Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AF Dave Has More Questions About Apes

Pages: (23) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,04:49    It's not even necessarily true on that 'one little piece of DNA'. Whats the sequence similarity for the GLOs? We just know in this discussion that two are broken. It's absolutely idiotic to use this single fact to infer things about common descent. There are several different ways they could be broken, and it's almost certain that there's more sequence similarity between the human and primate GLOs. Going by nothing more than which two are broken is painfully stupid. It's like saying that this Porsche 944 with a broken windshield is closer to this Dodge Dart with a broken windshield, than to this Porsche 928, because the 928's windshield is intact.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,05:03    Quote (argystokes @ May 12 2006,21:36) I'm willing to look up the information for you (assuming you don't know how to do a BLAST search) if you're willing to concede that scenario (2) does not logically fit with a special creation model. So how's about it, Dave?  Shall we do some science? Also, argystokes, at the risk of making dave's assumptions more complicated than they already are... ...We won't be looking for just one "pseudo-GLO" gene. We must look for many genes, some only slightly different, some a lot more, each (apparently) responsible for different, not identified functions, whose only common characteristic is, well, this uncanny resemblance with a GLO gene that's broken in some way. Not that this changes anything in your proposed search; It's just that, when we examine animals that have a functioning GLO gene (and there are a LOT), we'd have to explain why they also 'happen' to lack all those 'other' genes... according to dave's "theory", at least. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,05:07    Looks like Arrogant Fundy Dave has given up all pretense of wanting to cure his ignorance and has decided to kick his “lying for Jesus” machine into high gear.  AFDave starts our Saturday with his latest bunch of "Gish gallop" whoppers:       Quote BIG, BIG difference.  Think about it.  We need to be very careful in our quotes and our logic.  I believe these types of assumptions, rushes to judgment, and lack of sound logic are precisely why Darwinists are painting themselves into a corner which will ultimately be an embarrassment to them.   We have already seen the embarrasment to Darwinists of their failed predictions in the fossil record.  Darwinists predicted continuous transitional forms in the fossil record.  Creationists predicted ubiquitous gaps.  Creationists were correct. Lie #1.  Scientific predictions about fossil finds have been supporting ToE for over 150 years, the latest example being Tiktaalik.  YEC makes NO predictions about the fossil record whatsoever; it just tries to hand wave away the positive evidence for ToE that IS found.  This was explained in detail with examples to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying. Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?       Quote Darwinists predicted true "vertical evolution" (or macro-evolution), but leading evolutionary scientists have now admitted that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history. Lie#2.  The old “there is only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution” creato standard canard..  No “leading evolutionary scientists” ANYWHERE have said that macro-evolution hasn’t happened.  This was explained in detail with real world examples of speciation to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying. Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?       Quote Creationists predicted that any "evolution" would be lateral or downward and this has been confirmed.  Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection, but Darwinists try to use this as evidence for their failed predictions of true vertical evolution, when in fact it is better evidence for "designed adaptability" put in the originl created "kinds" by the Creator.   Lie #3.  In biology there is no such thing as “upward” or “downward” evolution.  There is evolution, period.  There is also no recognized scientific definition of "kind'.  These are terms invented of the Cretos to confuse ignorant laymen like Dave.  This was explained in detail to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying. Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?       Quote Since all this and many other things outlined by Denton and others have been embarrassing and unanswerable by Darwininsts, they are now repeating the same logical mistakes at the molecular level.  I predict the results will be the same.  And if that were not enough, they are calling Creationists and ID people stupid for questioning their theories!! Lie #4.  Everyone has the right to question existing scientific theories, and critical peer-review is an ongoing part of the scientific method.  We call Creationists and IDiots stupid because they don’t understand the sciences involved enough to ask logical pertinent questions. Changes to scientific theories happen all the time as new evidence becomes available.  However, refinements and updates to ToE DO NOT mean that the whole theory is wrong, and DO NOT provide any positive evidence for YEC. This has been explained ad nauseum to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying. Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness? My prediction:  Missionary Dave will continue to ignore all attempts to correct his blatant scientific ignorance, and will continue to arrogantly preach to those who know the subject way better that him.  Anyone wanna bet? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,05:10    Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,08:59) Notice carefully what you just did ... I said this ..."IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator" and you quoted me as saying this ... "There couldn't possibly be a God, heaven, he##,and common descent? BIG, BIG difference.  Think about it. YOU'RE the one who said it, not me! YOU claimed that IF CD is true, then there is no need for a Creater, AND then there is no heaven, no ####, no afterlife, etc. I quoted your exact words, only snipping out some intermediate sentences that didn't change your meaning at all. Here, I'll quote the entire passage this time:   Quote (afdave @ May 12 2006,11:58) The bottom line, of course, is ... IF Common Descent is true, then there is no need for a Creator.  Humans are free to believe in one, or pretend there is one, or whatever.  None of the 'God talk' really matters much and those who don't care to participate in 'God think' are free to leave 'Him' completely out of their thoughts and discussions.  There is no afterlife, no heaven, no ####, no judgment for actions in this life, and the best we can do is live in harmony with our fellow man and have a good time until we die.  And when we die, that's the end of the story. That is a clear claim on your part that IF commond descent is true, THEN there is no afterlife, no heaven, and so on. Which is clearly a logical non sequitur. Yet you seem to think it's true "of course." If that's not what you really mean, then I suggest you retract it. You might also try to express yourself more clearly in the future. And, you might stop chastising others for 'faulty' logic when you clearly are much more deficient in that area yourself.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,05:22    Quote So I think the following possibilities exist ... (1) Pseudo-GLO is NOT "broken GLO" and is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies).  This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon. Not our scenario, though. GLO gene is a unitary one. Scurvy, remember? Next...   Quote (2) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because the gene "broke" in the ape-like ancestor, then this "broken gene" was copied throughout the evolutionary path to humans.  If this is true, however, you would still need to explain how the gene broke independently in the guinea pig ancestor, but wound up in modern guinea pigs looking "36% similar" to modern human pseudo-GLO.  You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO) The gene is a basic one for survival of all life: It's needed for animals of all kinds, and has developed very early in the course of life on the planet. Under that perspective, 36% is too little a resemblance. Especially when compared to the minimal differences between primates. As for being closer to guinea pigs than pro-simians... what part of "broke independently" (which you yourself wrote) didn't you get? Please, please read the links we provided before trying to make stuff up. <edit: Oh, I see that you're not: You're just parroting AiG- they try to make stuff up.>   Quote (3) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because all animals were designed with a functional gene, but now some have independently lost function because of mutations. Well, well... 3 sounds about right, if you replace the ridiculous "designed" with the more accurate "evolved"...   ...And, since there is no more evolutionary pressure in an already broken gene, and it continues to accumulate mutations over time, what do the minimal differences of the broken genes between humans and primates tell us? Take the test I linked you to, and I'll let you figure that out yourself. Any more questions? -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,05:49    Dave, could you give me a reference that says the guinea pig pseudogene appears to be more closely related to the human pseudogene than the other simians, thanks.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,06:28    Chris Hyland wrote: Quote Dave, could you give me a reference that says the guinea pig pseudogene appears to be more closely related to the human pseudogene than the other simians, thanks. Yes. That's what I've been trying to get out of him for a couple of days now. I proposed an "experiment", above, based on this. In his latest volley, AFdave mentions an article by Inai et al. in connection with this 36% number. I paste the abstract, below, but my library is apparently less encyclopedic than AFdave's as I don't have access to the full article. (I assume AFdave must be basing his extraordinary claims on the article, not on the abstract - which doesn't support them - or on AiG reinterpretations, since surely he's learned by now how foolish that would be.) Quote J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2003 Oct;49(5):315-9. The whole structure of the human nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene--the gene responsible for scurvy--and the evolution of repetitive sequences thereon. Inai Y, Ohta Y, Nishikimi M. Department of Biochemistry, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1 