tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post998201184691282069..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Podcast: Professor Graur, ENCODE and Junk DNAUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13276226305432233782013-10-03T11:06:16.658-07:002013-10-03T11:06:16.658-07:00Thorton: "A few incompetent and dishonest Cre...Thorton: "A few incompetent and dishonest Creationists claim to have done so but never submitted their actual work for any type of scientific review. Things like following proper protocols to limit contamination."<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ at 10:57<br /><br />Please explain how you know they did not follow "proper protocols to limit contamination." Why then would they obtain concordant values at for the substances measured in the same locations of bone as described at 9:57 in the video? Why would the amount of "contamination" drop off in areas around the bones if their technique was flawed?<br /><br />Thorton: "In fact, their output was so bad they published dates varying by 10K years for different pieces of the same fossilized animal."<br /><br />When you get older C14 dates, why wouldn't the results fluctuate by that much? And wouldn't you need a model of how much C14 had even formed since creation (perhaps there was not very much at the beginning) to evaluate? Or is this more "science doesn't need to evalutate" that reasoning? Evolutionary models assume a uniformitarian distribution of C14 over time. Even by that measure, the results are incongruous with standard evolutionary stories (at least the current ones).<br /><br />Thorton: "No one has found soft tissue in dino fossils either."<br /><br />http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/#.Uk2h-9K-qGg<br /><br />just to be clear, you believe that "returns to its original shape." is hard. It once was stretchy, then it became hard, and now it's stretchy again due to some unknown, terribly unfortunate coincidence. Got it!<br /><br />Thorton: "What has been found are trace remnants of collagen and proteins that have been preserved under some extraordinary conditions."<br /><br />I would say that it is extraordinary that they even checked. Again, I'll have to keep reminding myself that collagen and proteins are hard, non tissue material.<br /><br />Thorton: "A surprising discovery for sure, but nothing that would overturn all our knowledge of physic and radiometric dating."<br /><br />Of which C14 is now no longer part of. Got it. Man this is a lot of exceptions to remember, but I'll try!<br /><br />Thorton: "But do keep clutching one puzzle piece at a time John while ignoring the millions of others."<br /><br />Well, unlike people that have read about millions of others in their 30,000 days of life, I'll have to settle for trusting you I guess. Seems like that should be easy since you hang around here commenting on every new puzzle piece.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46574143207818186752013-09-21T06:29:55.114-07:002013-09-21T06:29:55.114-07:00John
It's the ones they don't assemble th...<i>John<br /><br />It's the ones they don't assemble that bother me, like being able to carbon date dinosaur bones, or finding soft tissue and proteins in TRex bones. That might throw another wrench into their tree of life.</i><br /><br />No one has ever produced C14 dated dinosaur fossils. A few incompetent and dishonest Creationists <b>claim</b> to have done so but never submitted their actual work for any type of scientific review. Things like following proper protocols to limit contamination. In fact, their output was so bad they published dates varying by 10K years for different pieces of the same fossilized animal.<br /><br />No one has found soft tissue in dino fossils either. What has been found are trace remnants of collagen and proteins that have been preserved under some extraordinary conditions. A surprising discovery for sure, but nothing that would overturn all our knowledge of physic and radiometric dating.<br /><br />But do keep clutching one puzzle piece at a time John while ignoring the millions of others. It will make your reality denial quite a bit easier.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63368323017027449922013-09-21T04:57:58.818-07:002013-09-21T04:57:58.818-07:00Thorton: "I'll quit my job and spend all ...Thorton: "I'll quit my job and spend all day spoon feeding a willfully ignorant Creationist demanding to see THE paper or THE fossil that fully validates evolution."<br /><br />I'll just take over when it comes to division and other basic math ok?<br /><br />Thorton: "Scientists have an excellent idea of the history of life on Earth over deep time by assembling millions of pieces of evidence into one coherent picture"<br /><br />It's the ones they don't assemble that bother me, like being able to carbon date dinosaur bones, or finding soft tissue and proteins in TRex bones. That might throw another wrench into their tree of life.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60821048758328799862013-09-20T07:44:37.215-07:002013-09-20T07:44:37.215-07:00John!
