Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

I watched the clip. I am very sensitive to assumptive language now that I refuse to no longer be brainwashed like the masses. Here are just a few of the assumptive phrases I heard "The answer MAY have come from a suprising source", "This STEADMAN BELIEVES is the key", "MIGHT HAVE BEEN", etc. All of their hypotheses start by already knowing the answer, which is a huge "no no" in science. Their unscientific belief that humans mutated into their current form drives the results of their beliefs. All of the evidence given after 1:31:23 could just as easily be used to prove something more believeable, something that we do have scientific evidence of, that is, destructive mutations. We can just as easily apply their reasoning and evidence to propose that apes and chimpanzees are the results of destructive mutations acting on Homo Sapiens. Once you open your mind from the blindness that is evolutionary theory you can start to see things in a different light. It is shocking to me that the show a child with a malformed brain, which is the result of a destructive gene. This child is from a Homo Sapien, but due to this destructive gene, his brain will never develop fully. Now these Einsteins use this measurable and scientifically verifiable piece evidence and, here comes the hat trick, they apply it BACKWARDS, stating this is evidence of how small brained primates MAY (noticed I said MAY) have evolved into Humans. Also please notice that they mention nothing of the fact current genetic vidence is shedding more and more light on the fact that there is actually more evidence to prove we didn't come from any of the known primate fossils. Notice that just sneakily infer that humans came from apes or chimpanzees, which isn't based in any modern science.

To borrow from DAWS "People believe in evolutionary theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote"".

If I just look at the example of the disabled child in the video above without any pre-conceived evolutionary brainwashing, I could correctly conclude that Chimpanzee's must be the evolutionary result of a harmful mutation in humans.

From Wiki..

"Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"

Now it seems to me these scientists propose some interesting hypothesese that are testable!!! So we do the same dna experiment on the chimpanzee and find out which gene controls his brain growth. Then we fracture his skull (in a good way) to allow is brain to expand. This seems like a stupidly easy experiment to perform, especially based on how easy they make it look that a chimpanzee turned into a man in just a few easy mutations, you know, because we see this going on all the time in a population of 7 billion people. I'm going to start reading the Enquirer again so I make sure I don't miss the story with the headline "Strange Mutation Causes Child to Grow super Skull and Brain in remote part of Africa. With his super powerful brain is able to resolve the Nuclear Fusion problem so now we all have cheap, clean energy". Is it just me or are you guys so blind to the evolutionary brainwashing that this NOVA program doesn't make you laugh hysterically like it is a comedy with this dumbass scientists come up with this stuff. Are you hearing me?? They are basically inferring in the video that the leap from chimp to human is no longer such a huge mystery because it could have happened with only a few small isolated mutations. Are you guys for real??? Please DAWS, Montrevant, somebody please tell me you don't actually buy into this foolishness??? Maybe you've seen one too many sequels of X MEN!!!!

Finally, the video makes this classic evolutionary blunder which Cornelius so elegantly describes in his blog:

"First, they make the circular claim that “ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate.” That, of course, simply begs the question. Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place. Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are “transitional.” Philosophers call this a “theory-laden” observation.

I pointed this out earlier,but a mutation to cause evolutionary change must become the norm in the population. He only thought the video answered the question.

obviously you did not watch the clip .
the mutation found is in every human on earth and is the norm!

Let me explain something to you. Not every human possesses the same mutation. We might possess the same gene. But a mutation is a copying error of the Dna. God created us with the same substances. I will be home tonight and will watch the video tonight. See what you are misunderstanding and respond. Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I watched the clip. I am very sensitive to assumptive language now that I refuse to no longer be brainwashed like the masses. Here are just a few of the assumptive phrases I heard "The answer MAY have come from a suprising source", "This STEADMAN BELIEVES is the key", "MIGHT HAVE BEEN", etc. All of their hypotheses start by already knowing the answer, which is a huge "no no" in science. Their unscientific belief that humans mutated into their current form drives the results of their beliefs. All of the evidence given after 1:31:23 could just as easily be used to prove something more believeable, something that we do have scientific evidence of, that is, destructive mutations. We can just as easily apply their reasoning and evidence to propose that apes and chimpanzees are the results of destructive mutations acting on Homo Sapiens. Once you open your mind from the blindness that is evolutionary theory you can start to see things in a different light. It is shocking to me that the show a child with a malformed brain, which is the result of a destructive gene. This child is from a Homo Sapien, but due to this destructive gene, his brain will never develop fully. Now these Einsteins use this measurable and scientifically verifiable piece evidence and, here comes the hat trick, they apply it BACKWARDS, stating this is evidence of how small brained primates MAY (noticed I said MAY) have evolved into Humans. Also please notice that they mention nothing of the fact current genetic vidence is shedding more and more light on the fact that there is actually more evidence to prove we didn't come from any of the known primate fossils. Notice that just sneakily infer that humans came from apes or chimpanzees, which isn't based in any modern science.

To borrow from DAWS "People believe in evolutionary theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote"".

If I just look at the example of the disabled child in the video above without any pre-conceived evolutionary brainwashing, I could correctly conclude that Chimpanzee's must be the evolutionary result of a harmful mutation in humans.

From Wiki..

"Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"

Now it seems to me these scientists propose some interesting hypothesese that are testable!!! So we do the same dna experiment on the chimpanzee and find out which gene controls his brain growth. Then we fracture his skull (in a good way) to allow is brain to expand. This seems like a stupidly easy experiment to perform, especially based on how easy they make it look that a chimpanzee turned into a man in just a few easy mutations, you know, because we see this going on all the time in a population of 7 billion people. I'm going to start reading the Enquirer again so I make sure I don't miss the story with the headline "Strange Mutation Causes Child to Grow super Skull and Brain in remote part of Africa. With his super powerful brain is able to resolve the Nuclear Fusion problem so now we all have cheap, clean energy". Is it just me or are you guys so blind to the evolutionary brainwashing that this NOVA program doesn't make you laugh hysterically like it is a comedy with this dumbass scientists come up with this stuff. Are you hearing me?? They are basically inferring in the video that the leap from chimp to human is no longer such a huge mystery because it could have happened with only a few small isolated mutations. Are you guys for real??? Please DAWS, Montrevant, somebody please tell me you don't actually buy into this foolishness??? Maybe you've seen one too many sequels of X MEN!!!!

Finally, the video makes this classic evolutionary blunder which Cornelius so elegantly describes in his blog:

"First, they make the circular claim that “ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate.” That, of course, simply begs the question. Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place. Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are “transitional.” Philosophers call this a “theory-laden” observation.

I pointed this out earlier,but a mutation to cause evolutionary change must become the norm in the population. He only thought the video answered the question.

obviously you did not watch the clip .
the mutation found is in every human on earth and is the norm!

Daws ,the accumulation of mutations cause aging this is a fact I observed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

this question has been answerd everytime you've claimed to ask it.

the answer to this question :"Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool"

is right here: What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA Documentary) - YouTube

Don't be silly,the original question was a trait in humans. Oh and for your information you need to name the mutation since that is according to your theory is what causes the trait change then natural selection makes it become the norm in the gene pool. Now give me the
Name of the mutation and prove this trait didn't already exist in the gene pool. what is your answer ?

as always deny.
if you fast forward the clip to 1:31 :23 your question Will be answered.
but you won't simply because you really don't want an answer.

Ok I watched your video. This mutation is harmful to families. The gene that causes the brain to grow proves nothing towards evolution. It's a defective mutation in humans that prevents proper growth of the brain.

Should this gene be present in both apes and men of course it should because it is the gene that determines the size of the brain. Chimps have smaller brains so what we knew this a long time ago. But does the size of the brain matter ?

 

[FactFinder]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Mostly because noone has shown me , other than some theoretical basis, how one calibrates a carbon stamp to reality. In other words, you have to take in faith what some freaking scientist is saying over what Jesus said. Seeing how man is generally self interested and Jesus was not. I prefer to believe Jesus.

