Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[magicfan101]

So, a 98.6% genetic similarity is an assumption?

98.6% similarity is misleading.

ill ask you this question how can two things be 98.6% similar when one of them is 11% larger than the other. its been proven that apes have larger genome than us. so how did they come up with that number.

 

[Arakhor]

11 is 90% similar to 10, but is 10% longer. What's your point?

 

[Behind The Mask]

98.6% similarity is misleading.

ill ask you this question how can two things be 98.6% similar when one of them is 11% larger than the other. its been proven that apes have larger genome than us. so how did they come up with that number.

Even if it were 1% would show we may have a relationship to apes.

.01% would show we may have a relationship to apes.

When it takes less then a percent to destroy your arguement, then the ground you walk on is very well likely to give away.

 

[SuperJay]

gene clocking in humans as been clocked. any relationship between human and apes is an assumption.

And here we go again

Protip: Humans ARE apes.

I've never heard the term "cargo-cult science" but like Arakhor said... "Biblical, Accurate, Certain" does really say a lot. It's just another sad attempt to make science fit a preconceived religious agenda, which completely violates all principles of science in the first place. Science is objective, unbiased, and free of preconceived ideas about what "should" be true.

Protip 2: Cherry-picking some facts as "accurate" because they support your beliefs, and ignoring other facts that contradict your preconceived beliefs is not science.

 

[Arakhor]

To be fair, BtM, current genetic theory suggests that we share 50% of our genetic material with bananas, but no one would suggest that we are at all similar, except when dealing with organic chemistry.

 

[Behind The Mask]

To be fair, BtM, current genetic theory suggests that we share 50% of our genetic material with bananas, but no one would suggest that we are at all similar, except when dealing with organic chemistry.

Point taken.

I admit I don't know all the exact details (I wish I knew more and I'll ;lkely study up on it sooner then not) but I try to argue against what I feel found 'baseless' arguements.

It seems they believe if they can disprove evolution it will prove creationism; but the burden of proof falls on them and I've never seen a satisfying answer.

 

[Arakhor]

Oh definitely, BtM, but OT is always overdosed on logical fallacies.

 

[uppi]

I've never heard the term "cargo-cult science" but like Arakhor said... "Biblical, Accurate, Certain" does really say a lot. It's just another sad attempt to make science fit a preconceived religious agenda, which completely violates all principles of science in the first place. Science is objective, unbiased, and free of preconceived ideas about what "should" be true.

That's the point Feynman made:

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

The whole thing is an interesting read, but the main point is this:

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing.
But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea
Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some
wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling
them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one
feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.
That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.

@YECs: Does anybody want to comment on the lack of blue-shift, that would be predicted by the "timelessness cosmology", or can we consider it debunked? It has already come up at least three times on this board and I would hate to have to repeat myself the next time it comes up.

 

[Tacitusitis]

And we're straying dangerously close to continuing the same old boring doomed to failure way of refuting Evolution while you should be busy providing evidence for Creationism.

Only took two pages this time

 

[negZero]

I wish people would stop bringing up the <insert scientific term> Adam and Eve. All of these are just the most recent common ancestor for the entire race, which are named after the characters in Biblical story. Take a look at what I said, the most recent, it can and will be changed once a new one comes along. So in couple thousand generations Genghis Khan will became Adam.

 

[Arakhor]

It's also great fun when you realise that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Adam are not only 120,000 years or so apart, but Eve is far, far older. The Bible is still incorrect, it seems.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I wish people would stop bringing up the <insert scientific term> Adam and Eve. All of these are just the most recent common ancestor for the entire race, which are named after the characters in Biblical story. Take a look at what I said, the most recent, it can and will be changed once a new one comes along. So in couple thousand generations Genghis Khan will became Adam.

Why does it have to be Genghis Khan anyway?

 

[negZero]

Why does it have to be Genghis Khan anyway?

First where is my miracle that can't be explained away by science?

Second its cause Genghis Khan is already related to 1/5 of world's population he only has 4/5 to go and hes pretty famous.

It's also great fun when you realise that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Adam are not only 120,000 years or so apart, but Eve is far, far older. The Bible is still incorrect, it seems.

Wait so they were around before the Garden of Eden? Am shocked, SHOCKED!!!!

 

[magicfan101]

11 is 90% similar to 10, but is 10% longer. What's your point?

Even if it were 1% would show we may have a relationship to apes.

.01% would show we may have a relationship to apes.

When it takes less then a percent to destroy your arguement, then the ground you walk on is very well likely to give away.

similar designer

If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!

Although we are frequently told that chimps and humans share between 98–99% of their DNA, a number of studies reveal a smaller percentage of similarity. A 2002 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) analyzed about one million DNA base pairs and discovered an approximately 95% similarity.3 The human genome is composed of about 3 billion base pairs, so this comparison involved less than 1% of the genome, but it was of sequences already considered to be common to chimps and humans (‘homologous’). A 2003 study, also in the PNAS, compared about 1.9 million base pairs in immunologically critical areas of the chimp and human genomes. This study took into account insertions and deletions (indels) and derived a low 86.7% similarity.4 When the chimpanzee genome was mapped in 2005, scientists announced a 96% similarity.5 Another study, in 2006, revealed a 94% genetic similarity.6 Obviously, these results are all considerably lower than the still widely touted 98–99% statistic. These different studies reveal that the degree of genetic similarity is highly dependent on the particular regions being analyzed, the amount of DNA being compared and the computational techniques used

 

[SuperJay]

That's the point Feynman made:

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

Cool, thanks for the link. Definitely an interesting read, especially the quoted part. I had no idea these "cargo cults" even existed. What a fitting analogy.

 

[ParkCungHee]

gene clocking in humans as been clocked. any relationship between human and apes is an assumption.

Actually, relationship between humans is an assumption as well.

 

[El_Machinae]

gene clocking in humans as been clocked. any relationship between human and apes is an assumption.

Yes, you're correct. It's an assumption. However, using gene clocking techniques, we're able to generate a 'date' in the past. Remember, gene clocking is entirely different from the fossil record. That said, the gene clocking technique gives information very similar to the fossil record. For example, there're no chimpanzee or human fossils from the period of time that was 'clocked' as being part of our common ancestry.

 

[magicfan101]

new evidence for creation

the fact that comets are still around indicate a young universe

 

[Arakhor]

You what? Citation please.

 

[ParkCungHee]

new evidence for creation

the fact that comets are still around indicate a young universe

This assumes no new Comets form, which is untrue.
Try again.