Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right..because it is "honest" to teach something as fact even though you cannot prove it....
Religion does this every single day. Are you claiming that you will, or do, hold them to this same standard? Or should we give them a collective free pass on the necessity of "honesty"?
Unknown function does not mean that it hasn't been mapped.
You denied that you posted a link saying 98% of the human genome function is unknown. Your proof...92% of the human genome is mapped. I posted the link that YOU posted which said "Over 98 percent of DNA has largely unknown function" (seriously that was the EXACT title). Then you say that unknown function does not mean it's not mapped. Do you see the inconsistency? Hey it's getting late. I think I'll just go to bed now...good night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyfor
Religion does this every single day. Are you claiming that you will, or do, hold them to this same standard? Or should we give them a collective free pass on the necessity of "honesty"?
Then you go on to make false accusations. Because you previously PRESUMED my definition of species then from your made up definition you insist that it is I changing my definitions of a species. When in fact you were basing this off an assumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bar'el
Yes...and those "new species" are still all of the same kind. Thus my argument variation through natural selection produce different kinds of the the same species. For instance different kinds of eagles. Different kinds of tigers. The different kinds are the variations that are produced through natural selection. You call them new species (I call them kinds), but the variation is within the species nevertheless. It does not turn a whale to a cow or a dinosaur to a bird.
This is truly unbelievable. You go on and on about how I misrepresented your position and it took you one post to completely reverse the position you took with me. Like I said... You are redefining what a species is by calling it a "kind" - which has no scientific terminological use whatsoever.
My entire point in my previous post was to strictly identify taxonomical lineages to get you to stop using the word "kind." That's what Creationists keep doing and it's so dishonest and annoying that I can't believe you're not seeing it.
You could say that an orangutan and gorilla are a "kind" of Mammal or that they are a "kind" of Primate or they are a "kind" of Animal even if they're changing at the species level. When you say they're of the same "kind" are you referring to them at the Genus Level? Order Level? Family Level? What the hell are you defining by "kind??"
Even if the entire Order of Primates (which includes everything from humans to spider monkeys) changed, you'd just roll the goalposts back and say "Well, they're still a 'kind' of Mammal."
Change at the species level creates sub-species. In the case of the Orangutan, there are a number of sub-species such as the Sumatran Orangutan and the Bornean Orangutan. The two are on different islands, separated by a number of physical barriers including the Pacific Ocean. There is no reason to think that over the course of several million years that each species of orangutan will face its own distinctive natural selection pressures. These pressures could literally be anything from deforestation, germs, increases or decreases in food supply, change in climate, change in food chain hierarchy (new predator in the neighborhood), and so on and so forth. You can go on and on and on but the point is to identify that when geographical separation exists amongst a species, natural selection begins to slowly "pull" the two sub-species apart.
One or both sub-species may go extinct. One or both of them may thrive. It all depends on how suitable they are to adapt to the changes they are presented with.
If this takes place over several million years, we would see a much larger split in what we once called "orangutans." In fact, what will most likely have happened is that the two sub-species will have branched off from the original orangutan. The changes that are necessary for the two separate orangutan groups to survive begin to emerge slowly through the population. As these characteristics begin to take place, they begin to diverge from what one would call "orangutans." The "original" orangutan, or those with the most prominent orangutan features are no longer suitable to the environment and begin to die off. What we are left with are two separate species with the common ancestor of the orangutan but who have developed distinctly different features from each other.
And, yes, we have seen this sort of thing in laboratories, in nature, and through the fossil record and DNA evidence. It's not rocket science but by sticking to the ridiculous assertion of "kinds" without defining what a "kind" is, you only prove your hypocrisy and your dishonesty.
Thus, if you would like to make a point in your favor, how about showing us the scientific evidence for the mechanism that creates the barrier from species splitting? Also, a strict taxonomical definition of what a "kind" is would be very helpful.
Though many falsely- or lightly-educated types here will catagorically assure us, existing organisms can and do acquire new genetic material [i.e.: species-specific information] via several now known mechanisms during it's reproductive cycles.
This is what I was talking about:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
I couldn't say all of that if I went back to school for 10years and studied like my life depended on it. I'll either have to just let the creationist ramble on or wait for AREQUIPA, sanspeur or rifleman to show up and do it for me.
Hey since there is no current scientific evidence to back that claim you can always start posting pictures like Chango.
Well, your obviously a beginner at this and Riflmn's forum posts (which just so happens to be "scientific evidence" BTW) are generally "intermediate" evolutionary theory...
....and you just aren't "getting it"...
