tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post4193630646904575832..comments2024-02-23T17:35:17.066+11:00Comments on Critical Mass: God is just a theoryAlanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09677386225276933012noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-90980632620696231392009-04-01T11:25:00.000+11:002009-04-01T11:25:00.000+11:00PC VER,Good to see that you are studing it and it ...PC VER,<BR/>Good to see that you are studing it and it is always good to get second (and third) opinion..Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-47609572541137249442009-04-01T00:30:00.000+11:002009-04-01T00:30:00.000+11:00In case my procrastination is seen as quitting...I...In case my procrastination is seen as quitting...<BR/><BR/>I have gone out to seek some wisdom from where it is fast, furious and possibly very scary.<BR/><BR/>http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=79&m=61<BR/><BR/>I should post my finding when I'm satisfied with one.<BR/><BR/>Don't be surprised that I may repeat over there much of what I have written in this blog.PC VERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054787574753739548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-39576681632298400242009-03-29T09:31:00.000+11:002009-03-29T09:31:00.000+11:00It seems biology can be subjective among the crowd...It seems biology can be subjective among the crowd of evolutionist biologists and studies of biology staddle between science and art somewhat. I think biologists need to re-think the definition of 'species' as the word applies to ring species. Whether two 'species' interbreed may not even be relevant.<BR/><BR/>Well, in a secular country, evolutionist biologists have the upper hand over creationists. This is just the way things are. I imagine in many fundamentalist religious countries, scientists that do not tow a religious line are not allowed to exist. We don't want that here, I'm sure.<BR/>But the disdain and false impression most people have towards creationists & Christianity is a concern and need addressing.<BR/><BR/>I will think about your questions on ERVs and chromosome 2 a bit more later.PC VERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054787574753739548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-34866409374249437772009-03-28T21:17:00.000+11:002009-03-28T21:17:00.000+11:00You use a lot of creationist words considering you...You use a lot of creationist words considering your are not a fan of creations sources. What is a "kind"? Are human and chimps the same "kind" like camels and llamas?<BR/><BR/>What do you think we should do with biologists who use "sleight of hand", are not "sincere", don't do science and mislead us? Should government fire all biologists and/or evolutionists they employ? Surely we do not what to pay people who mislead us...<BR/><BR/>So what is your explanation why ERVs are so similar with us and apes?<BR/>So how do you account for extra centromeres and telomeres in the chromosome 2 and the same order of genes between humans and apes?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-9574313476030341672009-03-27T15:02:00.000+11:002009-03-27T15:02:00.000+11:00I accept a simple definition: Speciation = The pro...I accept a simple definition: Speciation = The process of biological species formation.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me by design/default, different species only breed with their own kinds. This does not mean they cannot interbreed - we can force them to interbreed (to satisfy our selfish curiosity, if nothing else). But firstly, successful hybridization does not prove evolution. It is more like creation than evolution. Yes, *creation*.<BR/><BR/>To claim that different species have been evolved through speciation is even worst.<BR/><BR/>Strictly speaking, all species and sub-species of two-spined sticklebacks fish are actually variants of one species. The same goes for all ring species. Frankly, I believe <B>speciation</B>, by its simplest definition, <B>has never happened</B> because no true new species have ever been created, only variants of the same species are created. It so happened some variants <I>do not like each other</I> and so they do not interbreed.<BR/><BR/>If biologists define 'species' in such a way that allow them to claim evolution to be proven then that's "sleight of hand", not science.<BR/><BR/>Still I believe most biologists do not intentionally mislead us. They are sincere, but sincerely wrong on speciation and evolution.PC VERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054787574753739548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-58138692402696690932009-03-27T10:52:00.000+11:002009-03-27T10:52:00.000+11:00PC VER said... I see a consistent misleading argum...PC VER said... <BR/><I>I see a consistent misleading argument that cause evolutionists into thinking that speciation; gene flow; genetic drift; natural selection, are all evidence of evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>What is the misleading information? What would then prove evolution to you?