tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2164593070462947828..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: A Response to VJ TorleyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5279980761929101082016-05-29T06:08:58.787-07:002016-05-29T06:08:58.787-07:00Here is an excerpt from a post of mine that I do n...Here is an excerpt from a post of mine that I do not hold to BUT that is an evolutionary atheist position taken based on the same evidence as the neo-Darwinian story:<br />========================<br />...A few people likewise believe that apes (Gorillas) are descended from mankind in some way. For instance, Dr. Aaron G. Filler:<br /><br />✦ Dr. Aaron G. Filler, M.D., Ph.D. studied evolutionary theory under some of the leading biologists and anthropologists of our time: Ernst Mayr, Stephen J. Gould, David Pilbeam, and Irven DeVore. A neurosurgeon at the Institute for Spinal Disorders at Cedars Sinai Medical Center and past associate director of the Comprehensive Spine Center at UCLA, Dr. Filler has been a leading innovator in medical imaging and neuroscience. He is the author of Do You Really Need Back Surgery? (Oxford University Press), as well as numerous scientific articles and patents.<br /><br />He wrote a book entitled The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species, in which he follows the footsteps of another well respected scientist showing that apes are most likely a breakaway group from mankind. The other scientist I mention is Dr. Geoffrey H. Bourne:<br /><br />✦ He was Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, England. Dr. Bourne is Oxford educated, and is an American cell biologist/anatomist who was considered by most to be the worlds leading primatologist.<br /><br />He said that apes are descended from man. Why would men of science believe such a thing? Because science has never seen any information being added to the evolutionary upward “slant” that is required by its theory (Darwinism, e.g., “scientism”). So since apes are less than us, Dr. Bourne says that science [not “scientism”] proves his theory due to observable facts. ...<br /><br />http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/the-vitamin-c-pseudogene-argument-crumbles-slowly/Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37423971968272592862016-05-17T15:19:06.260-07:002016-05-17T15:19:06.260-07:00"I spend next to no time on that blog so I re..."<i>I spend next to no time on that blog so I really cannot comment, However, if they are blocking posters simply based on their comments, that is not acceptable. If, however, they are blocking them because they act like Louis Savain, then more power to them."</i><br /><br />They block any poster who disagrees with Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings. I have been banned three times in the last few weeks for that unforgivable sin. Just check out WHM and KF's recent OPs for the comments by Indian Effigy, Ziggy Lorenc and Inquisitor. William spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01541608547661552808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69388814600928607362016-05-17T11:57:21.432-07:002016-05-17T11:57:21.432-07:00ghostrider,
"Scientific ideas aren't vet...ghostrider,<br /><br />"Scientific ideas aren't vetted via debate in a public forum Nic." <br /><br />I wasn't referring to the vetting of ideas, I was referring to the suppression of ideas, not the same thing.<br /><br />"BTW if you want to see an example of censorship look no further that Uncommon Descent, the flagship ID website, which has banned dozens of pro-evolution posters in the last few years."<br /><br />I spend next to no time on that blog so I really cannot comment, However, if they are blocking posters simply based on their comments, that is not acceptable. If, however, they are blocking them because they act like Louis Savain, then more power to them.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83847484740932800642016-05-17T09:58:40.044-07:002016-05-17T09:58:40.044-07:00Nic
Not even close, my friend. ID and creationism...<i>Nic<br /><br />Not even close, my friend. ID and creationism do not even remotely have the ability to censor the evolutionary side of this debate in the public forum. Censorship of opposing views is overwhelmingly the practice of evolutionary thinking.</i><br /><br />Scientific ideas aren't vetted via debate in a public forum Nic. Scientific ideas are vetted based on the quality of their positive evidence published in the professional scientific literature. That's the only thing which determines acceptance or rejection by the scientific community.<br /><br />Please provide a list of papers ID-Creationists have submitted to such professional journals which were rejected solely because of their pro-ID-Creationist position.<br /><br />BTW if you want to see an example of censorship look no further that Uncommon Descent, the flagship ID website, which has banned dozens of pro-evolution posters in the last few years.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50462575228843558272016-05-17T09:02:24.353-07:002016-05-17T09:02:24.353-07:00William,
"Hi Nic. Is Cornelius putting every...William,<br /><br />"Hi Nic. Is Cornelius putting everyone's comments into moderation, or just a select few like myself and others who oppose his views?"<br /><br />My last comment brought up that message so I would assume it applies to everyone. Hopefully it is the first step in reigning in some of the childish rants spewed by certain individuals.<br /><br />"The ID side?<br /><br />Do I win?"<br /><br />Not even close, my friend. ID and creationism do not even remotely have the ability to censor the evolutionary side of this debate in the public forum. Censorship of opposing views is overwhelmingly the practice of evolutionary thinking.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88668778933294520842016-05-17T07:48:20.569-07:002016-05-17T07:48:20.569-07:00Hi Nic. Is Cornelius putting everyone's commen...Hi Nic. Is Cornelius putting everyone's comments into moderation, or just a select few like myself and others who oppose his views?William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7845279516821688842016-05-17T07:47:19.322-07:002016-05-17T07:47:19.322-07:00The ID side?
