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) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:26    And now, while you all are busy refuting me on this thread, I will hop back over to the "Creator God Hypothesis" thread and dive in again ... It appears that no one accepts the evidence for a Creator I have given so far, so we will explore that some and find out why ... See you there ... :-) -------------- 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

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:36    Also check the "AF Dave wants you to prove Evolution to him" thread ... I will be posting some questions there directly out of a children's book about evolution ... It's called (ingeniously) "Evolution" and it is from the DK Eyewitness series.  It is pretty recent (2000). That should be fun as well !! -------------- 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

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,04:57    I haven't read any of those vitamin c articles you mentioned, but I think  your missing the point. The pseudogene may have function but is no longer a gene which produces a protein involved vitamin C synthesis. It is good evidence for common descent whether or not the pseudogene has function. Am I missing something there?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:00    Quote (Russell @ May 09 2006,17:36) Quote Do gorillas have the broken Vitamin C gene? I thought it was only humans and chimps. Apparently it's all primates. The broken gene is thought to be inherited from an ancestor common to all the primates about 40 million years ago. So you've got all these primates with a broken gene. And, once it was broken, of course, there's no selection that prevents it from accumulating more mutations. And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that? (Actually, I don't know how much of the relevant data is already in; I certainly can't cite the relevant research. So you can regard it both as a sketchy summary of the sketchy data that's already in and a prediction of data yet to be produced. What predictions does the "common designer hypothesis" make about it?) All well and good, but here's what's confusing me. I think it's obvious that the Designer broke our Vitamin C gene as punishment for the Garden of Eden, eating apples, all that. We've established that scientifically. But this whole 'collateral damage' thing of chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans also getting their Vitamin C taken away baffles me. Why should our Designer punish a bunch of apes like that, and not other animals, like, say, badgers, skunks, Komodo dragons, and kangaroos? Is this some indication that back in the Garden the apes were also disobeying their Lord? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:07    Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,09:21) With the plagiarism case, we are talking about printed words in a well-known language.  In the GLO gene case, we are talking about genetic "words" in a poorly-understood language.  I hope I don't have to cite the recent literature to prove to you how poorly we understand the genetic language. That's a half truth. It's true that we don't know enough yet to write sophisticated creatures using the DNA language. In fact we're still struggling with finding the simplest cell. Looking for the "minimal cell": http://microbialcellproject.org/complete.shtml http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr2000/Hutchison.htm http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050325-1.htm http://www.physorg.com/news8460.html However, it somehow seems to have escaped your notice that large parts of this DNA language are well understood and that there was enough detail in the Dr. Max article to make good comparisons. Your question is even addressed in his article: Quote Imagine a defendant at a murder trial defending himself--against overwhelming incriminating evidence--with the parallel argument: that since some convicted criminals have later been exonerated, he (the current defendant) should therefore be acquitted now, because someday in the future, evidence might be found to clear him! This defense would be as ridiculous as Dr. Gish's argument is.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:54    Quote I haven't read any of those vitamin c articles you mentioned, but I think  your missing the point. The pseudogene may have function but is no longer a gene which produces a protein involved vitamin C synthesis. It is good evidence for common descent whether or not the pseudogene has function. Am I missing something there? My point is that your statement and Dr. Max's statement assumes that somewhere back in time, the GLO gene functioned to produce vitamin C, but now no longer does.  I am just saying that I think this assumes too much, namely that we know what the gene used to be like.  We do not know this.  All we really know is that ... (a) it is somewhat similar to the functional rat GLO gene (149 out of 647 substitutions when comparing humans to rats, 96 out of 647 substitutions when comparing guinea pigs to rats), and (b) that humans cannot synthesize their own Vitamin C. (we are presuming that this is because the GLO gene is "broken", and we are assuming that other primates GLO genes are almost identical to ours) (a safe bet probably, but it has not been determined yet) What reason do we have to assume that the modern GLO gene in humans ever was used for Vitamin C production?  As I said, we really don't know the language that well yet ... my understanding is that we have just scratched the surface ... it is entirely reasonable to me that the supposed "broken GLO gene" has always had a function which has nothing to do with Vitamin C production.  In any case, we cannot determine that it is broken until we know the language better, just as you could not determine the error in my text examples. Quote However, it somehow seems to have escaped your notice that large parts of this DNA language are well understood and that there was enough detail in the Dr. Max article to make good comparisons. Your question is even addressed in his article: Quote   Imagine a defendant at a murder trial defending himself--against overwhelming incriminating evidence--with the parallel argument: that since some convicted criminals have later been exonerated, he (the current defendant) should therefore be acquitted now, because someday in the future, evidence might be found to clear him! This defense would be as ridiculous as Dr. Gish's argument is. No.  I read that part.  I am in no way defending Gish's argument. I am making my own and it is entirely different.  The paragraph above is talking about letting the guy off because of future evidence we may have in the future. My argument recognizes that we don't have evidence RIGHT NOW to convict the guy.  To make the analogy correct, imagine that the judge and jury only spoke French and there was no interpreter.  Now they could not convict him on evidence which was written in English because they could not even determine what an error is. This is situation we have in genetics today. -------------- 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

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:55    No reason to belabor the point: normdoering made it very well. It's the ultimate answer to any hopeless argument: "Sure, it looks like an open and shut case now, but sometime in the future we may learn something totally unexpected that changes everything!"  That's kind of a science stopper, isn't it? Why bother trying to understand anything, knowing that some future information might change our conclusions? Here's a ground rule we'll just have to accept in order not to render all discussions ridiculous: explain observations based on currently known data, or admit that you really can't explain it.  For instance, given the data on the broken vitamin C gene, it could be explained by (A) common inheritance of a mutation that occurred in a common ancestor, or (B) it could be explained by an as yet unknown explanation. Quote Now, here is something else ... How do you explain the similarity of the GLO gene "defects" of humans and guinea pigs? (you knew I was going to go here, didn't you)  Apparently, something like 36% of the substitutions are the same when compared to the functional rat GLO gene.  If we assume that there is some pro-simian ancestor that has a functional GLO gene, then it would appear that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to this pro-simian ancestor.  This would seem to defy the evolutionary scenario.  How do you explain this? Now, this may prove interesting. We can think of it as an experiment. (I'm not familiar with the data you're talking about, so I'm going to assume it's in the Max article - if not, please clarify.) Now I would predict, based on evolution, that the errors would be essentially random, and that we should not see a statistically improbable coincidence in guinea pig and primate errors. I gather you're saying that we do, which I guess you contend challenges evolution. In fact, if the errors are sufficiently similar, it might be construed as consistent with the "common designer hypothesis". (I.e. The Designer says to Himself, "for reasons known only to me, I see the need to give guinea pigs, humans, and all the monkeys and apes a broken vitamin C gene. No need to reinvent the wheel, I'll just give them the same broken gene!"). I predict that a careful examination of the data will prove you wrong. Further, I predict that you won't admit it. Quote And here's one I like from Dr. Max that confirms what us YECers so often say about mutations ... Wow! You guys are way ahead of us! Do you also stake out such bold claims as "water is wet"? Actually, believe it or not, geneticists have always known that mutations are more likely to be detrimental than beneficial. But unless you can quantify the odds in some meaningful way, relative to the "statistical resources" (i.e. the number of "trials" available), it's completely useless. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:59    Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,09:21) Now I have read both articles in their entirety, but before Dr. Max even gets into the details of gene "mistakes", there is one very large item jumps out at me. The analogy seems very clever, but there is a huge assumption that is made which I consider to be invalid and to me this destroys the whole analogy. Nope. You're completely missing the point of the analogy, Dave. Suppose you've got two samples of text in a language you don't understand. Finnish, say. Both samples are about the same length, say, 20 pages, and have a similar number of paragraphs, sentences, etc. They look like they're probably different versions of the same story. You don't understand the language at all, but you see a lot of the same words, in roughly the same places in various paragraphs. Is one a copy of the other? At this point, you don't know. They could be different versions of the same story, say two newspaper articles about the same event. Then, you notice a paragraph of about 400 characters that's identical in both samples. It's not in the same place in both texts, but it is absolutely identical down to the individual character. You even note that at the end of the fifth sentence, there's an extra period. You have no idea what any of the text means, but is there any doubt, at this point, that one sample was in fact at least partially copied from the other? Is there any possible doubt that both articles share a common provenance? You don't need to know anything whatsoever about the language to make this determination, Dave. And it is far from true that biologists know nothing at all about the genetic code. In fact, they may not know what all the "paragraphs" (i.e., genes) in the genetic code mean, but they sure know what the "words" (i.e., codons) mean. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:13    Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21) Now ... which of these is more conducive to a Holocaust?  You tell me.  I'm not discounting other factors.  It's true that Hitler was influenced by Catholicism, the Occult, and other factors as well.  So my point is ... Well, since the single greatest contributing factor to the Holocaust is over a thousand years of Christians hating Jews, Christianity is the obvious answer. It seems you are disregarding the facts in favor of a pet theory.  Here's a hint: if your pet theory is in conflict with known facts, then it's probably your theory that's wrong - not the facts. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:19    Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,10:54) My argument recognizes that we don't have evidence RIGHT NOW to convict the guy.  To make the analogy correct, imagine that the judge and jury only spoke French and there was no interpreter.  Now they could not convict him on evidence which was written in English because they could not even determine what an error is. This is situation we have in genetics today. Your analogy doesn't work. Your example is too unknown and there are only two versions. We have hundreds of versions and we know a lot about Vitamin C and the genes involved. It's also a clear prediction of evolution -- we should find vestigial DNA. Humans don't have the capability to synthesize Vitamin C, we can get scurvy. Our predicted ancestors had this function (as do all animals except primates and guinea pigs).  Therefore, we predicted this, not assume it, as you claim. humans, primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character. We looked for it and found it. We found a lot of details to support that conclusion. What does your theory look for? What has your theory found? What does your theory predict about the details we will find in  DNA. You have nothing.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:20    Quote Then, you notice a paragraph of about 400 characters that's identical in both samples. It's not in the same place in both texts, but it is absolutely identical down to the individual character. You even note that at the end of the fifth sentence, there's an extra period. You have no idea what any of the text means, but is there any doubt, at this point, that one sample was in fact at least partially copied from the other? Is there any possible doubt that both articles share a common provenance? You don't need to know anything whatsoever about the language to make this determination, Dave. And it is far from true that biologists know nothing at all about the genetic code. In fact, they may not know what all the "paragraphs" (i.e., genes) in the genetic code mean, but they sure know what the "words" (i.e., codons) mean. Are you saying that this is what has been found?  I did not understand that from the findings of the authors below ... My knowledge of this Quote All we really know is that ... (a) it is somewhat similar to the functional rat GLO gene (149 out of 647 substitutions when comparing humans to rats, 96 out of 647 substitutions when comparing guinea pigs to rats), comes from this Quote Inai, Y., Ohta, Y. and Nishikimi, M., The whole structure of the human non-functional L-gulono-ã-lactone oxidase gene—the gene responsible for scurvy—and the evolution of repetitive sequences thereon, J. Nutritional Science and Vitaminology (Tokyo) 49(5):315–319, 2003. Apparently we do not have a situation of identical sequences if I am reading this correctly.  Or maybe there is another study that I could not find which states that the human and ape GLO genes ARE identical? -------------- 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

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:22    Quote (improvius @ May 11 2006,11:13) Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21) Now ... which of these is more conducive to a Holocaust?  You tell me.  I'm not discounting other factors.  It's true that Hitler was influenced by Catholicism, the Occult, and other factors as well.  So my point is ... Well, since the single greatest contributing factor to the Holocaust is over a thousand years of Christians hating Jews, Christianity is the obvious answer. It seems you are disregarding the facts in favor of a pet theory.  Here's a hint: if your pet theory is in conflict with known facts, then it's probably your theory that's wrong - not the facts. I've linked to this before, but this should clarify a lot, as well as disposing of the idea that the Holocaust was all some Catholic conspiracy and had nothing to do with Protestants: http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm#anchor3 -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:35    Again ... IF we find the GLO gene sequences identical (or very close) in apes (I think we only have rat, human and GP currently), why does this prove common descent of apes and humans?  We do not KNOW that the human (and presumable ape) manifestation is in fact an "error" because we don't know the genetic language well enough yet.  All we know is that BOTH apes and humans cannot synthesize Vitamin C.  It is and ASSUMPTION to say that "see it's because their GLO gene is broken."  How can you say that?  Maybe that's was never intended to BE a GLO gene in the first place.  You don't know because you don't know the language well enough yet. My bet is that when we DO learn the language well enough, we will see it has a purpose far different that Vitamin C production. Here's another analogy ... Do you think that "The dog is barking" and "The dog is barfing" means that the second sentence is somehow "broken"??  Of course not.  They are both valid sentences but they mean ENTIRELY different things. Also, in our language, the same words can mean two different things in different contexts, i.e. "bark" (dog) and "bark" (on a tree). I really think Dr. Max is making a bad analogy and assuming too many things. -------------- 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