<BR/><BR/>PC VER said... <BR/><I>Even if [warblers] refuse to mate, efforts to artificially cross-inseminate them will be successful and the hybrid offsprings will just be warblers birds that possess genes from both parent birds. Do you agree?</I><BR/><BR/>Sure, those are just becoming/have become new species. Wait a while you will have different resulst; horse - donkey -> mostly infertile mule; camel - llama -> cama; Madeira house mice. We see this everywhere in the nature.<BR/><BR/>How do you define speciation?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-78756010463413164922009-03-27T01:27:00.000+11:002009-03-27T01:27:00.000+11:00I have quickly visited the links you provided. Alt...I have quickly visited the links you provided. Altogether with sticklebacks fish; ring species; Larus gulls;...spotted owls; (and so on), I see a consistent misleading argument that cause evolutionists into thinking that speciation; gene flow; genetic drift; natural selection, are all evidence of evolution.<BR/><BR/>One key assumption/definition is that two distinct species do not interbreed.<BR/><BR/>Let's think about West Siberian greenish warblers (viridanus) and East Siberian greenish warblers (plumbeitarsus), that are regarded as two different species of warblers because (i) they are highly distinct genetically; (ii) they do not interbreed.<BR/><BR/>Does this prove some evolutionary mechanisms have created two species of warblers? Is this an evidence of evolution?<BR/><BR/>Not at all !<BR/><BR/>Firstly, both viridanus and plumbeitarsus are just greenish warblers, each 'species' is a genetic sub-set of the 'original' warblers. There is not a gene created that is new to the 'original' warblers. Do you agree?<BR/><BR/>I bet viridanus and plumbeitarsus are <I>'bio-compatible'</I>. Even if they refuse to mate, efforts to artificially cross-inseminate them will be successful and the hybrid offsprings will just be warblers birds that possess genes from both parent birds. Do you agree?<BR/><BR/>My point is, due to genetic drift/flow, (whatever you call it) viridanus and plumbeitarsus are genetically 'programmed' to 'dislike' each other. But this does not mean they are <I>'bio-incompatible'</I> with each other. They simply do not know how to overcome some sort of *prejudices*, like humans are capable of doing. (I think if whites and blacks never ever inter-marry & have sex, there would be a ground for labelling them as two distinct human species also). <BR/><BR/>My point is, whether different greenish warblers interbreed is not even a valid criterion for labelling them as different species. The same applies to two-spined sticklebacks fish and all ring 'species'.<BR/><BR/>Speciation; gene flow; genetic drift and natural selection result in different species as evidence of evolution? I don't think so. Perhaps more correctly, the word 'variants' should be used, instead of 'species'.<BR/><BR/>Am I telling biologists that they are wrong? Yes, I probably am. Am I qualified? They wouldn't think so, would they?<BR/><BR/>BTW, I did not say squid's eyes is the limiting factor of squid's life. It is kind of other way around - Squids do not require eyes that last more than their maximum life span.PC VERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054787574753739548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-49741527435013627752009-03-26T21:37:00.000+11:002009-03-26T21:37:00.000+11:00PC VER,The evolutionary change has four basic mech...PC VER,<BR/>The evolutionary change has four basic mechanisms: Mutation, Migration/Gene flow, Genetic drift and natural selection.<BR/><BR/>sticklebacks fish is interesting but I also like the ring species; Larus gulls:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species<BR/>The greenish warbler:<BR/>http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~irwin/GreenishWarblers.html<BR/>or geographically sepatated species like spotted Owl:<BR/>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml<BR/><BR/>PC VER said...<BR/><I>My curent thinking is squid's eyes do not last as long as human's eyes... the nerves also form a layer of protection for the retina.. (Just my guess because at present I cannot find an article that claims this). The lifespan of a giant squid may be up to 5 years. But human's eyes need to last a lot longer than that.</I><BR/><BR/>Human The optical nerves can not go over the photoreceptor cells, so they can not protect the retina. Nerves just take valuable space there. I don't think the eye is the limiting factor of squid's life and God could have anyways created a long lasting squid eyes if needed. You might be better of studing a subject first and then making up your mind. I get the feeling that you make a guess and try to find article based on that. Anyways good to see that you are reading a lot.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-65735933872562971312009-03-26T00:32:00.000+11:002009-03-26T00:32:00.000+11:00I spent a bit of time finding out about squid's ey...I spent a bit of time finding out about squid's eyes.<BR/>Squid's eyes are very similar to human's eyes. But unlike human eyes, visual nerves are behind retina in a squid's eye. The advantage is better vision and no blind spot.<BR/>Why won't God have created humans with eyes like a squid?<BR/>My curent thinking is squid's eyes do not last as long as human's eyes. In human eyes, although the visual nerves cause a blind spot to exist, the nerves also form a layer of protection for the retina. (Just my guess because at present I cannot find an article that claims this).<BR/>The lifespan of a giant squid may be up to 5 years. But human's eyes need to last a lot longer than that.PC VERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054787574753739548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-17091064177674983662009-03-25T10:39:00.000+11:002009-03-25T10:39:00.000+11:00Let me summarise my high-level understanding about...Let me summarise my high-level understanding about Three-spined sticklebacks fish.<BR/>There are at least eight species of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). They lifespan is approx 3 years. They are very genetically diversified and very important to evolutionary studies on speciation because when brought from salt water to freshwater environment, the fish population is able to rapidly, (in less than 20 years) diverge into many sub-species. Some sub-species tend not to interbreed. Though there is no intrinsic barriers to interbreeding, the rate of interbreeding can be very low. If interbreeding occurs, the offspring is found to be less effective foragers than either parental form, unable to efficiently exploit limnetic or benthic resources.PC VERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054787574753739548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-70411478300852173362009-03-25T00:21:00.000+11:002009-03-25T00:21:00.000+11:00What can possibly cause genetic changes to occur i...What can possibly cause genetic changes to occur in apes, to cause them to be more human-like?<BR/>Am I right there are only two possibilities in evolutionary biology, (1) speciation; (2) random chances?<BR/><BR/>I would imagine (1) is definitely testable. Do you agree?<BR/>I quickly scanned through http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5<BR/>Simplistically speaking, there have been many experiments mixing different plants to produce tangible hybrids. Though not mentioned, I thought plum, apricot, peach have all been hybridized, interbred. What about seedless grapes? Where does this take us in terms of speciation? Probably not much, other demonstrating we can play mix and match with many plants, possibly 'create' something new out of something old if we are smart. (Notice the word 'create').<BR/>I guess plant lives by nature are slow and their genetic materials are more pliable and can be manipulated more easily.<BR/>Then the article moves to animals. But it's all simpler life-forms such as houseflies; fruit flies; flour beetles; and mostly interbreeding related. Is there any one example that stands out?<BR/><BR/>Rather, I found something quite interesting on Three-spined stickleback:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-spined_stickleback<BR/>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080520-fish-evolution_2.html<BR/><BR/>You may take note of the article comment: <I>"Having a lot of genetic variation in the population means that if the environment changes, there may be some gene variant that does better in that new environment, and so nature selects for it,"</I><BR/>So far it's all about species that are compatibles can be intermixed, plus natural selection. The description about Three-spined stickleback makes for an interesting read but still the special ability of the fish is just what it already possesses genetically. Any comments?<BR/><BR/>Trying to move discussion towards speciation in apes, of course....PC VERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054787574753739548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-8534392748688310782009-03-24T22:13:00.000+11:002009-03-24T22:13:00.000+11:00PC VER,I agree that headcount does not prove anyth...PC VER,<BR/>I agree that headcount does not prove anything, but we must consider the arguments. So let's let's stick with ERVs and Human Chromosome 2 until we go the possible fossil evidences. I mentioned before that Scientific theory is never "proven", but it can be disproved. To establish the theory of evolution understanding that human and apes had a common ancestor species around 6M years ago is a good start. Or disproving it would go a long way to show our understanding of evolution is wrong.