Science, Creation & EvolutionTheory of evolution is deception!tuppence wrote:SPrinkZ, that is quite a bit to respond to.
First of all, I have to say that essential Christianity is the belief and faith that Jesus Christ was and is God. Therefore, I would agree with you that deists, Unitarians, etc. would not qualify as Christians. I also agree with you that many of the native American tribes were hated, but not all were. It did take awhile for the Europeans to learn the differences among tribes, though. After all, if your family is slaughtered, you are not tending to make the distinctions which would have been good to make.
What are you exactly saying? Please clarify on the last statement about slaughtering.
So I tend to understand both sides on that one. In the long run, there were no 'good guys' and 'bad guys' as a generalization of the Europeans and native Americans in that sense. There were a lot of both on both sides and it depended on who was in power on each side as to what the official policy was.
I am not following this either. Maybe you forgot that twenty three million Aztecs were killed by Cortez alone?
Now, second, you are resorting to some rather nasty personal attacks -- ad hominem -- which have no place here. Please argue the subject and do not attack the person. Feel free to show anyone where they are wrong using data and information, and do not resort to personal attacks. Personal attacks basically mean you are probably bankrupt of anything more substantial to say, and I don't think that applies to you.
Sure.
There were a number of very good scientists, by the way, before Newton. ALL of the scientific methods are constructions of our own era. If you go back, however, a long time ago, you will find the Medes and the Persians were excellent astronomers, for instance. Aristotle did a remarkable job with classification (maybe too remarkable...). The pyramids themselves were not built on a basis of mythology but on a firm understanding of scientific engineering. We see evidence of some very advanced medicine from some of the ancients as well. So whether you believe man started perfect with Adam and has been going downhill ever since or whether you believe man started from a pre-ape ancestor and has been going uphill ever since, the evidence of some very astute science and engineering is there in civilizations we know are at least 2500 or 3000 years old, far preceding Newton.
They do not have explanations for these things at all. It wasn't until active observation became a main practice in the 'science' of those days that we began to grasp the mechanisms.
Now, you asked me:
Where is the disconnect? Can you please explain how you can't see over a thousand million years, a primitive single-celled organism can eventually turn into a bear with small mutations?
How do you explain redundant, and junk DNA? Why are we so closely linked to the great apes, like Chimpanzees? You do realize that Chimpanzees and humans CAN mate, it's just we've of course never done that. We are that closely related that we can have hybrid species, like the Humanzee.
How do you explain that, in your professional and scientific opinion?
Let's deal with the time situation first. Evolutionists say the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. They tell us the first single celled organisms appear in the fossil record at about the 3.5 billiion [sic] year mark. Then we are told that it took approximately another billion years for the first multicellular (with differentiated cells) organism to evolve. Let's look at that timing.
Today E.coli bacteria have a generation time of about 20 minutes in the lab -- that means from adult, through division, to two adults ready to divide is 20 minutes. (Do the math here and you will find out how you can get so sick so fast from the little suckers.) But the early environment probably was a little more difficult than a Petri dish, so let's, for the sake of argument, say the first proto-bacteria only were able to divide about ten times a day. That would be about 3650 generations in a year.
In a billion years, though, that would be 3,650,000,000,000 generations to get to a multicellular organism.
Now, please figure a generation time of a year, which many, many animals have. We were once, according to evolution, fish. Then some kind of reptile or amphibian. The further up the 'ladder' you get the longer the generation times get. Apes are about ten years. Humans around 13 at the minimum. But even if the average generation time is only a year, evolution has just run out of time. How many generations to get from fish to man? How many to get from proto-bacteria to fish? You see, it is not the years which count, but the generation times. And that alone, without any genetic involved at all, defeats evolution.
So...you think we do not have enough generations? I am not sure I am following you here. Are you forgetting about the mass extinctions, and all these other environmental factors for rapid evolution? Please explain your point, because I feel I am missing it.
As far as 'junk' DNA is concerned, that is more evidence of our ignorance than anything else. The more we study, the more we find that there is less and less "junk" DNA as we discover what the sequences do and are for. Redundancy? If we did not have it, we would all be dead. Mutations would have wiped us out long ago. Redundancy is an example of excellent design.
