no pun intended... towards religion or evolutionist followers... but let me say this... all that is, whether you want to say just nature or creator has given humans and the likes plenty to debate over. The whole view of the glass being half full or half empty may come down to neither side truly valuing the the context which can house either view... opposition in my opinion is the true static which causes history to repeat itself in a self defeatist kind of way... no winners, just victims...
creation explained from the gullible view of what's accepted by christian terms is why scientist can't see beyond their theories, beliefs are subjective... math is true reality, it's why you can have a belief... Scientist discovering facts in and of nature doesn't make the facts a scientist invention. Indeed, such an invention belongs to a greater source... I have never met a religious god/creator... so what does religion feel it can explain better than nature anyway? lmao!
without a painter would the evolution of a painting ever take place? lmao! this ish is elementary why is this still being argued, what, because humans are not the greatest intelligence and you will one day die? get over it already, we didn't cause ourselves and evolutionist calling a creator nature isn't changing the facts about the nature of a creator no more than the nature of a painter would change because someone doesn't like the method the painter uses to create a painted reality... smh
what lacks ( being ) energy and ( intelligence ) could never cause an influx of systematic planets and life forms, no scientist can prove otherwise, to make such an attempt would be nothing more than playing around with a straw man... For the record intelligence explained from a religious perspective is why evolutionist can't seem to accept the inevitable of a creative intelligence. Nature is intelligence with the ability to intend, if void of either then evolution would never occur...
Explaining the mechanical nature of objects doesn't make things void of a creator... we as humans are responsible for different mechanics that can be explain as our design... Evolution is a part of a systematic approach to creating organization, to view otherwise would be to suggest that all organisms and planets are static and non-functional and lack unique structure, of course we all know better than that. The facts of specified conditions are self evident. This takes intelligence...
@TitaniusAnglesmith1 also one last quick point; ID "scientists" do not call their alleged creator "God", so if you are really in support of this theory, you should avoid using a specific deity to defend it.
@TitaniusAnglesmith1 I am not saying the deities listed above (Any or all) do not exist; they might as well exist, but it is impossible to test them empirically, logically, whatever you want to call it. Therefore, they require FAITH. Faith cannot be used to explain natural phenomena - open and shut case. You can choose to view our world through either the laws of nature and science, or you can choose to view them through the tenets of your faith. But you absolutely cannot mix them together.
@TitaniusAnglesmith1 belief in God most certainly does not; there are many famous scientists (newton and blaise pascal, to name two quick ones) who were in fact quite devout. If I'm not mistaken, Einstein was not an atheist either. But when you bring something supernatural at its CORE and try to use it to explain something natural, the results are questionable. Science progresses and develops by using the *scientific method*. Are you aware of its definition?
@TitaniusAnglesmith1 because God/Krishna/Allah/*insert deity here* are not needed to explain them. The concept of an almighty, all-knowing deity exists to provide hope in something greater, the promise of an afterlife, it provides comfort in solace. What it does not do is provide scientific answers. Belief is the complete opposite of knowledge. Science alone can provide the answers, WILL provide them with further study if undiscovered. Explaining the unknown with magic is just an easy way out.
@branahawk The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Einstein, Galileo, and Newton all believed in a Designer. That's where the evidence led them. There is a lot of magic involved in the theory of evolution. How can nothing create anything? Have you ever tested this theory and found it to be true? If not, then why is it called science? Think about all the mutations needed to go from apelike to human. How would these mutations cause more order, when we know that mutations are detrimental?
@krazykyle56 if you think evolution is about nothing creating anything, you're uneducated enough to not even deserve a proper reply for me. Do some reading before you attempt to debate me or impose your belief unto me. You're one of those people who believe evolution is about genesis and that the only natural process of evolution is mutation. Read about genetics, natural selection, for Heaven's sake (i thought this might appeal to you), read a science book!
@krazykyle56 you're asking me, a person with no scientific equipment or background in any higher form of science, to test a scientific theory in my backyard? One that, by definition, millions of years to rapidly? (which is not entirely true since it can be observed in more rapidly evolving organisms but whatever) Here's the problem: Anyone can justify God because a cretin can understand creationism. To understand evolution fully, you need to have atleast a basic concept of scientific reality.
@krazykyle56 I do not resent you or wish to change your belief system, but anyone who knows at least a bit about genetics, molecular biology, ecosystems, geology, astronomy, taxonomy and many others will tell you that the natural world does not need the supervision of a creator; and all the scientists you listed may have had religious beliefs but they did NOT use the bible or any form of ID science to come up with their theories, I assure you. People often times mistake faith with reality.
@krazykyle56 I will end my long long reply with this: when it comes to explaining the natural world, if we are going to use ID or creationism, society would simply fall back into the dark ages; because evolution is not the number one enemy of God/the Creator. There are many other branches of science that directly oppose and contradict the bible. Branches whose fruits have given us the enriched life we have today. I fear for all of us if we turn our backs now to facts and embrace ignorance.
the one thing I liked about this video is the fact that he's an educated person. the one thing that baffles me is that, knowing the things he knows, he still believes in God.
Having debated so many young earth creationists and anti-science religious people its gives me great hope to see critical scientific thinking from a devout religious source.
I was actually not aware of the "GULO" gene and will have to look into it further to verify what is presented here but I must thank you for bringing this to my attention.
However, this begs the question, why not apply this same critical scientific thinking even deeper into your religious beliefs?
for the most part this is a devastating blow to Creationism and from a Creationist. I would never though I we find an honest Christian creationist.
Basically all this says, yes we know evolution do happens, but we do not care because we now believe that evolution is God's Instrument for creations.
If you study human consciousness, it correlates nicely with how nature works. There are archetypal forms, memory, and so forth. These videos are very articulate and scientifically rigorous. But the problem is that it works within the current scientific paradigm which assumes natural explanations are fundamental. We absolutely have to merge the biological sciences with quantum physics. If we don't we will end up basing all of our logic upon overly simplistic materialistic patterns.
Very cool video. If you really understand genetics and biology, it's quite evident that we are not intelligently designed. We're basically cobbled together. If there was design work done to create humans, it would at best be "mediocre design."
@glovergj Can evolution by mutations and natural selection explain the existence of of the gulu genes in the first place ?
And about this point mutation in all primates . Couldn't it be that an infective agent like a virus that infects only primates be the cause of this similarity in mutation.
Being highly educated and intelligent people, most Christian leaders (and common clergy) acknowledge the truth of evolution, as noted by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" (he even mentions names). The problem is, they don't teach that to their congregations, so the argument rages on. The evidence continues to mount, but still creationists cry "there is no evidence, it's just a theory!"
There's one more problem with the whole God placing the evidence to test us theory. The God said to have placed all these fossils were they are is the same God who would go around killing people simply for doubting his existence, would now go out of his way to make people deny him. doesn't that seem a little out of character to you? and as for wrapping our brains (or more accurately eating our brains), that job belongs to Jesus, he is a zombie after all.
where do you come up with this garbage? The fact that God created and sustains the cosmos is what enables science! The fact that we have order and unformity and predictability opens the cosmos to emperical investigation. How can you say that God is scientifically useless?
Where do I come up with it? From a guy on the internet who says that if a factor or possibility cannot be scientifically tested and evaluated, or produce predictions which are likewise, then said factor is of no use to an orderly study of the cosmos.
As someone else has observed, "More videos like this need to be made... so that religious people can see that it's OK to leave your god in your church and in your heart but out of our science classrooms. "
@glovergj I completely agree but I think he was really getting at was why do we need to propose God as a designer or creator if we have naturalistic explanations. Why assume God needs to be there if by science we have explanations for what we call God's handiwork?
I couldn't agree more, but arguments from science haven't traditionally been the most convincing for people to believe in God anyway.
Btw, I am looking for someone to defend a non-traditional view of Genesis. You game?
@myironlungca Yes: it goes like this --- The bible is God's Word becuase the Bible says that the Bible is God's Word, and since the Bible is God's Word (because it says to), then it must be true when says that the Bible is God's Word.
Based on this video, a Christian shall conclude that God did not create anything, He just said, ... quantum fluctuation explode...., and a whirlpool of dust and gas formed the solar system on it´s own, and He was just waiting for a single celled organism to emerge by itself from the oceans, and evolution DID the rest, bringing forth the whole diversity of life, living and extinct plants and animals from such a SCO, meanwhile God was just watching everything unfolding as He planned?
Legal conflict don't prove something is unproductive. I never said. But they do prove that the issue in question is not scientific. Those battles are fought in won in the lab and in the field.
Okay, so it's impossible to objectively determine that the unborn are in fact human? Or that alternative research such as adult stem cells or embryonic blood stem cells do in fact work?
wow I just came across your series - I can hardly believe my ears! A Christian being reasonable about evolutionary evidence and not just repeating the same old lies that most of the creationists do. Thanks this was refreshing
WOW...I'll admit I saw this as a video promoting ID (in the 'scientific' sense) and I was set to watch it for kicks. I was pleasantly surprised to see that you're actually an advocate for real science. Like Goblin mentioned even an atheist can watch this and agree. More videos like this need to be made to reach across the isle so that religious people can see that it's OK to leave your god in your church and in your heart but out of our science classrooms.
1-Evolution is not stated in the bible, maybe the closest parallelism could be the "parable of tares".
2-There is any reference about the exact time of creation in the bible.
3-Jesus himself said "give to Cesar that belongs to Cesar and to God that belongs to God" (I am not sure about translation), so I add: "give the science that belongs to science and God that belongs to God"
It's refreshing to see a Christian video that even an Atheist like me can respect.
And I like that you're actually sticking up for this in the comments as well, instead of disabling them like so many other Christian videos do (because they're afraid of being called on their BS).
Seriously. Commendable work and I tip my imaginary hat to you =)
"Why would God create us with only two out of the three genes necessary to make vitamin C."
