Ah, so our DNA is in fact so closely related and similar to each other in function that it could almost be confused for one another. What's also interesting is that subsections or compound units of said code can be traced back through other primate species in varying degrees. Looking at the overall pattern of dispersion these creates throughout different branches suggests something very interesting as well. Particularly when you consider some ERV distributions.Originally Posted by Swa
That which comes into existence will eventually break apart and pass away
Interesting how you didn't include goddidit™...
This is a very old video, trying to think how many years ago I saw it. Still very valid though.
If I remember correctly, this was used in a court to prevent the teaching of creationism in public schools, gotta love it when forum experts know more than this guy.
If only there were forum experts in the court to argue with him then he would have lost and creationism would have been taught.
Let's look at the first line of the evolution wiki article?
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations."
According to that line, evolution did do it™
Last edited by CoolBug; 17-06-2012 at 10:29 AM.
It is another observation predicted by the ToE. Had the merge not been present the ToE would have been falsified. At the very least the part that said we shared a common ancestor with the other great apes would have been in serious trouble if not been discarded entirely. I shouldn't have to tell you this even the video said this much (the video you should have watched if you genuinely wanted to take part in the thread).
Had that merge not been present "aliensdidit™, fairiesdidit™, gnomesdidit™ etc." would NOT have been falsified because those are not science... they are magick.
ToE = falsifiable
ToE = science
I know you don't like it but if you wish to be honest with yourself you must accept it.
The box said "requires Windows7 or better" so I installed Linux.
These changes are part of evolution.
Like the origin of species, Darwin never states where the single cell came from, there are favored scientific hypotheses but if you don't like them, blame your God, ewoks or Charlie Sheen.
No they are "magick" because they are unfalsifiable. By claiming those are unfalsifiable because they are magic you make an a priori assertion that only a materialist explanation is allowed. Believe it or not I just read something from a scientist who believes he CAN make a scientific claim that God doesn't exist. With people like you and him that want to be the self appointed flag bearers of science it's no wonder it's in a state of crisis.
You are also wrong on your view of the ToE. Assuming it's falsifiable this does not extend down to all claims made from it. If it did you can make any claim no matter how ridiculous and it would be science. Individual claims have to be falsifiable as well and THAT extends up to the ToE to make it falsifiable. So show us how the claim that it was a random mutation that merged the chromosomes is falsifiable.
Last edited by Swa; 17-06-2012 at 02:14 PM. Reason: link added
Given that Non-Materialist explanations cannot be tested, only positively proven. (Here's your opportunity BTW) there really is no way to distinguish between your "Non-Materialist explanation" and fiction.
In the absense of positive proof (Another opportunity here.) Science is better served considering explanations which are testable and make predictions.
Individual hypothosis are falsifiable.You are also wrong on your view of the ToE. Assuming it's falsifiable this does not extend down to all claims made from it. If it did you can make any claim no matter how ridiculous and it would be science. Individual claims have to be falsifiable as well and THAT extends up to the ToE to make it falsifiable.
However falsifying an individual claim on the periphery of our knowledge is unlikely to invalidate the entire TOE.
This is more of an observed fact than a claim.So show us how the claim that it was a random mutation that merged the chromosomes is falsifiable.
This is an interesting explanation.
a2
Join the Great Facebook Deactivation from 1 September 2012
WOT?!!! Somebody was there millions of years ago to see the mutation occur?
No you are confusing hypothesis with observation. Apes have 24 chromosomes - observed fact. Humans have 23 - observed fact. 24 chromosomes changed into 23 - hypothesis. Now assuming the hypothesis is correct it still leaves the reason as evolution, aliens, fairies, gnomes and my two farting ants.All of them unfalsifiable.
The materialist however don't care about falsifiability and science only an a priori commitment of which answer is acceptable. Or actually rather which answer and more importantly Who is NOT acceptable. I have my answer thanks.
We observe similer events today and understand the mechanism.
No you are confusing hypothesis with observation. Apes have 24 chromosomes - observed fact. Humans have 23 - observed fact. 24 chromosomes changed into 23 - hypothesis. Now assuming the hypothesis is correct it still leaves the reason as evolution, aliens, fairies, gnomes and my two farting ants.
We find a rock at the bottom of a hill, as we watch another rock falls from the top of the hill. A reasonable person may conclude with reasonable certainty that the first rock was there because it fell from the top of the hill through nature means. Just because we didn't actually see the original rock fall, we do not attribute equal weight to other explanations, to wit: aliens, fairies, gnomes and your two farting ants, without evidence. Nor even to reasonable explanations (a man placed it there) without evidence.
