The Strange Thing about Creationism

[camanintx]

With currently known theory, it wouldn't be possible in a trillion years. How many beneficial mutations do you think are involved to go from apeman to man?

Scientists estimate there are about 600 genes that have undergone strong positive selection in the human and chimp genomes, or about 300 beneficial mutations each since these species split. Given that current known theory places this split about 6 million years ago, that works out to about one every twenty thousand years. Hardly a problem for evolution.

 

[Shermana]

Scientists estimate there are about 600 genes that have undergone strong positive selection in the human and chimp genomes, or about 300 beneficial mutations each since these species split. Given that current known theory places this split about 6 million years ago, that works out to about one every twenty thousand years. Hardly a problem for evolution.

Now try accounting for why those 600 genes account for such radical differences. If you don't think the differences are that radical, you're welcome to your beliefs.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Now try accounting for why those 600 genes account for such radical differences. If you don't think the differences are that radical, you're welcome to your beliefs.

Have you found some cellular microbiology evidence that is presented through peer reviewed research done by someone who is an actual expert in the field?

 

[camanintx]

Now try accounting for why those 600 genes account for such radical differences. If you don't think the differences are that radical, you're welcome to your beliefs.

What radical differences would those be?

Brain size? Harvard Gazette: Genes found that regulate brain size

Posture? The Genetic Cause of Bipedalism

Hairiness? http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio311d/articles/WhyHumansAndFur081903.pdf

 

[Shermana]

What radical differences would those be?

Brain size? Harvard Gazette: Genes found that regulate brain size

Posture? The Genetic Cause of Bipedalism

Hairiness? http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio311d/articles/WhyHumansAndFur081903.pdf

Nothing in any of those proves anything about how it happened. In fact, I like this quote from there.

The gene produces a protein involved in forming neural stem cells, cells that will develop into brain cells in the cortex. The mutation found by Walsh and Woods apparently disrupts this process, resulting in fewer brain cells and a smaller head.

And now for a quote on the "scientific community"'s opinion on Haldane.

“In my opinion the [Haldane's Dilemma] problem was never solved, by Wallace or anyone else. It merely faded away, because people got interested in other things. They must have assumed that the true resolution lay somewhere in the welter of suggestions made by one or more of the distinguished population geneticists who had participated in the discussion.” (G. C. Williams, 1992, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges, p 143-144, emphasis added)

 

[painted wolf]

Nice quote mine! .... go to the part on microcephaly gene and ignore the part about the gene increasing brain size.

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nothing in any of those proves anything about how it happened.

Typical creationist tactic.

A: There is no evidence of X.
B: *Produces significant amount of evidence of X*
A: But none of that PROVES how X happened.

It's dishonest, it's unscientific and, most of all, it shows up your ignorance. If you're just going to flat out ignore facts when they are presented to you, then your interests certainly do not lie with science.

 

[Shermana]

Typical creationist tactic.

A: There is no evidence of X.
B: *Produces significant amount of evidence of X*
A: But none of that PROVES how X happened.

It's dishonest, it's unscientific and, most of all, it shows up your ignorance. If you're just going to flat out ignore facts when they are presented to you, then your interests certainly do not lie with science.

Typical Macroevolutionist tactic, ignore the specifics, act as if there is concrete facts and evidence to draw a conclusion from when there's not, and completely ignore the entire conversation.

Show these facts you claim I ignored, please. Get specific. Please show exactly which facts are on those links which state anything concrete and conclusive.

Feel free to quote from them anything which you feel I ignored and can be used for weight to her claim.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Typical Macroevolutionist tactic, ignore the specifics

I'm not ignoring specifics. You're ignoring facts.

act as if there is concrete facts and evidence to draw a conclusion from when there's not,

He just presented several pages of concrete evidence; Once again, if your only response to the evidence is "that doesn't PROVE it happened", then you need to keep your ignorance out of science. You are simply denying what is in front of you with an appeal to ignorance.

Show these facts you claim I ignored, please. Get specific. Please show exactly which facts are on those links which state anything concrete and conclusive.

Harvard Gazette: Genes found that regulate brain size
The Genetic Cause of Bipedalism
http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio311d/articles/WhyHumansAndFur081903.pdf

Feel free to quote from them anything which you feel I ignored and can be used for weight to her claim.

Every single thing written in the above links except for the two parts you intentionally and dishonestly quotemined. If you have to ignore and lie in order to bolster your position, then you have to wonder whether or not your position is correct.

Which, by the way, yours isn't. Which is why 99.99% of credentialed biologists accept evolution.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Every single thing written in the above links except for the two parts you intentionally and dishonestly quotemined. If you have to ignore and lie in order to bolster your position, then you have to wonder whether or not your position is correct.

Yup, just another instance of The Dishonesty Of Creationists.

 

[camanintx]

And now for a quote on the "scientific community"'s opinion on Haldane.

Do you realize that this quote was made over a decade before the chimpanzee genome was finished? Maybe G. C. Williams just didn't know how small the difference really was.

 

[Shermana]

Do you realize that this quote was made over a decade before the chimpanzee genome was finished? Maybe G. C. Williams just didn't know how small the difference really was.