<BR/><BR/>PC VER said...<BR/><I>How about you start by stating the minimum requirement for a non-anecdotal evidence</I><BR/>Indipendently repeatable or observable test is not always conclusive but a good start. (known problem: Science based and evidence based medicine)<BR/>There could also be borderline cases [my opinion, disputable] like can mobile phones interfere with airplane electronics. There is plenty of anecdotial evidence and I think there is a scientic base and possible method to assume it. Some skeptics like Myth Buster or Skeptoid disagree...<BR/>I often use wikipedia to check the meaning of the words and it defines "Anecdotal evidence" better that I can. I accept your definition if it is from a dictionary or a similar source. Sorry to be vague.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-91299290415711126412009-03-24T17:55:00.000+11:002009-03-24T17:55:00.000+11:00All 99.99% of biologists believing in evolution is...All 99.99% of biologists believing in evolution is not necessary positive. In logic terms, there is no reason why 100% of a population cannot all be wrong. I certainly trust mathematicians, physicists and chemists much more than any biologist.<BR/><BR/>I'm happy for us to narrow down our discussions to ERVs and Human Chromosome 2 to establish a viewpoint on those.<BR/><BR/>This is really about evolution, not creation. Evolution theory is material science and that demands material proof of claims. It's just not good enough claiming human and apes share main ancestry. What does descendency mean? What would constitute an evidence and a proof?<BR/>How about you start by stating the minimum requirement for a non-anecdotal evidence?<BR/><BR/>Or, how about I start by asking for fossil evidence that some apes started to walk a lot more than climbing trees? (Please ignore this if it sounds silly).PC VERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054787574753739548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-77418920778512296432009-03-23T23:37:00.000+11:002009-03-23T23:37:00.000+11:00PC VER said... I think evolution arguments are all...PC VER said... <BR/><I>I think evolution arguments are all over the place and I can hardly refute non-specific arguments.</I><BR/>That is why I offered only two arguments ERVs and Human Chromosome 2. You have so far dismissed ERVs and that does not mean you have refuted it. The point here is not to refute the arguments, but to give a better explanation of what the evidence tell us. I did not want to go on all different directions so let stay on those two issues. <BR/><BR/>My view: I am aware of the overwheling facts of evolution. Chimps, Neandertals and humans have a common ancestor. I'm happy to change my mind if someone comes up with a better explanation or a better falsifiable theory. I would guess <BR/>over 99.9 percent of the biologists "believe" in evolution. I have seen even higher number quoted, but I not sure.<BR/><BR/>PC VER said... <BR/><I>I have not violated Occam's razor principle [re evolution and creationism].</I><BR/>Well then equally valid argument is the Elohim created Yahweh and Yahweh created everything. Occam's razor just shaves all Gods when we have a valid natural theory. (creation -> theistic evolution -> evolution)<BR/><BR/>I refered to the squid eye and Madeira mice because they are well known examples in the evolution/creation arguments. Biologists say that squid and human eyes evolved separately; squid eye has more logical design which enables higher performing eyes. If you really think I offer red herrings just ignore those. And trust me creationists use "chimp giving birth to a human baby" arguments all the time.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-80919195269835624512009-03-23T18:36:00.000+11:002009-03-23T18:36:00.000+11:00Peter said: "You have clearly been reading strawme...Peter said: <I>"You have clearly been reading strawmen arguments from the creations sources..."</I><BR/>Actually I'm not a fan of creations sources. I often have my own ideas. <I>"chimp giving birth to a human baby"</I> was purely my very own fabrication, to give an example how to be specific about evolutionary descendency. I doubt you'd find that on any creationist web site.<BR/><BR/>Peter said: <I>"If you want to refute evolutions please understand it first and refute the actual argument evolutionary biologist make."</I><BR/>Have all evolutionary biologists come to an agreement on what are the actual arguments on evolution? If so, can you be specific on how apes might have evolved into human?<BR/>I think evolution arguments are all over the place and I can hardly refute non-specific arguments.