Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Sign in to follow this  
phkrause

Acts & Facts

Recommended Posts

phkrause

Darwin vs. Genetics: Surprises and Snags in the Science of Common Ancestry

by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *

For over 150 years, Darwin’s hypothesis that all species share a common ancestor has dominated the creation-evolution debate. Surprisingly, when Darwin wrote his seminal work, he had no direct evidence for these genealogical relationships—he knew nothing about DNA sequences. In fact, before the discovery of the structure and function of DNA, obtaining direct scientific evidence for common ancestry was impossible. Now, with online databases full of DNA-sequence information from thousands of species, the direct testing of Darwin’s hypothesis has finally commenced. What follows is a critical reevaluation of the four major lines of genetic evidence that secular scientists use to support evolutionary common ancestry.

http://www.icr.org/article/8226/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

Igakusei

This is ridiculous on so many levels, I don't even know where to start. Design does *not* predict a hierarchical pattern, and this should become abundantly clear if you actually think about their "tree of transportation" for more than a few seconds (there is more than one way to draw the tree, depending on which characteristics you choose... with designed objects, you get *widely* varying trees. With evolved objects, you get more or less the same tree no matter which characteristics you pick).

Genetics alone provides stronger evidence for common ancestry than the entire fossil record, and has gone way above and beyond many of the predictions made before we actually started doing the sequencing. It could have blown evolution completely out of the water, but in fact did the exact opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fccool

Human lincRNA Regions Vastly Different from Chimpanzee by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

 

http://www.icr.org/article/8227/

 

 

 It wouldn't be so ridiculous and actually believable, if you couldn't do these things yourself these days, and you don't need a PHD to that.

 

1)  Download the human genome.  You can go to the USCS site, or get one here (just right-click and Save As on the link below):

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29136500/Genes/GULOP/Tomkins/Human%20-%20UCSC.txt

 

2)  Go to BLAST tool - it's a local alignement search tool used for these things

 

http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi

 

3)  Select chimp from genomes on the top

 

4)  Select "Browse" and upload the human genome for comparison

 

5)  Choose Blastn for the algorithm

6)  Click Blast, and it will search through similarities, align these, and will spit out the results... 

 

maximum similarity of 97%

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Pkaruse, I do not find the vast difference that you attribute to the article.  As I understand it,  in the specific area of study that you cited, the author of the article claims a 67% similarity which would be a 33% difference.  Is this vast.

 

His study looked as several parts of the genome.  in some of those areas, as I understand him, he claimed a 70 % to 80% similarity with the chimp.  Then, he seems to sum it up by saying that the differences between the human genome and that of the chimp was something over 6 %.  Well, that places it in basic agreement with fccools citation that placed the agreement at 97%.  They differ by a minimal per-cent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fccool

I think that the article merely exists to discredit certain specifics, rather than mentioning things like:

 

1)  Virtually all mammals have a gene that allows them to synthesize Vitamin C

2)   Humans and chimps had an impaired version of that gene with virtually same mutation, which requires us to consume Vitamin C from plants.

3)  There are hundreds of of similar mutations that would be difficult to explain through "random effects of sin". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause

Here's an interesting 3 part article (at the moment):

Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth: Part 1

http://www.icr.org/article/8130/

 

Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth: Part 2

http://www.icr.org/article/8181

 

Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth, Part 3

http://www.icr.org/article/8503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause
Is the Cambrian Explosion Problem Solved?

Cambrian rock layers contain many strange animal fossils, and very few fossils appear in layers below them. Called the "Cambrian explosion of life," the creatures in these layers come from all the major groups of animals alive today (including fish, which represent the vertebrates), plus many more that later became extinct.

rest of article:http://www.icr.org/article/cambrian-explosion-problem-solved/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fccool

Is the Cambrian Explosion Problem Solved?

Cambrian rock layers contain many strange animal fossils, and very few fossils appear in layers below them. Called the "Cambrian explosion of life," the creatures in these layers come from all the major groups of animals alive today (including fish, which represent the vertebrates), plus many more that later became extinct.

rest of article:http://www.icr.org/article/cambrian-explosion-problem-solved/

 

 

 

Why wouldn't there be any modern animals and humans in the Cambrian layer?   Creationism would predict it.  Likewise, which animals found in the Cambrian layer do you see running/swimming around today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fccool

Again, you cannot believe in the Bible as the revealed word of God and believe in evolution simultaneously.  

 

  Few people who didn't come out of the indoctrination culture of the past actually care about this issue as a religiously viable matter.    It's just a tiring discussion with religious people don't respond to scientific method well, and even if they did... they still wouldn't believe, because their interpretation of the Bible says otherwise.

 

  So, it will be the case of the older generation dying off with the dogma that they prefer and the next generation takes over and re-imagine the church differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert

 

  So, it will be the case of the older generation dying off with the dogma that they prefer and the next generation takes over and re-imagine the church differently.

Yes, and  your so called "next generation" will also worship the beast and his image....

Edited by Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...