tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post867473584007732516..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Chinese Researchers Demolish Evolutionary Pseudo-ScienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40646995561573275192018-05-03T00:19:07.596-07:002018-05-03T00:19:07.596-07:00Glenn obviously don't know what he's talki...Glenn obviously don't know what he's talking about. He's been posting his nonsense at talk.origins for many years. Apes are not robots. Robots are artificial devices and artificial devices do not replicate.<br />Bicycles, Cars, even rocks do not produce offspring. DNA is a product of biological processes. Biology don't need designers. Natural processes do the designing. A human body is made from a single cell by natural processes. Mutations provide the raw material for evolutionary processes. Individuals do not evolve. The process of evolution takes place within a population. In due time, random mutations may be naturally selected and give rise to diversification into new species.Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77810259361958190262018-05-03T00:04:19.288-07:002018-05-03T00:04:19.288-07:00You saying "Even though evolutionary theory f...You saying "Even though evolutionary theory fails every test. With evolution, the religion drives the science." ?<br />Nonsense. Please tell us in what way "religion drives science".Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37334558173319377362018-05-03T00:00:33.501-07:002018-05-03T00:00:33.501-07:00Individuals do not evolve! They may be born, gener...Individuals do not evolve! They may be born, generate descendants, offspring, but wrt themselves, they just die in due time, hopefully leaving descendants. That's how species survive but individuals without exception will die. That's the way it is. I was born, got two daughters, and the together got 4 grandchildren of mine. They may all get children and grandchildren ad infinitum for all that I know. Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34848527101404117312015-09-02T00:56:20.821-07:002015-09-02T00:56:20.821-07:00So single-celled life could "think" and ...So single-celled life could "think" and form "co-ops" - that's more than could be said about the life-forms occupying most governments these days!<br /><br />But your "theory" fails when you say they needed to "Increase their chances of survival" - as if they weren't already surviving? How much more "survival" did they gain?<br /><br />And why did just some of them move on to this new Nirvana and leave so many of their bothers ans sisters behind in their "un-evolved" state? Doesn't sound like a very fair cooperative since their relatives still remain in their single-celled bodies today instead of enjoying all the "survival" benefits of being a full blown human-being like their "evolved" cousins.<br /><br />Fundamentally, Evolution Theory is a "religious faith"...<br /><br />"This reasoning is not new and it is not science. It is based on personal religious beliefs that are not open to debate. Imagine if you believed these things. Imagine that you believed, with Venema, that common mutations, for example, rules out any possibility of the species having been created in any sort of direct sense. Then of course you would be an evolutionist. Even though evolutionary theory fails every test. With evolution, the religion drives the science."ozdawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00972399582315152041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36170254072595998062015-05-06T18:08:31.317-07:002015-05-06T18:08:31.317-07:00Hi Jacob, please see my comment above. Tomkins ran...Hi Jacob, please see my comment above. Tomkins ran into a bug in the BLAST software - and that gave him his 70%. Correcting for the effects of the bug gives a result around 96.90% similarity.<br /><br />I've submitted a paper to Answers In Genesis' Journal (way back in September 2014). It is still sitting in peer-review. Tomkins is aware of the problem, and has not responded since December 2014.<br /><br />See my paper here:<br /><br />https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dm2lgg0l93sjayv/AAATnWSJdER53EYEYZvcgiwma?dl=0Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56291620130538835942015-05-06T06:12:31.216-07:002015-05-06T06:12:31.216-07:00The problem with this is "On the other hand m...The problem with this is "On the other hand mutations can also modify large sections of DNA, physically moving, reversing, adding, and deleting them. When DNA has been removed or added in one lineage but not the other, like in the above, we would get a section that does not “align,” or align poorly. These sections are important when considering the overall picture of differences between two species’ genomes, but are rightly discarded when percentages and splitting times are calculated.<br /><br />To Jeffrey Tomkins and his supporters this is apparently a conspiracy – the selective omission of contrary evidence. His own research derives the 70% figure in part by leaving some of these sections in. The trouble is that sections that don’t align aren’t comparable: the deletion of a continuous segment of 1000 bases are not equivalent to 1000 individual nucleotide deletions, because the former can be removed a single stroke – they amount to a single mutation, and happen by a different mechanism at a different rate to the latter variety. Tomkins is entitled to think that his figure is a more honest reflection of the true differences between humans and chimps at the genetic level if he wants to – but more on that some other time, maybe – but it is not useful when we want to calculate how long ago humans and chimps split from each other."