Pictures are good for those with a somewhat reduced comprehension on the subject... Do we need to reduce this down to playtime with stuffed animals?
Humans are apes, you can just look at an ape, then a human and realize there is a lot in common between us; far more than can possibly be caused by simple coincidence. Scientists have realized this literally for hundreds of years, yet you insist it isn't true because of some random internet articles and the "expert" opinion of "Science-ists" from Jimbo's Southern College of the Magic Carpenter.
Well, your obviously a beginner at this and Riflmn's forum posts (which just so happens to be "scientific evidence" BTW) are generally "intermediate" evolutionary theory...
....and you just aren't "getting it"...
Pictures are good for those with a somewhat reduced comprehension on the subject... Do we need to reduce this down to playtime with stuffed animals?
Humans are apes, you can just look at an ape, then a human and realize there is a lot in common between us; far more than can possibly be caused by simple coincidence. Scientists have realized this literally for hundreds of years, yet you insist it isn't true because of some random internet articles and the "expert" opinion of "Science-ists" from Jimbo's Southern College of the Magic Carpenter.
Moot Chango...Bar'el of laughs has left the building.
This is not that hard to understand but having a conversation with you until you agree to the basic logic of taxonomy is pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bar'el
Yes...and those "new species" are still all of the same kind. Thus my argument variation through natural selection produce different kinds of the the same species.
For instance different kinds of eagles.
Different kinds of tigers.
The different kinds are the variations that are produced through natural selection. You call them new species (I call them kinds), but the variation is within the species nevertheless. It does not turn a whale to a cow or a dinosaur to a bird.
Well, ahhhh....nope. You are trying, desperately but vainly, to create a new division that is not recognized by any real evolutionary authorities. That of some overreaching, over-enveloping "kind", since then you can allow Noah to have "just a few kinds" on his leaky barge, but with all them "No Evolvin' Allow'd Rounh Heah!" signs hanging everywhere to then allow the complete diversification of all Species we actually recognize as being sufficiently different on this planet..
FYI: My particular biological speciality or a while in No. 3 of my postgrad biology degrees; Ursus maritimus, vs. Ursus arctos vs. Ursus americanus. Even as a non-species, we do, yup, have a different "kind", (called a sub-species by profesionals, btw...) in the white version of the American black bear that lives in NW British Columbia.
Ursus americanuskermodii. The Kermodi bear. Not a "kind", at all, nopers! You lose on this one as well! Non-scientists, non-taxonomists, non-biologists, non-logicalists; y'all can't just go around selectively and conveniently lumping things together to make a silly point!
All the bear species I listed are not even close to being of some same imagined "type" of bar, m'boy. They each utilize vastly different habitats, live in hugely different ecosystems, their physiology is very markedly different, their dentition, hair micro-structure, digestive abilities, hibernation versus estivation versus a simple lethargic sleep, their vocalizations are different, their social patterns, their levels of demonstrated altruism, psychology, play & social interaction patterns, and other functionalities, including their abilities to reason about their futures: all hugely different . Why, even that [obviously evil...] sub-species kermodii lives in a significantly different ecosystem to many of his ll-black bretheren, who don't bother to try to invade and co-mingle.
And they are, so sorry again, different SPECIES. So, btw, just as a separate but obvious factoid, in order for that Noah guy to properly re-intro them into their devastated world post-flood, there would have to be at least 500 of each gender of each species, sub-species and even of your vague and evasive "kind". Since, again, there's none-thet-thar "...DAMNED Evolvin' Allowed", DAMMITT!! Or ELse!"
Well So Sorry, Sonny. Your hopeful (but desperate) "Variation within a species" may lead initially to a new tribe, race, or sub-species, which is exactly the pathway for and en-route to guess what?
When certain levels of genetic and phenotypical differentiations have occurred, it's called "A NEW SPECIES", and that, my friend, is quite well defined.
And so, it's also not EVER up to you to limit or re-define it. The church always tries to take over like this when it's been semantically or philosophically overrun, duhnitt?
If you don't like me pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument, maybe try tempering it down a bit?
I'd also point out that I did not in any way dismiss your argument or even imply that you were wrong. I was only asking you to be consistent. Apparently that was too much to ask for.
Last edited by Whyfor; 03-25-2012 at 12:20 AM..
Reason: added a final thought
So you allow these con-men to convince you that we "evolved" from primates with only 3% known function of the human genome? Geez.
What con men are you specifically referring to. Bar'el?? You really need to drop the "Well, of course, all evolution & genetics scientists are lying, Evil™ bastards!" stuff!
