John Harshman wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
It's time to whittle the posts down for the sake of brevity,
you are already at 43k.
I was recently trying to figure out why you never responded to my
evidence for human evolution, so I looked back in the thread. The reason
is that you deleted the whole thing without comment, even though you in
fact asked me to give you that evidence. I know this was a mere
oversight on your part, and I have thoughtfully restored it below:
How can you not know??? You called my sources fraudulent and
presented your assertions as the gospel. I might as well be talking to
an Islamic fundamentalist. That and the length might have something
to do with it.
Your sources *are* fraudulent.
I've asked you at least four times to show us where the fraud is. All
you responded with is Gould saying 20 years or so ago that he
was often being misrepresented. Let's fast forward to the here and
now and focus like a laser beam.
They exist only to make you feel secure
in your existing beliefs and give you a warm, fuzzy cocoon to protect
you from any jarring facts.
So far that isn't a substantive rebuttal.
As for assertions, hey, you deleted the
data.
The "data" was in 37+k posts that I told you I can't respond to and
consisted of your assertions of the facts. The few links that you provided
I did look at and respond to.
Obviously you don't really care about it. And why not? You might
as well not have read the stuff I restored below. You don't address it
at all. There seems no point in continuing, but I will make one last,
futile attempt.
[snip all the good stuff]
Having ruled out chance, now the question is how you account for the
pattern we see. I account for it by supposing that the null hypothesis
is just plain wrong, and that there is a phylogeny, and that the
phylogeny involves the African apes, including humans, being related by
a common ancestor more recent than their common ancestor with orangutans
or gibbons. How about you?
If it isn't by chance and your hypothesis is wrong that only
leaves one other thing, a deliberate design.
The problem is that deliberate design doesn't explain it. You have yet
to confront the nested hierarchy of life, and you never will.
Yes, I've responsed to it. You see similarities as evidence of common
ancestry. I asked for evidence since it doesn't appear to be in the
fossil record, as admitted by prominant evolutionists themselves.
You responded with assertions of DNA evidence and I responded
with some difficulties with. If it was a slam dunk there would be
no debate, that includes within the evolutionist camp. So I believe
you are exaggerating your view while downplaying any objections.
By itself, this is pretty good evidence for the African ape connection.
But if I did this little exercise with any other gene I would get the
same result too. (If you don't believe me I would be glad to do that.)
Why? I say it's because all the genes evolved on the same tree, the true
tree of evolutionary relationships. That's the multiple nested hierarchy
for you.
So what's your alternative explanation for all this? You say...what?
Sounds like more smoke and mirrors. Have you examined this objectively?
Yes. Like many, it confuses multiple questions, notably common descent
and natural selection. We can investigate common descent, as I did
above, without knowing the mechanism by which the differences we
consider important arose. So that whole spiel is irrelevant to the
question I asked.
If the mechanism is in doubt and lineage is still being debated then the
assertion that it happened can't be considered a scientific fact.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...20News&id=2477
At this point, the sympathetic reader eager to secure Darwin's narrative
might resort to searching the "biochemical record." Surely the molecular
structures of DNA, RNA, and proteins contain the long-sought evidence.
Again, though, molecular biology helps in some ways in that it shows
commonalities across species--just as other aspects of anatomical structures
show commonalities--but again it's the distinctions--and the means by which
they are generated--rather than the similarities that must be explained to
support the theory.
Perhaps it's enough for the friendly guardian of the Darwinian narrative to
propose that the genes that control the switching on and off of other genes
simply changed in some random way, allowing humans to branch off the
primate line. And maybe they did. But again, notice, this is a molecular
narrative, not a proposition demonstrable by experiment. It's a story that
fits the facts--but so might another.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070
Marks went on to concede:
Hardly conceding. Simply a bit of the obvious. Most of the differences
between human and chimp don't matter, and a few matter
disproportionately. That article is wrong from start to end, by the way.