God may have originally created us to produce vitamin C. It doesn't bother me at all that we don't now, since the Bible plainly states that we were cursed because of Adam's sin. I'm sure there are a ton of things that our bodies don't do now that they did long ago.
I don't know. They could have been an actual human couple, or they could simply be symbols God used to convey to us the concept that all of humanity is "fallen" and in need of Christ. However, if they were literal people, I do not believe that they all living people are their descendants. That is physically impossible. Hope that helps!
@glovergj "if they were literal people, I do not believe that they all living people are their descendants. That is physically impossible."
How?
If it is impossible for all modern humans to have descended from a single pair of humans, then it is unlikely for humans to be related to chimpanzees. This is because chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes, and humans have only 46 chromosomes, meaning humans would have had to descend from a single brother-sister pair of 47-chromosome ancestors.
There is too much genetic variation in the human population for all people to be descended from a single human couple. Studies in molecular genetics show that the human population bottlenecked down to only a few thousand individuals about 100-150k years ago.
Human chromosome #2 is actually two chimp chromosomes fused together. The presence of an extra centromere and misplaced telomeres is evidence of this. The exact fusion site can be determined from this evidence,
It never ceases to amaze me how much people can build up from just one or two sentences from the bible. This whole "fall" thing is pretty funny - God cursed Adam and Eve, but did you bother to read what the curse was?
Adam's curse was that now he'll have to work for a living - presumably he didn't have to eat before. And in fact, Adam and Eve both have separate curses - so Men will have to actually work to eat, and women will have pain in childbirth.
OccamKant --> He also mentioned death. Don't forget that.
But really, arguing that we are "flawed" simply because God didn't enable us to synthesize our own Vitamin C is as silly as asserting that we are "flawed" because we lack wings or gills or any other trait other animals have that we don't. We were not designed to make our own Vitamin C because we don't need to. Apes, for example (and certain fruit bats) eat diets rich in it and don't need to make their own. The same applies to us.
We don't know that He did, unless you have a gene sample from Adam or Eve in which it's working. All we know is that it isn't operational now. The only way it can definitively be "broken" is if we descended from another species. In other words, by that logic, we know it's broken because we evolved, and we know it evolved because it's broken. Circular reasoning.
We have genes from other mammals, and we can trace back in the mammalian family tree where we branched off and where our gene got broken.
We know we evolved for far more reasons than a broken vitamin C gene. It just fits the picture and adds supporting evidence.
It would be bad engineering indeed to add broken features to your creations. And it would be deceptive in the extreme to make these features look like they came from somewhere else, don't you think?
Dude, take another look at the first video. Evolution is an interpretation of the evidence. And contrary to his claims, it leaves a lot unanswered.
Consider, for example, the water-into-wine miracle. Any person would look at the wine's quality and assume it was well-aged. But it was brand-spankin'-new. The quality was the evidence, the age would be the interpretation. Unless you can definitively prove that our ancestors at some point had that gene working, you can't say for sure it ever broke.
You forgot the part about Jesus planting recipts and empty wineskins showing that the wine was purchased at a winery, then commanding us to believe it was a miracle. That would be the equivalent of what we see in our DNA.
Not really. That would be Jesus actively trying to mislead.
We do know that Jesus put information in place which lended itself to misunderstanding. The same, by your own admission, could be true in the case of genetic "evidence." We know God is trying to communicate somethig through nature, but the question is what. It's like if I sent you a message in Navajo Code, which used code words like "turtle" for tanks. If you understood the code, you would know what I was saying. Otherwise...
Exactly. If you want to believe the creation story, you must also believe that your God is history's biggest liar - planting evidence that shows evolution happened, that the world is old, etc.
If you're gonna stick to the creation story, you are saying you worship a liar.
On the contrary. We may misunderstand, but that does not make Him a liar. On the other hand, you are clearly disinterested in answering uncomfortable questions, like my pont that your logic implies - when it doesn't say outright - that God is useless to science.
I'm perfectly comfortable answering any question - if I actually have an answer. I'm also, unlike Christians it seems, comfortable with saying "I don't know".
If someone planted evidence at a murder scene to make it look like person X was the killer, including blood, saliva, dna, fingerprints, and the police convicted person X on this evidence, wouldn't you say that the person who set the scene was a deceiver?
We have 150 years of evidence (mountains!) supporting evolution. If it's all fake...
What part of "misunderstood" do you not get? You say you're comfortable with admitting you don;t know, but then you talk as if you know exactly how and why God would have done something.
What kind of God would He be if we could wrap our brains around Him? It's not rocket science to figure out that a God we can out-think is no God at all.
"What kind of God would He be if we could wrap our brains around Him? It's not rocket science to figure out that a God we can out-think is no God at all."
Your problem is that you're taking a god that was made up by ignorant desert nomads 2000 years ago, looking at the stupid, ignorant things that those nomads said he did, and trying to make them somehow grand and mysterious.
They're not mysterious, they're ridiculous. Not one word of genesis could possibly be true, therefore it's false.
The "Water to wine miracle"? Why are you bringing up this fairy tale in a statement about the reality of evolution? I don't understand. Do you talk about the 3 little pigs in physics class too?
We know the gene for making Vitamin C is broken in humans because we see the same gene in animals where it is functioning. It's in the same place in the genome, and it's recognizably the same code - just like you'd recognize a car with the wheels off as a car missing wheels.
The most sophisticated multi-cellular creatures? My vote goes to Christians who believe Jesus was Lord, the Bible is God's word, and accept evolution as God's method of creation.
Mr. Glover... it seems you already know all the answers and are far too upset by disagreement to discuss thoughtfully.. I will leave you to a cascade of your own opinion down the page...
I still do thank you for the pointing out of the interesting research of psuedogenes.. but otherwise I'm afraid It's time to leave since you are only resorting to personal attacks. It's unfortunate though.. and not the role of a teacher to belittle and assault.
I don't mind people asking questions. But the worst thing is to have to deal with somebody who hasn't invested the mental energy required to honestly understand something. All of these objections that you think are so clever have been dealt with extensively. You would know this if you were serious about understanding evolution, even if only to disagree with it. To anyone else reading this, who even has a basic knowledge of molecular genetics or evolution...
...you will be perceived in the same light. So I'm doing you a favor by being honst with you and telling you that you really need to some homework before throwing out ideas from the top of your head. If you feel these are personal attacks, then you have other issues you need to deal with. The same goes for radiometric dating. You make these rediculous statements that have no basis in reality. It's ovbious you've never even studies the issue or you would know better.
I'm also perfectly ok with disagreement. But at last know what you are disagreeing with. These straw-man argument that you keep making only misrepresent what evolution is. I would rather you had a firm grasp of the facts, then said "but I disagree with the interpretation" -- then completely misunderstand what evolution and why so many accept it. That's why I keep telling you to hit the books (or the internet).
like I said.. I'm printing the conclusions which they are listing at this point.. more research is always needed, but at the point of that publication the writer felt the study implied exactly what I said..that the ancient creatures contained the majority of the genes necessary to construct the most sophisticated creatures.. their words.. not mine..
I've got to eat some dinner. Seriously, take some time to ready basic info about what evolution is. Your comments will be much more coherent if you take the time to educate yourself before spouting ideas off the top of your head without thinking them through first.
'This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build todays most sophisticated multicellular creatures.'
You can say that it isn't the case.. although the researcher himself feels different... apparently you know more than him.. congrats!
Nice try, but you said, "...have the info necessary to build a human..."
Hmmm... Did I miss the part about humans? The article says: "most of the genes necessary to build todays most sophisticated multicellular creatures" -- which is a far cry from what you said.
and no - not only do sea anemones share huge blocks of DNA with humans, they also share 80% of the humans INTRONS. In exactly the same places as our own.
You are either a habitual liar or too sloppy to relay information accurately. They DO NOT SHARE 80% OF THE INTRONS!!!Only 80% of the LOCATIONS are preserved. There is huge difference. You either are intentionally trying to mislead, or your understaningof genetics is not up to the level where you can even relay simple information correctly. I'll assume the latter.
give it up please.. you know that the scientific community shuts down anyone who professes a belief in ID. Same as every other area of research or investigation.. the guns are lowered on anyone that doesn't commit themselves to the current dogma.
And astrology, and voodoo, and alchemy, and mental telepathy, any other useless pseudoscience!
All ID has to do is demonstrate that Design theory can explain the existing data better than evolution and scientists will take them seriously. So far, nothing...
in otherwords.. if DNA is mutating continually and neutral changes occur continually the human species should be rampant with radical changes that are neutral. The species in itself would share little similarity. We each would be our own little limb that has been changing ever since the first branching with unending variety.
Your logic is flawed because you don't understand how evolution works. It's clear that you trying to dismiss years of scientific work simply by rambling off ideas from the top of your head. You are wasting my time.
ahh back to the random insults and appeal for peer review papers.
The statement about psuedogenes originally came from a peer reviewed paper, but so what.
Things that have 'no identifiable function' do not IN ANY WAY mean they have no function.. they only reveal we haven't found one.
Neutral mutations get passed along.. correct? your words. DNA is always mutating.. correct? Why is it that vast numbers of these neutral mutations aren't visible..
They are! Compare any to copies of the same functional gene in two different species and you can see all fo the base pairs that are different. Most of the time, no functionality of the protien is lost, so these mutations get passed on. This is one of the ways we can construct phylogenies based on common genes. If you had spent any time leaning about genetics you would already know this.
did you know the sea anemone shares the majority of our genetic code in it's active genes. Some of the order is different but the same code. Also 80% of the introns are in the same place as in the human genome..
Though obviously this research is new.. and requires far more study - it implies that these 100's of millions of year old creatures have the info necessary to build a human.. or near to it.