You're welcome to present more if you w...<i>John!<br /><br />You're welcome to present more if you want to move the goal posts again.</i><br /><br />LOL! Sure thing John. I'll quit my job and spend all day spoon feeding a willfully ignorant Creationist demanding to see <b>THE</b> paper or <b>THE</b> fossil that fully validates evolution.<br /><br />I can't help you with your desire to hide from reality John. There are thousands of colleges and universities where you could take classes, natural history museums where you can see specimens, hundreds of professional science journals that publish new evidence every week. There's also this thing called the internet where you can find petabytes of information on the topic.<br /><br />But no, not for willfully ignorant John! <br /><br />You're what I call a Jigsaw Creationist. Scientists have an excellent idea of the history of life on Earth over deep time by assembling millions of pieces of evidence into one coherent picture, like the world's largest jigsaw. There are still some empty holes to fill but we have way more than enough to clearly see the overall result. Then here comes the dopey Creationist demanding we consider every piece <b>all by itself</b> with no regard to the other interlocking parts. That way they can wave their hands and deny any specific data. It's one of CH's favorite tactics in his anti-science OP tirades. Problem for Creationists is they never can explain away the whole big picture, so they don't even try.<br /><br />Ignoring 99% of the evidence isn't how science works John, no matter how much you yell and stomp your feet.<br /><br /><i>Nothing, what's stopping you from believing the results?</i><br /><br />I do accept the results of all the honest scientific research I've seen. I accept that the earth is 4.5 BYO. I accept that life has been here evolving for over 3 BY. I accept that the Earth wasn't covered by some mythological megaflood only a few thousand years ago, and that the Earth wasn't repopulated by mythical people who survived on a mythical boat.<br /><br />If you have any scientific evidence for your mythology, feel free to present it. Otherwise you're just fooling yourself.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18832406427439542142013-09-19T23:14:12.548-07:002013-09-19T23:14:12.548-07:00Thorton: "LOL! Ignore 99% of the available sc...Thorton: "LOL! Ignore 99% of the available scientific evidence, twist and spin the remaining 1%. Check!"<br /><br />You're welcome to present more if you want to move the goal posts again.<br /><br />Thorton: "Scream "BAD ASSUMPTIONS!!" without showing why they're wrong.Check!"<br /><br />Even in an evolutionary scenario, it's a bad assumption. There is no reason why before even their earliest supposed bottleneck that humans would be homozygous at every location. It wouldn't even happen if there was only one man in your small group. So why would you assume it would happen with more than one?<br /><br />Thorton: "Are you going to go after NASA too? Their Gravity Probe B experiments didn't consider whether gravity relativistic effects are caused by magic invisible pixies either. If you're going to be a flaming anti-science nutcase you should at least be consistent."<br /><br />Even you believe in common ancestry though. The irony of this situation is that we know about as much about the UCA as you know about magic invisible pixies. Would you agree we know more about human males than about the UCA? Would it be easier to model Adam or your UCA?<br /><br />Thorton: "Lie about finding evidence for Adam carrying thousands of alleles. Check!"<br /><br />You're welcome to go copy and paste my lie. Otherwise, it seems you just lied. What I said is there is no reason to assume Adam was completely homozygous.<br /><br />Thorton : "Then what's stopping you or any other Creationist from testing and providing positive scientific evidence for a literal Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, and a 6K year old Earth?"<br /><br />Nothing, what's stopping you from believing the results? What's stopping evolutionists from using their own measured mutation rates instead of their theories about what the rates should be? I guess reality is too nasty?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80125082002367550972013-09-19T16:35:12.001-07:002013-09-19T16:35:12.001-07:00John
