Creationists

[koshergrl]

Nothing is more laughable than retards with not a modicom of scientific understanding or training, who strut around pretending they have some secret knowledge of the creation of the world.

*zing*. What a joke. Like most pseudo intellectuals, you are easily dazzled by the use of words you don't quite understand, used primarily to hide the fact that the user has no real information at his fingertips.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

uh oh. looks like i hurt someone's feelings. i find it interesting that you respond to people by saying their remarks are unsubstantiated, when you yourself, ironically, are making unsubstantiated retorts. or do you think you have any understanding of my scientific background or training despite claiming I have none?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing is more laughable than retards with not a modicom of scientific understanding or training, who strut around pretending they have some secret knowledge of the creation of the world.

*zing*. What a joke. Like most pseudo intellectuals, you are easily dazzled by the use of words you don't quite understand, used primarily to hide the fact that the user has no real information at his fingertips.

You have described yourself to a T, koshergirl.

Many, like you here, push their inner problems onto others; it's called projecting.

Literalism, creationism, and evolution are not salvation issues.

 

[koshergrl]

Right.

So show me the irrefutable evidence that proves the earth is whatever age.

 

[Dragon]

Right.

So show me the irrefutable evidence that proves the earth is whatever age.

There is no such thing as "irrefutable" evidence of anything, unless you first establish some ground rules. For example, presented with evidence of the age of the earth (the fossil record, models of how long it would take for the sun to form, carbon dating for organic materials, etc.), some on this thread would "refute" that evidence by reference to Biblical passages.

The evidence that the earth is old is easily available, but can always be "refuted" by anyone willing to discard it on a non-scientific basis.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds.

What? That's not what you were arguing? Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?

Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others.

I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence. You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out. But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. That's how scientists think.

How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

koshergirl, you will find your answer in dragon and smarter's comments. You cannot demonstrate scientifically your view of the age of the earth from your faith belief. Simply impossible.

Once again, can you tell me how evolution, creationism, and biblical literalism are salvation issues.

 

[Youwerecreated]

They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively. Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.

Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.

The only difference is in your own mind. Micro leads to the macro. It's a major reason creationists are derided, they hang their hats on concepts that don't exist. Evolution is a continuum. It can be hard to tell sometimes when one species can be said to have evolved into another, but mere difficulty isn't proof of anything, regardless of what creationists may say.

Look if you're gonna make a claim like this that micro-evolution leads to Macro-evolution the burden of proof is on you, and there is no such evidence proving what you said it is assumed through faulty reasoning.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Adaptation is part of evolution.

Prove it ?

Adaptation is a part of the theory of evolution, look it up yourself.

Amazing that someone takes such a hardcore stance against something that he's COMPLETELY clueless about.

Because it is part of the theory that is what proves it ? come on you can do better then this.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What complete garbage.

You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.

Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.

Zing!


Oh I see what you did there. Here, let me try using your ridiculous argument techniques: "Are you saying the gravity doesn't exist because it's only a theory!?" Huh, producing straw man arguments in question form really lacks integrity.

But let's face it, you and I both know that's not what I said, and you're just misdirecting in your usual underhanded and morally bankrupt methods. And yes, many scientists believe in God. But few biologists believe in evolution. There are a rare handful of outliers, but the people who have actually studied the topic, especially if they don't have strong religious beliefs, always agree with it. Why do you suppose that is, when so many other bad concepts that happen to contradict the bible can be rejected?

I look forward to you answering that question with another question, most likely straw man misdirection.

We don't know what reality you're denying because they haven't provided any evidence of the alleged "reality".

They just say "what you say flies in the face of science!" but then refuse to produce any evidence.

Because it doesn't exist. And they're so stupid, I don't think they even know it. They go off half-cocked and don't bother to do the research...they don't think they need to, they THINK they're standing on the shoulders of giants.

It's just smoke and mirrors. Their own faith is so great, they don't bother with actually looking into it, and they think that should be enough for EVERYBODY, because they attach the word "science" to it. Except it's not science, and what they claim doesn't even exist.

You should probably stop using words you don't understand. Like "science." Or "research."

Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.

Yeah the problem with that is that all major biology books and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific papers don't actually differentiate between micro and macro evolution. Only religious nuts do. Who don't understand the topic. But still claim other people should read.