If the difference is really that small, you'd think we'd find the missing link by now. I don't see how the difference of 300 genes in mutations accounts for the vast differences, but then agani, you don't see any vast differences. Everyone dodges the issue of the evolution of the foot, I guess for a reason. It's okay, scientists are still arguing with various opinions on how the monkey foot turned into one fit for running instead of grabbing. I like what Iday said about we lost our Jaw power as our skull size increases....there's a big "Phase 2: ?"there.

Technically, humans and dogs aren't even that different either. What is it, like 92% compared to the 95% with the chimp?

 

[Shermana]

I'm not ignoring specifics. You're ignoring facts.


He just presented several pages of concrete evidence; Once again, if your only response to the evidence is "that doesn't PROVE it happened", then you need to keep your ignorance out of science. You are simply denying what is in front of you with an appeal to ignorance.


Harvard Gazette: Genes found that regulate brain size
The Genetic Cause of Bipedalism
http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio311d/articles/WhyHumansAndFur081903.pdf


Every single thing written in the above links except for the two parts you intentionally and dishonestly quotemined. If you have to ignore and lie in order to bolster your position, then you have to wonder whether or not your position is correct.

Which, by the way, yours isn't. Which is why 99.99% of credentialed biologists accept evolution.

Just as I figured, no actual quotes or discussion of the data itself. As expected. But nice accusations of lies. Keep letting the reader see how you can't actually discuss the details, that works fine.

I'd seriously like an explanation of why my quote is a quote mine and why it doesn't account for the data.

If it makes you feel better, you're not the first person to accuse me of lying, then repeat yourself instead of getting into the details when asked for the specifics. If you can actually prove how anything in those links shows how the transition happened, feel free. Otherwise, I'm expecting another reply of the same thing: Accusations of lies, repeats of the links themselves, no discussion of the facts or details, no quotes, and just more insults. Carry on, the Macros are definitely showing their knowledge of the specifics very well. Appreciated!

 

[camanintx]

If the difference is really that small, you'd think we'd find the missing link by now. I don't see how the difference of 300 genes in mutations accounts for the vast differences, but then agani, you don't see any vast differences.

So you are basically arguing from incredulity.

Everyone dodges the issue of the evolution of the foot, I guess for a reason. It's okay, scientists are still arguing with various opinions on how the monkey foot turned into one fit for running instead of grabbing.

What reason is that? Here's one possible explanation for how our foot evolved but I don't expect you to accept it.

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion

Technically, humans and dogs aren't even that different either. What is it, like 92% compared to the 95% with the chimp?

Since life originated 3.5 billion years ago and humans and dogs diverged only about 125 million years ago, or about 3.5% of the time life has been evolving, I don't see this as a problem.

 

[Shermana]

Macro-Evolution is arguing from Incredulity since there's absolutely no evidence showing how it happened or that it COULD have happened. But I'm saying that 300 genes' difference means radical changes each time, enough that would be mutations enough to basically kill the whole thing, and you'd think the transition would be fairly evident in the fossil record.

Feel free to quote from your link anything that substantially proves how the chimp foot turned human.

Are you conceding that the argument about Chimps and Humans being similar is only 2.5% different than the argument that Humans and Dogs are similar?

 

[painted wolf]

A single nucleotide change is hardly drastic... the difference may be profound in the long run, but that is entirely different. One of those changes was the blue eyes gene... hardly life threatening or radical.

wa:do

 

[idav]

Macro-Evolution is arguing from Incredulity since there's absolutely no evidence showing how it happened or that it COULD have happened. But I'm saying that 300 genes' difference means radical changes each time, enough that would be mutations enough to basically kill the whole thing, and you'd think the transition would be fairly evident in the fossil record.

Feel free to quote from your link anything that substantially proves how the chimp foot turned human.

Are you conceding that the argument about Chimps and Humans being similar is only 2.5% different than the argument that Humans and Dogs are similar?

The changes do make a big difference as you can see in differences between humans and as you can see differences between dogs. It wouldn't kill the whole thing. The transition is evident in the fossil record but it isn't easy finding million year old bones or older for obvious reasons.

When they simply compare base pairs of human to chimp we get a 1.2% difference. DNA evidence is some of the strongest evidence we have especially when it matches the fossil record of progression.

Evolution explains the fossil record fine but how would creation fit in at all? You can hide in gaps of knowledge if you want just cause we need more fossils but scientists are not worried about finding anything that goes against evolution. Why would a scientist care if evolution was falsified. They just want the truth.

The following pic shows a good model of the fossil record for humans but I'm sure there is more data to add since 2009.
Handprint : Ancestral Lines

 

[Shermana]

A single nucleotide change is hardly drastic... the difference may be profound in the long run, but that is entirely different. One of those changes was the blue eyes gene... hardly life threatening or radical.

wa:do

Blue eyes, like white skin, is the result of the deficiency of natural Pigment. It's not a defining feature of man.

 

[painted wolf]

Blue eyes, like white skin, is the result of the deficiency of natural Pigment. It's not a defining feature of man.

And yet it is one of the genes that set us apart. Like the two nucleotide difference in our FOXp2 gene from that of chimps, a very vital difference, but nothing that would be dangerous.

Oh and skin tone and eye color is far more complex than lack of pigment. In eyes it's pigment shape for example.... lack of pigment is albinism.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Blue eyes, like white skin, is the result of the deficiency of natural Pigment. It's not a defining feature of man.

And yet.......