Tens of thousands of parents could be subject to criminal sanctions after a California appeals court ruled parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Damian Dovarganes)Harrison Hartley stands next to his school books in the kitchen of his family's home where he is homeschooled, in Burbank, Calif., Jan. 29, 2007. Hartley, who has been homeschooled since kindergarten, is to start community college classes this year and hopes to transfer to a university as a junior before he turns 18.
"Are you kidding me?" said Kevin McCullough, conservative radio talk show host, on Thursday.
The court ruled last week that minor children must attend a public school unless the child attends a private school or is taught by a teacher with a valid state teaching license. And religious convictions of families do not guarantee a right to homeschool their children.
Parents must have teaching credentials to educate their kids at home.
"This decision is a direct hit against every homeschooler in California," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which represents the Sunland Christian School, which specializes in religious home schooling. "If the state Supreme Court does not reverse this . . . there will be nothing to prevent homeschool witch hunts from being implemented in every corner of the state of California," as reported by The Los Angeles Times.
The institute estimates there are 166,000 California students who are homeschooled.
The ruling stems from a case involving Phillip and Mary Long, parents of eight children. One of the children reported "physical and emotional mistreatment by the children's father."
All of the children had been enrolled in Sunland Christian School, an institution that coordinates independent study programs for homeschooling families. They were educated by their mother at home and occasionally took tests at the school.
An attorney for Children and Family Services requested to a juvenile court that it require the children to physically attend a public or private school. The trial court refused, citing the parents' right under the California Constitution to homeschool their children.
The children's lawyer, however, appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeal. Although the parents told the court that their religious beliefs for homeschooling "are based on biblical teachings and principles," the appellate panel ruled that the family is violating state laws since Mary Long does not have a teaching credential.
"I have sincerely held religious beliefs," said Phillip Long. "Public schools conflict with that. I have to go with what my conscience requires me."
Long said he doesn't believe in evolution, among other topics, that are taught at public schools.
Sunland Christian School called the appellate court's ruling "a bad decision" and stated, "While this case could have negative implications for California homeschoolers, nothing has changed to your right to homeschool. There is no need to panic or make any changes to your current situation."
Advocates for homeschooling families vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
Currently, the California Department of Education allows homeschooling as long as parents file paperwork with the state establishing themselves as small private schools, hire credentialed tutors or enroll their children in independent study programs run by charter or private schools or public school districts.
Comments
‘Special Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle”
QM meets evolutionary biology….mkaaay.
‘Again see the assumption of common ancestry to prove common ancestry, which proves nothing.”
No, it’s simply principles of genetics and heredity, it has nothing to do with evolution the theory directly. Populations reproduce, and each generation has unique mutations, now imagine one population becoming genetically or physically isolated, now you’ll have 2 unique groups of the same species which undergo their own unique mutations according to their own habitat and circumstances which provides a trail of where their most common ancestry is/was. Just like how the evidence regarding the emergence of the blue eye mutation appears around 10,000 years ago, other such mutations can be readily identified and found to when and where they originated. It has nothing to do with ‘assuming animal A evolved to animal B’.
“C-banding seems to mark highly redundant 'junk' DNA sequences (satellite DNA)."
In biological circles, we call them LTR’s or Long Terminal Repeats, and this is found in long strings of repeating redundant sequences, (like CCCCGGGGCCCCCGGG or TTTTTGGGGGTTTTTGGGG) much, much longer though, over and over and over, the same long repetitive, redundant pattern, which are typical of both Centromeres and Telomeres.
So, in the case of human chromosome 2 we find not the usual one Centromere, but 2 (weird), with them relatively off center (again weird) and one in active (weirdness). We also find not just the normal sets of telomeres at the ends of the chromosomes, but also LTR’ for Telomeres s in the middle. Again weird. Gee, that’s odd, why would a very large chromosome have an inactive Centromere and an extra set of telomeres in the middle? Hmm, perhaps a fusion =)
“(5% - 1.8% genome size difference or 50 million bases).”
The 40 million BS difference between us and Chimps equates to 1.33…%. Now if you factor in the deletions and insertions (which are not specific to the coding of the organisms) it amounts to 96% overall genomic similarity. Again relative to any other species on the planet, the bonobo (pygmy chimp) and Chimpanzee are the most genetically similar to us so again in terms of absolute relativity no other organisms are as closely genetically related as chimps and Bonobos.
“(in other words, that which makes one a male has virtually nothing in common with our supposed closest male animal cousin - pages 142-3)'.”
Bingo, exactly right. You know why? B/c 1) Y-chromosome is quite small as it is relative to the entire genome and 2) As you eluded to above, it’s HIGHLY REDUDANT and thus doesn’t code for many proteins, it contains the proteins coding sex characteristics, and very litter else. This is why there can be such relative difference in a single chromosome from two organisms and it not compromise the entire genomic relativity.
“After viewing all 17 pages of post, I first mentioned 95% Thu Mar 27, 2008”
I quoted you, quoting me from Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:47 am. The writing on this point was yours quoting me in which I referred to the 95% based on insertions and deletions.
" However, what is your point?”
That I called out looong ago (before you had), that when deletions and insertions are factored in the % of identical genomic sequences drops from 98, to around 96%.
“"Close" is such a vague and relative term.”
Does 97-98% sound better? B/c based on hybridization techniques that’s what it comes to. Go back to the .pdf and look. I’ll wait while you jump all over Marks now.
“And 5% sound like such a small number until you realized that 150,000,000 base pairs, or enough to fill 140 average sized novels or equivalent to 50% of the US population”
This smacks of typical creationist whacko lingo. So what, it fills 750 books. A book is hardly the only meaningful way to quantify the human genome, which by the way takes up some 750mb of disk space. So you’re arguing the human genome, 750mb and all is HUGE? You could fit the human genome on a freaking CD. And then we are only talking about the 5% difference between 2 such similar genomes, which fit, on CD’s, and you’re saying the differences are just too much to image, please. Regardless they are genetically the most similar species to us on this planet.
“Or that it is enough code to produce up to 250,000 unique proteins or enzymes.”
Oh dear, it appears you’re forgetting that the vast majority of primate and human DNA is (drum roll) non-protein coded. So you’re left with a very small margin of difference, perhaps no more than 1% as this is what is being genetically acted on during development. Fine, the 5% is something, however virtually all of that 5% is not specific to the coding of the Chimp development, which is why in tests such large portions of DNA can be removed and it not affect the organism at all and thus the 5% difference is miseleading. Again, only 1.5% of our DNA is protein coded, so if we look at it from that perspective it’s much closer, like 98% closer.
“Or that we use the same proteins, fuel sources, body form, etc. increasing the required statistical percentage of similarity significantly.”
Yup, there’s that great work of your designer again, leaving all those bread crumbs of clues that (somehow) by your take we and primates aren’t at all genetically related. I guess this would be an example of ‘intelligent design’ right?
“Or that the reproduction of useless DNA makes no evolutionary sense”
No evolutionary sense, WHAT! More like it makes no sense for an intelligent designer to reproduce useless sections of the genome of all organisms. What kind of intelligent design is that? Talk about ad hoc, hap hazard work. Was your designer drunk or just plain incompetent?
Mutations are virtually all neutral, so it’s not really a ‘good’ or 'bad thing’ in this context, more like in different. HC2 is simply a signpost for us to observe what occurred in the past, just as we see such events in the lab occur. Such events don’t typically harm the development of an organism. Most agree that the head to head telomeric fusion has essentially nothing to do with making us human apart from apes. Small amounts of DNA can be deleted, translocated, duplicated and fused with no ill affects to the organism. Other organisms have been shown that when their s fair amount of DNA is removed during development it has no effect on the organism 9rats and mice and flies) and after successive generations or DNA recombination the affected parts are mostly restored. However, if it affects the organism during meiosis it almost certainly wont’ develop fully and let alone reproduce so such detrimental mutations can’t be passed on. This is why the whole deletion of an entire pair of homologous chromosomes is out of the question, which leaves only fusion as a testable hypothesis.
