In support of Intelligent Design

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Out of curiosity what does #2 have to do with anything in the context of this thread???

I mean I know what you're talking about as far as the ratio of the moon and sun and us and all but it wasn't always like that and in the future it won't be like that since the moon is actually drifting slowly away from us all the time. Can someone explain what is being implied by this and intelligent design???

Also when you say the moon was created or who created it what are you saying exactly?? Is the moon artificial or are you saying someone built it and it's a fake moon or what???

originally posted by: [post=21091087]

1. The fused chromosome, I first learnt about this from Lloyd Pye so it is probably twisted to sell more books however it could also be evidence of biological interference. As far as I'm aware we are the only ape with 1 less pair of chromosomes. Does anyone know when this happened? Or is it even possible to check? For example would Lucy have the fused pair also, or Neanderthals, or Denisovans?

This event occurred when our lineage split off from that of Chimpanzees. Every member of our genus, Homo, has 23 pairs. Lucy(and all other Australopithecines as well) had 23, Ardipithecus Ramidus likely had 23 pair but to be 100% certain we would need to be able to obtain genetic samples from A. Ramidus, Ororin Tugenesis(~6 MA) and Sahlanthropus Tchadensis(~7 MA which is very close to chimpanzee/ hominid divergence and chromosomal fusion based on established molecular clocks). The results of those tests would help us determine much more clearly, exactly when the split in lineage occurred, a more specific time in which chromosomal fusion took place and if the 3 above mentioned Hominins are in fact direct ancestors of our own genus and where they all specifically fit in but morphologically, there is a pretty clear and linear progression from S. Tchadensis through to the earliest members of our genus.

Back to the fusion of Human Chromosome 2 though. Some of the evidence for it is a vestigial centromere. All chromosomes have 1 centromere. Human Chromosome 2 however, has remnants of a second centromere. Our Chromosome 2 has the exact same genetic sequences as chimpanzees do on 2 nearby chromosomes. The real clincher though is the vestigial telomeres. Telomeres are found at the ends of chromosomes. in Human Chromosome 2, there are telomeres in the middle where the fusion occurred.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

2. Sun to Moon ratio, "Who Built the Moon" went into detail about the coincidence of the Moon and Sun appearing the same size. The book ended with the author stating that future humans went back in time and put the moon there. So we can basically dismiss the majority of the book however the mathematical coincidences still makes me feel a little uneasy.

There doesn't seem to be a physics reason for this that I'm aware of. Also with the moon slowly getting further away, we are in the "goldilocks" timezone of having eclipses that the dinosaurs weren't able to witness way back when. And in the future our robot overlords will also miss out.

Also the "double whack" theory of how the moon formed naturally is a little suspect. (Awaiting better science I'm sure, I don't think they are trying to mislead)

I'm just curious, of the 2, which bothers you more? The "goldilocks time period" or the "Giant Impact Theory" of the Moon's formation?

3. 10,500 BC, for some reason this date comes up a lot. The Sphynx is thought to have been done then according to water erosion. Pyramids all over the world seem to point to the date as well. The Giza pyramids reference the constellation Orion as it was in 10,500BC.

Regarding the 3 pyramids at Giza( there are actually over a dozen pyramids at Giza) Ed Krupp of Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles and Tony Fairall, astronomy professor at the University of Cape Town, South Africa have run calculations and put the numbers through a planetarium recreation. Hancock, Bauval and Anthony West have claimed a perfect 38 degree recreation of the sky of 10.5 Ka BCE whereas recreations by actual astronomers comes out to between 47 and 50 degrees depending on the observatory used. And then theres the bit where Bauval had to flip around the map of Giza (flipped from south-north to North-South) to make the pyramids match the stars. So it really doesn't hold any water.