So yes... star fish and humans are far more similar than one would think =)
Shares is strech. The fact is that about 2/3 of our genes are DERIVED from sea anemone genes -- which means that the vast amount of evolutionary time that separates them from us has allowed the genes to diverge significantly, but not enough that they can't be identified as having a similar source. To conclude that these creatures have the info necessary to build a human is competely false. The differeneces may only be 20-30%, but that is like night and day genetically speaking.
In 10 years, only 1 paper on ID published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. They have generated no data, nor have they shown that they can better explain existing data. The entire thing is completely useless.
also.. as far as psuedogenes - the research now is leaning towards the belief that they are the true work horse of genetics.. this genes once assumed to be junk are possibly the information used to build the organism.. while active genes are more like the bricks. Interestingly enough, 'such findings actually support the predictions of intelligent design theory while countering long-held evolutionary assumptions.'
You are referring to regulatory genes. These are completely different from introns, retroviruses, and pseudogenes. Regulatory genes are not translated, but they contain instructions on what to do with the proteins that are built. Again, the fact that you would actually jump on this a proof that junk DNA can have important function only shows your complete lack of understaning of genetics. Please stop wasting our time and educate yourself before making any more comments.
possibly we could look at the game SPORE and view all of the possible options players have made -- they all won the game. I'm being facetious of course, its a terrible game and very simplistic... but it still shows what I mean.
I'm sure we could make a computer program which shows just this..... the end product of only survival deterring forms being lost would result in no distinct forms at all! The tree that would result would not even have definite limbs.. it would reveal nothing but infinite variation and no species at all.
What IS useful on the other hand is to make a realistic assumption of the theory of evolution... if it were true to it's word then only those forms which are detrimental to survival would die out - that would leave a tremendous amount of god awful random designs which neither help or hinder. Humans as we know it could never even be defined considering the plethora of alternative random designs which would ensue.. Believe me - i get your point. Evolution's theory just doesn't fit the data.
Again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. How are in no position to make any definitive statement about evolution -- you don't even understand the first thing about. It's clear that you get your information from creationist apologetics websites.
primates and humans are similar. - they also look similar.. they also have similar genes - there's no revelation there - only if you come at it with a certain bias.
also a barrier for evolution... a mutation in a child that then has a child of his own isn't passed down.. the error is corrected. Evolution's very mechanism is countered.
Wow, nobody every thought of that! Now you can write a paper and have it published in a reputable scientific journal and become famous for discovering something new! Please. Who do you think you are anyway?
Please, for you own sake, take the time to learn what evolution is. This might help you to make coherent arguments against it. We'll be here ready to have intelligent dialogue after you've had time to educate yourself.
a simple example: if a human was born with 3 eyes.. there's no reason this would be either a benefit to surviving or a detriment. These variables would be overwhelmingly apparent.. so much so if evolution were true that we wouldn't even be able to define something as a species because there would be such immense variety of 3 eyed and winged and 8 toed variations. - instead we see clearly defined species.. no randomness at all - every species is like this.
3 eyes? I think sexual selection would take care of that.
The rest of your statement is nonsensical. Your objections only demonstrate your complete lack of understanding what evolution is. Agree or disagree, you should at least understand evolution enough to make coherent objections to it -- but you can't seem to do even that.
one element that points to a designer is the fact that everything that we think is useless eventually reveals a use... random 'mutations' would not result in a change which is always a deciding factor for survival.. it would result in many changes which are no net effect.. but definitely bad designs. - we don't see those.. also we don't see these near limitless changes in either the fossil record or in living creatures. -
You obviously don't understand how evolution works. The vase majority of mutation are so detrimental that they never get passed along. A neutral mutation can get passed along and become beneficial when combined with another mutation. This is exactly how color vision evoled. You can easily see how a few simple mutation, took a basic light sensitive protein and tuned it to different bands on the visible spectrum. This sort of thing happens all the time.
peehead99 - you've of course taken the furthest in the spectrum in the attempt to build a case for there being no similarity. Yes.. all animals show similar design - they also have differences.. but they all show similarities as well. I could easily point out a vast number of similarities between us and starfish in the way their systems work. Also a starfish is very different as well... it has to be.
Yes I absolutely agree that we share many similarities with starfish, the point is a common designer is useless in explaining THE DISTRIBUTION OF SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES throughout the biodiversity on earth.
It's the same as paternity testing, scientists don't just say "oh look, these two people have similarities therefore they're related." They look at the similarities and differences, and compare shared traits, and inherited genetic markers.
and the whole mouse trap argument where it makes a useful tie clip is just lame. Every feature of every species could not be a useful feature in every stage of development.. To extrapolate that 1 feature could be useful (like a tool for injecting poison and other examples people have made) are ridiculous attempts to use a very questionable exception to prove a rule.
No, to say that the moustrap just appeared out of thin air because it looks complicated is lame. It has already been shown that a feature doesn't have to be useful in every stage of development to remain. Many vestigal structures / genes have no identifiable function. But the fact that some do demonstrates that vestiges can be co-opted.
The conditions where radiometric dating is not reliable is any condition where we are finding the age of something with no control object of the same age. They are assuming that the rate of decay has remained the same and a whole slew of other assumptions. It's entirely unscientific for that reason.. It would be confirmed as accurate if we were here 10 million years ago and had a confirmed 10 million year old rock.
Geesh. Ok - let me make this real simple for you: when a supernovea explodes, it creates unstable isotopes which immediately begin to decay. We can observe supernovea as far away as 10 billion light years. We know exactly what the isotopes are because of mass sprectrography. We can observe the rate of decay by measuring the radiation emitted. We can compare the rates directly observed in the distant past with rates directly observe in the present here on earth: THEY ARE ALWAYS THE SAME!
lol.... yes, we most definitely have a common ancestor - where you draw the distinction is the important part. - we are similar due to a similar designer.
as far as psuedogenes 'This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless' -
the assumption being just like the appendix.. just because something is viewed useless by science doesn't imply it's useless - it implies it needs further study.
Lol this is absurd, if these fundamental similarities between humans and chimps are evidence for a 'common designer' then who (or what) the hell designed the starfish?
You can't say humans have chimps have a common designer because they are similar and then say every other organism also has the same common designer, it makes no sense at all.
that would be the central argument wouldn't it? If radiometric dating is reliable. There's a wide variety of reasons that it isn't -- In any other science experiment you would need a control experiment.. This is an impossibility with dating.. we have no verified million year old rocks to compare - and thus no control - and nothing but assumptions.
The clock by which the standard of time is kept at NIST is an atom clock. You can't get more reliable than this. Nuclear decay is the only sure way to date something -- as long as certain conditions are met. The conditions where radioimetric dating is not reliable are well known. We can use isotopes with very short half-lives against minerals with a known formational history to verify the technique. The same logic can be extended to isotopes with much longer half-lives. Very reliable.
in simplest terms: similar things will not only have similar useful properties but also similar junk. I imagine my garbage looks quite a bit like yours.
You simply don't understand the significance of a molecular phylogeny constructed from this junk -- nor the statisical improbability of the complete convergence of various molecular phylogenies with morphological phylogenies. Again, there is only one reason for a consistent pattern of nested heirarchies: common ancestry.
still.. the assumptions of psuedo genes are very speculative.. we feel they have no real use at this point... that most definitely could change just like so called junk DNA and our view of vestigial organs like the 'useless' appendix..
Wrong again. Some non-encoding DNA does serve other functions -- just not the functions that they once served. Even some vestigal organs can serve other purposes -- like the hind limbs of cetaceans can assist in mating. Again, scientist are all over this already. But none of it changes the facts of how these structures came to be. I can use a broken stapler as a door jam, but that doesn't mean it was optimized for that purpose. One can clearly see that it once served a different purpose.
and as far as psuedo-genes... it's awfully speculative at this point. It again is an assumption to think that because chimps and humans share a non functioning gene, that it implies common ancestry. It's really no different than the argument of the regular genes.. It shows similarity... even in the genes that aren't in use... nothing more.
And I suppose the fusion of Chimp chromosome #2a and #2b into human chromosome #2 has nothing to do with evolution either... Even though human #2 has 2 centromeres and extra telomeres where they don't belong. Hmm...
You act like we just don't jknow why these things are the way they are... that we can't know. But you can't see things as they are -- only as you think the bible tells you they are. There can be only one reason: that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
It looks 4 billion years old??... really? Funny how throughout time it has been everything from 6000 to infinite in age.. and that was what we saw. The current bias says 4 billion - any result that disagrees is thrown away, which is very helpful for building a consensus. You are assuming our dating methods are correct and also assuming that the agreement from other sciences are completely without bias. Science has been constructing this narrative for quite awhile.
No, it's really not that funny. 6000 was based on Usher's work on the biblical geaneologies -- had nothing to do with emperical evidence. The first scientific estimates were based on heating and cooling of the earth's interior -- which gave about 400 million years. Others were based on geologic processes and gave different estimate. All of these methods have problems. It wasn't unitil radiometric decay was discovered that a reliable clock was established -- and there is nothing as reliable.
"Any result that disagrees..." Oh really? You have no idea how science works. If there were really evidence of a young earth, it would be on the front pages of every major newspaper and be the lead story of every news broadcast. Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes for agreeing with the establishment. Only by overturning the established consensus. The only reason this hasn't happened is because there are no data that suggest the earth is anything but 4.55 billion years old. Sorry.
First off... the world doesn't 'look old'... for you or anyone to even make such a claim you would need an example for comparison. And as far as evolution - we have animals which have similarities.. if science decides these similarities are the result of transforming from one form to a new one that is on them, it no way implies God is tricking us. It's just a misinterpretation of the data.
It looks about 4 billion years old, and assuming that meteorites were formed around the same time as earth, they make the earth look about 4.55 billion years old. This is way beyond a "claim" -- this has been confirmed with as much rigor as we can possibly apply to it given our current understanding of the universe.