Kimiidera, Wakayama 641-0012, Japan. L-Gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GULO), which catalyzes the last step of ascorbic acid biosynthesis, is missing in humans. The whole structure of the human gene homologue for this enzyme was disclosed by a computer-assisted search. Only five exons, as compared to 12 exons constituting the functional rat GULO gene, remain in the human genome. A comparison of these exons with those of their functional counterparts in rat showed that there are two single nucleotide deletions, one triple nucleotide deletion, and one single nucleotide insertion in the human sequence. When compared in terms of codons, the human sequence has a deletion of a single amino acid, two stop codons, and two aberrant codons missing one nucleotide besides many amino acid substitutions. A comparison of the remaining human exon sequences with the corresponding sequences of the guinea pig nonfunctional GULO gene revealed that the same substitutions from rats to both species occurred at a large number of nucleotide positions. From analyses of the molecular evolution of Alu sequences in the human GULO gene homologue, it is thought that two Alu sequences were inserted in the vicinity of a presumed position of lost exon 11 during the same period as GULO lost its function. It is predicted that six LINE-1 sequences located in and near the gene homologue were inserted not during that period. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,06:44    I dunno... I think that, if Dave had even bothered to look at the links we provided for him form the start of this thread, he'd seen that the major deletions in the broken guinea pig gene occur in different locations than in the human one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....=240400 And he could have compared it with the differences in the broken genes of primates, seen here: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/psb.st.pdf And reach to an intelligent conclusion. ...That is, if he had bothered. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,06:59    Yes. But where is that 36% number coming from? Does dave, in fact, have the whole article? Or is he taking someone else's word for it? And Dave, if you haven't checked out Faid's links, please do. Especially that second one. It's a sort of tutorial that addresses a lot of the issues we've been talking about. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:18    Quote After all, it could be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us with his noodly appendage. Quote I admit this is a logical possibility.  I challenge you to find evidence which supports it. Well, this devout pastafarian admits he's stumped. I just have to accept His Noodly Appendage on faith. Now, I challenge you to admit that the christian SkyDaddy case is in exactly the same position. Quote Have I not demonstrated humility by "eating crow" graciously about the chimp chromosome issue? Not really. Obviously you had to admit the fact that AiG was flat wrong about that. It's not like you had much of a choice there. But you failed to concede the obvious conclusion: that common descent is pretty much inescapable. No, the occasion called for a serious crow banquet; you barely sniffed at it. Quote I think what you perceive as smugness here is in reality a little bit of satire and poking fun at a theory. Oh, I see. It's another example of the "Cordova Cockstrut", an ostentatiously disdainful display of false confidence in lieu of any actual supporting evidence.   Quote I am trying very hard to use innovative tools to jar people's thinking.  I think Darwinists are so steeped in logical fallacies that it takes something rather jarring to make them wake up and see the errors. Motes and beams, dave. Motes and beams. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:24    Quote Does dave, in fact, have the whole article? I think he read an AiG article and it looks like they have read the full article. The AiG article however does not discuss the similarity between the human gene and the primate genes.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:26    Quote Is it not just as plausible that both ape and human GLO "broke" independently?   So I think the following possibilities exist ... (1) Pseudo-GLO is NOT "broken GLO" and is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies).  This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon. You’ll have to explain why the species that carry a pseudo-GLO gene are the ones that can’t synthesize vitamin C. Coincidence?   Quote (2) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because the gene "broke" in the ape-like ancestor, then this "broken gene" was copied throughout the evolutionary path to humans.  If this is true, however, you would still need to explain how the gene broke independently in the guinea pig ancestor, but wound up in modern guinea pigs looking "36% similar" to modern human pseudo-GLO.  You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO) The 36% similarity is in fact a powerful evidence for common descent, given that the absolute minimal level of similarity is 25 %. 36 % is extremely low, and proves that this pseudogene is not subject to stabilizing selection. What is the similarity between human and other apes, out of curiosity?   