It's childish and pueril and banal, all rolled into one stupid stupid, so very STUPID statement, and it's author is you! What DOES that tell us about your ability to be objective, Hmmm?
FACT: I know of not one profesional scientist that comes anywhere close to that baseless description. If you happened to know any of them (which is unlikely, since we scare the crap out of you obviously...), you would also know this to be true.
FACT: Your claims are made solely out of spite and fear, and are here simply to try to contaminate what those hundreds of thousands of career scientists, all cross-checking and peer-reviewing each other's work, study design and conclusions, are so thoughtfully and carefully researching, documenting and deducing!
In fact, the hundreds of professional scientists I have worked with in my scientific career (versus your scientific career (<snort>) I'm betting...) are ethical men and women, Why would they not be, pray tell?
You insult all of us with your brainless banter in this regard! Apologize!
Now, as to "useless DNA"; even if that were true (and yes, some of it is no longer of use precisely because we've evolved past it's utility. Certain hair length genes have been clearly identified and tested, but it turns out they have simply been "turned off". That does not make them junk, Ba'rel It only means they came from the historical genome sequences of our less-evolved predecessors.
Regardless, it has a function-based locus, and thus, it's then FACT that it's still a frickin' match between proto-hominid ape-like predecessors, and us, easily tracked through the ages as we inspect the next, then the next, and then the next...DNA sequences, Bar'el!
Each link perfectly matches corresponding number sequences between two different species. Remember the infamous OJ Simpson glove DNA tests? (btw, what did the prosecution expect? A bunch of genetic engineers? The prosecutor had to deal with the same utter scientific illiteracy that most every Christian poster here demonstrates with such pride in their vast lack of "Naw-ludg"... )) had even an inkling of what this DNA sequencing was all about, the obvious and proven murderer O.J. would have been in jail a lot sooner than he is now.
When you can side-by-side compare tens of thousands of sequences and they match perfectly, except for a few minor mutations that have been turned off or have changed their effects on the organism's phenotype, then, so sorry to tell you, it points inexoribly to one having given rise to the next.
At least you come to come of your senses, seen below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bar'el
Ok I was under the impression that noncoding DNA was the same as junk DNA. It is not. Junk DNA is a term for the noncoding regions that are UNKNOWN.
I am now aware that some noncoding DNA has known function. But MOST of it does not. I am also now aware that noncoding DNA is not synonymous with junk DNA, as I previously thought. But this still does not change the fact that 97% of the human genome has no known function, and they tell us we are related to primates anyway. It's taught as fact with 97% of human genome function UNKNOWN. If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is.
Again, NO KNOWN FUNCTION first of all, means only that we have NOT YET determined it's function. You want to bet me that we NEVER will, Bar'el? REALLY? You want to bet real $$$$ perhaps? We'll NEVER know? Wow! Such utter banality on display!
And then you follow on with the "I know you are, but what am ?" level of "logic" with you nuttzo statement:
"But this still does not change the fact that 97% of the human genome has no known function, and they tell us we are related to primates anyway."
Yup: a match is a match, Bar'el. And you still don't get it. Or more correctly, you don't WANT to get it!
Finally, your personal definition of "species" won't cut it with anyone but you. This is typical: having been caught and cornered, Christian apologists always try to deny anything by simply changing definitions.
FACT: an accumulation of enough micro-adaptations, carefully recorded into the DNA, and thus showing up in all future offspring/generations, is the process of evolution. As defined. And, again: it leads to speciation; an organism that is sufficiently different from it's ancestors, via ongoing micro-changes (nope; sorry, no "Cat giving birth to a dog overnight" type of stupid requirements allowed here.).
Yo put another perspective on this, perhaps knocking some sense into your hardened head: sanspeur notes, accurately....
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
So are you disputing that this DNA who's function is yet unknown came from our evolutionary past? Just because something's function is unknown, does not mean that it has NO function.
In any case progress is being made in discovering the purpose of non coding DNA.
Exactly. I read, in my usual daily attempt to keep up with the furious onslaught of masses of new information, that geneticists are now hot on the trail of much of this once-considered "junk" DNA.
Bar'el, you REALLY ought to learn before you spew truly illiterate tripe, but with your name proudly splayed across it in boldedhighlighted headlines!
And all of it aimed solely at discounting (with inaccurate o mis-quoted information..) the obvious, accurate and scientifically re-proven facts, re-tested and-confirmed! Your'e propping up a now-thoroughly disproven Instant Genesis/Creation myth. Why? Is a fairy-tale all that important to you, versus realizing the truth?
That truth won't bite you, you know!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey it's getting late. I think I'll just go to bed now...good night. 
