God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

How can I refute something I quoted, you need to take that up with the author of the website I quoted. Here it is again for you.

You have misunderstood the beginning of the article. The protein-coding regions of DNA in the chimp and human genomes make up about 2% of the total. This is true. However, the remaining 98% of the genome still has a high degree of similarity - a fact not mentioned in your source.

I could certainly understand your conviction that evolution is false IF there was only 2% similarity between chimp and human genomes. However, this is a drastic misunderstanding and far, far from accurate.

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Only about 2% of human DNA is very similar to ape DNA.

This is absolutely and demonstrably false. Please understand the facts. You are undermining your arguments if you have these massive misconceptions about the verifiable evidence.

11 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I am more than willing to admit it if I am wrong. That claim that you want me to admit is wrong is made by the site posted. And as @omega2xx stated, you are just trying to distract from answering the questions. The Old duck and dodge....

Let’s work on getting our facts straight first, then we can discuss the implications of the facts.

It is pointless, and even harmful, to move the discussion onward without first understanding what we are talking about.

Seriously, go to ICR and read what Tomkins says if you think I am lying to you.

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

go to ICR and read what Tomkins says if you think I am lying to you.

post the links, I will read them.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

post the links, I will read them.

This is probably the most recent commentary on human/chimp genome comparison from Tomkins - https://www.icr.org/article/new-chimp-genome-confirms-creationist-research

[omega2xx]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Are you aware that there are multiple species of both salamanders and gulls? Speciation within these groups can make a new species of salamander or a new species of gull.

You have been provided with evidence for speciation and evolution in multiple occasions.

Are you aware that there are multiple species of both salamanders and gulls? Speciation within these groups can make a new species of salamander or a new species of gull.

You have been provided with evidence for speciation and evolution in multiple occasions.

No I haven't.  You have only parroted the usual evo talking points based on a false  definition.  I am weary of talking abut speciation.  If you think it results in a new species, be my guest

There is NO ONE in any scientific field that denies natural selection. If you do, it simply indicates a lack of understanding of the term.

Are you serious?  The scientist at ICR, who are  just as qualified as you are, maybe more qualified, deny natural selection.

To illustrate natural selection effectively, it is important that you at least understand what it is. Would you be happier if I picked a dictionary definition for you to look at? You seem rather reluctant to examine what natural selection actually is.

I know what it  is, but I am not going to discuss it with you.  You can't prove it so you keep adding requirements to avoid presenting what you consider evidence.

I will provide evidence for natural selection once we can reach an agreement on what it is. Are you ready to take a look at that?

Have a nice day.  You would if you could, but YOU CAN'T.  I knew it from the beginning and now everyone else knows it. 

Love, peace, joy

 

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

How can I refute something I quoted, you need to take that up with the author of the website I quoted. Here it is again for you.

The phony concept of "junk DNA" is a good example of how the Darwin Conspiracy created a phony concept for the sole purpose of preventing us from learning human DNA is very different from ape DNA and therefore Darwin was wrong.]

 

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.”

 

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. 

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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.

 

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/junk_dna_standalone.php

 

Here is what they said in a nutshell.

But the “vital DNA” of apes and humans is vastly different and this proves Darwin was wrong because:

 

• Only about 2% of human DNA is very similar to ape DNA.

 

• 98% of the DNA of apes and humans is so different there is no way to even compare the two DNA's – it would be like trying to compare a bicycle to a Ferrari.  This means that humans could not have evolved from apes.

 

I am more than willing to admit it if I am wrong. That claim that you want me to admit is wrong is made by the site posted. And as @omega2xx stated, you are just trying to distract from answering the questions. The Old duck and dodge....

 

Amen brother.  When they have no evidence, the only thing they have left is to duck and dodge.

Love, peace, joy

[one.opinion]

38 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Are you serious?  The scientist at ICR, who are  just as qualified as you are, maybe more qualified, deny natural selection.

They do not. They may not agree that natural selection drives evolution, but they absolutely do not deny natural selection. Here is part of an essay at the ICR website on Edward Blyth, a Christian naturalist that described natural selection before Darwin.

Quote

Creationists have had and still have little problem with the tenets of natural selection. Small variations having survival benefit within created kinds, such as coloration of peppered moths or differently shaped beaks, no more disprove creation than fossils in sedimentary rocks disprove a universal flood. The Creator not only displays tremendous variety of kinds but also enormous variety within created kinds. How to transmute from one species to another is the problem, however. It was impossible for Darwin to get past that barrier, and it is just as impossible today.