Let's return to another related topic that made you squirm for a while previously: Since you readily admit that a small number of mutations can occur via your proposed micro-evolution, how many mutations need occur before your macroevolution occurs? Give me a number for the cutoff. Is 100 mutations ok but 101 impossible? You tell me the actual defining line between the two. Not in "kinds" or "stuff" or "types" or even species, but by a number of mutations.

Well depends which animal you're speaking of and what it is evolving to.

There is atleast a 5% difference in the DNA between a chimp and human and I am being generous in giving you 5% difference.


That means the difference between human and chimp DNA base pairs are 150,000,000 DNA base pairs. That is a lot of beneficial mutations that would have to be solidfied in the gene pool for your theory to actually happen. See argument just below to see the probability of it happenibg once let alone for every living organism that supposedly evolved in to someting new.

Click the link.

Unmasking Evolution - Free Literature

 

[Youwerecreated]

uh oh. looks like i hurt someone's feelings. i find it interesting that you respond to people by saying their remarks are unsubstantiated, when you yourself, ironically, are making unsubstantiated retorts. or do you think you have any understanding of my scientific background or training despite claiming I have none?

Looks like you have nothing more then rhetoric as your evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds.

What? That's not what you were arguing? Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?

Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others.

I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence. You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out. But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. That's how scientists think.

How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.

Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Look if you're gonna make a claim like this that micro-evolution leads to Macro-evolution the burden of proof is on you, and there is no such evidence proving what you said it is assumed through faulty reasoning.

Actually, that is your claim. You see actual scientists don't make such arbitrary distinctions. You not only made the claim that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, without even being able to genetically define the difference, but you've given absolutely no proof whatsoever to support your claim that there is a difference. Now you want to claim it's really the burden of someone else to provide proof to YOUR claim?

It's this type of underhanded reasoning that makes federal judges see you religious loons as morally bankrupt and rule in favor of science and legitimate reasoning every single time.

Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.

Zing!


Oh I see what you did there. Here, let me try using your ridiculous argument techniques: "Are you saying the gravity doesn't exist because it's only a theory!?" Huh, producing straw man arguments in question form really lacks integrity.

But let's face it, you and I both know that's not what I said, and you're just misdirecting in your usual underhanded and morally bankrupt methods. And yes, many scientists believe in God. But few biologists believe in evolution. There are a rare handful of outliers, but the people who have actually studied the topic, especially if they don't have strong religious beliefs, always agree with it. Why do you suppose that is, when so many other bad concepts that happen to contradict the bible can be rejected?

I look forward to you answering that question with another question, most likely straw man misdirection.


You should probably stop using words you don't understand. Like "science." Or "research."

Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.

Yeah the problem with that is that all major biology books and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific papers don't actually differentiate between micro and macro evolution. Only religious nuts do. Who don't understand the topic. But still claim other people should read.

Let's return to another related topic that made you squirm for a while previously: Since you readily admit that a small number of mutations can occur via your proposed micro-evolution, how many mutations need occur before your macroevolution occurs? Give me a number for the cutoff. Is 100 mutations ok but 101 impossible? You tell me the actual defining line between the two. Not in "kinds" or "stuff" or "types" or even species, but by a number of mutations.

Well depends which animal you're speaking of and what it is evolving to.

There is atleast a 5% difference in the DNA between a chimp and human and I am being generous in giving you 5% difference.

All peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic show we have less than 3% genetic difference from the nearest organism. Where you are "generous" in fabricating your 5% is most likely a misunderstanding of the 5% cutoff I used regarding scientific studies as they relate to chance, which you clearly also don't understand. But please, link me to some random person's blog with no research whatsoever that claims 5% is really the number. I enjoy your desperation in using fabricated information to make false points.

That means the difference between human and chimp DNA base pairs are 150,000,000 DNA base pairs. That is a lot of beneficial mutations that would have to be solidfied in the gene pool for your theory to actually happen.

Actually, it's not. Once again, you show your lack of understanding of the topic you condemn, and in response to this deficiency, completely fabricate information to suit you needs. Science: truth. Religious nut: fabrication.

As I've stated previously: mutations, or genetic changes, in no way mandate beneficial changes. In fact, the majority of the differences between humans and our closest relative are silent mutations, meaning the genetic change produces no physical change anywhere in the organism. But, you never understand these concepts. You don't even understand what a beneficial mutation is. How could I expect you to know something simpler?