As a useful corrective, you can download this recent comparison of the
human and chimp genomes:
I like the way that all my sources are fraudulent and useless and
yours are above reproach. That's pretty much what happpens
in public education, which is what got this thread going.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04072.html
Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative
differences among genomes.... Thus, even among such close relatives as human
and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10
percent larger than the human’s; that one human chromosome contains a fusion
of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee
chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans (B-7, emp. added).
However do you explain one human chromosome being a fused version of two
chimp chromosomes without common descent?
I believe the point was that two chimp chromosomes resemble a
particular human chromosome. To me that isn't evidence of decent.
If it happened that way I don't see evidence for a natural mechanism
at work.
It's because of a necessary similarity between similar organisms? But
out of these 76 sites with informative differences, only 18 involve
differences that change the amino acid composition of the protein; the
rest can have no effect on phenotype. Further, many of those amino acid
changes are to similar amino acids that have no real effect on protein
function. In fact, ND4 and ND5 do exactly the same thing in all
organisms. These nested similarities have nothing to do with function,
so similar design is not a credible explanation.
There has been many times that scientists did not see evidence
for function only later to realize their error.
Less than you would imagine. But your defense is that I must be wrong
because some unspecified people have been wrong before? That's it? But
that's a universal defense; it works on anything anyone says, if it
works at all.
Nice spin but what I actually said was just because you don't
see any evidence for a particular function that doesn't mean
that one will never be found. You are being unscientific with
that kind of reasoning.
God did it that way because he felt like it? Fine, but this explains any
possible result. It's not science. We have to ask why god just happened
to feel like doing it in a way that matches the unique expectations of
common descent.
No, you assume common decent so your theory fits your conclusion.
You weren't paying attention. I assumed (in my statistical test) that
there was no common descent, and I falsified that hypothesis. You just
blipped over the data and analysis, didn't you? As long as your
creationist web sites give you a fig leaf of rejection, you can be happy.
I blipped by your assertions because I asked for evidence. I'm suspicious
of your data and analysis since it isn't evident elsewhere. If what you
said was so readily accepted where is it?
By the way, if you want to see the full data set I pulled this from, go
he
http://www.treebase.org/treebase/console.html
Then search on Author, keyword Hayasaka. Click Submit. You will find
Hayasaka, Kenji. Then click on Search. This brings up one study, in the
frame at middle left. Click on Matrix Fig. 1 to download the sequences.
You can also use this site to view their tree. The publication from
which all this was drawn is Hayasaka, K., T. Gojobori, and S. Horai.
1988. Molecular phylogeny and evolution of primate mitochondrial DNA.
Mol. Biol. Evol., 5:626-644.
1988? They haven't nailed it down any better since then?
Not any better, no. Just more and more data all pointing to the same
thing.
That wouldn't be better? I'm not a biologist or a professional
poker player but I know a bluff when I see one.
Really, this particular relationship is a no-brainer. That's why
I picked it. So you can't do any better than to note that 1988 was a
long time ago?
Seems like a good question since you've based most of your
argument on brand spanking new DNA research.
Nobody publishes papers talking about human relationships
these days, just as nbody publishes papers showing that heavy objects
don't fall any faster than light ones. Been there, done that. But if you
want recent stuff, you can go to GenBank, the genetic sequence database,
and pull up hundreds of priimate DNA sequences of all sorts, more every
week. They'll all tell you the same thing, like I said. But none of this
matters to you, does it? You are secure in your world. Your requests for
data were a sham.
No, my requests were ignored. I asked for evidence for macro-evolution
between man and ape since you said it was the best documented one.
Looking at chimpanzee DNA sequences doesn't do it for me, sorrry.
Since humans resemble apes in many ways I don't see why the DNA
would be vastly different. I understand that recent genome research on
rats has us about at a 2.5% difference. Even though some humans
resemble rats figuratively I don't see that as evidence of any lineage.
Well, it's been fun visiting rec.woodworking, but my work here is done.
Sorry you feel that way, I hope you'll visit and maybe jump on
some wood someday.