Answers without evidence are unacceptable.The materialist however don't care about falsifiability and science only an a priori commitment of which answer is acceptable. Or actually rather which answer and more importantly Who is NOT acceptable. I have my answer thanks.
a2
Join the Great Facebook Deactivation from 1 September 2012
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04072.html
I wouldn't call 95-97% so closely related to each other that they can be confused for one another. Geneticists will very quickly and with indisputable accuracy be able to tell you if a sample of DNA is human or chimp or neither or in the case of chimp which species of chimp. ~96% would roughly be in the range required for our similarities were DNA the function determiner. Again if we didn't see this similarity our understanding of DNA would be wrong so I don't view it as a problem that only a common evolutionary ancestor could explain.
Now Ken Miller asks why creationists can't give an answer. Sorry porch but it was in the introduction.Well I didn't know that saying we don't know for sure instead of making some stuff up was a disqualifier in science. Contrary to what darksidehippo said Ken isn't being entirely truthful here. He's right that a missing chromosome would probably kill but what he doesn't say is why this should be a big deal for creation. It's a big deal for evolution because a missing chromosome would prove the idea of evolving from an ape false. But the presence of it doesn't prove it true though and this is where he tries to flip the argument around by using rhetoric and harping on creationists.
So why is he and everyone else emphasizing chromosome 2? If anything it would actually be better evidence for evolution if it was still two separate chromosomes. And indeed there's 22 other chromosomes they could use. Well it's actually diversion. Chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show signs of "remodeling." Of course by remodeling they mean evolutiondidit™. Chromosome 21 in particular also shows a number of probable insertions in human DNA. Hmm... remodeling and insertion by evolution or debugging and tweaking by an intelligent being?
I also see in the wiki article that chromosome 2 may be important in human intelligence. Human = intelligent, ape = not so intelligent. Yup it a was blind evolution.
Still dodging the central problem.
What central problem.
Fact: The Chromosome is fused.
Fact: We have observed chromosomes fuse and understand the mechanism.
Fact: Chimps do not have a fused chromosome
Fact: Chimps and Humans share substantively the same DNA including ERV's
Conclusion: Human Chromosomes fused after our species diverged from Chimps.
If you want to falsify the conclusion you have to pretty much shift one of the facts or provide an evidence based alternative that better fits the facts. Hard, improbable, but not entirely beyond the realm of posibility.
a2
Join the Great Facebook Deactivation from 1 September 2012
This is the science section. You want to talk philosophy go to PD please.
You are asking for proof for a theory again. The best we can do is check to see that our observations line up with the predictions in the theories.You are also wrong on your view of the ToE. Assuming it's falsifiable this does not extend down to all claims made from it. If it did you can make any claim no matter how ridiculous and it would be science. Individual claims have to be falsifiable as well and THAT extends up to the ToE to make it falsifiable. So show us how the claim that it was a random mutation that merged the chromosomes is falsifiable.
Last edited by porchrat; 18-06-2012 at 08:54 AM.
The box said "requires Windows7 or better" so I installed Linux.
So you got caught...
I want you to show that it's a falsifiable claim. Where do you get the part about proof?
No just that this section is the science section, you want to talk about schit that ISN'T science then go to PD. Forum rules.
Please stop this. Every single time you get involved in a thread in here it becomes about philosophy or some other rubbish that really has fsck all to do with the topic. I really hate seeing this section get disrupted. Please just stop.
We know what a merged chromosome looks like and so far we have seen nothing within this chromosome to suggest this isn't a merged chromosome. To falsify it you are going to have to find something that demonstrates that it isn't a merged chromosome, something we haven't seen yet. Obviously merged chromosomes have a particular pattern to them and whatever doesn't fit that pattern is going to falsify the current thinking that this is a merged chromosome.I want you to show that it's a falsifiable claim. Where do you get the part about proof?
Either that or one could demonstrate that the patterns seen in merged chromosomes could be caused by something else, then we would have 2 competing theories which would be cool.
Last edited by porchrat; 18-06-2012 at 11:34 AM.
The box said "requires Windows7 or better" so I installed Linux.
Oh well, I would. Seems we've come at an impasse then. You don't believe 96+% show a high correlation of relation, I do. C'est la vie.
Last edited by Geriatrix; 18-06-2012 at 12:42 PM.
That which comes into existence will eventually break apart and pass away
By reading this post, you relinquish to me all rights to your immortal soul for all eternity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks