God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Arguments that contain obvious falsehoods are poor arguments. I have seen many of those in this thread.

I can and will - after we agree on what natural selection is. So far, you don't seem to be willing to try to explain it.

I also showed you that YEC scientists fully accept natural selection. You haven't shown me anything suggesting that natural selection doesn't exist.

Moving the goalpost occurs AFTER evidence is presented - not before. That's why I want us to agree on what natural selection is before I show that it is a biological fact.

Obvious excuses are obvious---You would if you could, but you can't.

Love, peace, joy

[dhchristian]

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The ENCODE project is real, and the results do question how much of the genome is functional. It even calls into question the old assumption that much of the human genome is nonfunctional. However, this has nothing to do with the genome similarity between the human and chimp genomes. The article claims that the non-coding DNA is too different to compare. This claim, and thus the premise of the essay, is COMPLETELY WRONG.

You do not answer because you are unable to answer. You really do not fully understand what this does to evolution. The Second Part is the meat of the argument, and to ignore it is to willingly continue in denial. 

[one.opinion]

19 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You would if you could, but you can't.

It would take you 10 minutes in the internet to find it for yourself. Let’s either work on common understanding of the term, or drop it.

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

You do not answer because you are unable to answer. You really do not fully understand what this does to evolution.

Please explain to me what I am missing. How do false claims impact evolution?

13 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

The Second Part is the meat of the argument, and to ignore it is to willingly continue in denial.

Alright, I’m ready to get to the “Second Part” as soon as you admit the “First Part” was utterly false.

[omega2xx]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It would take you 10 minutes in the internet to find it for yourself. Let’s either work on common understanding of the term, or drop it.

I know what the answer is.  The definition is not evidence of it being accurate.  I am asking for proof that proves the definition.  It would take you less tan 10 minuets to post your evidence

Since you can't do what you said you could, let's drop it.

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Since you can't do what you said you could, let's drop it.

I said from the beginning that I would provide evidence once you explained natural selection. I gave in a little and even tried to help you. But you refused to participate further in the discussion beyond repetitively asking for evidence prior to deciding what I am going to provide evidence FOR.

8 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

It would take you less tan 10 minuets to post your evidence

You are probably right here. But I suspect you would follow the same pattern you started when asking for evidence for evolution. You see, a real good example of "moving the goalposts" is demanding evidence for evolution, and then attempting to change the definition of evolution once the demanded evidence is provided. I'm not falling for that one from you again.

I assumed you were satisfied to drop it when you were silent for several days. I'm content to let it drop if you won't help the conversation.

[dhchristian]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Alright, I’m ready to get to the “Second Part” as soon as you admit the “First Part” was utterly false.

The second part is the proof of the first Part being true. That is what you do not understand. Until You address the second part you cannot determine the veracity of the first part. Do You understand now? You refute the first part without all the facts, the second part is all the facts. The Author of this site is making a very big claim that Darwinists have deliberately and Knowingly lied about this since the 1970's, and he shows proof from 1977 of this. 

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

 

 

 

  

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

The second part is the proof of the first Part being true. That is what you do not understand.

Let's examine this by looking back at the 5 main points in the "first part" that you believed were true and I showed you were not true.

CLAIM 1

Quote

1 Whenever there is a debate about evolution, the Darwinians always make the claim that “99% of the genetic matter of apes and humans is identical.” TRUE, YES Or NO?

My responses will follow each of the points I quote.

Quote

Not true. I’ve never made the 99% similarity claim between chimp and humans genomes, and neither has any “Darwinian” that knows what they are talking about. Why exaggerate the 96% similarity number (by typical calculations) and lose credibility. Exaggerating a claim indicates either a lack of understanding or an lack of certainty of the facts.

Does deeper analysis of the human and chimp Y chromosomes all of a sudden make "Darwinians" exaggerate the percentage of sequence similarity between the human and chimp genomes? No, the "second part" does not prove the first part.

