New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[BilliardsBall]

The massive change in culture in the Western part of his Empire, the textual evidence from near contemporaries, the material evidence such as the temple near Memphis



Not really. You have near contemporaries texts, that is it. However unlike you I do not think Alexander is a son of a God because the text's mention it.



Nope. Lack of evidence enables me to dismiss it.



No. I consider archaeological evidence as well.



Jesus had zero. You do not know what contemporary means. There is also the material and cultural changes supporting Alexander.




God told me are wrong. See how easy it to make grand claim based on nothing




The weakness of general philosophical arguments for God and the lack of historicity behind the Bible. Meanwhile your source is a voice in your head. Good luck with that.

1. What is your evidence that Alexander existed?

The massive change in culture in the Western part of his Empire, the textual evidence from near contemporaries, the material evidence such as the temple near Memphis

It’s the year of our Lord 2017. Christianity has “massively changed” the globe. There are far more contemporary authors writing about Christ than Alexander, 12 in the NT, ten 1st century historians write of Jesus/Christianity, etc.

**

The same as that for Christ, documentary and historian evidence.

Not really. You have near contemporaries texts, that is it. However unlike you I do not think Alexander is a son of a God because the text's mention it.

You are mistaken, the NT was demonstrably written by eyewitnesses close to the dates of record.

**

2. God told me to influence people's lives.

God told me are wrong. See how easy it to make grand claim based on nothing

God told me so in the Bible, a book of some 31,000 verses that contain fewer grammatical error than you made in your last post.

**

Who told you to tell us we are wrong? (The unholy trinity of You, Yourself and Me, yes?)

The weakness of general philosophical arguments for God and the lack of historicity behind the Bible. Meanwhile your source is a voice in your head. Good luck with that.

You know what I hear in my head? Since when do materialists believe in psychic phenomena?

My source is the scriptures, proven accurate via archaeology, history, prophecy and more. If you want to continue to harass me, let's at least discuss the reliability of the scriptures, not straw men about voices in your head that told me I listen to voices in my head!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Doesn't account for the expected random progression of traits. No mechanism other than those described by natural selection are evident.


Ditto.


Space seed isn't proposed to be an alternative to evolution but abiogenesis. But also starts with a supposition not evidenced.


Covered by the Dover trial.


Just calling something a hypothesis doesn't make it one, and beginning with a conclusive assumption is what makes it not scientific.

Agreed. We need testifiable hypotheses. In many places, evolutionary theory fails here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

While Messianic Jew is a thing, it's not what I was talking about.

You were talking about the fact that many, not all, Jews, just like many, not all, Gentiles, hide from the light of Jesus Christ. I get it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You were talking about the fact that many, not all, Jews, just like many, not all, Gentiles, hide from the light of Jesus Christ. I get it.

If you can't have a conversation without putting words in people's mouth and prosthelizing you won't be around very long. Although it's amusing that you would balk at an atheist saying 'makes up the divinity of Jesus out of fear for their own mortality' but then turn around and do this, which seems pretty hypocritical.

Anyway, getting back on track, I feel no more reason to accept the twisted to suit ones needs prophecies of the bible than you do to reject them. I'm sorry if you can't handle rejection of your beliefs.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Agreed. We need testifiable hypotheses. In many places, evolutionary theory fails here.

Not according to the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions, just a small and diminishing percent of creationists with ulterior motives to their opposition to evolution, one. Which has nothing to do with scientific process.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't have alternative hypotheses to replace science. I'm a firm believer in modern science and the scientific method.

Good.

The real problem is your phrase, "dishonest attacks".

I gave two specific examples: Reggie's claim that the Lucy specimen was a "hoax" and Deeje's repeated claim that evolutionary biology "has no evidence". I've seen lots more in the short time since I returned to this forum.

I accept that you interpret the data differently than we creationists, but we are looking at data honestly and making honest paradigms.

Honestly, we are.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the "we just interpret the data differently" argument. I've seen it from flat-earthers, geocentrists, and creationists. The problem is, it assumes that all interpretations are equally valid. But as anyone familiar with basic science and the history of science knows, that simply isn't true. Specific to this issue, the fact that the evolutionary interpretation has resulted in all sorts of new discoveries and even entire new fields of science (e.g., comparative genomics), whereas creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to our scientific understanding in well over a century, is a a very good indication of which interpretation is more accurate.

 

[james bond]

LOL.

Did you feel a rustling in your hair before you posted that?

I swear I'd have better luck squeezing a stone for juice.

On the surface, Jackson Pollock's art looks like someone who drip painted his way to superstardom in the artist world. His paintings sell for over $100 million today. I mean look at him at work.

Yet, he pioneered a style of painting called abstract expressionism, mastered his style and influenced other modern artists. He did this around the early 1940s, pre-WWII. An only son of Presbyterian parents, he was expelled from high schools twice while growing up. Once he was able to study painting, he got his life together and was lucky to have married another artist, Lee Krasner, and meet other people famous in the art world.

Even today, his paintings cause controversy.

Pollock painting to get the Getty touch

Biography
The religion of Jackson Pollock, painter

To relate Mr. Pollock back to the topic, he talks about the subconscious. There is the conscious, too. All of this makes up what we call thoughts. This is evidence for God and not that we were created from fishes.

 

[james bond]

So what was the most recent evolutionary biology book you read, and what did you think of it?

Sorry, I ignored you Sunstone. Maybe it's because I had trouble with sayak82 who didn't believe I read the book and other puny brained atheists who want me to read their book but not what I suggest. Ultimate hypocrisy. Other readings are links and articles from here on evolution. My basic primer is evolution.berkeley.edu .

I read Darwinian Fairytales by David Stove, for one. I recommend this book for any atheist as it's written by an agnostic.

Let's look at this theory of life from fishes. How can any superior being with thoughts come from a fish?

 

[james bond]

I was serious when I asked you this question, and I am truly interested in your answer.....

So I'm curious.....when I posted the overview of the shared Alu sequences between humans and other primates, did you honestly think that "All of that proves absolutely nothing concerning macro-evolution" was a meaningful and compelling rebuttal? Like if you were at a scientific conference where a geneticist gave a presentation on the data, and during the Q&A session you stood up and said "that proves absolutely nothing"....how do you think that would be perceived? Do you think others in the room would find your response persuasive?

Alu sequences are not enough to show a relationship. Before, the evos thought they were junk DNA ha ha. Creation scientists proved junk DNA had a purpose, so are you stealing from the creation scientists?

 

[james bond]

Unfortunately facts cannot be viewed differently.
This 'institute' starts off with the answer it wants (i.e. God did it) and then tries to bend/selective choose facts to suit its objective.
Science doesn't work like that.
Check out the site BUT makes sure you check how many of their 'publications' have been published in recognised scientific journals and been properly peer reviewed. I think you'll find the answer is less than 1.

A lot of ignorance here. The atheist scientists of scientific journals like Nature and Science will not peer-review the God Theory, anything based on the supernatural or anything based on the Bible. This from scientists who did not create science. They just seized power during the 1800s. Science was created by Christian scientists. Thus, the creation scientists peer-review their own work and are more correct in science than atheist scientists. The atheist scientists are usually wrong even though the USG backs them up.

 

[Jose Fly]

Alu sequences are not enough to show a relationship.

Yes they are. As the material I posted shows, they are used by geneticists to establish relatedness in courts of law.

And again we see how you seem to think merely saying "Nuh uh" is a meaningful rebuttal. So again I have to ask.....did you honestly think what you wrote above was a meaningful and compelling rebuttal? Like if you were at a scientific conference where a geneticist gave a presentation on the data, and during the Q&A session you stood up and said "that shows nothing" and sat back down....how do you think that would be perceived? Do you think others in the room would find your response persuasive?

Before, the evos thought they were junk DNA ha ha. Creation scientists proved junk DNA had a purpose, so are you stealing from the creation scientists?

Where have "creation scientists proved junk DNA has a purpose"? And just what is the function of Alu repeats?

 

[Altfish]

A lot of ignorance here. The atheist scientists of scientific journals like Nature and Science will not peer-review the God Theory, anything based on the supernatural or anything based on the Bible. This from scientists who did not create science. They just seized power during the 1800s. Science was created by Christian scientists. Thus, the creation scientists peer-review their own work and are more correct in science than atheist scientists. The atheist scientists are usually wrong even though the USG backs them up.

I'm showing ignorance!!! What about religious scientists? Will they not peer review.
There is no 'God Theory' - at best you may have an early draft of an unproven 'God Hypothesis'.
God isn't anything that science can test, it makes claims that are outside of the reference/scope of science. Science has to be repeatable, miracles cannot be repeated.
Virtually everybody was religious in the 1500s, so yes early scientists may well have been religious but the god of the gaps found smaller and smaller wriggle room as scientists made more and more discoveries.
You are fooling yourself if you really believe that scientists are ignoring god because they are atheists. For whoever could prove god's existence there awaits fame and fortune and a Nobel Prize.

 

[Jose Fly]

"The atheist scientists of journals like Nature and Science"?

Amazing how some people can be so ignorant of the very subject they're attempting to debate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I likewise fail to see how a prophecy would prove the whole Bible, yes.

There are dozens of prophecies, fulfilled since 1948 CE, across numerous Bible books.

Okay great. We agree on that, at least.

The one you provided does not appear to be a prophecy. More of an observation of what was going on at the time, if anything.

 

[james bond]

Yes they are. As the material I posted shows, they are used by geneticists to establish relatedness in courts of law.

And again we see how you seem to think merely saying "Nuh uh" is a meaningful rebuttal. So again I have to ask.....did you honestly think what you wrote above was a meaningful and compelling rebuttal? Like if you were at a scientific conference where a geneticist gave a presentation on the data, and during the Q&A session you stood up and said "that shows nothing" and sat back down....how do you think that would be perceived? Do you think others in the room would find your response persuasive?



Where have "creation scientists proved junk DNA has a purpose"? And just what is the function of Alu repeats?

Surely, you can't deny atheist scientists thought they were junk DNA. From that, they concluded that because there was large number of similar sequences in primates that they had a common ancestor.

Wrong again. The creation scientists showed that "Researchers from the University of Rochester recently discovered that Alu sequences in particular prevent the overproduction of proteins by breaking down messenger RNA. 1"

1- Chenguang Gong and Lynne E. Marquat, “lncRNAs Transactivate STAU1-Mediated mRNA Decay by Duplexing with 3’ UTRs via Alu Elements,” Nature 470 (February 10, 2011): 284–88.

 

[james bond]

I'm showing ignorance!!! What about religious scientists? Will they not peer review.
There is no 'God Theory' - at best you may have an early draft of an unproven 'God Hypothesis'.
God isn't anything that science can test, it makes claims that are outside of the reference/scope of science. Science has to be repeatable, miracles cannot be repeated.
Virtually everybody was religious in the 1500s, so yes early scientists may well have been religious but the god of the gaps found smaller and smaller wriggle room as scientists made more and more discoveries.
You are fooling yourself if you really believe that scientists are ignoring god because they are atheists. For whoever could prove god's existence there awaits fame and fortune and a Nobel Prize.

You completely overlooked the fact that Christian scientists created science and dominated before the 1800s. Since the mid-1900s they have been coming back and today we have creation vs evolution. So, it's been about 150 years that evolutionists have been able to propagate their version of science. Thus, we have the God Theory and history way before the atheists in the 1800s. So, your statements are wrong.

While we cannot test God, there are many things we can test such as stratification, ape-human trials, evidence of a young earth and so on. I would say if someone can disprove the Resurrection, then fame awaits them. Maybe fortune, as well.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, we can move on, if you follow my observation, which you keep ignoring and treading on, indeed you are telling me how to practice my religion. It bothers me religiously that atheists come here to pick arguments. Your "shut up and let's argue more about your beliefs regarding Creation" is part of the problem and underscores my religious pain.

Honestly, I fail to see how your complaints about non-religious people being on this site has anything to do with how you practice your religion. I really don't. Nobody is hindering your ability to practice your religion in any way, by being here. If you really have that much of a problem with it, why hang out on a thread that is dedicated to a scientific theory you don't accept? Of course creationism is going to be challenged and countered in such a thread.

You know there's a whole DIR where you can go hang out with people from who share the very same religious beliefs as you do, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

Surely, you can't deny atheist scientists thought they were junk DNA.

Why do you keep referencing "atheist scientists"? Do you think genetics is an atheistic exercise or something?

I'm going to assume that you both read and understood the paper you cited.

First, let's recap exactly what Alu repeats are. They are basically genetic parasites that replicate themselves in a host genome by "copy and paste", where they are transcribed into RNA and then made back into DNA and inserted back into the host genome.

So that they have function is hardly surprising, given that they are functional parasites to begin with. Also, because of the nature of their "life cycle", they can be a source of new genetic diversity, sometimes good but also sometimes bad (e.g., they've been linked to certain cancers and genetic diseases). For the most part however, they are fairly benign.

Now, let's note the following from the paper you cited...

"Alu elements are the most prominent repeats in the human genome: they constitute more than 10% of the total DNA sequence in a cell and are present at up to 1.4 million copies per cell, and subfamilies of Alu elements share a 300-nucleotide consensus sequence of appreciable similarity."

So there are literally millions of Alu repeats in very human cell, which means that the discovery that some at times when one of them is pasted in a certain location, it affects function is 1) hardly surprising, and 2) not indicative that all 1.4 million copies therefore have the same fate.

Specifically from the paper....

"We focused on mRNAs that contain a single 3′ UTR Alu element, to avoid the possibility of intramolecular base-pairing between inverted Alu elements, which could result in A-to-I editing and nuclear retention. Using the Antisense ncRNA Pipeline, we identified 378 lncRNAs that contain a single Alu element"

....which shows that we're talking about a small fraction of the overall population of Alu repeats.

So I'm not really sure just how you think this negates the use of Alu sequences in such things as paternity testing.

From that, they concluded that because there was large number of similar sequences in primates that they had a common ancestor.

No, you're simply wrong. It's not just that humans share many of the same Alu sequences in the same locations as other primates, it's that when you survey primate genomes for these repeats, a clear and obvious pattern emerges that is entirely consistent with common ancestry.

Comparative analysis of Alu repeats in primate genomes

From the paper....

"Recent work increasingly recognizes that Alu elements have a greater impact than expected on phenotypic change, diseases, and evolution. Alu elements were demonstrated to mediate insertion mutagenesis, “exonization” by alternative splicing, genomic rearrangements, segmental duplication, and expression regulation causing disorders like Hunter syndrome, hemophilia A, and Sly syndrome (Batzer and Deininger 2002)."

So as you can see, your characterization of this work is just plain wrong.

Wrong again. The creation scientists showed that "Researchers from the University of Rochester recently discovered that Alu sequences in particular prevent the overproduction of proteins by breaking down messenger RNA. 1"

??????? Are you saying that Dr. Chenguang Gong and Dr. Lynne Maquat are creationists?

Also, you didn't really answer my questions in my last post. If you're just going to do that, please say so and I won't bother.

 

[Altfish]

You completely overlooked the fact that Christian scientists created science and dominated before the 1800s. Since the mid-1900s they have been coming back and today we have creation vs evolution. So, it's been about 150 years that evolutionists have been able to propagate their version of science. Thus, we have the God Theory and history way before the atheists in the 1800s. So, your statements are wrong.

Did you read my post?? Let me remind you of one statement I made...
"Virtually everybody was religious in the 1500s, so yes early scientists may well have been religious..."
Yes we have Creation v Evolution aka Myth v Reality, it is not even a contest, Faith v Fact; Creationism has been debunked on-line, in the press, in the scientific world and even in the courts.
btw another word for 'evolutionists' is a biologist; these are the people who help design modern medicines and the likes. Nasty evolutionists, I think not.

While we cannot test God, there are many things we can test such as stratification, ape-human trials, evidence of a young earth and so on. I would say if someone can disprove the Resurrection, then fame awaits them. Maybe fortune, as well.

Right get testing, write papers and win your fame, fortune and Nobel Prize.
Disprove the resurrection, as usual the request is to disprove a negative. Since no resurrections have occurred for 2000-years or so, what are scientists to study? Is there any evidence for it? (Don't say the Bible)

 

[james bond]

Why do you keep referencing "atheist scientists"? Do you think genetics is an atheistic exercise or something?

I'm going to assume that you both read and understood the paper you cited.

First, let's recap exactly what Alu repeats are. They are basically genetic parasites that replicate themselves in a host genome by "copy and paste", where they are transcribed into RNA and then made back into DNA and inserted back into the host genome.

So that they have function is hardly surprising, given that they are functional parasites to begin with. Also, because of the nature of their "life cycle", they can be a source of new genetic diversity, sometimes good but also sometimes bad (e.g., they've been linked to certain cancers and genetic diseases). For the most part however, they are fairly benign.

Now, let's note the following from the paper you cited...

"Alu elements are the most prominent repeats in the human genome: they constitute more than 10% of the total DNA sequence in a cell and are present at up to 1.4 million copies per cell, and subfamilies of Alu elements share a 300-nucleotide consensus sequence of appreciable similarity."

So there are literally millions of Alu repeats in very human cell, which means that the discovery that some at times when one of them is pasted in a certain location, it affects function is 1) hardly surprising, and 2) not indicative that all 1.4 million copies therefore have the same fate.

Specifically from the paper....

