New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Woyzeck]

This is true as long as there is new information entering the gene pool. When a species get''s isolated that is how you wind up with a breed. The reason is over time information = traits get bred out of them that is why you see some over time are incompatible to breed back in the family.

That is why a horse and a donkey produces a mule, but that mule is as far as it will go. I have never heard of a mule being fertile unless it can only breed with either the horse or the donkey only.

Information can enter and exit a gene pool. It simply cannot only exit.

And now we're going from finches back to cross-breeding again. You still haven't tied this in with the finches we were originally discussing or given me more information to give you a better and well-informed answer.

That is true,and i am saying that new information comes through cross breeding and an animal adapting to it's enviornment.

Except an organism "adapting" to it's environment is not quite like getting used to sailing on a ship (because you get sea sick) or moving to a high altitude and getting used to the amount of air and such there.

 

[Si modo]

I believe that is enough to show your view of DNA is mistaken.

Nothing you've posted contradicts anything I've said about DNA.

What view do you think I have of DNA?

 

[Woyzeck]

I understand the theory of evolution.

Over the years many new breeds came in to being,whether it was from cross breeding or it was adapting to their enviornment. The creator gave organisms the ability to adapt. The ones that could not adapt, were eliminated by Natural selection.

This is Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations ,small changes within a group.God put mechanisms in us to keep us what we were intended to be with little chancge. God allowed us to adjust but it is limited.

I believe that the diversity seen today is the result of cross breeding and small biological changes. But any evolution that which i believe happened was at the will of the creator. I don't know for sure how long life has been on the earth. I don't know how old the earth is. And i don't know how long creation days were,but i have no doubt that life is a product of design.

Except we know the diversity isn't from 'cross-breeding.' We wouldn't see this much diversity if it worked out that way. Instead of a tree of cousinship that gets continually wider as time goes on, it would simply get narrower and narrower. This 'diversity from 'cross-breeds' doesn't explain much of the earth's natural history.

'Cross-breeding' does not work as a scientific theory because it doesn't explain the patterns and evidence we've found over the years. It leaves many holes. For instance, it does not answer the variety of traits, especially those new ones which did not exist before. This would be true if it were impossible for new information to enter a gene pool, except it's not impossible. It does not explain away either the common ancestors we share. It does not explain why some species are extinct! If species are all created via cross-breeding then we should be able to breed some species back into existence!

Also, do you accept macro-evolution or not? Drock has a point, you seem to accept it, and then at the same time, you don't.

And you still haven't answered any of my points. Could you please stop changing the subject and address my post directly? I'm particularly interested in what you have to say about the e. coli experiment, since that directly contradicts your point about no new information being able to enter the genome.

What happens if two different breeds cross ?

What happens if a breed has been isolated but still has the ability to cross with members in the family ?

Are new traits introduced ?

Organisms in the wild usually aren't called breeds, and I'm pretty sure you're not using the word family correctly either.

And I'm not sure what this line of questioning has to do with my post. You do realize diversity from cross-breeding is full of holes and doesn't explain the information we have about biology, right?

 

[Woyzeck]

Ok i'll explain, i am getting ready for my bike ride.

I believe that you can get limited change through Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

These are changes within a group or family. The change will not be to a new family or group, it will be a new breed maybe but not a bird having an ancestor that was a dinosaur or a human having an apelike creature as an ancsetor.

I believe within the family, their can be new traits added to the genepool through adaptation and or cross breeding .new abilities can arise by adapting but that does not mean necessararily that the whole genepool will have this ability or trait.but a dog is gonna remain in the dog family a horse will remain in the horse family so on and so on.

You're saying new species can form within a family, which is exactly what happened when Homo Sapiens came about from the great ape family Hominidae, but then you say Homo Sapiens didn't come from another species.



That's double talk, I think you just talked yourself into a corner. You either deny all new species have ever been formed, or you admit humans evolved from another species.

If you compare the DNA of cousins it's pretty close correct ? Now try your comparison between a chimp and a human. Let's do it ,there is a 5% difference in the DNA of a chimp and a human.what is 5% of 3 billions base pairs of DNA ? 150 million base pairs of DNA to make a chimp a human. Now i have already shown that the mutation rate that we see today,it would take the human and chimp to separate 6 billion years we know that didn't happen both sides agree. Then if we figure the mutation rate that is needed by the Neo Darwinist to match how long ago the divergence took place between human and ape, no organism could survive that mutation rate and every living organism would be extinct.

The difference between chimps and humans actually isn't that high. It's only as high as 1.5%.

I'm not sure where you're getting your calculations about mutation rate, but we already know how long it took to diverge from our most recent common ancestor, which would suggest that there is something wrong with your math, and not something wrong with the mutation rate. For the record, we diverged seven million years ago.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I believe that is enough to show your view of DNA is mistaken.