Quote (3) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because all animals were designed with a functional gene, but now some have independently lost function because of mutations. Hundreds of primate species losing a gene function independently with the same mutations? Do you know the concept of parsimony?   Quote We have already seen the embarrasment to Darwinists of their failed predictions in the fossil record.  Darwinists predicted continuous transitional forms in the fossil record.  Creationists predicted ubiquitous gaps.   Wrong, YECs predicted no fossils at all. The fact that they don’t know anything about fossilization and sedimentation make them completely incompetent on the subject.   Quote Darwinists predicted true "vertical evolution" (or macro-evolution), but leading evolutionary scientists have now admitted that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history. Creationists predicted that any "evolution" would be lateral or downward and this has been confirmed.   Could you point a research paper supporting this claim? And what is ‘vertical evolution’?   Quote Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection, but Darwinists try to use this as evidence for their failed predictions of true vertical evolution, Speciation have been observed in the lab (and in the wild) many times.   Quote     Quote After all, it could be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us with his noodly appendage. I admit this is a logical possibility.  I challenge you to find evidence which supports it. A flying spaghetti monster would allow us to eat spaghetti. The prediction is confirmed.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:27    Quote (Russell @ May 13 2006,11:59) Yes. But where is that 36% number coming from? Does dave, in fact, have the whole article? Or is he taking someone else's word for it? What do you think?   -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:40    They use the term 'lesions' instead of 'nucleotids', which is misleading since most of the homologies are not due to convergent mutations (lesions), but common ancestry. Anyway, I fail to get their logic. Even if  '36% of identical lesions' were the correct expression, their tree clearly supports common descent : human and other apes belong to a clade where similarities between taxa are far higher than 36%. EDIT : I didn't notice the question marks after the apes names. But I'm pretty sure that the tree built with GLO will look the like this.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,07:56    Quote Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection Again the old 'dog breeders can only make dogs', you forgot that natural selection also needs variation to act on. This comes with large populations and a lot of time.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,09:25    Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,08:59) Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection.... This is another example of illogic. Creationism predicts that we could see radically new species appear every day of the week. Any time God feels like it, he could create a 'dat' (except Sunday, I guess). Evolution predicts we can only expect to see 'small' speciation events occur in our lifetimes. 'Large' changes should take hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,09:38    So, I read the AiG site, and I must say it's just precious. I realized this: The magic "36%" comes from the 47 point substitutions (of 126 overall) that the human gene shares with the guinea pigs. That's right, just the substitutions. Suprised? I'm not. Now, they seem to be aware of the concept of point mutation hotspots, but they try to work around it (?) with this piece of blabber:     Quote It has long been known that mutations are quite non-random in occurrence, but the variety and complexity of mutational hotspots has seldom been appreciated. Rogozin et al.36 have recently summarized our current knowledge of experimentally induced mutations. Many nucleotide motifs other than the earlier-discussed CG doublet can serve as mutational hotspots. It is now known that the sequence content tens of bases away from a given motif can influence the degree of its hotspot behaviour. Moreover, the propensity of nucleotide motifs to be mutational hotspots varies from gene to gene and from one region of the genome to another. Moreover, the foregoing considerations do not even touch the higher-level features of gene or chromatin structure as causes of mutational hotspot behaviour.37 The large relative number of parallel mutations in the guinea pig and primate GULO pseudogenes cannot be said to be unprecedented. Experimental evidence has already demonstrated that nucleotide substitutions (as well as indels, for that matter) can, unexpectedly, occur in a very strongly concerted manner.38 Can anyone make sense of it? How does all this argue against hotspots in a given gene? It seems like they're copy/pasting various phrases from different sources, trying to look like they're actually arguing about something. Or, if they seriously think the hotspot concept works for them, how do they explain the much larger simillarity of the broken gene among primates? Oh that's right, they don't. But maybe I'm wrong, I dunno... The main issue is this: They don't say anything about deletions. At all. For AiG, entire deletions corresponding to exons might as well not exist. And that's in spite of the fact they receive prime mention in their source. They mention something about the exons remaining in