It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
As far as Im concerned abiogenesis is the very start of Macroevolution. Abiogenesis is the cornerstone of macro evolution. And it doesn't make sense at all.
And when that knowledge is untrue, it puts the whole of science in a bad light. I have said it before and Ill say it again and again: Had the Theory of Evolution been introduced today, it would have been under concideration even
Originally posted by amantineIt's the same as linking astrology and cosmology together, and because there is no proof of astrology, cosmology must also be wrong, simply because it they describe somewhat related phenomena.
i.e. life arising from unlike life, which is so far subsiting off each other that to have doubt in one leads to serious doubts in another.
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
That's because, to the mind of a fundamentalist, something is either completely true or completely false. No room here to allow a theory to grow.
I have heard some say that the fossil evidence was placed in the soil by Satan in order to lead people astray. Now, that is one big helluva stretch.
The geologic timetable is an artificial arrangement of certain rock strata (depending upon the type of fossils found therein) according to their supposed formation throughout the Earth’s history. It may come as a shock to many students to learn that it exists nowhere in fact! Noted geologist Thomas Chamberlin acknowledged:
It should be understood that it is not possible to proceed directly downward through the whole succession of bedded rocks, but that the edges of the various beds may be found here and there where they have been brought to the surface by workings and tiltings, or exposed by the wearing away of the beds which once overlay them. The full series of strata is made out only by putting these data gathered throughout all lands; and even when this is done, an absolutely complete series cannot yet be made out, or at least
has not been.
Evolutionist A.M.Winchester acknowledged that the gaps in the geologic record are significant:
Their cord is by no means complete—there are great gaps covering millions of years in which absolutely no records have been found. It is somewhat as if we
are permitted to view isolated individual frames of a gigantic motion picture of the caravan of life through the ages.
Yes, and sometimes these frames are completely out of sequence!
In numerous instances, a stratum from a supposed very ancient period is sitting smack dab on top of very young stratum—and that over vast miles of territory!
Finally, the multiple contradictions characteristic of this geological fabrication would be humorous—if the system were not viewed so seriously by many sincere but credulous students …
[paraphrased](a) Human footprints have been found in the Paleozoic age—two hundred fifty million years prior to man’s arrival on this planet!
(b) Coal was formed during the Paleozoic age millions of years before the birth of man? No, near Glasgow, Scotland, under a mass of boulders, an iron instrument was discovered embedded in a coal seam seven feet under the surface.
(c) Although trilobites supposedly perished some 600 million years before man evolved, human sandal prints have been found embedded together with trilobites in Utah.
(d) Evolutionists say trees did not evolve until the Paleozoic period. Conifer spores are found in the ages preceding this era (reputedly millions of years before).Geologist Clifford Burdick: “No self-respecting evolutionist will concede pine trees in the Precambrian (i.e., below the Paleozoic period).”
Let it be said again. The geologic timetable is a hoax that was conceived to buttress the evolutionary view of origins as a substitute for the inspired Genesis record. Those who respect the Mosaic narrative will not endorse this anti-biblical scheme.
Originally posted by jlc163
Let it be said again. The geologic timetable is a hoax that was conceived to buttress the evolutionary view of origins as a substitute for the inspired Genesis record.
Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it (1997, p. 96).
“For example, at the Joggins, in Nova Scotia, there are many erect fossil trees that are scattered throughout 2,500 feet of layers. You can actually see these fossil trees, which are beautifully preserved, penetrate through layers that were supposedly laid down over millions of years” (p. 138).
“Only a wholly uncommon process of sedimentation can account for conditions like these” (1973, p. 154).
“constitute a sort of frozen time clock from the past, indicating that terrible things occurred—not over millions of years but very quickly” (1986, p. 84).
“a lofty trunk, exposed in a sandstone quarry near Edinburgh [Scotland], which measured no less than 25 meters and, intersecting 10 or 12 different strata, leaned at an angle of about 40°” (1973, p. 154).
...while the latter might be supposed to have been capable of retaining an upright position, in a semi-fluid mass, for a long time, by the mere laws of gravity, the other must, by the very same laws, have fallen, from its inclined to a horizontal position, had it not been retained in its inclined position by the rapid accumulation of its present stony matrix (1837, p. 394).
Dr. Helmick, how dare you imply that our geology textbooks and uniformitarian theories could possibly be wrong! Everybody knows that diatomaceous earth beds are built up slowly over millions of years as diatom skeletons slowly settle out on the ocean floor. The baleen whale simply stood on its tail for 100,000 years, its skeleton decomposing, while the diatomaceous snow covered its frame millimeter by millimeter. Certainly you wouldn’t expect intelligent and informed establishment scientists of this modern age to revert to the outmoded views of our forefathers just to explain such finds!
Trees, reeds, catfish, whales, and the other organisms with which the fossil record abounds—and that exist as polystrate fossils—did not die and lie around for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years while slowly being preserved. Truth be told, polystrate fossils testify loudly to a young Earth whose layers formed rapidly—and not very long ago! It is a young Earth after all.
I do concede this one point to you, with restrictions. Since we do not have the common ancestor, nor it’s DNA, your point, nor my point can be proven. BUT mine shows that there is a lot more to overcome with chimps and humans being related. Oh, and DOWNS SYNDROME is a cross-over/insertion that results, I think in a huge repetition. It is still a defect.
No, with exchange I mean crossing-over or insertion. Merging of chromosomes can happen if all the coding DNA of a chromosome is exchanged in a crossing-over with for non-coding DNA. This leaves one entirely non-coding chromosome, which can get lost.
Even if this didn't happen in human evolution, the different chromosome numbers between humans now and chimpanzees now is no problem, a common ancestor might have had a different number than modern chimps or humans.
I looked up Britten, 2002, Fujiyama, 2002 and Coglan, 2002. Brittin lists a 95.2% similarity with indels and a 98,8% similarity without. I don't have a subscription to Science, so I couldn't view the results. This site, however, lists the Fujiyama results as a >90% similarity. It also lists Ebersburger, 2002, which gets a 98,76% similarity from a smaller sample. I don't where the author of that article got his 48,6% figure, but he sure didn't get it from any of those articles.
The 98% figure was the result of Britten's hydroxyapatite method for measuring sequence divergence (Hoyer, B. H., De Velde, N. W., Goodman, M., & Roberts, R. B. (1972). J. Hum. Evol. 1, 645-649). It was the best figure we had. The new results are not that different from the old ones.
I’m amused that they decide not to be exact here, and they do not discount his claims, but summarizes. Dropped to 95% with just a glance…hmm. States that there is more, apparently not used in this figure, due to the way this report is laid out…. Very careful to imply it is about 95% without having to directly state that it is ONLY about 95%….
It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between chimps and us. But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single "letter" differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species. But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. "Insertions" occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, "deletions" mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species. ….
The result is only based on about one million DNA bases out of the three billion which make up the human and chimp genomes, says Britten. "It's just a glance," he says. But the differences were equally split between "junk" regions that do not have any genes, and gene- rich parts of the genome, suggesting they may be evenly distributed.
Originally posted by jlc163
Oh, and DOWNS SYNDROME is a cross-over/insertion that results, I think in a huge repetition. It is still a defect.
Fujiyama, Asao, Hidemi Watanabe, et al., (2002), “Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map,” Science, 295:131-134, January 4.
“We found that 48.6% of the whole human genome was covered by Chimpanzee BACs.” [table 2] (Table is more detailed.) BACs--It’s what they use to compare the Chimp genome to our genome.
p. 132, 2nd column, 1 par.