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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You could've just stopped there.
As near as I can tell, there is a complete lack of understanding what a mutation is and it seems that the occurrence of mutations is rejected.
It may be, that in an attempt to popularize, scientists are not that gifted. Which has some irony to it.
Agreed.
Right? I thought 'charts' were just speculation and meant to obfuscate?
He said "Christians" not "creationists". Not all Christians believe the myths of Genesis. Of course most creationists are rather racist themselves. One can see that by how they try to apply the theory of evolution in their attempts to refute it.Right..
Creationists use 'evolution!' to justify racism and genocide..
..such a problem, with those creationists..
Nope, Hitler put Darwin's work on the banned list. And so did the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union opted for the failed science of Lysenko. Eugenicists were racist Christians that misapplied the concepts.
Carry on.. back to the jeering and ridicule!
My central argument in this thread has been genetic. It is the 'central flaw', that of a false equivalency. The ToE posits that man descended from an apelike creature, with 24 chromosome pairs, that fused into 23, creating man. But this ignores HUGE hurdles in the genetic code.
IF you could show that all the genes in the chromosomes correlated.. that is, they were the same ones in both organisms, THEN there might be some credibility for such a 'theory'. But the chromosomes & genes of the chimp & man are completely different.. as different as chimp & man. It takes more than fusing (or dividing) a chromosome to change the gene structure, or to add or subtract genes in the organism. Merely theorizing the possibility of 'chromosome fusion' & declaring that as the solution ignores some pretty big hurdles, genetically. Each chromosome contains genes.. hundreds & thousands of them, that provide the basis for the organism.. their heritage, their traits, & their ancestral history. They are unique to each organism, & are not 'lego blocks' that can easily be transferred from one organism to another. So assuming that chromosome fusion proves chimp ancestry of humans, or even common descent ignores a huge hurdle in the genetic code. How did all those genes change? How did you get the traits & variability to change from chimp to human? There is no genetic trail, that is merely asserted & assumed. IOW, it is not based in anything scientific, but is a belief.. a conjecture about genetic makeup that has no evidence of being possible.
It is more like this: Organisms within genetic families, that have proven descendancy, are like specific machines, with parts unique to that machine. A boeing 747 has specific, unique parts, that do not interchange with a chevy pickup. Just because they all use 'parts', does not make their parts identical. That is what the science of genetics has shown us, that the complexity at the genetic level is huge, & they do not randomly leap about, changing & adding variability. Genes are boringly stable, & they produce what their parents produced, who produced what their parents produced. You can repeat this for as many generations as you want, & you ALWAYS get the same genetic structures.. some variability is lost, by selective processes, such as natural selection or man made breeding, but you still do not get added traits, or changes in the basic structure. The genetic makeup remains the same.
The GENES within each organism are very different, & do not flit about & change easily. Gene splicing is a VERY difficult task, & does not happen at all, outside of the laboratory, as far as we know. Claiming that genes can move freely between species is a baseless assertion.
The genome is like a book.. & chromosomes being the chapter of a book. The words inside the chapters are genes. They are not lego blocks, that easily interchange with any other gene. Without the ability to reproduce, there is NO WAY to transfer genes from one species to another. You could have sex with monkeys or sheep, or attempt to reproduce with any number of different species, & you will not produce offspring, & you will not mix their genes. Those are the 'high walls' of genetics. We are not lego blocks of genes, tumbled around, randomly producing various traits, while some mysterious mechanism is producing NEW traits to add to the pool.
Any morphological similarity between fused chromosomes cannot make the correlation that this is what happened with apes to humans. The genes are completely different, & there is no way to make new ones. It is like taking chapter 3 of 'Origin of Species', & changing it with Chapter 3 of 'Genesis'. They are not the same 'genome', or book, so they will not produce a working organism. The claim is that chapter 4 & 5 of 'Origin of Species' fused together to form chapter 5 of 'Genesis'. But the words don't match. The content is different, even if the chapters 'look' similar on the outside.
Note again the close up of a chromosome pair. All cells have exact copies of the chromosome pairs unique to each organism. The human genome has 23 pairs, with 46 chromosomes. Each chromosome has hundreds & thousands of genes, with the base pairs providing almost 'binary' information for each living organism. The source of this information is a combination of the parents. There is NO OTHER source.
It would be nice if you properly quoted and linked those whom you think reacted this way. Odds are that they were commenting on your ignorance of the topic. I don't know of anyone on the evolution side that has ever denied mitochondrial Eve.My, my. The heckling has reached fever pitch.. all over the reference to the 'mitochondrial eve.'
So many straw men, false accusations, and disinformation about it.. good fuel for the hecklers, i guess..
I shouldn't be surprised thst progressive indoctrinees don't understand what the 'mitochondrial eve' marker is about. I take for granted, and assume (falsely), that the devotees in common descent are up on the latest genetic research.. from the 80s..
This from wiki:
In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently livinghumans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.
...
The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to biblical Eve. This led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic.
...
By 1985, data from the mtDNA of 145 women of different populations, and of two cell lines, HeLa and GM 3043, derived from a Black American and a !Kungrespectively, was available. After more than 40 revisions of the draft, the manuscript was submitted to Nature in late 1985 or early 1986[14] and published on 1 January 1987. The published conclusion was that all current human mtDNA originated from a single population from Africa, at the time dated to between 140,000 and 200,000 years ago.
...
