Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond

[Archer]

Neanderthal DNA lives on ... in some of us - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com

Interesting

Intermingling with other created beings? What other beings?
Cross species "intermingling" produces either sterile hybrids, of no offspring at all.

Good shot but no.

If we look at time lines, ask who was to be a threat to Cain (why the mark), from where did the Canaanites descend and where did Cain's wife come from?

Remember both the Bible and science say the earth was void and formless.

There was nothing then God spoke and bang it was. Bible and science.

Fish before land animals? Bible and science.

That must have been some bread! Seriously though, what is your evidence for this assertion?



Perhaps you should learn a bit more about paleo-anthropology. "Cro-magnon man" simply refers to older European H. sapiens.

sigh

you mean neanderthals and homosapiens....

and the jury is still out, on whther they humped each other...

horses produce sterile beings
ligers (lion+tiger) are sterile....

I think it is probably safe to say a cross breed would be sterile amongst human species...

Life aint like star trek, where Homosapiens can breed with Aliens from another planet...........

Although I do tend to think certain memebers of the human populace do look like neanderthals are generally thought to look.... People with less than 70 IQ , generally

one has to wonder why there has been none of this evidence presented.

I was wrong here also hey?

I am done for now. Got stuff to do. Been great guys I will be back sometime with the answer.

Took several months for them to release the information last time. I will see if I can speed it up this time

 

[micrurus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archer
Neanderthal DNA lives on ... in some of us - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com

Interesting

Quote:
Originally Posted by tumbleweed41
Intermingling with other created beings? What other beings?
Cross species "intermingling" produces either sterile hybrids, of no offspring at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archer
Good shot but no.

If we look at time lines, ask who was to be a threat to Cain (why the mark), from where did the Canaanites descend and where did Cain's wife come from?

Remember both the Bible and science say the earth was void and formless.

There was nothing then God spoke and bang it was. Bible and science.

Fish before land animals? Bible and science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Fly
That must have been some bread! Seriously though, what is your evidence for this assertion?



Perhaps you should learn a bit more about paleo-anthropology. "Cro-magnon man" simply refers to older European H. sapiens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Cheese
sigh

you mean neanderthals and homosapiens....

and the jury is still out, on whther they humped each other...

horses produce sterile beings
ligers (lion+tiger) are sterile....

I think it is probably safe to say a cross breed would be sterile amongst human species...

Life aint like star trek, where Homosapiens can breed with Aliens from another planet...........

Although I do tend to think certain memebers of the human populace do look like neanderthals are generally thought to look.... People with less than 70 IQ , generally

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mestemia
one has to wonder why there has been none of this evidence presented.

I was wrong here also hey?

I am done for now. Got stuff to do. Been great guys I will be back sometime with the answer.

Took several months for them to release the information last time. I will see if I can speed it up this time

lmao I think the post that troubled me most was the one of Mr Cheese

first off, we are the same species as neaderthales, just a different subspecies.

Homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalensis

they could have interbred and they could have produced furtile ofspring.

but the jury is still out on weather they did or not.

 

[Archer]

lmao I think the post that troubled me most was the one of Mr Cheese

first off, we are the same species as neaderthales, just a different subspecies.

Homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalensis

they could have interbred and they could have produced furtile ofspring.

but the jury is still out on weather they did or not.

Caught a break. The link at the top shows that they found it in non African man.

 

[micrurus]

Caught a break. The link at the top shows that they found it in non African man.

well thanks for the update

 

[Onlooker]

Remember, the information is coded in a cryptic language that is very guarded.
No its not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onlooker

Seriously ? The genetic code is not cryptic? Are you just being argumentative or are you just typing. The code is read in triplet codon, protected by proofreading DNA polymerase, start and stop codons, with an error rate of 1 in 10-100 million bases.
Dude, that system is awesome, with a six sigma any company in the world would be proud of.
The system has redundancy, protection and to be honest is a marvel.
We haven't figured it out until the last 2 decades, and yet you say it's not cryptic and protected.
To think that random mutations created a new organ is short of blind faith. We know random mutations cause diseases, but not new organs.
But, you "scientist" who don't have "faith" , keep believing this awesome leap from logic. The shear numbers of mutation events that would have to occur to produce meaningful and life sustaining changes from the DNA on out(remember, as pointed out earlier, environment doesn't change it just selects) is beyond comprehension.
Remember the quoted mutation rates are very low (1 in 10-100 million bases) and that is for point mutations. New organs are dozens of proteins that consist of thousand of amino acids that would have to mutate all at once to produce a concerted functional unit.
Anybody got faith?

 

[micrurus]

Remember, the information is coded in a cryptic language that is very guarded.
No its not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onlooker

Seriously ? The genetic code is not cryptic? Are you just being argumentative or are you just typing. The code is read in triplet codon, protected by proofreading DNA polymerase, start and stop codons, with an error rate of 1 in 10-100 million bases.
Dude, that system is awesome, with a six sigma any company in the world would be proud of.
The system has redundancy, protection and to be honest is a marvel.
We haven't figured it out until the last 2 decades, and yet you say it's not cryptic and protected.
To think that random mutations created a new organ is short of blind faith. We know random mutations cause diseases, but not new organs.
But, you "scientist" who don't have "faith" , keep believing this awesome leap from logic. The shear numbers of mutation events that would have to occur to produce meaningful and life sustaining changes from the DNA on out(remember, as pointed out earlier, environment doesn't change it just selects) is beyond comprehension.
Remember the quoted mutation rates are very low (1 in 10-100 million bases) and that is for point mutations. New organs are dozens of proteins that consist of thousand of amino acids that would have to mutate all at once to produce a concerted functional unit.
Anybody got faith?

learn the basics

if a mutation is bad it has less chance of being passed on.
if a mutation is good, it has more chance of being passed on.

lots of good mutations = micro evolution
lots of micro evolution = macro evolution

 

[Onlooker]

First, science isn't about proof; it's about evidence. Do I understand that you are interested in reviewing the extensive, mountainous, cumulative, irrefutable evidence that caused the entire field of Biology to accept ToE as its foundational theory over 100 years ago?

O.K., I'll do it, but it's a BIG project. It will take dozens of posts and many pages, because there is so much of it. If I go through the trouble, I expect you to stick around, read it, and try to understand. Is that what you want?

No,
I dont mean give me the millions of pages of arguments/testing/theories etc.
Show us the proof.
The reproducible , irrefutable proof.
You made a claim you have proof that may very well stop all these conversations.
Old books obviously dont have that proof otherwise every ID/Creationist would sit back in marvel.
Finally, reproducible proof.
Dang, we were wrong.
Put it on YouTube and get ready to collect your Nobel Prize

 

[Onlooker]

learn the basics

if a mutation is bad it has less chance of being passed on.
if a mutation is good, it has more chance of being passed on.

lots of good mutations = micro evolution
lots of micro evolution = macro evolution

Easy to type,
hard to understand.
Numbers are large ( hard to comprehend for some-1 in 10 to 100 million bases) just to get one point mutation to stick without a stop codon ending that proteins synthesis.
Now multiply that large number (hard to comprehend for some) by hundreds or thousands for one protein.
Last time I checked, not many organs are one composed of one protein (most receptors on/in cells are 1-6 proteins).
Now multiply that large number to get a functional whatever, organelle or organ.
Those number create, for you, a faith based system.
Prove it.
Thats science isnt it.

 

[waitasec]

correct me if I am wrong.
Your belief is no outsider/intelligent/mystical force caused or directed our DNA.
My belief is there was an Intelligent Influence, the Creator.

ok i'll correct you...
how can i believe what i don't understand?
i have come to realize i know very little. that still doesn't keep me from searching and coming to a halt like ID ultimately does.

 

[Onlooker]

First, science isn't about proof; it's about evidence.

Exactly.
TOE has museums of bones, millions of books.
NO EVIDENCE of TOE assertion that nature was the only drive.
In fact, numerically impossible to come up with functional organs with mutations that at best cause point mutation of single triplet codon.
That is one amino acid change due to point mutation at a rate of 1 in every 10-100 million bases.
Proteins have hundreds to thousands of amino acids.
Organelles and organs have exponentially larger amounts.
Now remember, once you get that number for the above protein, organelle or organ,
it has to happen all at once since they often function as a unit.
That is to say, an eye doesnt start off with a retinal cell. That cell is an elegant part of a functioning unit.
If you ask me, the science of ID actually makes these complex units that "show" up , explainable.

 

[micrurus]

Easy to type,
hard to understand.
Numbers are large ( hard to comprehend for some-10 to 100 million mutations) just to get one point mutation to stick without a stop codon ending that proteins synthesis.
Now multiply that large number (hard to comprehend for some) by hundreds or thousands for one protein.
Last time I checked, not many organs are one composed of one protein (most receptors on/in cells are 1-6 proteins).
Now multiply that large number to get a functional whatever, organelle or organ.
Those number create, for you, a faith based system.
Prove it.
Thats science isnt it.

Its actually fairly easy to understand.

please, look up "gregor mendel", "crossing over" and "meiosis"

thats the basics and it explains alot.

 

[Oberon]

If you ask me, the science of ID actually makes these complex units that "show" up , explainable.

Saying "god did it" might make it easily explained but it isn't science. I could just as easily explain it all by saying the process was guided by super powerful aliens.

 

[Autodidact]

To think that random mutations created a new organ is short of blind faith. We know random mutations cause diseases, but not new organs.

Can you produce a scientific cite for this non-fact? Because what I get is:

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism

[UC Berkeley Evolution 101] and

When a unique beneficial mutation arises and sweeps to fixation,...

[SIZE=-1]Genetics, Vol. 151, 1621-1631, April 1999, Copyright © 1999 [/SIZE]
Beneficial Mutations, Hitchhiking and the Evolution of Mutation Rates in Sexual Populations

Toby Johnson
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland

and

When transduced into the ancestor, this mutation increased competitive fitness by
about 5%.

