Questions for Evolutionists

[Skippy]

Okay, who's going to back me up that there is enough evidence to prove that the Big Bang happened, or is this going to be like Black Holes (No one has ever seen one or anything enter them, so therefore they don't exist... Yeah, right...:rolleyes: ).

God spoke...and BANG, it happened.

 

How do YOU explain something from nothing? Kind of breaks some laws doesn't it?

[Skippy]

Ken Hovind, whose site you are referencing, has been largely discredited. His doctorate is from a diploma mill, and his arguments are spurious at best. Here are scientific refutations http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ and notice that many of Hovind's arguments are found here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp which is a list that Answers in Genesis (young earth creationists) maintains of arguments young earth creationists should not use. -Will

You and others keep pointing to that site (http://www.talkorigins.com) as the authority. I was looking over the site and found this page - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html. I must say I am impressed at the imaginations of the people involved in paleoanthropology. I mean, where else can one find a piece of a skull and a few teeth and determine that the creature it came from had a brain a certain size, walked upright and made tools? A few other fragments become the proverbial missing links, the fact that they can't be proved to be a link means nothing. As long as no one can disprove what these "scientists" claim you take it as your gospel. Oh and how about a nice cover up - Peking man, "The original fossils disappeared in 1941 while being shipped to the United States for safety during World War II, but excellent casts and descriptions remain." By that kind of evidence Bigfoot and "Nessie" are alive and well.

[Fishteacher73]

It shows just about as much relation to mice... Similarity in chromosomes proves a common designer as easily as it does a common ancestor.

 

"If chromosome number means anything, if this DNA really means something, then I would point out that the opossum, the redwood tree and the kidney bean all have 22 chromosomes and therefore they are identical triplets — which of course is ridiculous.

 

You say that apes and humans have similar DNA. The truth of the matter is, the chimpanzee has the same number of chromosomes as the tobacco plant. And they both have more than humans have. So the similarity would break down right there."

 

Chomosome number in this argument is worthless. We are speaking about the genome, the entire sequence of DNA, not how it wraps itself up. By your reconing of genetic mapping it would be uselss as a forensics tool to discern two individuals. I really cannot argue against anything as completely off base as this in terms of DNA comparison.

 

Not to be rude, but just quoting stuff you don't understand won't help you learn.

 

DNA sequencing reveals almost a 99% similarity between chimp and human. 75% similarity to chicken. 85% similar to mouse. Wow that pretty much falls in line with evolutionary theory and taxonomy (Both started way before DNA mapping).

[Skippy]

The word intellectually challenged comes to mind.

:rolleyes: But at least he's not intellectually dishonest.

[goku]

thankyou Skippy, i guess.

Fishteacher, pardon me for generalizing. cosmology says billions of years, biology says about the same. i'll try to stick to biology, therefore

of course man and monkey are going to have simular DNA, we do look alike. i dare say that a buzard and egale have simular DNA. using dna to search for likness is a waste of time.

use common sense, note the simple simularities, both have feathers, wings, walk on two legs.

always keep it simple, that's what i say. mash the clutch in just for a minute.

 

if i asked a question about the water in the ocean conserning the age of the earth, would that be biology, oceanology, or earth science?

 

the title of this thread does say "questions for evolutionists" doesn't it?

[MortenS]

using dna to search for likness is a waste of time.

use common sense, note the simple simularities, both have feathers, wings, walk on two legs.

always keep it simple, that's what i say. mash the clutch in just for a minute.

 

 

Hmm, and the likeness between dolphins and certain sharks? Do you think we will find that in their DNA?

 

Evolutionary theory predicts that dolphins share more DNA with mammals than with sharks.

Evolutionary theory also predicts that sharks will share more DNA with fish than with dolphins.

 

Guess what we find if we pull some shark and dolphin DNA from the NCBI database and compare them (I have not done it yet, but I will be happy to run a comparison on some sequences of rRNA for you on those shark and dolphin sequences I can find, and compare them with some fish and land mammal sequences.)

[goku]

did you have to look at the dolphin's dna to know if it breathed air?

please check your data base, meanwhile i'll make some perdictions. just think i might be wrong.

dolphins should be more simular to whales

sharks should be more simular to fish

that sounds like common sense to me, one breathes air the other water.

cats are more simular to pigs than to cows

great whites more simular to whale sharks than to baracutas

alligaters more simular to great whites than to jellyfish

 

at this time i feel like a blind man driving a tour bus.

 

jurassic park, the movie, had a sene about the length of the dna strand. this is all that i know about it, how long is it really?

is every single segment or piece used, or is some of it dorment? i don't think i spelled dorment correctly.

[MortenS]

did you have to look at the dolphin's dna to know if it breathed air?

 

I do not have to look at DNA to find out what morphological or behavioural adaptions or features an organism have. I do look at DNA to find out how related they are. You can also find out relatedness by comparing a lot of morphological features...but it is often easier to compare relatedness with DNA (why do you think we use DNA to identify paternity?)

 

please check your data base

I will see if I can download some data tomorrow

 

meanwhile i'll make some perdictions. just think i might be wrong.

dolphins should be more simular to whales

 

I agree on that.

 

 

sharks should be more simular to fish

that sounds like common sense to me, one breathes air the other water.

 

What about lungfish?

 

cats are more simular to pigs than to cows

 

I doubt that, I think cows and pigs are more similar to each other (they are both Artiodactyls, and have even number of toes), than cats are to pigs, but I will be happy to look into that from a DNA perspective.

 

great whites more simular to whale sharks than to baracutas

I agree on that

alligaters more simular to great whites than to jellyfish

I agree on that too.

 

But is an alligator more related to a bird or to a pig?

[goku]

i say the alligator is more related to the bird, also the larger the bird the greater the relationship.

knowledge alone is nothing, useing the knowledge is something.

 

you agreed without knowing the dna, you might have common sense.

[goku]

what does my computer mean, people are logged on to my computer shutting down now could cause them to lose data.

[EWright]

My goodness people... monkey's and people, dolphins and sharks? Mice share 90% of the same DNA as humans for crying out loud! I bet not a one of you rambling on about the amount of shared DNA has any idea of the actual relationship between the species you are referring to. NOT very scientific of you. The fact that all species use DNA to begin with could be just as strong an argument for evolution as it could be for a common creator and his chosen blue print/choice method of replication.

[EWright]

By the way... the Bible says that God made man in HIS IMAGE... NOT as his equivalent. We're still animals, people.

[majordinkydau]

In acient mythology man watched the sun go accross the sky and hypothisized some god stuck the thing in his chariot and rode overhead. When we don't know something, we tend to strain our little minds to come up with something to answer the question.

I don't have to see oxygen to breath it but I keeps me alive. The most important aspect of science is asking questions and I believe a true scientist is not afraid of the answers. This thread is asking some questions that I have never seen answered. A lot of comments are thrown in about the mental defects and limits of anyone who might read the bible but I've discovered it is not a book requiring gulible blind faith. No wonder it is the most banned book in world history, it chalenges people to think for themselves. It is god's poem to every person and even encourages man to question and test. Most people who condemn the book have never read it themselves. Read it with a very critical mind and you just might find your heart changing.

[Tormod]

I am closing this thread. It is shameful to watch the lunacy some people here are able to post.

 

I ask anyone who is so afraid of science that they need to ridicule, point fingers and laugh to go elsewhere. This is a science forum, not a creationist haven.