It seems that we've gone through mtDNA, ...<i>John<br /><br />It seems that we've gone through mtDNA, Y chromosome, and now autosomal DNA and it seems quite compatible with a young Adam, so I don't see where I'm cherry picking.</i><br /><br />LOL! Ignore 99% of the available scientific evidence, twist and spin the remaining 1%. <b>Check!</b><br /><br /><i>I just showed their work was based on a priori assumptions of common ancestry with chimps and did not consider whether Adam was real.</i><br /><br />Scream "BAD ASSUMPTIONS!!" without showing why they're wrong.<b>Check!</b><br /><br />Are you going to go after NASA too? Their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B" rel="nofollow">Gravity Probe B</a> experiments didn't consider whether gravity relativistic effects are caused by <b>magic invisible pixies</b> either. If you're going to be a flaming anti-science nutcase you should at least be consistent.<br /><br /><i>When I was able to find the last source, you were unable to answer my objection and were caught bluffing.</i><br /><br />Lie about finding evidence for Adam carrying thousands of alleles. <b>Check!</b><br /><br /><i> As I said at the time, you don't have to test anything you don't want to.</i><br /><br />Then what's stopping you or any other Creationist from testing and providing positive scientific evidence for a literal Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, and a 6K year old Earth? Besides that nasty old <b>reality</b> I mean?<br /><br />Go for it John, you'll be a YEC hero! Come back when you get some positive results, K?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22520162582374648442013-09-19T12:56:48.627-07:002013-09-19T12:56:48.627-07:00I could say you look to evolutionary cartoon scien...I could say you look to evolutionary cartoon science (remember it changes so it can stay up to date), but that's just name calling. I could say evolutionists make misstatements and outright lies and document those as well. It seems that we've gone through mtDNA, Y chromosome, and now autosomal DNA and it seems quite compatible with a young Adam, so I don't see where I'm cherry picking. In fact, I think after you made that claim you tried to show me how it should work when you said, "What happens when you use Carter's nominal value of 22-23 John? You get a date well over 20K years." Did you care to revisit that calculation yet and admit you were wrong? Or do you understand the logic behind choosing the largest extant number?<br /><br />I didn't refuse to read anything you presented, nor did I claim the authors were "hopelessly incompetent" or "deliberate frauds". I just showed their work was based on a priori assumptions of common ancestry with chimps and did not consider whether Adam was real. When I was able to find the last source, you were unable to answer my objection and were caught bluffing. Why would anyone listen to your cries for intellectual honesty?<br /><br />Thorton: "...you cherry pick the evidence trying to justify your already decided upon conclusion. My way is better and a lot more honest."<br /><br />Thorton: "Science especially doesn't have to measure fictional global floods, imaginary wooden boats, and the ages of mythical people."<br /><br />Sounds like you have a few "already decided upon conclusion"s there, doesn't it? As I said at the time, you don't have to test anything you don't want to.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74256109493701260622013-09-19T06:46:09.858-07:002013-09-19T06:46:09.858-07:00John
I just look for corroboration from science. ...<i>John<br /><br />I just look for corroboration from science. I consider such corroboration "scientific reasons". </i><br /><br />Of course you don't look to science. You look to Creationist "cartoon science": misstatement and outright lies about actual scientific work told at places like ICR, AIG, and the Discovery Institute. When you're shown papers from the primary scientific literature you refuse to read them and only skim the abstracts for snippets to quote-mine. You ignore 99% of the evidence and focus on the 1% you can twist and spin. You trot out the same tired Creationist hand waving excuses of "bad assumptions!!" or "different interpretation!!" When evidence is presented that you can't ignore you claim the researchers were either hopelessly incompetent or deliberate frauds.<br /><br />If that's what passes for intellectual honesty in your circles you can keep it. More power to you if that's what it takes to prop up your weak faith, but don't go onto public discussion boards slinging that anti-science horse manure and expect to be taken seriously. Especially by science professionals who study and work with the data every day.<br /><br /><i>You also seem to have a different definition for knowledge than me. For example, I think you would say that you "know" that common ancestry is true, while I would say that you believe it is true.</i><br /><br />No John, I <b>accept</b> that common ancestry is true due to the quality and quantity of scientific positive evidence it has. I form my conclusions based on the evidence; you cherry pick the evidence trying to justify your already decided upon conclusion. My way is better and a lot more honest.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20698358191791789092013-09-19T02:49:01.141-07:002013-09-19T02:49:01.141-07:00I just look for corroboration from science. I cons...I just look for corroboration from science. I consider such corroboration "scientific reasons". You also seem to have a different definition for knowledge than me. For example, I think you would say that you "know" that common ancestry is true, while I would say that you believe it is true.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18214507667948639372013-09-18T21:53:15.560-07:002013-09-18T21:53:15.560-07:00John
No, I don't know any of those things. I ...<i>John<br /><br />No, I don't know any of those things. I believe those things are true largely because they seem to be endorsed by Christ and Christ seems to match the god that nature "speaks" of (which opens the door to things we would consider "miraculous").</i><br /><br />Thank you for finally admitting you don't have any scientific reasons for your YEC position and attacks on honest evolutionary scientists, just your personal religious beliefs. I knew that from day 1 of this Charlie Foxtrot, but it's nice to see you finally man up and put it on the record.<br /><br />I think we're through here. Take care and have a good evening.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50165000535093507402013-09-18T21:29:59.658-07:002013-09-18T21:29:59.658-07:00It's not cold feet, it's just the differen...It's not cold feet, it's just the difference between knowledge and belief. I also feel bad about the bickering and I'm tired of doing it. I don't mind being candid with you.<br /><br />No, I don't know any of those things. I believe those things are true largely because they seem to be endorsed by Christ and Christ seems to match the god that nature "speaks" of (which opens the door to things we would consider "miraculous"). Given what we know about the brain, it seems very likely that our memories and emotions of love and kindness and many other things like even the appreciation of art very likely have a largely physical basis, i.e., a large part of what presents those feelings to our consciousness are likely protein machinery of the sort we are discovering every day. This signals to me that the products of these machines are also intended... as Psalm 94:9 says, "Does he who implanted the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see?" What this causes me to look for is not just a god of extreme intelligence and power (the primary requirement of such evidence), but also a God of love, kindness, and even artistry or personal involvement and caring. It's like Plato's Forms but coherent because of intention and the mechanical nature of the incident. Again, I do not know any of this since I was not there. I believe it because it has the potential to be a true witness (I don't know that the person who wrote it was lying) and it describes a cause of great power and intelligence that seems to be necessary. If the God of the Bible was not a creator god, then I almost certainly would not believe in him probably for most of the reasons you don't.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57493863263361313352013-09-18T19:23:38.111-07:002013-09-18T19:23:38.111-07:00John
Thorton: "Now John, how old is the Eart...<i>John<br /><br />Thorton: "Now John, how old is the Earth?"<br /><br />I don't know</i><br /><br />Oh c'mon John, don't get all shy on us!<br /><br />You "know" Adam and Eve were real people, right?<br /><br />You "know" Noah's Ark was a real boat that held "kinds" while the whole Earth was flooded, right?<br /><br />You "know" all languages started at the Tower of Babel, right?<br /><br />In for a penny in for a pound John. Why get cold feet on your YEC stupidity now?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73958264146965391572013-09-18T19:03:55.723-07:002013-09-18T19:03:55.723-07:00Thorton: "Ridicule *is* the proper response t...Thorton: "Ridicule *is* the proper response to a willfully ignorant doofus who never learns from his mistakes."<br /><br />like being unable to divide numbers properly?<br /><br />Thorton: "One who's too lazy to read the scientific literature and educate himself..."<br /><br />like you? Will you admit yet that the paper you cited generated and used a consensus sequence to reach it's conclusions? Are you going to tell me why I should assume Adam was homozygous so that the study you cited means he couldn't exist?<br /><br />Thorton: "I'm sure in your reality-denying tiny Fundy brain you think YEC is winning the argument over empirical science."<br /><br />I'm sure by "winning" you mean popular, and so by that definition, no I do not believe that YEC is winning.<br /><br />Thorton: "Now John, how old is the Earth?"<br /><br />I don't know.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85275725135027890142013-09-18T06:26:57.636-07:002013-09-18T06:26:57.636-07:00John
