The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by Clearskies

This site says it's 93%. It's from 2007.
Here

An international team of more than 170 scientists has now sequenced the genome of the rhesus macaque monkey and compared it to both the chimpanzee and human genomes. Their analysis reveals that the three primate species share about 93% of their DNA.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Clearskies]

Clearskies has supplied in my opinion one of the best examples in this thread so far of the gullibility of evolutionists.

The statement that 99% or 98% or even 97% of the DNA of humans and chimps were shared. was not a factual statement. And yet, how many supporters of evolution, whether they be scientists, or wanna be scientists, or simply believers in evolution gullibly accepted these statement as proof when the experiments had not even been completed.

It was accepted as fact because it supported their beliefs although it was not accurate.


Each generation of scientists has had their time honored beliefs and scientific "truths" turned upside down by Great thinkers who have been willing to question popular beliefs and to challenge the accepted "facts" of the time. Newton & Einstein, and Galileo stand out as Giants because they Recognized the flaws in the conventional thinking of the time.

These men were Unique because the vast majority of other scientists in their time were Gullible, in that they accepted the conventional scientific models of their time.






[edit on 9-3-2008 by Sparky63] Had to take out a redundant sentence. I have a hard enough time being coherent, least of all at 12:30 in the AM.


[edit on 9-3-2008 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by AshleyD
What I'm saying is, give me a specific example and I will then answer it from a creationist perspective. But since that was not done, here is an example:

See? You do have your own examples.

The whale and its pelvic structure I mentioned at the beginning of this thread. They are believed by evolutionists to have been caused by a regression from land creature into sea creatures but creationists point out how the structure is necessary for reproduction and not evidence of a mutation. That is a living example.

Indeed, It does anchor muscles that are needed to work the sexual organs. I'm curious as to the logic that causes this to stand against evolution. Of course, there's the straw man Chick Tract argument that an evolutionist teacher makes, claiming that evolution states these bones are useless...

But I know you're smart enough to not base an argument out of a Chick Tract, right? Well, I hope so.

At any rate, whales are one of the most well-represented groups when it comes to the transitional fossil. en.wikipedia.org...

For a fossil example similar to the above example: The 'Tiktaalik.' Evolutionists claim this is evidence of macro evolution of a fish developing 'feet.' Creationists counter this by claiming the 'feet' were navigational fins unable to support the weight of the fish and point out the lack (or 'gap') of where it had come from.

Ah yes, "the gap" - The perennial argument of creationists. Basically, no matter WHAT is found, no matter how thorough the record, the creationist will always claim that a cap - ANY gap - is "evidence" that Evolution is a farce (Nevermind that the bible seems to lack a whole hell of a lot of info when it comes to wives and daughters...)

At any rate, Tiktaalik is a pretty new find. It's pretty clearly somewhere at the fish - amphibian border, however, regardless of whether its limbs could have supported land weight.

I'm no expert but it's nice hearing the explanations from both sides before making assumptions.

Which is of course why you've dismissed the entirity of an entire side as gullible, nonsensical, and farcical, and have steadily ignored every point brought up from that side in favor of talking about, what was it... Reptilian Annunaki?

Chick tracts rule

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Indeed, It does anchor muscles that are needed to work the sexual organs. I'm curious as to the logic that causes this to stand against evolution. Of course, there's the straw man Chick Tract argument that an evolutionist teacher makes, claiming that evolution states these bones are useless...

In my opinion, it doesn't prove or disprove it. When you have two separate interpretations for the same thing, you are left coming to your own conclusions. No, not Chick tracts. That guy is whack. More like answersingenesis.org (your favorite website in the whole wide world).

Ah yes, "the gap" - The perennial argument of creationists. Basically, no matter WHAT is found, no matter how thorough the record, the creationist will always claim that a cap - ANY gap - is "evidence" that Evolution is a farce (Nevermind that the bible seems to lack a whole hell of a lot of info when it comes to wives and daughters...)

Ah yes, the gaps. Many, many gaps. We haven't quite found the countless amount of transitional fossils predicted. We're left with a few sketchy ones opened to interpretation. It's the proverbial ink blot test.

At any rate, Tiktaalik is a pretty new find. It's pretty clearly somewhere at the fish - amphibian border, however, regardless of whether its limbs could have supported land weight.

Again, ink blots.

Which is of course why you've dismissed the entirity of an entire side as gullible, nonsensical, and farcical, and have steadily ignored every point brought up from that side in favor of talking about, what was it... Reptilian Annunaki?

Yes, my dear. It goes along with being open minded. Not so open minded your brain falls out but not jumping to any conclusions either.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Chick tracts rule

Could you please STOP putting creationist propoganda up? You aren't even adding anything to the discussion when you do that..

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Chick tracts rule

Chick tracts freak me out! We even had a discussion about them on BTS. I am soooo tempted to post the Mason one in the secret society forum but I don't think anyone would realize I was kidding.




[edit on 3/9/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by Sparky63


Are you gripping over 4% or am I misreading that?

Here is some good evidence of evolution:

By the way, I will quote from sources, not just source. I hate when people expect you to do the work for them.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of Years Since
First Known Appearance
(Approximate)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microbial (procaryotic cells) 3,500
Complex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000
First multicellular animals 670
Shell-bearing animals 540
Vertebrates (simple fishes) 490
Amphibians 350
Reptiles 310
Mammals 200
Nonhuman primates 60
Earliest apes 25
Australopithecine ancestors of humans 4
Modern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed.

The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies. That is, amphibians will not appear before fishes, nor mammals before reptiles, and no complex life will occur in the geological record before the oldest eucaryotic cells. This prediction has been upheld by the evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found.

Inferences about common descent derived from paleontology are reinforced by comparative anatomy. For example, the skeletons of humans, mice, and bats are strikingly similar, despite the different ways of life of these animals and the diversity of environments in which they flourish. The correspondence of these animals, bone by bone, can be observed in every part of the body, including the limbs; yet a person writes, a mouse runs, and a bat flies with structures built of bones that are different in detail but similar in general structure and relation to each other.

How can we make intelligible the colossal diversity of living beings and the existence of such extraordinary, seemingly whimsical creatures as the fungus, beetle, and fly described above? And why are island groups like the Galápagos so often inhabited by forms similar to those on the nearest mainland but belonging to different species? Evolutionary theory explains that biological diversity results from the descendants of local or migrant predecessors becoming adapted to their diverse environments. This explanation can be tested by examining present species and local fossils to see whether they have similar structures, which would indicate how one is derived from the other. Also, there should be evidence that species without an established local ancestry had migrated into the locality.

Similarly, a wide variety of organisms from fruit flies to worms to mice to humans have very similar sequences of genes that are active early in development. These genes influence body segmentation or orientation in all these diverse groups. The presence of such similar genes doing similar things across such a wide range of organisms is best explained by their having been present in a very early common ancestor of all of these groups.

In 1959, scientists at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom determined the three-dimensional structures of two proteins that are found in almost every multicelled animal: hemoglobin and myoglobin....

During the next two decades, myoglobin and hemoglobin sequences were determined for dozens of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, and molluscs. All of these sequences were so obviously related that they could be compared with confidence with the three-dimensional structures of two selected standards--whale myoglobin and horse hemoglobin. Even more significantly, the differences between sequences from different organisms could be used to construct a family tree of hemoglobin and myoglobin variation among organisms. This tree agreed completely with observations derived from paleontology and anatomy about the common descent of the corresponding organism.

There's more, but let me not hog it all on one source. I will begin on my next post. It is too large to fit in one post, sorry.

Presentation

I can't effectively translate this to text, so I'll just post the link. It's easy to navigate, and the info doesn't have to be searched for (it's presented in slides).

Homologies

Why would certain cave-dwelling fish have degenerate eyes that cannot see?

Darwin made sense of homologous structures by supplying an evolutionary explanation for them:

A structure is similar among related organisms because those organisms have all descended from a common ancestor that had an equivalent trait.

The genetic code for protein-coding genes is nearly universal in eukaryotes and prokaryotes.

The exceptions include most mitochondrial genomes and some nuclear ones (e.g. Mycoplasma and Tetrahymena).

Even in these cases, the genetic code is quite similar.

Millions of alternative genetic codes exist, so why do all organisms have nearly the same one?

...

The common ancestor to all known organisms had a genetic code similar to what we see today.
Over the ages, the genetic code has passed unchanged (or nearly so) from parents to offspring, because mutations to the genetic code would have been disastrous (changing the amino acid sequence of all proteins produced).

One of the classic examples of a homologous structure is the pentadactyl (= five digit) limb.

All tetrapods (= four legged) have limbs with five digits, at least at some stage in development.

Certain tetrapods lose some of these digits during development, as in the bird wing shown here.

But if the bird wing does not need five digits, why do five initially develop in the growing embryo?

The most plausible explanation is that while the five digits are not functionally necessary, they represent a genetic artefact inherited from the ancestors of birds.

That page also has a lot more evidence, but in the name of keeping things moving I will move on.

Axing the Family Tree

Forget what you've read in high school biology books: new evidence suggests that the animal family tree is about to change. By studying genes, scientists have shown that almost all animals fit within a simple, three-limb tree of life.

The researchers studied the Hox genes, which help cells organize into different body parts during development. Three disparate animals were studied: an unsegmented marine worm, a lamp shell, and a segmented worm. Based on the traditional animal family tree, these organisms are seemingly unrelated.

The findings were astounding! Looking at the genes, scientists found support for the three-limb theory. The Hox genes in each of the animals studied were very similar but with small (and significant) differences. Those differences point to a common ancestor that eventually diverged into the three different paths. The genetic analysis suggests that these three branches diverged some 550 million years ago from a common ancestor.

Salvaged DNA adds to Neandertals' mystique

This talks about comparing DNA of Neandertals. They existed over 20,000 years ago.

Talk Origins

One more source about how scientists come to the conclusion of evolution. The facts are out there, and I tried to post as many as I could.

Hope this was helpful.

Originally posted by Sublime620
I said that you cannot prove a negative.

Sure you can,, I can prove their isn't a foot at the end of my arm.

- Con

First off, let me just say, Baphomet as a frilled lizard cracked me up.

Originally posted by AshleyD
In my opinion, it doesn't prove or disprove it. When you have two separate interpretations for the same thing, you are left coming to your own conclusions. No, not Chick tracts. That guy is whack. More like answersingenesis.org (your favorite website in the whole wide world).

Indeed. We have two positions here.
Evolutionary: "We have a large collection of fossils showing hte development of cetaceans from a hoofed ancestor sometime in the early Eocene. There are clearly transitions of feet to flippers, the reduction of the hind limbs and pelvis, and changes to the skull and spinal shape."
Creationist: "Nuh uh!"

So yes, you have to come to your own conclusions based on the arguments presented by either side. Which, since only one side is presenting an argument, steers me in a pretty obvious direction. How about you?

Ah yes, the gaps. Many, many gaps. We haven't quite found the countless amount of transitional fossils predicted. We're left with a few sketchy ones opened to interpretation. It's the proverbial ink blot test.

Predicted by who, please?

Again, ink blots.

Not if you're at all familiar with biology, or more specifically, taxonomy and zoology. I imagine icthyologists and herpetologists would be even better-equipped.

Yes, my dear. It goes along with being open minded. Not so open minded your brain falls out but not jumping to any conclusions either.

SO you're saying dismissing and ignoring an entire position you disagree with is being "open minded"?

Only from the religion that brought us "'Happy Holidays' is an attack on Christianity!" I guess...

reply to post by Conspiriology


Feet exist. It's not really a negative in that way. This really relates to things that don't exist versus things that do.

If God exists here, but not there, it would be possible to prove he didn't exist there. But if God exists no where, that is not possible to prove.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Thanks Fox. You're doing a good thing for the mankind.

Are we debating on whether god exists or not? Or are we just dickering on how he did it?

reply to post by Xtrozero


He did it in the kitchen, with the wrench. Mr. BOdy never saw it coming.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Sparky63

 

Are you gripping over 4% or am I misreading that?

No Sir. I am not griping over anything. If it is not clear I am giving what I think has been sorely lacking in this thread . An example of the Gullibility of Scientists to accept the doctrine that is the conventional thinking of the day.
It matters not whether the figure was 4%, 2% or 20%. Most scientists accepted it as fact when there was no proof that it was true.