 

[UltimateReality]

I don't know this Dr. Ayala and certainly haven't claimed to accept any of his/her conclusions about anything.

So, that said, I think the relevant part of what you just posted is the idea of the 'legitimacy of the explanatory filter'. My issue with ID as science is that I have not seen what I consider a legitimate test or filter or meter, etc. to determine if something was created through intelligence. The excerpt you provided does not give the method to determine intelligence used, nor does it provide any of the Dr. Ayala's comments so one might know if the Dr. was unwilling or unable to reasonably question said method, nor does it even tell us what kind of Dr. this Ayala is or why he/she should be able to argue against ID with any authority. Even if Ayala failed utterly to discredit ID it does not provide legitimacy to it as a valid science.

If you can provide a (relatively) simple explanation of the method used to determine if something was designed by intelligence, I'd appreciate it. Being able to make such a determination seems to be the most important, perhaps the only, part of ID 'science'.

It was contained in the Meyer video you FAILed to watch.

And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description?

Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.

 

[FactFinder]

It was contained in the Meyer video you FAILed to watch.

And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description?

Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.

Let's see a video or just look around me. I think what I see is evidence enough. Some man stuck in a 70 to 100 year time stamp in relation to infinity has little influence on me as he is likely to be stuck in his very small time/space continuum. Stuff that has endured for some thousands of years carries a bit more weight with me.

 

[UltimateReality]

And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description?

Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.

Let's see a video or just look around me. I think what I see is evidence enough. Some man stuck in a 70 to 100 year time stamp in relation to infinity has little influence on me as he is likely to be stuck in his very small time/space continuum. Stuff that has endured for some thousands of years carries a bit more weight with me.

You should really get up to date on current science. The whole belief in infinity went out with the Big Bang Theory. Most, if not all, scientists no longer accept the infinite universe theory which Einstein clung to for so long. It is now widely accepted that the universe had a beginning some 13.7 Billion years ago. Even Hawking now believes that even TIME began at the Big Bang.

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
- Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) American educator

 

[Montrovant]

It was contained in the Meyer video you FAILed to watch.

And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description?

Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.

Sorry, I don't remember seeing you post a description of a test whereby we determine something is designed rather than naturally occurring. You can say that you have, but I have not seen such a thing. Pointing to the hour and a half long youtube video you posted is not a short description of such a test.

 

[konradv]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Mostly because noone has shown me , other than some theoretical basis, how one calibrates a carbon stamp to reality. In other words, you have to take in faith what some freaking scientist is saying over what Jesus said. Seeing how man is generally self interested and Jesus was not. I prefer to believe Jesus.

When did Jesus say anything about evolution? You don't have to have faith in the scientists, just that the Laws of Nature are consistent. Denying that only leads to the conclusion that God lies to us.

 

[daws101]

I pointed this out earlier,but a mutation to cause evolutionary change must become the norm in the population. He only thought the video answered the question.

obviously you did not watch the clip .
the mutation found is in every human on earth and is the norm!

Let me explain something to you. Not every human possesses the same mutation. We might possess the same gene. But a mutation is a copying error of the Dna. God created us with the same substances. I will be home tonight and will watch the video tonight. See what you are misunderstanding and respond. Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die.

another steaming pile of non provable bullshit what you belive does has no bering on the question you posed..

this statement :"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death"-ywc
is laughable.
you don't have a theory you have speculation, why? you have no testable evidence (no evidence at all) that god exists.
so any speculation of what god would or would not do is just specious and invalid..