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:46    Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,09:35) Again ... IF we find the GLO gene sequences identical (or very close) in apes (I think we only have rat, human and GP currently), why does this prove common descent of apes and humans?  We do not KNOW that the human (and presumable ape) manifestation is in fact an "error" because we don't know the genetic language well enough yet.  All we know is that BOTH apes and humans cannot synthesize Vitamin C.  It is and ASSUMPTION to say that "see it's because their GLO gene is broken."  How can you say that?  Maybe that's was never intended to BE a GLO gene in the first place.  You don't know because you don't know the language well enough yet. My bet is that when we DO learn the language well enough, we will see it has a purpose far different that Vitamin C production. Here's another analogy ... Do you think that "The dog is barking" and "The dog is barfing" means that the second sentence is somehow "broken"??  Of course not.  They are both valid sentences but they mean ENTIRELY different things. Also, in our language, the same words can mean two different things in different contexts, i.e. "bark" (dog) and "bark" (on a tree). I really think Dr. Max is making a bad analogy and assuming too many things. AFdave: Can you tell me what a "frameshift mutation" is? Can you tell me the significance of a frameshift mutation? -------------- -Tom Ames

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:53    Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,11:35) Do you think that "The dog is barking" and "The dog is barfing" means that the second sentence is somehow "broken"?? What if "The dog is barking" and "The dog is barfing" were two sentences from two different novels that were 95+% similar? You seem to be forgetting the Vitamin C stuff happens in that kind of context. And it's not a rat and an ape -- it's the guinea pig and primates and there are a lot of primates and  a lot of variation and variation in the Vitamin C DNA.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:58    Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,11:20) Quote Then, you notice a paragraph of about 400 characters that's identical in both samples. It's not in the same place in both texts, but it is absolutely identical down to the individual character. You even note that at the end of the fifth sentence, there's an extra period. You have no idea what any of the text means, but is there any doubt, at this point, that one sample was in fact at least partially copied from the other? Is there any possible doubt that both articles share a common provenance? Are you saying that this is what has been found?  I did not understand that from the findings of the authors below ... Yeah. Look at the cytochrome c gene. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,07:22    Quote Can you tell me what a "frameshift mutation" is? Can you tell me the significance of a frameshift mutation? Somewhat familiar ... I can read up on it quickly if I need to ... But go ahead ... why is that significant here?  I honestly want to understand this Quote Yeah. Look at the cytochrome c gene. I thought were talking about the GLO gene which supposedly formerly allowed Vit C production in primates, but now is broken and does not anymore.  Why do you mention Cytochrome C genes? -------------- 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

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,07:36    Quote (ericmurphy @ May 11 2006,10:59) Then, you notice a paragraph of about 400 characters that's identical in both samples. It's not in the same place in both texts, but it is absolutely identical down to the individual character. You even note that at the end of the fifth sentence, there's an extra period. You have no idea what any of the text means, but is there any doubt, at this point, that one sample was in fact at least partially copied from the other? Is there any possible doubt that both articles share a common provenance? Okay, lets take a human (or God?) example: From Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason": Quote ... look at the first three verses in Ezra, and the last two in 2 Chronicles; for by what kind of cutting and shuffling has it been that the first three verses in Ezra should be the last two verses in 2 Chronicles, or that the last two in 2 Chronicles should be the first three in Ezra? Either the authors did not know their own works or the compilers did not know the authors. Last Two Verses of 2 Chronicles. Ver. 22. Now in the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that the word of the Lord, spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying. earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up. *** First Three Verses of Ezra. Ver. 1. Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of the Lord, by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying. 2. Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem. *** The last verse in Chronicles is broken abruptly, and ends in the middle of the phrase with the word 'up' without signifying to what place. This abrupt break, and the appearance of the same verses in different books, show as I have already said, the disorder and ignorance in which the Bible has been put together, and that the compilers of it had no authority for what they were doing, nor we any authority for believing what they have done. [NOTE I observed, as I passed along, several broken and senseless passages in the Bible, without thinking them of consequence enough to be introduced in the body of the work; such as that, 1 Samuel xiii. 1, where it is said, "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men," etc. The first part of the verse, that Saul reigned one year has no sense, since it does not tell us what Saul did, nor say any thing of what happened at the end of that one year; and it is, besides, mere absurdity to say he reigned one year, when the very next phrase says he had reigned two for if he had reigned two, it was impossible not to have reigned one. If god edits the Bible poorly, why should we expect him  to edit DNA any better?

