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.
Or common ancestry, which is what I meant. Give me a piece of evidence for this assertion that can't be explained some other way.
Here's a piece. Do you remember in September of 2005 when the genetic code of the chimpanzee was published? When that happened we could then actually compare our genome with theirs.
Now being able to do that, what do we find? One striking observation that was found is actually predicted by evolution and not predicted by creationism. This is by the way, one way to test for common descent. Evolution argues that we share a common ancestor with the other great apes, the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan. If that’s true, there should be genetic similarities.
Well, in fact there are. But there is something that is really interesting and has the potential, if it were true, to contradict evolution common ancestry. And that is, we have 2 fewer chromosomes than the other great apes. We have 46, they all have 48. That’s very interesting. Now what does that actually mean? First of all, the 46 chromosome that we have, we got 23 from Mom and 23 from Dad, so we have 23 pairs. The other great apes have 24 pairs from each parent. So everyone posting in this thread, including you is missing a pair of chromosomes. So where did they go. Could it have gotten lost in our lineage? No, if a whole primate chromosome got lost, that would have been lethal. So that leaves only two possibilities.
If we really share a common ancestor, that ancestor had either 48 chromosomes or 46. Now, if it had 48 chromosomes, 24 pair, which is probably true, after all, 3 out of 4 have 48 chromosomes, what must have happened is that one pair of chromosomes must have gotten fused. So, we should be able to look at our genome and discover that one of our chromosomes resulted from the fusion of 2 chromosomes. We should be able to look around at our genome for it. And you know what? If we don’t find it, then evolution is wrong and we don’t share a common ancestor. This is one of those test for common ancestry. After examining all 46 chromosomes and failing to find it would be a great test for creationism. So how would we find it?
Biologists know that chromosomes have these nifty little markers. They have markers called centromeres, which are DNA sequences that are used to separate them during mitoses. And we have cool little DNA sequences on the ends called telomeres to protect the chromosomes from degradation. What would happen if a pair of chromosomes got fused? Well, what would happen is that the fusion would put telomeres where they don’t belong – in the center of the chromosome, and the resulting fused chromosome should actually have two centromeres. One of them might become inactivated, but nonetheless, it should still be there. So we can scan our genome and you know, if we don’t find that chromosome in our genome, evolution is in trouble.
Well, guess what, we found it, it’s chromosome No.2. Our chromosome No. 2 was formed by the fusion of two primate chromosomes. This chromosome is unique to our lineage, emerged as a result of a head to head fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. The precise fusion site has been located at base number 114,455,823 to 114,455,838. That’s within 15 bases, along with multiple sub-telomere duplications, the telomeres that don’t belong, and lo and behold, the centromere that is inactivated corresponds to chimp chromosome No. 13. It’s there, it’s testable, it confirms this prediction of evolution. How would Intelligent Design-ist explain it? Only one way. He would shrug his shoulders and say, “that’s the way the Designer made it.” No rhyme or reason. Presumably there is a designer who designed human chromosome #2, to make it look “as if” it was formed by the fusion from a primate ancestor. Do you believe in a deceptive designer? Do you believe in one that would try to fool us? This is authentic and tangible.
When this data from whole genome sequencing was introduced in the legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover, tried in 2005 in a Harrisburg, PA trial, the ID experts literally had nothing to say, no arguments, and no questions in cross-examination, not even alternate possibilities to explain it some other way; the other side never brought it up, they couldn't address it, so just left it. They just shrugged their collective shoulders.
Actually, most animals do communicate with one another. The fact that humans don't understand the languages of other animals doesn't mean that those languages don't exist. Animals communicate with each other. And other animals use tools. And other animals have complex social structures. We don't actually know the degree that other animals are self-aware. We don't actually understand the complexity that might exist in other animals' methods of communication. The fact that animals do communicate, though, indicates that communication provides an evolutionary advantage, and for humans, with their physical limitations, communication skills probably had to be developed to ensure evolutionary survival.
Creatures of all varieties communicate, and those that are unaware of that, are just not very informed. Even individual cells communicate.
Furthermore, no one really knows when formal language developed in human beings ... since none of us were actually there to witness the event. We've simply to rely on supposition and conjecture for such answers, while anthropologists may claim that early man communicated in grunts ... how do they know this? The same way they know a lot of other things ..... they're guessing.
Like I said the problem with much of 'evolutionary theory' (and biological "science") in general is that mathematics penetrates few of her theories. much of it is just so explanations that observations can be twisted into and out of as easily as creativity.
math cant be applied to psychology either, doesnt mean its without merit.
"Statistical process' doesn't mean anything. I think you mean 'random' which too doesn't mean much (we can discuss this further).
Random doesn't cover it, either. Stochastic? <shrug> Definitions quibble. Uninteresting.
Quote:
But it's clear something is directing it. Darwin called it the organism's environment (and he used the term 'force' of natural selection), but for example another is sexual selection.
In that sense, selection is directed. But that's only half the picture. In nature, the occurrence of a trait to be selected for or against isn't directed, as far as we know.
Here's a piece. Do you remember in September of 2005 when the genetic code of the chimpanzee was published? When that happened we could then actually compare our genome with theirs.
That's very nice but give me a succinct argument why this requires a common ancestor.
Quote:
Well, in fact there are. But there is something that is really interesting and has the potential, if it were true, to contradict evolution common ancestry. And that is, we have 2 fewer chromosomes than the other great apes. We have 46, they all have 48. That’s very interesting. Now what does that actually mean? First of all, the 46 chromosome that we have, we got 23 from Mom and 23 from Dad, so we have 23 pairs. The other great apes have 24 pairs from each parent. So everyone posting in this thread, including you is missing a pair of chromosomes. So where did they go. Could it have gotten lost in our lineage? No, if a whole primate chromosome got lost, that would have been lethal. So that leaves only two possibilities.
If we really share a common ancestor, that ancestor had either 48 chromosomes or 46. Now, if it had 48 chromosomes, 24 pair, which is probably true, after all, 3 out of 4 have 48 chromosomes, what must have happened is that one pair of chromosomes must have gotten fused. So, we should be able to look at our genome and discover that one of our chromosomes resulted from the fusion of 2 chromosomes. We should be able to look around at our genome for it. And you know what? If we don’t find it, then evolution is wrong and we don’t share a common ancestor. This is one of those test for common ancestry. After examining all 46 chromosomes and failing to find it would be a great test for creationism. So how would we find it?
What you gave me here is a prediction made by evolutionary theory that turned out to be true. But it doesn't rule out any theory nor does it set evolution on any pedestal other than it being the best explanatory framework presently around, and the entire premise rests on our common ancestor having 48 chromosomes instead of 46.
Like I said the problem with much of 'evolutionary theory' (and biological "science") in general is that mathematics penetrates few of her theories.
You must have never studied biology or evolutionary theory. Its mathematical underpinnings are extensive and rigorous.
But historical events are contingent, not determinative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
much of it is just so explanations that observations can be twisted into and out of as easily as creativity.
Again... you must have never studied biology or evolutionary theory. Nothing can be "twisted" outside of the data. Like every other rigorous science, latitude is limited.
That's very nice but give me a succinct argument why this requires a common ancestor.
What you gave me here is a prediction made by evolutionary theory that turned out to be true. But it doesn't rule out any theory nor does it set evolution on any pedestal other than it being the best explanatory framework presently around, and the entire premise rests on our common ancestor having 48 chromosomes instead of 46.
And you just shrug your shoulders. Not surprised that you haven't put forward an explanation. The only other explanation I can come up with is that a designer just did it to make it look like there was a common ancestor. That is not real satisfying. Do you have one?
You must have never studied biology or evolutionary theory.
Not really. There is a segment of biology called biological physics which what you said can be true. Much of what evolution attempts to describe is of yet outside the scope of mathematical theories.
There is not ample evidence but rather observations that both sides have used to support their points. The specific theory of evolution had to be revised many times to accord with these observations. The problem with much of it is it's not grounded in mathematics so precision is not the name of the game and results can be explained numerous ways.
The theory of evolution has had to be revised, as we've learned more and more. Ask yourself why creationism doesn't have to be revised. The answer is because creationism isn't science.
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.