When looking at the Sphinx, the go to guy is Boston Universities Dr. Robert Schoch. And everyone likes to cite a date of over 10 KA which supports a more ancient construction date of the Giza monuments. What nobody likes to add is the other citations, and dates, derived by Schoch's methodologies or that Schoch's own dates are a range of 5000-7000 BCE (or 7-9 KA). Different parts of the sphinx enclosure, particularly the western enclosure wall which is at the ass end of the Sphinx, show drastically different degrees of weathering. There's also the fact that the erosion wasn't from rainfall itself, but from runoff from the hill behind the enclosure wall. This is why the erosion at the Sphinx is not uniform over the entire site.

The Giza Plateau has an eastward sloping topography which causes a natural rainwater run-off into the west part of the Sphinx enclosure which would erode the limestone along the exposed western enclosure walls and selectively exploit any joints exposed along the cut face. This view is contrasted with Schoch’s initial assertions which stressed that direct rain was the cause of the erosion of the Sphinx enclosure, not rain run-off.

When you see pictures by people claiming an ancient date, do you see close ups of the western enclosure wall or good photos from other areas of the Sphinx? Don't take my word for any of this. Take a look for yourself and see what is really there.

This could very well just be misdirection from the ancient astronaut crowd although I haven't seen it debunked yet.

It's not misdirection as much as it it sheer ignorance to science and a desperate need to believe and maintain the paradigm some of these researchers( Bauval, Hancock and West primarily) have built their careers and reputations in the "alternative archaeology" community upon.

4. The Big Bang, "A Universe From Nothing" explains plausibly that everything could come from nothing (no matter, I should say). But if time was created in the big bang how could the quantum foam or whatever you want to call it move and do what it needed to do to create the big bang.

energy can't be created or destroyed, it just changes form thong

Its a bit of a misconception that the BB is something from nothing. The Singularity contained all matter and gravity that exists in the universe today. That whole conservation of energy thing where energy can't be created or destroyed it can only change form deal.

a reply to: mOjOm

I'm curious if there are more satisfying answers than it's a coincidence.

I don't believe the moon was created, but that is an explanation put forward to explain why it's 400 times smaller and 400 times closer to us than the sun, there's a heap of little things like that which are quite strange. Countering that with "I guess it's a coincidence" shouldn't really be accepted as a sufficient answer.

I think the answer could be something to do with gravity and the make up of the different orbs.
However it seems a lot of people have studied it without reaching a conclusion.

The earth being perfect for humans isn't a coincidence, it's because we evolved into it. I think the sun/moon thing could be similar. Our moon seems to be the only one we know of that has these sorts of dimensions.

I think it's one of the better ID arguments, or at least one of the hardest to argue against.

a reply to: peter vlar

Awesome, thanks for that.

1. The fusion thing I'm happy to dismiss now. The time frames involved make it ludicrous to believe it was planned.

2. The goldilocks part probably concerns me the most as it doesn't seem to be addressed. The chick who formulated the theory of the formation of the moon accepts that it's not the most compelling theory so at least that's still being worked on.

3. Wow, I've never heard a proper explanation for the sphynx thing before. It's a far more satisfying answer than mystery folk from the past did it. I guess it's the same as Alternative Medicine, once it's proven it just becomes Medicine. These guys have probably been alternative for too long for there to be much to it.
That's another one I can tick off, thanks.

4. From what I understand (which is little) when it comes to the quantum stuff the conservation of energy doesn't really apply as the virtual particles have a total energy of 0.
But I was actually looking at it much more simply.
If the big bang created time, how could these virtual particles that started it have moved into position without a time to move through.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: peter vlar

Awesome, thanks for that.

anytime.

1. The fusion thing I'm happy to dismiss now. The time frames involved make it ludicrous to believe it was planned.

fair enough. The fusion most certainly occurred and while many are all too happy to argue against it or argue in favor if a creator entity(almost always the Christian variety), there just isn't any evidence of outside interference aside from personal incredulousness. That's just my opinion but it's based on 2 1/2 decades of research and a degree in Anthropology which gives me a particular insight and access to papers and the research of people who have specialized in this type of research.