Nothing you've posted contradicts anything I've said about DNA.

What view do you think I have of DNA?

Please explain further.

We know what DNA it is made up of but is the dna delivering a message ?

 

[Si modo]

I believe that is enough to show your view of DNA is mistaken.

Nothing you've posted contradicts anything I've said about DNA.

What view do you think I have of DNA?

Please explain further.

We know what DNA it is made up of but is the dna delivering a message ?

I cannot explain further because I do not understand what you think my "view" of DNA is.

What "view of DNA" is it that you think I have?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Information can enter and exit a gene pool. It simply cannot only exit.

And now we're going from finches back to cross-breeding again. You still haven't tied this in with the finches we were originally discussing or given me more information to give you a better and well-informed answer.

That is true,and i am saying that new information comes through cross breeding and an animal adapting to it's enviornment.

Except an organism "adapting" to it's environment is not quite like getting used to sailing on a ship (because you get sea sick) or moving to a high altitude and getting used to the amount of air and such there.

Your body chemistry has to adjust how is that not like adapting ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Except we know the diversity isn't from 'cross-breeding.' We wouldn't see this much diversity if it worked out that way. Instead of a tree of cousinship that gets continually wider as time goes on, it would simply get narrower and narrower. This 'diversity from 'cross-breeds' doesn't explain much of the earth's natural history.

'Cross-breeding' does not work as a scientific theory because it doesn't explain the patterns and evidence we've found over the years. It leaves many holes. For instance, it does not answer the variety of traits, especially those new ones which did not exist before. This would be true if it were impossible for new information to enter a gene pool, except it's not impossible. It does not explain away either the common ancestors we share. It does not explain why some species are extinct! If species are all created via cross-breeding then we should be able to breed some species back into existence!

Also, do you accept macro-evolution or not? Drock has a point, you seem to accept it, and then at the same time, you don't.

And you still haven't answered any of my points. Could you please stop changing the subject and address my post directly? I'm particularly interested in what you have to say about the e. coli experiment, since that directly contradicts your point about no new information being able to enter the genome.

What happens if two different breeds cross ?

What happens if a breed has been isolated but still has the ability to cross with members in the family ?

Are new traits introduced ?

Organisms in the wild usually aren't called breeds, and I'm pretty sure you're not using the word family correctly either.

And I'm not sure what this line of questioning has to do with my post. You do realize diversity from cross-breeding is full of holes and doesn't explain the information we have about biology, right?

Ok this is an example of what i have said before, terminology has been built to support the theory. Because of the terminology it sends the wrong message like everything you read has been observed and it is factual and supported by the evidence. Thats just not true.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're saying new species can form within a family, which is exactly what happened when Homo Sapiens came about from the great ape family Hominidae, but then you say Homo Sapiens didn't come from another species.



That's double talk, I think you just talked yourself into a corner. You either deny all new species have ever been formed, or you admit humans evolved from another species.

If you compare the DNA of cousins it's pretty close correct ? Now try your comparison between a chimp and a human. Let's do it ,there is a 5% difference in the DNA of a chimp and a human.what is 5% of 3 billions base pairs of DNA ? 150 million base pairs of DNA to make a chimp a human. Now i have already shown that the mutation rate that we see today,it would take the human and chimp to separate 6 billion years we know that didn't happen both sides agree. Then if we figure the mutation rate that is needed by the Neo Darwinist to match how long ago the divergence took place between human and ape, no organism could survive that mutation rate and every living organism would be extinct.

The difference between chimps and humans actually isn't that high. It's only as high as 1.5%.

I'm not sure where you're getting your calculations about mutation rate, but we already know how long it took to diverge from our most recent common ancestor, which would suggest that there is something wrong with your math, and not something wrong with the mutation rate. For the record, we diverged seven million years ago.

Wrong,you better do your homework it is closer to 5% anyone who say's otherwise is mistaken. I am on my way out to watch my Arizona Cardinals scrimmage talk to you later.

 

[Si modo]

If you compare the DNA of cousins it's pretty close correct ? Now try your comparison between a chimp and a human. Let's do it ,there is a 5% difference in the DNA of a chimp and a human.what is 5% of 3 billions base pairs of DNA ? 150 million base pairs of DNA to make a chimp a human. Now i have already shown that the mutation rate that we see today,it would take the human and chimp to separate 6 billion years we know that didn't happen both sides agree. Then if we figure the mutation rate that is needed by the Neo Darwinist to match how long ago the divergence took place between human and ape, no organism could survive that mutation rate and every living organism would be extinct.

The difference between chimps and humans actually isn't that high. It's only as high as 1.5%.

I'm not sure where you're getting your calculations about mutation rate, but we already know how long it took to diverge from our most recent common ancestor, which would suggest that there is something wrong with your math, and not something wrong with the mutation rate. For the record, we diverged seven million years ago.