Are we close to chimpanzees or other apes? No, actually we are not.
One: Please provide evidence.
Two: About the chimps: it says we may NOT be that close. Not that we are not close. I still find it a bit ridiculous when most scientists would disagree outright.
Not to sound nuts, but I watched an entire program on hybrids, and a few scientists were discussing how it is actually possible to have a 'humanzee' because we are that close. Of course, this child would be a hybrid, and like most hybrids, it would most likely be sterile, and have severe problems.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744
Please read the following, written by evolutionists:
from: Inferring Nonneutral Evolution from Human-Chimp-Mouse Orthologous Gene Trios Andrew G. Clark, Stephen Glanowski, Rasmus Nielsen, Paul D. Thomas, Anish Kejariwal, Melissa A. Todd, David M. Tanenbaum, Daniel Civello, Fu Lu, Brian Murphy, Steve Ferriera, Gary Wang, Xianqgun Zheng, Thomas J. White, John J. Sninsky, Mark D. Adams, and Michele Cargill Science, 302, Dec 12 2003: 1960-1963.
Even though human and chimpanzee gene sequences are nearly 99% identical, sequence comparisons can nevertheless be highly informative in identifying biologically important changes that have occurred since our ancestral lineages diverged. We analyzed alignments of 7645 chimpanzee gene sequences to their human and mouse orthologs. These three-species sequence alignments allowed us to identify genes undergoing natural selection along the human and chimp lineage by fitting models that include parameters specifying rates of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitution. This evolutionary approach revealed an informative set of genes with significantly different patterns of substitution on the human lineage compared with the chimpanzee and mouse lineages. Partitions of genes into inferred biological classes identified accelerated evolution in several functional classes, including olfaction and nuclear transport. In addition to suggesting adaptive physiological differences between chimps and humans, human-accelerated genes are significantly more likely to underlie major known Mendelian disorders.
And then this:
From the Sydney Morning Herald - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/ ... 37622.html
Origin of species
By Deborah Smith, Science Editor
May 27, 2004
Our closest relative, the chimpanzee, is not quite as close to us as was thought.
Chimps are likely to have thousands of genes that differ in subtle but important ways to human genes, making it harder than hoped to identify the key bits of DNA responsible for unique human characteristics such as speech and complex thought, new research shows.
Previous studies have estimated we share more than 98 per cent of our DNA with our ape cousins. But the new study is the first to make a detailed "letter" by "letter" comparison of the DNA sequence of a chimp chromosome and its matching human chromosome, and work out the big effects of these small differences.
An international team led by Dr Asao Fujiyama of the National Institute of Informatics in Tokyo lined up human chromosome 21 against its chimp equivalent, which has more than 33 million letters of DNA.
The researchers found that the instances where one letter was substituted for another in the two species accounted for only 1.5 per cent of the genetic code.
But they were surprised to find that there were 68,000 bits of DNA, some of them containing only 30 letters, some up to 54,000 letters long, which had been either gained or lost by the human genome in the 6 million years since our evolutionary pathway diverged from that of chimpanzees.
At least 47 chimpanzee genes were found that were different enough from their human equivalents that they would produce very different proteins. About a fifth of the chimpanzee genes studied were also switched on to a greater or lesser degree in the apes' brains and livers than in our organs.
"The biological consequences due to the genetic differences [between chimpanzees and humans] are much more complicated than previously speculated," the team concludes in the journal Nature today.
Dr Jean Weissenbach, of Genoscope, the French national centre for DNA sequencing, said the findings from this one chromosome suggested that, overall, chimpanzees could have thousands of genes that differed significantly from ours.
"This will not simplify the search for the hypothetical key genetic changes that prevented us from remaining as apes," he said.
This doesn't prove we are distant, it just states that we may not be as close as we imagined, which is interesting.
You see, when the research is actually done and you get away from the indoctrination you get in the public schools and press, the evidence is not quite so clear....In fact, you would have to presume evolution in the first place in order to conclude it from the data as it is emerging.
That is a ridiculous claim. What are you suggesting in place of evolution? Intelligent design? Are you a young-earth creationist as well?
Do you disregard, fossils, radio-dating, and other evidence of an older universe? I find that you are a very intelligent person, but you are reading the data through rose-colored glasses.
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |