If it's there, he CAN make such a presentation and back it up.
That he did not, to me, weakens his case when he tries to say this is a closed case.
Without it, any dissenter is free to point out that DNA sequencing has commonalities among
LOTS of life-forms, so commonality of human to ape means both are life-forms.
(For that matter, the social structure of human society does NOT most closely resemble
the human- it resembles the wolf. I got that from animal biologists who actually
believe in human evolution as claimed. However, it should raise an eyebrow that any
of the characteristics of humans should LESS resemble primates than a non-primate
in ANY way.)
And, again,
he's failed to explain WHY there would be an advantage to fused DNA.
According to the concept of evolution with descent as the origin of species,
all changes are the result of:
A) random mutations
B) that were able to be passed down genetically
C) that were found to be advantageous once they existed
D) that increased survivability of the individual
E) and allowed that individual to breed and pass them down
F) ensuring the random mutation was passed down
So, if there was fused DNA, an intelligent design person would reply
"So what?" as to the significance of fused DNA.
If there's a fused DNA, there are 2 lingering questions he seems not
to have asked, while celebrating he's not an intelligent design person:
1) what possible advantage was gained in fusing DNA?
(He put forth that not knowing this was a weakness in the opposing viewpoint,
so let's see him explain it.)
2) If fused DNA was a genetic advantage,
then why did all the other supposed descendants of the proto-simians
breed equally well WITHOUT the fused DNA?
We should have seen a slow uptick of proto-human ancestors,
concurrent with a slow extinction of proto-ape ancestors,
and all that back in pre-history. Proto-human simians should have
displaced proto-apes on the Earth-
IF the fused DNA is actually genetically advantageous in the manner
genetics states.
If the fused DNA is NOT, then there's a lot of uncomfortable questions
about genetics theory that need to be addressed before the next
time someone claims it answers everything.
Personally, I find that geneticists who know better ignore inconvenient
truths. Darwin's still celebrated as a genetics genius when most of
his preconceptions have proven to be speculation that contradicted
the later discoveries. I mean, read "Origin of Species" sometime.
The man was a Lamarckian! That stuff was debunked and almost laughed
at when I was in high school.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I agree.
I do not support the teaching of "creation" in schools.
I support "full disclosure" on evolutionary theory.
There's lots of problems with the suppositions,
but nobody teaches them in schools along with the theory.
So, kids think the theory is unflawed.
They're taught, for example, that peppered moths are
proof of physiological changes in species in reaction
to environment. The claim: their skin changed shades in response
to their environment changing, so now they camouflage
into pollution. However, the claims don't have any
actual support. It is SPECULATED that they rest in
those places. It is CLAIMED that this is proof of
change. It is IGNORED that both types of peppered moths
existed before pollution, both existed after pollution
set in, and both types' populations rose and fell
TOGETHER. This argues AGAINST theory-which says the
lighter shades should be reproducing at smaller rates
than the darker shades due to the shades increasing
survival chances for the darker moths. The thing
I find detestable is the actual staging of photos-
where peppered moths were put against low parts of
trees-where they NEVER rest- to show the darker ones
camouflage better at rest and see how this matches
our theories? In its own way, it's as vile as the
Disney filmers shoving the lemmings to their deaths
to support the claim that lemmings jump to their deaths.
IF evolution with descent actually IS how all species
got here, there's a LOT for science to explain before
it can fill in all the blanks- and either way,
it would be nice for all claims to reflect the
actual EVIDENCE of science and not just the DOGMA
of science.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I am still waiting for meaningful dialogue regarding the DNA. Junk science, yes or no? Why or why not?
If you want to just go home and refuse to debate on the DNA.. so be it.
Charges of "unfair, you are biased.." "you have an agenda here.." or something like that seem pretty ludicrous, at least to me.
The "other side" has its agendas as well..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I find myself wondering if or how the Hayflick Limit might play a role in all this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Very interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I am still waiting for you to acknowledge what I said had any merit,
from a genetics standpoint.
A few paragraphs about the substance of what was and was not said,
and all you got from that was
"Charges of "unfair, you are biased.." "you have an agenda here..""
What's the point of me even evaluating things, then posting a fair reply
that actually reflects the science,
when it's only going to be labelled and ignored?
As far as I can tell, you're only responding to replies on the Youtube link,
and those have justly earned reputations for being the bottom-feeders
of actual dialogue regardless of the subject.
Pending more information,
I think the Hayflick Limit figures into genetics as a whole,
but not this specific subject, this specific video.
The speaker was making claims about a specific gene,
and whether or not it's spliced,
and what it means if it IS spliced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I like this thread! I find myself conversing with a squirrel, a wolf and a frog. Perhaps I should revert to the identity I bore in a previous lifetime (pre-internet), the Dink Duck! What a fable Aesop could make of this thread!
Love,
The Dink Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I think the reason I'm not really engrossed in the issue is that one or the other, it wouldn't change the exact reality that I have today, with God and the core experience of my life around both that reality and my resulting "faith".
It would have an impact on some of it but unlike many Christians, I'm not overwhelmed with worry about all the details of "how' God "created" life. It's interesting but not really a deal breaker.
Other people often pose this kind of information as if to say "SO, now, let's just get this straight PLEASE - all this business about your god and your spirit and this jesus is WRONG. Refer to (whatever it is) for details. Please get back to REALITY which is (whatever they say it is).
Uh, no.
I did some browsing - I guess this guy's premise is reasonable - there's a lot of "if" and "probably" and then "so if then it would have to be" kind of verbiage he uses as WW noted, and that seems to make it sound like he's doing a card trick out of the basic facts - so, so if then and if then and probably so then it would HAVE TO BE.....see, that just sets off alarms in my head.
But the basic information appears correct. I'm not a scientist, can't verify any of it other than what I read. It sounds like the basic facts are "true".
There's all kinds of slants on it though, ran across this in general browsing - http://www.answersin...s/tj/v17/n1/dna
I'm not reading for or against, just reading. There's lots on both sides of the information that cast additional light and shadow on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.