CLAIM 2

Quote

2 That sounds pretty convincing but they never tell you that they are only referring to just 2% of the DNA and their comparison does not include the “junk DNA” that makes up 98% of the human chromosomes. TRUE, YES or NO?

Quote

Not true. The calculations of similarity are based on whole genome comparisons. Whole genome means every bit of the nuclear DNA, including coding and non-coding (junk) DNA.

Does deeper analysis of the human and chimp Y chromosomes all of a sudden make "Darwinians" compare only protein-coding DNA and not genomes? No, the "second part" does not prove the first part.

CLAIM 3

Quote

3 Darwinians have to exclude “junk DNA” from their DNA comparison because ape and human “junk DNA” are so different there isn't even a way to compare the two. TRUE, YES or NO? (Notice no percentage given)

Quote

Still not true. See response to point 2.

Does deeper analysis of the human and chimp Y chromosomes make "Darwinians" exclude DNA that does not code for proteins ("junk DNA") from genome comparisons? No, whole genomes are still compared between chimps and humans. No, the "second part" does not prove the first part.

CLAIM 4

Quote

4 If you include all 100% of the DNA, and not just 2%, then ape and human DNA are so different that it is inconceivable for humans to have evolved from apes. TRUE, YES or NO? (Notice again, no percentage is given)

Quote

Not true. It is highly conceivable. The genetic evidence, which goes way past simple sequence similarity, very strongly supports common ancestry of humans and chimps.

Does deeper analysis of the human and chimp Y chromosomes make it suddenly inconceivable for humans and chimps to have a common ancestor? I won't dismiss this entirely because it actually is relevant. There are some big differences between the human and chimp Y chromosomes. However, it is still conceivable for humans and chimps to have a common ancestor. I hope to discuss this further, but I must insist (for reasons I will expand upon later) for honest treatment of the "first part".

CLAIM 5

Quote

5 For this reason, the Darwinians pulled a fast one and created the phony concept of “junk DNA.”  Darwinians labeled 98% of human DNA as “junk DNA” and claimed it was useless junk and should be ignored in any comparison of ape and human DNA. TRUE, YES or NO? 

Quote

 

Not true. The “Darwinians” did not have to come up with the “phony concept” of junk DNA because of a lack of sequence similarity.

First, there isn’t a lack of sequence similarity! This false notion apparently only exists in YEC circles that don’t bother to fact-check their own assertions.

Second, the term “junk DNA” was first popularized by Ohno in 1972. That was over 30 years prior to the draft sequences of the human and chimp genomes!

READ CAREFULLY - THE CONCEPT OF “JUNK DNA” PREDATES THE ABILITY TO COMPARE GENOMES BY 30 YEARS!

 

(I added the bold in my response because this is the easiest to see that it is unjustifiably false.)

Does deeper analysis of the human and chimp Y chromosomes change the time line of genome sequencing and use of the term "junk DNA"? Obviously not. No, the "second part" does not prove the first part.

In summary, points 1, 2, 3, and 5 are clearly false regardless of what is presented in the second part. In only 1 of these five points is the analysis of chimp and human Y chromosomes even relevant.

Therefore, your claim that "The second part is the proof of the first Part being true" is 80% false, if I calculate charitably in your favor.

This is what you are not getting:

You suspect "Darwinians" make up facts about science because they have an agenda to hide the truth and make up "phony science". When your "first part" was written by someone that was either completely clueless about scientific facts about human and chimp genomes, or was completely fabricating statements - BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN AGENDA.

I am taking a stand here. I WILL NOT move on to "part two" until you acknowledge that the behavior you suspect of "atheistic Darwinians" is actually used by whoever wrote "part one". This is either flat-out lying on the part of the author, or shamefully negligent in fact-checking. Either way, the author's agenda is the driving factor behind the shameful degree of falsehood.