<BR/><BR/>I have not violated Occam's razor principle. At present, creation (using the same 'mold') is my one and only high-level view on how apes and human have come to be genetically similar.<BR/><BR/>Peter said: <I>"God could have given us the genes to create eyes like squids...Our genes did not need to be like chimps"</I><BR/>Hmmm...I suppose if you were the God of creation you might had done that. Not sure why you suggest human can have squid's eyes though. May be evolutionists believe human with eyes like squids in the past might evolved to human with eyes that we have today. Then all eyes problems solved, right?<BR/><BR/>I have not addressed a few issues such as speciation, partly due to lack of time and the speed you raised them (eg. house mice in Madeira). But somehow I sense those are mere red herrings. I would prefer to target precisely where our doubts lie, rather than going in all tangents.<BR/>This is because I notice you're quite hung up on (i) similarity between apes and human. (ii) how apes got their ERVs in the first place. You have not provided a view yet have you? I would appreciate if you can tell me what's the consensus view of most evolutionary biologists on those. <BR/>BTW, I am not terribly bothered about those issues. Just so you know, I believe in a short human history. However it's a different story with anything else.PC VERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054787574753739548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-24600182927467335612009-03-22T20:36:00.000+11:002009-03-22T20:36:00.000+11:00PC VER,I tried to point out the God could have giv...PC VER,<BR/>I tried to point out the God could have given us the genes to create eyes like squids, which has the nerve wirings other way around. Our genes did not need to be like chimps, God could have created those in many different forms.<BR/><BR/>PC VER said... <BR/><I>"I think (A) lends support to both evolution and creationism alike and without further concrete evidence, no conclusion can be drawn one way or the other. Do you agree?"</I><BR/>I disagree (Occam's razor). We have valid natural explanation. There is not need to invoke one type of supernatural explanation out of many supernatural event options. Just like gravity could be natural or supernatural force.<BR/><BR/>PC VER said... <BR/><I>I do not have a view on how endogenous retrovirus got to great apes' DNA. Any material I can read on the web?</I><BR/>Same way as in to humans. Wikipedia article is a good starting point. I appreciate that you are studing the issue.<BR/><BR/>PC VER said... <BR/><I>It is possible to list ERVs along the columns of a table, and species down the rows. Species that have ERVs get a tick in the corresponding table cells.</I><BR/>This is actually a good excercise to do, please try it. Actually biologist have done this and they quickly realised the distribution of ERV in species form branches. Example:<BR/>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses<BR/>But don't take my or biologists word for it try to put those in a meaningful presentation and see the shape of it. <BR/><BR/>PC VER said... <BR/><I>What is the significance [for extra centromeres and telomeres in the chromosome 2]?</I><BR/>It shows that our chromosome was fused from ape chromosome.<BR/>Further reading (search telomere in this page):<BR/>http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=264<BR/><BR/>PC VER said... <BR/><I>Evolution scientists skirt around the term "descendency" and not able to describe how evolution can actually happen through descendency.<BR/>A chimp giving birth to a true human baby is unambiguously evolution by descendency.<BR/>for evolution to be true, this is what must happen - cumulative results of random chances.<BR/>Evolution if ever possible, can only be due to random chances.<BR/>I would regard chimps giving birth to true human babies quite plausible."</I><BR/><BR/>You have clearly been reading strawmen arguments from the creations sources. Biologist don't agree with those/claim those. If you want to refute evolutions please understand it first and refute the actual argument evolutionary biologist make.<BR/><BR/>If you are worried about how and ape with 23 chromosomes can survive with apes with 24 chromosomes you might want to take a look of the house mice populations in Madeira.<BR/><BR/>You did not comment my speciation comments...<BR/><BR/>So what is your explanation why ERVs are so similar with us and apes?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-73462962477324577492009-03-21T22:26:00.000+11:002009-03-21T22:26:00.000+11:00Peter's said (A): "...we did not need to have same...Peter's said (A): <I>"...we did not need to have same cromosomes, same order of genes and identical needles ERV"</I><BR/>This is not the same as (me) saying (B): <I>"Due to vast redundancy and near infinite combinations, human chromosomes/genes/ERVs ought to have been significantly different from apes"</I>, is it?