Creationists, please provide evidence

[RedOne77]

Sorry I meant genome in post 916. but why do you say that? how do you know apes and humans are the same?

Ape is defined as any organism/species in the hominoidea superfamily (which humans belong to). I don't know exactly what makes a species part of the hominoidea as far as distinct characteristics, but I do know that each classification is well-defined. So I'm sure anyone who wanted to could look it up.

All humans are apes, but not all apes are human. It is the same thing with us and mammals. All humans are mammals, yet not all mammals are human. And a human genome is also a mammal genome.

 

[Subby]

Ape is defined as any organism/species in the hominoidea superfamily (which humans belong to). I don't know exactly what makes a species part of the hominoidea as far as distinct characteristics, but I do know that each classification is well-defined. So I'm sure anyone who wanted to could look it up.

All humans are apes, but not all apes are human. It is the same thing with us and mammals. All humans are mammals, yet not all mammals are human. And a human genome is also a mammal genome.

Modern science sees it as common ancestry, I see it as convergent or parallel biological evolution.

 

[RedOne77]

Modern science sees it as common ancestry, I see it as convergent or parallel biological evolution.

So we all ended up with the same features to be classified as hominoidea independently? Interesting. May I ask what exactly did we, or the other apes, looked like before this convergent evolution happened?

Either way, the classification system was introduced before evolution by a creation scientist. While scientists can use evolutionary knowledge to create a more accurate taxonomic table, it is not required. We are classified as mammals because we are warm-blooded, have live placental births, and of course, we have hair. Now we could ask the question 'why do we have mammalian characteristics' and the answer would be evolution.

 

[Subby]

So we all ended up with the same features to be classified as hominoidea independently? Interesting. May I ask what exactly did we, or the other apes, looked like before this convergent evolution happened?

That is a very good question. And is probably found in the fossil evidence if following convergent evolution down the line and not following a strict assumption of common ancestry that is traditionally held by evolutionists. Because it is a dependable mechanism for the emergence of independently similar genetic mutations in similar loci, in anatomically similar yet ancestrally unrelated created kinds (a creationism term, not ID) living in like environments.

 

[Pegg]

rusra: You seem to be hard of understanding. Yes, GOD CREATED AND DESIGNED EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE. We're all starting from that assumption. Can you please try really hard to hold on to that and remember it? We're not disputing that, O.K.? Let it go; you win.

Now, on to the thread. HOW did He do so? What is your hypothesis as to HOW God created the various species of organisms on earth? Mine is evolution. What's yours?

Jesus this is hard work.

individual creation. If he can do it via evolution as you believe, then he can also create each individual life form using the building blocks of life

 

[The_Evelyonian]

That is a very good question. And is probably found in the fossil evidence if following convergent evolution down the line and not following a strict assumption of common ancestry that is traditionally held by evolutionists. Because it is a dependable mechanism for the emergence of independently similar genetic mutations in similar loci, in anatomically similar yet ancestrally unrelated created kinds (a creationism term, not ID) living in like environments.

Intriguing. So how do you tell the difference between an anatomically (and apparently genetically) similar, ancestrally unrelated kind and a true genetically descended specimen?

 

[Subby]

Intriguing. So how do you tell the difference between an anatomically (and apparently genetically) similar, ancestrally unrelated kind and a true genetically descended specimen?

This is emerging or trending research now, and frankly its emerging for me too, lol... To me it is EPIC research to be conducted and the implications are vast... Perhaps we can both read the scientific observations, and conclude some theories, no harm in conducting a little science...

Check this out man.
ScienceDirect - Trends in Genetics : Causes and evolutionary significance of genetic convergence
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210111148.htm

 

[Pegg]

Due to the evidence for common ancestry in morphology and genetics. We're so similar that we can take blood transfusions from each other for crying out loud.

we can also transplant ourselves with the organs of a Pig...it means nothing.

What would really prove if we were related to apes is if we could hybridize with them the way other species are able to hybridize because they are genetically related.

Can we?

 

[Pegg]

Now Pegg, we have already been over this.
Motty lived ten days and is the ONLY known crossbreed. Their are no viable offspring ever recorded.

By your own logic, Sheep and Goats are the same kind, as their have been short lived crossbreed offspring.

Care to address this problem with your logic, or will you continue to ignore it?

its not a problem for me...yes sheep and goats belong to the same 'kind' as they can be crossbred.

They are of the same kind if they can do that.

 

[RedOne77]

That is a very good question. And is probably found in the fossil evidence if following convergent evolution down the line and not following a strict assumption of common ancestry that is traditionally held by evolutionists. Because it is a dependable mechanism for the emergence of independently similar genetic mutations in similar loci, in anatomically similar yet ancestrally unrelated created kinds (a creationism term, not ID) living in like environments.

How does one follow the fossil record looking for what past species looked like without following common ancestry? Do you think that humans evolved from species like H. erectus and H. habilis?

It is my understanding that with convergent evolution, the analogous structures are not in the same chromosomal loci, and usually are anatomically dissimilar. A good example are the wings in birds and bats. Their analogous structures from convergent evolution allow them to fly, yet their wings are not similar - birds have wings while bats have membranes, and this happens in different places of the genome. Bat wings are due to changes in the Prx1 genes while we do not find the same Prx1 gene patterns in birds.

I'm not sure I understand what dependable mechanism is responsible for the emergence of independently similar anatomical features with similar mutations in the same loci. Can you explain this?

