Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,627 Year: 4,884/9,624 Month: 232/427 Week: 42/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   DNA similarities ARE NOT proof of evolution
Peter
Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 16 of 46 (37799)
04-24-2003 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Karl
04-24-2003 4:28 AM


Is primate vit c synthesis broken in a different way
to that found in guinea pigs? Guinea pigs cannot synthesise
vit C either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Karl, posted 04-24-2003 4:28 AM Karl has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 17 of 46 (37811)
04-24-2003 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
04-23-2003 7:15 PM


There are a number of better examples of truly autocatalytic molecules. Ribozymes are a good example, as are peptides like those in the article Nosyned pointed out.
Ribozymes
Just a moment...
Self replicating peptide
American Chemical Society

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2003 7:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 46 (37824)
04-24-2003 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
04-24-2003 4:19 AM


Re: What are you getting at...
quote:
First off, haven't you ever heard of the ice age?
You do realize that the end of the last ice age wasn't 4000 years ago? It ended, in fact, prior to your god's creation of the world.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 4:19 AM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 12:12 PM John has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1960 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 19 of 46 (37826)
04-24-2003 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 5:04 AM


wrong argument
While DNA similarities are certainly informative, it is actually patterns of synapomorphic mutation that are indicative of desent.
But you knew that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:04 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 46 (37845)
04-24-2003 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by John
04-24-2003 10:08 AM


Re: What are you getting at...
Your ICE AGE was 20,000 y.a. right? WRONG! All dates pertaining to the 'secular' ice age are based off of the same assumptions as the formation of the Grand Canyon: it has a small river in it, so geologists ASSUME that it took millions of years to form.
By the way, the ice age from the Bible did not happen 4000 y.a. it happened 4350 y.a. through about 4100 y.a. There is ample evidence of that, too--get Dr. Morris' book "Young Earth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John, posted 04-24-2003 10:08 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-24-2003 12:22 PM booboocruise has replied
 Message 24 by John, posted 04-24-2003 1:20 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7661 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 21 of 46 (37847)
04-24-2003 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by booboocruise
04-24-2003 12:12 PM


booboo living up to his name again ...
quote:
Your ICE AGE was 20,000 y.a. right? WRONG! All dates pertaining to the 'secular' ice age are based off of the same assumptions as the formation of the Grand Canyon: it has a small river in it, so geologists ASSUME that it took millions of years to form.
I fail to see what erosion in the Grand Canyon has to do with the dating of the ice age - and you fail to explain it.
The ice age can be dated using a number of methods. Even using only one source of data - ice and permafost cores - dating can use a number of methods: counting of seasonal layers, whether temperature or irradation dependent; identification of milestone dates such as eruptions, and known climactic events; radioisotope dating of enclosed gases, and dendroglaciology.
None of this has anything to do with dating the Grand Canyon from the observation that it "has a small river in it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 12:12 PM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 12:47 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 46 (37852)
04-24-2003 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mister Pamboli
04-24-2003 12:22 PM


Re: booboo living up to his name again ...
First of all, your "seasonal" layers are not what you think.
You see, when it is warm the ice in Greenland glaciers begin to melt (at least a half-inch layer or so of water) that creates clear ice. Then, when it gets colder, the snow compacts and forms white ice. So, you are trying to say that the layers of clear and white ice indicate summer, winter, summer, winter, right?
That's not true, you see, in 1942 the Lost Squadron of WWII pilots landed their planes in Greenland because they couldn't make it across the ocean with the fuel they had. Anyway, they abandoned to planes until 1990 when some excavators decided to get the planes back from Greenland. The problem is, after 48 years, the ice had covered the plane by 263 feet of ice. However, there were THOUSANDS of those "annual layers," so you see the layers represent warm-cold-warm-cold--you can get 10 of those in one week in Greenland!
Also, the rate of ice accumulation (263 feet in 48 years) would give the ice caps and age of around 1900 years old! But since the packing of the snow compresses the ice slightly thinner, just over double would be the calculated age for the ice caps in Greenland (that's funny, that would by about 4000 years old). I told you, I am full of anti-evolution evidence when it gets down to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-24-2003 12:22 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2003 1:16 PM booboocruise has replied
 Message 25 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-24-2003 1:25 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 46 (37861)
04-24-2003 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by booboocruise
04-24-2003 12:47 PM


Re: booboo living up to his name again ...
You see, when it is warm the ice in Greenland glaciers begin to melt (at least a half-inch layer or so of water) that creates clear ice. Then, when it gets colder, the snow compacts and forms white ice. So, you are trying to say that the layers of clear and white ice indicate summer, winter, summer, winter, right?
That's not true, you see, in 1942 the Lost Squadron of WWII pilots landed their planes in Greenland because they couldn't make it across the ocean with the fuel they had. Anyway, they abandoned to planes until 1990 when some excavators decided to get the planes back from Greenland. The problem is, after 48 years, the ice had covered the plane by 263 feet of ice. However, there were THOUSANDS of those "annual layers," so you see the layers represent warm-cold-warm-cold--you can get 10 of those in one week in Greenland!
Heard this, heard it refuted.
Were you aware that the planes landed towards the coast of Greenland, where it snows all the time? Precipitation makes ice cores unreliable. So ice cores are taken from the center of Greenland, which is like an icy desert (no precipitation.) You might like to read a more extensive examination of the subject here.
Anyway, if ice cores are so unreliable, how come they match up so well with independant age verifiers, like recorded volcanic activity (we find the ash in the ice)? In truth, if you get the cores from the right place they're a great way to establish the dates of ice ages.
I told you, I am full of anti-evolution evidence when it gets down to it.
No, when it gets right down to it, all you have are the same tired arguments that we've refuted over and over again and that you've just copied from websites. Try a little real research sometime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 12:47 PM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 1:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 46 (37862)
04-24-2003 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by booboocruise
04-24-2003 12:12 PM


Re: What are you getting at...
quote:
Your ICE AGE was 20,000 y.a. right? WRONG! All dates pertaining to the 'secular' ice age are based off of the same assumptions as the formation of the Grand Canyon: it has a small river in it, so geologists ASSUME that it took millions of years to form.
What?
quote:
By the way, the ice age from the Bible did not happen 4000 y.a. it happened 4350 y.a. through about 4100 y.a.
LOL..... LOL..... LOL.....
Ever hear of rounding off? It's a math concept? Heard of math?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 12:12 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7661 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 25 of 46 (37863)
04-24-2003 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by booboocruise
04-24-2003 12:47 PM


Re: booboo living up to his name again ...
quote:
So, you are trying to say that the layers of clear and white ice indicate summer, winter, summer, winter, right?
No. I was referring in part to periodic changes in isotope concentrations, observed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.
As for the depth of ice, I'm surprised your approach is so naive. I suspect you have done no more than read of this on creationist websites rather than validating their arguments for yourself with background research. Had you done so you would know that the rate of firnification is neither constant or a reliable indicator of age.
Shame you only have hearsay evidence for the layers from the lost squadron excavations - there are a number of interesting techniques which could be applied to Greenland ice cores.
quote:
I told you, I am full of anti-evolution evidence when it gets down to it.
you're certainly full of something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 12:47 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 46 (37864)
04-24-2003 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
04-24-2003 1:16 PM


Re: booboo living up to his name again ...
Again, you are misunderstanding.
I have read evidence for-and-against the ice cores.
The "refutes" are based on speculation.
Anyway, if the poles are reliable to the evolutionists who study them, and unreliable to creationists, you don't KNOW that they are reliable at all. You also notice that the same results were found in Antarctica right? Seriously, the evidence for a young ice age is much--notice that there were leaves, trees, and coal found in Antarctica right? You probably didn't hear the whole story: the plants are not fossilized (that means they were not buried BEFORE the ice age, and since they were not decayed, they were obviously placed in the ice very rapidly). Your "annual layers" need to be checked again--the ice caps show ample evidence of a young-earth.
Also, if you think that my 'evidence' is lousy then give me a good evolutionism-argument and allow me to dissect it logically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2003 1:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2003 1:49 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 46 (37869)
04-24-2003 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by booboocruise
04-24-2003 1:28 PM


