If evolution is not proven, why do we share 96% of our genetics with monkey?

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Apply the same criteria two humans and all of a sudden we're not nearly identical with each other.

Are you saying the ITS diferences vary just as much between individuals as they do between us and chimps?

Obviously not since our common ancestor is far more recent than the common ancestor of humans and chimps. However, what I'm saying is that if you measure human-human differences from not just protein-coding genes but from total genome, then all of a sudden we're not 99.9% similar with each other.

Look, there's still a lot we don't understand about genetics. It's not surprising, considering this field only started in the 1960's. However, up until this day, not a single sing of tampering, or evidence to the contrary of common descend of all organisms, has ever been discovered. On the contrary, everything we have learned supports common descend thru strictly natural processes, which is logical because the same conclusion can be withdrawn from dozens of other fields of science as well.

reply to post by Southern Guardian



If they think that difference between human and living primates is high, what would they say if they know that difference between human and neanderthals was astonishing .004%.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Barcs
Stop using these deceptive, insulting terms please.

Insulting? really. A bit like how any other view is falsey represented as creationism?

Perhaps if you do the same I will too.

edit on 7-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Yes, because ID and creationism are 2 totally different things, that don't invoke a creator with no evidence or suggest life was designed. Sure. If you believe in creation, you are a creationist, since it IS a faith based belief and not a science like evolution. If it was, then it would be called the theory of creation or the theory of intelligent design. Unfortunately its only a hypothesis. You don't need to have faith in scientific evidence.

reply to post by rhinoceros


I agree a common ancestor is entirely possible, but I wouldn't say it's a done deal by any means there are still problems to overcome. I do believe in teleolgy, Not empirically, only simply because it appears self evident.
Although gene plasticity to me implies teleology. The speed of morphogenisis and speed of adaption implies teleology or purpose.

The code is the evidence. Thier is only one thing in our experience that creates codes and languages.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by squiz
The code is the evidence.

You mean the genetic code, i.e. translation table from 64 nucleotide triplets to 22 or so amino-acids? Many things indicate, that it evolved. Look e.g. here, here, here, and here.

Why does the literal translation of the bible, and I have a thread on Mauro Biglino's work, talk about Ruach, not God's Spirit in Genesis, a much older sumar word with a pictograph that is a spinning saucer, and talks of cloud ships, leading them, their religous significance in mountains, well alot like Shasta, and obviously bases, cigar shaped crafts, and the elohim are those that come from the sky, another literal translation.

Well, I suggest there is alot of human/animal, dna used in a variety of "projects".

Originally posted by Unity_99
Why does the literal translation of the bible, and I have a thread on Mauro Biglino's work, talk about Ruach, not God's Spirit in Genesis, a much older sumar word with a pictograph that is a spinning saucer, and talks of cloud ships, leading them, their religous significance in mountains, well alot like Shasta, and obviously bases, cigar shaped crafts, and the elohim are those that come from the sky, another literal translation.

Well, I suggest there is alot of human/animal, dna used in a variety of "projects".

I suggest you watch less of that comedy show

reply to post by MrXYZ


As an experiencer, have to say have never watched that, and ufo's are more gut wrenching than comedy. With some its primal fear, ai surgical bots for example. But when you do some research things are alot clearer.

Originally posted by starheart

How about advanced cities with buildings 800 meters high? How about the 9th Symphony? Ask a bird to do that.

It's like I said. We think deep thoughts. That's it. Just because we build bigger buildings and make music that is more complicated, this doesn't mean that birds don't build or sing. Have you seen a termite hill in Africa? There are birds that collect only blue things for their nests. We are no different.

reply to post by KnawLick


Except that there's very convincing evidence for evolution (which is why it is widely accepted by scientists), and not that many in favour of the aliens tinkering with ape DNA scenario.
Also, it is actually quite likely that the universe was created out of nothing, as unbelievable as it seems to you. The Great Void. And I've recognized this same idea in quite a few religious beliefs and philosophies.
And just because something is fascinatingly amazing in its complexity doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility that it has evolved out of nothing--and that's the beauty of it all, in my opinion.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
That's funny. This Barney Maddox character appears to be a young earth creationist, and a urologist, not "the leading genome researcher on the DNA project Human Genome Project". How about that?