BMC Evolutionary Biology
Research article Open Access
Identification and dynamics of a beneficial mutation in a long-term
evolution experiment with Escherichia coli
Mark T Stanek†1, Tim F Cooper†2 and Richard E Lenski*1

But, you "scientist" who don't have "faith" , keep believing this awesome leap from logic. The shear numbers of mutation events that would have to occur to produce meaningful and life sustaining changes from the DNA on out(remember, as pointed out earlier, environment doesn't change it just selects) is beyond comprehension.
Remember the quoted mutation rates are very low (1 in 10-100 million bases) and that is for point mutations. New organs are dozens of proteins that consist of thousand of amino acids that would have to mutate all at once to produce a concerted functional unit.
Anybody got faith?

Would you show your math? thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

No,
I dont mean give me the millions of pages of arguments/testing/theories etc.
Show us the proof.
The reproducible , irrefutable proof.
You made a claim you have proof that may very well stop all these conversations.
Old books obviously dont have that proof otherwise every ID/Creationist would sit back in marvel.
Finally, reproducible proof.
Dang, we were wrong.
Put it on YouTube and get ready to collect your Nobel Prize

If there were proof, it wouldn't be science. Science never has proof. What science has is evidence, and that's what we have for ToE--lots and lots of evidence.

We don't have proof the earth is round, or proof it revolves around the sun. What we have is evidence--lots of it. That's what supports scientific theories--evidence.

So basically, by asking for final, irrefutable proof, you are rejecting the scientific method.

This is why I say to discuss evolution with creationists, you first have to give them a basic scientific education. Unfortunately they tend to resist it, so they can remain creationists.

In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory.

wiki

 

[Autodidact]

Exactly.
TOE has museums of bones, millions of books.
NO EVIDENCE of TOE assertion that nature was the only drive.

ToE does not assert this, as I have now said at least five times in this thread. ToE only describes HOW, of God created all things, He did so. It says nothing about whether He did so.

So we have yet another creationist who doesn't know what ToE says, and doesn't want to learn.

In fact, numerically impossible to come up with functional organs with mutations that at best cause point mutation of single triplet codon.
That is one amino acid change due to point mutation at a rate of 1 in every 10-100 million bases.
Proteins have hundreds to thousands of amino acids.
Organelles and organs have exponentially larger amounts.
Now remember, once you get that number for the above protein, organelle or organ,
it has to happen all at once since they often function as a unit.
That is to say, an eye doesnt start off with a retinal cell. That cell is an elegant part of a functioning unit.
If you ask me, the science of ID actually makes these complex units that "show" up , explainable.

There is no science of ID. ID is not science.

 

[David M]

In fact, numerically impossible to come up with functional organs with mutations that at best cause point mutation of single triplet codon.
That is one amino acid change due to point mutation at a rate of 1 in every 10-100 million bases.

And yet more evidence that you are ignorant of genetics and DNA.

What about all the other types of mutations that affect more than a single codon. Its an observed fact that they happen. You can get entire genes and even the whole genome being duplicated.

 

[Onlooker]

Its actually fairly easy to understand.

please, look up "gregor mendel", "crossing over" and "meiosis"

thats the basics and it explains alot.

they may explain alot.
you are dodging the question.
your faith based system in crazy numbers is faith and belief.
No real explanation given by you.

 

[Onlooker]

Saying "god did it" might make it easily explained but it isn't science. I could just as easily explain it all by saying the process was guided by super powerful aliens.

Saying its science and not explaining the unexplainable is faith based magic belief.
Puts you right in "our category".
Welcome.
I at least try to understand my "faith".

 

[Onlooker]

Can you produce a scientific cite for this non-fact? Because what I get is: [UC Berkeley Evolution 101] and
[SIZE=-1]Genetics, Vol. 151, 1621-1631, April 1999, Copyright © 1999 [/SIZE]
Beneficial Mutations, Hitchhiking and the Evolution of Mutation Rates in Sexual Populations

Toby Johnson
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland

and

BMC Evolutionary Biology
Research article Open Access
Identification and dynamics of a beneficial mutation in a long-term
evolution experiment with Escherichia coli
Mark T Stanek†1, Tim F Cooper†2 and Richard E Lenski*1

Would you show your math? thanks.

All nice sites. Out of the millions of pages you can give, did you really need to site Berekely?
No doubt many pages explaining all the faith based beliefs and greater power and strength with mutations that may or may not have done something beneficial.
You need to read some elementary genetics and figure out the system.
How does proteins get made?
What is the rate of mutations that occur?
What does that mutation actually do?
How many of these improbable mutations can actually do anything constructive just on a "1 protein" model.
Now calculate on a simple organelle.
Just not probable.
Your system is faith based.You do the math.

 

[Onlooker]

If there were proof, it wouldn't be science. Science never has proof. What science has is evidence, and that's what we have for ToE--lots and lots of evidence.

We don't have proof the earth is round, or proof it revolves around the sun. What we have is evidence--lots of it. That's what supports scientific theories--evidence.

So basically, by asking for final, irrefutable proof, you are rejecting the scientific method.

This is why I say to discuss evolution with creationists, you first have to give them a basic scientific education. Unfortunately they tend to resist it, so they can remain creationists.

wiki

So why do you ask for proof on ID.
Use the scientific method to study all possibilities.
Like Intelligent Design.
That is the scientific way.