humans, but not in relation to guinea pigs, and they forget about it afterwards. Gee, I wonder why: Quote Since deletions are not likely to occur independently at the same site and are highly unlikely to be “undone” by later mutations, finding the same deletion in two different individuals or two different species is highly suggestive ofcommon ancestry. (This is in agreement with what is observed in “tracing”certain deletion mutations in human pedigrees.) Hey Dave, guess who's been lying to you again? -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,10:01    Quote THINGS THAT ARE NOT AF DAVE'S GOALS (1)  Get a biology degree (2)  Become a genetic engineer (3)  Get an advanced science degree (4)  Become a biochemical researcher (5)  Pretend I know more about biology than you (6)  Become a geologist (7)  Become an astrophysicist OK?  ... again, I appreciate all the admonitions to get this or that degree or go buy this or that book ... but it's not necessary ... there are plenty of competent researchers like Mr. Nishikimi out there who give me the data I need, and of course I do have YOU ALL to keep me straight. And I should point out that you guys do a great job of knowing biology and the workings of DNA and transcription and chromosomes and all these wonderful details. Those 1st several things do not have to be goals. But you have to have the BASIC knowlege before the ADVANCED knowlege is any use to you. It isn't the advanced stuff that proves evolution or plate techtonics or expanding universe. It's the BASIC stuff. The advanced stuff is simply layers and facets to the picture. Argue genes all day long buddy. It doesn't make the fossil record any less relevant. Argue the fossil record all day long, it doesn't make it's relationship with geology any less relevant. Argue any detail in any specialty field of science and you aren't saying a danm thing about the big picture which shows conclusively and overwhelmingly that, not only is evolution the way speciation DID, DOES, and WILL occur, but that ALL provincial interpretations of religion are mere projection. Not to say that god isn't there. Merely to say that no one has any privilaged info on it. And that is why your argument keeps going round and round. Because you have to jump to different disciplines to defend your ignorant ideas. As soon as you get on unsure footing in one discipline, a scientist can look at data from another to check a hypothosis. You, in attempting to engage in scientific discussion, are having to do it too. Unfortunately, there isn't a safe haven for you since your provincial view of god has forced you to take positions that are exactly what science DOESN'T find. So you go to science and are shocked that scientists, who are busy discovering more and more detail about how things DO work, don't take you seriously when you spout off ignorant and false "facts" that are easily disprovable with a inter-disciplined first year science curriculum. You are effectively telling nuclear physicists that they are wrong and basing your idea on the fact that a lever reduces the amount of force available. We can't really speak to your questions because you are too totally lacking in BASIC understanding. You are wrong, ignorant, and your hubris is a projection of fear that you need it to be a certain way so you can't even see that you are wrong. Unlike T-diddy, you don't appear to be an idiot, but you are wrong. It is to big of a task to explain why. You never answered my questions earlier because you can't. And they are VERY basic questions but the info you need to be able to answer them is critical to understanding almost anything else, especially in the kind of biology that you need to know to understand evolution. Genetics-you can't even DO genetics without understanding evolution. You can't argue genetics without understanding how niches, ecosystems, selective pressures and etc. affect organisms. And you cand understand  niches, ecosystems, selective pressures and etc without understanding a bit of earth science. So, I'm sorry but you are simply too ignorant to be educated in this blog. Go read geology 101, oceanography 101, astonomy 101, biology 101, and maybe chemistry 101. Any combination of two or three of these would probably do the trick but you just can't join the debate without these. Does anybody disagree? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,10:33    I think someone can join in the debate without learning a lot of science, the problem comes when you think you know more than the experts. A little knowledge of course comes in handy if you want to understand the reasons why you are wrong.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,11:58    I just performed a quick BLAST of GULO (exon 10), and the homology between human and chimp is 97%.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,12:00    Quote Does dave, in fact, have the whole article?   Quote I think he read an AiG article and it looks like they have read the full article Oh, no. Here we go again. How many cycles of debunking AiG will we have to go through before AFDave comes to be just a wee bit suspicious of their reliability? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,14:12    BWE, I completely agree.  I've been pining to state as much for well over a week now, but lack the authority to do so eloquently.  I'd have resorted to much more porochial, sophomoric rhetoric that could be easily ignored. . . .