<BR/>I thought you might had a sound basis for statement (A), until you also said: <I>"Eye has evolved several times so no need for the same genes either."</I><BR/>Well, I seriously don't believe our eyes is a result of evolution at all.<BR/>I think (A) lends support to both evolution and creationism alike and without further concrete evidence, no conclusion can be drawn one way or the other. Do you agree?<BR/>There is no reason either why creation must led to very significant differentiation between apes and human described by (B). This is not logical to my mind.<BR/>It is a known fact that Apes and humans are very close genetically. To suggest that Apes and human need not be genetically close, (although this may be true) is not fact-based, is it?<BR/><BR/>I do not have a view on how endogenous retrovirus got to great apes' DNA. Any material I can read on the web?<BR/><BR/>Peter said: <I>"Are you suggesting that there is a biologist conspiracy to give false impression?"</I><BR/>Yes and no. 'No' because Phylogenetic Tree is what biologists sincerely believe to be true. But 'Yes' because Phylogenetic Tree is what evolutionists falsely believe.<BR/><BR/>It is possible to list ERVs along the columns of a table, and species down the rows. Species that have ERVs get a tick in the corresponding table cells. Within the table cells comments and references may be included. I am sure tables are used by biologists to classify species as well, but they would make very boring presentation.<BR/><BR/>Peter said: <I>"So how do you account for extra centromeres and telomeres in the chromosome 2 and the same order of genes between humans and apes?"</I><BR/>Sorry, I didn't notice that earlier. What is the significance though?<BR/><BR/>Peter said: <I>"Now you are just creating strawmen. No scientist claim this. You might not understand the evolution you are dismissing."</I><BR/>Correct, no scientist has claimed this. But I didn't create a strawmen per se. Evolution scientists skirt around the term "descendency" and not able to describe how evolution can actually happen through descendency. A chimp giving birth to a true human baby is unambiguously evolution by descendency. And I believe for evolution to be true, this is what must happen - cumulative results of random chances.<BR/>I believe evolution by Speciation is impossible and the theory is false in that sense. Evolution if ever possible, can only be due to random chances. If I were to be an evolutionist, I would regard chimps giving birth to true human babies quite plausible. (No punt intended here).<BR/><BR/>Here is the funny part - Even if one day scientists managed to genetically manipulate a fertilsed chimp egg to turn it into a human egg, the 'human' baby borned of the chimp would not be a functioning human, but more likely to be a zombie human. I believe to be a human, there is more to it than genes and chromosomes.PC VERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054787574753739548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-58838444239980134252009-03-21T17:01:00.000+11:002009-03-21T17:01:00.000+11:00PC VER said... Let's be clear, it is unavoidable t...PC VER said... <BR/><I>Let's be clear, it is unavoidable that Apes and humans must essentially be very close genetically</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry no. Like I wrote before we did not need to have same cromosomes, same order of genes and identical needles ERV. Eye has evolved several times so no need for the same genes either.<BR/><BR/>It thought that you will not accept what the leading theory of ERVs, so that is why I asked you what your theory is about how endogenous retrovirus got to our and great apes' DNA. Can you tell us your view please?<BR/><BR/><BR/>PC VER said... <BR/><I>This is wrong because the Phylogenetic Tree was purpose-drawn by evolutionists to give precisely that false impression in the first place. A totally non-misleading presentation would probably consists of a table of rows and columns, rather than a tree diagram.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that there is a biologist conspiracy to give false impression? I hope that it is not your theory about evolution. Could you show us and example how you would classify species to rows and columns?<BR/><BR/>PC VER said... <BR/><I>Surrounding [human chromosome 2 fusion] are the usual massive amount of 'scientific' arguments. I quickly scanned through the text and figured the writers couldn't see the wood for the trees. There were clearly no proof, not evidence, just speculative stuff</I><BR/><BR/>So how do you account for extra centromeres and telomeres in the chromosome 2 and the same order of genes between humans and apes?