The rest of the essay can be found here - https://www.icr.org/article/natural-selection-creationists-idea/

This is what Answers in Genesis (AiG) has to say about natural selection:

 

Quote

 

Natural Selection and Creationists

The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds.

 

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/

 

This is what CMI has to say about natural selection, just to make sure I don't leave anyone out.

Quote

Natural selection is simply the effect the natural world has on living things, selecting out living forms that can survive from those that can’t handle their environment and therefore perish. All too often we see the results of natural selection being claimed as evidence of ‘evolution’ in action. Such a conclusion is either a bad case of ‘jumping to premature conclusions’, or shows a poor understanding of what ‘evolution’ really is. Evolution and natural selection are two entirely different things.

https://creation.com/natural-selection

You apparently think I am either too dumb to be effective at my job, or lying to you. I assure you that neither one is the case. As a PhD Biologist, and a Christian devoted to Jesus Christ who is The Truth, when I say something is a fact, I use that term very conservatively and can promise you that it is true and can back it up with evidence. Natural selection is a fact. Evolution, when defined as heritable change over time, is also a fact. I think the evidence is strongly suggestive that organisms evolved from single-celled organisms, but I will not tell you it is a fact. Please consider that I might actually know what I'm talking about.

I know you think you are defending the conservative Christian faith, but you are not doing your "side" any favors when you make blatantly obvious incorrect statements, and then defend them without having a clue about the scientific evidence or even what qualified people ON YOUR OWN TEAM are saying.

Now that you have been shown to be completely incorrect, would you like me to teach you about natural selection?

[dhchristian]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is probably the most recent commentary on human/chimp genome comparison from Tomkins - https://www.icr.org/article/new-chimp-genome-confirms-creationist-research

Here is how I understand this. This article is talking about the 2% of our genome that makes up our Genes. This being what evolutionists have stated is 98%-99% similar in chimps. The Work of the ENCODE project is dealing with the 98% of the Human Genome that evolutionists have called "Junk DNA". This article states that even that claim of 98-99% similarity was skewed by false Data mixed with Chimp DNA giving it a greater similarity to the Human Genes. So We have the 2% of our DNA that are our Genes, which is anywhere from 85% to 99% similar to chimps, But the whole Genome consists of another 98% which is totally dissimilar and yet vital to the Human and is not "junk DNA" as evolutionists wish to make it. 

Whether the ICR article is right or not is irrelevant to the point made by the Project ENCODE work on the other 98% of the human Genome, making time and chance for evolution impossible simply because there is not enough time account for the random chance to evolve one species from One Kind to another (Ape to Human) the mathematics make it impossible. 

Am I understanding this wrong? I do not think so.

 

[one.opinion]

31 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

So We have the 2% of our DNA that are our Genes, which is anywhere from 85% to 99% similar to chimps, But the whole Genome consists of another 98% which is totally dissimilar and yet vital to the Human and is not "junk DNA" as evolutionists wish to make it.

You are still misunderstanding the facts. When protein-coding portions of the chimp and human genomes are directly compared, they are close to 99% similar. Only when entire genomes are compared does the similarity percentage drop off. Depending on how the calculations are made, that similarity ranges from ~85% (Tomkins) to ~96% - over the entire genome.

Let me give a quick example of why and how the numbers can vary. Individual genomes contain thousands of insertions or deletions, even within the same species. For a specific insertion of 25 nucleotides in the chimp genome, most researchers would count it as a single difference because a single mutational event caused the insertion - nucleotides “in front of” and “behind” the insertion may match up perfectly, showing a single mutation event. Tomkins, in the other hand, would have counted this as 25 nucleotide differences. Arguments could be made for scoring the genome similarity either way - there is no “right way” to do it as long as the system is used consistently. However, if Tomkins’s method is used, human genome similarity would probably dip down to the low 90s in percentage, so the 86% still shows a great deal of similarity.

And to be clear, these similarity scores are over the entire genome, not just the 2% that encodes proteins.

47 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

But the whole Genome consists of another 98% which is totally dissimilar and yet vital to the Human and is not "junk DNA" as evolutionists wish to make it.

Again, this is a misunderstanding in your part. The portion of the chimp and human genomes that does not code for proteins is still HIGHlY similar.