Letters to Nature
Nature 428, 415-418 (25 March 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02358; Received 5 April 2003; Accepted 20 January 2004


Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage
Hansell H. Stedman1,3, Benjamin W. Kozyak1, Anthony Nelson1, Danielle M. Thesier2, Leonard T. Su1, David W. Low1,5, Charles R. Bridges1, Joseph B. Shrager1,3, Nancy Minugh-Purvis2,4,5 & Marilyn A. Mitchell1

1.Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
2.Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
3.the Pennsylvania Muscle Institute, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
4.Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
5.Division of Plastic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Correspondence to: Hansell H. Stedman1,3 Email: [email protected]


Top of pagePowerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae1, 2. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatus—traceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology3—shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo 4. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size5 and emigration of Homo from Africa6. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html




MYH16 geneFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The MYH16 gene encodes a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 which is a muscle protein in mammals. At least in primates, it is a specialized muscle protein found only in the temporalis and masseter muscles of the jaw.[1][2] Myosin heavy chain proteins are important in muscle contraction, and if they are missing, the muscles will be smaller.[1] In non-human primates, MYH16 is functional and the animals have powerful jaw muscles. In humans, the MYH16 gene has a mutation which causes the protein not to function.[3] Although the exact importance of this change in accounting for differences between humans and apes is not yet clear, such a change may be related to increased brain size and finer control of the jaw which facilitates speech.[1] It is not clear how the MYH16 mutation relates to other changes to the jaw and skull in early human evolution (for example, whether the MYH16 mutation happened first and led to other changes, or whether the MYH16 mutation happened after other changes made the MYH16 protein no longer necessary).[1]

The initial discovery of the human MYH16 mutation was published in 2004 by a team at the University of Pennsylvania led by Hansell H. Stedman.[2] The date of the mutation has variously been estimated at about 2.4 million years ago[2] or 5.3 million years ago.[4]

The MYH16 gene is present in dogs,[4] but does not appear to be present in mice.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MYH16_gene

 

[UltimateReality]

And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description?

Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.

Sorry, I don't remember seeing you post a description of a test whereby we determine something is designed rather than naturally occurring. You can say that you have, but I have not seen such a thing. Pointing to the hour and a half long youtube video you posted is not a short description of such a test.

Ditto. I don't remember you responding to what the agreed upon scientific definition of fitness is. Or having provided me with one experiment where even any definition of fitness was proven to be responsible for the mutation surviving and being passed to a descendant.

However, I will respond that humans intuitively know and recognize design. Archeologists do it all the time. That is how they differentiate ancient man-made artifacts from wind and erosion. How do they know the Rosetta Stone was the result of intelligence and not acts of nature? Why does an acheologists recognize an arrowhead as being man made and not just a weird shaped rock? How does one determine Mt. Rushmore is man made and not the result of erosion? Why do we think Stonehenge was arranged by humans?? How do we know humans are responsible for cave paintings? Why don't we think crop circles occur by some natural phenomenom? How will SETI differentiate a signal from another world from static? Why would we think the mysterious shapes in the peruvian desert are the work of an intelligent agent and not nature?

Living in Peru » Travel : We know who drew these giant shapes in Peru's desert -- but why?

“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." -Dr. Who

 

[UltimateReality]

Yet even more evidence of design...

"Let me untangle the rhetoric. The reason why knots in folded proteins are unlikely is because they are hard to achieve, without resulting in misfolded proteins, aggregation, and possible disease states. Even though it’s unlikely they evolved—let’s make that highly unlikely—we know knotted proteins must have evolved somehow, simply because they exist."

Uncommon Descent | Proteins have slip knots, like a shoelace bow?

 

[konradv]

Yet even more evidence of design...

"Let me untangle the rhetoric. The reason why knots in folded proteins are unlikely is because they are hard to achieve, without resulting in misfolded proteins, aggregation, and possible disease states. Even though it’s unlikely they evolved—let’s make that highly unlikely—we know knotted proteins must have evolved somehow, simply because they exist."

Uncommon Descent | Proteins have slip knots, like a shoelace bow?

Seems that those who don't believe they evolved are just lacking imagination. Even if they were designed they'd have to follow the Rules of Chemistry. If they do follow rules, what need is there to postulate a designer? Simply quoting a comment of dubious origin, proves nothing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

obviously you did not watch the clip .
the mutation found is in every human on earth and is the norm!