You assume that similaries are there because the traits do something useful. But you are completely ignoring pseudogenes and other non-encoding DNA that records our ancestry.
You don't see similarities between reptiles and humans? I see similarities between us all.. in the eyes.. the nose - the reproductive system.. there are differences sure - but no matter which limb of the so called tree you are on.. we are all very similar works and show a common designer.... our only true differences are self-reflection, our highly developed language.. even those characteristics are debatable.
You have had this explained to you before so you have no excuse - IT IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES THAT FORMS A NESTED HIERARCHY.
Creationists simply refuse to understand this and why a 'common designer' makes absolutely no sense in light of this unmistakable pattern. The nested hierarchy is indicated by various independent disciplines; comparative anatomy, embryology, physiology, genetics etc, and they can only be generated by evolutionary branching processes.
I understand your perspective... I truly do - your debate runs not as much on if intelligent design occurred but instead questioning it's usefulness. I would say that truth is ultimately important - in science especially. Truth is pivotal to understanding. The truth of a creator may not be crucial to predictions of a given species... or maybe it would - but it would be severely unscientific to not think that it was important. Truth is the goal of science no matter what that truth is.
So then God designed everything with the appearence of evolution so we can do cladistics and systemize biology? Now you are sounding like the Young Earthers (God make everything to look old).
The alternative explanation is that we share traits.. - that we are similar to primates. It's understandable that people with their habit of classification and hierarchical structure would mentally organize these traits and assume we have common descent. We after all DO have common descent in a sense... just not from the source that evolution claims. The common ancestor is the same for all animals - a creator. Similarities are inevitable.
So if the similarities between humans and other primates are evidence for a 'common designer', do other mammals have a different designer? Do reptiles have another designer? Amphibians another designer? Fish yet another designer? And insects a different designer still?
Why are organisms' genomes full of inherited genetic markers in the same places; SINEs, LINEs, ERVs and pseudogenes?
That is not a scientific theory. It can't make any predictions as to what species should or shouldn't have what characteristics, or what fossils should or shouldn't be found in what geographic location and in what layers, or what species should or shouldn't be found in what parts of the world. It's completely useless and trivial. Everything is the way it is because a designer designed it that way.
You have no appreciation or understanding for how evoluion systemitizes the life sciences.
I really hope you are being sarcastic. Evolution predicts where we will find certain species and we know EXACTLY how deep to dig to find certain organisms. I highly recommend checking out Sean Carrols lecture at the Howard Hughes Medical Institution.
The concept that primates and humans are similar isn't new - or disputed. But a common ancestor has no support. I'm sorry... i could definitely go on for 100's of comments.. your vitamin C statement is just not convincing. - it counters evolution rather than supporting it.
Uh... Sorry, but this is straight out of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Why don't you refer me to a scholarly article that takes a contrary viewpoint and we'll discuss it? I won't hold my breath.
Humans most definitely and definitively ARE PRIMATES, this is a scientific fact of taxonomy. It has been known to be the case for hundreds of years, since Linneus worked out what a primate was.
Would you care to give an alternative explanation for the evidence provideded here for evolution?
Are you aware that it is evidence such as this that even Michael Behe finds to be compelling support for common ancestry?
consider the stick bug. If it were the result of random mutation it would take millions of tries before it was successful. - just because a design was bad.. doesn't necessarily mean the design would die out.... out of millions of designs some would still exist. - they don't... every animal is designed exactly as it should be. -
And if you are unsure why we were made to need to eat vitamin C... then why not assume there's a reason.. but you just don't know it. Myself I like orange juice =)
(3) Therefore, God made stick bugs by divine fiat.
Wow, that's a reallyh powerful scientific theory. But how do you test it?
And hundreds of sailors got scurvy on voyages just so you wouldn't forget to have your O.J. -- Abd I'm supposed to fall on my face and worship this designer? Please.
also... evolution wants it both ways.. it uses continual circular reasoning.
If something exists.. natural selection must have been successful... if something is extinct - it must not have been successful. There's no reason to assume that millions of 'bad designs' wouldn't still be present.. bad camouflage, for example, doesn't assume extinction. - so where are all of these failed designs of natural selection?
so far.. it seems you've combined science and religion to make both bad science and bad religion...
Patterns in creation don't lead one to assume descent... only if you take that dogmatic position.
The fossil record assumes millions upon millions of small changes that led to every species current form over 100's of millions of years. Even with the need for specific special conditions to create fossils (not the case) the ground would be littered with limitless intermediates. It isn't.
What a bunch of garbage! If we had an ancestor that could genetically produce vitamin C, why would nat. selection have retained a mutation that disables the production of Vitamin C? How would that increase the degree of survivability in the species? For the species to have begun to eat food with Vit. C, doesn't explain this. Nat. Selection is supposed to retain only the mutations that survived the threatening enviro change. What enviro can possibly exist that only disabled vit C would survive?
The vast majority of mutations produce changes that reduce an organisms fitness. But like I said, if fruit was part of the diet of the original population in which this mutation spread, there would have been no selective pressure to stop it.
I've got some real science for you. We know that nothing mutates as frequently nor to the same great degree which bacteria & viruses mutate. When confronted with antibiotics, since they are merely 1 cell, the entire virus organism's physical form may morphologically change. Thats a mutational morphing equivalent to a human mutation of perhaps the degree of the Elephant Man. Thats a great degree of change in form for simply 1 mutational morphing. Considering the frequency & the length of time
(since when there existed only single cell organisms) in which viruses have been mutating, they certainly should have been something other than viruses by now. Think of it, since they're viruses today, what else other than single cell organisms could their ancestors have ever been? Other types of single cell organisms? If so, then r viruses fairly new? Their frequency & degree of change is enough that even in the time since man has known of viruses, they should have morphed into something other
Do you honestly think that all the brilliant scientists who take an evolutionary approach to biology haven't considered this? Do you think you have discovered something that can stump the scientific community? Please... Single-celled organisms are very sucessfull and can readily adapt to their environment. That is why there was othing but single-celled organisms for 3 billion years, and they are the most numerous of all living species today. There is no pressure for them to change.
no pun intended... towards religion or evolutionist followers... but let me say this... all that is, whether you want to say just nature or creator has given humans and the likes plenty to debate over. The whole view of the glass being half full or half empty may come down to neither side truly valuing the the context which can house either view... opposition in my opinion is the true static which causes history to repeat itself in a self defeatist kind of way... no winners, just victims...
majordrill 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
creation explained from the gullible view of what's accepted by christian terms is why scientist can't see beyond their theories, beliefs are subjective... math is true reality, it's why you can have a belief... Scientist discovering facts in and of nature doesn't make the facts a scientist invention. Indeed, such an invention belongs to a greater source... I have never met a religious god/creator... so what does religion feel it can explain better than nature anyway? lmao!
majordrill 17 hours ago
Comment removed
majordrill 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
without a painter would the evolution of a painting ever take place? lmao! this ish is elementary why is this still being argued, what, because humans are not the greatest intelligence and you will one day die? get over it already, we didn't cause ourselves and evolutionist calling a creator nature isn't changing the facts about the nature of a creator no more than the nature of a painter would change because someone doesn't like the method the painter uses to create a painted reality... smh
majordrill 17 hours ago
Comment removed
majordrill 17 hours ago
what lacks ( being ) energy and ( intelligence ) could never cause an influx of systematic planets and life forms, no scientist can prove otherwise, to make such an attempt would be nothing more than playing around with a straw man... For the record intelligence explained from a religious perspective is why evolutionist can't seem to accept the inevitable of a creative intelligence. Nature is intelligence with the ability to intend, if void of either then evolution would never occur...
majordrill 17 hours ago
Explaining the mechanical nature of objects doesn't make things void of a creator... we as humans are responsible for different mechanics that can be explain as our design... Evolution is a part of a systematic approach to creating organization, to view otherwise would be to suggest that all organisms and planets are static and non-functional and lack unique structure, of course we all know better than that. The facts of specified conditions are self evident. This takes intelligence...
majordrill 18 hours ago
Comment removed
majordrill 18 hours ago
Comment removed
majordrill 18 hours ago
@TitaniusAnglesmith1 also one last quick point; ID "scientists" do not call their alleged creator "God", so if you are really in support of this theory, you should avoid using a specific deity to defend it.
branahawk 5 months ago
@TitaniusAnglesmith1 I am not saying the deities listed above (Any or all) do not exist; they might as well exist, but it is impossible to test them empirically, logically, whatever you want to call it. Therefore, they require FAITH. Faith cannot be used to explain natural phenomena - open and shut case. You can choose to view our world through either the laws of nature and science, or you can choose to view them through the tenets of your faith. But you absolutely cannot mix them together.
branahawk 5 months ago
@TitaniusAnglesmith1 belief in God most certainly does not; there are many famous scientists (newton and blaise pascal, to name two quick ones) who were in fact quite devout. If I'm not mistaken, Einstein was not an atheist either. But when you bring something supernatural at its CORE and try to use it to explain something natural, the results are questionable. Science progresses and develops by using the *scientific method*. Are you aware of its definition?
branahawk 5 months ago
@TitaniusAnglesmith1 I'm sorry to doublepost, I just noticed you misunderstood this video; I encourage you to watch it closely and until it ends.
branahawk 5 months ago
@TitaniusAnglesmith1 because God/Krishna/Allah/*insert deity here* are not needed to explain them. The concept of an almighty, all-knowing deity exists to provide hope in something greater, the promise of an afterlife, it provides comfort in solace. What it does not do is provide scientific answers. Belief is the complete opposite of knowledge. Science alone can provide the answers, WILL provide them with further study if undiscovered. Explaining the unknown with magic is just an easy way out.
branahawk 5 months ago
@branahawk The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Einstein, Galileo, and Newton all believed in a Designer. That's where the evidence led them. There is a lot of magic involved in the theory of evolution. How can nothing create anything? Have you ever tested this theory and found it to be true? If not, then why is it called science? Think about all the mutations needed to go from apelike to human. How would these mutations cause more order, when we know that mutations are detrimental?