Wrong,you better do your homework it is closer to 5% anyone who say's otherwise is mistaken. I am on my way out to watch my Arizona Cardinals scrimmage talk to you later.

"The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 98 percent identical. ...."

Scientific American

 

[Woyzeck]

That is true,and i am saying that new information comes through cross breeding and an animal adapting to it's enviornment.

Except an organism "adapting" to it's environment is not quite like getting used to sailing on a ship (because you get sea sick) or moving to a high altitude and getting used to the amount of air and such there.

Your body chemistry has to adjust how is that not like adapting ?

That is adapting. However, the kind of adapting organisms do (for instance the changes in the lizards, physical changes) is not nearly as easily undone and quite a bit different from that.

 

[Woyzeck]

What happens if two different breeds cross ?

What happens if a breed has been isolated but still has the ability to cross with members in the family ?

Are new traits introduced ?

Organisms in the wild usually aren't called breeds, and I'm pretty sure you're not using the word family correctly either.

And I'm not sure what this line of questioning has to do with my post. You do realize diversity from cross-breeding is full of holes and doesn't explain the information we have about biology, right?

Ok this is an example of what i have said before, terminology has been built to support the theory. Because of the terminology it sends the wrong message like everything you read has been observed and it is factual and supported by the evidence. Thats just not true.

Sorry what? Breeds aren't actually classified scientifically, and are usually the domain of domestic animals and their breeders. Referring to all organisms on earth having 'breeds' is therefore inaccurate. I'm not even sure what you're referring to when you say 'breed' anyway. Or family, because family is actually a scientific biological classification.

Also still waiting for you to actually answer my post above about the holes with your cross-breeding theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The difference between chimps and humans actually isn't that high. It's only as high as 1.5%.

I'm not sure where you're getting your calculations about mutation rate, but we already know how long it took to diverge from our most recent common ancestor, which would suggest that there is something wrong with your math, and not something wrong with the mutation rate. For the record, we diverged seven million years ago.

Wrong,you better do your homework it is closer to 5% anyone who say's otherwise is mistaken. I am on my way out to watch my Arizona Cardinals scrimmage talk to you later.

"The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 98 percent identical. ...."

Scientific American

Time to educate you on something else.


Human-chimp DNA difference trebled
22:00 23 September 2002 by Andy Coghlan




We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA.

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.

Littered with indels

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.

Junk and genes

"We're not any more different than we were," says Britten. "But we see a bit more divergence than before because insertions and deletions are taken into account. It almost triples the difference."

The result is only based on about one million DNA bases out of the three billion which make up the human and chimp genomes, says Britten. "It's just a glance," he says.

But the differences were equally split between "junk" regions that do not have any genes, and gene-rich parts of the genome, suggesting they may be evenly distributed.

Britten thinks it will be some time before we know what it is about our genes that makes us so different from chimps. He thinks the real secrets could lie in "regulatory" regions of DNA that control whole networks of genes. "It'll be a while before we understand them," he says.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.172510699)


Human-chimp DNA difference trebled - 23 September 2002 - New Scientist

 

[Si modo]

Wrong,you better do your homework it is closer to 5% anyone who say's otherwise is mistaken. I am on my way out to watch my Arizona Cardinals scrimmage talk to you later.

"The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 98 percent identical. ...."

Scientific American

Time to educate you on something else.


Human-chimp DNA difference trebled
22:00 23 September 2002 by Andy Coghlan




...

Thanks, but I'll go with the more recent science, not something nine years old. Thanks anyway.

~98%.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not exactly new evidence why didn't you guys know this ?

 

[Si modo]

Not exactly new evidence why didn't you guys know this ?

I suppose because it is nine years old and outdated.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 98 percent identical. ...."

Scientific American

Time to educate you on something else.


Human-chimp DNA difference trebled
22:00 23 September 2002 by Andy Coghlan




...

Thanks, but I'll go with the more recent science, not something nine years old. Thanks anyway.

~98%.

Really ? because it corrected the old evidence in 2002.

 

[Si modo]

Time to educate you on something else.


Human-chimp DNA difference trebled
22:00 23 September 2002 by Andy Coghlan




...

Thanks, but I'll go with the more recent science, not something nine years old. Thanks anyway.

~98%.

Really ? because it corrected the old evidence in 2002.

Outdated. ~98%.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not exactly new evidence why didn't you guys know this ?

I suppose because it is nine years old and outdated.

Your figure came first.

 

[Si modo]

Not exactly new evidence why didn't you guys know this ?

I suppose because it is nine years old and outdated.

Your figure came first.

Honestly, what the hell are you going on about now?

2002 (your link) is older than 2005 (my link).



If you want, I will find something newer, but that is the number - 98%. Your information is outdated.