Creationism and the Darwinian Theator of the Mind

[thilipsis]

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

With all do respect, @ a minimum, I'm gonna have to see some evidence that you sat for and passed High School General Chemistry before we can continue. 

 

regards

What are you talking about? I think everyone knows what an hypothesis and a theory is and Darwinism qualifies as a unified theory of biology. I disagree with the naturalistic assumptions its based on but that doesn't make it any less a theory. Its just not a theory of evolution per se, its a theory of natural history. It was developed as a unified theory in What has become known as the Modern Synthesis. For about fifty years Genetics wasn't considered a real science because it could not link the cause (molecular) with the effect (external traits). In effect molecular biology and Genetics couldn't get on the same page until the unveiling of the DNA double helix model. What Crick, Watson and their colleagues were able to determine was how protein coding genes work.

What you think that has to do with a chemistry class is a mystery to me since this is basic biology. I got a 'b' in college Biology btw.

Edited November 25, 2016 by thilipsis

[Bonky]

3 hours ago, thilipsis said:

I studied the fossils for years and one of the biggest breakthroughs for me was when I realized there are no chimpanzee fossils in the fossil record. It didn't really dawn on me until the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome was published in 2005, in the same edition they reported that three maybe four Chimpanzee teeth were found in the Rift Valley. The article says these are the first chimpanzee fossils ever found, that just blew me away. After that it was obvious, every time a chimpanzee skull is dug up in Africa it's automatically one of our ancestors. 

I've found your posts fairly interesting but this particular post caught my attention.  Is it not fair to say that the reason why we don't have many chimp fossils is largely because they live in rainforests? [Not conducive to fossilization].   I guess I find it odd that someone who studies fossils was blown away when they learned this [lack of chimp fossils].  Also you seem to question the integrity of scientists that they always assume a primate skull is going to be "human" but the scientist(s) clearly didn't assume the teeth were human, they performed some comparative analysis and believe them to be chimp teeth.  

I just want to get a clear understanding of what it is you're saying here.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Bonky

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, thilipsis said:

What are you talking about? I think everyone knows what an hypothesis and a theory is

You think, eh? 

Please define a Scientific Hypothesis...?

List the Characteristics ...?

Provide an example of one...?

 

(These should be easy, since I already posted them; save for providing an example of a REAL one)...

Define a Scientific Theory...?

List the Characteristics...?

Provide an example of one...?

 

Quote

Darwinism qualifies as a unified theory of biology.

Why...because somebody told you ?

If you knew what an ACTUAL Scientific Theory was it would have saved you from compromising yourself by posting this trainwreck. 

 

Quote

For about fifty years Genetics wasn't considered a real science because it could not link the cause (molecular) with the effect (external traits). In effect molecular biology and Genetics couldn't get on the same page until the unveiling of the DNA double helix model. What Crick, Watson and their colleagues were able to determine was how protein coding genes work.

What is this Generic description of absolutely nothing in response to ??

 

Quote

What you think that has to do with a chemistry class is a mystery to me since this is basic biology. I got a 'b' in college Biology btw.

Well you keep on referring to 'Genetics' and 'Proteins' from the periphery --never getting in the remote vicinity of detail.  It's clear you're just 'Parroting' what you've been told or read.   You may be able to get away with that buffoonery with your average layman but I can sniff you out in less than a Planck Time. 

To speak on such things with some semblance of coherency, you MUST KNOW "Biochemistry".  To even get a whiff of Biochemistry you have to pass General Chemistry -- THEN, The Widow Maker --- Organic Chemistry I, II. 

Till then, it's Amateur Night (Laughingly So).

 

ps.  College Level Biology will teach just about enough to get you into serious trouble with a Biochemist.  The same trouble you've had over the past week or so  (and I've merely just brushed the surface).

 

regards

[Dave LP]

4 hours ago, thilipsis said:

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said once, 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts'. Darwinians want to tell us that Creationism is an argument from incredulity (ignorance), but I don't see any real indication of that. The difference is simply two world views, God creating life about 6000 years ago changes none of the actual facts.

Convergent evolution is the explanation, clearly this gene has arisen de novo at least 4 times. There have been a number of papers written about this and they can even tell you where the DNA was taken from and roughly how it was constructed. To date they haven't been able to determine the mechanism responsible but you don't get the option of mutations or viruses, that's for sure. 

I studied the fossils for years and one of the biggest breakthroughs for me was when I realized there are no chimpanzee fossils in the fossil record. It didn't really dawn on me until the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome was published in 2005, in the same edition they reported that three maybe four Chimpanzee teeth were found in the Rift Valley. The article says these are the first chimpanzee fossils ever found, that just blew me away. After that it was obvious, every time a chimpanzee skull is dug up in Africa it's automatically one of our ancestors. 

I've noticed a lot of things like that, when the basic strategy they are using is understood the facts fall right into place. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

As always thanks for your insight.  It took me a while to catch on that these are just two different worldviews.  The Darwinists were very good at injecting their worldview into the empirical science.  Good point that the facts don't change, just the interpretation.   

That's interesting about the lack of Chimp fossils. If I understand correctly, it's not because there aren't any chimp fossils, it's because a Darwinian worldview demands transitional forms and so the chimps are used.  So Lucy is just another chimp?   

Blessings!

-Dave

[Dave LP]

4 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Fair enough.

 

Is that a "Scientific Theory" or a Colloquial 'theory'...?

"theory" (Colloquial):  Abject Speculation !! 

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED  through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

See the difference?

 

1.  Please CITE a source that states this is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

2.  A complete moron @ the beginning of time could have more or less came to the same conclusion observing two consecutive generations of his family and a family of squirrels. 

3. "Species"(genus, family, ect) is merely a contrived classification system (Taxonomic) used to categorize.; it's an arbitrary man-made construct --- Rubber Ruler. 

4.  Actual "Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...

Ergo, "Species Change" as a Scientific Theory is a tear jerkin belly laugher.  Besides the slap in the face Begging The Question Fallacy with 'Species", It's tantamount to exclaiming that the Scientific Theory of a Hurricane is: "A Change in the Weather". 

 

 

1.  evolution -- change.

2.  There isn't and never was a "Scientific Theory" of evolution.

 

regards

 

Fair enough.  Darwinism isn't my horse in the race so you'll get no arguments from me.

Blessings!

-Dave

[thilipsis]

6 hours ago, Bonky said:

I've found your posts fairly interesting but this particular post caught my attention.  Is it not fair to say that the reason why we don't have many chimp fossils is largely because they live in rainforests? [Not conducive to fossilization].   I guess I find it odd that someone who studies fossils was blown away when they learned this [lack of chimp fossils].  Also you seem to question the integrity of scientists that they always assume a primate skull is going to be "human" but the scientist(s) clearly didn't assume the teeth were human, they performed some comparative analysis and believe them to be chimp teeth.  

I just want to get a clear understanding of what it is you're saying here.

Actually the rain forests are in South America but I know what you mean, modern Troglodytes inhabit the savannas while the Bonobos live in the jungles of the Congo. No your not going to get a lot of fossils there. What is curious is that the only fossils they get are in eastern Africa in the Rift Valley, the same area where Louis Leaky found so many hominid fossils especially in Oldovia Gorge. The biggest problem for me is that the Taung Child was considered a chimpanzee for almost half a century and for good reason, now it's considered one of our ancestors even though it looks a whole lot more like a chimpanzee then human. Same problem with Lucy and it comes down to the cranial capacity.

When I heard about the Chimpanzee Genome paper my Guard unit had just called us up to respond to Katrina, for two weeks I was wanting to read that article. I finally get my hands on it and as I'm browsing through the magazine that article hits me between the eyes. I'm sorting through all these details, point mutations, indels, gene comparisons and comparisons to the mouse genome (that one is actually more important then you think) and then this brief little new article. I start looking around for chimpanzee ancestors and from the time of the split there are actually none. It makes no sense that there would be so many hominids and no chimpanzee ancestors since both populations would have lived along equatorial Africa till about a million years ago. They wouldn't have been that different, stone age hominids (Homo habilils) are found primarily in central Africa not far from where ancestral chimpanzees would have lived.  

[thilipsis]

20 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

You think, eh? 

Please define a Scientific Hypothesis...?

List the Characteristics ...?

Provide an example of one...?

 

(These should be easy, since I already posted them; save for providing an example of a REAL one)...

Define a Scientific Theory...?

List the Characteristics...?

Provide an example of one...?