"We focused on mRNAs that contain a single 3′ UTR Alu element, to avoid the possibility of intramolecular base-pairing between inverted Alu elements, which could result in A-to-I editing and nuclear retention. Using the Antisense ncRNA Pipeline, we identified 378 lncRNAs that contain a single Alu element"

....which shows that we're talking about a small fraction of the overall population of Alu repeats.

So I'm not really sure just how you think this negates the use of Alu sequences in such things as paternity testing.



No, you're simply wrong. It's not just that humans share many of the same Alu sequences in the same locations as other primates, it's that when you survey primate genomes for these repeats, a clear and obvious pattern emerges that is entirely consistent with common ancestry.

Why do you keep referencing "atheist scientists"? Do you think genetics is an atheistic exercise or something?

I'm going to assume that you both read and understood the paper you cited.

First, let's recap exactly what Alu repeats are. They are basically genetic parasites that replicate themselves in a host genome by "copy and paste", where they are transcribed into RNA and then made back into DNA and inserted back into the host genome.

So that they have function is hardly surprising, given that they are functional parasites to begin with. Also, because of the nature of their "life cycle", they can be a source of new genetic diversity, sometimes good but also sometimes bad (e.g., they've been linked to certain cancers and genetic diseases). For the most part however, they are fairly benign.

Now, let's note the following from the paper you cited...

"Alu elements are the most prominent repeats in the human genome: they constitute more than 10% of the total DNA sequence in a cell and are present at up to 1.4 million copies per cell, and subfamilies of Alu elements share a 300-nucleotide consensus sequence of appreciable similarity."

So there are literally millions of Alu repeats in very human cell, which means that the discovery that some at times when one of them is pasted in a certain location, it affects function is 1) hardly surprising, and 2) not indicative that all 1.4 million copies therefore have the same fate.

Specifically from the paper....

"We focused on mRNAs that contain a single 3′ UTR Alu element, to avoid the possibility of intramolecular base-pairing between inverted Alu elements, which could result in A-to-I editing and nuclear retention. Using the Antisense ncRNA Pipeline, we identified 378 lncRNAs that contain a single Alu element"

....which shows that we're talking about a small fraction of the overall population of Alu repeats.

So I'm not really sure just how you think this negates the use of Alu sequences in such things as paternity testing.



No, you're simply wrong. It's not just that humans share many of the same Alu sequences in the same locations as other primates, it's that when you survey primate genomes for these repeats, a clear and obvious pattern emerges that is entirely consistent with common ancestry.

Comparative analysis of Alu repeats in primate genomes

From the paper....

"Recent work increasingly recognizes that Alu elements have a greater impact than expected on phenotypic change, diseases, and evolution. Alu elements were demonstrated to mediate insertion mutagenesis, “exonization” by alternative splicing, genomic rearrangements, segmental duplication, and expression regulation causing disorders like Hunter syndrome, hemophilia A, and Sly syndrome (Batzer and Deininger 2002)."

So as you can see, your characterization of this work is just plain wrong.



??????? Are you saying that Dr. Chenguang Gong and Dr. Lynne Maquat are creationists?

Also, you didn't really answer my questions in my last post. If you're just going to do that, please say so and I won't bother.

From the paper....

"Recent work increasingly recognizes that Alu elements have a greater impact than expected on phenotypic change, diseases, and evolution. Alu elements were demonstrated to mediate insertion mutagenesis, “exonization” by alternative splicing, genomic rearrangements, segmental duplication, and expression regulation causing disorders like Hunter syndrome, hemophilia A, and Sly syndrome (Batzer and Deininger 2002)."

So as you can see, your characterization of this work is just plain wrong.



??????? Are you saying that Dr. Chenguang Gong and Dr. Lynne Maquat are creationists?

Also, you didn't really answer my questions in my last post. If you're just going to do that, please say so and I won't bother.

Last point first, I would listen but what would be the point of the presentation? Is it like yours to show that humans came from apes? Then I would disagree. Would I ask a question like the one you posed? No, would you?

This is evo vs crea so I'll call them atheist scientists. We all know that they are. I'll provide an exception if there is one in a case we are talking about and it's important. Basically, the Alu sequences were thought to be junk DNA by atheist scientists. The argument was why would God create something that has of no use. Well, the Alu sequences do have use as noted. So evos admit that and now are saying that these genome changes prove evolution because sometimes they cause mutations. The creation scientists disagree and it shows evidence for God. For example, the ones you mentioned do transpose, but they may not, too. I think your argument falls into the same line in that you state we can use these sequences to determine paternity. That part is true. However, that doesn't mean a common ancestor for human and apes. Aren't you comparing apples to oranges?