krazykyle56 3 months ago
@krazykyle56 if you think evolution is about nothing creating anything, you're uneducated enough to not even deserve a proper reply for me. Do some reading before you attempt to debate me or impose your belief unto me. You're one of those people who believe evolution is about genesis and that the only natural process of evolution is mutation. Read about genetics, natural selection, for Heaven's sake (i thought this might appeal to you), read a science book!
branahawk 3 months ago
@krazykyle56 you're asking me, a person with no scientific equipment or background in any higher form of science, to test a scientific theory in my backyard? One that, by definition, millions of years to rapidly? (which is not entirely true since it can be observed in more rapidly evolving organisms but whatever) Here's the problem: Anyone can justify God because a cretin can understand creationism. To understand evolution fully, you need to have atleast a basic concept of scientific reality.
branahawk 3 months ago
@krazykyle56 I do not resent you or wish to change your belief system, but anyone who knows at least a bit about genetics, molecular biology, ecosystems, geology, astronomy, taxonomy and many others will tell you that the natural world does not need the supervision of a creator; and all the scientists you listed may have had religious beliefs but they did NOT use the bible or any form of ID science to come up with their theories, I assure you. People often times mistake faith with reality.
branahawk 3 months ago
@krazykyle56 I will end my long long reply with this: when it comes to explaining the natural world, if we are going to use ID or creationism, society would simply fall back into the dark ages; because evolution is not the number one enemy of God/the Creator. There are many other branches of science that directly oppose and contradict the bible. Branches whose fruits have given us the enriched life we have today. I fear for all of us if we turn our backs now to facts and embrace ignorance.
branahawk 3 months ago
the one thing I liked about this video is the fact that he's an educated person. the one thing that baffles me is that, knowing the things he knows, he still believes in God.
branahawk 7 months ago
Where in the labs do we see DNA forming by chance in a test tube?..where is digital code evolving from?..evolution has bullshit assumptions
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Having debated so many young earth creationists and anti-science religious people its gives me great hope to see critical scientific thinking from a devout religious source.
I was actually not aware of the "GULO" gene and will have to look into it further to verify what is presented here but I must thank you for bringing this to my attention.
However, this begs the question, why not apply this same critical scientific thinking even deeper into your religious beliefs?
stiimuli 1 year ago
for the most part this is a devastating blow to Creationism and from a Creationist. I would never though I we find an honest Christian creationist.
Basically all this says, yes we know evolution do happens, but we do not care because we now believe that evolution is God's Instrument for creations.
why don't you send this the discovery institute.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
If you study human consciousness, it correlates nicely with how nature works. There are archetypal forms, memory, and so forth. These videos are very articulate and scientifically rigorous. But the problem is that it works within the current scientific paradigm which assumes natural explanations are fundamental. We absolutely have to merge the biological sciences with quantum physics. If we don't we will end up basing all of our logic upon overly simplistic materialistic patterns.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
Very cool video. If you really understand genetics and biology, it's quite evident that we are not intelligently designed. We're basically cobbled together. If there was design work done to create humans, it would at best be "mediocre design."
KIFulgore 1 year ago
@glovergj Can evolution by mutations and natural selection explain the existence of of the gulu genes in the first place ?
And about this point mutation in all primates . Couldn't it be that an infective agent like a virus that infects only primates be the cause of this similarity in mutation.
rafikgl 1 year ago
There's no arguments for creation. Occam's razor then comes into play. Intelligent design is nonsense.
sputnikowns 1 year ago
Being highly educated and intelligent people, most Christian leaders (and common clergy) acknowledge the truth of evolution, as noted by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" (he even mentions names). The problem is, they don't teach that to their congregations, so the argument rages on. The evidence continues to mount, but still creationists cry "there is no evidence, it's just a theory!"
Learn, read, think and perceive: doubt = virtue.
papercutpictures 1 year ago
There's one more problem with the whole God placing the evidence to test us theory. The God said to have placed all these fossils were they are is the same God who would go around killing people simply for doubting his existence, would now go out of his way to make people deny him. doesn't that seem a little out of character to you? and as for wrapping our brains (or more accurately eating our brains), that job belongs to Jesus, he is a zombie after all.
arrogantgodjealous 1 year ago
So God is the creator, but He is scientifically useless. That's how this boils down, really.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
where do you come up with this garbage? The fact that God created and sustains the cosmos is what enables science! The fact that we have order and unformity and predictability opens the cosmos to emperical investigation. How can you say that God is scientifically useless?
glovergj 1 year ago
Where do I come up with it? From a guy on the internet who says that if a factor or possibility cannot be scientifically tested and evaluated, or produce predictions which are likewise, then said factor is of no use to an orderly study of the cosmos.
As someone else has observed, "More videos like this need to be made... so that religious people can see that it's OK to leave your god in your church and in your heart but out of our science classrooms. "
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
@glovergj I completely agree but I think he was really getting at was why do we need to propose God as a designer or creator if we have naturalistic explanations. Why assume God needs to be there if by science we have explanations for what we call God's handiwork?
I couldn't agree more, but arguments from science haven't traditionally been the most convincing for people to believe in God anyway.
Btw, I am looking for someone to defend a non-traditional view of Genesis. You game?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@glovergj wow do u know what circular reasoning is?
myironlungca 1 year ago
@myironlungca Yes: it goes like this --- The bible is God's Word becuase the Bible says that the Bible is God's Word, and since the Bible is God's Word (because it says to), then it must be true when says that the Bible is God's Word.
Circular.
glovergj 1 year ago
@glovergj Yes, i think i must have mis-read your previous post. Apologies.
myironlungca 1 year ago
@glovergj
Based on this video, a Christian shall conclude that God did not create anything, He just said, ... quantum fluctuation explode...., and a whirlpool of dust and gas formed the solar system on it´s own, and He was just waiting for a single celled organism to emerge by itself from the oceans, and evolution DID the rest, bringing forth the whole diversity of life, living and extinct plants and animals from such a SCO, meanwhile God was just watching everything unfolding as He planned?
realhomosapiens 1 year ago
If legal conflicts prove something is unproductive, then why have alternatives to embryo-killing research methods had to fight so hard?
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
Legal conflict don't prove something is unproductive. I never said. But they do prove that the issue in question is not scientific. Those battles are fought in won in the lab and in the field.
glovergj 1 year ago
Okay, so it's impossible to objectively determine that the unborn are in fact human? Or that alternative research such as adult stem cells or embryonic blood stem cells do in fact work?
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
What? If they are not human, what else are they? Friggin' reptiles? Of course they are human -- that's basic biology. Humans only give to humans.
glovergj 1 year ago
Say that again?
And I admit to one minor typo in my last post, just in case anyone was keeping track. That should say umbillical blood, not embryonic blood.
But back to the subject at hand, would you care to repeat your previous post?
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
wow I just came across your series - I can hardly believe my ears! A Christian being reasonable about evolutionary evidence and not just repeating the same old lies that most of the creationists do. Thanks this was refreshing
ShalomYal 2 years ago
this episode is good.
chaOsMastaGuru 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Get real Buddy, I know you're not against Evolution...................But anything in your bronze age book of Hebrew fairytales is wrong.
Sorry!! Magic flying Jesus isn't going to come out of the sky.
Get a grip on reality!
bigboy45454545 2 years ago
bigboy, all I can say is you'd better hope you're right.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
Hooray for HONESTY!!!!! I certainly didn't expect this from a 16 part series on ID by a Christian.
The only problem I see with this is the statement "After all, we know that God created all things and the universe declares his handiwork."
There's no evidence for this.
theshredator 2 years ago
LMAO @ God flicking the "Gulo" gene from the DNA double helix hahaha
rashad123us 2 years ago
WOW...I'll admit I saw this as a video promoting ID (in the 'scientific' sense) and I was set to watch it for kicks. I was pleasantly surprised to see that you're actually an advocate for real science. Like Goblin mentioned even an atheist can watch this and agree. More videos like this need to be made to reach across the isle so that religious people can see that it's OK to leave your god in your church and in your heart but out of our science classrooms.
fequalsma42 2 years ago
Excellent video. I agree with the Green Goblin, for the same reason. Keep up the good work.
ogrimdoombringer 2 years ago
Ok... there are 2 points:
1-Evolution is not stated in the bible, maybe the closest parallelism could be the "parable of tares".
2-There is any reference about the exact time of creation in the bible.
3-Jesus himself said "give to Cesar that belongs to Cesar and to God that belongs to God" (I am not sure about translation), so I add: "give the science that belongs to science and God that belongs to God"
XD
hedleypanama 2 years ago 2
I approve of this.
xAFallFarewellx 2 years ago 2
It's refreshing to see a Christian video that even an Atheist like me can respect.
And I like that you're actually sticking up for this in the comments as well, instead of disabling them like so many other Christian videos do (because they're afraid of being called on their BS).
Seriously. Commendable work and I tip my imaginary hat to you =)
theGreenGoblin 2 years ago 2
"Why would God create us with only two out of the three genes necessary to make vitamin C."
God may have originally created us to produce vitamin C. It doesn't bother me at all that we don't now, since the Bible plainly states that we were cursed because of Adam's sin. I'm sure there are a ton of things that our bodies don't do now that they did long ago.
Raada77 2 years ago
I already addressed this. Did you watch the entire lesson?
glovergj 2 years ago
No sorry, I haven't. This was the first video I had started watching. I will.
Can you answer me this one question though?
Do you believe Adam and Eve were literal people?
Raada77 2 years ago
I don't know. They could have been an actual human couple, or they could simply be symbols God used to convey to us the concept that all of humanity is "fallen" and in need of Christ. However, if they were literal people, I do not believe that they all living people are their descendants. That is physically impossible. Hope that helps!
glovergj 2 years ago
@glovergj "if they were literal people, I do not believe that they all living people are their descendants. That is physically impossible."
