Summations Only

What problem? Hundreds? On the Y chromosome? And why would the genes being "surplus" in chimps mean they were "surplus" in the common ancestor? And where does "macroevolution" come in"? With one deletion? Ten? Perhaps they were sufficiently advantageous to the common ancestor for them to be retained, but not for the chimps. And "loss of information" is common in evolution, as is gain. We don't have gills and scales; birds don't have teeth.On the subject of micro and macro in relationship to human/chimp differences, Taq has just started a thread on the subject here. Message 1.If you'd care to support your view that evolutionary processes are inadequate for increasing information in the life system, I've started an information thread here. Message 1

Curiously that relationship was useful in finding vaccines for HIV which is a mutated form of SIV:

quote:

---

Chimp link to AIDS pandemic confirmed

​

Research in Cameroon has confirmed what scientists have suspected for some years: that wild chimpanzees are the source of the human HIV/AIDS pandemic.

​

The finding, published today (26 May) in Science, is based on an analysis of chimpanzee faeces found in forests in the south of the country.

​

Researchers led by Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States, found evidence of a virus called SIVcpzPtt in the chimpanzee subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes. ...

---

Just as understanding the genetic similarities with pigs was useful in finding vaccines for

quote:

---

Swine influenza, also called pig influenza, swine flu, hog flu and pig flu, is an infection caused by any one of several types of swine influenza viruses. Swine influenza virus (SIV) or swine-origin influenza virus (S-OIV) is any strain of the influenza family of viruses that is endemic in pigs.[2] As of 2009, the known SIV strains include influenza C and the subtypes of influenza A known as H1N1, H1N2, H2N1, H3N1, H3N2, and H2N3.

​

The Swine flu was initially seen in humans in Mexico in 2009, where the strand of the particular virus was a marriage of 3 types of strands.[3] Six of the genes are very similar to the H1N2 influenza virus that was found in pigs around 2000.[3]

---

So you'll excuse us if we keep using evolution to make useful predictions.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

You don't even understand the evidence or the conclusions, by your own admission. How can you say that there is a disconnect when you don't even understand the material?

Thank you for supplying this classical example of Darwinist delusion.Firstly, the theory that HIVS/AIDS is an zoonosis that originated in chimps is not a proven fact. Secondly, believing that the virus came from a chimp does help scientists find a cure. Thirdly, even if the chimp-man transmission theory is true, the theory that humans and chimps share a common ancestor doesn't assist scientists in dealing with AIDS. You only think it does ... because you have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to think only in terms of the useless myth of evolution. You're too deluded to see that the theory that all life shares a common ancestor is useless to applied science.------------------------------------------------Similarly, if the discovery of genetic similarities between pigs and humans helped in developing flu vaccine, this is irrelevant to the theory that all life shares a common ancestor. A team of creationists could hypothetically have made the very same discovery and developed the very same vaccine!

I understand certain aspects of evolutionary science and can see certain flaws in its arguments - as witnessed by my text, #392, for example. But there are other arguments that evolutionists make that I can't enter into, as I don't have the expertise to understand the argument and hence, make a judgement. But having come to the conclusion that ToE is the greatest fraud in the history of science, I strongly suspect that all their arguments are flawed - but I can't prove it.

Creationism doesn't need to "produce its own science". In contrast, Atheism does need to produce its own science, because it needs a Godless creation story to make atheists feel "fulfilled" - as High Priest Dawkins says. Darwinism is a product of the psychological needs of atheists, and certainly not a product of scientific necessity. Darwinism is Scientism, and Scientism is the religion of atheism.Applied biology doesn't need Creationism or Darwinism. It only needs scientific facts pertaining to the here and now; not useless stories about how life got here. However, evo-fanatics have the utmost trouble accepting that their beloved theory (and "fact") is scientific irrelevance - on the contrary, they delude themselves that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of biology. What a joke that is. Darwinism is joke science.

There are a lot of scientists in each of those fields who do understand the argument, the data, the theory and the scientific method. They can make a judgement. Neither can any other creationist. That's why they quote-mine, misrepresent, deny, ignore, and otherwise avoid dealing with the evidence.For example, I've brought up the dating issue on many of these threads. The dating evidence alone destroys the YEC claims and the idea of a global flood ca. 4350 years ago. RAZD has gone to great lengths in his dating threads showing how all the different dating methods agree with close tolerances. But as of yet no creationist has been able to do anything but try and hand-wave all that evidence away. (It hasn't gone away.)

You didn't demonstrate any flaws in theory of evolution in that post. How can you claim that the theory of evolution is a fraud when you don't even understand the evidence or the conclusions?

Why not? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities because there is no evidence for the existence of any deities. Even if we lacked evidence for how life or species came about, there still wouldn't be any evidence for deities. Atheism doesn't need evidence any more than not believing in fairies needs evidence. 150 years of scientific evidence demonstrate otherwise. I already showed how the theory of evoution is used in applied biology. You continue to ignore those posts.It seems that all you have to offer is denial.

Well it doesn't so you've accomplished that much. Drivel. Science is done by people of all religious beliefs. Atheists make up a small part of society and a smaller part of science. This equating science and atheism is asinine. Says the guy that thinks snakes talk, devils exist, kangaroos travelled to an ark in the Middle East and the earth is 10 minutes old. Grow up.

Actually the Middle East is part of the post flood world. We don't know where the Ark was built in reference to modern geography and we don't know what animals lived there. For all we know kangaroos could have been grazing on the hills watching Noah and his sons at work.[edit]
Better to ask how kangaroos got to Australia. That, of course, has been asked and answered many times before.
So here's how. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdfThe animals migrated overland, perhaps taking hundreds of years to reach their final destination. A few rabbits were released in SE Australia. In less than 200 years they had spread to the far corners of the land, but no individual was required to make the entire journey.Today there are some deep water stretches but geologists believe there have been major tectonic upheavals, accompanied by substantial rising and falling of sea-floors, in the time-period with which they associate an ice age, which would correspond to the post flood migration period. If that fails we can use the solution that evolutionists have proposed in other cases, rafting.Edited by CRR, : Section added after interruption.

Actually, the Middle East has been there for for quite a while before the date of your imaginary flood. We know this to be a fact corroborated by multiple evidence sources. The geography hasn't changed but I agree you don't know where the imaginary ark wasn't built. We know exactly what animals lived there- we have historical records and their bones. We know exactly that that isn't true - there were no kangaroos within thousands of miles of the Middle East. Oh my. A couple of kangeroo 'kinds' jumped off the ark and hopped a few thousand miles across a totally dead landscape devoid of all food, simultaneously reproducing and evolving into all the marsupials we see today, then hop onto a raft and navigate an ocean.A miracle at some point would make you look less gullible.

Getting to the ark is not a problem (see CRR response), the problem is getting from the ark to the remote places of the earth for all species to end up where they are now.How did all those marsupials end up on Australia with no placental mammals? Why are there NO marsupials on the African, Asian, European continents, including the middle east ... and no fossils of them? There are marsupials in South and North America, but they are few compared to the numbers of placental mammals.This bio-geographic distribution is easily explained by evolution, but is rather difficult for creationists ... so the come up with some amusing explanations. One imagined that Koalas got to Australia on a raft of eucalyptus branches as the flood receded.Enjoy

After the Ark landed, how in the world did all of the marsupials beat all of those placental mammals to Australia? How did the marsupial mole beat the gazelle to Australia?It would appear that your Ark is full of holes.On top of that, how was post-Ark survival determined by how deep their ancestors were buried in the fossil record? The modern species we see today are found more towards the top of the fossil record while the species at the bottom of the fossil record are not alive today. How do you explain this correlation?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Correction: creationism CAN'T produce its own science because there's nothing scientific about it. Creationism can't make sense of biology because it ignores reality. it's based entirely on myth.If creationism could produce its own science, it might be taken seriously by science; it might be possible to teach it in schools. But as it is, all creationism can say is that science is wrong, which isn't much of a basis for education.