 

[Subby]

"We discuss approaches for gaining further insights into the causes of genetic convergence and their potential contribution to our understanding of how the genetic background determines the evolvability of complex organismal traits."

OR

"We discuss approaches for gaining further insights into the causes of genetic convergence and their potential contribution to our understanding of how the genetic background determines the design of complex organismal traits."

What knowledge is lost?

 

[Subby]

I'm not sure I understand what dependable mechanism is responsible for the emergence of independently similar anatomical features with similar mutations in the same loci. Can you explain this?

We see anatomically similar organisms that have genetic mutations at similar places. Most assume that is JUST common ancestry, that the ape evolved into you and i and on down the line, however modern observation or what is convergent evolution produces the same effect. So it isn't common ancestry that emerged similar genetic mutations at similar places in the human and ape, but rather convergent evolution is the reason.

The assumption of common ancestry is challenged by scientific observation.

 

[RedOne77]

we can also transplant ourselves with the organs of a Pig...it means nothing.

What would really prove if we were related to apes is if we could hybridize with them the way other species are able to hybridize because they are genetically related.

Can we?

There is no good experimental evidence against human and chimp hybrids. I know that the first step in fertilization is the sperm penetrating the first layer of the egg with a special chemical. And I think our sperm has the right chemical to get through the first layer of the egg and go on its way to fertilization in a female chimp.

I'd also like to bring up the idea that human and chimp ancestors interbreed for over a million years after the initial split due to segments of the X chromosome having different dates for when the last common human chimp ancestor lived for that segment of the X chromosome. In my mind it is quite possible that we could interbreed with chimps. Perhaps not all will be viable, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least some were.

 

[Subby]

There is no good experimental evidence against human and chimp hybrids. I know that the first step in fertilization is the sperm penetrating the first layer of the egg with a special chemical. And I think our sperm has the right chemical to get through the first layer of the egg and go on its way to fertilization in a female chimp.

I'd also like to bring up the idea that human and chimp ancestors interbreed for over a million years after the initial split due to segments of the X chromosome having different dates for when the last common human chimp ancestor lived for that segment of the X chromosome. In my mind it is quite possible that we could interbreed with chimps. Perhaps not all will be viable, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least some were.

This could be why we see such human like primates... Maybe it just was result of episodes of hybridization, instead of ape-to-man evolution it was man-to-ape hybridization. I dunno, that sounds bizarre, but I don't think it is impossible.

 

[Pegg]

Peg, I really think the first kind should sit where 'family' is. For example the goat...It is possible that a kind was created that resembles the taxonomic rank above that and had the genetic variety to adapt into sheep and goats. I don't forget that creationists must work around a faulty concept, so this, needless to say, will continue to cause confusion. The people that write this stuff get confused and vague so it's OK for creationists too also. If researchers were trying to find Gods intial kinds and asking the right questions, I'd say it would be alot more sorted out for us.

The ancestors of the modern sheep and goats (both rather vague and ill-defined terms) are thought to have moved into mountainous regions – sheep becoming specialised occupants of the foothills and nearby plains, and relying on flight and flocking for defence against predators, and goats adapting to very steep terrain where predators are at a disadvantage. (Wikipedia)

Even though researchers use vague and ill-defined terms you are being made to be specific. I don't know why..perhaps because creationists are seen as being smarter than your average researcher.

You're right about vague and ill-defined terms. From this site this is what they say about 'Genre' and 'Family'

Family- "major groups of generally similar organisms; such as Felidae, which includes all cat-like animals from domestic cat to wild lynx to tiger to cheetah to jaguar to snow leopard".

Genus- "a group of species that are fairly closely related - such as the genus Equus which includes several species, such as the Equus caballus, Equus asinus and Equus zebra (domestic horse, wild *** and zebra respectively)."

can you see what the difference is between these?

And in both cases, hybridization has occurred in each category...horses and zebras, horses and donkeys and from the family group tigers and jaguars, jaguar and cheetahs. Talk about making it unnecessarily complicated!

 

[Autodidact]

But why do you say they are the same genotypes? Where is your evidence for this? Is it similar pseudogenes, or what?

I didn't. I said that humans are apes, hence the human genotype is an ape genotype.

So you refuse to tell us what you mean by creationism? Isn't that a reasonable question? You wouldn't want us all to think that you're an evasive hypocrite with no manners, would you?

 

[Subby]

I didn't. I said that humans are apes, hence the human genotype is an ape genotype.

So you refuse to tell us what you mean by creationism? Isn't that a reasonable question? You wouldn't want us all to think that you're an evasive hypocrite with no manners, would you?

I have answered that with like 10 pages, by your statement you have still refused to read even recent pages of content. Now read and answer post 931.

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry I meant genome in post 916. but why do you say that? how do you know apes and humans are the same?

Wow, you're really hard of understanding. Humans and apes are not the same, HUMANS ARE APES. I think this has been explained to you patiently and politely about five time in this thread.

 

[Autodidact]

You see common ancestor I see convergent or parallel biological evolution.

Well go write it up, document your methodology, and I'll notify the Nobel people.

 

[Autodidact]

Modern science sees it as common ancestry, I see it as convergent or parallel biological evolution.

Yes, I know. You reject science, its methods and its conclusions.

Now, as I've said several times, do you have a hypothesis? Because if not, you have no business in this thread. Unless you want to discuss someone else's evidence, should anyone ever post any?