No its not absolute proof, utter nonsense!

If two different organisms, thereafter start to show more differences (eg fused chromosome), does nothing to prove they were once the same organism.

Deep and narrow investigations have a place, but breath is important, too. Reading graduate levels textbooks cover to cover, or taking several graduate level biology classes, can be so helpful in gaining a broad understanding.



If Howzit is primarily interested in truth for its own sake, even if it ends up not aligning with his current worldview, then he may eventually become an ardent pro-evolution debater.


Hozit wrote:



No, I would definitely not make that assumption. I just looked up that virus genome lengths vary from 3,000 to over 1,000,000 base pairs in length. Changing a few base pairs out of a million might justify giving that virus a different designation among some researches, but other researchers would still refer to those two distinct sequences as being from 'the same virus'. (Obviously not meaning some specific, individual virus - like the one little hypothetical guy that just got stuck to the flaps of my heart valve, but instead most times when I say 'that virus' I mean 'that virus variant').


For a virus variant to have its own 'sequence signature' is not the same as having the same identical sequence, end to end. We can (and do) categorize viruses for having sufficiently similar genomes - this doesn't not mean they are identical, end to end.



How many different variants of virus do you think might be inserting genes? I don't know how many viruses there are that can insert their genes into humans, but when we look at viruses in general, I hear there may be well over a million recognizably different virus variants today.

More hand waving.

here's a list: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19417/table/A7768/?report=objectonly

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19417/

The list is not complete, but shows only 2 human retroviruses. Anyway its not the number of ERV's that exist, but the frequency of mutually observed ERVs in each genome that would affect our statistics, and I have no idea where to find that information. In the meantime there is nothing unlikely about 7 matching retrovirals through random insertions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

Please watch this a few thousand times. Maybe it will sink in eventually.

Regarding Neanderthals:

That guy says Neanderthals are not human, he also says that that there are more differences between Neanderthals/humans than chimps/humans.

In BOTH cases he is simply misunderstanding the evidence put before him. That graph he uses is highlighting the chimps differences and he is completely misunderstanding the graph. The area to the right is where the big differences lie (45-60 differences), unfortunately he's looking at the higher Neanderthal bars rather than the more bars of the chimp in the 45-60 difference range. If he looked at the other graph immediately below the graph in his video he would have understood the evidence way better. http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/04/comparing-neanderthal-and-modern-human.html

Neanderthals are humans, their DNA is found in most human races, just like Caucasian DNA is found everywhere too, concentrated in some areas, rare in other areas. You could have Neanderthal descendants. (that's not a veiled insult, I could too - lol)

Creationists believe there are many races, some have become extinct, so we have no problem with extinct races.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html
Researchers compared the Neanderthal genome with the genomes of five living people: one San from southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese and one French person. Scientists discovered that 1% to 4% of the latter three DNA samples is shared with Neanderthals — proof that Neanderthals and early modern humans interbred. The absence of Neanderthal DNA in the genomes of the two present-day Africans indicates that interbreeding occurred after some root population of early modern humans left Africa but before the species evolved into distinct groups in Europe and Asia.

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/04/comparing-neanderthal-and-modern-human.html
The underlying reason is that most of the genome has little selective value. So the selection pressure on that DNA is pretty much the same in any population, be it Congolese, Danish, or Neanderthal. Of course, once two populations become reproductively isolated, i.e., when they become different species, their DNA will start to drift apart even at genes of low selective value (because of differing patterns of random mutations). But this divergence is very slow. Consequently, it is hard to distinguish between related species that have diverged from each other only over the last 40,000 years. This is why Neanderthals and modern humans still have some overlap, even though their last common ancestor lived over 400,000 years ago.

Now regarding his second point, the chromosomal fusion.

Many chromosomes of differing organisms match eachother. In illustration, if a Toyota designer is creating a new type of car with some features of the new technology in a Toyota Fortuner and some features in a Toyota Run-X, there is no need to re-invent every feature in the whole car. He will use the best combinations from each car.

The same applies to a creationist interpretation of modern genome sequencing, we see matching patterns just like you do. Whole strings of genes will be perfectly matching in a snail in wheat in and a human. We see intelligent design in this, consistent patterns, like an archaeologist scanning the desert for straight lines indicating artificial design. It all speaks to us of a "system". I understand how evolutionists feel that this speaks of common descent, but the one group cannot disprove the other group by signs of DNA matching between species. Even two strings of genes being found in a third species, just shows that mixed combinations make up a unique organism, they can genetically alter plants using this technique, I don't see why God wouldn't have mixed and matched perfect combinations depending on the species. Unfortunately nature cannot do these types of insertions, nature does duplications which when active cause excess proteins which are damaging.

Massage . . . he is a typical creationist.

Perhaps both theories are right. Maybe we are a product of intelligent design that utilized evolution.

I do have one question for the evolutionists out there. How long would it take for two containers of water, air and particles of any sort to form a new evolutionary life form?

I feel that it is obvious that we were designed to adapt and evolve to our environment. If there is a 1/10 chance that one thing would happen, and a 1/10 chance that another would happen, you would multiply .1 x .1 to get the chances of them happening simultaneously. If you realistically calculated the odds of so many species (plant and animal) evolving in a ever evolving ecosystem that was self supporting you would have to multiply the odds of each species evolving successfully separately by the number of total species, and then multiply that fraction with the chance of Earth being not too close to the sun to evaporate all the water into a gas, and not too far away to freeze all the water on Earth. So if that meant a 1/100,000,000,000 of two things happening, for both to happen would be a 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance. I feel these odds are unrealistically generous, but if I was to be realistic I would crash mingle with all the 0's. God bless!

In my opinion, to prove God has created all of this, you first have to prove the existance of God... To quote the OLDEST KNOWN bible " The God created us in their own likeness" How can a singular (God) become a plural (their)? And if you do your research, the whole bible story follows a pattern of stories that has been associated with all major religions and civilisations past and present. A divine birth to a virgin, a murder and a resurection three days later (describing the Suns actions on the winter solstice), and a visitation from a heavenly body (a being that comes down from the sky). This is not a unique story of christianity, but a documented historical series of events that has repeated time and time again, and the evidence for this is cast in stone in various places around the world...

My problem with the Darwin Theory is the missing link, where are they, I say they because there cannot of been only one, that is like saying there has only ever been one Neanderthal or one Homoerectus, there should be millions and millions of skeletons that have been discovered, archiologists should be falling over these skeletons at every dig, yet not a single one has been found, Why ?. This alone for me blows the entire theory to bits. how can it even be classed as a theory when it isnt even complete. My understanding of the word theory means it should describe everything from start to finish with NO gaps, until it can do that it isnt even classed as a theory, it is an idea. And in the case of Darwin it is an idea that needs a hell of alot of work...

There is a different theory that an advanced civilisation not from this planet has interviened at various stages of our own history, and although I myself refused to believe this when I first heard of it some 20 years ago, my interest and research of the evidence since has not only astounded me, but actually convinced me that this is the most sensible and plausable theory of them all, and seems to be the only one with documented evidence across the board, whereas all of the other theories are based on strange stories and nothing more than hearsay, thats not science, thats Chineese whispers...

Probabilities (chances that things might happen or not) are man-designed terms to camouflage our inability to predict accurately.

This does not mean that in nature things happen to the same ratio of probabilities. No, in nature everything happens because it's been caused. There are no uncertainties or happenstances. It's only our inaccruate ability to predict that created the concept 'chance' or 'porbability'.

This is only a man-made concept for the use of, for, and by humans.

So to say that in nature anything that happens has been dwindled down to a near-zero probability is smafu. In nature everthing that happens has a 100 chance of happneing.

This is the first tenet, by the way, that proved man's intuition to be totally wrong in the world of quantum mechanics. In a radioactive substance, there halftime is predictable like clockwork, but which atomic nucleus will decay is absolutely unpredictable. By observation, by math theory (that preceded observation of this) unpredictable by both.

So what. Quantum mechanics comes out with stupid stuff that humans find completely incomprehensible in a real world: atoms that decay randomly by individual atoms, but predictably as a group; electrons that reverse their spin instantaneously no matter where they are and how far from their electron pair partners, the moment and if the partner reverses its spin. The fact that energy is stored in space, not in matter, and the smaller the space, the more energy in it. This is rather very inhumanly counter-intuitive, since it says that a space which is small, contains more energy than a larger chunk of space, and yet the larger chunk of space contains five times the amount of the smaller chunk of space (as an example), so why not can't it add the smalls that it contains, and their energies? Yet math and experiments prove it is true what QM says.

