Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[Youwerecreated]

No, I was contrasting myth with reality, thanx

Reality,hmm,so someone was around to see the evolution process or is it based on opinion and explanations of the evidence ? Your process sounds like it could be a myth to. The answer is ,which one actually took place.

So do you accept the mechanism of evolution?

No.

I believe what we see is adaptations and it comes from recombination of genes and the information was always there to help with the adaptations and the adaptations are limited.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you feel I overlooked one of your claims, point it out instead of making vague references. Oh and you appeared to miss the "selection" part of natural selection in your explanation. Dare I ask if you understand how evolution works at the genetic level?

Sorry i confused you with someone else in another thread. Yes i have read many articles on evolution at the genetic level and for me genetics is the greatest argument against macroevolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And the left will tell you that our planet once had magical properties to create living, conscience organisms out of nonliving materials

No. No educated biologist will ever say that. EVEN IF such a thing were true, it would be equal between science and religion, meaning you'd pretty much agree with it anyway. Nonetheless, evolution has nothing to do with how life first came to be on this planet. Regardless of what you believe in as the cause, evolution, something separate from that, has been extensively studied and proven.

Unfortunately, you have zero education in the matter, which is not only the underlying reason behind you making so many mistakes as to what you think educated people do know, but also is the reason why you are clueless on the topic.

-demanding we all worship at that altar or be labeled heretics!

Well no. This is you projecting religious practices onto an educated group. The educated group demands every single person look at the reproducible evidence for themselves and draw the most logical conclusion, or come to some alternate conclusion based on that evidence. That is how smart people think. Given X, what are the possibilities?

Once again, you lack of education precludes you from producing such logic. This is seen by your inability to produce alternate conclusions from the genetic evidence supporting evolution, to instead just complain "it's wrong".

The theory that an unknown alien life form seeded our planet makes more sense biologically than pretending nonliving materials used to have magical properties to create living

Sure, if you think that is a more logical conclusion from the evidence, go for it. It still doesn't contradict evolution in any other way. Whether a deity, aliens or a natural event from primordial earth created the first life, the basis of evolution is still unchanged and fully supported.

So again your task comes back to: do you want to continue misunderstanding what all the smart people know, remain unable to actually analyze the evidence yourself, and generally stay in your ignorant state? Or will you drop the unsupported blind belief of "no it's wrong because I don't understand it" to adopt something more logical and mature?

Well said. I intend to address genetics evolution not sure why he brought that up because that one of the most solid arguments against macroevolution. They claim their theory is supported by the evidence but its not,its supported opinions and speculation of the evidence .

In my last post, I asked you to stop making vague claims. I see you can't help yourself sometimes. If you want to make a point, make it. Otherwise, these hand waived references of "there's no evidence" is just immature. The equivalent would be me saying "the bible says you're wrong". It's just inane.

If you truly understood genetics and how they are passed on from earlier generations you would know that it is an impossibility for new information to arise through mutations that would cause evolution as you view it. All the testing done on the fruit fly should show you that the mutations on the fruit fly did not present new information it only produced deformed and weakened fruit flies.

You are so wrong about the origins question they only gave it up when their explanations were so illogical and rediculous they could not believe it ,they had to admit ignorance on the subject.

The real situation was summed up rather well by Klaus Dose:

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." [From Interdisciplinary Science Review 13(1988):348-56.]


Now can you give me your view on evolution at the genetic level ?

I need to know which explanation you are gonna try and pass as proven evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And the left will tell you that our planet once had magical properties to create living, conscience organisms out of nonliving materials

No. No educated biologist will ever say that. EVEN IF such a thing were true, it would be equal between science and religion, meaning you'd pretty much agree with it anyway. Nonetheless, evolution has nothing to do with how life first came to be on this planet. Regardless of what you believe in as the cause, evolution, something separate from that, has been extensively studied and proven.

Unfortunately, you have zero education in the matter, which is not only the underlying reason behind you making so many mistakes as to what you think educated people do know, but also is the reason why you are clueless on the topic.

-demanding we all worship at that altar or be labeled heretics!

Well no. This is you projecting religious practices onto an educated group. The educated group demands every single person look at the reproducible evidence for themselves and draw the most logical conclusion, or come to some alternate conclusion based on that evidence. That is how smart people think. Given X, what are the possibilities?

Once again, you lack of education precludes you from producing such logic. This is seen by your inability to produce alternate conclusions from the genetic evidence supporting evolution, to instead just complain "it's wrong".

The theory that an unknown alien life form seeded our planet makes more sense biologically than pretending nonliving materials used to have magical properties to create living

Sure, if you think that is a more logical conclusion from the evidence, go for it. It still doesn't contradict evolution in any other way. Whether a deity, aliens or a natural event from primordial earth created the first life, the basis of evolution is still unchanged and fully supported.

So again your task comes back to: do you want to continue misunderstanding what all the smart people know, remain unable to actually analyze the evidence yourself, and generally stay in your ignorant state? Or will you drop the unsupported blind belief of "no it's wrong because I don't understand it" to adopt something more logical and mature?

Well said. I intend to address genetics evolution not sure why he brought that up because that one of the most solid arguments against macroevolution. They claim their theory is supported by the evidence but its not,its supported opinions and speculation of the evidence .

In my last post, I asked you to stop making vague claims. I see you can't help yourself sometimes. If you want to make a point, make it. Otherwise, these hand waived references of "there's no evidence" is just immature. The equivalent would be me saying "the bible says you're wrong". It's just inane.

While we are at it, can you give me an answer to Haldane’s dilemma ?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If you truly understood genetics and how they are passed on from earlier generations you would know that it is an impossibility for new information to arise through mutations that would cause evolution as you view it. All the testing done on the fruit fly should show you that the mutations on the fruit fly did not present new information it only produced deformed and weakened fruit flies.

Ah I see. You think by reading the propaganda of other uneducated Christians who lack biology training that you understand the topic? Well, "if YOU truly understood genetics and how they are passed on from earlier generations you would know that" it is not only possible for new information to arise through mutations, but propagated in subsequent generations. I have worked with fruit flies before. You clearly have not.

But let's put bugs aside, and use a very easily visualized case in humans. Common dwarfism can be passed down in a dominant manner, meaning a single copy of the gene from a dwarf parent will produce dwarf offspring. There is no hidden carrier state for dwarfism, so it's well known whether a person has the gene or not. However, the large majority of these people acquire the gene from a completely new mutation that happened in the egg or sperm of their parent. It's a new gene not possessed by either parent, acquired by their offspring, and passed on in a dominant fashion. How do you explain this inheritable "new information" coming from "nothing"?