Typical of Evolutionists to bash their "qualifications"! It's funny, I've heard this same argument from even, supposedly, top-qualified men like Jerry Coyne - who basically says, if my colleagues agree, it's true! (and I have him quoted saying that). You know, things never change. Two thousand years ago, the Pharisees in John 7:48-49 told those who opposed them -

48 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? 49 But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

Translation - verse 48 is what you hear all the time, "all scientists believe in Evolution, none believe in Creation", or a similar argument. Verse 49 is basically saying, that common argument, "the average person does not understand the concept behind evolution, and so there's a lot of misconceptions."

Basically say, "we're smart, you're dumb."

Anyways, I digress. Here's the source for his work. I can't remember where I had heard of his status, but I may have been confused. I apologize. I hope we can focus on the content of the data and not get distracted by trivial things such as qualifications.

I mean, if change of just 3 nucleotides would be fatal, then wouldn't this imply that all humans (as other species) were genetically almost absolutely identical, give or take just 2 nt difference. You know, even 1 nt change can be fatal (e.g. a nucleotide insertion into a critical gene). Consequently, such individuals will never reproduce (since they die before birth), and thus, such critical changes are meaningless, i.e. natural selection keeps them out from the gene pool.

The link I provided has some information regarding this.

p.s. I think according to be Bible, you should face the death penalty.

Psalms 31:18, "Let the lying lips be put to silence;"

First of all, I wasn't lying there - secondly, I admit to being a liar.. that's not a trick statement. Everyone is. Everyone is guilty of sin, and everyone deserves death.

..but my sins were paid for at the cross, and I have been forgiven. Praise God.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Well the first link is from 1988, They suggest possibilites. More just so stories. You can suggest anything you want.
The next two are unavailable for free, one is from 1973 !
The last from 1992, does not address how it emerged but only it's possible evolution.

You really think these answer the hard questions? I mean really?

The information is independant from it's physical characteristics, even Krick and Szostak have admitted this. It remains a mystery. But the die hard Darwinists just do more hand waving.

Here's something a little more recent.

The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses, for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions: *How did physics and chemistry write the first genetic instructions? *How could a prebiotic (pre-life, inanimate) environment consisting of nothing but chance and necessity have programmed logic gates, decision nodes, configurable-switch settings, and prescriptive information using a symbolic system of codons (three nucleotides per unit/block of code)? The codon table is formal, not physical. It has also been shown to be conceptually ideal. *How did primordial nature know how to write in redundancy codes that maximally protect information? *How did mere physics encode and decode linear digital instructions that are not determined by physical interactions? All known life is networked and cybernetic. “Cybernetics” is the study of various means of steering, organizing and controlling objects and events toward producing utility. The constraints of initial conditions and the physical laws themselves are blind and indifferent to functional success. Only controls, not constraints, steer events toward the goal of usefulness (e.g., becoming alive or staying alive). Life-origin science cannot advance until first answering these questions: *1-How does nonphysical programming arise out of physicality to then establish control over that physicality? *2-How did inanimate nature give rise to a formally-directed, linear, digital, symbol-based and cybernetic-rich life? *3-What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for turning physics and chemistry into formal controls, regulation, organization, engineering, and computational feats? “The First Gene” directly addresses these questions.

How? indeed.

It's a great book. "The first Gene". And a non ID source. At least some scientist are still honest.

Natural forces do not create languages.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

As an experiencer, have to say have never watched that, and ufo's are more gut wrenching than comedy. With some its primal fear, ai surgical bots for example. But when you do some research things are alot clearer.

Given that your BELIEF is solely based on a hunch, and you clearly haven't done any proper research to find objective evidence...well...you can't really call it "things are a lot clearer"

reply to post by squiz


"The First Gene"? Well, I checked it out on Amazon, and I doubt I'll check it out after reviews like that:

About the Origin of Life Science Foundation itself. It's awfully hard to track down -- its only web presence is the prize page, and its only employee seems to be...David L. Abel. So I looked it up in google maps to see where the foundation's majestic headquarters might be.

It's a house in a residential neighborhood of a Maryland suburb. It made me wonder if maybe the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics was located in the master bathroom, while he Department of ProtoBioSemiotics was in the hall closet, or whether both were consolidated into a sunny corner of the kitchen. At least it seems to be a step above Patriot University, but it's still some guy's house that he's calling a Foundation with multiple implied Departments with fancy titles.

That's not all! Mr Abel seems to be a linchpin of the Intelligent Design movement, who manages to work his rambling, incoherent publications into all kinds of journals. In fact, the Discovery Institute just bragged about all their peer-reviewed scientific publications, and there, in their list of over 70 works published over the last 25 years or so, which includes papers by such famous scientists as William Lane Craig and John A. Davison, and prestigious journals like Rivisti di Biologia and their own in-house pet journal, BIO-Complexity, and also seems to include books that were not peer-reviewed at all, are twelve papers by Mr Fancy-Titled-Suburban-House. 17% of the Intelligent Design creationism movement's 'scientific' output comes out of that dwelling in Maryland.

This book mixes commonly defined scientific terms, many misused scientific phrases, fake philosophy, and quite a lot of made up scientific sounding garbage to confuse and confound the layman. The concepts are untested, unsubstantiated by any experiments (their own or others), and untestable. The main author is a retired veterinarian who is unqualified to speak about the origins of life. The co-authors are known creationists and neo-creationist Intelligent Design proponents who have very few scientific publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals. (Self-published work like 'Bio-Complexity' does not count.) In short, real scientists know enough to avoid this kind of nonsense. If you're a non-scientist trying to learn about real science, then look for a better book written by real scientists.

If you are looking for a book that will give you some kind of insight into the scientific communitys thoughts on the origins of life: KEEP LOOKING! Because this is nothing but badly concealed religious propaganda.

So...thanks...but no thanks

HaHa, big surprise, whining from the Darwinists who choose to adhominen attacks and false misrepresentations instead of actually dealing with the content. Real big surlprise there.

Since they have no answers do they?

How about some supportive quotes frm Krick or Szostak. They seem to agree the problem has to do with the specified functionality of the information independent of the physical properties.

Nope, natural forces don't create languages, computers don't grow in the forest. But the Darwinist would have us believe they can. Without evidence of course.

reply to post by squiz


To be fair, the book does not mention Intelligent Design. Every contributor to it has however been extremely vocal in support of I.D. and it is basically a repackaging of material promoting the same agenda.
They "polish the turd" counter clockwise instead of clockwise.

I have too say I will dispassionately view ANY valid argument. I will however stop the moment it becomes clear that it is leading to:

"Therefore god"

It is simply bad science to start with the answer and massage the problem, and interpret the data, to fit that answer.

reply to post by crankyoldman


Read up on the scientific definition of the terms "fact" and "theory". Evolution is both.

reply to post by squiz


Just a quick question, who created the language?

Originally posted by SuperFrog
reply to post by squiz

 

Just a quick question, who created the language?

Are you referring to the genetic code, i.e. codon to amino-acid translation table? If yes, the answer is: it evolved (very evident from the structure of the code). More specifically, it was 'created' by natural selection acting on the laws of chemistry and nature. That's bit misleading though, since the code is still evolving. E.g. the ancient alphaproteobacteria, or mitochondria, in your cells, are using a different code than your nuclear genome.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Come on now, Mr. X, you've gotta love the hair.