• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationists, please provide evidence

newhope101

Active Member
Right. That does not justify your argument stating that: "To be honest, there are actually large differences in the DNA separating apes and monkeys from humans, not small ones."

The estimated percentages are still in the same range, even 10.000 base pairs does not amount to a large portion of our DNA containing about 2,9 BILLION base pairs, and it in no way puts into question our relatedness.

Gee, I thought researchers had evidence of Y chromosome Adam being around 60-70,000 years ago. I wish TOE evidence and proof would stay the same for more than 5 minutes.
Chimp and Human Y Chromosomes Evolving Faster Than Expected

ScienceDaily (Jan. 15, 2010) — Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation.
http://www.religiousforums.com/articles/h/human_genome_project.htm


By conducting the first comprehensive interspecies comparison of Y chromosomes, Whitehead Institute researchers have found considerable differences in the genetic sequences of the human and chimpanzee Ys -- an indication that these chromosomes have evolved more quickly than the rest of their respective genomes over the 6 million years since they emerged from a common ancestor. The findings are published online this week in the journal Nature.
"The region of the Y that is evolving the fastest is the part that plays a role in sperm production," say Jennifer Hughes, first author on the Nature paper and a postdoctoral researcher in Whitehead Institute Director David Page's lab. "The rest of the Y is evolving more like the rest of the genome, only a little bit faster."
The chimp Y chromosome is only the second Y chromosome to be comprehensively sequenced. The original chimp genome sequencing completed in 2005 largely excluded the Y chromosome because its hundreds of repetitive sections typically confound standard sequencing techniques. Working closely with the Genome Center at Washington University, the Page lab managed to painstakingly sequence the chimp Y chromosome, allowing for comparison with the human Y, which the Page lab and the Genome Center at Washington University had sequenced successfully back in 2003.
The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content. The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes--a significant change in a relatively short period of time. Page points out that this is not all about gene decay or loss. He likens the Y chromosome changes to a home undergoing continual renovation.
"People are living in the house, but there's always some room that's being demolished and reconstructed," says Page, who is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. "And this is not the norm for the genome as a whole."
Wes Warren, Assistant Director of the Washington University Genome Center, agrees. "This work clearly shows that the Y is pretty ingenious at using different tools than the rest of the genome to maintain diversity of genes," he says. "These findings demonstrate that our knowledge of the Y chromosome is still advancing."
Hughes and Page theorize that the divergent evolution of the chimp and human Y chromosomes may be due to several factors, including traits specific to Y chromosomes and differences in mating behaviors.
Because multiple male chimpanzees may mate with a single female in rapid succession, the males' sperm wind up in heated reproductive competition. If a given male produces more sperm, that male would theoretically be more likely to impregnate the female, thereby passing on his superior sperm production genes, some of which may be residing on the Y chromosome, to the next generation.
Because selective pressure to pass on advantageous sperm production genes is so high, those genes may also drag along detrimental genetic traits to the next generation. Such transmission is allowed to occur because, unlike other chromosomes, the Y has no partner with which to swap genes during cell division. Swapping genes between chromosomal partners can eventually associate positive gene versions with each other and eliminate detrimental gene versions. Without this ability, the Y chromosome is treated by evolution as one large entity. Either the entire chromosome is advantageous, or it is not.
In chimps, this potent combination of intense selective pressure on sperm production genes and the inability to swap genes may have fueled the Y chromosome's rapid evolution. Disadvantages from a less-than-ideal gene version or even the deletion of a section of the chromosome may have been outweighed by the advantage of improved sperm production, resulting in a Y chromosome with far fewer genes than its human counterpart.
To determine whether this rapid rate of evolution affects Y chromosomes beyond those of chimps and humans, the Page lab and the Washington University Genome Center are now sequencing and examining the Y chromosomes of several other mammals.
This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).
 

newhope101

Active Member
ooh, oooh I know the answer to this one.

That's just a massive straw man.The people were genetically pure but after sin they gained genetic defects that's why people used to live 900 years and now only live to the 90s.

(I never found this argument convincing it's just making crap up)

Oh you mean like fitting all the matter in the entire universe into a smaller than atomic size to explain the big bang. AND the resulting string theory and multidimentional world to validate the concept. Why do you not call this crap? Hawkins and his cronnies came up with this stuff and you have likely just swalled it. What does crap taste like?

Scientists appear to have proven 'magic' and the apparently physically impossible is indeed possible in todays science. Good on ya researchers. You have given creationists a great victory!
 
Last edited:

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
...No, they haven't. That is a requirement. Any new theory has to match exactly the available evidence, or it is discarded. The physically impossible is and will always remain that.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "explain the Big Bang". It is a verifiable fact that the galaxies are speeding away from us, and tracing that backwards tells you that all matter was compressed in a singularity.
 

newhope101

Active Member
Quote:polyHedral...No, they haven't. That is a requirement. Any new theory has to match exactly the available evidence, or it is discarded. The physically impossible is and will always remain that.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "explain the Big Bang". It is a verifiable fact that the galaxies are speeding away from us, and tracing that backwards tells you that all matter was compressed in a singularity.