By the way, have you conceded yet that evolution is a distinct process from the start of the universe or life? Or are you continuing to avoid this question for fear that it may exorcise you?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds.

What? That's not what you were arguing? Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?

Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others.

I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence. You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out. But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. That's how scientists think.

How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.

Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.

Is that what I admitted? Hold on let me reread that.

Oops! Looks like you're wrong again. Sorry, I shouldn't say that. "Wrong" implies you were innocently mistaken, it does not refer to purposely twisting information because you can't actually make a legitimate point otherwise. But, I enjoy your desperation and failure in your attempt anyway.

 

[LOki]

Right.

So show me the irrefutable evidence that proves the earth is whatever age.

Demanded as if she required irrefutable evidence that proves anything she believes, let alone this creator of hers.

Demanded as if she accepts the same standard of fatuous "proof" upon which her beliefs were established, as the standard of "proof" to refute them.

Just laughably disingenuous.

 

[LOki]

sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds.

What? That's not what you were arguing? Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?

Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others.

I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence. You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out. But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. That's how scientists think.

How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.

Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.

The superstitious (not to mention dishonest) such as yourself, have no valid business discussing science, or declaring what constitutes science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look if you're gonna make a claim like this that micro-evolution leads to Macro-evolution the burden of proof is on you, and there is no such evidence proving what you said it is assumed through faulty reasoning.

Actually, that is your claim. You see actual scientists don't make such arbitrary distinctions. You not only made the claim that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, without even being able to genetically define the difference, but you've given absolutely no proof whatsoever to support your claim that there is a difference. Now you want to claim it's really the burden of someone else to provide proof to YOUR claim?

It's this type of underhanded reasoning that makes federal judges see you religious loons as morally bankrupt and rule in favor of science and legitimate reasoning every single time.

Well depends which animal you're speaking of and what it is evolving to.

There is atleast a 5% difference in the DNA between a chimp and human and I am being generous in giving you 5% difference.

All peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic show we have less than 3% genetic difference from the nearest organism. Where you are "generous" in fabricating your 5% is most likely a misunderstanding of the 5% cutoff I used regarding scientific studies as they relate to chance, which you clearly also don't understand. But please, link me to some random person's blog with no research whatsoever that claims 5% is really the number. I enjoy your desperation in using fabricated information to make false points.

That means the difference between human and chimp DNA base pairs are 150,000,000 DNA base pairs. That is a lot of beneficial mutations that would have to be solidfied in the gene pool for your theory to actually happen.

Actually, it's not. Once again, you show your lack of understanding of the topic you condemn, and in response to this deficiency, completely fabricate information to suit you needs. Science: truth. Religious nut: fabrication.

As I've stated previously: mutations, or genetic changes, in no way mandate beneficial changes. In fact, the majority of the differences between humans and our closest relative are silent mutations, meaning the genetic change produces no physical change anywhere in the organism. But, you never understand these concepts. You don't even understand what a beneficial mutation is. How could I expect you to know something simpler?

By the way, have you conceded yet that evolution is a distinct process from the start of the universe or life? Or are you continuing to avoid this question for fear that it may exorcise you?

First off he made the claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution the burden of proof is on him and whoever believes this rubbish.

The difference is microevolution are small changes within a group. Macroevolution are large scale changes above the species level. Meaning a destinctly new species but not within the same family or group a new family grooup.

What peered review states the difference between a human and chimp DNA ?be careful because there are many things your side has not figured into their figure of 98% or what ever figure your side believes. Your side can't seem to agree on this. I have seen 99%,98%,97% and 96% similarity. Which one is it ?

How many base pairs of DNA are in a human ? you take the percentage of difference that is how you arrive at 150,000,000 base pairs that is if it is only a 5% difference.

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks of homologous sections of DNA that weren’t noticed in previous studies (298:719, emp. added).

Genomicists Kelly Frazer and David Cox of Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, along with geneticists Evan Eichler and Devin Locke of Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio, compared human and chimp DNA, and discovered a wide range of insertions and deletions (anywhere from between 200 bases to 10,000 bases). Cox commented: “The implications could be profound, because such genetic hiccups could disable entire genes, possibly explaining why our closest cousin seems so distant” (as quoted in Pennisi, 298:721).

