PyramidHead
Active member
Hey voltaire, how can you falsify YEC?
toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
This is exactly
the expected pattern of
similarity that would result
if humans and
chimpanzees shared a
recent common ancestor
and mice and chickens were
more distantly related.------alateones creationist paste. It also reveals that the chimp and human share more physiology and body chemistry than chickens and humans do.
the expected pattern of
similarity that would result
if humans and
chimpanzees shared a
recent common ancestor
and mice and chickens were
more distantly related.------alateones creationist paste. It also reveals that the chimp and human share more physiology and body chemistry than chickens and humans do.
Hey voltaire, how can you
falsify YEC?-----pyramidhead. Falsify one of the claims upon which YEC would fall apart if the claims were false. One way would be to take a human genome and replace every protein coding sequence with that from another animal as long as the sequence was at least slightly altered. Also, replace all "junk DNA" in a human genome with that from other animals on the condition the sequences were at least slightly different. Replace all these sequences all at the same time. Take a human zygote and remove the chromosomes and replace them with the created genome and place it in the mothers uterus. If you get a perfectly healthy human that doesn't look like another animal then YEC is falsified.
falsify YEC?-----pyramidhead. Falsify one of the claims upon which YEC would fall apart if the claims were false. One way would be to take a human genome and replace every protein coding sequence with that from another animal as long as the sequence was at least slightly altered. Also, replace all "junk DNA" in a human genome with that from other animals on the condition the sequences were at least slightly different. Replace all these sequences all at the same time. Take a human zygote and remove the chromosomes and replace them with the created genome and place it in the mothers uterus. If you get a perfectly healthy human that doesn't look like another animal then YEC is falsified.
PyramidHead
Active member
That sounds very difficult, as well as a severe moral grey area...
Also, how exactly would that falsify YEC?
Also, how exactly would that falsify YEC?
Alate_One
Well-known member
No. Todd Wood is a YEC just like you. However he admits that the evidence supports Evolution and common descent. He believes YEC IN SPITE OF the evidence. Look him up and you will see.
Alate_One
Well-known member
That would falsify evolution too . . . Each organism does have SOME genes and regulatory regions that are unique to it. You can't replace them all and get the same thing back. :kookoo: Why would you even think that? You could probably replace 70-80% of them though.
That sounds very difficult,
as well as a severe moral
grey area...
Also, how exactly would that
falsify YEC?------pyramidhead. It would falsify YEC because YEC claims that animal orders were created specialy without the aid of evolution. If a human could be generated from disparate pieces of DNA from thousands of different animals, it would disprove the idea that each genome for the original animal kinds were a special creation because a new kind of mechanism was proven to be able to do the same thing God alone was able to do. IOW, no creator required.
as well as a severe moral
grey area...
Also, how exactly would that
falsify YEC?------pyramidhead. It would falsify YEC because YEC claims that animal orders were created specialy without the aid of evolution. If a human could be generated from disparate pieces of DNA from thousands of different animals, it would disprove the idea that each genome for the original animal kinds were a special creation because a new kind of mechanism was proven to be able to do the same thing God alone was able to do. IOW, no creator required.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Sure they did. At the time it was called "transmutation". The main ideas were transmutation and progressive creation. Nobody denied the pattern, but there was argument over explanation.
If it's all a falsehood, why haven't the creationist organizations come out with an alternative explanation? All I've ever seen them do is chop the trunk and the major branches out of it. Evolution is undeniable, even to them.
That's the thing, it doesn't have to be most of the time. I ran the numbers with you already. Every possible mutation WILL happen with a few generations (5 or so) in a reasonably sized population (1000+). It's like winning the lottery, for an individual it seems impossible, but everyone knows that there will be a winner, and often multiple winners within a population. And the amazing thing about evolution is those winners can reproduce and their offspring can win again later. So yes it is a mechanism I can rely on.
Hundreds of millions of years isn't *tiny* by anyone's measure. And if you were right, even microevolution would never happen. Every organism would have most of its offspring die from horrid mutations. Except that isn't at all what we observe. We humans can make massive changes in form over extremely short periods of time. There is more variation in skull shape in the domestic dog than there is in the entire *order* Carnivora. Then you're going to stand here and tell me evolution is impossible? Your numbers game is so divorced from reality it's ridiculous.
No, they won't outproduce unless there's a selective DISadvantage to the mutation. Otherwise, why do we have so many different hair colors and eye colors in humans? Shouldn't the first human with blue eyes get swamped out by everyone else?
You're certifiably insane, Alate. Why all these lies and denial. Just admit that alternatives have been explained to you (numerous times). Quit insisting there is no challenge to your religion.
Alate_One
Well-known member
goddidit isn't an explanation. Neither is "god just made it that way". That's the essence of your explanations.
Liar.
How about you explain the substance of my explanation to you without pejorative or mockery.
Alate_One
Well-known member
How about you explain it clearly (your explanation for the origin of the fossil record AND genetic similarities), with actual supporting evidence. You've been asked for evidence multiple times. You just wave your arms and say, it's this way, because I say so.
Stripe, you're no contributor to this thread, your only purpose here is to distract and accuse. You're the dishonest participant here. Get down to specifics or go home. Sweeping generalizations and accusations aren't going to cut it with me. You are all bluster, no substance. At least Y runs numbers.
Oh, you want more evidence that you are a liar?
Here's your challenge to God's word - monkey and human DNA are similar when it need not be. Pretending this is a rational challenge the answer is in the fact that your definition of similarity is based upon the generation of amino acids. The answer to your challenge is something you know and that you have seen. Yet you lie and say there is no answer.
And then you call me a liar.
Here's your challenge to God's word - monkey and human DNA are similar when it need not be. Pretending this is a rational challenge the answer is in the fact that your definition of similarity is based upon the generation of amino acids. The answer to your challenge is something you know and that you have seen. Yet you lie and say there is no answer.
And then you call me a liar.
Alate_One
Well-known member
No, I wanted evidence for your position on the issues raised. And what you just posted below is not evidence of me lying.
There is no answer to my challenge, if you think there is you are confused. Even the creationist I posted earlier agrees with me. Did you do what I told you to do and post the question on those other boards? Or did you understand the biology enough that you recognize that the answer you will get will agree with me and show again that you are the liar?
Alate_One
Well-known member
We ARE primates . . . :idunno: Just like we are mammals, vertebrates etc. But no that wasn't exactly what Darwin theorized, in fact he said nothing about human evolution in Origin of Species.
You need it not. You understand the answer to your challenge better than any of us.
Liar.
Yes, there is. Liar.
No, I have given you an answer. I am not confused. It was an answer I gave you.
Atheists love to cite the popularity of an idea as if it affects the discussion.
No. The ideas I found justify my answer to your challenge.
Why do you call me a liar? You issued a challenge, I answered. Quit misrepresenting all the efforts made to advance what should be a very straight-forward discussion.
Stipe isn't going to take the bait. He's been lured out into the open too many times before, and he has scars to remind him of what happens when he tries to debate on the evidence.
He'll stay in the bunker and toss out stink bombs.
He'll stay in the bunker and toss out stink bombs.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I already explained to you why it isn't an "answer". There are *occasional* reasons why an amino acid sequence might need to be more particular about the DNA that encodes it, but these are few and far between.
We know this isn't true for every sequence because we can easily replace functions in disparate organisms with the different sequences.
You have continually ignored what I've said and refused to ask the ACTUAL question that is my point. There are a multitude of possible DNA sequences that can encode the exact same amino acid sequence leading to the exact same function. THIS IS A FACT.
You found an instance where a handful of codons *might* have to be the same, sometimes. This doesn't mean EVERY codon in an organism MUST stay the same or the protein won't work. That is not at all the answer you got and you know it.
We know that cytochrome C can even have different AMINO ACIDS and still have the exact same function (and replace one another). Claiming there is a functional reason for 98% DNA identity is wrong, pure and simple and you either know better and are lying or are an ignoramus and claiming you know something you do not.
You misinterpreted what I asked for purposefully, and now don't want to deal with something that will actually pull you out into the open, as Barbarian already pointed out.
- Status