• 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!

New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

Reggie Miller

Well-Known Member
Of course. You've already made it abundantly clear that you hold the idea of "transitional fossils" to a standard that is impossible to meet. That way you never have to actually deal with any real specimens or any other data. Just declare "They can't absolutely prove every aspect of this organism's history, therefore it is not a transitional" and pat yourself on the back for avoiding that whole critical thinking thing.

You've got the DNA of humans and apes. The DNA has the code of ape-like creature to both if it exists. Yet it doesn't exist. Just admit it doesn't. If it happened geneticists should be able to prove it. Yet they cannot.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
You've got the DNA of humans and apes. The DNA has the code of ape-like creature to both if it exists.

It not only does, but it does in the same way we use to determine parentage in courts.

Yet it doesn't exist. Just admit it doesn't. If it happened geneticists should be able to prove it. Yet they cannot.

It's hilarious to watch creationists, who have absolutely no idea what the data is, act so confident in their declarations about the data. The above from you is a good example.

Transposons are a type of genetic parasite that replicates only in the genetic material of their host. However, unlike viruses, they don’t have genes for viral coat proteins and can’t cross cellular boundaries. Also, transposons come in two general categories: retrotransposons and DNA transposons. Retrotransposons replicate via “copy-n-paste” (they use RNA to make a copy of themselves, which is inserted elsewhere in the genome). DNA transposons move about via “cut-n-paste” (they use an enzyme to cut themselves out of the genome and then reinsert themselves somewhere else in the genome). In both cases the location of the insertion/reinsertion is random. This has been directly observed to have happened to many organisms (e.g. yeast, humans, bacterial, flies).

If the genetic material of the transposon is inserted directly into the host’s genome in a germ line cell (an egg or sperm), all the descendants of the host will inherit this material. Additionally, because the insertion is random, the only way two organisms would share the same transposons in the exact same locations is if they shared a common ancestor.

A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long, and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness. They are reliable identifiers because of what I discussed above, namely that the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence in the same location is if they both inherited it from a common ancestor.

About 2,000 Alu insertions are specific to humans, and an even larger number are shared with other primates. But more specifically, in the human alpha-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations!

Evolution of Alu family repeats since the divergence of human and chimpanzee. - PubMed - NCBI

So the same methodology that allows us to determine paternity and relatedness in courts of law also allows us to show that humans, chimpanzees, and other primates share a common ancestry. Thus, this bit of evidence “proves” human/primate shared ancestry in the same way the same evidence “proves” paternity in courts of law.
 

Reggie Miller

Well-Known Member
It not only does, but it does in the same way we use to determine parentage in courts.



It's hilarious to watch creationists, who have absolutely no idea what the data is, act so confident in their declarations about the data. The above from you is a good example.

Transposons are a type of genetic parasite that replicates only in the genetic material of their host. However, unlike viruses, they don’t have genes for viral coat proteins and can’t cross cellular boundaries. Also, transposons come in two general categories: retrotransposons and DNA transposons. Retrotransposons replicate via “copy-n-paste” (they use RNA to make a copy of themselves, which is inserted elsewhere in the genome). DNA transposons move about via “cut-n-paste” (they use an enzyme to cut themselves out of the genome and then reinsert themselves somewhere else in the genome). In both cases the location of the insertion/reinsertion is random. This has been directly observed to have happened to many organisms (e.g. yeast, humans, bacterial, flies).

If the genetic material of the transposon is inserted directly into the host’s genome in a germ line cell (an egg or sperm), all the descendants of the host will inherit this material. Additionally, because the insertion is random, the only way two organisms would share the same transposons in the exact same locations is if they shared a common ancestor.

A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long, and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness. They are reliable identifiers because of what I discussed above, namely that the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence in the same location is if they both inherited it from a common ancestor.

About 2,000 Alu insertions are specific to humans, and an even larger number are shared with other primates. But more specifically, in the human alpha-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations!

Evolution of Alu family repeats since the divergence of human and chimpanzee. - PubMed - NCBI

So the same methodology that allows us to determine paternity and relatedness in courts of law also allows us to show that humans, chimpanzees, and other primates share a common ancestry. Thus, this bit of evidence “proves” human/primate shared ancestry in the same way the same evidence “proves” paternity in courts of law.

All of that proves absolutely nothing concerning macro-evolution.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
All of that proves absolutely nothing concerning macro-evolution.

You know, I wonder if you creationists appreciate the dynamic of these interactions. We on the science side aren't here to try and convince you of anything. Instead, it's mostly about entertainment....the entertainment that comes from watching you creationists flounder around and make all sorts of absurd excuses to deny reality.