Do I win?The ID side?<br /><br />Do I win?William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50041058139078001892016-05-17T07:21:15.863-07:002016-05-17T07:21:15.863-07:00Censorship,
"What would Creationists do with...Censorship,<br /><br />"What would Creationists do without censorship?"<br /><br />Now that's just plain rich, really. Which side of the debate is doing all it can to prevent the other from expressing its views?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24932917307660163932016-05-16T21:15:55.455-07:002016-05-16T21:15:55.455-07:00What would Creationists do without censorship?What would Creationists do without censorship?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39604124529714690502016-05-16T20:25:17.266-07:002016-05-16T20:25:17.266-07:00Sorry Mapou, but you lose all credibility in any s...Sorry Mapou, but you lose all credibility in any serious discussion given your normal means of discourse. Don't you hate the fact that speech has consequences? Sucks to be you. William spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01541608547661552808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51321594118860627382016-05-15T20:57:24.716-07:002016-05-15T20:57:24.716-07:00The non-coding regulatory parts of the genome shou...The non-coding regulatory parts of the genome should be much more important in determining similarity, IMO, because they control the expression of the protein-coding genes.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48999043942340063862016-05-15T20:10:31.934-07:002016-05-15T20:10:31.934-07:00Here dcsccc this may help
National Geographic: Or...Here dcsccc this may help<br /><br /><a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related_2.html" rel="nofollow">National Geographic: Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps<br /></a>Chaparral Earthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00618976919417073750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57331285235696307942016-05-15T07:34:26.913-07:002016-05-15T07:34:26.913-07:00dcsccc
n addition, Schwartz notes, the most cited ...dcsccc<br />n addition, Schwartz notes, the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.<br /><br />Scientists are referring to this tiny part of the genome when they say humans and chimps are so similar, he said.<br /><br />But other studies that focus on non-coding regions also consistently support a human-chimp link, counters Carel van Schaik of the Anthropological Institute and Museum at the University of Zurich, Switzerland."<br /><br />IMHO the contradictions are coming from the fact the DNA alone is only a piece of the genetic story (splicing and timing must be included) and this is why the analysis that Cornelius is critiquing is almost certainly wrong.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19116296592357893652016-05-15T02:53:58.228-07:002016-05-15T02:53:58.228-07:00good point bill. see also my link (above) about ot...good point bill. see also my link (above) about other unique traits that shared between gorila and human but not chimp.scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62442396699350554662016-05-15T02:51:46.649-07:002016-05-15T02:51:46.649-07:00here is another try:
http://news.nationalgeograph...here is another try:<br /><br />http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related_2.html<br /><br />if it doesnt work search for the article : "Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps"<br /><br />from the article:<br /><br />" By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say.<br /><br />The finding, which has the potential to spark a radical rethink of human origins, is being met with caution. "scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91381021660897639952016-05-14T19:44:11.174-07:002016-05-14T19:44:11.174-07:00cornelius dsccc
here is the linkhttp://www.ncbi.nl...cornelius dsccc<br />here is the linkhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009#Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41218039622981758852016-05-14T19:41:28.893-07:002016-05-14T19:41:28.893-07:00cornelius dsccc
I just posted this on UD. I think...cornelius dsccc<br />I just posted this on UD. I think splicing plays a big part in this...<br />Abstract<br />The chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The morphological differences between the two species are so large that there is no problem in distinguishing between them. However, the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. Still, the number of proteins responsible for the phenotypic differences may be smaller since not all genes are directly responsible for phenotypic characters.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31170180233197470072016-05-14T18:51:59.106-07:002016-05-14T18:51:59.106-07:00dcsccc