<BR/><BR/><BR/>PC VER said... <BR/><I>A chimp just gave birth to a true human baby ! Now, will any scientist try speculating how that real human baby can survive, let alone reproduce more human babies in chimp territory?</I><BR/><BR/>Now you are just creating strawmen. No scientist claim this. You might not understand the evolution you are dismissing.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-80692207309947254372009-03-21T01:09:00.000+11:002009-03-21T01:09:00.000+11:00Peter,If God had bothered to avoid tricking us to ...Peter,<BR/>If God had bothered to avoid tricking us to believe in evolution, then perhaps God ought not have created Apes in the first place.<BR/>Let's be clear, it is unavoidable that Apes and humans must essentially be very close genetically, because we share very similar features. Although unfortunately such closeness implies evolution, it also lends support to my earlier suggestion that God might have used the same 'mold' where necessary.<BR/><BR/>I'm quite clear ERVs do not support evolution at all. We should not look at the Phylogenetic Tree diagram and proclaim..."Aha! The diagram suggests common ancestry and evolution". This is wrong because the Phylogenetic Tree was purpose-drawn by evolutionists to give precisely that false impression in the first place. A totally non-misleading presentation would probably consists of a table of rows and columns, rather than a tree diagram. So I am tempted to again accuse evolution scientists of using "sleight of hand" in their presentations, especially after I have done some readings on "Human Chromosome 2".<BR/><BR/>I've came across this statement: <I>"The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor's chromosomes is overwhelming.</I><BR/>Surrounding this statement are the usual massive amount of 'scientific' arguments. I quickly scanned through the text and figured the writers couldn't see the wood for the trees. There were clearly no proof, not evidence, just speculative stuff, and I'm rather frustrated. Evolution scientists are clearly not game enough to claim ERVs and/or Human Chromosome 2 prove evolution to be true. They always seem to fallback on terms like "descendency", "common ancestry".<BR/><BR/>So I shall dispute "descendency" and "common ancestry" that evolutionists so desperately cling onto...<BR/>First, let's assume human had descended from a chimp as a result of a chromosome fusion. How can this possibly happens? I think it is fair to make two basic (but essential) assumptions:<BR/>(1) chromosome fusion is spontaneous and 100% complete;<BR/>(2) the fusion takes place in a germ-line cell, (either an egg or a sperm?)<BR/><BR/>Assumption (1) is logical because if fusion is not 100% complete and accurate then the result is likely to be a dead non-chimp/non-human. Also (2) is logical because it is not reasonable to assume chromosome fusion to gradually take place in a fully-formed chimp to turn it into a human.<BR/><BR/>Now the scene is set for a TRUE descendency. Whooolaa...The moment evolution scientists have been eagerly waiting for...(drum roll, please) -- <B>A chimp just gave birth to a true human baby !</B><BR/><BR/>Now, will any scientist try speculating how that real human baby can survive, let alone reproduce more human babies in chimp territory?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>PCPC VERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054787574753739548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-21049904240040094582009-03-20T22:53:00.000+11:002009-03-20T22:53:00.000+11:00PC said..."Peter, I disagree with this sentiment. ...PC said...<BR/>"Peter, I disagree with this sentiment. The fact that humans are different from chimps is proof that there is no reason for human to have any more chromosomes."<BR/>I don't quote understand this. Our genome is very close to chimp and our chromosomes are pretty much the same for no good divine reason. It makes sense in the evolutionary frame work or if God(s) is tricking us to believe in evolution.<BR/><BR/>Definition: Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. Species are the smallest groups that are consistently and persistently distinct and distinguishable by ordinary means.<BR/><BR/>Examples: London Underground mosquito, Lenski's e coli bacteria, Nylon eating bacteria <BR/>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5<BR/>has number of examplesPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-87891725165018584642009-03-20T22:50:00.000+11:002009-03-20T22:50:00.000+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-23149420845893607762009-03-20T18:20:00.000+11:002009-03-20T18:20:00.000+11:00Peter said..."God could have given us 20, 40, 60 o...<I>Peter said..."God could have given us 20, 40, 60 or any other number of chromosomes, but we got the same set as chimp (bar the fusion of 2)"</I><BR/>Peter, I disagree with this sentiment. The fact that humans are different from chimps is proof that there is no reason for human to have any more chromosomes.