Thorton, I know you feel like it's all f...<i>John<br /><br />Thorton, I know you feel like it's all fairy tales, but if you can't respond with reason, then, even if you're right, it just means your losing an argument to a person who believes in fairy tales.</i><br /><br />Ridicule <b>*is*</b> the proper response to a willfully ignorant doofus who never learns from his mistakes. One who's too lazy to read the scientific literature and educate himself but just keeps regurgitating the same Creationist PRATT stupidity over and over and over. <br /><br />I'm sure in your reality-denying tiny Fundy brain you think YEC is winning the argument over empirical science. Gee, who am I to burst your delusional bubble? <br /><br />Now John, how old is the Earth? How do you know?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8349487780202594542013-09-18T01:25:31.357-07:002013-09-18T01:25:31.357-07:00Thorton, I know you feel like it's all fairy t...Thorton, I know you feel like it's all fairy tales, but if you can't respond with reason, then, even if you're right, it just means your losing an argument to a person who believes in fairy tales.<br /><br />Thorton: "I'm laughing at the ignoramus who thinks the data for Mitochondrial Eve shows she was the only woman alive at her time."<br /><br />Sigh.. as I keep saying, it is just evidence, not proof. Should I get used to nuances of this type being lost on you? You're still welcome to give any reason as to why I shouldn't use the actual data and instead use your theory laden data.<br /><br />Thorton: "At the ignoramus who thinks Adam was a real person with thousands of alleles."<br /><br />So you now have standards for people you believe are fictional? In other words, you *know* he wasn't real, but if he was, then you also know he would just be homozygous everywhere! Is that about right? Are you the type that are mad at the god they know doesn't exist?<br /><br />Thorton: "At the ignoramus who thinks Biblical "kinds" are an actual biological category."<br /><br />It's almost as if you think it was a category made up by people!<br /><br />Thorton: "C'mon John, tell us more about the "science" that supports the Garden Of Eden and Noah's Ark. Or how about the Tower of Babel?"<br /><br />I can only deal with so much of your failure at once. We could go back to the mtDNA exercise and you could try your hand at basic division again if you would like.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21948853344794237582013-09-17T21:13:54.481-07:002013-09-17T21:13:54.481-07:00John
Since you don't have the first clue abou...<i>John<br /><br />Since you don't have the first clue about biology, who's laughing now?</i><br /><br />LOL! <b>I am John. </b> I'm laughing at the ignoramus who thinks the data for Mitochondrial Eve shows she was the only woman alive at her time. At the ignoramus who thinks Adam was a real person with thousands of alleles. At the ignoramus who thinks Biblical "kinds" are an actual biological category.<br /><br />C'mon John, tell us more about the "science" that supports the Garden Of Eden and Noah's Ark. Or how about the Tower of Babel? I bet you're gullible enough to think that's a literal story too, right?<br /><br />Poke poke poke John. Cough up more Creationist stupidity for us.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46255522090939914252013-09-17T20:52:32.959-07:002013-09-17T20:52:32.959-07:00Thorton :""If you assume griffins are re...Thorton :""If you assume griffins are real animals then evolution is refuted!!!""<br /><br />but you are ostensibly arguing against creationism, not griffins.<br /><br />Thorton: "See John, science just doesn't care about how many alleles you "assume" a fictional character carried."<br /><br />that explains all your shoddy work up till this point I guess.<br /><br />Thorton: "I really don't care what you think John. I just keep poking you with a stick to see what incredibly stupid Creationist claim you'll belch up next."<br /><br />stuff like "Where did the incredible genetic diversity we see in the current human population come from..." Since you don't have the first clue about biology, who's laughing now?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68444749644633119172013-09-17T18:49:39.213-07:002013-09-17T18:49:39.213-07:00John