2. The goldilocks part probably concerns me the most as it doesn't seem to be addressed. The chick who formulated the theory of the formation of the moon accepts that it's not the most compelling theory so at least that's still being worked on.

The recession of the Moons orbit is a well documented and measurable fact. Since the moon landings in the late 60's and early 70's have given an excellent frame of reference with the mirror left on the lunar surface, the measurements are extremely accurate. bare with me, as this actually does tie in with the 'Giant Impact Theory'. One of the aspects of the Theia collision which cast a slight shadow of doubt on it was the high degree of similarity in chemical composition between the makeup of both the Lunar material and Earth. What recent tests and simulations at Haifa Israel have shown is that if the colliding bodies shared an orbit, they would therefore have received similar amounts of solar radiation. This would be reflected in the chemical composition of objects in a shared orbit having nearly the same chemical composition whereas bodies in orbits farther out than 1 AU would have higher ratios of 02 in their chemical composition and bodies in orbits less than 1 AU would consequently have less. This is reflected in the makeup of the inner planets as we see them today.

The impact that created todays Earth and our Lunar companion was between 2 bodies sharing the orbit Earth resides in now and as predicted, there is only a very minor deviation between lunar samples and those from Earth. Now that we can determine some of the specifics regarding the event that created both the Moon and todays Earth(remember, both initial objects were destroyed and the planet we live on today bears little resemblance to the proto planet that existed prior to the impact). Being able to determine when in Earths history this occurred as well as the relative size of both objects and their make-up, it can then be determined the effects of Earths gravity on its newly formed moon 4 Bn years ago and based on some of Sir Isaac Newtons elementary observations and formulas, it can be determined how close the Moon was to Earth shortly after the 2 new bodies coalesced and by comparing those numbers to current measurements and observations regarding the Moons current rate of recession we can get a pretty decent picture of the whole story.

The bottom line is that the numbers pan out and show that we are living in a time of coincidence regarding the exactness with which the Moon interacts with trhe Earth and Sun during eclipses and even our Neanderthal cousins were witnessing a very similar Moon/Sun/Earth eclipse scenario. A little side note, if you have a really good pair of binoculars or a decent telescope, its possible to witness the Earth cast a shadow across Venus for partial eclipse when we are all lined up correctly. It's been quite awhile since I've had the pleasure to see it first hand but basically, any object or planet between us and the sun can be eclipsed by Earth's shadow.

3. Wow, I've never heard a proper explanation for the sphynx thing before. It's a far more satisfying answer than mystery folk from the past did it. I guess it's the same as Alternative Medicine, once it's proven it just becomes Medicine. These guys have probably been alternative for too long for there to be much to it.
That's another one I can tick off, thanks.

Sometimes the truth isn't quite as exciting as wild postulation but its every bit as, if not more so, satisfying to at elast have an understanding of the facts and then be able to judge them based on their own merit.

4. From what I understand (which is little) when it comes to the quantum stuff the conservation of energy doesn't really apply as the virtual particles have a total energy of 0.
But I was actually looking at it much more simply.
If the big bang created time, how could these virtual particles that started it have moved into position without a time to move through.

Because time is essentially a man made measurement. When you factor in the first 3 minutes of the Universe and the very nature of it, space and time were one and the same. When looking at stars and measuring distance in light years, we are measuring how long light from that object took to reach us and observing that object as it looked and where it was in the past as that light was leaving it. When initial expansion began, space and timwe were one and the same. There really is no separating the 2 at this point as the early universe was expanding at a rate faster than how we measure light currently. Once the universe stabilized and found a degree of equilibrium and the distances between objects were significant enough to measure in human terms(because it really is a matter of our perspective of all of this, how we perceive it), then those distances and constants like the speed of light became fixed. The first 3 minutes of rapid expansion really are still a bit beyond a lot of people's ability to grasp. Myself amongst them. I will admit that I may be a little off on some of this and there are others who may be more well suited to explain it in a simpler format and I'm all too happy to let them do so and cofrrect me in the process. Physics isn't my forte and I'll be honest, I usually forward questions that I'm not sure of to people far more knowledgeable than myself. If you're looking for some not so light reading, I highly recommend a book called "The First Three Minutes" by Dr. Steven Weinberg who won the 1979 Nobel Prize. Dr. Robert Fuller recommended it to me and it's been an invaluable resource.

