Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TJR666

Knowledge

Recommended Posts

From TJR666:

 

Someone asked where the 97% similarity between the chimpanzee genome and the human genome came from. The earliest reference I could find was:

 

Sibly and Ahlquist, “Journal of Molecular Evolution”, Vol 26, pp 99-121, 1987.

 

A quick check of this source reveals that, surprisingly, this paper does not contain the original basic data. It merely states figures based on their research and statistical methods. In a sense then, that means the reader has to accept their analysis “on faith”. A similar study done at about the same time was:

 

Sarich VM, Schmidt CW and Marks J, “Cladistics”, Vol 5, pp 3-32, 1989.

 

It was not available for me to peruse, but was referenced in another source. It reportedly gives a figure of 96%. As we know, the human genome sequencing project is well advanced, but it appears the chimpanzee genome sequencing has a much lower priority. That in itself must throw doubt on the methods used to compare and generate these figures.

 

Personally, I would expect our genomes to be reasonably similar. After all, we are physically similar. Also, we both have to eat other organisms to gain the nutrients and energy to live; we need to use those amino acids, sugars, etc, we have digested in our metabolisms; we have to breathe the same air, etc. Because we share these similarities, I would expect that our genomes would have much similarity. After all, our genome also contains some genes common with yeast. Having a totally different biochemistry would only make things more complicated and difficult.

 

So, common descent or common design?

 

TJR666

You know what, TJR? You're a jerk.

 

Talk about hasty generalizations. You've generalized (and misrepresented) our arguments as though the argument is simply that the genomes are similar. And yet, you completely ignore the arguments in which we explain the way in which they are similar.

 

Conveniently, you leave out such evidence as endogenous retroviruses, which you never adequately dealt with. The evidence shows that the genomes are similar in such a way that makes the intelligent design hypothesis absolutely worthless! In fact, even calling it a hypothesis is being extraordinarily kind.

 

You seem to forget that while some of us are just schmucks, there are people on the forum who are actual scientists. Ex-Christian.net has its share of scientists, including molecular biologists. We have some of these people on staff, and yet the way you treat the evidence for evolution occurs to me that you think that these people are morons.

 

I'm going to dare you, TJR. I dare you... no... I TRIPLE DOG DARE you to listen to Evolution 101 on Freethought Media radio tomorrow and listen to what Zachary Moore, molecular biologist and one of the Ex-C mods, has to say about endogenous retroviruses and evolution. In fact, I dare you to call in.

 

http://www.freethoughtmedia.com/evolution101/

 

It's 11AM EST Saturday. And if you miss it tomorrow, don't worry! It's a weekly program, so you'll plenty of chances to call in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And TJR, I hope you for God's sake tell them about the huge difference between "protecting" and "preventing", since they have big hopes this will help them figure out how to "prevent" cancer.

 

"Clearly, better knowledge of the molecular processes involved in various types of cancer is instrumental in working out how to treat and prevent the disease," Hasle says

 

And God forbid they would make the mistake of not knowing this important difference...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know... I feel quite insulted that TJR thought that we weren't going to spot what a complete fuck-up his post was.

 

 

Still, it's good to know that he's protecting people from being led astray by evolution but he's not preventing it. :jerkit:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... Yes. Grasping tenaciously at straws, he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... Yes. Grasping tenaciously at straws, he is.

Didn't know you did Yoda impersonations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From TJR666

 

On the “Fallacy of Ancestors” I said:

 

You are correct on this point; even I have found that many creationists do not understand that the theory is that humans and apes descended from some alleged common ancestor via the process of natural selection.

The reply:

 

“Alleged”? You make it sound like there aren’t any candidates for such an ancestor. If I linked you to an article about Lucy, would you be able to read it without reading the usual false context into the article?

And I have to ask:

 

If I linked you to an article totally debunking Lucy as an ancestor, would you be able to read it without reading the usual false context into the article?

And that in essence summarises the situation here. We think differently because we believe different things. We view the world through different glasses. As most here are evolutionists, any evidence or data that conflicts with your basic beliefs must be explained away in some way. For example, I posted this:

 

What about chromosomes. Do chromosome numbers show any sort of evolutionary pattern? A list of diploid chromosome numbers in the organisms cells:

 

2 Worm

6 Mosquito

8 Vinegar Fly

12 Housefly

16 Onion

18 Cabbage, Radish

20 Indian Corn

22 Bean

24 Yellow Pine, Tomato

32 Honeybee

38 Cat

40 Mouse, Pig

42 Rat, Wheat

46 Human

48 Tobacco, Rhesus Monkey, Potato

52 Cotton

54 Sheep

60 Cattle

66 Horse

78 Dog, Chicken

94 Goldfish

100 Crayfish

254 Shrimp

 

I see no evolutionary pattern here.

On this it was said:

 

Your point about chromosome numbers is irrelevant. The number of chromosomes has nothing to do with evolutionary advancement.

What if I informed you that the list was made up!

 

:eek:

 

What if I informed you that it was designed to trap such a comment!

 

:eek:

 

There was no reference was there?

 

:eek:

 

Don’t panic, the list is genuine. But the comment raises another basic issue:

 

IF the list did show a pattern of “evolutionary progression” or “evolutionary advancement” would you not use it as evidence for the theory? Of course you would; it would be trotted out at every available opportunity.

 

Thus, a piece of evidence is dismissed outright on the grounds of personal beliefs … “irrelevant” you say … how do you know? You don’t know, simple as that. It is valid evidence. It is dismissed simply because it doesn’t support your belief in the theory and give an answer you are looking for … so it simply becomes “irrelevant”.