Oh man, I can barely hear you with my finger...<i>John<br /><br />Oh man, I can barely hear you with my fingers in my ears. It sounds like your saying that it would be ridiculous to create a diploid organism to take advantage of being diploid.</i><br /><br />That's just me laughing at the continued inanity of your YEC apologetics. "If you <b>assume</b> griffins are real animals then evolution is refuted!!!"<br /><br />See John, science just <i>doesn't care</i> about how many alleles you "assume" a <b>fictional character</b> carried. Serious, it just <b>doesn't give a shit at all</b> about your Adam & Eve or Noah's Ark fantasies.<br /><br /><i>Were you preparing a harumph exit? I really don't think anyone else is reading this now. You could probably just quit. Or do you really care that much about what I think?</i><br /><br />I really don't care what you think John. I just keep poking you with a stick to see what incredibly stupid Creationist claim you'll belch up next. You're apparently too slow to catch on.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80406140959116401732013-09-17T18:23:02.167-07:002013-09-17T18:23:02.167-07:00Oh man, I can barely hear you with my fingers in m...Oh man, I can barely hear you with my fingers in my ears. It sounds like your saying that it would be ridiculous to create a diploid organism to take advantage of being diploid.<br /><br />Were you preparing a harumph exit? I really don't think anyone else is reading this now. You could probably just quit. Or do you really care that much about what I think?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88454928173219791232013-09-17T07:35:00.792-07:002013-09-17T07:35:00.792-07:00John
if you assume Adam would have been heterozyg...<i>John<br /><br />if you assume Adam would have been heterozygous for many genes.</i><br /><br />There's no need for science to pay attention to your pulled-out-of-your-ass ridiculous Creationist assumptions. That's the point you YEC morons have been avoiding for the last 5 <b>decades.</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10356288870207226332013-09-16T23:09:42.278-07:002013-09-16T23:09:42.278-07:00Who's "we"? There is an incredibly L...Who's "we"? There is an incredibly LOW amount of genetic diversity seen in humans if you assume Adam would have been heterozygous for many genes. That's the point you've been painfully avoiding for like the last 5 posts.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47959204942768664742013-09-16T20:37:58.104-07:002013-09-16T20:37:58.104-07:00You tell me John. Where did the incredible geneti...You tell me John. Where did the incredible genetic diversity we see in the current human population come from in your claimed 6K years from only <b>*one*</b> human, Adam, or 4.5K years from Noah?<br /><br />You're the guy making up this incredibly dumb Creationist shite as you go. Might as well make up some more.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60629538288164479452013-09-16T19:58:58.659-07:002013-09-16T19:58:58.659-07:00Thorton: "that sooper-dooper first created hu...Thorton: "that sooper-dooper first created human who carried ALL the genetic variation seen in the 7 billion human population today"<br /><br />Why would he have to carry all the variation? Or why would someone assume he would carry alleles only found in subpopulations? That doesn't make sense.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28159809928486979322013-09-16T07:42:16.976-07:002013-09-16T07:42:16.976-07:00John
Thorton, in humans, being heterozygous at ma...<i>John<br /><br />Thorton, in humans, being heterozygous at many locations does not mean you have thousands of different alleles of one gene or locus, it means you would have two different copies at many different places. </i><br /><br />But you weren't talking about a normal human. You were making claims about Adam, that sooper-dooper first created human who carried ALL the genetic variation seen in the 7 billion human population today.<br /><br />Keep squirming John. The Creationist stupidity you keep regurgitating is priceless.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83140231687315243222013-09-16T07:30:56.344-07:002013-09-16T07:30:56.344-07:00Thorton: "Pants on fire."
Thorton, in h...Thorton: "Pants on fire."<br /><br />Thorton, in humans, being heterozygous at many locations does not mean you have thousands of different alleles of one gene or locus, it means you would have two different copies at many different places. If you don't understand the basics of biology, why are you even here causing trouble?<br /><br />Thorton: "How many locations was Adam heterozygous for John?"<br /><br />Probably not that many since modern humans are not either. That's pretty much text book level information. Do you really need a research paper to explain it?<br /><br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.com