"so closer genetic similarity doesn...dcsccc<br />"so closer genetic similarity doesn't mean a closer morphology."<br /><br />Especially when you only consider DNA in your genetic analysis. The same DNA sequence can be changed by alternative splicing thus effecting morphology.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33458430826400506542016-05-14T16:44:02.672-07:002016-05-14T16:44:02.672-07:00I'm afraid that link didn't come through ....I'm afraid that link didn't come through ...Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82032178009183519452016-05-14T16:41:07.952-07:002016-05-14T16:41:07.952-07:00just last point cornelius (i also poest it the in ...just last point cornelius (i also poest it the in ud forum): the mice-rat different is also very easy to explain. we know for example that chimp is closer to human then orangutan from genetic prespective. but actually the orangutan is the closer to human from morphological prespective:<br /><br />http://news.nationalgeographic.....lated.html<br /><br />so closer genetic similarity doesnt mean a closer morphology. scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3995053890946853792016-05-14T15:31:41.074-07:002016-05-14T15:31:41.074-07:00Thanks for that link DC !Thanks for that link DC !Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33017133113752707602016-05-14T15:26:53.880-07:002016-05-14T15:26:53.880-07:00hi dr hunter. here is even more interesting point:...hi dr hunter. here is even more interesting point:some fish species have pseudogenes that only found in terrestrial animals”-<br /><br />http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-237<br /><br />. “Groups α and γ of type 1, which are present in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals and absent in fish except for one intact gene in zebrafish and a few pseudogenes in medaka and stickleback”-<br /><br />so according to evolutionists logic we need to conclude that those fish evolved from a land species. this case can falsified any argument from this kind of claims.scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69787086902394221062016-05-14T14:45:15.413-07:002016-05-14T14:45:15.413-07:00dc:
I agree. That is a great point you make. I...dc:<br /><br />I agree. That is a great point you make. I've been writing about multifunctionality in molecular biology for a long time and it is one of many aspects of biology that is foolishness to evolutionists.<br /><br />However, I do stand by my point. What I wrote was "If Torley is correct". Remember, Torley made a religious/theological claim: <br /><br />"On a special creationist account of human origins, there is absolutely no reason ..."<br /><br />This is impervious to empirical evidence such as the multifunctionality you point out. But thanks for point this out, it is a great point for those interested in the science.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42741276132666746912016-05-14T14:25:36.258-07:002016-05-14T14:25:36.258-07:00hey dr cornelius. you said:
"No reason. If T...hey dr cornelius. you said:<br /><br />"No reason. If Torley is correct here then, yes, we can safely conclude for evolution. Likewise:"<br /><br />he actually wrong. the vit gene is a multifunctional gene:<br /><br />https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111129092428.htm<br /><br />"Simply put, the more vitellogenin in bees, the longer they live. Vitellogenin also guides bees to do different social tasks, such caregiving or foraging. It also supports the immune function and is an antioxidant that promotes stress resistance. "<br /><br />so even if it was functional in the past in the human lineage, it cant be evidence for a commondescent with a yolk producing species.scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79595415080661802982016-05-14T12:49:36.952-07:002016-05-14T12:49:36.952-07:00Hello, a FAQ has been added to my original article...Hello, a FAQ has been added to my original article that includes a response to Michael Behe's contribution to this conversation. I hope this helps address your questions.<br />http://swami.wustl.edu/evidence-for-evolutionS. Joshua Swamidasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03084869254135483208noreply@blogger.com