How?
If it is impossible for all modern humans to have descended from a single pair of humans, then it is unlikely for humans to be related to chimpanzees. This is because chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes, and humans have only 46 chromosomes, meaning humans would have had to descend from a single brother-sister pair of 47-chromosome ancestors.
hitssquad 2 years ago 2
There is too much genetic variation in the human population for all people to be descended from a single human couple. Studies in molecular genetics show that the human population bottlenecked down to only a few thousand individuals about 100-150k years ago.
Human chromosome #2 is actually two chimp chromosomes fused together. The presence of an extra centromere and misplaced telomeres is evidence of this. The exact fusion site can be determined from this evidence,
glovergj 2 years ago
It never ceases to amaze me how much people can build up from just one or two sentences from the bible. This whole "fall" thing is pretty funny - God cursed Adam and Eve, but did you bother to read what the curse was?
Adam's curse was that now he'll have to work for a living - presumably he didn't have to eat before. And in fact, Adam and Eve both have separate curses - so Men will have to actually work to eat, and women will have pain in childbirth.
Nothing in there about vitamin C.
OccamKant 2 years ago
OccamKant --> He also mentioned death. Don't forget that.
But really, arguing that we are "flawed" simply because God didn't enable us to synthesize our own Vitamin C is as silly as asserting that we are "flawed" because we lack wings or gills or any other trait other animals have that we don't. We were not designed to make our own Vitamin C because we don't need to. Apes, for example (and certain fruit bats) eat diets rich in it and don't need to make their own. The same applies to us.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
We have the gene for making vitamin C, but it's broken.
Explain why God would put that gene in there and break it.
OccamKant 1 year ago
We don't know that He did, unless you have a gene sample from Adam or Eve in which it's working. All we know is that it isn't operational now. The only way it can definitively be "broken" is if we descended from another species. In other words, by that logic, we know it's broken because we evolved, and we know it evolved because it's broken. Circular reasoning.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
Adam and eve? Are you serious?
We have genes from other mammals, and we can trace back in the mammalian family tree where we branched off and where our gene got broken.
We know we evolved for far more reasons than a broken vitamin C gene. It just fits the picture and adds supporting evidence.
It would be bad engineering indeed to add broken features to your creations. And it would be deceptive in the extreme to make these features look like they came from somewhere else, don't you think?
OccamKant 1 year ago
Dude, take another look at the first video. Evolution is an interpretation of the evidence. And contrary to his claims, it leaves a lot unanswered.
Consider, for example, the water-into-wine miracle. Any person would look at the wine's quality and assume it was well-aged. But it was brand-spankin'-new. The quality was the evidence, the age would be the interpretation. Unless you can definitively prove that our ancestors at some point had that gene working, you can't say for sure it ever broke.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
You forgot the part about Jesus planting recipts and empty wineskins showing that the wine was purchased at a winery, then commanding us to believe it was a miracle. That would be the equivalent of what we see in our DNA.
glovergj 1 year ago
Not really. That would be Jesus actively trying to mislead.
We do know that Jesus put information in place which lended itself to misunderstanding. The same, by your own admission, could be true in the case of genetic "evidence." We know God is trying to communicate somethig through nature, but the question is what. It's like if I sent you a message in Navajo Code, which used code words like "turtle" for tanks. If you understood the code, you would know what I was saying. Otherwise...
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
"That would be Jesus actively trying to mislead."
Exactly. If you want to believe the creation story, you must also believe that your God is history's biggest liar - planting evidence that shows evolution happened, that the world is old, etc.
If you're gonna stick to the creation story, you are saying you worship a liar.
OccamKant 1 year ago
On the contrary. We may misunderstand, but that does not make Him a liar. On the other hand, you are clearly disinterested in answering uncomfortable questions, like my pont that your logic implies - when it doesn't say outright - that God is useless to science.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
I'm perfectly comfortable answering any question - if I actually have an answer. I'm also, unlike Christians it seems, comfortable with saying "I don't know".
If someone planted evidence at a murder scene to make it look like person X was the killer, including blood, saliva, dna, fingerprints, and the police convicted person X on this evidence, wouldn't you say that the person who set the scene was a deceiver?
We have 150 years of evidence (mountains!) supporting evolution. If it's all fake...
OccamKant 1 year ago
...then your God would be the greatest deceiver of all time. End of story.
OccamKant 1 year ago
What part of "misunderstood" do you not get? You say you're comfortable with admitting you don;t know, but then you talk as if you know exactly how and why God would have done something.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
If I knew how and why God would have done something, I would say that, rather than "this makes no sense".
The truth is never nonsense.
It would be nonsense for God to "plant" all the fossils and DNA evidence and then claim to exist and have created everything in 6 days.
Therefore the Christian God doesn't exist, since he is by definition nonsensical.
OccamKant 1 year ago
What kind of God would He be if we could wrap our brains around Him? It's not rocket science to figure out that a God we can out-think is no God at all.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
"What kind of God would He be if we could wrap our brains around Him? It's not rocket science to figure out that a God we can out-think is no God at all."
Your problem is that you're taking a god that was made up by ignorant desert nomads 2000 years ago, looking at the stupid, ignorant things that those nomads said he did, and trying to make them somehow grand and mysterious.
They're not mysterious, they're ridiculous. Not one word of genesis could possibly be true, therefore it's false.
OccamKant 1 year ago
...even if it were translated literally, you might think I was talking about some peculiar spinoff of Aesop's fables or something like that.
And I'm still waiting for an answer to either of my earlier questions.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
The "Water to wine miracle"? Why are you bringing up this fairy tale in a statement about the reality of evolution? I don't understand. Do you talk about the 3 little pigs in physics class too?
We know the gene for making Vitamin C is broken in humans because we see the same gene in animals where it is functioning. It's in the same place in the genome, and it's recognizably the same code - just like you'd recognize a car with the wheels off as a car missing wheels.
OccamKant 1 year ago
Forgive me. I thought you might actually know something about historical evaluation.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Forgive me. I thought you might actually know something about historical evaluation. "
Nice - Rather than actually dealing with what I said, you decided to just be an asshole.
Congratulations!
OccamKant 1 year ago
Comment removed
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
It's great to see a Christian standing up for evolution. YAY SCIENCE!
CranesNotSkyHooks 2 years ago
what are the most sophisticated multi-cellular creatures?
anyway.... I wish you luck.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
The most sophisticated multi-cellular creatures? My vote goes to Christians who believe Jesus was Lord, the Bible is God's word, and accept evolution as God's method of creation.
glovergj 2 years ago
That last comment was obviously in jest.
glovergj 2 years ago
Mr. Glover... it seems you already know all the answers and are far too upset by disagreement to discuss thoughtfully.. I will leave you to a cascade of your own opinion down the page...
I still do thank you for the pointing out of the interesting research of psuedogenes.. but otherwise I'm afraid It's time to leave since you are only resorting to personal attacks. It's unfortunate though.. and not the role of a teacher to belittle and assault.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
I don't mind people asking questions. But the worst thing is to have to deal with somebody who hasn't invested the mental energy required to honestly understand something. All of these objections that you think are so clever have been dealt with extensively. You would know this if you were serious about understanding evolution, even if only to disagree with it. To anyone else reading this, who even has a basic knowledge of molecular genetics or evolution...
glovergj 2 years ago
...you will be perceived in the same light. So I'm doing you a favor by being honst with you and telling you that you really need to some homework before throwing out ideas from the top of your head. If you feel these are personal attacks, then you have other issues you need to deal with. The same goes for radiometric dating. You make these rediculous statements that have no basis in reality. It's ovbious you've never even studies the issue or you would know better.
glovergj 2 years ago
I'm also perfectly ok with disagreement. But at last know what you are disagreeing with. These straw-man argument that you keep making only misrepresent what evolution is. I would rather you had a firm grasp of the facts, then said "but I disagree with the interpretation" -- then completely misunderstand what evolution and why so many accept it. That's why I keep telling you to hit the books (or the internet).
glovergj 2 years ago
Man, you're a sad clown.
Torrriate 2 years ago
like I said.. I'm printing the conclusions which they are listing at this point.. more research is always needed, but at the point of that publication the writer felt the study implied exactly what I said..that the ancient creatures contained the majority of the genes necessary to construct the most sophisticated creatures.. their words.. not mine..
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
I've got to eat some dinner. Seriously, take some time to ready basic info about what evolution is. Your comments will be much more coherent if you take the time to educate yourself before spouting ideas off the top of your head without thinking them through first.
glovergj 2 years ago
it looks to be originally published in Science magazine on July 6 2007.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Yea, I read it.
glovergj 2 years ago
'This implies that even very ancient genomes were quite complex and contained most of the genes necessary to build todays most sophisticated multicellular creatures.'
You can say that it isn't the case.. although the researcher himself feels different... apparently you know more than him.. congrats!
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Nice try, but you said, "...have the info necessary to build a human..."
Hmmm... Did I miss the part about humans? The article says: "most of the genes necessary to build todays most sophisticated multicellular creatures" -- which is a far cry from what you said.
glovergj 2 years ago
and no - not only do sea anemones share huge blocks of DNA with humans, they also share 80% of the humans INTRONS. In exactly the same places as our own.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
You are either a habitual liar or too sloppy to relay information accurately. They DO NOT SHARE 80% OF THE INTRONS!!!Only 80% of the LOCATIONS are preserved. There is huge difference. You either are intentionally trying to mislead, or your understaningof genetics is not up to the level where you can even relay simple information correctly. I'll assume the latter.
glovergj 2 years ago
give it up please.. you know that the scientific community shuts down anyone who professes a belief in ID. Same as every other area of research or investigation.. the guns are lowered on anyone that doesn't commit themselves to the current dogma.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
And astrology, and voodoo, and alchemy, and mental telepathy, any other useless pseudoscience!
All ID has to do is demonstrate that Design theory can explain the existing data better than evolution and scientists will take them seriously. So far, nothing...
glovergj 2 years ago
in otherwords.. if DNA is mutating continually and neutral changes occur continually the human species should be rampant with radical changes that are neutral. The species in itself would share little similarity. We each would be our own little limb that has been changing ever since the first branching with unending variety.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Your logic is flawed because you don't understand how evolution works. It's clear that you trying to dismiss years of scientific work simply by rambling off ideas from the top of your head. You are wasting my time.
glovergj 2 years ago
ahh back to the random insults and appeal for peer review papers.
The statement about psuedogenes originally came from a peer reviewed paper, but so what.
Things that have 'no identifiable function' do not IN ANY WAY mean they have no function.. they only reveal we haven't found one.
Neutral mutations get passed along.. correct? your words. DNA is always mutating.. correct? Why is it that vast numbers of these neutral mutations aren't visible..
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
They are! Compare any to copies of the same functional gene in two different species and you can see all fo the base pairs that are different. Most of the time, no functionality of the protien is lost, so these mutations get passed on. This is one of the ways we can construct phylogenies based on common genes. If you had spent any time leaning about genetics you would already know this.
glovergj 2 years ago
did you know the sea anemone shares the majority of our genetic code in it's active genes. Some of the order is different but the same code. Also 80% of the introns are in the same place as in the human genome..
Though obviously this research is new.. and requires far more study - it implies that these 100's of millions of year old creatures have the info necessary to build a human.. or near to it.
So yes... star fish and humans are far more similar than one would think =)
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Shares is strech. The fact is that about 2/3 of our genes are DERIVED from sea anemone genes -- which means that the vast amount of evolutionary time that separates them from us has allowed the genes to diverge significantly, but not enough that they can't be identified as having a similar source. To conclude that these creatures have the info necessary to build a human is competely false. The differeneces may only be 20-30%, but that is like night and day genetically speaking.
glovergj 2 years ago
hmm. what has Intelligent Design contributed?....nothing if people never listen.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
In 10 years, only 1 paper on ID published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. They have generated no data, nor have they shown that they can better explain existing data. The entire thing is completely useless.
glovergj 2 years ago
also.. as far as psuedogenes - the research now is leaning towards the belief that they are the true work horse of genetics.. this genes once assumed to be junk are possibly the information used to build the organism.. while active genes are more like the bricks. Interestingly enough, 'such findings actually support the predictions of intelligent design theory while countering long-held evolutionary assumptions.'
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
You are referring to regulatory genes. These are completely different from introns, retroviruses, and pseudogenes. Regulatory genes are not translated, but they contain instructions on what to do with the proteins that are built. Again, the fact that you would actually jump on this a proof that junk DNA can have important function only shows your complete lack of understaning of genetics. Please stop wasting our time and educate yourself before making any more comments.
glovergj 2 years ago
possibly we could look at the game SPORE and view all of the possible options players have made -- they all won the game. I'm being facetious of course, its a terrible game and very simplistic... but it still shows what I mean.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
I'm sure we could make a computer program which shows just this..... the end product of only survival deterring forms being lost would result in no distinct forms at all! The tree that would result would not even have definite limbs.. it would reveal nothing but infinite variation and no species at all.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Now you add "what defines a species" to the things you don't understand.
glovergj 2 years ago
What IS useful on the other hand is to make a realistic assumption of the theory of evolution... if it were true to it's word then only those forms which are detrimental to survival would die out - that would leave a tremendous amount of god awful random designs which neither help or hinder. Humans as we know it could never even be defined considering the plethora of alternative random designs which would ensue.. Believe me - i get your point. Evolution's theory just doesn't fit the data.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. How are in no position to make any definitive statement about evolution -- you don't even understand the first thing about. It's clear that you get your information from creationist apologetics websites.
glovergj 2 years ago
primates and humans are similar. - they also look similar.. they also have similar genes - there's no revelation there - only if you come at it with a certain bias.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
???
glovergj 2 years ago
also a barrier for evolution... a mutation in a child that then has a child of his own isn't passed down.. the error is corrected. Evolution's very mechanism is countered.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Wow, nobody every thought of that! Now you can write a paper and have it published in a reputable scientific journal and become famous for discovering something new! Please. Who do you think you are anyway?
Please, for you own sake, take the time to learn what evolution is. This might help you to make coherent arguments against it. We'll be here ready to have intelligent dialogue after you've had time to educate yourself.
glovergj 2 years ago
a simple example: if a human was born with 3 eyes.. there's no reason this would be either a benefit to surviving or a detriment. These variables would be overwhelmingly apparent.. so much so if evolution were true that we wouldn't even be able to define something as a species because there would be such immense variety of 3 eyed and winged and 8 toed variations. - instead we see clearly defined species.. no randomness at all - every species is like this.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
3 eyes? I think sexual selection would take care of that.
The rest of your statement is nonsensical. Your objections only demonstrate your complete lack of understanding what evolution is. Agree or disagree, you should at least understand evolution enough to make coherent objections to it -- but you can't seem to do even that.
glovergj 2 years ago
one element that points to a designer is the fact that everything that we think is useless eventually reveals a use... random 'mutations' would not result in a change which is always a deciding factor for survival.. it would result in many changes which are no net effect.. but definitely bad designs. - we don't see those.. also we don't see these near limitless changes in either the fossil record or in living creatures. -
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
You obviously don't understand how evolution works. The vase majority of mutation are so detrimental that they never get passed along. A neutral mutation can get passed along and become beneficial when combined with another mutation. This is exactly how color vision evoled. You can easily see how a few simple mutation, took a basic light sensitive protein and tuned it to different bands on the visible spectrum. This sort of thing happens all the time.
glovergj 2 years ago
peehead99 - you've of course taken the furthest in the spectrum in the attempt to build a case for there being no similarity. Yes.. all animals show similar design - they also have differences.. but they all show similarities as well. I could easily point out a vast number of similarities between us and starfish in the way their systems work. Also a starfish is very different as well... it has to be.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Yes I absolutely agree that we share many similarities with starfish, the point is a common designer is useless in explaining THE DISTRIBUTION OF SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES throughout the biodiversity on earth.
It's the same as paternity testing, scientists don't just say "oh look, these two people have similarities therefore they're related." They look at the similarities and differences, and compare shared traits, and inherited genetic markers.
peehead99 2 years ago
Nature has no use for so many door jams and paper weights.. every so called evolutionary change would be full of them.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Based on what?
glovergj 2 years ago
and the whole mouse trap argument where it makes a useful tie clip is just lame. Every feature of every species could not be a useful feature in every stage of development.. To extrapolate that 1 feature could be useful (like a tool for injecting poison and other examples people have made) are ridiculous attempts to use a very questionable exception to prove a rule.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
No, to say that the moustrap just appeared out of thin air because it looks complicated is lame. It has already been shown that a feature doesn't have to be useful in every stage of development to remain. Many vestigal structures / genes have no identifiable function. But the fact that some do demonstrates that vestiges can be co-opted.
glovergj 2 years ago
The conditions where radiometric dating is not reliable is any condition where we are finding the age of something with no control object of the same age. They are assuming that the rate of decay has remained the same and a whole slew of other assumptions. It's entirely unscientific for that reason.. It would be confirmed as accurate if we were here 10 million years ago and had a confirmed 10 million year old rock.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Geesh. Ok - let me make this real simple for you: when a supernovea explodes, it creates unstable isotopes which immediately begin to decay. We can observe supernovea as far away as 10 billion light years. We know exactly what the isotopes are because of mass sprectrography. We can observe the rate of decay by measuring the radiation emitted. We can compare the rates directly observed in the distant past with rates directly observe in the present here on earth: THEY ARE ALWAYS THE SAME!
glovergj 2 years ago
lol.... yes, we most definitely have a common ancestor - where you draw the distinction is the important part. - we are similar due to a similar designer.
as far as psuedogenes 'This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless' -
the assumption being just like the appendix.. just because something is viewed useless by science doesn't imply it's useless - it implies it needs further study.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Lol this is absurd, if these fundamental similarities between humans and chimps are evidence for a 'common designer' then who (or what) the hell designed the starfish?
You can't say humans have chimps have a common designer because they are similar and then say every other organism also has the same common designer, it makes no sense at all.
peehead99 2 years ago
that would be the central argument wouldn't it? If radiometric dating is reliable. There's a wide variety of reasons that it isn't -- In any other science experiment you would need a control experiment.. This is an impossibility with dating.. we have no verified million year old rocks to compare - and thus no control - and nothing but assumptions.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
The clock by which the standard of time is kept at NIST is an atom clock. You can't get more reliable than this. Nuclear decay is the only sure way to date something -- as long as certain conditions are met. The conditions where radioimetric dating is not reliable are well known. We can use isotopes with very short half-lives against minerals with a known formational history to verify the technique. The same logic can be extended to isotopes with much longer half-lives. Very reliable.
glovergj 2 years ago
in simplest terms: similar things will not only have similar useful properties but also similar junk. I imagine my garbage looks quite a bit like yours.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
You simply don't understand the significance of a molecular phylogeny constructed from this junk -- nor the statisical improbability of the complete convergence of various molecular phylogenies with morphological phylogenies. Again, there is only one reason for a consistent pattern of nested heirarchies: common ancestry.
glovergj 2 years ago
still.. the assumptions of psuedo genes are very speculative.. we feel they have no real use at this point... that most definitely could change just like so called junk DNA and our view of vestigial organs like the 'useless' appendix..
