David Gould

Randman,

You have been told repeatedly that if you want to find out what the quotes mean to read the sources from whence they came.

As I have not read the sources, I cannot simply guess as to what they might mean. However, if I were to guess I would suggest that as at least one of your quotes comes from Gould, someone passionate in his defence of evolution from creationist attack and who is often quoted out of context by creationists (deliberately, in my opinion), that all of the contexts are ones that support evolution and provide no support for creation whatsoever.

No-one else here is going to do your research for you.

If you are serious about learning about evolution, you should read what these and other scientists have to say about the matter in their original context.

scigirl

Randman. . .

Common designer is the explanation for the chimp-human chromosome picture?

Think again.

Consider this fact: Chimps have 24 chromosomes in a haploid cell (that means sperm or egg, ok?) And humans have 23. So. . . scientists speculate that two of the chimp chromosomes fused together somewhere along evolution.

What predictions does this theory make?

You would expect to find evidence of telomeres (chromosome ENDS) in the MIDDLE of one of our chromosomes. In addition, you would expect to find an extra centromere (the chromosome middle) in this same chromosome. And guess what randboy, that is exactly what you find.

So, not only does evolutionary theory explain the evidence, it explains exactly why you see the differences and the similarities that you do.

Why would a creator give us telomeres in the middle of our chromosome, that have no function? Unless he was a freakin' moron creator. Or. . . it was evolution. Which is it, randman?

Scigirl

randman

Mentioning special creation automatically disqulaifies, eh?
Cute, let's make up some rules so our side automatically wins.
Scigirl, you may or may not have a point, but seeing as how I have tolerated abuse long enough "calling you out", I don't expect I'll get around to checking on chimpes chromosomes.
What I see here is proof enough for me that evolutionism is a false religion. The sad thing is that if it is true, evolutionists have nonetheless chosen propoganda techniques and idiocy to argue it, and that is one reason, they tend to lose a lot of public debates.
Really, people are surprised when they learn the facts. Even those that still beleive in evolution learn that they were misled in many ways, and learn also the reasonableness of creation/ID.
BY the way, for everyone else, on the other thread, I posted the context, and it didn't change a thing.
See ya.

Daggah

Bullshit. This thread has to do with evolution and ONLY evolution. If I allow creation/God talk, in fact, it is MY side that will never be able to win automatically, because no matter how compelling the evidence, you can sit there and say that "well, see, god created it like this." It's the same thing with YECs who end up claiming that God just gave the earth the APPEARANCE of age. How do you argue that, except with ridicule? This is a scientific debate, and god theories are not scientific by definition, because they're not falsifiable, they can't be proven wrong, and they have no explanatory power - they just move the problem up to a higher level.

And how do you think we feel, with you claiming that it's all a giant conspiracy and talking about evolution propaganda? I've not insulted you, and this was the ONLY way I thought I could get you to get a clue and stop ignoring me.

In other words, you have no interest in actually dealing with the evidence. You prefer taking quotes out of context and distorting the meaning of scientists. Even if you DID have their quotes in the proper context, quotes themselves do not count as evidence against evolution. Data does. And I'm presenting you with data here, and you're ignoring it!

Only in a creationist's twisted, logic-lacking mind does evidence FOR evolution constitute proof that it is a "false religion." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

You like making this assertion, but you don't seem to be interested in defending it.

BULLSHIT. The only reason evolutionists often lose debates is that the creationist spits out so many lies in such a short amount of time (the Gish gallop) that the evolutionist is hard-pressed to deal with them all.

Yeah, I was very surprised to find out just how compelling the evidence for common descent really is.

Like?

ROFLMAO. Again, these two camps are full of intellectual dishonesty.

Bullshit.

Bye, troll. Don't let the door hit your ass on your way out.

randman

I think many of you are awfully insecure about your beleifs, and thus resort to false tactics and such to reinforce your ideology.
You act like people who do who beleive de to indoctrnation.
Hey, just an observation. If I beleived in evolution, I would tell you the same thing.
Think about it.

lpetrich

It's always possible that the features of living things were carefully set up to make them look like the result of evolution; consider Philip Gosse's Omphalos theory of created appearance.

And why not create everything different? That would be a much better indicator of special creation than the appearance of evolution.

If you wanted to advertise yourself, what would you do? Make everybody think that you are someone else?

Also, can you demonstrate that there is only one creator instead of a whole community of creators?

Gossian looks-like-evolution creationism, perhaps. This only reveals the shallowness of randman's "research". He ought to read some of the professional literature on evolution some time.

And how does special creation account for biogeography?

Secular Pinoy

Whoa! Why are you guys allowing randman to lead you astray with his red herrings? Those peripheral issues will be dealt with in other threads. I believe that randman has only superficially responded to daggah's challenge. That is not enough. Let's stick to the original post, shall we? So, randman, care to give the challenge more than just a glancing remark? And keep it on-topic, please.

Do not wish to be associated w/ II

Daggah et al. why the hell do you bother? I know we have spoken about your masochism before- but surely by now it is just TOO painful to get dragged into these bizarre discussions with religious folks.

Remember that the religious do not sing from the same hymn sheet as scientists. We have different ways of working.

Science works like this:
Observation of the natural world---&gt; hypotheses about natural world---&gt; experiments designed to test these hypotheses----&gt; results from experiments----&gt; restructure the hypotheses to fit the observed results----&gt; make new experiments to test the new hypotheses and so on ad infinitum.

Religion works like this:
Accept the dogma----&gt; observe the natural world----&gt; ignore those aspects which disagree with the dogma, and maximise those that agree----&gt; fit back into original dogma and claim there was no problem in the first place.

Someone trapped in the logic of the second way will have a hell of a time breaking out of it. Add into this mix the paranoid belief that to attempt to break them out of it is simply the work of some great evil satan-like creature and voila- you have an excellent trap for the unwary mind.

Try the following exercise- take your head, smash it against a brick wall many many times. You have now tasted the 'debating with a creationist' experience.

Oolon Colluphid

I'm not. Though I see you have a very insecure grasp of spelling.

Where is a false tactic in this thread? You have been challenged. Put up or shut up.

And your 'arguments' are models of clarity and logical analysis, eh? You were talking to yourself there, yeah?

No, Randman, you think about these two points.

1. Non-functional DNA is precisely that: it is not at all involved in building a body. This similarity in DNA we're (supposed to be) talking about here... the patterns in DNA get passed down generations. Even into separated lineages, say, people in Australia, or mice on remote islands. Surely even you do not deny this? Also, random changes in DNA accumulate through time, yes? So the patterns, random changes and all, pass down the generations.

Thus evolution expects that there will be huge similarities in non-functional bits of DNA in closely related lineages; more differences but still many similarities in lineages that have been separated longer, and so on.

Creation however says that things were made separately. So there is no obvious reason for similarities in the material that does not build bodies, that does nothing except get copied down generations. Why should such stuff even exist?

You have been shown that there is a nested hierarchy of similarity in the non-functional bits of DNA. (This also happens to match pretty precisely the patterns of apparent relatedness deduced from many other lines of evidence.) Evolution has an obvious answer for this -- common ancestry. How does creation explain it?

I see you have no interest in checking into chimp/human genetic similarities yourself. So I'll give you an example here, so you don't have to look elsewhere. (More self-plagiarism I'm afraid .)

Humans without adequate diets are liable to suffer from scurvy, due to vitamin C deficiency. Most other mammals are able to synthesise their own vitamin C. Yet we humans do possess the same gene for this that they do... but it is broken by a mutation, and is present in us as a so-called pseudogene. See the pdf: M Nishikimi et al, J Biol Chem, Vol 269, Issue 18, 13685-13688, 05, 1994, <a href="http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/269/18/13685.pdf" target="_blank">Cloning and chromosomal mapping of the human nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in man</a>.

But the intriguing bit is that chimpanzees and gorillas also possess this same broken gene... and it is broken in exactly the same way as in humans. The chances of this being the case by accident are phenomenal.

If we shared a common ancestor with them, one which had sufficient vitamin C in its diet anyway, then a mutation in that ancestor that disabled the vit C synthesising machinery would not be a disadvantage. If that ancestral lineage later split, the (now pseudo-) gene would be carried down into the descendants, ultimately into the separate species.

However, if we were created, is scurvy not an odd thing for the creator to condemn us to? Why design the great apes that way too?

If we do not need the gene, then surely god would not have bothered giving it to us at all. If it were potentially useful, then either god gave us a broken gene , or the gene was deactivated by mutation. If the latter, then the odds of this exact same mutation also happening in both chimps and gorillas (are they one kind or two? -- two multiplies the odds still further) are impossibly high.

2. As to the non-functional DNA itself, the stuff that is used in comparative studies such as those cited, I would like to hear why you think there is just so much of it. Why would the creator make it?

You should not underestimate the scale of the problem. Around 95% of our own genomes are 'junk'. In humans, there is a family of sequences, the Alu sequences, that do not spell out anything. They are about 300 base pairs long, and are repeated over a million times.

There are also smaller repeated pieces called satellite DNA. In the well-studied fruitfly Drosophila, there are three main satellites, each just seven (IIRC) 'letters' long. These little bits spell out nothing. And there are eleven million, 3.6 million and 3.6 million repeats of them. They comprise around 40% of the fly's whole genome.

You do realise that using more materials than necessary is not good design?

TTFN, Oolon

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Bait

Daggah,
What makes you think that any of the DNA in no-functional or "trash"? Is it not possible that we, as humans, have just not discovered their use yet?

Answers to some of your questions are here:
<a href="http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/junk.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/junk.html</a>

Ron