<br />He makes more mistakes as explained here: http://www.reddit.com/r/NaturalTheology/comments/2625uu/my_first_reply_to_jeffrey_tomkins/<br />I've compared chimp and human sequences, they match pretty well.Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099500455962505463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2036145787637535762015-01-14T21:29:16.004-08:002015-01-14T21:29:16.004-08:00"i think i have very strong evidence for desi..."i think i have very strong evidence for design in nature <br /><br />a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer "<br /><br />That's laughably circular. Are you being serious?Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11056802655371416762015-01-14T21:25:17.820-08:002015-01-14T21:25:17.820-08:00"So how many ORFan genes are actually in huma..."So how many ORFan genes are actually in humans???"<br /><br />Depends what you call an ORFan gene. I looked at the paper that Cornelius cites as having 60 de novo protein coding genes.<br /><br />Now, granted that I only looked at the very first one ("ZNF843"), it was quite easy to find the corresponding DNA on the chimpanzee chromosome, with approximately 98.5% identity.<br /><br />So whether it is protein-coding in humans and non-coding in everything else doesn't really concern me. What concerns me is whether it has an evolutionary history: clearly this one does.<br /><br />Like I said, I've only done one. I'd happily take bets on the majority of these de novo genes having an evolutionary history (chimpanzee > 95% and/or gorilla > 90%).<br /><br />Any takers?Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88691366000911930242015-01-13T03:38:33.650-08:002015-01-13T03:38:33.650-08:00shoud've been "did not and do not".....shoud've been "did not and do not"...Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27454254497072071422015-01-13T03:37:14.441-08:002015-01-13T03:37:14.441-08:00Dcscccc says ” plus: if a self replicate car cant ...Dcscccc says ” plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human ?”<br /><br />Where did you see a self replicating car? I’d like to study it.<br /><br />BTW, bacteria did and don’t evolve into humans. <br /><br />Took several, billions of years before single-celled life discovered it could gang up to cooperate and increase their chances of survival. From there on, the road to present diversity was wide open.<br /><br />I’d enjoy the debate more if people knew what they are talking about. With a religious faith that is of course not necessary.<br />Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48136758961441232032015-01-13T02:18:29.709-08:002015-01-13T02:18:29.709-08:00I assume here that Jerry Coyne is referring to Dem...I assume here that Jerry Coyne is referring to Demuth's 2006 paper about gene families, when he talks about the figure of 6%.<br /><br />Demuth's paper had some serious methodological errors, and really should be withdrawn:<br /><br />"In conclusion, the rate of gene family extinction in the human lineage (Table 2) appears to be overestimated ... by a factor of 100%."<br /><br />http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=8729Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77912315079651781102015-01-13T02:16:33.143-08:002015-01-13T02:16:33.143-08:00Wow - did you actually read that ORFan gene paper?...Wow - did you actually read that ORFan gene paper? [Human Gene Count Tumbles Again]<br /><br />The conclusion was that these were simply random open reading frames, NOT genes:<br /><br />"Here, we provide strong evidence to show that the vast majority of the nonconserved ORFs are spurious. [...] By studying their properties in primates, we show that the vast majority are neither (i) ancestral genes lost in mouse and dog nor (ii) novel genes that arose after divergence from mouse or dog."Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87898940200638677762015-01-13T02:10:31.281-08:002015-01-13T02:10:31.281-08:00Tomkins' result of 70% is erroneous. In short,...Tomkins' result of 70% is erroneous. In short, there was a bug in the version of BLAST+ that he used (v2.2.27), and it had the effect of severely understating his results.<br /><br />It's likely that the same bug affected his 86%-89% result as well.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419669114209732527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60118375903393957992014-01-12T06:08:16.955-08:002014-01-12T06:08:16.955-08:00dcscccc: ah, so now you've switched to saying...dcscccc: ah, so now you've switched to saying that the egg yolk gene data is _not_ evidence for a common ancestor. Smart move! You're following my point #2 above: "Never agree with anything an evolutionist says, no matter how obvious."Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019700830147920325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2574453449178211682014-01-11T14:40:36.849-08:002014-01-11T14:40:36.849-08:00O: There is a paper describing the evolutionary pa...O: There is a paper describing the evolutionary pathway.<br /><br />J: The pathway REQUIRES as conditions all the machinery that is ALSO dependent on DNA sequences. You've explained nothing in terms of rendering your hypothesis probable in the posited TIME-FRAME. <br /><br />I assure you, the burden of proof can't be on the person who can at least account for a distinction between warranted/plausible and unwarranted/plausible beliefs. Benevolent/competent teleology is required to account for that distinction until someone can do it otherwise. And intuitively recognizing this, most people realize the "appearance of design" is just analogical explanation that works fine, for now, in the ABSENCE of any other explanation, however far back that last libertarian cause would have to be for such analogical teleological explanation. Induction says we push it back as far as possible. Right now, that's not very far back since we have no naturalistic model that explains the relevant events. And yet most people want to use some criteria for inferring natural causality, like analogous degrees of observed variation from artificial selection etc. But none of that warrants an inference to UCA.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56011869690915521992014-01-11T12:26:12.464-08:002014-01-11T12:26:12.464-08:00so i understand you wrong. see below me coment in ...so i understand you wrong. see below me coment in the ends.scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36099024316797489052014-01-10T07:54:11.100-08:002014-01-10T07:54:11.100-08:00dcscccc: Because of your response, "if i und...dcscccc: Because of your response, "if i understand right. so yes."<br />BTW, good job of taking my previous post to heart.Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019700830147920325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26846456727775699642014-01-10T06:07:07.210-08:002014-01-10T06:07:07.210-08:00hi myron. where i said that this kind of claim sup...hi myron. where i said that this kind of claim support evolution?scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45039438727131322332014-01-09T10:10:36.350-08:002014-01-09T10:10:36.350-08:00dcscccc: Thank you for taking the time to underst...dcscccc: Thank you for taking the time to understand my question and responding that at least one piece of evidence supports evolution, but just some tips for dealing with evolutionists:<br /><br />1. Never answer an evolutionist's direct simple question.<br /> Remember: Evade, Equivocate, Obfuscate, then Iterate.<br /><br />2. Never agree with anything an evolutionist says, no matter how obvious.<br /><br />3. When trapped or all else fails, feign righteous indignation.<br /><br />You're welcome.<br />Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019700830147920325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34130363010430599462014-01-08T12:33:57.925-08:002014-01-08T12:33:57.925-08:00if i understand right. so yes.if i understand right. so yes.scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30724455696973971322014-01-07T09:25:58.510-08:002014-01-07T09:25:58.510-08:00Use the dictionary definition. "Consistent&q...Use the dictionary definition. "Consistent": in agreement. "Seeing a black crow is consistent with the claim that all crows are black."<br /><br />Please save your other questions until you understand my much simpler question.Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019700830147920325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2727194003486363092014-01-07T08:11:45.285-08:002014-01-07T08:11:45.285-08:00sorry but what you mean by "consistent"?...sorry but what you mean by "consistent"? that this evidence for commondescent of human and chiken? by the way- how can we tel if this gene its realy a gene for egg yolk? and 2- why its not possible that mammal have in the past a little yolk?<br /><br />have a nice dayscdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91509212472179408702014-01-06T10:23:29.977-08:002014-01-06T10:23:29.977-08:00Chickens and us share a gene related to making an ...Chickens and us share a gene related to making an egg yolk. Ours is broken. Is that evidence consistent with the idea that chickens and us have a common ancestor? (I'm _not_ asking if that evidence proves a common ancestor, or if you have other evidence that disproves common ancestry.)Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019700830147920325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52906195815382383922014-01-06T09:39:32.277-08:002014-01-06T09:39:32.277-08:00sorry for my english. but what you mean by that? i...sorry for my english. but what you mean by that? if i understand you correctly so my answer is not.scdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00260945727618051024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62221696213587680442014-01-06T06:48:04.979-08:002014-01-06T06:48:04.979-08:00Sounds reasonable. That is the significance of Len...Sounds reasonable. That is the significance of Lenski's ongoing experiment, right? Both the abilty to turn back the clock on evolution and the actual observation of how such a two mutation jump works?<br /><br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.com