48 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Whether the ICR article is right or not is irrelevant to the point made by the Project ENCODE work on the other 98% of the human Genome

Let’s make sure we understand the genome similarity issue before we move on the junk DNA and the ENCODE project. After all, I’m sure you would agree that understanding the truth (facts about genomes) is an important place to start.

[omega2xx]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

They do not. They may not agree that natural selection drives evolution, but they absolutely do not deny natural selection. Here is part of an essay at the ICR website on Edward Blyth, a Christian naturalist that described natural selection before Darwin.

The rest of the essay can be found here - https://www.icr.org/article/natural-selection-creationists-idea/

This is what Answers in Genesis (AiG) has to say about natural selection:

For some reason you still think quoting someone is evidence.  It is not.  A naturalist is not a scientist and that is also what Darwin was.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/

This is also from your link.  Why did you omit it?

Natural Selection Is Not Evolution!

The supposed vehicles of evolution are mutations, natural selection, and other mechanisms that—when combined with that pixie dust of time—allegedly led to the development of all life forms present today. However, natural selection merely redistributes or reduces preexisting genetic information, and mutations often corrupt the information.

Natural Selection and Creationists

The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds.

Natural Selection and New Information

Natural selection cannot generate brand new genetic information. It simply doesn’t work that way. Instead, it filters information that already exists. The general theory of evolution is the idea that single-celled organisms gained new genetic information over millions and billions of years, and eventually arrived at “higher life-forms” such as man.

Adaptation in Plants

If living things such as plants have been observed to adapt to their environment—isn’t that evolution? Adaptation of plants does not prove evolution.

Does Natural Selection Prove Evolution?

Distinguishing natural selection from Darwinian evolution (the latter combines natural selection with the idea that all life has an ancestor in common) is one of the primary challenges modern creationists face in the origins debate. Experimental confirmation of natural selection is interpreted as proof of Darwin’s theory.

This is what CMI has to say about natural selection, just to make sure I don't leave anyone out.

https://creation.com/natural-selection

Saying is opinion, not evidence.

You apparently think I am either too dumb to be effective at my job, or lying to you. I assure you that neither one is the case. As a PhD Biologist, and a Christian devoted to Jesus Christ who is The Truth, when I say something is a fact, I use that term very conservatively and can promise you that it is true and can back it up with evidence. Natural selection is a fact. Evolution, when defined as heritable change over time, is also a fact. I think the evidence is strongly suggestive that organisms evolved from single-celled organisms, but I will not tell you it is a fact. Please consider that I might actually know what I'm talking about.

You keep saying it is as fact, and I keep saying prove it.  Every one, including me, what was taught in our failed public education system, was only taught evolution and they were taught it is science and it has been proven.   Because our indoctrination started in about the 5th grade and we didn't know any real science, we all believed it, including me at one time.

I don't believe you are dumb, IMO, all educated  in our public education system has been taught a lie when it comes to evolution.  Being a Christian has nothing to do with science.  You know what you have been taught, but you were never provided and real scientific evidence to support what you were taught and were not taught what constitutes verifiable evidence.

"Small changes over time" is not evidence."  Evidence  must include a cause based on science. 

You said you could prove natural selection, but when put to the test, you have had to change the criteria.  So I will no longer reply to your post on this subject unless you do what you claimed you could.

 

 

Quote

I know you think you are defending the conservative Christian faith,

This is not about my faith, it is about science.

but you are not doing your "side" any favors when you make blatantly obvious incorrect statements,

You saying something is blatantly incorrect is what you usually do---make a dogmatic statement but do not support it.

and then defend them without having a clue about the scientific evidence or even what qualified people ON YOUR OWN TEAM are saying.

There is no scientific evidence supporting natural selection, and your quote  below shows they do not.

Creationists have had and still have little problem with the tenets of natural selection. Small variations having survival benefit within created kinds, such as coloration of peppered moths or differently shaped beaks, no more disprove creation than fossils in sedimentary rocks disprove a universal flood. The Creator not only displays tremendous variety of kinds but also enormous variety within created kinds. How to transmute from one species to another is the problem, however. It was impossible for Darwin to get past that barrier, and it is just as impossible today.

Now that you have been shown to be completely incorrect, would you like me to teach you about natural selection?

I haven't been shown, I have only been told.  I want you to do what you claimed you would---present the evidence that proves natural selection.

Love, peace, joy

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by omega2xx