“That no one recommends adding, deleting, or translocating an X, Y, or chromo 2 in human embryos and so often recommends the 'termination' of 'natural' versions before birth?”
If you delete an entire chromosome you’ve effectively killed the organism prior to its development, it can loose some small parts of the DNA, but not an entire chromosome. Removing it at that stage would be like aborting an embryo.
“I'm sure we thoroughly understand what this DNA does or does not do, cause we can custom design lifeforms completely base by base from scratch, right?”
No, not yet. Baby steps, crawl, walk, run. Duh. We can however create viruses (2001) and are nearly done in synthetically creating a new strain of bacteria from scratch. Give it some time, have some patience. Science isn’t the overnight process
“Or we can clone with 100% efficiency, or cure disease, or guarantee 100% perfect pregnancies and babies, and etc”.
Cloning is a science in its infancy. I would say compared with a few 100 years ago we have come along way in increasing the life expectancy, which stem from improved sanitation, and medicine. 100% pregnancy with no ill effects is not possible yet, however we do far and away far better in infant mortality rate than the 3rd world. FYI, a full 1/3 of all human embryo’s die at around this stage b/c of development issues, and that’s with medicine or not. No viruses are ever technically ‘cured’ or fully removed from a patient’s body, rather our immune system creates the needed antibodies to accommodate or suppress the viruses (save for HIV). Speaking of HIV, around 9% of Europeans are totally immune to HIV bonding. According to mutation rates, this mutation originated some 750 years ago, right around the time the Black Plague really hit that area hard.
“ALL DNA differences are the result of mutation starting at a single ancestor (OR viral insertions) and it is thus possible to work backwards to find 'dates'”
We don’t need to assume ‘evolution happened’ to know that from generation to generation mutations occur in the DNA of an organism (regardless of ERV’s) and this is how lineage is genetically tracked, how paternity tests are determined, and how it’s used in courts to convict criminals and how some references in the bible are backed by modern science.
Genetically tracking mutations and hereditary has nothing to do with assuming evolution be true or false, it’s simply observing how mendelian genetics works and what we can learn from it.
However, this very same technique that is used to back something in the bible is equally useful dating much further back, so if one is to accept the ‘Aarons Y-Chromosome’ evidence, they must equally accept the others. Here, read on. - http://www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php
Each generation progressively will inherit the DNA from its parents, mutations and all. From you to your offspring there will be the difference in recombination of DNA from you and your mate and the inevitable mutations you had while you were alive. The mutations rate for mtDNA (which is what’s being studied here) mutates about 20 times faster than nuclear DNA, and thus the changes are more apparent from generation to generation and can predictably be dated according to these rates. With these genetic mutations rates we can establish how long ago ‘X’ mutation arose in your lineage and thus if you share common ancestry with your neighbor, it’s basic genetics. Now imagine a population, the group is split and one party goes one direction, while another goes another, each having their own unique genetic mutations and thus unique lineages.
“Yes, clearly thousands of independently created, fully formed lifeforms and their prerequisite fully formed DNA strands would plainly show a common ancestor just 6000 years ago... Very logical.”
Umm, no. This Genographic study is ONLY on humans, and has nothing to do with other life forms. However, based on the genetic mapping and dating we do find genetic bottle necks in our species, H. Sapiens, but it wasn’t 4000 years ago, it was much, much further back. I am making a point that if DNA showed that our lineage was only 6000 years old, you’d be trumpeting it into the skies as evidence for your religion, alas it doesn’t and you can’t handle it.