a reply to: peter vlar

still not sure how any of that is 'in support of intelligent design'. dunno whats up with that title. good info though, learned something today.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh, I hope I didn't give the impression that I support or that any of my replies support, any type of intelligent design whether it be Yahweh, Ancient Aliens, Time Travelers or some magically advanced civilization that was SO advanced they left no trace upon the world at large. I don't go for the woo as I think you know. I was simply trying to reply to the initial questions from the OP and demonstrate how science can offer legitimate, natural explanations, for every question posed without the need for any sort of intelligent designer.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: peter vlar

still not sure how any of that is 'in support of intelligent design'. dunno whats up with that title. good info though, learned something today.

Really? Altered genetics, a Moon that has extremely unlikely tendencies, multiple civilisations pointing to the same date and a beginning which requires time before time existed.

Like I've said since the beginning, I'm asking these questions to learn why they are stupid questions. But to deny that the misconceptions I put forward can relate to ID in any way seems a little disingenuous.

a reply to: peter vlar

Interesting stuff.

I'm still hesitant to completely dismiss 2 and 4 at this stage.

2. It still comes down to a coincidence which I don't like. Of course what I like is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

4. What you put forward seems to support this question rather than answer it.
No one seems to argue that space and time were created at the big bang. But I don't see how things can change to start spacetime without having time as a reference point beforehand to allow a change.

My uneducated guess is that virtual particles may work under a different law of time not dictated by spacetime.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Thanks peter vlar.
Another idiot now has a bit of a better understanding.

Krahzeef. Spacetime. If i was you. I would ask Arbitrabaur the question in the ask me anything about physics page.
I think you'll learn more from there than most who reply to this thread.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: peter vlar

still not sure how any of that is 'in support of intelligent design'. dunno whats up with that title. good info though, learned something today.

Really? Altered genetics, a Moon that has extremely unlikely tendencies, multiple civilisations pointing to the same date and a beginning which requires time before time existed.

Like I've said since the beginning, I'm asking these questions to learn why they are stupid questions. But to deny that the misconceptions I put forward can relate to ID in any way seems a little disingenuous.

The thread title says 'in support of intelligent design' but so far nothing in this thread does support it. even after your questions were answered in full.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: blackcrowe

I'm not trying to dispute the fusion. There's clear evidence that the fusion did happen,...

The only thing clear to me is that the supposed evidence for the supposed fusion site is being deliberately twisted, half-truths are being told and facts that are important to know are being withheld by people like Kenneth Miller who are fully aware of how these facts demonstrate their stories and claims to be false and deceptive and that there is no logical reasonable evidence to suggest that a fusion happened in that location (Chromosome #2), yet the opposite is the case regarding the facts and the evidence they provide in determining whether or not a fusion happened there. Since you liked to hear questions, perhaps someone can demonstrate or explain to me where or why I'm getting the wrong impression when I hear dr. Tomkins in the video below saying something about Kenneth Miller not understanding something (or making a mistake) and I think by myself, the guy (Kenneth) understands perfectly, he's just playing dodge games and setting up the argument that it doesn't matter that the sequence at the alledged fusion site has crucial functions for the continuation of life (the same arguments for so-called vestigial organs)? After 5 minutes or so.

a reply to: whereislogic

Since you have such a clear understanding of the subject matter, can you use your own words and perhaps link to some science to explain exactly why chromosomal fusion never occurred? I'm. It interested in an 18 minute long video of unknown or questionable provenance. I want you to explain to us what is wrong with the science used to determine that fusion occurred and Is also like to hear your own words regarding why telomeres are only found at the ends of DNA strands yet there are vestigial telomeres in the center of Human Chromosome 2. Again, please use your own words and cite scientific literature that supports your argument. JW.org is not a scientific source and you know it so please don't hide behind religious propaganda. Show why the science is faulty and explain why.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The thread title says 'in support of intelligent design' but so far nothing in this thread does support it. even after your questions were answered in full.

I would probably suggest reading further than the title. The implication that having my questions answered would support intelligent design shows you didn't read it.

It's all good tho. You assumed the purpose of the thread and now you have to keep digging that hole to save face.

Seems kind of pointless as we're on the same side so I'm happy to concede, you're correct and ever so smart.

a reply to: whereislogic

This is old news and Tompkins has been debunked on more than one occasion - in fact, since he joined the Dark Side, none of his "work" has ever taken place in a lab. Rather, he takes legitimate research, draws his own conclusions and publishes a total inaccuracy about the original paper. A case in point (and I'll get to your video in a minute):


Human DNA more complex than earlier thought, thus confounding evolutionists, U.K. scientists reveal

Andre Mitchell 03 February 2016

Published by "Christian Today"
www.christiantoday.com...

The scientific team from Cambridge University published the following quote:

"We found it surprising that so little attention has been given to direct epigenetic modifications," the scientists wrote in their paper entitled "Identification of methylated deoxyadenosines in vertebrates reveals diversity in DNA modifications."

"In order to determine if there are in fact no other modifications, we used dA6m as an example and discovered that the higher eukaryotic genome is more diverse than previously thought,"

"Direct DNA modifications might be more widespread than previously thought," the team said in their study's abstract.

(NOTE: The author of the article in Christian Today didn't both to cite the publication as is required when quoting directly from a published scientific paper."

Dr. Tompkins' response to Christian Today:

Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, a geneticist with a Ph.D. from Clemson University, called this latest discovery on the human genome "complete contradiction to evolutionary predictions."

"The language systems in the genome continue to reveal nothing but unimaginable complexity,"Tomkins told Christian News.

(I'm posting the original article which was based on a research paper (reference below) so that everyone can draw their own conclusion.)


Epigenetic discovery suggests DNA modifications more diverse than previously thought

The world of epigenetics – where molecular ‘switches’ attached to DNA turn genes on and off – has just got bigger with the discovery by a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge of a new type of epigenetic modification.

DNA is made up of four ‘bases’: molecules known as adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine – the A, C, G and T letters. Strings of these letters form genes, which provide the code for essential proteins, and other regions of DNA, some of which can regulate these genes.

Epigenetics (epi - the Greek prefix meaning ‘on top of’) is the study of how genes are switched on or off. It is thought to be one explanation for how our environment and behaviour, such as our diet or smoking habit, can affect our DNA and how these changes may even be passed down to our children and grandchildren.

Epigenetics has so far focused mainly on studying proteins called histones that bind to DNA. Such histones can be modified, which can result in genes being switched on or of. In addition to histone modifications, genes are also known to be regulated by a form of epigenetic modification that directly affects one base of the DNA, namely the base C. More than 60 years ago, scientists discovered that C can be modified directly through a process known as methylation, whereby small molecules of carbon and hydrogen attach to this base and act like switches to turn genes on and off, or to ‘dim’ their activity. Around 75 million (one in ten) of the Cs in the human genome are methylated.

Now, researchers at the Wellcome Trust-Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute and the Medical Research Council Cancer Unit at the University of Cambridge have identified and characterised a new form of direct modification – methylation of the base A – in several species, including frogs, mouse and humans.

Methylation of A appears to be far less common that C methylation, occurring on around 1,700 As in the genome, but is spread across the entire genome. However, it does not appear to occur on sections of our genes known as exons, which provide the code for proteins.

“These newly-discovered modifiers only seem to appear in low abundance across the genome, but that does not necessarily mean they are unimportant,” says Dr Magdalena Koziol from the Gurdon Institute. “At the moment, we don’t know exactly what they actually do, but it could be that even in small numbers they have a big impact on our DNA, gene regulation and ultimately human health.”

