|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 49 (9221 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,792 Year: 1,114/6,935 Month: 395/719 Week: 37/146 Day: 10/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 142 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
We know there is no known fossil evidence for evolution from E to C. Your evolution model relies on evidence that doesn't exist. The huge jump from E to C is what the scientific mind would expect if aliens performed feats of genetic engineering.
Or are you just assuming that the record is complete and we 'know' that there is nothing in between E and C Second, that's a great idea.
For once, you got something right. It's a great idea that sprung from the mind of a brilliant thinker and self-taught and self-declared scientist - namely, me.
Now, how have you tested it?
I haven't tested it - to test is to confirm - I can't test/confirm my most excellent theory.
Where is your evidence for the aliens?
The fossil record is my primary evidence for the aliens - the best scientific explanation for the history of life as revealed in the rocks is genetic engineering performed by aliens. Furthermore, science cannot rule out the existence of intelligent life from another planet. And let's not forget the secondary forms of evidence that supports the existence of aliens - crop circles, abductions, UFO sightings, etc.
Again, a great idea, but "voila" will not cut it as a mechanism.
Too easy - the mechanism is genetic engineering.
And the problem is?
The lack of evidence of evolutionary ancestors of animals.
But more specifically, when one predicts the location of a particular transitional fossil in a certain age of rocks and the they go out and actually confirm the prediction.
1. One lucky find is not statistically significant.2. That lucky find can also be explained by my "aliens did it" theory. I know, those big words are confusing...
Big words frighten me. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1771 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You keep thinking in terms of mutations making the difference between chimps and humans but that makes no sense at all to a YEC. Mutations occur in both genomes completely independently.
You are saying that if a base is changed, whether by a mutation or by a creator, ... The Creator doesn't "change" anything. He made the creature and all its DNA perfectly designed to reproduce it. Mutations are a disease process that disrupts the perfect created DNA.
... that it will either be neutral or deleterious, and we can ignore any beneficial changes because those are few if any. Yes, in each genome, in any given genome.
If this is true, then we have to ask how a creator can create two separate genomes that differ by 40 million differences while sharing 98% of the rest and not have this result in millions of diseases. This makes not one iota of sense to me.
Also, how can this result in any beneficial differences between the species if differences cause so many diseases, according to you? Nothing you are saying makes any sense to me whatever. You must be thinking in irrelevant evo terms here but I can't sort it out. NOTHING happens "between the species" in the YEC scenario. They are completely independent of one another.
Even if we assume creation, what you are saying can't be true. NO idea how you arrive at this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1771 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If chimps have somewhere around 95-98% human DNA, how much do you think, say, Homo habilis had? If Homo habilis was a human being then it had 100% If it was an ape I have no idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 495 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You keep thinking in terms of mutations making the difference between chimps and humans but that makes no sense at all to a YEC. Mutations occur in both genomes completely independently.
You think we don't know or agree with that? We do. Nobody has claimed any coordination or denied the independence of mutations in the two genomes. The possibility would never occur to someone who understands basic genetics. It's hard to tell where your misunderstandings lie. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1771 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sure I don't get what Taq is trying to say, none of it makes any sense. What is the point of the differences between the genomes at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10388 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Faith writes: The Creator doesn't "change" anything. He made the creature and all its DNA perfectly designed to reproduce it. Call it whatever you like. The main point is that the human and chimp genomes differ by 40 million differences with the rest being the same. If being different causes diseases, as you claim, then God couldn't create species with these differences because they would die from disease. Therefore, you have to be wrong about differences only causing disease.
This makes not one iota of sense to me. That's your cognitive dissonance getting in the way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9638 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
FAITH writes: If Homo habilis was a human being then it had 100% If it was an ape I have no idea Well we know he was an ape because we are too, but we also know that unlike, say, a chimp, he was also Homo. So he was human, though not of the same species as us. My guess is that his DNA is going to be pretty close but not exact. Because obviously if it was exact, he'd be H. sapiens, not H. habilis. So god made lots of prototypes, then killed them off? Any idea why? I don't recollect anything in the bible about these other human species. Or in any other texts at all anywhere or anywhen. How come? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 142 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
The best scientific explanation for the appearance of a new genus is genetic engineering performed by aliens.
So the evidence of Pelycodus shows "a species from one genus evolved into a species of a new genus." The genus did not exist before this new nomenclature was applied. Except that the evidence shows an absence of outside tampering
On the contrary, the fossil record shows abundant evidence of "outside tampering".
while common ancestry in living species is observed and thus is a known process.
Certainly,, common ancestry is observed, but the evolution of a new genus has never been observed - even thousands of years of intensive artificial selection by humans - using every trick in the book - has failed to produce anything even close to a new genus. In other words, the evidence suggests the genus barrier cannot be crossed by natural means.
Positing an invisible undetectable process is not needed to explain the evidence that matches the observed common ancestry process that is nown to occur.
1. The fossil record cannot be explained by any observed process.2. The existence of aliens may be "invisible" but it is not "undetectable" - the fossil record is powerful scientific evidence of genetic engineering - and the only scientific explanation for that engineering is aliens. The Darwinian "explanation" is lame, outdated and little more than rehashed spontaneous generation - a nineteenth-century superstition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 142 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
I prefer my lamingtons plain Chocolate or cream filled or plain? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10388 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Faith writes: I'm sure I don't get what Taq is trying to say, none of it makes any sense. What is the point of the differences between the genomes at all? It's not that hard to figure out. Let's start with creation and a very simple model. God creates humans and chimps separately, and the genetic differences are responsible for their physical differences. We find the genetic difference responsible for our larger brains, and the corresponding area in the chimp genome. The sequences look like this:
* human AACGAGGGATGAGGT chimp AACGAGGGTTGAGGT I put a little asterisk above the difference. This is the difference responsible for our bigger brains. Now, if that same difference was caused by a mutation, would that be a beneficial mutation? Can you come up with any reason why that mutation could not occur? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 142 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
Null and void. A scientific theory doesn't need a practical application to be accepted as valid.
And then could you tell us how this theory is applicable in practical biology?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: |
And let's not forget the secondary forms of evidence that supports the existence of aliens - crop circles, abductions, UFO sightings, etc. And aluminum foil.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 142 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
What you have for the reptile jaw-mammalian inner-ear is a rehashed version of the nineteenth-century superstition of spontaneous generation - Darwinian evolution. The best scientific explanation for reptile-mammal "evolution" is genetic engineering performed by aliens. Wake up and grow up - modern science is calling you out of the darkness.
It is an explanation that fits the data, the timing and has a mechanism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 142 days) Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Faith writes:
Do I still think it's possible? No, not at all - not by an natural means , at least. The Darwinian explanation for the supposed reptile jaw-mammalian inner-ear "evolution" is as weak as water. The best SCIENTIFIC explanation for such an "evolution" - if that is indeed what happened - is genetic engineering performed by aliens. Not to mention that mutations, being random, aren't going to occur where you want them when you want them and it would take hundreds or thousands or millions of them before you'd get anything remotely close to the inner ear bones of the mammal, by which time you should have accumulated that many transitionals with so many bizarre looking bone things growing out of the reptile jaw all utterly useless to the animal, but still you think this is possible? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 495 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Three points, two of which you've accepted
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025