They accepted it as fact, they taught it as fact, when it was not.

In another thread there was discussion of the expression "Man evolved from apes". Some supporters of evolution were quick to point out that Modern evolutionary theory states that man did not evolve from apes, but in fact, had a common ancestor.

That however did not change the fact that when I was in High School and then College there were charts specifically titled, "FROM APE TO MAN", in my science & biology classes.
I distinctly recall my professors saying that man evolved from apes, stating it as fact, teaching it as fact, when modern evolutionary theory denies that.

Why did they do so? Because they were to eager to accept statements that supported their beliefs. Statements that would later prover false.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by kemo_d7

 

All you just did was establish the fallen nature of man due to original sin. Gods design was derailed by man disobedience. That is the source of all the entropy.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Based on what have you made that conclusion? You could have put “blue bunny” in the place of god and it would sound the same. My point is that you have NO evidence for what you’re calming. All you have are words.

reply to post by Sparky63


So. Wait. You're saying that a study, comparign hte genomes of these three primates, multiple times... Lacks proof that there is similarity between them?

My suggestion is to go back to school, study to become a geneticist, get a grant or two, and you, too, can see for yourself.

On edit: Ahhh, I see. You are one of those people who, due to a misguided perception that science is a type of religion, likewise demand absolute perfection and absolute answers to everything, just like with your never-been-edited-ever holy book.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by Sparky63


First of all, I so graciously went and got info that everyone asked for and yet no comments. This percentage you concentrate on is by far not the main reason people believe in evolution. It is the reasons I quoted above:

Most living animals contain many of the same make up and processes. The individual differences seem to have derived from the situation and environment - ie. what was necessary for survival.

Secondly, is the percentage 93% and not 97%? Or are you saying that it's not any of those percentages at all?

*Edited because I missed a part of your post

And, no, they taught that because that was the best available answer at the time. Did you want them to pull the Bible out and start quoting scripture, or give the best evidence available?

Science is a process of learning. Was everyone ignorant when they thought the Earth was flat, or was that just the best explaination at the time (seeing as they didn't quite understand gravity at the time).

You see, science evolves too, just as we do.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
First off, let me just say, Baphomet as a frilled lizard cracked me up.

I think it was just supposed to be a demon he was possessed by. lol In the tract, they showed the 'typical' image of Baphomet.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Evolutionary: "We have a large collection of fossils showing hte development of cetaceans from a hoofed ancestor sometime in the early Eocene. There are clearly transitions of feet to flippers, the reduction of the hind limbs and pelvis, and changes to the skull and spinal shape."
Creationist: "Nuh uh!"

Not quite. The creationists offer their own explanation of the fossil layers and evidence as well as refuting some of the methods and interpretations of the evolutionists. They, too, are met with a 'Nuh uh!' response. Then the debate rages on while both sides refute the other and continue the 'Uh huh! Nuh uh!' shell game.

Predicted by who, please?

Er... Darwin. Interestingly enough, creationists also made some predictions regarding the fossil record which turned out to be correct.

It does seem it goes back to the 'Teflon double speak' Conspiriology mentioned or the shell game phony psychics use that give predictions that are going to occur either way. Darwin stated many transitional fossils should be found but if they are not (and were not at his time) then it is because of various odd and end excuses.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Sparky63

 

So. Wait. You're saying that a study, comparign hte genomes of these three primates, multiple times... Lacks proof that there is similarity between them?

I never stated any such thing? Where did you get that from? I will b e the fisrt to admitthat there are many similarities. Where in my post did I mention Genetics?

My suggestion is to go back to school, study to become a geneticist, get a grant or two, and you, too, can see for yourself.

Thanks for the suggestion. Although I think you were a litle quick to jump the gun.

On edit: Ahhh, I see. You are one of those people who, due to a misguided perception that science is a type of religion, likewise demand absolute perfection and absolute answers to everything, just like with your never-been-edited-ever holy book.

You can save you dripping sarcasm for someone else my friend.
Where did I state that I demand anything from anything let alone perfection?
I would never demand that from anyone. or any discipline. I made no mention in my post to a Holy Book. Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else?

It should be clear that scientists & yes the scientists that believe in evolution are just as capable of being gullible as everyone else.