______________________________________________


Yes, However, the singularity contains all the matter in the universe and part of the explanation to make the theory work was that the singularity was atomic in size. I expect the size expains the explosive force. It would be more believeable if the singularity was say, galaxy size.

If I said God could fit all of Australia into a thimbal, you would call me a liar and believer in magic and so called "poofing" ability of God. Yet to make big bang work it has to work according to physics, which necessitates the singularity to be microscopic in initial size. Big Bang theory has not been discarded. So this must be true in the eyes of physics. Seeing galaxies speeding away from each other is only part of the evidence. Then comes what did that look like and what changed that it banged, what mad it bang. Then came micro sized singularity and string theories and dimentions try to explain the rest. Remember God was not supposed to have had a hand in anything so the how and why requires explaining.

The micro singularity appears to be physically impossible and beyond common comprehension. Yet scientists some how have proven it mathematically to the point where the majority of these theorists have accepted it and tried to work out the gravity problem that Hawkins himself identified.

From there came string theory, in fact 6 variations of them that I know of, resulting in the necessity of beween 6 to 72(I think) dimentions to ovecome the gravity forces involved in the first seconds of the bang.

That's not important. The point that many scientists agree that the singularity was necessary and was microscopic in size illustrates that this must be possible according to science. Otherwise it would be abandond, as you say.

Hence the seemingly impossible is possible. Another way of looking at it is what appears to be impossible may well be possible. Creating kinds on the spot and parting seas does not appear any less believable comparatively then believing all universal matter (squillions to the squillions of tons of matter) existed in a micrscopic singularity. Seems impossible....until someone discovers how it IS possible.

Jill is wondering where these scienists get these ideas from also!
 
Last edited:

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
If I said God could fit all of Australia into a thimbal, you would call me a liar and believer in magic...
I'd only do that if you expected all the high-level structures (like people) to survive. You can fit as much mass as you want as small as you want, so long as you don't mind it turning into a black hole. Believing such a thing to be physically impossible is a mistake.

Whereas producing world-destroying floods out of thin air involves bypassing conservation of mass, which isn't possible...
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Just want to point out that there is nothing contradictory about fitting Australia into the area the size of a pinhead -- that's in fact incredibly easy in a physical sense.

That wouldn't even be dense enough to be smaller than the Schwarzchild radius of that amount (and type) of matter so it wouldn't even be a black hole and therefore not have a singularity -- at best, it would be some type of degenerate matter. ( Degenerate matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)
 

McBell

Unbound
So why do creationists insist on trying to give convoluted explanations that are so at odds with science? Why not just accept evolution?
I suspect that is has to do with their faith in their beliefs being so weak that they actually fear starting down that particular slippery slope.
 

newhope101

Active Member
PolyHedralQuote:
If I said God could fit all of Australia into a thimbal, you would call me a liar and believer in magic...
I'd only do that if you expected all the high-level structures (like people) to survive. You can fit as much mass as you want as small as you want, so long as you don't mind it turning into a black hole. Believing such a thing to be physically impossible is a mistake.

Whereas producing world-destroying floods out of thin air involves bypassing conservation of mass, which isn't possible...

I have posted info in this thread, evidence of world flood, and there is plenty of evidence of mega floods eg Younger Dryas. Making it possible. From the extract below it appears researchers are unable to proove or disprove flooding with any certainty.

Besides, the singularity is not a black hole, but compressed matter. Surely Hawkins is not suggesting that each black hole that exists in the centre of every galaxy is the biggining of a new universe.

So does this theory indicate that if you take all the space out of every cell, inbetween the protons and electrons etc, all the universe could be this tiny? To me this demonstrates how easy it would have been for God to do it. He didn't have to create much at all in creating the whole universe.


This article supports how difficult finding proof of floods is.
Canyon Carved in Just Three Days in Texas Flood: Insight Into Ancient Flood Events on Earth and Mars
ScienceDaily (June 21, 2010) — In the summer of 2002, a week of heavy rains in Central Texas caused Canyon Lake -- the reservoir of the Canyon Dam -- to flood over its spillway and down the Guadalupe River Valley in a planned diversion to save the dam from catastrophic failure. The flood, which continued for six weeks, stripped the valley of mesquite, oak trees, and soil; destroyed a bridge; and plucked meter-wide boulders from the ground. And, in a remarkable demonstration of the power of raging waters, the flood excavated a 2.2-kilometer-long, 7-meter-deep canyon in the bedrock.
Unfortunately, these catastrophic megafloods -- which also may have chiseled out spectacular canyons on Mars -- generally leave few telltale signs to distinguish them from slower events. "There are very few modern examples of megafloods," Lamb says, "and these events are not normally witnessed, so the process by which such erosion happens is not well understood." Nevertheless, he adds, "the evidence that is left behind, like boulders and streamlined sediment islands, suggests the presence of fast water" -- although it reveals nothing about the time frame over which the water flowed.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
I have posted info in this thread, evidence of world flood, and there is plenty of evidence of mega floods eg Younger Dryas. Making it possible. From the extract below it appears researchers are unable to proove or disprove flooding with any certainty.
No, your theory involves God producing mega- to gigatonnes of water and then making it vanish again. Physics does not allow in anything approaching reasonable circumstances. (i.e. without cooking the Earth with the energies involved or using several stars worth of energy)

Besides, the singularity is not a black hole, but compressed matter. Surely Hawkins is not suggesting that each black hole that exists in the centre of every galaxy is the biggining of a new universe.
Please don't try to argue physics you don't know. Any amount of matter compressed into a space smaller than the Schwarzerchild radius will irrevocably collapse into a black hole. (Except in the case of the Big Bang, where we have almost no clue what was going on, hence all the strange-sounding theories.)

So does this theory indicate that if you take all the space out of every cell, inbetween the protons and electrons etc, all the universe could be this tiny? To me this demonstrates how easy it would have been for God to do it. He didn't have to create much at all in creating the whole universe.
He had to create around 8 × 10^52kg of mass-energy. It doesn't matter how small it is.
 

evolved yet?

A Young Evolutionist
Oh you mean like fitting all the matter in the entire universe into a smaller than atomic size to explain the big bang. AND the resulting string theory and multidimentional world to validate the concept. Why do you not call this crap? Hawkins and his cronnies came up with this stuff and you have likely just swalled it. What does crap taste like?

Scientists appear to have proven 'magic' and the apparently physically impossible is indeed possible in todays science. Good on ya researchers. You have given creationists a great victory!
I know the big bang happened, I do not believe in the string theory and I believe that multiple dimensions is possible all those people at the Large Hadron Collider think it is possible, that is why they are looking for a Higgs Boson (which would prove a 5th dimension called Quantum Gravity).
So wait, who is using insults?
 
Last edited:

newhope101

Active Member
I haven't insulted anyone in these recent threads. Don't know what you're talking about.

All this is just because I stated the seemingly impossible is possible. So really being able to explain it refers to the point that it appears to the average person that's an impssibilty when really it isn't. It's just that someone has gone off and worked something out. Though they are theoretical they appear to explain the universe.

There's lots of questions still to be answered in science.

Not that long ago we never thought science could make another you via cloning.

For all we know God may work through these dimentions. They are at every point within the universe.

So I'm NOT knocking theory just saying if we look hard enough we can explain some amazing feats that at one time appeared unexplainable...until someone tried.
 

Noaidi

slow walker
There's lots of questions still to be answered in science.

I'm glad you wrote this.

What has been maintained throughout these discussions is the notion of the potential falsifiability of science. That's part of the beauty of science - it adapts to accommodate new evidence and, perhaps more importantly, discards erroneous ideas that were once generally accepted.

This is in sharp contrast to religious-based views which seem to perpetuate the idea of a fixed, immovable 'truth'. Having the willingness to acknowledge that, as we progress, outmoded and wrong ideas need to be jettisoned in favour of what we now currently know is a mark of mature thinking. Please don't stick to the idea of creationism simply because it is written in a centuries-old book. Critically evaluate what it is saying, and compare it to what we currently know. After all, I'm sure you don't adopt a 3000-year old approach to your medical care, do you?
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
Pegg, I agree.

Jarofthoughts, I looked up Evowiki for a list of examples for speciation. These examples highlight that scientists have overcomplicated everything in a effort to make it all fit. Most of these examples below a good examples that illustrate how researchers have confused themeslves to death. The primroses are still flowers. The fact that the offspring are called by another name doesn't mean any more than saying a Chinese and Aboriginal are different species because they appear a little different. It's nonsence. I refer back to 'Race' in Wiki.

Speciation is micrevolution and doesn not account for macroevolution.

I don't discuss with spammers, but for the record, you are, once again, wrong. ;)


Cheers.
 

newhope101

Active Member
jarofthoughtsQuote:
Originally Posted by newhope101
Pegg, I agree.

Jarofthoughts, I looked up Evowiki for a list of examples for speciation. These examples highlight that scientists have overcomplicated everything in a effort to make it all fit. Most of these examples below a good examples that illustrate how researchers have confused themeslves to death. The primroses are still flowers. The fact that the offspring are called by another name doesn't mean any more than saying a Chinese and Aboriginal are different species because they appear a little different. It's nonsence. I refer back to 'Race' in Wiki.

Speciation is micrevolution and doesn not account for macroevolution.


I don't discuss with spammers, but for the record, you are, once again, wrong. ;)
 

jonman122

Active Member
^what?

just so everyone is aware, no one has of yet provided evidence for creationism, instead all they have done is try to disprove evolution. fantasmal!
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
^what?

just so everyone is aware, no one has of yet provided evidence for creationism, instead all they have done is try to disprove evolution. fantasmal!

Not surprising. In the past year at least three threads have been started for Creationists to provide ANY scientific evidence in support of Biblical Creationism. All have yeilded zero results. Although there have been plenty of discredited attacks on Biological Evolution.
 

newhope101

Active Member
Jarofthooughts..I hope you don't feel too threatened. So while you're not responding to me perhaps you can read the articles below.

The first states the obvious. Lizards have been lizards for 6-8 million years and did not learn ToE and have not evolved appropriately. The second shows that our primate cousins have "a few hundred genes that have recently undergone selection in each of these species.These include around 100 genes detected in man that are shared by two or three other species, which is twice as many as might be anticipated as a random phenomenon"

Perhaps researchers got human evolution around the wrong way, like Arch. Maybe chimps evolved from humans. Basically it appears that all the hype about genetic similarity meaning this or that is perhaps exaggerated.

How Important Is Geographical Isolation in Speciation?
ScienceDaily (May 1, 2010) — A genetic study of island lizards shows that even those that have been geographically isolated for many millions of years have not evolved into separate species as predicted by conventional evolutionary theory.


Professor Roger Thorpe and colleagues Yann Surget-Groba and Helena Johansson, at Bangor University, UK, reveal their findings April 29 in the open-access journal PLoS Genetics.
Current day Martinique in the Lesser Antilles is composed of several ancient islands that have only recently coalesced into a single entity. The phylogeny and geology show that these ancient islands have had their own tree lizard (anole) species for about six to eight million years.
Capitalizing on the islands' meeting, the authors genetically tested the lizards for reproductive isolation from one another. In using selectively neutral genetic markers, the authors saw that these anoles are freely exchanging genes and therefore not behaving as separate species. Indeed, there is more genetic isolation between conspecifics from different habitats than between those lizards originating from separate ancient islands.
The findings reject allopatric speciation in a case study from a system thought to exemplify it, and suggest the potential importance of speciation due to differences in ecological conditions (ecological speciation). "The next step is to identify the genes controlling the traits influencing the process of speciation," said Roger Thorpe.

Genetic Footprint of Natural Selection

ScienceDaily (Mar. 2, 2010) — A further step has been taken towards our understanding of natural selection. CNRS scientists working at the Institut de Biologie of the Ecole Normale Supérieure (CNRS/ENS/INSERM) have shown that humans, and some of their primate cousins, have a common genetic footprint, i.e. a set of genes which natural selection has often tended to act upon during the past 200,000 years.

This study has also been able to isolate a group of genes that distinguish us from our cousins the great apes. Its findings are published in PLoS Genetics (26 February 2010 issue).
During evolution, living species have adapted to environmental constraints according to the mechanism of natural selection; when a mutation that aids the survival (and reproduction) of an individual appears in the genome, it then spreads throughout the rest of the species until, after several hundreds or even thousands of generations, it is carried by all individuals.But does this selection, which occurs on a specific gene in the genome of a species, also occur on the same gene in neighboring species?On which set of genes has natural selection acted specifically in each species?
Researchers in the Dynamique et Organisation des Génomes team at the Institut de Biologie of the Ecole Normale Supérieure (CNRS/ENS/INSERM) have studied the genome of humans and three other primate species (chimpanzee, orangutan and macaque) using bioinformatics tools.Their work consisted in comparing the entire genomes of each species in order to identify the genes having undergone selection during the past 200,000 years.The result was that a few hundred genes have recently undergone selection in each of these species.These include around 100 genes detected in man that are shared by two or three other species, which is twice as many as might be anticipated as a random phenomenon[1].Thus a not inconsiderable proportion of the genes involved in human adaptation are also present in the chimpanzee, orangutan or macaque, and sometimes in several species at the same time.Natural selection acts not only by distancing different species from each other when new traits appear.But by acting on the same gene, it can also give rise to the same trait in species that have already diverged[2], but still have a relatively similar genome.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Of course, anyone who actually knows anything about Biological Evolution would know that Humans did not evolve from Chimps, or any other modern ape.
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
Jarofthooughts..I hope you don't feel too threatened.

I don't feel threatened. I just don't like wasting my time.
So when I realized that you do not actually take into account the refutations that I and others posted in relation to your arguments earlier in the tread, which by the way often did not have anything at all to do with the subject we were discussing, and instead proceeded to post huge blocks of text, sometimes taken completely out of context, I saw no reason to continue.
 
Top