Well now that one could take a while but since the issue here is natural history the development of the inductive approach to scientific method seems a likely place to start:

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. (Newton, General Scholium)

The obvious example here was the Newtonian theory of gravity, one of the keystones in physics for the development of the principles of motion.

If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment- experimentum crucis -were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory. (Issac Newton, Michael White)

While I consider this a tangent that's an hypothesis and how it fits into inductive scientific method. You have other ideas let's hear them.

Quote

 

Why...because somebody told you ?

If you knew what an ACTUAL Scientific Theory was it would have saved you from compromising yourself by posting this trainwreck. 

No because that's what the Modern Synthesis, aka Neodarwinism is, it's a unified theory of biology. Call it what you will.

Quote

 

What is this Generic description of absolutely nothing in response to ??

It's a brief overview of the development of modern Genetics, here is another one:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th centurysparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century:

1. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes.
2. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix.
3. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.
4. The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial Sequence of the Human Genome, Nature 2005)

Now I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here but I'm talking about comparative genomics as it pertains to human/chimpanzee common ancestry.

Quote

Well you keep on referring to 'Genetics' and 'Proteins' from the periphery --never getting in the remote vicinity of detail.  It's clear you're just 'Parroting' what you've been told or read.   You may be able to get away with that buffoonery with your average layman but I can sniff you out in less than a Planck Time. 

Yet you have not managed anything other then some scathing ad hominem remarks. I consider this kind of fallacious rhetoric to be an argument that never happened since it pertains to nothing substantive.

Quote

To speak on such things with some semblance of coherency, you MUST KNOW "Biochemistry".  To even get a whiff of Biochemistry you have to pass General Chemistry -- THEN, The Widow Maker --- Organic Chemistry I, II. 

Till then, it's Amateur Night (Laughingly So).

Then at least you will enjoy a good laugh. I am not passing myself off as a biochemist and over the years I came to realize this isn't all that technical. The essence of the issues are ideological, arguing in circles around the substance of my discussion is your choice. If you want to introduce something biochemical into the mix feel free, until then I really don't see your point.

The way I see it, you and I decide to have fresh baked bread and eclairs for lunch. So we go to a local baker and buy them. You might have to be a baker to make them but certainly don't have to be a baker to eat them. 

Quote

 

ps.  College Level Biology will teach just about enough to get you into serious trouble with a Biochemist.  The same trouble you've had over the past week or so  (and I've merely just brushed the surface).

Believe me it's been no trouble at all, I've fielded this kind of fallacious reasoning too many times to count. When the poster resorts to ad hominem personal remarks to the exclusion of anything relevant or anything substantive, that's when I know I have them, because they have nothing else. Usually it's a downward spiral but in your case you went right for it, to date, I have never seen anyone recover from the allure of fallacious rhetoric. Perhaps you will be the first.

Till then I can dismiss these arguments as dramatic acting, right where it started, in the Darwinian Theater of the Mind.

Grace and peace,
Mark 

Edited November 26, 2016 by thilipsis
transcription errors

[thilipsis]

6 hours ago, Dave LP said:

As always thanks for your insight.  It took me a while to catch on that these are just two different worldviews.  The Darwinists were very good at injecting their worldview into the empirical science.  Good point that the facts don't change, just the interpretation.

It's always a great pleasure to encounter a fellow creationist who simply explores the subject matter in a civil and straightforward manner. I've seen a lot of them over the years, I've seen them run out of discussion forums to form their own discussion groups. Most Creationists are gentle natured people who are simply curious about how Scripture can be cross referenced with the scientific discoveries of the day. Take your time with this Dave, I promise you, there is nothing in the evidence that is going to contradict the Genesis account of creation. That's why Darwinians and sometimes creationists are so melodramatic about these things. At the end of the day God's glory is reflected in the things that were created and it's not us who confirm the creation account, that responsibility resides with the only one who can tell us when and how life was created. God himself.

Quote

   

That's interesting about the lack of Chimp fossils. If I understand correctly, it's not because there aren't any chimp fossils, it's because a Darwinian worldview demands transitional forms and so the chimps are used.  So Lucy is just another chimp?   

Blessings!