Let me explain something to you. Not every human possesses the same mutation. We might possess the same gene. But a mutation is a copying error of the Dna. God created us with the same substances. I will be home tonight and will watch the video tonight. See what you are misunderstanding and respond. Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die.

another steaming pile of non provable bullshit what you belive does has no bering on the question you posed..

this statement :"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death"-ywc
is laughable.
you don't have a theory you have speculation, why? you have no testable evidence (no evidence at all) that god exists.
so any speculation of what god would or would not do is just specious and invalid..


Letters to Nature
Nature 428, 415-418 (25 March 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02358; Received 5 April 2003; Accepted 20 January 2004


Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage
Hansell H. Stedman1,3, Benjamin W. Kozyak1, Anthony Nelson1, Danielle M. Thesier2, Leonard T. Su1, David W. Low1,5, Charles R. Bridges1, Joseph B. Shrager1,3, Nancy Minugh-Purvis2,4,5 & Marilyn A. Mitchell1

1.Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
2.Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
3.the Pennsylvania Muscle Institute, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
4.Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
5.Division of Plastic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Correspondence to: Hansell H. Stedman1,3 Email: [email protected]


Top of pagePowerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae1, 2. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatus—traceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology3—shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo 4. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size5 and emigration of Homo from Africa6. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0D_k4lYrdo]Evolution: Jaw Muscle and Brain Cavity Size - YouTube[/ame]

MYH16 geneFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The MYH16 gene encodes a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 which is a muscle protein in mammals. At least in primates, it is a specialized muscle protein found only in the temporalis and masseter muscles of the jaw.[1][2] Myosin heavy chain proteins are important in muscle contraction, and if they are missing, the muscles will be smaller.[1] In non-human primates, MYH16 is functional and the animals have powerful jaw muscles. In humans, the MYH16 gene has a mutation which causes the protein not to function.[3] Although the exact importance of this change in accounting for differences between humans and apes is not yet clear, such a change may be related to increased brain size and finer control of the jaw which facilitates speech.[1] It is not clear how the MYH16 mutation relates to other changes to the jaw and skull in early human evolution (for example, whether the MYH16 mutation happened first and led to other changes, or whether the MYH16 mutation happened after other changes made the MYH16 protein no longer necessary).[1]

The initial discovery of the human MYH16 mutation was published in 2004 by a team at the University of Pennsylvania led by Hansell H. Stedman.[2] The date of the mutation has variously been estimated at about 2.4 million years ago[2] or 5.3 million years ago.[4]

The MYH16 gene is present in dogs,[4] but does not appear to be present in mice.[5]

MYH16 gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you know the difference between theory and fact ?

Have you not read where I said many times similarity proves nothing ?

What separates all living organism's is the DNA information. How do you explain similar genes performing the same tasks but producing much different groups of organism's ?

Learn to think before you type or paste someones opinion.

You only need about 200,000 beneficial mutations to accumulate while not having any other mutations in the process, to turn a chimp into a human. In a very short window and this is by theory. It never happened.

Listen very carefully,you need a net gain of information without the loss of information for evolution to take place. Mutations that do anything at all lose the origional information. MNutations are errors and the mutations that do anything at all lose information, Got it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yet even more evidence of design...

"Let me untangle the rhetoric. The reason why knots in folded proteins are unlikely is because they are hard to achieve, without resulting in misfolded proteins, aggregation, and possible disease states. Even though it’s unlikely they evolved—let’s make that highly unlikely—we know knotted proteins must have evolved somehow, simply because they exist."

Uncommon Descent | Proteins have slip knots, like a shoelace bow?

Seems that those who don't believe they evolved are just lacking imagination. Even if they were designed they'd have to follow the Rules of Chemistry. If they do follow rules, what need is there to postulate a designer? Simply quoting a comment of dubious origin, proves nothing.

It has nothing to do with imagination. It has to do with probability and chance. It is so ironic to me that Darwinists call Christians the brainwashed ones.

 

[Montrovant]

Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.

Sorry, I don't remember seeing you post a description of a test whereby we determine something is designed rather than naturally occurring. You can say that you have, but I have not seen such a thing. Pointing to the hour and a half long youtube video you posted is not a short description of such a test.

Ditto. I don't remember you responding to what the agreed upon scientific definition of fitness is. Or having provided me with one experiment where even any definition of fitness was proven to be responsible for the mutation surviving and being passed to a descendant.

However, I will respond that humans intuitively know and recognize design. Archeologists do it all the time. That is how they differentiate ancient man-made artifacts from wind and erosion. How do they know the Rosetta Stone was the result of intelligence and not acts of nature? Why does an acheologists recognize an arrowhead as being man made and not just a weird shaped rock? How does one determine Mt. Rushmore is man made and not the result of erosion? Why do we think Stonehenge was arranged by humans?? How do we know humans are responsible for cave paintings? Why don't we think crop circles occur by some natural phenomenom? How will SETI differentiate a signal from another world from static? Why would we think the mysterious shapes in the peruvian desert are the work of an intelligent agent and not nature?

Living in Peru » Travel : We know who drew these giant shapes in Peru's desert -- but why?

“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." -Dr. Who

I did respond to the fitness question, but I don't know if there is an agreed upon scientific definition. If the only thing evolution postulated was that some organisms are more fit than others, it would be more of an issue.

With ID, the only thing that I can see that makes it anything other than already established fields of science is that it postulates a designer is responsible for the creation of certain things. That being the case, if there's only one thing that differentiates ID from already established science, that one thing needs to be clearly defined and observable/testable.

And as I've said many times, determining if something was created by humans is different from determining if something was created by intelligence. Unless we have observed examples of another intelligence designing things, as we do with humanity, the comparison fails. We can look at things we already know to be human-designed and compare them to archeological finds to see if they match, thereby concluding something was made by man. What do we compare, say, DNA to? Something man-made? That would indicate man created DNA. Do we compare it to something god created? To something aliens created? There is no basis for comparison for non-terrestrial intelligence, which is what ID proposes, so I don't see how you can test for it. If there is no test, and there is nothing else that differentiates ID from other scientific fields, how is ID a separate branch of scientific inquiry?

 

[daws101]

Let me explain something to you. Not every human possesses the same mutation. We might possess the same gene. But a mutation is a copying error of the Dna. God created us with the same substances. I will be home tonight and will watch the video tonight. See what you are misunderstanding and respond. Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die.

another steaming pile of non provable bullshit what you belive does has no bering on the question you posed..

this statement :"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death"-ywc
is laughable.
you don't have a theory you have speculation, why? you have no testable evidence (no evidence at all) that god exists.
so any speculation of what god would or would not do is just specious and invalid..


Letters to Nature
Nature 428, 415-418 (25 March 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02358; Received 5 April 2003; Accepted 20 January 2004


Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage
Hansell H. Stedman1,3, Benjamin W. Kozyak1, Anthony Nelson1, Danielle M. Thesier2, Leonard T. Su1, David W. Low1,5, Charles R. Bridges1, Joseph B. Shrager1,3, Nancy Minugh-Purvis2,4,5 & Marilyn A. Mitchell1

1.Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
2.Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
3.the Pennsylvania Muscle Institute, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
4.Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
5.Division of Plastic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
Correspondence to: Hansell H. Stedman1,3 Email: [email protected]


Top of pagePowerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae1, 2. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatus—traceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology3—shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo 4. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size5 and emigration of Homo from Africa6. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.

Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage : Abstract : Nature


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0D_k4lYrdo]Evolution: Jaw Muscle and Brain Cavity Size - YouTube[/ame]

MYH16 geneFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The MYH16 gene encodes a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 which is a muscle protein in mammals. At least in primates, it is a specialized muscle protein found only in the temporalis and masseter muscles of the jaw.[1][2] Myosin heavy chain proteins are important in muscle contraction, and if they are missing, the muscles will be smaller.[1] In non-human primates, MYH16 is functional and the animals have powerful jaw muscles. In humans, the MYH16 gene has a mutation which causes the protein not to function.[3] Although the exact importance of this change in accounting for differences between humans and apes is not yet clear, such a change may be related to increased brain size and finer control of the jaw which facilitates speech.[1] It is not clear how the MYH16 mutation relates to other changes to the jaw and skull in early human evolution (for example, whether the MYH16 mutation happened first and led to other changes, or whether the MYH16 mutation happened after other changes made the MYH16 protein no longer necessary).[1]

The initial discovery of the human MYH16 mutation was published in 2004 by a team at the University of Pennsylvania led by Hansell H. Stedman.[2] The date of the mutation has variously been estimated at about 2.4 million years ago[2] or 5.3 million years ago.[4]

The MYH16 gene is present in dogs,[4] but does not appear to be present in mice.[5]

MYH16 gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you know the difference between theory and fact ?

Have you not read where I said many times similarity proves nothing ?

What separates all living organism's is the DNA information. How do you explain similar genes performing the same tasks but producing much different groups of organism's ?

Learn to think before you type or paste someones opinion.

You only need about 200,000 beneficial mutations to accumulate while not having any other mutations in the process, to turn a chimp into a human. In a very short window and this is by theory. It never happened.

Listen very carefully,you need a net gain of information without the loss of information for evolution to take place. Mutations that do anything at all lose the origional information. MNutations are errors and the mutations that do anything at all lose information, Got it ?

can you rationalize any harder...this MYH16 gene is in humans only and it is a mutation. untill you can SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE CAUSE AND EFFECT that differers and disproves that fact you both of you are talking out you collective asses.

 

[daws101]

One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.

right!
coming from the guy who said this:"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die."
and you expect to be taken seriously !

 

[daws101]

One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.

bullshit!


Chimpanzee-human last common ancestorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species, a species of African apes, that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.

The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the Bonobos and the Chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.

Contents [hide]
1 Time estimates
2 Pan Prior
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References


[edit] Time estimatesThe age of the CHLCA is an estimate. The fossil find of Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis are closest in age and expected morphology of the CHLCA and suggest the LCA is older than 7 million years. The earliest studies of apes suggest the CHLCA may have been as old as 25 million years; however, protein studies in the 1970s suggested the CHLCA was less than 8 million years in age. Genetic methods based on Orangutan/Human and Gibbon/Human LCA times were then used to estimate a Chimpanzee/Human LCA of 6 million years, and LCA times between 5 and 7 million years ago are currently used in the literature.[note 1]

“ One no longer has the option of considering a fossil older than about eight million years as a hominid no matter what it looks like. ”
—V. Sarich, Background for man[1]


Because chimps and humans share a matrilineal ancestor, establishing the geological age of that last ancestor allows the estimation of the mutation rate. However, fossils of the exact last common ancestor would be an extremely rare find. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for mt-TMRCA determination because chimpanzees are the species most genetically similar to humans. However, there are no known fossils that represent that CHLCA. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However, Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of chimpanzees (see Homininae).

“ In effect, there is now not a priori reason to presume that human-chimpanzee split times are especially recent, and the fossil evidence is now fully compatible with older chimpanzee-human divergence dates [7 to 10 Ma... ”
—White et al. (2009), [2]


Some researchers tried to estimate the age of the CHLCA (TCHLCA) using biopolymer structures which differ slightly between closely related animals. Among these researchers, Allan C. Wilson and Vincent Sarich were pioneers in the development of the molecular clock for humans. Working on protein sequences they eventually determined that apes were closer to humans than some paleontologists perceived based on the fossil record.[note 2] Later Vincent Sarich concluded that the TCHLCA was no greater than 8 million years in age, with a favored range between 4 and 6 million years before present.

This paradigmatic age has stuck with molecular anthropology until the late 1990s, when others began questioning the certainty of the assumption. Currently, the estimation of the TCHLCA is less certain, and there is genetic as well as paleontological support for increasing TCHLCA. A 13 million year TCHLCA is one proposed age.[2][3]

once again talking out your ass!