While that example is a very clear cut in the outcome, such de novo mutations account for a myriad of subtle changes and variation within and between species. In fact, we can examine genes between species and see exactly how they changed over time. The closer two species are on the tree of life, the more their genes share in common. That's why a human liver enzyme has large similarity to the corresponding dog liver enzyme, and less similarity than a lizard's liver enzyme, even though they all look the same. Now you can either look at that evidence and say God designed all these proteins so appear "AS IF" they are related, trying to trick us by creating lots of similar proteins that all do the exact same thing but are structurally different, or you could come to the logical conclusion.

Here's another:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk[/ame]
How can you even begin to explain these findings?

I've already proven you wrong about new information arising and getting passed down to offspring. Perhaps you should rethink your understanding of genetics.

You are so wrong about the origins question they only gave it up when their explanations were so illogical and rediculous they could not believe it ,they had to admit ignorance on the subject.

This still has nothing to do with evolution. You do understand that, don't you?

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you truly understood genetics and how they are passed on from earlier generations you would know that it is an impossibility for new information to arise through mutations that would cause evolution as you view it. All the testing done on the fruit fly should show you that the mutations on the fruit fly did not present new information it only produced deformed and weakened fruit flies.

Ah I see. You think by reading the propaganda of other uneducated Christians who lack biology training that you understand the topic? Well, "if YOU truly understood genetics and how they are passed on from earlier generations you would know that" it is not only possible for new information to arise through mutations, but propagated in subsequent generations. I have worked with fruit flies before. You clearly have not.

But let's put bugs aside, and use a very easily visualized case in humans. Common dwarfism can be passed down in a dominant manner, meaning a single copy of the gene from a dwarf parent will produce dwarf offspring. There is no hidden carrier state for dwarfism, so it's well known whether a person has the gene or not. However, the large majority of these people acquire the gene from a completely new mutation that happened in the egg or sperm of their parent. It's a new gene not possessed by either parent, acquired by their offspring, and passed on in a dominant fashion. How do you explain this inheritable "new information" coming from "nothing"?

While that example is a very clear cut in the outcome, such de novo mutations account for a myriad of subtle changes and variation within and between species. In fact, we can examine genes between species and see exactly how they changed over time. The closer two species are on the tree of life, the more their genes share in common. That's why a human liver enzyme has large similarity to the corresponding dog liver enzyme, and less similarity than a lizard's liver enzyme, even though they all look the same. Now you can either look at that evidence and say God designed all these proteins so appear "AS IF" they are related, trying to trick us by creating lots of similar proteins that all do the exact same thing but are structurally different, or you could come to the logical conclusion.

Here's another:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk[/ame]
How can you even begin to explain these findings?

I've already proven you wrong about new information arising and getting passed down to offspring. Perhaps you should rethink your understanding of genetics.

You are so wrong about the origins question they only gave it up when their explanations were so illogical and rediculous they could not believe it ,they had to admit ignorance on the subject.

This still has nothing to do with evolution. You do understand that, don't you?

If you worked with fruit flies please provide the new information that was produced through mutations ?

If you can't understand how non-living matter produced living organisms how can you fully explain the process of evolution.

Clearly you do not understand Haldane’s dilemma,if you do provide an answer to the problem for evolutionists concerning his dilemma.

I have seen many times people from your side of the argument point to similarity as proof for evolution.

How bout Dissimilarities
If similarity is evidence for common ancestry, then does its opposite dissimilarity provide evidence against common ancestry?


There is, of course, much dissimilarity between living organisms, some of these at a very fundamental level. For example, the standard system of genetic code used by humans is not universal. Eighteen different genetic codes have been found in various species. Many scientists see this as evidence that all life does not come from a single common ancestor.


Similar genes and proteins in organisms are taken as evidence for common ancestry. But as we sequence more and more genomes, we repeatedly find genes which are unique to organisms. These are known as ORFans, and provide a real conundrum for evolutionists.


The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 96% similar, but the 4% difference represents 40 million individual differences at the nucleotide level.


When genes and proteins are used to try to reconstruct the ancestry of different organisms, and how they are linked in a tree-like pattern, different sources of evidence give different results. Different genes and proteins have conflicting patterns of similarity and difference between organisms. Evolutionists can only get round this problem by working out the most efficient way in which evolution could have worked. When they do this, they have to come up with scenarios where some similarities between organisms are not due to common ancestry, but to convergent evolution. This raises another problem, if similarities are not always due to common ancestry, how can they be evidence for common ancestry?


If the living world is designed, the patterns of similarity and difference we see in the living world could be due to selective use of designed modules to produce different combinations of features.


Comparative biochemistry and cell biology does not give clear evidence for macroevolution. In fact, recent discoveries such as the non-universality of the genetic code are strong arguments against common ancestry. The patterns of similarity and difference in living organisms are fully consistent with design.

 

[amrchaos]

Well, Well, well!!

People wish to talk about the "tree of life" and why modern creationists raise hell about Darwin and his "naturalistic views" on how life came about!

Let us ask a very religious question--What do you think the story of eden is actually about.

It is about how man gained sentience and seperated from the animals. When man took from the tree of knowledge, he took a step towards godhood!! Man gained the ability to understand and use knowledge! Now if man would have taken from the tree of life, he would have gained the second aspect of godhood--immortality(yep--the very thing promised to christians upon their death. Also known as everlasting life, salvation, the reason that their god died!)

The last thing is total power, which man is trying to harvest though his first step to godhood, but is somewhat hindered by mans ability to forget.

Darwins theory asserts a theological concept that many Christian creationists hate to talk about--man exist between god and beast. Man differs from beast through his level of sentients but differs from god due to his lack of immortality. If man gains immortality, then what is the true difference between man and god??

See, sometimes it is good to read mythology, it helps you sort out theological truths.

And Please JB, do not post "What theological Truths?"

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If you worked with fruit flies please provide the new information that was produced through mutations ?

I just gave you an undeniable example of new information produced in humans. Which you apparently are pretending doesn't exist.

If you can't understand how non-living matter produced living organisms how can you fully explain the process of evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with how living matter first came to earth. What you are referring to is a process known as abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. The fact that you can't distinguish between these two very separate concepts once again shows how clueless you are on this topic. You don't even know what evolution is but you're convinced it's wrong somehow.

The fact still remains that evolution describes how genetic information changes over time. Think of it this way: You don't know how cars are made, and yet you are still able to understand how to drive one. Evolution has nothing to do with the original life "manufacturing". Just how how we genetically drive from point A to point B.