 

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

The Author of this site is making a very big claim that Darwinists have deliberately and Knowingly lied about this since the 1970's, and he shows proof from 1977 of this. 

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

I followed the link and there is nothing there about the ENCODE project, nothing about "junk DNA", and nothing about proof the 70s at all, let alone 1977. Come on... at least make sure your links say what you think they say while trying to defend them...

[dhchristian]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

8 hours ago, dhchristian said:

The Author of this site is making a very big claim that Darwinists have deliberately and Knowingly lied about this since the 1970's, and he shows proof from 1977 of this. 

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

I followed the link and there is nothing there about the ENCODE project, nothing about "junk DNA", and nothing about proof the 70s at all, let alone 1977. Come on... at least make sure your links say what you think they say while trying to defend them...

Click on the Box at the top of the Link I Gave you which is titled "Ape and Human DNA very different.

ATHEISTS FABRICATED THE CONCEPT OF “JUNK DNA”

TO HELP THEM PULL OFF THEIR DECEPTIVE 99% IDENTICAL CLAIM

 

Scientists had gained the ability to perform rudimentary DNA tests in the early 1970's.  One of the first series of DNA tests they performed was directed at comparing the DNA of apes and humans.  They expected to find enormous similarity but the actual results were shocking because they found that there was very little similarity between the DNA of apes and humans. 

 

They found that ape and human DNA was only about 2% nearly identical but more than 70% of ape DNA could not be matched to human DNA. 

 

This data totally contradicted “ape to human evolution” because if humans actually did evolve from apes, then the DNA of humans and apes would have to be very similar  But those early DNA tests devastatingly contradicted “ape to human evolution.”

 

You would expect that such discoveries would be widely published because it was so news worthy.  But the discoveries never were published.

 

Those DNA tests were performed by atheist scientists who worshipped Darwin and evolution theory.  Many of those scientists had earned their graduate degrees based on writing theses in support of evolution theory.  These atheist scientists agreed among themselves to keep the test results a secret and they formed a Darwin Conspiracy to concoct an explanation for why the ape DNA was so different from human DNA.

 

Faced with the fact that only 2% of ape and human DNA was “nearly identical,” these atheists scientists, led by Dr. Susumu Ohno, hypothesized that only the 2% of human and ape DNA that was nearly identical was essential, and the other 98% was “junk DNA” 

 

The atheists did have some minimal basis for their hypothesis – it appeared that most of the actual genes were in that 2% and not in the 98%.

 

The scientists therefore claimed that the 2% was all of the “encoding DNA,” and therefore essential to life, but the other 98% was “noncoding DNA” and not essential to life and therefore was junk.

 

But we now know that their assertion was based on half-truths, omissions and the concept of “junk DNA” – right from the start it was an insidious lie designed to deceive us.

 

EVIDENCE DARWINIANS HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN

ABOUT VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APE AND HUMAN DNA

 

We have accused Darwinians of willfully lying when they told us “the genetic matter of apes and humans is 99% identical.”

 

The three sets of diagrams below provide evidence to back up our accusation – the diagrams provide us with side by side comparisons of human and gorilla chromosomes that have been stained with chemicals so we can see “chromosome bands.”

 

When chromosomes are stained with certain chemicals, different types of DNA will stain in different colors and shades of colors.  The result is chromosomes will show colored “bands” and that gave rise to the term “chromosome banding.”  The colors and depth of colors of chromosome bands also vary depending on the chemical used for staining.

 

The point is that if two chromosomes do not have identical chromosome banding patterns, they  cannot contain identical DNA.

 

This first illustration below compares human chromosome 1 side by side with gorilla chromosome 1.  They are obviously not 99% identical.  For example, gorilla chromosome 1 has a medium sized gray banded area at the top  that is entirely missing from the chromosome 1.  Human chromosome 1 has a very wide gray band near the middle but the gorilla gray band in the middle is very narrow, only about one fifth the size.