-Dave

That's exactly what I'm getting from paleontology, the Taung Child and Lucy are knuckle dragging apes. Think about it, we sent a chimpanzee into outer space, chimpanzees are doing good to use sticks to eat termites or clubs to ward off intruders. The Scientific Revolution was about tools, mental and physical. What you build with them is entirely up to you. The way I think I know the difference between chimpanzees and humans in the fossil record is simply the size and complexity of the human brain. A chimpanzee has a cranial capacity about three times smaller then the human mean average. The genetic basis for an adaptive evolution of the human brain from that of apes is a burden of proof that resides with the Darwinians who have failed miserably to produce an effective cause for such a change.

Like I say, take your time and don't let the melodrama discourage you, the truth will prevail.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Edited November 26, 2016 by thilipsis
transcription errors

[Bonky]

6 hours ago, thilipsis said:

That's exactly what I'm getting from paleontology, the Taung Child and Lucy are knuckle dragging apes.

According to what I'm reading, the hole at the base of the skull (foramen magnum) reveals the posture of an upright biped.  Also the claim that this was a human ancestor was initially rejected.   You seem to be supportive of a creationist narrative that scientists are sloppy and or downright disingenuous in their research.  Scientists/researchers are capable of making mistakes, they're capable of being wrong...I won't argue that.   I would just ask that you support what you're saying rather than just making fairly baseless accusations against the greater scientific community.

I think if creationists would distance themselves more from conspiracy theories it would go a long way to being taken more seriously.  

Edited November 26, 2016 by Bonky

[thilipsis]

7 hours ago, Bonky said:

According to what I'm reading, the hole at the base of the skull (foramen magnum) reveals the posture of an upright biped.  Also the claim that this was a human ancestor was initially rejected.   You seem to be supportive of a creationist narrative that scientists are sloppy and or downright disingenuous in their research.  Scientists/researchers are capable of making mistakes, they're capable of being wrong...I won't argue that.   I would just ask that you support what you're saying rather than just making fairly baseless accusations against the greater scientific community.

I think if creationists would distance themselves more from conspiracy theories it would go a long way to being taken more seriously.  

The explanation that chimpanzees were originally semi bipedal makes a lot more sense the an overhaul of highly conservative genes and the de novo orginination of dozens of others. When the Piltdown fraud was uncovered the Taung Child was promoted to human ancestor. An honest assessment of the evidence would at least accept the inverse logic of Darwinian evolution, but they rarely do that:

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.(D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial)

The cranial capacity was still small, even for a chimpanzee. That being the case the genes mentioned in the OP are probably unchanged at this point and so far there is no explanation how the foramen magnum moved in the first place. Leaky who got the name Homo babilis from Dart was digging up chimpanzee size skulls but couldn't classify them as Homo. So the solution was simple, ignore the cranial capacity.

No chimpanzees in the fossil record because they are being passed off as protohuman and no molecular basis for the evolution of the human brain from that of ape. I don't have to lie about anything, you can't make this kind of stuff up. I'm getting it from the actual scientific literature I noticed you have shown no interest in.

When it comes to Darwinians watch what they publish, they'll get it right there. That won't stop them from making bogus statements other ways:

Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level...But that's rapidly changing. Just a year ago, geneticists announced that they had sequenced a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome, allowing the first side-by-side comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. (Time, What Makes the Difference)

What they are talking about is the Chimpanzee Genome paper, published in Nature in 2005. From their announcement on their Web Focus page:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. (Chimp Genome Web Focus Nature)

But the article doesn't indicate 98% the same:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome...Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with ~29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage...On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)

That comes to between 95% and 96% with over 70% of the protein coding genes showing one amino acid replacement in each of the respective genomes. Those are not minor differences, I'd say 90 million base pairs due to insertions and deletions is a pretty important thing to consider when comparing the DNA of Chimpanzees and Humans.

Don't believe what they say, read what they publish in peer review, they'll get their facts straight there. They would like you to believe it's 98% because they have no explanation for how mutations on this level, some over a million base pairs long can happen without devastating deleterious effects. In one of the areas showing the biggest differences, Human Accelerated Regions they call them, we find HAR1f. In 300 million years it allows only 2 substitutions then 2 mya it gets 18 in a brain related regulatory gene.

No explanation how, but one thing is for sure, saying we are 98% the same is grossly inaccurate. Ignore the cranial capacity and the indels, that's how you make an honest assessment of the evidence? Who's kidding who here. 

Edited November 26, 2016 by thilipsis
transcription errors