If you're still having trouble understanding what evolution is, perhaps you should do more homework before saying it's wrong.

I have seen many times people from your side of the argument point to similarity as proof for evolution.

How bout Dissimilarities
If similarity is evidence for common ancestry, then does its opposite dissimilarity provide evidence against common ancestry?

Again, this is poor reasoning. You are trying to compare the presence of evidence supporting something as equal to lack of evidence proving it wrong. That's not how logic works. It is impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist by lack of evidence. This is why no one can "prove" god doesn't exist, or Harry Potter for that matter. Lack of evidence does not disprove existence.

NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes. It comprises the large majority of genes. We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives. The farther away we get, the more differences appear.

There is, of course, much dissimilarity between living organisms, some of these at a very fundamental level. For example, the standard system of genetic code used by humans is not universal. Eighteen different genetic codes have been found in various species. Many scientists see this as evidence that all life does not come from a single common ancestor.

18 you say? And which species are they? Can you name one? Let alone 18? How related are those species to humans? Any other primates have a different genetic code? Well, no. How about other mammals? No, they have the same genetic code. Well surely there must be a vertebrate with a different code? Nope. Any animal? No again. What about plants? No again.

So, which species do you know of that has something different, and how similar are they to us?

Similar genes and proteins in organisms are taken as evidence for common ancestry. But as we sequence more and more genomes, we repeatedly find genes which are unique to organisms. These are known as ORFans, and provide a real conundrum for evolutionists.

Oh? Could you name some ORFans for us? Do you even know what ORFan stands for? Open Reading Frame. You're talking about bacteria, which readily mutate and produce a large number of changes. Or are you dumb enough to deny what you refer to as "microevolution" as well, even though it is exactly the same thing as macroevolution?

The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 96% similar, but the 4% difference represents 40 million individual differences at the nucleotide level.

And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96. Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count. But it's still 2%. We tax based on percentages for a reason. Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.

When genes and proteins are used to try to reconstruct the ancestry of different organisms, and how they are linked in a tree-like pattern, different sources of evidence give different results. Different genes and proteins have conflicting patterns of similarity and difference between organisms. Evolutionists can only get round this problem by working out the most efficient way in which evolution could have worked. When they do this, they have to come up with scenarios where some similarities between organisms are not due to common ancestry, but to convergent evolution. This raises another problem, if similarities are not always due to common ancestry, how can they be evidence for common ancestry?

Physical similarities not due to common ancestry do not have genetic similarity. The remainder of your paragraph regarding differences in genes is not a conundrum. Entire government databases are established to show similarities between sequences.

If the living world is designed, the patterns of similarity and difference we see in the living world could be due to selective use of designed modules to produce different combinations of features.

If the living world was designed, we wouldn't need to have similar yet slightly different "modules" to do the exact same thing between species. Again, your liver and a dog's liver and a monkey liver need to be able to do the exact same thing. There is zero reason to change the "module". Furthermore, there wouldn't be so many useless areas of DNA. If things were designed, we wouldn't have vestigiality at the anatomic, physiologic, proteomic, and genetic levels. But we do.



I can't help but noticed you completely ignored the video of Ken Miller. How do you explain that one of our chromosomes has the same genes as two ape chromosomes, and appears as if it is the fusion of those two chromosomes, with pieces that are otherwise only found on the end of chromosomes in the center, and two centromeres? How do you explain that reproducible evidence?

How do you explain dwarfs from non-dwarf parents if you believe no new information can ever be produced? What about genes that migrate and in the process create new genes? What about vestigiality? Why do you believe that a designer would need slightly different "modules" that all do the exact same thing? Why do you think some genetic sequences are different yet produce the exact same protein?

At this point, I've shot down every one of your claims and you have yet to even question mine. Here's some homework for you, seeing as you probably don't understand a lot of what I'm saying because you are completely uneducated in this topic. Look up the following terms:
vestigiality
de novo mutation
transposon mutagenesis
silent mutation
evolution
heterozygote advantage

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you worked with fruit flies please provide the new information that was produced through mutations ?

I just gave you an undeniable example of new information produced in humans. Which you apparently are pretending doesn't exist.

If you can't understand how non-living matter produced living organisms how can you fully explain the process of evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with how living matter first came to earth. What you are referring to is a process known as abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. The fact that you can't distinguish between these two very separate concepts once again shows how clueless you are on this topic. You don't even know what evolution is but you're convinced it's wrong somehow.

The fact still remains that evolution describes how genetic information changes over time. Think of it this way: You don't know how cars are made, and yet you are still able to understand how to drive one. Evolution has nothing to do with the original life "manufacturing". Just how how we genetically drive from point A to point B.

If you're still having trouble understanding what evolution is, perhaps you should do more homework before saying it's wrong.


Again, this is poor reasoning. You are trying to compare the presence of evidence supporting something as equal to lack of evidence proving it wrong. That's not how logic works. It is impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist by lack of evidence. This is why no one can "prove" god doesn't exist, or Harry Potter for that matter. Lack of evidence does not disprove existence.

NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes. It comprises the large majority of genes. We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives. The farther away we get, the more differences appear.


18 you say? And which species are they? Can you name one? Let alone 18? How related are those species to humans? Any other primates have a different genetic code? Well, no. How about other mammals? No, they have the same genetic code. Well surely there must be a vertebrate with a different code? Nope. Any animal? No again. What about plants? No again.

So, which species do you know of that has something different, and how similar are they to us?


Oh? Could you name some ORFans for us? Do you even know what ORFan stands for? Open Reading Frame. You're talking about bacteria, which readily mutate and produce a large number of changes. Or are you dumb enough to deny what you refer to as "microevolution" as well, even though it is exactly the same thing as macroevolution?


And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96. Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count. But it's still 2%. We tax based on percentages for a reason. Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.

When genes and proteins are used to try to reconstruct the ancestry of different organisms, and how they are linked in a tree-like pattern, different sources of evidence give different results. Different genes and proteins have conflicting patterns of similarity and difference between organisms. Evolutionists can only get round this problem by working out the most efficient way in which evolution could have worked. When they do this, they have to come up with scenarios where some similarities between organisms are not due to common ancestry, but to convergent evolution. This raises another problem, if similarities are not always due to common ancestry, how can they be evidence for common ancestry?

Physical similarities not due to common ancestry do not have genetic similarity. The remainder of your paragraph regarding differences in genes is not a conundrum. Entire government databases are established to show similarities between sequences.

If the living world is designed, the patterns of similarity and difference we see in the living world could be due to selective use of designed modules to produce different combinations of features.

If the living world was designed, we wouldn't need to have similar yet slightly different "modules" to do the exact same thing between species. Again, your liver and a dog's liver and a monkey liver need to be able to do the exact same thing. There is zero reason to change the "module". Furthermore, there wouldn't be so many useless areas of DNA. If things were designed, we wouldn't have vestigiality at the anatomic, physiologic, proteomic, and genetic levels. But we do.



I can't help but noticed you completely ignored the video of Ken Miller. How do you explain that one of our chromosomes has the same genes as two ape chromosomes, and appears as if it is the fusion of those two chromosomes, with pieces that are otherwise only found on the end of chromosomes in the center, and two centromeres? How do you explain that reproducible evidence?

How do you explain dwarfs from non-dwarf parents if you believe no new information can ever be produced? What about genes that migrate and in the process create new genes? What about vestigiality? Why do you believe that a designer would need slightly different "modules" that all do the exact same thing? Why do you think some genetic sequences are different yet produce the exact same protein?

At this point, I've shot down every one of your claims and you have yet to even question mine. Here's some homework for you, seeing as you probably don't understand a lot of what I'm saying because you are completely uneducated in this topic. Look up the following terms:
vestigiality
de novo mutation
transposon mutagenesis
silent mutation
evolution
heterozygote advantage

Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.

It's what you can prove not what you think you can explain.

Similarity in GENES does not prove evolution it shows the designer could cause a different result from a similar substance.

 

[amrchaos]

If you worked with fruit flies please provide the new information that was produced through mutations ?

I just gave you an undeniable example of new information produced in humans. Which you apparently are pretending doesn't exist.


Evolution has nothing to do with how living matter first came to earth. What you are referring to is a process known as abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. The fact that you can't distinguish between these two very separate concepts once again shows how clueless you are on this topic. You don't even know what evolution is but you're convinced it's wrong somehow.

The fact still remains that evolution describes how genetic information changes over time. Think of it this way: You don't know how cars are made, and yet you are still able to understand how to drive one. Evolution has nothing to do with the original life "manufacturing". Just how how we genetically drive from point A to point B.

If you're still having trouble understanding what evolution is, perhaps you should do more homework before saying it's wrong.


Again, this is poor reasoning. You are trying to compare the presence of evidence supporting something as equal to lack of evidence proving it wrong. That's not how logic works. It is impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist by lack of evidence. This is why no one can "prove" god doesn't exist, or Harry Potter for that matter. Lack of evidence does not disprove existence.

NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes. It comprises the large majority of genes. We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives. The farther away we get, the more differences appear.


18 you say? And which species are they? Can you name one? Let alone 18? How related are those species to humans? Any other primates have a different genetic code? Well, no. How about other mammals? No, they have the same genetic code. Well surely there must be a vertebrate with a different code? Nope. Any animal? No again. What about plants? No again.

So, which species do you know of that has something different, and how similar are they to us?


Oh? Could you name some ORFans for us? Do you even know what ORFan stands for? Open Reading Frame. You're talking about bacteria, which readily mutate and produce a large number of changes. Or are you dumb enough to deny what you refer to as "microevolution" as well, even though it is exactly the same thing as macroevolution?


And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96. Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count. But it's still 2%. We tax based on percentages for a reason. Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.


Physical similarities not due to common ancestry do not have genetic similarity. The remainder of your paragraph regarding differences in genes is not a conundrum. Entire government databases are established to show similarities between sequences.

If the living world is designed, the patterns of similarity and difference we see in the living world could be due to selective use of designed modules to produce different combinations of features.

If the living world was designed, we wouldn't need to have similar yet slightly different "modules" to do the exact same thing between species. Again, your liver and a dog's liver and a monkey liver need to be able to do the exact same thing. There is zero reason to change the "module". Furthermore, there wouldn't be so many useless areas of DNA. If things were designed, we wouldn't have vestigiality at the anatomic, physiologic, proteomic, and genetic levels. But we do.



I can't help but noticed you completely ignored the video of Ken Miller. How do you explain that one of our chromosomes has the same genes as two ape chromosomes, and appears as if it is the fusion of those two chromosomes, with pieces that are otherwise only found on the end of chromosomes in the center, and two centromeres? How do you explain that reproducible evidence?

How do you explain dwarfs from non-dwarf parents if you believe no new information can ever be produced? What about genes that migrate and in the process create new genes? What about vestigiality? Why do you believe that a designer would need slightly different "modules" that all do the exact same thing? Why do you think some genetic sequences are different yet produce the exact same protein?

At this point, I've shot down every one of your claims and you have yet to even question mine. Here's some homework for you, seeing as you probably don't understand a lot of what I'm saying because you are completely uneducated in this topic. Look up the following terms:
vestigiality
de novo mutation
transposon mutagenesis
silent mutation
evolution
heterozygote advantage

Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.

It's what you can prove not what you think you can explain.

Similarity in GENES does not prove evolution it shows the designer could cause a different result from a similar substance.

Come to think about it

It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.

Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created. So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?

That is right--God shaped man out of clay and woman out of man's ribs! Anything else would cause people to suggest that the Bible is not 100% literal. Some "elaborations" and "artistic creativity" is used in Genesis.

Huh buddy, most people think that anyway, so what are you arguing about?

 

[Youwerecreated]

[NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes. It comprises the large majority of genes. We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives. The farther away we get, the more differences appear.


And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96. Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count. But it's still 2%. We tax based on percentages for a reason. Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.

New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A recent high-profile article in the journal Nature released the results of a study with implications that shocked the scientific community because they contradict long-held claims of human-chimp DNA similarity.1 A previous Acts & Facts article showed that much of the research surrounding the often touted claims of 98 percent (or higher) DNA similarity between chimps and humans has been based on flawed and biased research.2 The problem is that the similarity has been uncertain because no one has performed an unbiased and comprehensive DNA similarity study until now. And the results are not good news for the story of human evolution.

One of the main deficiencies with the original chimpanzee genome sequence published in 2005 was that it was a draft sequence and only represented a 3.6-fold random coverage of the 21 chimpanzee autosomes, and a 1.8-fold redundancy of the X and Y sex chromosomes. In a draft coverage, very small fragments of the genome are sequenced in millions of individual reactions using high-throughput robotics equipment. This produces individual sequence fragments of about 500 to 1,200 bases in length. Based on overlapping reads, these individual sequences are assembled into contiguous clusters of sequence called sequencing contigs. In the case of a chimpanzee, an organism with a genome size of about 3 billion bases, a 3.6-fold coverage means that approximately 10.8 billion bases of DNA were sequenced (3.6 x 3.0). The result is a data set consisting of thousands of random sequencing contigs, or islands of contiguous sequence that need to be oriented and placed in position on their respective chromosomes.

In the 2005 chimpanzee genome project and resulting Nature journal publication, the sequence contigs4 were not assembled and oriented based on a map of the chimpanzee genome, but rather on a map of the human genome. Given the fact that the chimpanzee genome is at least 10 percent larger5 overall than the human genome, this method of assembly was not only biased toward an evolutionary presupposition of human-chimp similarity, but was also inherently flawed.

The title of the recent journal article accurately sums up the research findings: "Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content." Before getting into the details of their results, it is important to understand that for the first time, the chimpanzee DNA sequence for a chromosome was assembled and oriented based on a Y chromosome map/framework built for chimpanzee and not human. As a result, the chimpanzee DNA sequence could then be more accurately compared to the human Y chromosome because it was standing on its own merit.

The Y chromosome is found only in males and contains many genes that specify male features, as well as genetic and regulatory information that is expressed throughout the whole body. Because of the recent outcome comparing the chimp and human Y chromosomes in a more objective assessment, it is possible that major discrepancies will be revealed among the other chromosomes that are claimed to be so similar.

From a large-scale perspective, the human and chimp Y chromosomes were constructed entirely differently. On the human Y chromosome, there were found four major categories of DNA sequence that occupy specific regions. One can think of this in terms of geography. Just as a continent like Europe is divided into countries because of different people groups, so are chromosomes with different categories of DNA sequence.

Not only were the locations of DNA categories completely different between human and chimp, but so were their proportions. One sequence class, or category containing DNA with a characteristic sequence, within the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa. One differed by as much as 3.3-fold (330 percent), and a class specific to human "has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y chromosome]."1

As far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome. Because genes occur in families or similarity categories, the researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories. They found a shocking 33 percent difference. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories--entirely different classes of genes--compared to chimps.

Under evolutionary assumptions of long and gradual genetic changes, the Y chromosome structures, layouts, genes, and other sequences should be much the same in both species, given the relatively short--according to the evolutionary timeline--six-million-year time span since chimpanzees and humans supposedly diverged from a common ancestor. Instead, the differences between the Y chromosomes are marked. R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute in Kansas City who wasn't involved in the research, told the Associated Press, "That result is astounding."6

Because virtually every structural aspect of the human and chimp Y chromosomes was different, it was hard to arrive at an overall similarity estimate between the two. The researchers did postulate an overall 70 percent similarity, which did not take into account size differences or structural arrangement differences. This was done by concluding that only 70 percent of the chimp sequence could be aligned with the human sequence--not taking into account differences within the alignments.

In other words, 70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially when considering that 50 percent of the human genes were missing from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were located in completely different patterns. When all aspects of non-similarity--sequence categories, genes, gene families, and gene position--are taken into account, it is safe to say that the overall similarity was lower than 70 percent. The Nature article expressed the discrepancy between this data and standard evolutionary interpretations in a rather intriguing way: "Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."1

So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken. And to explain where all these differences between humans and chimps came from, believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of major chromosomal rearrangements and rapid generation of vast amounts of many new genes, along with accompanying regulatory DNA.

However, since each respective Y chromosome appears fully integrated and interdependently stable with its host organism, the most logical inference from the Y chromosome data is that humans and chimpanzees were each specially created as distinct creatures

Source New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims

 

[Youwerecreated]

I just gave you an undeniable example of new information produced in humans. Which you apparently are pretending doesn't exist.


Evolution has nothing to do with how living matter first came to earth. What you are referring to is a process known as abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. The fact that you can't distinguish between these two very separate concepts once again shows how clueless you are on this topic. You don't even know what evolution is but you're convinced it's wrong somehow.

The fact still remains that evolution describes how genetic information changes over time. Think of it this way: You don't know how cars are made, and yet you are still able to understand how to drive one. Evolution has nothing to do with the original life "manufacturing". Just how how we genetically drive from point A to point B.

If you're still having trouble understanding what evolution is, perhaps you should do more homework before saying it's wrong.


Again, this is poor reasoning. You are trying to compare the presence of evidence supporting something as equal to lack of evidence proving it wrong. That's not how logic works. It is impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist by lack of evidence. This is why no one can "prove" god doesn't exist, or Harry Potter for that matter. Lack of evidence does not disprove existence.

NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes. It comprises the large majority of genes. We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives. The farther away we get, the more differences appear.


18 you say? And which species are they? Can you name one? Let alone 18? How related are those species to humans? Any other primates have a different genetic code? Well, no. How about other mammals? No, they have the same genetic code. Well surely there must be a vertebrate with a different code? Nope. Any animal? No again. What about plants? No again.

So, which species do you know of that has something different, and how similar are they to us?


Oh? Could you name some ORFans for us? Do you even know what ORFan stands for? Open Reading Frame. You're talking about bacteria, which readily mutate and produce a large number of changes. Or are you dumb enough to deny what you refer to as "microevolution" as well, even though it is exactly the same thing as macroevolution?


And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96. Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count. But it's still 2%. We tax based on percentages for a reason. Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.


Physical similarities not due to common ancestry do not have genetic similarity. The remainder of your paragraph regarding differences in genes is not a conundrum. Entire government databases are established to show similarities between sequences.


If the living world was designed, we wouldn't need to have similar yet slightly different "modules" to do the exact same thing between species. Again, your liver and a dog's liver and a monkey liver need to be able to do the exact same thing. There is zero reason to change the "module". Furthermore, there wouldn't be so many useless areas of DNA. If things were designed, we wouldn't have vestigiality at the anatomic, physiologic, proteomic, and genetic levels. But we do.



I can't help but noticed you completely ignored the video of Ken Miller. How do you explain that one of our chromosomes has the same genes as two ape chromosomes, and appears as if it is the fusion of those two chromosomes, with pieces that are otherwise only found on the end of chromosomes in the center, and two centromeres? How do you explain that reproducible evidence?

How do you explain dwarfs from non-dwarf parents if you believe no new information can ever be produced? What about genes that migrate and in the process create new genes? What about vestigiality? Why do you believe that a designer would need slightly different "modules" that all do the exact same thing? Why do you think some genetic sequences are different yet produce the exact same protein?

At this point, I've shot down every one of your claims and you have yet to even question mine. Here's some homework for you, seeing as you probably don't understand a lot of what I'm saying because you are completely uneducated in this topic. Look up the following terms:
vestigiality
de novo mutation
transposon mutagenesis
silent mutation
evolution
heterozygote advantage

Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.

