Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof of Creationism! Refute This!

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Sorry if the 1st video offended you. Call me gullible, but I have talked to many a Christian with that same attitude and viewpoint, so I thought he was sincere.

While I respect you opinion and the research you have done, and I have to admit this mitochondrial DNA argument is a bit over my head, I fail to see how it is a rebuttal to the 2nd video. Not that it's an invalid argument, I'm just not up on this research or argument.

reply to post by mikelkhall
 


After some phone calls and searches, I found these, to help explain some stuff about the 2nd video and the question of the fusing chromosomes. I am told this process is called disjunction and non-disjunction.






posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by User8911
Yes and they used that part of the plot in Parasite Eve a really good video game.

I agree

Ahh, the good ol' PSX days..


Last human DNA modification could have been 5000 to 10000 years ago, that could be possible. But unless I'm wrong, creationists usually believe that the whole planet, poof, arrived magically and everything on it in 7 days and this was God's doing. If this existence is some type of matrix, sure this theory is plausible.

There's a bit of separation between Creationists when it comes to how old the Earth is, and how old mankind is. Generally speaking, mankind was only appointed 6 days (and a thousand years being as a day for God), so it's basically agreed that humans have not been here for more than 6,000 years. The Earth, and the Universe, however, can be debated.

Some Creationists believe the Earth is 13,000~ years old - 6 days for Creation, 6,000 years; and rested on the 7th (1k years), then created mankind, add another 6,000 years for 13,000.

Others believe the Earth could, indeed, be billions of years old, and that God used evolution to work his "magic".

And still some others believe when the Earth was "void", after it's initial creation, it stayed that way for several billion years, as the Bible never says how long it was void.


If we have been modified by aliens, that means that they are not gods and they come either from evolution of a god. Of course, we could also be part of God...or part of an atom...

It may seem a bit cliche, but the reason I do not believe Aliens modified or created us, is because it begs the question, "Who created the Aliens?" and like I said, it may seem cliche, because you would think you could apply the same thing to God, and ask who created him - but you can't.

Many assume that Creationists believe that "Everything has a Cause," and that it would spawn an infinite chain of "gods" creating "gods" creating "aliens" creating "us", etc. Fact is, that phrase is wrong. The proper statement is; Every Effect has a Cause.

To put it in perspective, since the entire Universe had a beginning, and is the "Effect", God must be the Cause. Could the Universe be the Cause? No, because something cannot be the Effect of it's own Cause, nor something the Cause of it's Effect.

reply to post by windword
 

It didn't really offend me, but it kinda adds generalizations to your average Christian, but thank you. And yeaaa, sorry about that. It wasn't really a direct response to the video, but it was the video that made me feel almost obligated to reply in one way or another.
edit on 17-3-2012 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by User8911
 





Natural selection doesn't 100% prove that evolution is the truth, but it proves that evolution is a fact that would affect even creationists. Adapt or die will always be true in this universe.


Right you are!
Performance, Feedback, Revision.



edit on 17-3-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LionOfGOD
 


Just so you understand clearly. a personal attack even physically ? Would be far less offensive.

Winword

Did you know the word gullible isn't even in the dictionary ? Look it up.
edit on 17-3-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


HAHA! Ben there, done that!


That kid in the video maybe a troll, but I grew up in a Pentecostal church in the '50's and '60, and those are the kinds of arguments that were brought up over the dinner table, so, again, been there, done that, too!



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Well then I'm just keep'in you honest man ! So stay on your toes.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Seriously? You bring physicality into this?
Whatever, dude...
I´ve been hosting a party all evening, got a nasty road rash on my cheek, and about
to have a high quality Ménage à trois,
how about you, had some bible?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Thanks for taking the time to find this information. Now that I know what to look for I will do some research.
2nd



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LionOfGOD
 





Seriously? You bring physicality into this? Whatever, dude... I´ve been hosting a party all evening, got a nasty road rash on my cheek, and about to have a high quality Ménage à trois, how about you, had some bible?



OK Kip,

You studyin' to be a cage fighter to?




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LionOfGOD
 





Seriously? You bring physicality into this?
Whatever, dude...
I´ve been hosting a party all evening, got a nasty road rash on my cheek, and about
to have a high quality Ménage à trois,
how about you, had some bible?