More than two years ago, Dr Koziol made the discovery while studying modifications of RNA. There are 66 known RNA modifications in the cells of complex organisms. Using an antibody that identifies a specific RNA modification, Dr Koziol looked to see if the analogous modification was also present on DNA, and discovered that this was indeed the case. Researchers at the MRC Cancer Unit then confirmed that this modification was to DNA, rather than from any RNA contaminating the sample.

“It’s possible that we struck lucky with this modifier,” says Dr Koziol, “but we believe it is more likely that there are many more modifications that directly regulate our DNA. This could open up the field of epigenetics.”

The research was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Human Frontier Science Program, Isaac Newton Trust, Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council.

Reference
Koziol, MJ et al. Identification of methylated deoxyadenosines in vertebrates reveals diversity in DNA modifications. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology; 21 Dec 2015

My Comments:

1. NO WHERE in the article or in the original research paper does the principal researcher (Dr Koziol) even remotely suggest that "this latest discovery on the human genome a complete contradiction to evolutionary predictions".

2. NO WHERE in the article or in the original research paper does the principal researcher suggest that "the language systems in the genome continue to reveal...........................unimaginable complexity".

3. CONCLUSION: Dr. Tompkins is a complete fraud. He bent, twisted, rewrote, defrauded, plagiarized, contaminated and deliberately misinterpreted the findings to suit his pseudoscience and the agenda of Creationist frauds like himself.

4. Anyone who disagrees with my analysis of the bad doctor's deception, is free to challenge it.

Peter Vlar is a polite gentleman and is trying to help you think straight. I am not always a polite lady. So I call BS to Dr. Tompkins crap. And to you I say - get a grip. Filling your empty head with crap like this takes a lot of energy. Find a more useful way to occupy your time.
Thank you.

P.S. I'll deal with your video later. I need a martini.

a reply to: Phantom423

I think in the end, you were actually the polite one and more so, more patient than I for taking the time to actually dissect the amateur hour and purposefully misleading anti-evolutionary woo. The worst part of all of it is that the fools disseminating such willfully ignorant and dangerous material based on lies are able to get away with it because their target audience is all too pleased to simply repeat it as though it actually is the truth and almost none of them have the knowledge base to actually discern ofthe material presented to them has undergone an iota of due diligence. Critical thinking is an anachronism at this point where children grow up in an education system whose sole purpose is to prepare them for a standardized exam and not to prepare them for the real world. It's a sad state of affairs so thank you for so often being willing to roll up your sleeves, wade into the muck and get dirty from head to toe. After a few years of trying it, these same questions and misrepresentations keep reappearing as if on repeat under a new crop of screen names every few months.

a reply to: peter vlar
I could try to dance to all your tunes but prior experience with you has taught me that it's a waste of time and effort to try to reason with those being unreasonable (and clinging to it).

And there's not much point in responding to your requests for the benefit of others who might want to know cause they can already watch the video if they truly want to know why I said what I said about the subject.

You didn't answer my question either anyway. Just doing the same thing as Kenneth Miller while you're possibly fully aware of the well established facts mentioned by Dr. Tomkins in the video regarding the sequences in question.

What I perhaps can do is remind people how the word "vestigial" is defined in the dictionary that shows up on google if you search for that word:

Biology
(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.

a reply to: Phantom423

Speaking about 'joining the Dark Side' as you phrase Dr. Tomkin's "science sin" (as it's phrased by someone in the video below):

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
I could try to dance to all your tunes but prior experience with you has taught me that it's a waste of time and effort to try to reason with those being unreasonable (and clinging to it).

There is very little value in the "I'm right, your wrong" discussions that always happen with this topic. I really think both sides can be equally dishonest at times. I don't believe that's the case in this instance however I would say that.

But in the spirit of the thread, I put forward things that make me question my evolutionary beliefs. Are there any aspects of creationism that make you question your beliefs?