Gregg

Oh, I need a ROFLMAO icon so badly.

Mikie, I've already looked at all that so-called "evidence," and found it wanting.

I'll probably still lurk around this thread, but I don't think I'll post anymore. It's pretty pointless.

scigirl

Yes! I believe it is reused code design. That's the point. I'm not the one who believes that humans and chimps were made separately. I believe that humans were made from chimps. And there in the DNA is how it happened. One of our chromosomes looks like two chimp chromosomes got stuck together. So - did they get stuck together? If not, why do they look like they did?

Are you now conceding that humans were indeed made from chimps but God just used evolutionary processes to do it?

Your analogy with cars and tires fails - because the parts that we see in our chromosome 2 are non-functional. We have telomeres that we don't use - ends in the middle. And we have an extra centromere that we don't need, and if anything is harmful to have in there. Here's a better analogy:

Let's say we are watching a junkyard wars marathon, and that the creations from one show get left in the junkyard for the next one. The first episode shows a robot with a one-piece arm. This arm has a hook on it that attaches it to the main frame, and also has a big red stain on it.

The second episode, another robot was made, but its arm has two pieces. The piece that attaches to the main frame (the upper arm) has a different type of hook. But then we notice that there's another piece that was welded to that piece that, strangely enough, looks just like the main arm from the first robot. In fact, the hook is still there, but is not hooking to anything. Also, this forearm has the same red stain, and is the same size.

Would you conclude the following?

A. The junkyard wars team constructed the second robot arm from scratch that just happened to be the same size as that first arm, they stuck a hook on the forearm even though it wasn't hooking to anything, and also put a red stain on it.

B. The team found the first robot in the junkyard, took the arm, and stuck it on their new robot in a different way?

That, I believe is a better analogy. The "hook" represents the extra centromere in our chromosome #2. The centromere does actually function as a hook--the microtubules attach to it to pull chromosomes apart during meiosis and mitosis. Chromosomes only need one.

Again I don't think you completely understand the actual data I am talking about. Hopefully my new analogy helped you. The parts that we see that look like chimps are non-functional in humans.

Furthermore, you failed to explain why we have a broken vitamin C gene, just like chimps. Did the designer break it twice, in the same exact way?

Again - not only does the sequence of DNA support the relatedness of organisms, it also explains how it was done. It was done by cutting and pasting, by duplicating and deleting. If a designer designed us, he/she did it either by using evolutionary processes, or made it look like he/she did.

scigirl

Duck!

Mikie, are you admitting that you made up that nonsense about birds and dinosaurs and "virtually every species known to man" being found in the Cambrian? Are you retracing that claim or not? You seem to have softened your stance to merely claiming that animals with hard parts that fossilise are found in the Cambrian.


Duck!

Kingreaper

Roland, sorry, Mr. 98 Sir, can I post that troll chow thing now?

Pretty Please

ZouPrime

Mikie:

The "flood" of information is a direct answer to your claim that "mutation don't add information". The first part is from Answer To Genesis and their list of arguments that have been debunked so many times they shouldn't be used by creationists anymore. Gregg post may lack some formating, but it is very relevant to your assertion. You can't have a better source than that.

On another note, I strongly hurge you to go to do "Existence of God(s)" and "Biblical Criticism & History" in order to address the evidences you seem to have concerning scriptures and the existance of God. I think you may find these topics more "down to earth" than modern biology.

starling

Well yes, Darwin was wrong in his claim there, because he was really right even though he thought he was wrong. Jellyfish have primitive light sensing patches, I remembered that from my Zoology class right off. Here's some sources:

Also located on the bell rim are light sensing organs so the jellyfish can detect light and dark.
With hydrozoan jellies, the frequency of bell pulsing is influenced by sensory information from the light-sensing ocelli positioned around the bell margin.
There are also light sensing organs around the bell rim which help them distinguish light from dark

There's also the mutant jellyfish that looks exactly like a glowing bunny. Talk about macroevolution, how'd that gene get in there??

Mikie

OK - now I see. You believe the scenario taught to you since grade school. Now I get it. You see, evolution does not state that we are "made from chimps". Evolutionary theory claims that humans and primates have a common ancestor. You need to realize that you believe a fairy tale. A fairy tale that says, "since we look somewhat similar, we must be related".

OK - let's see if I can show you how silly your position is. I'm watching David Blane's Street Magic OK? He's the guy that's getting popular lately for magic he does on the street to unsuspecting passers by. Now, at one point, David "levitates" off the ground. If I use your logic, I need to "believe" he lifted off the ground, because it "appears" that he did. After all If he didn't lift off the ground, why did it "look" like he did? There are many people out there who actually believe that he in fact levitated, but you know that can't be true right? In other words, just because something "looks" a certain way means nothing. Yet there are those that choose to believe he did levitate, because they WANT to believe it.

Nope.

It doesn't fail, because you can't show that the chromosomes are indeed, nonfunctional. AS FAR AS YOU CAN TELL, that may be true, because once again, that's how it "appears" to you. But, just as we found out with the "junk" DNA fiasco a few years back, when "scientists" discovered that the DNA they thought was junk actually may have a function, you are now building your argument on your limited knowledge.



Nice story but....

If I ASSUME that the rules were to just construct a robot, then I might believe the same arm was used. However, let's say I was unaware that the rules were to build an arm from scratch, but use a specific template, including one that requried a templeted "red stain", it would be a whole other ball game. You see, you play by specific rules. You will not allow for supernatural intervention, so any scenario you come up with is limited to your presuppostions. Even if supernatural design was in fact the way we were created, you won't allow for it, so your science is necessarily flawed. Isn't science supposed to be the search for truth? In your analogy, it is possible for something else to be going on. If you're not privy to what that is, you'll miss the boat.

Not necessarily.

Possibly. There's no way to tell.

You assume too much.

Jack the Bodiless

The Bible is bunk. I called you on that, remember?

I can't say why you won't accept the ton of evidence that disproves the Bible. I can't say why anyone would refuse to look at the deluge of evidence that disproves Biblical scripture such as all the manuscript evidence, the archeological evidence, the failed prophecy evidence, or the statistical probability evidence.

Only you know why you choose to ignore these things. You'll have to answer that question yourself. I'm not a psychologist.

Mikie

You didn't call me on anything. I can't do your research for you. You'll need to do your own investigation on the truths of the Bible. I haven't found any evidence that disproves the Bible. You talk big, but I haven't seen anything yet that backs you up. But then again, you don't need evidence right, just us idiots need to prove our arguments because, you're a scientist.

Duck!

What the hell are you talking about? Surely everything you believe to be true "looks" like it's true? Are you telling us that you don't believe things that look true and that you believe things that look false? Maybe you're admitting that the Bible and all that stuff you believe in looks like bullshit but you believe it because you don't believe things that look true, just things that look untrue.

And are you going to admit there's no bird and dinosaur in the Cambrian?

edit to add: No, it doesn't really look like David Blaine is levitating. It looks far more like a silly trick. It only superficially looks like levitation.


Duck!