Cann, Stoneking and Wilson did not use the term "Mitochondrial Eve" or even the name "Eve" in their original paper; it appears to originate with a 1987 article in Science by Roger Lewin, headlined "The Unmasking of Mitochondrial Eve."[17] The biblical connotation was very clear from the start. The accompanying research news in Nature had the title "Out of the garden of Eden."[18] Wilson himself preferred the term "Lucky Mother" [19] and thought the use of the name Eve "regrettable."[17][20] But the concept of Eve caught on with the public and was repeated in a Newsweek cover story (11 January 1988 issue featured a depiction of Adam and Eve on the cover, with the title "The Search for Adam and Eve"),[21] and a cover story in Time on 26 January 1987.[22]
... end of wiki quote
I find it most bizarre, in that i referenced a commonly known term in human genetics.. the discovery of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor, and it becomes fodder for all manner of heckling, jeering, and straw men creation.
If anyone wants to debate or discuss the mt-MRCA, i would be happy to do so. The significance of this discovery has many implications for older theories of origins, dating, and has many other connotations as well. I have been very i trigued, for decades, over the continued discoveries about the mt-MRCA in several studies, and referenced it earlier in the canid study, that used to get more attention, but has been upstaged by Mitochondrial Eve.
Perhaps soon i will expand upon the significance of the mt-MRCA, and some of the implications and different theories it has debunked and spawned. But for now, i will return the floor to the hecklers, who seem to be having a lot of fun with this catch phrase.
So none of the brilliant evolutionists here were familiar with the mitochondrial Most Recent Common Ancestor, that has been talked about in genetics for nearly 40 years? You think i just made this up? ROFL!!
I'm fascinated how slow the information that refutes a pop belief gets through to the indoctrinees. They still believe the programming from whatever institution created them, and dutifully parrot the Approved Scientific Narrative, that they have been taught. Updated information about the mt-MRCA, neanderthal, vestigiality, and a host of other beliefs are buried in 19th century science.. they can quote Darwin as a proof text, but are not current on the actual science.
My bad.. i should not assume the posters here would be up to date with recent genetic discoveries. I'll try to clarify early on, to avoid misunderstandings. I need to realized the low bar of understanding I'm dealing with.
..but then that would ruin their fun!
Please support this claim with more than just hand waving. Those that understand this topic the best do not seem to think that there is a huge hurdle or that vast differences exist.My central argument in this thread has been genetic. It is the 'central flaw', that of a false equivalency. The ToE posits that man descended from an apelike creature, with 24 chromosome pairs, that fused into 23, creating man. But this ignores HUGE hurdles in the genetic code.
IF you could show that all the genes in the chromosomes correlated.. that is, they were the same ones in both organisms, THEN there might be some credibility for such a 'theory'. But the chromosomes & genes of the chimp & man are completely different.. as different as chimp & man. It takes more than fusing (or dividing) a chromosome to change the gene structure, or to add or subtract genes in the organism. Merely theorizing the possibility of 'chromosome fusion' & declaring that as the solution ignores some pretty big hurdles, genetically. Each chromosome contains genes.. hundreds & thousands of them, that provide the basis for the organism.. their heritage, their traits, & their ancestral history. They are unique to each organism, & are not 'lego blocks' that can easily be transferred from one organism to another. So assuming that chromosome fusion proves chimp ancestry of humans, or even common descent ignores a huge hurdle in the genetic code. How did all those genes change? How did you get the traits & variability to change from chimp to human? There is no genetic trail, that is merely asserted & assumed. IOW, it is not based in anything scientific, but is a belief.. a conjecture about genetic makeup that has no evidence of being possible.
It is more like this: Organisms within genetic families, that have proven descendancy, are like specific machines, with parts unique to that machine. A boeing 747 has specific, unique parts, that do not interchange with a chevy pickup. Just because they all use 'parts', does not make their parts identical. That is what the science of genetics has shown us, that the complexity at the genetic level is huge, & they do not randomly leap about, changing & adding variability. Genes are boringly stable, & they produce what their parents produced, who produced what their parents produced. You can repeat this for as many generations as you want, & you ALWAYS get the same genetic structures.. some variability is lost, by selective processes, such as natural selection or man made breeding, but you still do not get added traits, or changes in the basic structure. The genetic makeup remains the same.
The GENES within each organism are very different, & do not flit about & change easily. Gene splicing is a VERY difficult task, & does not happen at all, outside of the laboratory, as far as we know. Claiming that genes can move freely between species is a baseless assertion.
The genome is like a book.. & chromosomes being the chapter of a book. The words inside the chapters are genes. They are not lego blocks, that easily interchange with any other gene. Without the ability to reproduce, there is NO WAY to transfer genes from one species to another. You could have sex with monkeys or sheep, or attempt to reproduce with any number of different species, & you will not produce offspring, & you will not mix their genes. Those are the 'high walls' of genetics. We are not lego blocks of genes, tumbled around, randomly producing various traits, while some mysterious mechanism is producing NEW traits to add to the pool.
Any morphological similarity between fused chromosomes cannot make the correlation that this is what happened with apes to humans. The genes are completely different, & there is no way to make new ones. It is like taking chapter 3 of 'Origin of Species', & changing it with Chapter 3 of 'Genesis'. They are not the same 'genome', or book, so they will not produce a working organism. The claim is that chapter 4 & 5 of 'Origin of Species' fused together to form chapter 5 of 'Genesis'. But the words don't match. The content is different, even if the chapters 'look' similar on the outside.
Note again the close up of a chromosome pair. All cells have exact copies of the chromosome pairs unique to each organism. The human genome has 23 pairs, with 46 chromosomes. Each chromosome has hundreds & thousands of genes, with the base pairs providing almost 'binary' information for each living organism. The source of this information is a combination of the parents. There is NO OTHER source.