 

And before you jump in, I do the same; for example, retroviruses. I start from the creationist viewpoint: since I believe there is no common descent, then retroviral evidence must be explainable in some other way.

 

In my next posting, I’m thinking that I will produce a list of areas where I have found evidence conflicting with the theory of evolution so that those here can see why I believe that evolutionary theory is false. Back in a few days.

 

TJR666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From TJR666

 

On the “Fallacy of Ancestors” I said:

 

You are correct on this point; even I have found that many creationists do not understand that the theory is that humans and apes descended from some alleged common ancestor via the process of natural selection.

The reply:

 

“Alleged”? You make it sound like there aren’t any candidates for such an ancestor. If I linked you to an article about Lucy, would you be able to read it without reading the usual false context into the article?

And I have to ask:

 

If I linked you to an article totally debunking Lucy as an ancestor, would you be able to read it without reading the usual false context into the article?

And that in essence summarises the situation here. We think differently because we believe different things. We view the world through different glasses. As most here are evolutionists, any evidence or data that conflicts with your basic beliefs must be explained away in some way. For example, I posted this:

 

What about chromosomes. Do chromosome numbers show any sort of evolutionary pattern? A list of diploid chromosome numbers in the organisms cells:

 

2 Worm

6 Mosquito

8 Vinegar Fly

12 Housefly

16 Onion

18 Cabbage, Radish

20 Indian Corn

22 Bean

24 Yellow Pine, Tomato

32 Honeybee

38 Cat

40 Mouse, Pig

42 Rat, Wheat

46 Human

48 Tobacco, Rhesus Monkey, Potato

52 Cotton

54 Sheep

60 Cattle

66 Horse

78 Dog, Chicken

94 Goldfish

100 Crayfish

254 Shrimp

 

I see no evolutionary pattern here.

On this it was said:

 

Your point about chromosome numbers is irrelevant. The number of chromosomes has nothing to do with evolutionary advancement.

What if I informed you that the list was made up!

 

:eek:

 

What if I informed you that it was designed to trap such a comment!

 

:eek:

 

There was no reference was there?

 

:eek:

 

Don’t panic, the list is genuine. But the comment raises another basic issue:

 

IF the list did show a pattern of “evolutionary progression” or “evolutionary advancement” would you not use it as evidence for the theory? Of course you would; it would be trotted out at every available opportunity.

On the contrary, we wouldn't... See, we know that chromosone numbers have nothing to do with evolution at all, so any pattern of evolutionary progress in such a list would just be a coincidence.

 

That's why we wouldn't use it, and that's why creationist do... because it's nothing to do with evolution.

Thus, a piece of evidence is dismissed outright on the grounds of personal beliefs … “irrelevant” you say … how do you know? You don’t know, simple as that. It is valid evidence. It is dismissed simply because it doesn’t support your belief in the theory and give an answer you are looking for … so it simply becomes “irrelevant”.
Wrong... If it doesn't support the theory AND it's in contradiction to what is known, THEN it is deemed wrong.

 

We don't dismiss stuff simply because we don't agree with it personally... we dismiss it because it's been shown to be a load of bollocks.

And before you jump in, I do the same; for example, retroviruses. I start from the creationist viewpoint: since I believe there is no common descent, then retroviral evidence must be explainable in some other way.
Sorry, but we don't...

We start from the viewpoint that WE DON'T KNOW! We don't start with the presumption that what we believe is correct.

 

All the way through your post you've argued that WE are making the exact same mistakes that YOU are, that WE (like YOU) will ignore anything that goes against our presupposed truth when that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

In the last 5 months you've learnt NOTHING about us, but you still believe that you know all you need to know about us to show we're looking at stuff wrong...

 

 

This is the difference between us...

sci.gif

In my next posting, I’m thinking that I will produce a list of areas where I have found evidence conflicting with the theory of evolution so that those here can see why I believe that evolutionary theory is false. Back in a few days.

 

TJR666

Didn't you just explain that you believe evolutionary theory to be wrong because it doesn't agree with your presuppositional truth?

 

You are starting with your conlusion, then looking for evidence to prove it right... not looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on ALL the evidence.

 

 

 

Congratulations on spending 5 months here and STILL being a complete fucking moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And before you jump in, I do the same; for example, retroviruses. I start from the creationist viewpoint: since I believe there is no common descent, then retroviral evidence must be explainable in some other way.
So in other words, you assume, a priori, that there cannot be common descent, so you reject the obvious conclusion (the only conclusion) that can be drawn from ERVs. Do you realize how insanely irrational this is? It's not even an argument! You're basically just saying "Nuh-uh!".

 

You say there "must be" another way of explaining ERVs. Could I ask why? Why do you assume that there must be another explanation? Because you assume creationism is correct? You're appealing to ignorance here. This is not an appropriate response to scientific evidence. You have to build a case for alternative explanations instead of just saying that there "must be" another one. Your response is absolutely pathetic, and it's an admission that creationism is in no way scientific. Way to go, champ! :wink:

 

It's time to grow up, TJR. Your worldview is wrong. The only hope you have for your creationist precepts is to insist on irrationality, in which you hold out for evidence that you don't have. And the only reason that you do that, which you've admitted, is that you refuse to accept common descent.

 

How the fuck do you learn anything with an attitude like that? Your methodology is anti-learning. There's no way to learn anything, unless you employ a double standard, in which you deny a methodology for genetics that you would otherwise use everywhere else.

 

Either way, that's just plain fucking stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short tale of the tail...

:eek::eek::eek:

 

Holy Shit Hans!

 

I just now saw those!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.