Everyday you studly man you.
Right here on ATS. But I fear you mistake me for a roller. Not ! Just have good sense.

Don't get aids.:

You know what they call guys who don't use condoms right ?

Daddy !
edit on 17-3-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-3-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Ken Millers argument is not proof for or against common ancestry.

All it shows is that there was a fusion event SOMETIME within the HUMAN population since the fused chromosome does not exist in any primate. In fact it's much more likely. It could have happened 100,000 years ago it could have happened 10,000 years ago exclusively within the human species.

This is just as equally possible, but we won't mention that simple little fact.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Another point is that the 2q13 interstitial telomeric sequence (the fused one) is the ONLY one which is able to be associated with an evolutionary breakage point or fusion. The other ones do not square up with chromosomal breakpoints in primates at all!

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

I'm sure Ken was aware of this at the time, but we won't mention that either. Talk about cherry picking.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Ken Millers argument is not proof for or against common ancestry.

All it shows is that there was a fusion event SOMETIME within the HUMAN population since the fused chromosome does not exist in any primate. In fact it's much more likely. It could have happened 100,000 years ago it could have happened 10,000 years ago exclusively within the human species.

This is just as equally possible, but we won't mention that simple little fact.


So, when you say "HUMAN" population, do you mean a fusion event that may have taken place with Neanderthal man or Cro Magnum?

If this fusion event hadn't happened, would there be Homo Sapiens? Was it critical to our evolution, or was it an intervention that bypassed evolution?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
So, when you say "HUMAN" population, do you mean a fusion event that may have taken place with Neanderthal man or Cro Magnum?

If this fusion event hadn't happened, would there be Homo Sapiens? Was it critical to our evolution, or was it an intervention that bypassed evolution?


As far as I know Neanderthal did not have the fused chromosome. Does this mean the neandethal are not decended from apes? No not really. But it shows how weak this point is.

All I'm saying is that early humans may have had 48 chromosomes and may have nothing to do with evolution from primates. With all our genetic knowledge we still do not know exactly what makes us human genetically.

When we compare the full genome against the draft version of the chimp dna we actually are only about 70 to 75% similar. The 99% 98% 95% 94% figures that are thrown about compare only the protein coding sequences which make up less than 2% of the genome.

Recently the Gorrilla genome was just released. It was found that 30% of the coding sequences are more closely matched to humans than the chimps! Closer in fact to the same sequence differences between humans and chimps.

It is not the clean picture that darwinism would like us to believe.

My question is at what point do we say that genetic similarities no longer support common ancestry? 90% 86% 70%?

After alll apparently we are 60% similar to bannanas as well. Does this mean that the human ape ancestor was evolved from a bannana?

This looks like that is the basis for these arguments, there is no explanantions for how and why scientifically.

I'm not against the idea of common ancestry it just the weak basis for which it is claimed as self evident.

70% is well within expectations simply because we share a similar body plan. It says very little for empirical proof for common ancestry.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Well, I am clearly over my head in this discussion, but please bare with me.

We don't have a common ancestor with a banana because bananas are part of the Plant Kingdom, and we are part of the Animal Kingdom. We are mammals and part of the Primate Family, right? I guess equally fair questions would be "Do canines share a common ancestor, wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc?" and "Do felines share a common ancestor, lynx, tigers, lions, etc.?"

Is that a fair comparison? Then I guess we would look for chromosomal fusions that have benefited that species? (Or, do we even know if a chromosomal fusion did benefit us?) How rare would that kind of thing be?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I was sort of joking with the bannana thing. The point being is that if we compare the protein coding sequences only we turn out to be very similar even to a bannana. If we compare the whole genome sequences we turn out to be very different.

It was claimed by Darwinist that junk DNA did nothing and was left over garbage from the evolutionary process. This turns out to be false. Ken Miller also made this claim to support his argument, he was wrong. They ignore the non coding sequences when making comparisons, but it seems that it is here in the "junk" that makes us truly different.

It should also be noted that the chimp genome is in fact 10% to 12% larger than the human genome, That's quite a significant difference. These things are never brought up by Darwinists all we hear is that we are a hairs breath away from chimps. It's simply not true.

Your other questions regarding fusion in other lines are very good, yes there are other species that have fused chromosomes. I'll see what I can find out, but I'm guessing we simply don't know if it is an advantage or not.

Here is one example.
edit on 17-3-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

As far as I know Neanderthal did not have the fused chromosome. Does this mean the neandethal are not decended from apes? No not really. But it shows how weak this point is.

All I'm saying is that early humans may have had 48 chromosomes and may have nothing to do with evolution from primates. With all our genetic knowledge we still do not know exactly what makes us human genetically.


Neanderthal had the fused chromosomes. They were very similar to humans, they just evolved in a different environment than homo sapiens. They are virtually the same species and could breed together in the past. We don't know how far back the fused chromosome goes, but it probably emerged with the homo genus. Common ancestry isn't up for debate in genetics. There are several aspects to a genome that can be verified and traced back. It's not as simple as "oh it's 70% similar".

theness.com...


We know that neanderthals and early Homo sapiens co-existed in Europe for thousands of years. We are extremely close genetically, sharing >99% of our genome and having the same number of chromosomes, so humans and neanderthals would almost certainly have been able to breed and have fertile young. We also know that humans survived and spread throughout the world, while neanderthals became extinct about 30,000 years ago.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Neanderthal had the fused chromosomes. They were very similar to humans, they just evolved in a different environment than homo sapiens. They are virtually the same species and could breed together in the past. We don't know how far back the fused chromosome goes, but it probably emerged with the homo genus. Common ancestry isn't up for debate in genetics. There are several aspects to a genome that can be verified and traced back. It's not as simple as "oh it's 70% similar".


Well I actually agree 90%, I was unsure about the neanderthal chromsome. I've been looking for specifics on the neanderthal chromosome 2 without success, perhaps you have some links?
You even said it yourself, we don't know how far it goes back, I'd also guess it was pretty early. What's your point? IT doesn't matter either way if they had it or not? The real question is it just this that makes us different. I think the answer is an easy no.

I disagree on the genetic support for common ancestry. That's a big can of worms. I've also said I have no real problem with the concept... so I can't argue, I'm on the fence about that. And yes the full genome comparison of the chimp against the human is only 70 to 75 % similiar. It's that simple. The coding sequences are 94 to 96% similar. This is in full agrrement with the current science.

In fact, no it's not simple at all.


The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are "horrendously different from each other", says David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led the work. "It looks like there's been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages."



Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa, whereas this is true for less than 2% of the remainder of the genome.

Even the portions that do line up have undergone erratic relocation. In the only other chromosome to have been sequenced to the same degree of completeness in both species, chromosome 21, the authors found much less rearrangement.

"If you're marching along the human chromosome 21, you might as well be marching along the chimp chromosome 21. It's like an unbroken piece of glass," says Page. "But the relationship between the human and chimp Y chromosomes has been blown to pieces."

www.nature.com...

Now I don't know if people reading or even yourself will get the implications here, We are quite simply talking about evolution in the extreme! While some parts seem highly conserved. This is not just a little shift it's rapid, rapid change at the very least. It's like The Y chromosome was mutated to reassemble and perform self genetic engineering. Or someone else has done it. Take from it what you will, If you think darwins meachanisms really account for this then be my guest.

Whatever is responsible natural or otherwise, it's quite astounding.
edit on 18-3-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

Perfect example of what I'm talking about...

Can't be sure you even know how to play poker from what you wrote.



By the way, we're playing 5 card stud.

Everyone else is playing draw, but you're going to insist we're playing stud.

Granted, a more apt analogy is that creationists have their hand and don't even acknowledge that there is the rest of the deck. You're content with the five cards you've got, you're not even interested in seeing the others that haven't been dealt yet.


But evolution will never shut the hell up because there is an agenda behind it from the get go.

I know. That agenda to keep searching and uncovering evidence is a crazy nefarious one.


If only you peeps could see that. Your complete denial of unseen forces is a joke. Period.

I can't see gravity, but I don't deny it exists. What unseen forces could you be talking about?


This thread is a testimony to the back slapping bigotry you people embrace.

Hypocrite.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
We don't have a common ancestor with a banana because..

Yes we do. This ancestor predates the split of plants and animals. Every living thing on Earth shares a common ancestor (some more recent than others).





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join