In this case you claimed that there's no genetic evidence linking humans to other primates, even though you don't know the first thing about genetics, let alone the specific comparative data between humans and other primates. So I post a layperson friendly description of how, via the same methodology that's used in courts to establish relationships, we can demonstrate that humans are indeed related to other primates. Now the fun begins......how is Reggie going to respond? What stupid excuse is he going to come up with to not have to deal with what I posted? I don't know for sure, but I know one thing.....it's going to be hilarious.

And sure enough, you didn't disappoint.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
To me the whole idea of macro-evolution isn't feasible, practical, viable or even plausible.

But, I've heard this reply from mainly Christians, and I wonder why that is...do you feel that if you support the TOE, that you are betraying your faith beliefs? Just wondering.
 

Reggie Miller

Well-Known Member
You know, I wonder if you creationists appreciate the dynamic of these interactions. We on the science side aren't here to try and convince you of anything. Instead, it's mostly about entertainment....the entertainment that comes from watching you creationists flounder around and make all sorts of absurd excuses to deny reality.

In this case you claimed that there's no genetic evidence linking humans to other primates, even though you don't know the first thing about genetics, let alone the specific comparative data between humans and other primates. So I post a layperson friendly description of how, via the same methodology that's used in courts to establish relationships, we can demonstrate that humans are indeed related to other primates. Now the fun begins......how is Reggie going to respond? What stupid excuse is he going to come up with to not have to deal with what I posted? I don't know for sure, but I know one thing.....it's going to be hilarious.

And sure enough, you didn't disappoint.

The old, "You're an idiot" retort. I expected no less.
 

Reggie Miller

Well-Known Member
But, I've heard this reply from mainly Christians, and I wonder why that is...do you feel that if you support the TOE, that you are betraying your faith beliefs? Just wondering.

The TOE not only contradicts the Genesis account of creation, it depends on impossible theories like abiogenesis.

You honestly think you're related to all living things like fungi? Please.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
The TOE not only contradicts the Genesis account of creation, it depends on impossible theories like abiogenesis.

You honestly think you're related to all living things like fungi? Please.

I don't take the origin of man account as literal, from the Bible. I believe it to be allegorical in terms of teaching about morality. There is a ''theory'' out among some Christians that speculate that everything that the theory of evolution points out is an illusion...it ''seems'' to be evidence, there ''seems'' to be fossils. I don't see Darwin's theory of evolution really as a confrontation to my faith. I believe God is behind all of science...that is my personal view, anyway.
 

allfoak

Alchemist
Genesis 2:7
then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
It says in that verse that man is made from both dirt and spirit.
This would mean that man has as part of himself the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdom, as well as three heavenly kingdoms.

In reference to the OP,
Take what you read with a grain of salt please.
Humans from fish?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
To you the word of God is stupid.

I didn't say anything about the word of God.

You think your opinion of me affects me at ALL? Think again.

Nope.

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?
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I saw that on the movie aliens, they get implanted in the human and burst out of their bellies. So what came first the human or the Saccorhytus?
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
To me the whole idea of macro-evolution isn't feasible, practical, viable or even plausible.

Neither did I, originally. In fact I grew up thinking the whole idea of evolution completely ridiculous. Then one day I decided to be open minded and actually do some study into it. That's when everything changed. It now seems the most feasible, practical, viable and even plausible explanation of life that I've ever come across. I just wish more people who disagree with the theory would do some serious research.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't take the origin of man account as literal, from the Bible. I believe it to be allegorical in terms of teaching about morality. There is a ''theory'' out among some Christians that speculate that everything that the theory of evolution points out is an illusion...it ''seems'' to be evidence, there ''seems'' to be fossils. I don't see Darwin's theory of evolution really as a confrontation to my faith. I believe God is behind all of science...that is my personal view, anyway.
The two Genesis stories are designed to throw light on the nature of God, the nature of Man and the created world and the relationships between the three. This is true for All Genesis accounts in the ancient Mediterranean world. To believe they accurately reflect factual history is
I don't take the origin of man account as literal, from the Bible. I believe it to be allegorical in terms of teaching about morality. There is a ''theory'' out among some Christians that speculate that everything that the theory of evolution points out is an illusion...it ''seems'' to be evidence, there ''seems'' to be fossils. I don't see Darwin's theory of evolution really as a confrontation to my faith. I believe God is behind all of science...that is my personal view, anyway.
You might like this...the heritage of our fish ancestors within us,
 
Top