So what am I saying. That chances are a human concept to begin with, that is, probabilities; and when you go to the quantum space, then chances behave absolutely in a topsy-turvy manner. Totally the opposite to what we see in the macro world (our sensed world).


Oh, another one: some events have their pasts happen after their future takes place. This is again, you guessed, only in QM space, and it encompasses an incredibly short amount of time, but still. What happens is that apparently two particles that come out of a single particle come out before the the particles leave the single particle. Crazy concept, but it's true.

Perhaps both theories are wrong.

But my money is behind the evolutionary theory.

The reason is simple. God's presence can be explained in the workings of the world, every time beautifully simply. "god made it this way", and there is no argument to say God did not create in His iNtelligent design many chromosomes of different species with identical strands.

Or why does the sky light up during a thunderstorm? "Coz god gave it the power to light up."

Why do things fall down, and not up? "Coz god made this to happen this way in His infinite wisdom.

---------

Clearly, the two sides can't argue against each other. Science is painstakingly slow, it is really, but really at a snail's pace in its skill to explain phenomena in the physical world, compared to a god-driven physical universe theory, which just keeps repeating, "god made it this way, okay?"

But my money is on science. Because religions are notorious of making uncheckable predictions, and no predictions about which science is good at, and are rather of high practical use.

A few examples:

What's the weather going to be like in two days from now?
RA: (Religion-driven answer) We don't know.
SA: (Science driven answer) It won't rain. (And it won't.)

What happnes when you drive a 220 volt current into a 399 ohm resistor?
RA: Haven't the foggiest.
SA: The amperage will be about half an amp.

If I mix sodium bicarbonate and diuroxide in a prehensile magnesium-chloride solution suspended in water, how old is my chemistry teacher's pocket protector?

RA: Haven't the foggiest.
SA: haven't the foggiest.

You can rely on science, and it can make reliable predictions. In reliouns, everything is explained, no surprises, coz god made verythign t happen, but you can't know whether to plant the carrots this week or the following one.

This is why my money is on science.

In this is also the true meaning if Bertrand Russell's flying teacup simile to god's presence.

The simile, or ontological proof of god's existence by bertrand russell goes like this:

There is a flying tea cup in space. It circles the sun. it is undeniable that it exists. Nobody has seen it, it has no effect on anything.

There is a god above, a heavenly father. It listens to our prayers, but does nothing about it. It made the world and makes everything move, but the movements can be predicted only by scientific investigation, not by prayer. In fact, God's existence is undeniable, except we don't see Him do anything else beside existing. He makes no effects and no affects. He is there, but he has no trace, no name, no face, no number. He exists, but he does that without manifesting.

So god is the best explanation to everything that happens, but the worst predictor value for man. Just like a flying teacup in space.

This is how I see it.

Interesting! I like a commitment to truth instead of following the crowd.

But its entirely possible that even these theories of aliens are incorrect. Ancient civilizations are vastly underestimated regarding technology, and there are numerous inferences to flight, electricity, the advanced use of crystals and ceramics.

It has a simple biblical explanation, when you place millions of people together with 900 year life-spans as described in the bible, they can reach much higher levels of technology in the 1750 years before the flood, than the 4000 years since the flood. Some of that knowledge came with noah's family, much of that was lost in th ice-age disaster of about 3800 years ago. It appears there was an earlier civilization that kept most of the technology and passed this on to pyramid cultures throughout the earth. Unfortunately the earth has been through too many declines to retain all that knowledge indefinitely. Aliens are not the only explanation, but I do like your reference to superior beings intervening, this can point to God too.

They are not compatible.

Nature selecting random mutations based on the positive or negative effects it has on an organism ability to reproduce fertile offspring is not compatible with some entity making decisions.

This ends poorly for theists, they end up either deists or leave in a huff and ignore the contradiction. Lots of the latter in this thread, only difference is the tenacity of the creationist.

I disagree.

Conscious and unconscious "decision making" are extremely compatible and happen constantly.

Most decision making is programed and unconscious. The more conscious a organism becomes, the more "random" its decision making appears.

But no "decision" is really random. It only appears that way. Most "decisions" are automatic and unconscious and part of programing.

You should look up the definition of decision.


Pretty typical really. Don't know what your talking about, no worries, just change definitions till it fits.

Seriously? You really don't know what I am talking about?