It's what you can prove not what you think you can explain.

Similarity in GENES does not prove evolution it shows the designer could cause a different result from a similar substance.

Come to think about it

It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.

Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created. So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?

That is right--God shaped man out of clay and woman out of man's ribs! Anything else would cause people to suggest that the Bible is not 100% literal. Some "elaborations" and "artistic creativity" is used in Genesis.

Huh buddy, most people think that anyway, so what are you arguing about?

We are both going by faith buddy, no problem at all.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you worked with fruit flies please provide the new information that was produced through mutations ?

I just gave you an undeniable example of new information produced in humans. Which you apparently are pretending doesn't exist.

If you can't understand how non-living matter produced living organisms how can you fully explain the process of evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with how living matter first came to earth. What you are referring to is a process known as abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. The fact that you can't distinguish between these two very separate concepts once again shows how clueless you are on this topic. You don't even know what evolution is but you're convinced it's wrong somehow.

The fact still remains that evolution describes how genetic information changes over time. Think of it this way: You don't know how cars are made, and yet you are still able to understand how to drive one. Evolution has nothing to do with the original life "manufacturing". Just how how we genetically drive from point A to point B.

If you're still having trouble understanding what evolution is, perhaps you should do more homework before saying it's wrong.


Again, this is poor reasoning. You are trying to compare the presence of evidence supporting something as equal to lack of evidence proving it wrong. That's not how logic works. It is impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist by lack of evidence. This is why no one can "prove" god doesn't exist, or Harry Potter for that matter. Lack of evidence does not disprove existence.

NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes. It comprises the large majority of genes. We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives. The farther away we get, the more differences appear.


18 you say? And which species are they? Can you name one? Let alone 18? How related are those species to humans? Any other primates have a different genetic code? Well, no. How about other mammals? No, they have the same genetic code. Well surely there must be a vertebrate with a different code? Nope. Any animal? No again. What about plants? No again.

So, which species do you know of that has something different, and how similar are they to us?


Oh? Could you name some ORFans for us? Do you even know what ORFan stands for? Open Reading Frame. You're talking about bacteria, which readily mutate and produce a large number of changes. Or are you dumb enough to deny what you refer to as "microevolution" as well, even though it is exactly the same thing as macroevolution?


And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96. Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count. But it's still 2%. We tax based on percentages for a reason. Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.

When genes and proteins are used to try to reconstruct the ancestry of different organisms, and how they are linked in a tree-like pattern, different sources of evidence give different results. Different genes and proteins have conflicting patterns of similarity and difference between organisms. Evolutionists can only get round this problem by working out the most efficient way in which evolution could have worked. When they do this, they have to come up with scenarios where some similarities between organisms are not due to common ancestry, but to convergent evolution. This raises another problem, if similarities are not always due to common ancestry, how can they be evidence for common ancestry?

Physical similarities not due to common ancestry do not have genetic similarity. The remainder of your paragraph regarding differences in genes is not a conundrum. Entire government databases are established to show similarities between sequences.

If the living world is designed, the patterns of similarity and difference we see in the living world could be due to selective use of designed modules to produce different combinations of features.

If the living world was designed, we wouldn't need to have similar yet slightly different "modules" to do the exact same thing between species. Again, your liver and a dog's liver and a monkey liver need to be able to do the exact same thing. There is zero reason to change the "module". Furthermore, there wouldn't be so many useless areas of DNA. If things were designed, we wouldn't have vestigiality at the anatomic, physiologic, proteomic, and genetic levels. But we do.



I can't help but noticed you completely ignored the video of Ken Miller. How do you explain that one of our chromosomes has the same genes as two ape chromosomes, and appears as if it is the fusion of those two chromosomes, with pieces that are otherwise only found on the end of chromosomes in the center, and two centromeres? How do you explain that reproducible evidence?

How do you explain dwarfs from non-dwarf parents if you believe no new information can ever be produced? What about genes that migrate and in the process create new genes? What about vestigiality? Why do you believe that a designer would need slightly different "modules" that all do the exact same thing? Why do you think some genetic sequences are different yet produce the exact same protein?

At this point, I've shot down every one of your claims and you have yet to even question mine. Here's some homework for you, seeing as you probably don't understand a lot of what I'm saying because you are completely uneducated in this topic. Look up the following terms:
vestigiality
de novo mutation
transposon mutagenesis
silent mutation
evolution
heterozygote advantage

You said in an earlier post that you worked with fruit flies and i was wrong in my comment,so back your claims, what new information arrived to the offspring from the mutations in the fruit flies ?

 

[amrchaos]

Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.

It's what you can prove not what you think you can explain.

Similarity in GENES does not prove evolution it shows the designer could cause a different result from a similar substance.

Come to think about it

It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.

Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created. So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?

That is right--God shaped man out of clay and woman out of man's ribs! Anything else would cause people to suggest that the Bible is not 100% literal. Some "elaborations" and "artistic creativity" is used in Genesis.

Huh buddy, most people think that anyway, so what are you arguing about?

We are both going by faith buddy, no problem at all.

Faith is stating "God created man"
Science is the act of asking the question--Just how did God create man?

You continue make inference that the evidence leads to your theological statement, but it could also lead to assuming that there existed an early point when there weren't always two distinct species.


Think about it, if the genetic data was exact, creationists could then make the arguement that differentiation is dependant on gods will. If there are distinctions, creationists would use your arguements. Bottomline-creationist

 

[Youwerecreated]

Come to think about it

It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.

Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created. So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?

That is right--God shaped man out of clay and woman out of man's ribs! Anything else would cause people to suggest that the Bible is not 100% literal. Some "elaborations" and "artistic creativity" is used in Genesis.

Huh buddy, most people think that anyway, so what are you arguing about?

We are both going by faith buddy, no problem at all.

Faith is stating "God created man"
Science is the act of asking the question--Just how did God create man?

You continue make inference that the evidence leads to your theological statement, but it could also lead to assuming that there existed an early point when there weren't always two distinct species.


Think about it, if the genetic data was exact, creationists could then make the arguement that differentiation is dependant on gods will. If there are distinctions, creationists would use your arguements. Bottomline-creationist

Most evolutionists subscribe to a natural process =without intelligent design ,rejecting obvious evidece of intelligent design.If evolutionists are truly trying to find out how God did it, they wouldn't be so quick to deny obvious evidence for intelligent design.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.