Britten analyzed chimp and human genomes with a customized computer program. To quote Pennisi’s article:

He compared 779,000 bases of chimp DNA with the sequences of the human genome, both found in the public repository GenBank. Single-base changes accounted for 1.4% of the differences between the human and chimp genomes, and insertions and deletions accounted for an additional 3.4%, he reported in the 15 October [2002] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Locke’s and Frazer’s groups didn’t commit to any new estimates of the similarity between the species, but both agree that the previously accepted 98.5% mark is too high (298:721, emp. added).

While Locke’s and Frazer’s team was unwilling to commit to any new estimate of the similarity between chimps and humans, Britten was not. In fact, he titled his article in the October 15, 2002 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA Sequences is 5%” (Britten, 99:13633-13635). In the abstract accompanying the article, he wrote: “The conclusion is that the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA” (99:13633, emp. added). The news service at NewScientist.com reported the event as follows:

It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.
The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent figure. Ironically, that number was originally derived from a technique that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can work out how different they are.

But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single “letter” differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species.

But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. “Insertions” occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, “deletions” mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species.

Together, they are termed “indels,” and Britten seized his chance to evaluate the true variation between the two species when stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on the internet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma.

When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.

But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences (see Coghlan, 2002, emp. added).

It seems that, as time passes and scientific studies increase, humans appear to be less like chimps after all. In a separate study, Barbulescu and colleagues also uncovered another major difference in the genomes of primates and humans. In their article “A HERV-K Provirus in Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas, but not Humans,” the authors wrote: “These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans” (2001, 11:779, emp. added). The data from these results go squarely against what evolutionists have contended for decades—that chimpanzees are closer genetically to humans than they are to gorillas. Another study using interspecies representational difference analysis (RDA) between humans and gorillas revealed gorilla-specific DNA sequences (Toder, et al., 2001)—that is, gorillas possess sequences of DNA that are not found in humans. The authors of this study suggested that sequences found in gorillas but not humans “could represent either ancient sequences that got lost in other species, such as human and orang-utan, or, more likely, recent sequences which evolved or originated specifically in the gorilla genome” (9:431).

The differences between chimpanzees and humans are not limited to genomic variances. In 1998, a structural difference between the cell surfaces of humans and apes was detected. After studying tissues and blood samples from the great apes, and sixty humans from various ethnic groups, Muchmore and colleagues discovered that human cells are missing a particular form of sialic acid (a type of sugar) found in all other mammals (1998, 107[2]:187). This sialic acid molecule is found on the surface of every cell in the body, and is thought to carry out multiple cellular tasks. This seemingly “miniscule” difference can have far-reaching effects, and might explain why surgeons were unable to transplant chimp organs into humans in the 1960s. With this in mind, we never should declare, with a simple wave of the hand, “chimps are almost identical to us” simply because of a large genetic overlap.


CONCLUSION

Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see “A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution”). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the “pentadactyl” [five bone—BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale—and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).

Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differences—differences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.

Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapiens—wise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

They were making these similarity claims long before a human genome was mapped kinda convenient don't you think ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds.

What? That's not what you were arguing? Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?

Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others.

I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence. You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out. But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. That's how scientists think.

How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.

Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.

Is that what I admitted? Hold on let me reread that.

Oops! Looks like you're wrong again. Sorry, I shouldn't say that. "Wrong" implies you were innocently mistaken, it does not refer to purposely twisting information because you can't actually make a legitimate point otherwise. But, I enjoy your desperation and failure in your attempt anyway.

Needing 100% proof to believe your theory is correct.

 

[Youwerecreated]

sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds.

What? That's not what you were arguing? Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?

Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others.

I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence. You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out. But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from. That's how scientists think.

How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.

Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.

The superstitious (not to mention dishonest) such as yourself, have no valid business discussing science, or declaring what constitutes science.

You have made so many erroneous comments on the subjects discussed ,that you should remain silent so hick doesn't have to rescue you from your own ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look if you're gonna make a claim like this that micro-evolution leads to Macro-evolution the burden of proof is on you, and there is no such evidence proving what you said it is assumed through faulty reasoning.

Actually, that is your claim. You see actual scientists don't make such arbitrary distinctions. You not only made the claim that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, without even being able to genetically define the difference, but you've given absolutely no proof whatsoever to support your claim that there is a difference. Now you want to claim it's really the burden of someone else to provide proof to YOUR claim?

It's this type of underhanded reasoning that makes federal judges see you religious loons as morally bankrupt and rule in favor of science and legitimate reasoning every single time.

Well depends which animal you're speaking of and what it is evolving to.

There is atleast a 5% difference in the DNA between a chimp and human and I am being generous in giving you 5% difference.

All peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic show we have less than 3% genetic difference from the nearest organism. Where you are "generous" in fabricating your 5% is most likely a misunderstanding of the 5% cutoff I used regarding scientific studies as they relate to chance, which you clearly also don't understand. But please, link me to some random person's blog with no research whatsoever that claims 5% is really the number. I enjoy your desperation in using fabricated information to make false points.

That means the difference between human and chimp DNA base pairs are 150,000,000 DNA base pairs. That is a lot of beneficial mutations that would have to be solidfied in the gene pool for your theory to actually happen.

Actually, it's not. Once again, you show your lack of understanding of the topic you condemn, and in response to this deficiency, completely fabricate information to suit you needs. Science: truth. Religious nut: fabrication.

As I've stated previously: mutations, or genetic changes, in no way mandate beneficial changes. In fact, the majority of the differences between humans and our closest relative are silent mutations, meaning the genetic change produces no physical change anywhere in the organism. But, you never understand these concepts. You don't even understand what a beneficial mutation is. How could I expect you to know something simpler?

By the way, have you conceded yet that evolution is a distinct process from the start of the universe or life? Or are you continuing to avoid this question for fear that it may exorcise you?

Your side don't make a very good argument for the numbers you think the similarity is now do they.

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

The researchers discovered that a few classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees compared with other mammals. These classes include genes involved in perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, production of sperm and cellular transport of electrically charged molecules called ions. Researchers suspect the rapid evolution of these genes may have contributed to the special characteristics of primates, but further studies are needed to explore the possibilities.

The genomic analyses also showed that humans and chimps appear to have accumulated more potentially deleterious mutations in their genomes over the course of evolution than have mice, rats and other rodents. While such mutations can cause diseases that may erode a species' overall fitness, they may have also made primates more adaptable to rapid environmental changes and enabled them to achieve unique evolutionary adaptations, researchers said.

Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species. About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, like most mammalian genomes, contains about 3 billion base pairs. In addition, there are another 5 million sites that differ because of an insertion or deletion in one of the lineages, along with a much smaller number of chromosomal rearrangements. Most of these differences lie in what is believed to be DNA of little or no function. However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome.

"As the sequences of other mammals and primates emerge in the next couple of years, we will be able to determine what DNA sequence changes are specific to the human lineage. The genetic changes that distinguish humans from chimps will likely be a very small fraction of this set," said the study's lead author, Tarjei S. Mikkelsen of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. Among the genetic changes that researchers will be looking for are those that may be related to the human-specific features of walking upright on two feet, a greatly enlarged brain and complex language skills.

Although the statistical signals are relatively weak, a few classes of genes appear to be evolving more rapidly in humans than in chimps. The single strongest outlier involves genes that code for transcription factors, which are molecules that regulate the activity of other genes and that play key roles in embryonic development.

A small number of other genes have undergone even more dramatic changes. More than 50 genes present in the human genome are missing or partially deleted from the chimp genome. The corresponding number of gene deletions in the human genome is not yet precisely known. For genes with known functions, potential implications of these changes can already be discerned.

For example, the researchers found that three key genes involved in inflammation appear to be deleted in the chimp genome, possibly explaining some of the known differences between chimps and humans in respect to immune and inflammatory response. On the other hand, humans appear to have lost the function of the caspase-12 gene, which produces an enzyme that may help protect other animals against Alzheimer's disease.

"This represents just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to exploring the genomic roots of our biological differences," said one of the study's co-authors LaDeana W. Hillier of the Genome Sequencing Center at Washington University School of Medicine. "As more is learned about other functional elements of the genome, we anticipate that other important differences outside of the protein-coding genes will emerge


Genome.gov | 2005 Release: New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at DNA Level

Actually they were not deleted they were never there.