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Wrong again. Some non-encoding DNA does serve other functions -- just not the functions that they once served. Even some vestigal organs can serve other purposes -- like the hind limbs of cetaceans can assist in mating. Again, scientist are all over this already. But none of it changes the facts of how these structures came to be. I can use a broken stapler as a door jam, but that doesn't mean it was optimized for that purpose. One can clearly see that it once served a different purpose.
glovergj 2 years ago
and as far as psuedo-genes... it's awfully speculative at this point. It again is an assumption to think that because chimps and humans share a non functioning gene, that it implies common ancestry. It's really no different than the argument of the regular genes.. It shows similarity... even in the genes that aren't in use... nothing more.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
And I suppose the fusion of Chimp chromosome #2a and #2b into human chromosome #2 has nothing to do with evolution either... Even though human #2 has 2 centromeres and extra telomeres where they don't belong. Hmm...
You act like we just don't jknow why these things are the way they are... that we can't know. But you can't see things as they are -- only as you think the bible tells you they are. There can be only one reason: that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
glovergj 2 years ago
It looks 4 billion years old??... really? Funny how throughout time it has been everything from 6000 to infinite in age.. and that was what we saw. The current bias says 4 billion - any result that disagrees is thrown away, which is very helpful for building a consensus. You are assuming our dating methods are correct and also assuming that the agreement from other sciences are completely without bias. Science has been constructing this narrative for quite awhile.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
No, it's really not that funny. 6000 was based on Usher's work on the biblical geaneologies -- had nothing to do with emperical evidence. The first scientific estimates were based on heating and cooling of the earth's interior -- which gave about 400 million years. Others were based on geologic processes and gave different estimate. All of these methods have problems. It wasn't unitil radiometric decay was discovered that a reliable clock was established -- and there is nothing as reliable.
glovergj 2 years ago
"Any result that disagrees..." Oh really? You have no idea how science works. If there were really evidence of a young earth, it would be on the front pages of every major newspaper and be the lead story of every news broadcast. Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes for agreeing with the establishment. Only by overturning the established consensus. The only reason this hasn't happened is because there are no data that suggest the earth is anything but 4.55 billion years old. Sorry.
glovergj 2 years ago
First off... the world doesn't 'look old'... for you or anyone to even make such a claim you would need an example for comparison. And as far as evolution - we have animals which have similarities.. if science decides these similarities are the result of transforming from one form to a new one that is on them, it no way implies God is tricking us. It's just a misinterpretation of the data.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
It looks about 4 billion years old, and assuming that meteorites were formed around the same time as earth, they make the earth look about 4.55 billion years old. This is way beyond a "claim" -- this has been confirmed with as much rigor as we can possibly apply to it given our current understanding of the universe.
You assume that similaries are there because the traits do something useful. But you are completely ignoring pseudogenes and other non-encoding DNA that records our ancestry.
glovergj 2 years ago
and to peehead99
You don't see similarities between reptiles and humans? I see similarities between us all.. in the eyes.. the nose - the reproductive system.. there are differences sure - but no matter which limb of the so called tree you are on.. we are all very similar works and show a common designer.... our only true differences are self-reflection, our highly developed language.. even those characteristics are debatable.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
You have had this explained to you before so you have no excuse - IT IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES THAT FORMS A NESTED HIERARCHY.
Creationists simply refuse to understand this and why a 'common designer' makes absolutely no sense in light of this unmistakable pattern. The nested hierarchy is indicated by various independent disciplines; comparative anatomy, embryology, physiology, genetics etc, and they can only be generated by evolutionary branching processes.
peehead99 2 years ago
I understand your perspective... I truly do - your debate runs not as much on if intelligent design occurred but instead questioning it's usefulness. I would say that truth is ultimately important - in science especially. Truth is pivotal to understanding. The truth of a creator may not be crucial to predictions of a given species... or maybe it would - but it would be severely unscientific to not think that it was important. Truth is the goal of science no matter what that truth is.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
So then God designed everything with the appearence of evolution so we can do cladistics and systemize biology? Now you are sounding like the Young Earthers (God make everything to look old).
glovergj 2 years ago
The alternative explanation is that we share traits.. - that we are similar to primates. It's understandable that people with their habit of classification and hierarchical structure would mentally organize these traits and assume we have common descent. We after all DO have common descent in a sense... just not from the source that evolution claims. The common ancestor is the same for all animals - a creator. Similarities are inevitable.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
So if the similarities between humans and other primates are evidence for a 'common designer', do other mammals have a different designer? Do reptiles have another designer? Amphibians another designer? Fish yet another designer? And insects a different designer still?
Why are organisms' genomes full of inherited genetic markers in the same places; SINEs, LINEs, ERVs and pseudogenes?
peehead99 2 years ago
That is not a scientific theory. It can't make any predictions as to what species should or shouldn't have what characteristics, or what fossils should or shouldn't be found in what geographic location and in what layers, or what species should or shouldn't be found in what parts of the world. It's completely useless and trivial. Everything is the way it is because a designer designed it that way.
You have no appreciation or understanding for how evoluion systemitizes the life sciences.
glovergj 2 years ago
I really hope you are being sarcastic. Evolution predicts where we will find certain species and we know EXACTLY how deep to dig to find certain organisms. I highly recommend checking out Sean Carrols lecture at the Howard Hughes Medical Institution.
bpowers 2 years ago
If that is to me, there may be a misunderstanding. The "that" to which I state is not science is intelligent design.
Tiktaalik is a perfect example.
glovergj 2 years ago
The concept that primates and humans are similar isn't new - or disputed. But a common ancestor has no support. I'm sorry... i could definitely go on for 100's of comments.. your vitamin C statement is just not convincing. - it counters evolution rather than supporting it.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Uh... Sorry, but this is straight out of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Why don't you refer me to a scholarly article that takes a contrary viewpoint and we'll discuss it? I won't hold my breath.
glovergj 2 years ago
Humans most definitely and definitively ARE PRIMATES, this is a scientific fact of taxonomy. It has been known to be the case for hundreds of years, since Linneus worked out what a primate was.
Would you care to give an alternative explanation for the evidence provideded here for evolution?
Are you aware that it is evidence such as this that even Michael Behe finds to be compelling support for common ancestry?
peehead99 2 years ago
consider the stick bug. If it were the result of random mutation it would take millions of tries before it was successful. - just because a design was bad.. doesn't necessarily mean the design would die out.... out of millions of designs some would still exist. - they don't... every animal is designed exactly as it should be. -
And if you are unsure why we were made to need to eat vitamin C... then why not assume there's a reason.. but you just don't know it. Myself I like orange juice =)
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
(1) We don't know exactly how stick bugs evolved.
(2) I saw a stick bug in my backyard
(3) Therefore, God made stick bugs by divine fiat.
Wow, that's a reallyh powerful scientific theory. But how do you test it?
And hundreds of sailors got scurvy on voyages just so you wouldn't forget to have your O.J. -- Abd I'm supposed to fall on my face and worship this designer? Please.
glovergj 2 years ago
also... evolution wants it both ways.. it uses continual circular reasoning.
If something exists.. natural selection must have been successful... if something is extinct - it must not have been successful. There's no reason to assume that millions of 'bad designs' wouldn't still be present.. bad camouflage, for example, doesn't assume extinction. - so where are all of these failed designs of natural selection?
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
Circular reasoning? Like "I believe the bible is the word of God because the bible says it's the word of God?"
How about you write a scientic paper discussing your views of extinction and have it peer reviewed by other biologists?
Let me know how that works out for you.
glovergj 2 years ago
so far.. it seems you've combined science and religion to make both bad science and bad religion...
Patterns in creation don't lead one to assume descent... only if you take that dogmatic position.
The fossil record assumes millions upon millions of small changes that led to every species current form over 100's of millions of years. Even with the need for specific special conditions to create fossils (not the case) the ground would be littered with limitless intermediates. It isn't.
xnothingbutthetruth 2 years ago
What, did you cut and paste this garbage right from the AiG website?
C'mon, think for yourself!
glovergj 2 years ago
What a bunch of garbage! If we had an ancestor that could genetically produce vitamin C, why would nat. selection have retained a mutation that disables the production of Vitamin C? How would that increase the degree of survivability in the species? For the species to have begun to eat food with Vit. C, doesn't explain this. Nat. Selection is supposed to retain only the mutations that survived the threatening enviro change. What enviro can possibly exist that only disabled vit C would survive?
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
The vast majority of mutations produce changes that reduce an organisms fitness. But like I said, if fruit was part of the diet of the original population in which this mutation spread, there would have been no selective pressure to stop it.
glovergj 2 years ago
I've got some real science for you. We know that nothing mutates as frequently nor to the same great degree which bacteria & viruses mutate. When confronted with antibiotics, since they are merely 1 cell, the entire virus organism's physical form may morphologically change. Thats a mutational morphing equivalent to a human mutation of perhaps the degree of the Elephant Man. Thats a great degree of change in form for simply 1 mutational morphing. Considering the frequency & the length of time
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
(since when there existed only single cell organisms) in which viruses have been mutating, they certainly should have been something other than viruses by now. Think of it, since they're viruses today, what else other than single cell organisms could their ancestors have ever been? Other types of single cell organisms? If so, then r viruses fairly new? Their frequency & degree of change is enough that even in the time since man has known of viruses, they should have morphed into something other
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Do you honestly think that all the brilliant scientists who take an evolutionary approach to biology haven't considered this? Do you think you have discovered something that can stump the scientific community? Please... Single-celled organisms are very sucessfull and can readily adapt to their environment. That is why there was othing but single-celled organisms for 3 billion years, and they are the most numerous of all living species today. There is no pressure for them to change.
glovergj 2 years ago
I may not agree with your belief in god. But I do have a high level of respect for you! And if anyone could convert me you would be top on the list.
I tip my hat to you.
opaldragon75 2 years ago
lol why would God make us need to eat vitamin C???
haha um... why did God make oranges and other things WITH vitamin C.
what's your point?
so w