I asked you about 10 questions on different things, and you are only capable of answering one of them? What do you think "COPYING ERRORS" are? MUTATION! New information! What do you think evolution is based on if not "copying errors"? Once again you show you are clueless on the topic.

Now, how do you explain our chromosomes appearing as if two ape chromosomes fused head to head? Why do they look like that? You continue to avoid this question. You are incapable. And so to avoid being exposed as a fraud, you just ignore simple questions like these and the others I asked that are still unanswered. Would you like me to compile them for you?

Come to think about it

It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.

Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created. So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?

If you believe that, it STILL doesn't affect evolution in any way. Many people do believe that. The problem creationists have with it is that they don't actually understand what evolution is, or how it works. They believe it threatens something the bible says, and so therefore has to be proven inaccurate. Despite years of trying, they have repeatedly failed.

You said in an earlier post that you worked with fruit flies and i was wrong in my comment,so back your claims, what new information arrived to the offspring from the mutations in the fruit flies ?

I have worked with fruit flies before, yes. I gave you an example in humans of what you're asking because it's an undeniable change produced by new information. Or are you so petty as to believe this somehow "doesn't count" because I am talking about a different species? Is dwarfism inheritable new information from random mutation or not? If yes, why do you need it in another species? If no, how do you explain it?

Oh by the way, that long copied and pasted blurb you put up was not a research article. It wasn't a published article at all. In fact, it's just a single person on the internet posting something. No credentials. No peer review. Laughable to any scientific mind, but great for gullible people who believe anything they read. Did you even bother to read it or did you just paste it here? He's grasping at straws, saying things weren't assembled correctly. Both genomes have since been verified and re-verified. You can go to the government-based genomics site now and verify it for yourself. So he's done no research, is making guesses, and has already been proven wrong. Did I mention that article is not actually published? If you'd like a more thorough trashing of this crap, just read here.

Once again, I find myself openly responding to every single point you make, and you continuing to hide from most I make. Here's a list of questions you have yet to answer:

• How do you explain vestigiality?
• How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
• How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has pieces that otherwise belong on the end in the middle? Try using your own words.
• How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres? Your article doesn't even try to refute that one.
• How do you explain de novo mutation?
• How do you explain silent mutations?
• How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
• Which species have a different genetic code than humans? You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1.
• Have you figured out what evolution is yet?

I look forward to you ignoring these again, seeing as creationism is incapable of producing valid conclusions given specific reproducible evidence because it all contradicts their unsupported reasoning.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.

I asked you about 10 questions on different things, and you are only capable of answering one of them? What do you think "COPYING ERRORS" are? MUTATION! New information! What do you think evolution is based on if not "copying errors"? Once again you show you are clueless on the topic.

Now, how do you explain our chromosomes appearing as if two ape chromosomes fused head to head? Why do they look like that? You continue to avoid this question. You are incapable. And so to avoid being exposed as a fraud, you just ignore simple questions like these and the others I asked that are still unanswered. Would you like me to compile them for you?

Come to think about it

It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.

Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created. So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?

If you believe that, it STILL doesn't affect evolution in any way. Many people do believe that. The problem creationists have with it is that they don't actually understand what evolution is, or how it works. They believe it threatens something the bible says, and so therefore has to be proven inaccurate. Despite years of trying, they have repeatedly failed.

You said in an earlier post that you worked with fruit flies and i was wrong in my comment,so back your claims, what new information arrived to the offspring from the mutations in the fruit flies ?

I have worked with fruit flies before, yes. I gave you an example in humans of what you're asking because it's an undeniable change produced by new information. Or are you so petty as to believe this somehow "doesn't count" because I am talking about a different species? Is dwarfism inheritable new information from random mutation or not? If yes, why do you need it in another species? If no, how do you explain it?

Oh by the way, that long copied and pasted blurb you put up was not a research article. It wasn't a published article at all. In fact, it's just a single person on the internet posting something. No credentials. No peer review. Laughable to any scientific mind, but great for gullible people who believe anything they read. Did you even bother to read it or did you just paste it here? He's grasping at straws, saying things weren't assembled correctly. Both genomes have since been verified and re-verified. You can go to the government-based genomics site now and verify it for yourself. So he's done no research, is making guesses, and has already been proven wrong. Did I mention that article is not actually published? If you'd like a more thorough trashing of this crap, just read here.

Once again, I find myself openly responding to every single point you make, and you continuing to hide from most I make. Here's a list of questions you have yet to answer:

• How do you explain vestigiality?
• How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
• How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has pieces that otherwise belong on the end in the middle? Try using your own words.
• How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres? Your article doesn't even try to refute that one.
• How do you explain de novo mutation?
• How do you explain silent mutations?
• How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
• Which species have a different genetic code than humans? You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1.
• Have you figured out what evolution is yet?

I look forward to you ignoring these again, seeing as creationism is incapable of producing valid conclusions given specific reproducible evidence because it all contradicts their unsupported reasoning.

There is no proof the chromosomes merged, none at all. You are trying to make a point with someones opinion.

So you pay no attention to the source that was quoted, typical.

Now you are avoiding my question about the new information that was the result of mutations in the fruit fly,why ?

The first thing you do wrong is assume similarity proves evolution.

Don't bate and swithch and try to change the discussion in the middle of the stream.

You have totally ignored Haldane’s dilemma that shows what you are presenting as fact is nothing but a stretch of the imagination.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.

I asked you about 10 questions on different things, and you are only capable of answering one of them? What do you think "COPYING ERRORS" are? MUTATION! New information! What do you think evolution is based on if not "copying errors"? Once again you show you are clueless on the topic.

Now, how do you explain our chromosomes appearing as if two ape chromosomes fused head to head? Why do they look like that? You continue to avoid this question. You are incapable. And so to avoid being exposed as a fraud, you just ignore simple questions like these and the others I asked that are still unanswered. Would you like me to compile them for you?

Come to think about it

It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.

Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created. So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?

If you believe that, it STILL doesn't affect evolution in any way. Many people do believe that. The problem creationists have with it is that they don't actually understand what evolution is, or how it works. They believe it threatens something the bible says, and so therefore has to be proven inaccurate. Despite years of trying, they have repeatedly failed.

You said in an earlier post that you worked with fruit flies and i was wrong in my comment,so back your claims, what new information arrived to the offspring from the mutations in the fruit flies ?

I have worked with fruit flies before, yes. I gave you an example in humans of what you're asking because it's an undeniable change produced by new information. Or are you so petty as to believe this somehow "doesn't count" because I am talking about a different species? Is dwarfism inheritable new information from random mutation or not? If yes, why do you need it in another species? If no, how do you explain it?

Oh by the way, that long copied and pasted blurb you put up was not a research article. It wasn't a published article at all. In fact, it's just a single person on the internet posting something. No credentials. No peer review. Laughable to any scientific mind, but great for gullible people who believe anything they read. Did you even bother to read it or did you just paste it here? He's grasping at straws, saying things weren't assembled correctly. Both genomes have since been verified and re-verified. You can go to the government-based genomics site now and verify it for yourself. So he's done no research, is making guesses, and has already been proven wrong. Did I mention that article is not actually published? If you'd like a more thorough trashing of this crap, just read here.

Once again, I find myself openly responding to every single point you make, and you continuing to hide from most I make. Here's a list of questions you have yet to answer:

• How do you explain vestigiality?
• How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
• How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has pieces that otherwise belong on the end in the middle? Try using your own words.
• How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres? Your article doesn't even try to refute that one.
• How do you explain de novo mutation?
• How do you explain silent mutations?
• How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
• Which species have a different genetic code than humans? You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1.
• Have you figured out what evolution is yet?

I look forward to you ignoring these again, seeing as creationism is incapable of producing valid conclusions given specific reproducible evidence because it all contradicts their unsupported reasoning.

Don't you get it ! in the video you posted the guy admitted they had to come up with an explanation for the extra chromosome and thats what they did nevermind if it was fact or not and your side is running with it like the explanation is fact .But that is typical of your side ,only to be proven wrong later and then they reach into their imagination ONCE AGAIN TO KEEP THE THEORY ALIVE.

If you are still having a problem seeing the difference between chimps and humans just put a picture of one of your loved ones next to a chimp,get real.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

There is no proof the chromosomes merged, none at all. You are trying to make a point with someones opinion.

Let's throw out that conclusion then. There is undeniable reproducible proof that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres in it, when each chromosome only needs one, with the extra one being inactivated. There is also undeniable reproducible proof that the same chromosome contains structures that are only found at the end of every other chromosome in the middle. This is fact. The human genome has already been sequenced for years now, and any given finding can be easily confirmed. I could pluck a hair from your head, take it to a biology lab, and reproduce the exact same results to find these odd additional centromeres and telomeres where they don't belong. So EVEN IF you don't want to believe the genes on that human chromosome are the same genes on two ape chromosomes, which is also reproducible fact, how do you explain those odd centromeres and telomeres?

This is not opinion. This is reproducible evidence. What conclusions do you draw from it if you don't like the obvious one all the smart people have independently reached? How do YOU explain it?

So you pay no attention to the source that was quoted, typical.

I discredit your source because it lacks credentials. Let's compare the information that each of us has provided thus far. I have offered verifiable laboratory findings that can be reproduced, and therefore refuted, in any biology lab in the world. Important to note is that this factual information HAS NOT been refuted by anyone. Ever. Not even by your sources. We have yet to find someone sequence our chromosomes and find something different than the verified sequence we currently have. Ever. Researchers then took this information, and published it in a credible peer reviewed journal. That means their competition and opponents in the field had to scrupulously examine their methods and conclusions, and were not able to find anything wrong it. Only then can it be published in one of this nation's top scientific publications.

You provided a blog post. By someone who did no research on the topic. Which was verified by no one. And published no where.

Are you starting to see how these sources are not equivalent?

Now you are avoiding my question about the new information that was the result of mutations in the fruit fly,why ?

I've answered 'why' several times now. I provided the exact information you requested in our own species instead of the fruit fly, because species doesn't matter. I did this because uneducated people such as yourself tend to hand waive changes in flies they don't understand. It's much harder to do the same for noticeable undeniable changes in people. If you can provide a single reason why the exact same findings would be more valuable in fruit flies than humans, I'd be happy to go dig up a de novo mutation for you. But I've asked you that several times now, and you are still unable to provide an answer.

On second thought, just to stop your distracting and otherwise illogical whining, here's a few de novo or novel mutations found in fruit flies I found on quick pubmed search:
Molecular Nature of 11 Spontaneous de Novo Mutations in Drosophila melanogaster -- Yang et al. 157 (3): 1285 -- Genetics
PLoS Genetics: Evidence that Adaptation in Drosophila Is Not Limited by Mutation at Single Sites
The history of the Drosophila TRP channel: the bir... [J Neurogenet. 2010] - PubMed result
The novel Drosophila tim(blind) mutation affects b... [Genetics. 2005] - PubMed result
A novel subfamily of mitochondrial dicarboxylate c... [Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010] - PubMed result
Regulation of mitochondrial single-stranded DNA-bi... [J Biol Chem. 2000] - PubMed result
Targeted gain-of-function screening in Drosophila ... [Genet Res. 2009] - PubMed result

Let me know if you want me to continue using the basic services of free search engines, since you seem to have trouble with it.

The remainder of your post is more whining, without actually trying to explain any of the reproducible verifiable factual evidence presented to you, let alone answer any of my questions. As a reference, here is a list of questions you are still avoiding:

• How do you explain vestigiality?
• How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
• How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has pieces that otherwise belong on the end in the middle? Try using your own words.
• How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres? Your article doesn't even try to refute that one.
• How do you explain de novo mutation?
• How do you explain silent mutations?
• How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
• Which species have a different genetic code than humans? You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1.
• Have you figured out what evolution is yet?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Don't you get it ! in the video you posted the guy admitted they had to come up with an explanation for the extra chromosome and thats what they did nevermind if it was fact or not and your side is running with it like the explanation is fact .But that is typical of your side ,only to be proven wrong later and then they reach into their imagination ONCE AGAIN TO KEEP THE THEORY ALIVE.

Yes, that's how logic works. You produce the best conclusion given the evidence. That's how every doctor, scientist, and police officer in the country operates. If you disagree with the conclusion based on that evidence, all you need to do is provide an alternate conclusion from that evidence.

But you haven't. And you can't. Because nothing else makes sense, given that evidence. For your pre-conceived ideas to make sense, you in fact have to IGNORE the factual reproducible evidence, and pretend it doesn't exist.

If you are still having a problem seeing the difference between chimps and humans just put a picture of one of your loved ones next to a chimp,get real.

If the only thing you are using as the basis of your understanding of this world is your eyes, you're a moron. We have stockpiles of technology to help us examine the natural world today, from microscopes that enhance your eyes to see things it previously couldn't see, to complex electronics that give us information at the anatomic structure. If all you can do is hold two pictures of things up to each other and use that as the basis of your comparison, you're a complete moron. By your reasoning, an ice cube and a glass of water are made of completely different things because they look different if you put them next to each other. "Get real."