<BR/><BR/><I>Peter said..."But we do see new species popping up all the time."</I><BR/><B>Really?</B> Please tell me more.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>PC<BR/><BR/>ps. I have not looked at human chromosome 2 yet but I will in due course, as I have found ERVs to be an interesting read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-80568886902820275902009-03-20T16:33:00.000+11:002009-03-20T16:33:00.000+11:00PC,Marcion had his own version of the Gospel. His ...PC,<BR/>Marcion had his own version of the Gospel. His Jesus dropped out of Heaven and started to preach in Capernaum. I think he must have been too cosmic for Roman Church.<BR/><BR/>Wikipedia article lists thing where some ERV can be good or bad for us, some of ERVs seem to be just useless junk. God did not need to make it look like apes and us have a common ancestor and millions of identical basepairs ERVs clearly indicates that it is the case. EVRs also tells us how far apart two species are in the evolutionary tree. Common ancestory of course point to a process like evolution or God making it unnecessarily look like evolution. God could have given us 20, 40, 60 or any other number of chromosomes, but we got the same set as chimp (bar the fusion of 2).<BR/><BR/>Did you have a change to look at the human chromosome 2?<BR/><BR/>PC said...<BR/><I>For evolution to be true, we should be able to observe new species popping up from time to time.</I><BR/>But we do see new species popping up all the time. We also see new information in the DNA. People who deny this seem to have a religious agenda or their salvation in line for not accepting the observable facts.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-32791056619716696862009-03-20T14:06:00.000+11:002009-03-20T14:06:00.000+11:00Peter, I have not found much about "cosmic Jesus o...Peter, I have not found much about "cosmic Jesus of Marcion". Marcion is just Marcion, the same Marcion that led to Marcionism, I thought. By "cosmic Jesus of Marcion" do you actually mean "Marcion's version of Jesus"? Are you saying the NT Jesus is different from the Jesus that Marcion preached?<BR/><BR/>Your points about ERVs are food for thought. I read somewhere some ERVs are vital to mammal's survival and some ERVs may be functional, just that we have not discovered their functions yet. Still, I accept it is possible some ERVs are useless junks.<BR/><BR/>Does that mean God created useless junks? Perhaps not. Perhaps that is part and parcel of lifeform at a micro-level and is unavoidable. Human bodies excrete waste. Whilst human waste is useless to our body, they are useful as nutrient to lower animals/plants. Those lower animals/plants in turn generate waste that are recycled somehow, somewhere by even lower creatures. But what about a virus? What waste does a virus excrete? Perhaps at such a micro-level, there is an element of randomness that makes it impossible to constraint something to only does good and not bad. Such as, a virus good for something is bound to be bad for something else. A good virus may mutate and turn bad anyhow. I like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as it applies to Physics. Perhaps there is a parallel in micro-biology.<BR/><BR/>How would you connect ERVs to evolutionary process?<BR/><BR/>It is useful to note that retrovirus became extinct. It seems no new species were ever created due to evolution. For evolution to be true, we should be able to observe new species popping up from time to time. It seems the trend is always towards reduction of species, not an increase. What do you think?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>PCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-754998106797605170.post-51403180787300753032009-03-19T22:17:00.000+11:002009-03-19T22:17:00.000+11:00PC,Sorry if I have not been clear. I was comparing...PC,<BR/>Sorry if I have not been clear. I was comparing cosmic Jesus of Marcion with the Jesus of the New Testament. <BR/><BR/>Most of the ERV are just non-functional remnants of virus that infected our ancestors. God had no need to put those in us. He had even less reason to put those exact sequenced in Humans and Apes in exactly in same places. He had even less reason to make it look like we are share the same ERVs. Note: EVRs are not needed for survival nor needed to be in same locations. ERVs would not work if shifted to different locations. In a lab people have realize the mutation in particulr ERV sequence which had made it non-functional and they have corrected it and created a functioning virus.<BR/><BR/>I have not heard a resonable hypothesis from creationist why ERV are like they are...<BR/><BR/>Cheers<BR/>PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.com