Re: booboo living up to his name again ...
The "refutes" are based on speculation.
Speculation? The precipitation levels of Greenland are very well-measured. Did you follow the link and read the posts?
Anyway, if the poles are reliable to the evolutionists who study them, and unreliable to creationists, you don't KNOW that they are reliable at all.
Either that, or I know that creationists are motivated not by earnest aquisition of data but in confirming specific ideology. the fact that the data is "unreliable" only for those beggin a specific conclusion is very telling indeed.
Anyway what are you talking about, "poles"? I don't recall saying anything about poles. Please explain what you mean.
notice that there were leaves, trees, and coal found in Antarctica right? You probably didn't hear the whole story: the plants are not fossilized (that means they were not buried BEFORE the ice age, and since they were not decayed, they were obviously placed in the ice very rapidly).
Remember when I was talking about plate tectonics (which you never responded to)? Antarctica used to be much farther north - far enough to have green vegitation. Also you may be aware that coal is itself decayed, fossilized plant matter so your post is self-contradictory.
Look, this isn't even remotely on topic. First, address the legion responses to your inital topics. Then, if you want to talk about ice cores and airplanes, open a new topic or refute the one I sent you to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 1:28 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 46 (37873)
04-24-2003 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
04-24-2003 4:19 AM


Re: What are you getting at...
booboocruise:
First off, haven't you ever heard of the ice age?
How is that supposed to make any difference?
Yes, after the flood, the glaciers expanded, and the oceans receded a little, which is enough to allow a dry passage from Malaysia to Australia (just because there was a flood, there are many ways to solve the problem of "how did flightless creatures get to islands")
Except that that does NOT explain biogeographical patterns very well. Booboocruise, I suggest that you do some SERIOUS studies of oceanic-island fauna. Why are there lots of birds, but no land mammals? Even though imported ones can do fine -- well enough to become big pests in some cases. Why would flightless birds make it over but no mice or squirrels or rabbits or woodchucks?
And as for Australia itself you have not explained why kangaroos hopped over but rabbits didn't. It cannot be due to ecological unsuitability, because when rabbits were introduced into Australia in the 19th cy., they multiplied enough to become a big pest.
Also, Infidels.org (where you got your "biblical errancy" page) is full of crap!!! They're an online tabloid! I've read their articles, and I've spent hours on their website reviewing their so-called biblical errancy.
I hope that you found those comments very enlightening.
(the Bible being very confusing...) That is the dumbest, most illogical conclusion drawn from that Bible passage. First, it was not the "Bible of God" that caused confusion--it was people who tried to 'twist' and rewrite the Bible so many times that has caused the confusion.
Except that that site clearly documents how confusing the Bible sometimes is.
If you try to blame God on the problems that man has caused, you are a fool!
What is this great unified entity, "man"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 4:19 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 29 of 46 (37883)
04-24-2003 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Karl
04-24-2003 4:28 AM


And now, a word from our topic...
Hi guys, remember me? DNA similarities? I'm feeling ignored...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Karl, posted 04-24-2003 4:28 AM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2003 2:56 PM Admin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 46 (37886)
04-24-2003 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Admin
04-24-2003 2:46 PM


Re: And now, a word from our topic...
Since the topic started with Booboocruise's nonsense, and he has not yet seen fit to respond to any refutations of his arguments, we can only assume he has conceded his original point, or else has no interest in defending it.
Thus I think we can assume the topic is relatively dead, and probably close-worthy. If BBC wants to respond to statements perhaps he can start a new topic in the appropriate section...
Sorry for the tone of the post - I know no one died and made me admin. But it does seem like the admins are being especially forebearing with BBC...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 04-24-2003 2:46 PM Admin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024