“But for God, who by definition is the Creator”
Same, unfalsifiable argument. Is that all you can appeal to? You might read science books, but you have no idea on how science works b/c if you did you’d know ‘god made it that way’ isn’t scientific answer.
“DNA strains were designed for a common environment and food sources but originated from thousands of unique origins, it would hardly be surprising to find them similar in construction and chemistry. T”
Wow, ERV’s are over your head I guess. ERV’s server no biological function at all. They aren’t even biologically coded and thus have no involvement with the development of an organism, so the ‘designer could have designed it that way’ hypothesis falls flat on its face right there. ERV’s are relics from old viruses which reverse transcribed their RNA into their hosts DNA, they serve no biological function, so to surmise ‘the designer would have made it that way’ is to ignore how ERV’s originate in the host genome all together. Also, from the range of 50,000,000 – 500,000,000 possible insertion sites that any particular ERV has to choose at random to insert itself, we and Chimps just so happen to share 7 identical ones in identical insertion locations. Gee, what are the odds.
“64 possible nucleotide combination for any codon”
Right, 4x4x4, and your point is…..?
“Why is again that man can reuse and splice DNA but God can't?)”
Well, as mentioned earlier ‘god dun it’ isn’t a testable, falsifiable hypothesis and thus isn’t science, how hard is that to comprehend?
“The only way to avoid this 'misunderstanding' is to design each creation to used a completely unique (no sharing) 'DNA'/'amino acid' chemistry.”
Ya, such a shame when we review the DNA from organism to organism that the DNA is mostly homologous, and it’s most homologous the closer the organisms are and this relationship lines up almost perfectly with the existing phyologenetic, taxonomic and cladistics.
“However, where would each organism get the unique 'amino acids' they need to survive? Not from each other, that's for sure”
*Cough* MUTATIONS *Cough* Mutations aka genetic variations would account for new genetic information and thus new ‘unique’ amino acids found from organism to organism.
“lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15815621 - Still no chimps discussed
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03466.html - Same article and still no chimps
www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2005/nhgri-06.htm - Here's that NIH PR guy again and 2002 reference. Using your standard, I can ignore
www.genome.gov/13514624 Same article again.
www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm References from 1992, 1991, and 1980”
I never cited those articles regarding JUST chimps, or somehow that they didn’t have 10% more DNA, if you followed where I cited those articles from you’d see they were aligned with ‘Human Chromosome 2 fusion’ evidence, and not the topic of 10% more Chimp DNA. Right, that makes sense, ignore an article from 2002 when another article from 2005 concurs the very same thing. Twit.
“Um didn't you just pull out a Marks' reference to Chromo 2 that I GAVE you? Old Heisenberg at it again?”
Nope, I never cited Marks works on regarding human chromosome 2 fusion at all. I said, since you put so much stock into Marks words above all others, perhaps YOU can find if he supports the notion or not. Go research for his works on the matter and comeback.
“If common ancestry is NOT TRUE the comparison of DNA can tells you absolutely NOTHING about common ancestry only common chemistry.”
Yep, ignore hereditary genetics and all we know from biology and I guess you have a point. An animal passes on its genes to its offspring, it’s straight forward, any mutations that arise will be passed on and we be evident from population to population. And in this case, such a mutation is quite apparent.
“but, for some unfathomable reason, for God it's moronic?”
b/c the ‘god dun it’ isn’t a testable scientific hypothesis, thought you’d at least know how falsifiability and science work. in any possible arrangement ‘god done it that way’ can’t be falsified and thus isn’t a science explanation.
“And from those people who brought us Archeorapter! We bring you the Genographic Project...”
Way to dodge the question.. It’s ok little lion, I understand you’re Gish Gallop quite well. Only earlier you stated you read ‘National Geographic’ to imply they and you as a result know there stuff, only to turn around and fire back on your reference later….WoW. Nice logic, what’s next, you’re going to turn your guns on Discover? You should know, it was exposed as a fraud from the scientific method and it was published b/c they rushed to judgment instead of critique as normal. O well, I can’t blame you for not wanting to debate this topic, after all if your position its not one I’d want to touch either! Archeorapter aside, there are over a dozen other theropod dinosaurs with feathers. So, how do explain the Geographic project, or will you even bother?
Keruso
“many evolutionary experts clearly believe that all fossils with feathers are birds”
Well which ones? I would say some theropod dinosaurs which exhibit feathers have all the hallmarks of being nearly avian, if not fully. Feathers as a trait don’t make an animal a bird, however many of the ostrich like dinosaurs (Ornithomimidae) those that had feathers or proto feathers were nearly avian. As were microraptor, protoarcheopteryx and others.
“and your personal non-expert youtube contributions in no way mitigates this expert dissent”
Ummm, not all of those vids are from my own collection, others are from cell biologists bonobobill and DonExodus. If you are so inclined, ask them for their articles they’ve worked on and they will cite them. Regardless, each of us have cited our work, so the work and evidence speaks for itself and doesn’t hinge off of our vids in the first place.
Mostly I read articles from Nature, Science American, Nat Geographic, Plos, and similar online or magazine articles. Magazines and articles are generally not filled with much substance compared with actual books on the subject., so I prefer books with citations of articles. As far as books, paleontology like Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and , anthropology like ‘From Lucy to Language’ and ‘Becoming Human’, evolutionary biology, mostly Gould, Dawkins, and others. Some cosmology like ‘Universe in a nutshell’ and ‘death by black hole’.
“your laymans' 'estimate' of somehow better than an expert's 'estimate'...”
Human chromosome 2 as the result of a fusion isn’t an estimate at all, it’s backed by clear observations and facts about what we know on DNA and neither are the 7 identical ERV’s we and Chimps share estimates. ERV’s make up some 8-9% of the humane genome, they are well known. Michael Behe agrees with human common ancestry and both ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 fusion as a fact of our past DNA, what does that tell you?
“Funny that dates matter ONLY when you don't like the conclusion”
No, you were referring to an older article and no current ones demonstrate chimps having 10% more base pairs of DNA anywhere. All you ever cited was an estimate, way to go.
“we simply will never agree that there was a chromosome 2 fusion, more detail later.”
How blind are you? The facts are there, go and research them for yourself. Go back to the Nature article I cited on Human chromosome 2 fusion, they say it’s apparent b/c of how our 2nd chromosome contains an extra inactive Centromere and an extra set of telomeres in the middle of the chromosome. If we have recent common ancestry with the great apes we must explain why we have 1 less pair of chromosomes and for an entire chromosome to up and disappear during meiosis is impossible as it would halt embryonic development and kill it spot on. Thus, the chromosome couldn’t have gotten lost, the only explanation is that is fused to another chromosome and this we have evidence to back up.
Agentorange,
Me: “Funny, 2 new posts (one in 6 parts) and this is all you have to say any of them?”
Quote: Sorry, but it’s hard to stay on topic and debate a single topic when you’re writing novels.
Man, I'm truly sorry. If I didn't have to repeat myself, clear up misrepresentations, and define terms, I probable could be much briefer, however it seems I don't have that luxury... (I know - we have an Heisenberg obstruction between us.)
And what 'single topic'? You've pulled out poorly quoted Bible verses, Chromosome 2 and ERVs, so-called 'transitional fossils' and 'speciation', unsupported claim of America's supposed scientific ignorance ('belief' is not the same as 'knowledge'), etc. so I have no I idea what 'single topic' we suppose to be on (I know I wasn't part of a topic limiting discussion).
Me: “Do feather make the bird?”
Quote: Absolutely not...
As I have already said, many evolutionary experts clearly believe that all fossils with feathers are birds - This in no way implies feathers were the only factor these evolutionary experts used to classify these fossils - and your personal non-expert youtube contributions in no way mitigates this expert dissent.
Me: “I do get popular pro-evolutionary scientific magazines”
Quote: Like…..?
I have boxes of PopSci, Discover (current), National Geographic, Astronomy (current). I grew up with PopSci and NatGeo. Peferred TV channels: History, Animal Planet, or Discover. I live on the net researching either science or the Bible. How about you?
Quote: Why not refer to all the articles... instead of retiring to your older outdated Marks... ‘estimate’. Not even Marks doubts the evidence for Human Chromosome 2 fusion and its evidence for common ancestry, but you don’t let that get in the way now do you.
Here we go again, your laymans' 'estimate' of somehow better than an expert's 'estimate'... See my post Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:09 pm so I don't have to repeat myself.
And see my two short post for Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:14 pm and 3:13 on how important dates really are to you... Plus these additions:
lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15815621 - Still no chimps discussed
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03466.html - Same article and still no chimps
www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2005/nhgri-06.htm - Here's that NIH PR guy again and 2002 reference. Using your standard, I can ignore
www.genome.gov/13514624 Same article again.
www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm References from 1992, 1991, and 1980.
(Kewl, Marks' paper 'exists', at least for the moment.) Funny that dates matter ONLY when you don't like the conclusion and even funnier how you adapt all the other information included in Marks' papers.
And, again, we simply will never agree that there was a chromosome 2 fusion, more detail later.
Part 2
Quote: Since you're taking Marks’ opion above all others, perhas you should contact him or see if you can find articles in which he agrees with the evidence of Human Chromosome 2 fusion and the ERV's as irefutiable evidence for common ancestry and evolution.
Ok... Um didn't you just pull out a Marks' reference to Chromo 2 that I GAVE you? Old Heisenberg at it again?
Irrefutable? ... If common ancestry is NOT TRUE the comparison of DNA can tells you absolutely NOTHING about common ancestry only common chemistry. Hence using an assumption to prove itself isn't proof of anything. It's like 'logically' assuming only active posters could possibly be responsible for 'thumbing' any given post.
Why is it when scientist usurp unrelated DNA to 'genetically engineer' 'better' corn, wheat, cotton, or bioluminescent fish, it's genius (with unknown environmental and health backlashes), but, for some unfathomable reason, for God it's moronic?
Quote: Since you’re so fond of genetic evidence, what you you make of the Genographic Project?
www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
Yea, I'm the one who has been bringing up the Chromo 2 fusion since before I joined the site (My 1st post - Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:44 pm - with my first response to Chromosome 2 fusion)... Yep it is my 'fondness' that's being addressed...
And from those people who brought us Archeorapter! We bring you the Genographic Project...
Quote: They use mtDNA and Y-Chromosome DNA and the mutations that accumulate over time to establish how old our Sapien lineage is and how related we are and it demonstrates the migratory paths.
And
Quote: Sorry, but you’re wrong. ERV’s (endogenous retrovirus) are relic viruses that have reverse transcribed their RNA into their hosts DNA genome.
And
All Chromo 2 refs
Wrong is in the eye of the beholder. If thousands DNA strains were designed for a common environment and food sources but originated from thousands of unique origins, it would hardly be surprising to find them similar in construction and chemistry. There are only 64 possible nucleotide combination for any codon (all but 4 code for an amino acid) and there are a very limited number of workable DNA recipes for making and usefully folding any given protein (chains range from 100s [most] to 280,000 [vary rare] amino acids) or enzymes for building or breaking down said proteins and 20 amino acid bases. So, comparing said DNA would only mislead you into believing there was a common genetic origin. (Why is again that man can reuse and splice DNA but God can't?)
The only way to avoid this 'misunderstanding' is to design each creation to used a completely unique (no sharing) 'DNA'/'amino acid' chemistry. However, where would each organism get the unique 'amino acids' they need to survive? Not from each other, that's for sure.
Part 3
Quote: "the mutations that accumulate over time to establish how old our Sapien lineage is" OR "are relic viruses that have reverse transcribed their RNA"
First assumption - Evolution happened therefore - second assumption - ALL DNA differences are the result of mutation starting at a single ancestor (OR viral insertions) and it is thus possible to work backwards to find 'dates'. I.E. Evolutionist can find 'dates' because they will accept no other possibility of origin. This is called a circular argument. B when viewed only with A proves A. Well there's a surprise. It's like those annoying definition in the dictionary that have a word defining itself, and just as useless. Anyone can 'prove' anything, if done so recursively. Common ancestry PROVES evolution only because evolution DEFINES common ancestry. If, however, evolution is not true, DNA comparison with an eye for common ancestry are a complete waste of time and money.
Quote: And no, the DNA doesn’t show the lineage being 6000 yearsold, it’s quite a bit older.
Yes, clearly thousands of independently created, fully formed lifeforms and their prerequisite fully formed DNA strands would plainly show a common ancestor just 6000 years ago... Very logical.
Quote: It’s entirely illogical for a ‘designer’ to... but when one considers the hypothesis of common ancestry such evidence can be explained... he processes of chromosome deletions, duplications, translocations and FUSIONS occur naturally and need no ‘god did it’ to explain how they fused in the first place. Injecting ‘god did it’ into such an example where natural evidence can explain is entirely illogical.
Why is it (again) when scientist play DNA Russian roulette to create novelty bioluminescent fish and allergy causing corn or wheat, it's genius... But for God, who by definition is the Creator of the first DNA and the 'natural', it's moronic or 'illogical' and 'unnatural'.
And why is it that outside the unobservable past, no one claims these 'natural' events are a 'good thing'? That no one recommends adding, deleting, or translocating an X, Y, or chromo 2 in human embryos and so often recommends the 'termination' of 'natural' versions before birth? Why, in our 'enlightened' state, we are stopping 'natural' human evolution in its tracks? Shouldn't you be demanding doctors stop for the sake of a better sapiens species? Why don't we want to BE or RAISE evolution's next "missing" link? If evolution is so 'natural', what are evolutionists so afraid of?
"are filled ERV’s makes absolutely no sense to be there at all," and, I'm sure we thoroughly understand what this DNA does or does not do, cause we can custom design lifeforms completely base by base from scratch, right? Or we can clone with 100% efficiency, or cure disease, or guarantee 100% perfect pregnancies and babies, and etc...
And using the assumption common ancestry to prove of itself is illogical.
Part 4 A
Quote: I could of swore earlier I stated that when deletions and insertions are factored in, it’s not 98%, bur rather 95%, here... "I said earlier that including deletions and insertions we are 98% similar genetically - Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:47 am".
Umm, I'm afraid you mis-remember. After viewing all 17 pages of post, I first mentioned 95% Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:14 pm (currently 1 page back). This is the only post I am active on.
However, what is your point? That as time goes by and analysis are completed chimps and human are looking less and less similar? Cause that is definitely my point. (Oh and the 95% number is in Marks' 'outdated' 2003 paper as well)
Quote: Ya never mind how the .pdf also mentions DNA Hybridization which reveals a close genetic relationship by comparing ½ the genome.
"Close" is such a vague and relative term. Alpha Centauri and Andromeda are "close" on a universal scale, but I wouldn't recommend planning a "day" trip. And 5% sound like such a small number until you realized that 150,000,000 base pairs, or enough to fill 140 average sized novels or equivalent to 50% of the US population. Or that it is enough code to produce up to 250,000 unique proteins or enzymes.
A 'close' 50% is nowhere near 95%. And never mind that any two completely random and unrelated genetic strand must statistically be (at least) 25% alike. Or that we use the same proteins, fuel sources, body form, etc. increasing the required statistical percentage of similarity significantly. Or that we don't conclusively know that 90% of DNA is 'junk'. Or that the reproduction of useless DNA makes no evolutionary sense. Or the next point...
Me: “And how it appears that we humans share more genetic markers with orangutans than chimpanzees, that chimps have tips and bands we don't, and that chimps lack large quantities of satellite DNA,”
Part 4 B
Quote: Are you kidding or what? This .pfd from 2002? on pg 136...
2003 and I am not taking about the sample DNA string.
To quote Marks: "Not only that, but something entirely unfamiliar will be evident--bands at the tips of nearly every chromosome and even in the middle... have been seen in every chimpanzee and gorilla studied, and in no human or orangutan"
Currently the 'family' tree hold the human/chimp ancestor split from gorillas and their combined ancestor split from orangutans. However this is a problem for those aforementioned chimp and gorillas chromo bands since the two species most distantly apart in the 'family' tree don't have those bands and chimps and gorillas don't share a unique ancestor.
That means when the supposed splits happened one of the following occurred:
1. When the Chimp/Human ancestor broke from Gorillas it didn't have the bands and that Chimps&Gors co-evolved them.
2. Or when the C/H ancestor broke from Gs it had the bands but the Hs (like the orangutans long before them) 'lost' them.
(And for some reason no expert evolutionist likes either possibilities-not even Marks). Thus my statement "it appears that we humans share more genetic markers with orangutans than chimpanzees"
Part 5
Me: “chimps lack large quantities of satellite DNA”
Quote: Ya, and so do humans lack quantities of chimp DNA;
Here, again, we have another case of the Special Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (SHUP). As we can see in last section the subject clearly quotes my statement "that chimps have tips and bands we don't", yet for some unknown reason, our subject appears to 'forgotten' that just one argument later, as he feel he must inform me of this shortage as if it's news. Ladies and Gentleman, it is clear that the SHUP is a real phenomena and research is needed to determine it's impact on society and reasoned debate.
Quote: this is b/c of accumulated mutations since the common ancestors split. This again is the result of mutations (insertions and deletions) within the genome that overtime build up and result in differences.
Again see the assumption of common ancestry to prove common ancestry, which proves nothing.
Quote: ‘What is the cause of the tip’, yep, as pg 143 points out, it’s pseudo junk –DNA which lacks and gene function.
I'm fully aware of that, this is only part of the quote I can't get to post no matter how I try.... "C-banding seems to mark highly redundant 'junk' DNA sequences (satellite DNA)." I actually read my sources before posting them... However, after digesting all the accumulated differences, one is left with a distinct impression that these differences are more than 5% of either genome, or the remaining 3.2% that you recognize (5% - 1.8% genome size difference or 50 million bases)... and thus 95% 'identical' is as arbitrary and meaningless as Marks and other claim.
Me: ‘including the majority of the Y chromosome”
Quote: Well, if you didn’t already know, the Y chromosome is among the smallest of all the human chromosomes, and has the least amount of coded proteins so relatively speaking, it matters less than you think.
Really? (shaking head) And this changes what about '(in other words, that which makes one a male has virtually nothing in common with our supposed closest male animal cousin - pages 142-3)'. That it 'matters' little to protein coding is immaterial to the argument of common ancestry. Only that it is different matters. If, say, 7% (yes this is a made up number) of the two genomes are radically different, then how can one say we are 95% identical. Of course, you do understand that 5% of the genome is roughly 150 million base pairs and that that is no small difference.
Quote: "'blood' is someone analogus to plasma in medical circlces, my bad"
Quote: I misread your comment, grow up.
And had another Heisenberg moment, as I clearly stated in the original post that plasma was both 55% of blood AND ionized gas. So, I wonder, what exactly was the point of 'telling' me something I clearly already knew?
agentorange
I read your stuff on different articles even though I don't enter into the conversation. You are my 'favorite' evolutionist.
Keruso,
Well sorry, but it seemed almost obvious that since you an I were primarily the only ones in dialog here (save seedplanter) that therfore you'd be the most likely to thumb up/down my comments here. No, I don't mean any youtube vids, only on here.