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,07:40    Quote What if "The dog is barking" and "The dog is barfing" were two sentences from two different novels that were 95+% similar? You seem to be forgetting the Vitamin C stuff happens in that kind of context. No I'm not forgetting.  But OK.  Let's write a "novel" describing how to make a pine tree and another "novel" that describes how to make an oak tree.  OK? HOW TO MAKE A PINE TREE Start with a 50 foot long piece of soft wood.  Add some rough bark.  Poke it upright in the ground.  Add some kinda straight branches that angle down.  Add leaves that are thin and poky.  Etc. Etc. Voila!  Pine Tree! HOW TO MAKE AN OAK TREE Start with a 50 foot long piece of hard wood.  Add some semi-rough bark.  Poke it upright in the ground.  Add some kinda crooked branches that angle up.  Add leaves that are broad and smooth.  Etc. Etc. Voila!  Oak Tree! Now ... notice they are 95% (or so) similar?  Do they share a common ancestor?  No.  I assembled them in my backyard with raw materials following these highly detailed instructions. (I didn't really, but I could have) The burden of proof for Common Descent seems to me to be much more difficult that the burden of proof on Common Design. Thoughts? -------------- 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

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,07:46    Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,12:40) ... notice they are 95% (or so) similar?  Do they share a common ancestor?  No. Wrong again, pine breath! You are the common ancestor of both.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,07:49    Quote The burden of proof for Common Descent seems to me to be much more difficult that the burden of proof on Common Design It's hard to judge as you haven't presented any evidence for common design.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,08:08    Quote Wrong again, pine breath! You are the common ancestor of both. Hey watch it, oak breath ... I am the common DESIGNER of both :-) Quote It's hard to judge as you haven't presented any evidence for common design. This is what the ID movement is all about.  Stay tuned!  And tell your friends to quit throwing fire bombs and at least listen .... then make judgment. That's the hard part -- even getting people to listen --because most people are so set in their thinking. Well ... I'm quitting until evening ... so I guess I'm gonna start losing now by default. -------------- 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

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,08:10    Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,13:08) I am the common DESIGNER of both :-) Ever heard  of "self-plagerism"?

thurdl01 Posts: 99 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,08:15    Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,14:08) This is what the ID movement is all about.  Stay tuned!   The ID movement has been telling us to stay tuned for 20+ years.  You've been telling us to stay tuned for several days.  How long are we supposed to wait for the earth shattering research that ID is doing?  Or are you willing to admit that ID is doing nothing but PR, and you're doing nothing but stalling?

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,08:33    Why do we believe that gene deletion in L-gulonolactone oxidase causes vitamin C deficiency?  Because we have observed this happening in other species. Link to abstract. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,08:38    Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,12:40) The burden of proof for Common Descent seems to me to be much more difficult that the burden of proof on Common Design. Thoughts? Do a little research into nested hierarchies, Dave. Yes, it's true, nested hierarchies don't prove God doesn't exists. Nothing proves God doesn't exist. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,09:04    AFDave says Quote It appears that no one accepts the evidence for a Creator I have given so far, so we will explore that some and find out why ... Easy.  It's because you haven't provided one shred of evidence, just lots of claims based on your own personal incredulity and ignorance. Personal incredulity and ignorance will never be considered evidence Dave.  Haven't you had this explained to you at least half a dozen times on this board so far? Quote I will be posting some questions there directly out of a children's book about evolution ... Given your demonstrated level of scientific understanding, I'd say that's just about right for you. -------------- "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.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,09:11    Quote This is what the ID movement is all about.  Stay tuned!   Most of the spokespeople of the ID movement seem to accept common descent.

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,09:12    Re "And, just like other DNA that's not under strong selection, you generate a nested hierarchy of mutations that pretty much overlaps the nested hierarchy of mutations in any other representative sample of the genome. Now, how does the "common designer hypothesis" explain that?" Maybe the engineer who implemented the design just used a prior existing life form as a starting point, and the one he/she/it picked just happened to have that gene broke? Henry

stephenWells Posts: 127 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,09:24    Quote (afdave @ May 11 2006,12:22) Quote Can you tell me what a "frameshift mutation" is? Can you tell me the significance of a frameshift mutation? Somewhat familiar ... I can read up on it quickly if I need to ... But go ahead ... why is that significant here?  I honestly want to understand this "Joystick? Altimeter? Throttle? Those sound somewhat familiar. I can look them up if I need to. Now pay attention while I teach you how to fly a plane."

Pages: (23) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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