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,15:27    Quote I just performed a quick BLAST of GULO (exon 10), and the homology between human and chimp is 97%. No surprises there, right? So you want the original article? ... I can probably have it on Monday or Tuesday ... Are you saying you will agree with me if I give it to you? (Just kidding! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,15:39    Agree with what, Dave? that 36% of the point mutations in the two broken genes are the same? Sure, we agree. Now, will you read our answers, and the links we gave you? -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,15:58    Quote It's not even necessarily true on that 'one little piece of DNA'. Whats the sequence similarity for the GLOs? We just know in this discussion that two are broken. It's absolutely idiotic to use this single fact to infer things about common descent. Steve!  My buddy!  You and I agree on something ... I KNEW it would happen sooner or later. That's what I've been trying to say ... Dr. Max's article on T.O. uses this as evidence of common descent for apes and humans.  My point has been all along that this assertion is not warranted with just this little bit of knowledge that we have. But I'm also not saying it proves Common Design.  It obviously doesn't, but it at least argues that either one is a possibility. Again, the whole thing started with Renier saying "Look ... Dr. Max has proven common descent with this Vitamin C thing" which I think he has not. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,16:33    Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,21:58) Quote It's not even necessarily true on that 'one little piece of DNA'. Whats the sequence similarity for the GLOs? We just know in this discussion that two are broken. It's absolutely idiotic to use this single fact to infer things about common descent. Steve!  My buddy!  You and I agree on something ... I KNEW it would happen sooner or later. That's what I've been trying to say ... Dr. Max's article on T.O. uses this as evidence of common descent for apes and humans.  My point has been all along that this assertion is not warranted with just this little bit of knowledge that we have. afdave, that's just retarded! And you're quote mining. steve is talking about that so called 36% similarity being poor evidence of our relatedness to rats. That might be a good number for a presidential approval rating now-a-days, but it's got nothing on our well documented overall DNA similarity to chimpanzees, not to mention the obviously plaigerized vitamin C error which is incredibly strong evidence of common descent.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,16:37    Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,20:58) That's what I've been trying to say ... Dr. Max's article on T.O. uses this as evidence of common descent for apes and humans.  My point has been all along that this assertion is not warranted with just this little bit of knowledge that we have. *sigh* Dave, for the love of the Designer Who Must Not Be Named, read the links. See for yourself this "little knowledge" science has on the subject. See who's withholding the truth from you. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,16:56    Quote afdave, that's just retarded! And you're quote mining. steve is talking about that so called 36% similarity being poor evidence of our relatedness to rats. Aw come on ... you mean Steve isn't agreeing with me here?  Bummer ... Oh well ... gotta keep trying!  Gonna happen sooner or later ... I AM interested in hearing the outcome of the big Saturday night event ... "Max vs. Woodmorappe" Faid?  Any more analysis from your corner? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,17:36    Hmm... Dunno about Max, but I can analyse Woodmorappe's "feasibility of the Ark" crap, if you like... Why do you ask? Got anything to share? -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

tacitus Posts: 118 Joined: May 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 13 2006,18:29    You guys still going at it?  Wow, you have some stamina! Anyway, since AIG is being quote and mentioned again on this thread, now might be a good time to quote something from their own "About" page: Quote Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. There it is.  They don't do science, they do apologetics.  They don't do any scientific research for themselves--the best you can say is that they are armchair critics. Maybe if afDave started quoting directly from sources doing the science instead of parroting an apologetics organization we would begin to talk him more seriously.

Pages: (23) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard