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.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Education > General
Homeschooling Families Threatened by Court Ruling
By
Nathan Black
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Mar. 06 2008 04:11 PM EST
[-] Text [+]
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.
Seedplanter,
Quote: I would have to respectfully disagree with you in the premises you present.
May I know which ones and why?
That if the Bible was changed to suit every ones preconceptions or misconceptions, that nothing would be left? If "agentonery" edited the Bible, what would he leave in (He has down graded archeology to a pseudo-science because they have found evidence validating the Bible histories and periods of authorship)?
That God is not locked into our logic and our science and thus it is possible for there to be a literal sword?
That doubters inferring the Last Supper supports cannibalism is ridiculous?
That are we all sin addicts? That our sinful nature is always tempting us to 'sin just once more, it won't hurt anyone'?
That we self deceive? That we try to justify sin?
That Jesus is the 'Wonderful Councilor' who helps us fight our sin addiction?
That John understood metaphors and similes and used then more than 50, yet didn't when speaking of the sword in the mouth? Or that John and Jesus could not have spoke plainly and said something like "slay with the Word of my/his mouth" instead; if that was what was meant?
That saying 'the sword isn't literal' is giving non-Christian doubter more ammo not less?
Seedplanter Part 2
Quote: There are numerous Scriptures that are quite obviously intended to be taken symbolically.
Yes there are a great many, and all of them include a clear explanation right in the same text or words such as 'like', 'as', etc. The parables all have clear explanations, many images of Revelation have explanations, many prophetic images of the Hebrew testament contain detailed explanations, and the dreams are clearly explained. Anytime an explanation is needed it is given plainly. Anytime it refers to a simile it is also clearly stated.
Quote: This has never caused any serious problems with Christians becoming skeptics.
Hunh? I thought we were discussing non-Christians skeptics not Christians becoming skeptics.
Quote: It is not denying the miraculous, but rather allowing Scripture to interpret itself without imposing more upon the text than what should be there.... Regarding the sword out of his mouth; the word of God is what seems to be emphasized here.
I am in agreement with the power of God's spoken word (I am in total awe of what it can do) and I am also all for the Bible interpreting itself. However, the Bible gives no reason to limit this sword to the purely invisible manifestation of speaking. Just as Jesus is the Word of God made literally man (John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...) the Word can also be a literal sword in the mouth of that man (Revelation 19:21 The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh - the birds are clearly feeding on literal bodies from this sword.)
I also agree with importance of original language and customs, as some of my post will attest. However, when none of these explain what is read, then one must accept what is left, the plain reading, even if it defies human logic.
Tot tell the truth, I have run been here myself. I started a Evolutionary Creationist and slowly, after years of Bible (and Science) study (particularly the last few chapters of Job - which I find extremely humbling), progressed through to Bible literalist. Why? Because I realized I was setting limits for God, something I had no business doing. Since I can not comprehend the breadth and magnitude of the life and the Universe in its vast yet finite fullness, I clearly can not comprehend the power, form, and majesty of their infinite Creator.
Star,
I don't think Agentorange is referring to the post here, I believe he is referring to his youtube videos. But thank you!
agentorange
I am the one who gave you the 'thumbs down'.
Agentorange,
First to pull this from the bottom, because this should not wait for the rest of my reply...
Quote: And since you didn’t reply to my other vids and only ‘thumbed them down’ (how mature)
I did NOT 'thumbed them down', how mature of you to accuse without proof. Frankly, I have specifically avoided 'thumbing down' or 'up' anything because of my involvement in this post. That would be improper and it clearly evident in the spotty 'thumbing down' or 'up' history here.
Since this CP article is on 'home schooling' I think these links are quite intersting.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/mike_behe_friend_to_evolution.php
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/09/viewpoint_discrimination_and_t.php
"however, most mutations are harmful, and none have created a new type of organism."
Whaaa! most mutations are harmful!? no, virtually all mutations are compleately neutral, while only a small % of mutations are harmfull or beneficial. and new organisms have resulted from such mutations, all one need do is google 'observered speciation'.
“Funny, 2 new posts (one in 6 parts) and this is all you have to say any of them?”
Sorry, but it’s hard to stay on topic and debate a single topic when you’re writing novels.
“Do feather make the bird?”
Absolutely not. They are however a collection of key features associated with avians which define them as a taxonomic group. Had you watched the vid and really paid attention you’d realized that feathers in themselves do not make a bird. If they did then we have a bunch of dinosaurs to classify as avians. However an organism is never defined by a single trait, but instead by collectively all their traits.
“I do get popular pro-evolutionary scientific magazines”
Like…..?
'Let's see what Jonathan Marks has to say,"
Why not refer to all the articles on the matter instead of retiring to your older outdated Marks artilcle of an ‘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.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15815621
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03466.html
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2005/nhgri-06.htm
http://www.genome.gov/13514624
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
You can even look into a simple study example here
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/mmm.html
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.
Since you’re so fond of genetic evidence, what you you make of the Genographic Project?
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
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 no, the DNA doesn’t show the lineage being 6000 yearsold, it’s quite a bit older.
‘No doctor who calls for plasma is going to quietly accept whole blood or platelets”
I misread your comment, grow up.
“ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 are still an incredible economy of design”
Sorry, but you’re wrong. ERV’s (endogenous retrovirus) are relic viruses that have reverse transcribed their RNA into their hosts DNA genome. Too bad for you they aren’t single base sequences but are entire strings and therefore are easily identifiable. Most importantly they serve no biological function for the host and therefore serve no purpose for a designer to implant them into an organisms genome to begin with. Does it make sense for the designer to leave relic viral DNA encoded into two organisms that serves no biological function? Absolutely not. But, common ancestry can make sense of such evidence.
We and Chimps share 7 identical ERV’s in identical genetic locations (talk about astronomical odds) and most importantly the viruses select their insertion locations totally at random. So you got to ask yourself, why would we can Chimps have the same exact 7 in the exact 7 genetic areas unless common ancestry is the case. Sorry, but ‘god did it’ isn’t a scientific explanation as it’s not falsifiable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
It’s entirely illogical for a ‘designer’ to purposely put more evidence for common ancestry unless it was actually the case. From a ‘designer did it’ hypothesis the 9-10% of our genomes that are filled ERV’s makes absolutely no sense to be there at all, but when one considers the hypothesis of common ancestry such evidence can be explained.
The fusion of 2 ape chromosomes is evident by the LTR’s and how we find an extra inactive centromere and extra inactive telomeres. What’s more is that the 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
Keruso,
“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,”
Are you kidding or what? This .pfd from 2002? on pg 136 describes only comparing ONE single base pair sequence in a single analysis to come to the conclusion that Orangutans are more closely genetically related.
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”. Ya never mind how the .pdf also mentions DNA Hybridization which reveals a close genetic relationship by comparing ½ the genome.
“chimps lack large quantities of satellite DNA”
Ya, and so do humans lack quantities of chimp DNA; 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. In such cases where the genes responsible are non-coding proteins (pseudo genes), they are known as ‘junk’, but a small % of them still have promoting function, while the majority is just that – junk.. And this is exactly what is in the Y-Chromosome as I think it’s only human genetic function is female to male regulation. ‘What is the cause of the tip’, yep, as pg 143 points out, it’s pseudo junk –DNA which lacks and gene function.
‘including the majority of the Y chromosome”
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. Here’ a link where you can compare the areas of human chromosome to other mapped organisms, enjoy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/map_search.cgi?taxid=9606
And since you didn’t reply to my other vids and only ‘thumbed them down’ (how mature) I’ll repeat them. I like how on pg 143 it mentions reference to the Human Chromosome 2 fusion, too bad you didn’t comment on it.
"...if we alter the Bible to suit everyone preconceptions or misconceptions, there will be nothing left of it."
I would have to respectfully disagree with you in the premises you present.
There are numerous Scriptures that are quite obviously intended to be taken symbolically. This has never caused any serious problems with Christians becoming skeptics. Quite the opposite I would contend. The more we (and skeptics for that matter) can understand about the prophets, their culture, the language and who they were directing God’s message to makes an amazing difference. It allows us to rightly divide the word of truth and know how to apply it to our lives. This is in no wise watering it down in some sort of secular humanistic diatribe, but simple exegesis and hermeneutics. It is not denying the miraculous, but rather allowing Scripture to interpret itself without imposing more upon the text than what should be there.
Regarding the sword out of his mouth; the word of God is what seems to be emphasized here. Genesis says that God spoke the worlds into existence. Elsewhere it speaks of the word of His judgment. The faith Movement enjoys taking all kinds of Scripture literally, such as the weight, height and appearance of the Father based on the span of His hand and other accumulated data lifted from Scripture. I do not claim to be a scholar, but I doubt you could find more two scholars of different schools that hold to the rendering of a literal sword coming out of His mouth.
Agentorange,
Quote: 'blood' is someone analogus to plasma in medical circlces, my bad.
Saying 'blood' and 'plasma' are "some[what] analogus" in "medical circlces", while strictly true, is completely useless in practice. No doctor who calls for plasma is going to quietly accept whole blood or platelets (or vise versa) - not without some very good reasons (like there is no plasma available).
Funny, 2 new posts (one in 6 parts) and this is all you have to say any of them?
Quote: i'd really appreciate your input on these, especially the genetic evidence (ERV's and Human Chromosome 2).
Also funny, because that's not the impression I get... And my 'input' remains the same as it has since you first posted these. ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 are still an incredible economy of design (though I have new doubts about these similarities – see quotes below) and everything else still results in lot of internal evolutionist squabbling as to the validity of the evolutionary application. Example: Do feather make the bird? Some evolutionists say yes, other evolutionists say no. If evolutionary experts can't agree, why do you think your little videos would changed my opinion one iota (Remember, I do get popular pro-evolutionary scientific magazines and they are generally far more persuasive, if not slightly more reliable. At least they, to keep subscribers and income, have to publish retractions when they fail any semblance of due diligence.)
Now, let's see if I can get part of that missing 'part 2' post to load here since it applies.
personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/98.pdf
Let's see what Jonathan Marks has to say, "Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes. Genetic evolution involves much more than simply replacing one base with another. Thus even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzees, we find that the chimp's genome is [xxx>>]estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human's[<<xxx]; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and [xxx>>]that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contains a DNA sequence that is not present in humans[<<xxx]."
And that's [P]art 2, I missed copying the 'P'
art 2
Attempts to include direct quotes have not gone well, but I have included the link and page numbers. Be sure to tell Adobe to turn the page so that it is easier to read.
personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/natureculture.pdf
"But other measurements have shown that a chimpanzee cell has 10 percent more DNA a human cell..." page 137, second paragraph
Then there is that wonderfully informative description of how two DNA strands are arbitrarily analyzed for similarity on page 136-8. Or how insertions and deletions are arbitrarily counted “researchers have found the chimpanzee and human genomes not [in italics in original] to be 98 percent identical, but closer to 95 percent identical (Britten 2002). The problem, however, … that any tabulation of the precise amount of identity is forced to shoehorn the results of several different mutational processes into its grand tally. Neither number has the force of accuracy, because the precise number obtained depends on what one recognizes as a meaningful difference (only nucleotide substitutions, or the genomic fruit salad of changes?), how one counts it (is a three-hundred-base insertion three hundred differences or only one?), and whether there is any scientific value at all in trying to derive and official amount of genetic difference between two species' genomes in the first place when the official amount necessarily combines differences of quantity and quality." (page 137-8.)
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, including the majority of the Y chromosome (in other words, that which makes one a male has virtually nothing in common with our supposed closest male animal cousin - pages 142-3). Wow, that certainly sounds like we are base for base an unqualified 95% genetically identical to chimpanzee. Gee, I don't know why I'm questioning all of this..
Keruso,
"Blood? Don’t you know what the forth state of matter is? I mean, my 13 year old, when quizzed, knew what it was. Ionized gas, aka plasma"
'blood' is somewhat analogus to plasma in medical circlces, my bad.
i'd really appreciate your input on these, especially the genetic evidence (ERV's and Human Chromosome 2).
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
Human evolution and missing links
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
evidence for common ancestry erv
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
evidence for common ancestry Human chromosome 2 fusion
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
No ‘other transitionals’ right? Wrong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
seedplanter,
Well this got a little more verbose than I intend, sorry...
These skeptics and atheists that so concern you are ignoring the teachings of the Christian testament against the ingesting of real blood, the work of Christian missionaries to stop modern cannibalism (sometimes at the cost of their own lives), and the facts of the Last Supper. At the Last Supper, it is clearly stated that Jesus passed around a cup of wine and piece of bread, not a cup of real human blood or a piece of real human flesh. The metaphor is clearly expressed. However with the sword in the mouth there is no metaphor but an apparent statement of fact. John clearly knew how to express a metaphor (or simile) as he uses 'hos' (Greek for like, as, etc.) as an expression of a metaphor about 50 times in Revelation.
www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=like&version1=31&searchtype=all&spanbegin=73&spanend=73
I heard behind me a loud voice [>>]like[<<] a trumpet,
His head and hair were white [>>]like[<<] wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were [>>]like[<<] blazing fire.
I will come [>>]like[<<] a thief
The sun turned black [>>]like[<<] sackcloth made of goat hair
and it turned into blood [>>]like[<<] that of a dead man
Then I saw three evil spirits that looked [>>]like[<<] frogs
The great street of the city was of pure gold, [>>]like[<<] transparent glass.
compared this to the 4 references about the sword:
www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=sword+mouth&searchtype=all&version1=31&bookset=2
In his right hand he held seven stars, and [>>]out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword[<<]. His face was [>>]like[<<] the sun shining in all its brilliance.
This is a direct quote from Jesus: "Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."
Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."
The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.
Even if John was having a difficult time expressing what he was seeing, why would Jesus have the same problem and make the same mistake? Or given that the Bible has been proven, over and over again, to be historically accurate, what reason is there to doubt other statements of fact, even those that do not conform to our pitiful logic? And I find it troubling that any Christian would give more weight to what a skeptics or atheist 'believes' than what the Bible says about itself. If all Christian had that attitude, proof of Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Hittites, the crucifixion, etc, would still be buried in the sands and skeptical historians would still be arguing that they don't exist.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is God inspired (or God Breathed)...
Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning...
Part 2
Skeptics and atheists will use any excuse not to believe, it is the nature of an addict (and we are all sin addicts to varying degrees). If you think a change in the 'understanding' of verses will change that, then you don't understand the insidious nature of lying to oneself. Drug addicts do it. Alcoholics do it. Habitual liars do it. Physical abusers do it. Thieves do it. Murderers do it. Why wouldn't any other sin addict do it? I mean, we have all done it and still do it. Honestly, how many times have you tried to rationalize a sin away only (I hope) to realize the folly and take it to Jesus? It is only when one recognizes one needs help that one will take steps to get help and try to change. There in lies the roadblock for God 'doubters'. They don't recognize that they need help and are, just like every other addict, in denial. They will use literally anything to hide from that need. We have all been guilty of it at one time or another. A Christian is not unlike the reformed alcoholic. We attend our version of AA, we confess our addiction and how it has hurt others (at least to our Councilor) and, IF we are sincere, we spend every day fighting to stay on the wagon, or failing that, Jesus stands ready to help us get back on.
Further, IF (and that's a big IF) God doubters contemplate the existence of God, they try to lock God, the author of all scientific laws, into the rules of THIS Universe (not unlike you are doing). They don't recognized the power of God nor that he is beyond the physical laws he designed. Do you really believe God is locked into the laws of this Universe? That it is impossible for Jesus, the creator of space and time, to have a genuine sword in his mouth?
And where do we draw the line? If the Bible own wording isn't the measure by we judge the literalness of a reference, then why believe in the literalness of the 10 Commandments or the sacrifice of Jesus? This is the ammo you are giving them by this point of view. Why should they believe any part of the Bible if you get to pick and choose what parts to believe (even this relatively minor thing)? We have only one reliable and absolute guideline for determining the literalness of a reference, the Bible itself, even if it defies our logic and our science.
Finally, if we alter the Bible to suit everyone preconceptions or misconceptions, there will be nothing left of it.
seedplanter,
Quote: Glad you liked my flags! I got mixed up and thought it was July.
The 4th? lol! ;)
Anywho I working on my reply, just a busy day.
Keruso my point is that we are to take the things in the Bible literally that were intended to be taken literally. Many atheists think that Jesus advocated some sort of cannibalism when he gave his blood and body at the last supper. These spurious interpretations of obvious metaphorical language are not only a drag for believers, but also betray the skeptic for their lack of meaningful critiques.
Glad you liked my flags! I got mixed up and thought it was July.
seedplanter,
Me: “A sword coming out of Jesus mouth is either literal or an insult to reasonability.”
Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Quote: (I flagged myself)
Boy did you! LOL
And the delay is not a problem ;) "AgentOrnery" has been keeping me very entertained, as you can tell!
My only point is, it is not impossible for there to be a literal sword. We are dealing with a person who made the Universe and everything in it. What would be ridicules for us could very well be literal for him. You are writing it off as John's struggle to communicate when all he needed to do was say "And the remnant were slain with the sword [that is not a sword] of him that sat upon the horse, which sword [that is not a sword] proceeded out of his mouth" and making it clear he didn't have the words for it. Or better yet get rid of the 'metaphor' altogether "And the remnant were slain with the [Word] of him that sat upon the horse, [whose Word] proceeded out of his mouth."
Agentorange
Me: “This 'ignorance' of science of which you speak, do you have some actual testing numbers that show this, because,”
Quote: I am referring to the parents generation, and how overall most people are quite scientifically inept and unable to know and distinguish the difference between pseudo science like creationism and intelligent design and real science backed by evidence like evolution.
Your testing results for general 'scientific ineptitude' are where? Funny how it is that same 'inept' 'parent generation' teaching all those scholastically outstanding home schoolers. Again, are you saying the standardized tests are bias towards Creation? Because, according to your logic, that is the only possible way home schoolers could surpass their public school equals. I believe you are confusing belief with knowledge. One can know something and not while not believing, much as you 'know' (and I use this term extremely loosely as your demonstrated knowledge is second hand at best) of God but don't believe in God.
Quote: And you apparently don’t see the problem in letting laymen’s choose what’s best to teach as science….horrid!
Why not, you don't have a problem with 'laymen' setting the standards in the field of Primate Genetics...
Chimpanzees and their 2.8 billion base pairs. Source:
www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7930
- still a journalist
www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf
- still no genome size
Humans 2.85 billion base pairs. Sources: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03001.html
- still has 71 references but none for its 2.85 billion number
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3000742.stm
- still a journalist
I am still waiting on a creditable and credited genome size reference instead of the bzillion journalist quoting a number of unknown origin and supported by expert paper that don't (just like the above) comment anything one way or the other...
Quote: However, compared globally our kids, public schooled or not don’t measure up well against many other kids in respect to science and math, that too is a fact.
What does this has to do with what Americans adults know or don't know?
Anyway it isn't true. 'Most' of the world's population receives little or no formal education due to POVERTY (huebler.blogspot.com/ ). However the Japanese and industrial south-eastern China do appear to out perform ON AVERAGE. I'd like to see the numbers that breakout home schoolers verse these Oriental students.
Part 2
Me: “Yes, I know you'll disagree, but then ask yourself where is the anger coming from?”
Quote: What anger? I am communicating with a person (you) that thinks the whole universe and everything in it is 6000 years old,
Ahhh, so name calling is 'communicating'? How interesting. And what exactly what does this name calling 'communicate'? Reasonability? Contentment? Security? Maturity? Brotherly love? Tolerance? Acceptance? Joy? Happiness? Intelligence? (or your favorites) Dignity and Respect? etc... Yes, I can see how calling people 'morons' or 'glassy-eyed mouth breathers' would generally incline them to listen to you.
Quote: and thinks that ‘letting the kids decide’ is somehow a logical way to go about teaching them anything.
And I have no idea what you mean by ‘letting the kids decide’. The legal definition of a minor is anyone under 18 and they can not legally decide anything (unless legally emancipated). In the US, only those persons over 18 are consider legally able to express their preferences through voting and majority rule (as well be drafted into the horrors of war). An opinion, right or wrong, does not give anyone the right to circumvent the right of majority rule. History has shown, over and over again, each right you give up is one you will not see that government return. One of these days, you will turn around and find that you don't have any rights left.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up." Pastor Martin Niemöller
I am still waiting for you to point out the 'ignorance' exception clause in the US Constitution.
Part 3
Me: “Just because angels are called stars does not mean the reverse is also true”
Quote: Calling a massive ball of gas an angel is wrong and no amount of word games can hide that. But thinking that such things could (somehow) come crashing down to earth only makes it worse. And both of these notions were thought by them.
So all the Hollywood 'stars', such as Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt, are giant balls of ‘gas' as well as famous actors? - And you wonder why I have to quote the dictionary so often. And both notions were thought by you, not 'them'. I repeat - stars are NEVER, EVER, EVER called angels, however angel are called stars, not unlike our Hollywood actors (and, luckily, when actors go super nova, we don't need to worry about an extinction causing event).
Me: “Revelation does not refer to falling stars in the sense in of which you write, that is meteorites or balls of plasma.”
Quote: Well if they are meteors or balls of plasma (blood)? Then why didn’t they who are revealing such divine wisdom clearly define the two so it’s more apparent so it’s not lost in translation.
Blood? Don’t you know what the forth state of matter is? I mean, my 13 year old, when quizzed, knew what it was. Ionized gas, aka plasma. That which all stars, lightning, and the auroras are made and the same stuff used in arc welding, fluorescent bulbs, neon signs, and plasma novelty lamps (the really cool ones that arc to your finger when you touch them)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29 (Saying a star is a 'ball of gas' is like saying the 'oceans are solid'.) This is basic middle school science. And you are accusing me of poor research?
And the two are defined, very clearly, as two different things, but you aren't listening. Now I see why - you don't have a grasp of basic English scientific terms, such as the duel use plasma which is either 55% of blood or ionized gas - so how could you possibly understand the sometimes radically different Hebrew or Greek terms?
P.S. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are 'balls of gas'.
Part 4
Me: “Why such intolerance of those who believe in creation?”
Quote: … am only trying to shed light on some evidence regarding a science theory that for whatever reason people like yourself can’t handle.
Really? And exactly how do 'fool', 'moron', 'liar', or 'glassy eyed mouth breather' 'shed light' on some evolutionary evidence? And what about that Democracy thing that you so casually toss out the window because of a supposed public 'ignorance'? Wow, I can't imagine why I would think you are intolerance of those who believe in creation... You still make me laugh... Really, I am not kidding. You are ridiculously funny...
Quote: I am not picking on you,….Ahh, why’s everyone picking on me! Help help I say, persecution here, a person is attempting to show evidence for a science theory!
Me thinks me hear the pot calling the kettle black.
Agentorange: "Good, tell danny/bob or what ever alias he uses to hit the road. enough is enough already, have some dignity and some respect for others and yourself and try to be considerate."
And I still trying to wrap my noodle around the concept of how one whose IQ you judge equivalent to pond scum, could possibly 'ridicule' you with English lessons or via anything else for that matter?
If expecting you to hold to the standard you demand of others is crying 'persecution' then hear me roar!
Quote: You know Keruso, I would have more respect for you if you simply researched issues you claim to know and talk about.
You mean the same 'respect' you give the US Constitution (and the men who have dies to preserve it), for scientific Archeology (and its 'morbid' or 'unhealthy mental state'), or Dr. Jonathan Marks Primate Geneticist? If that is what you call respect, who needs it.
And as to the research... Like you have thoroughly researched the Bible? Or your research of worldwide education difference? Or how you've read the articles you provide to make sure they actually say what you claim and have Genetic expert authorship or traceable references? Or perhaps you refer to your impeccable dictionary research emphasizing word understanding and clarity as with archeologist, plasma, bogus, morbid, earth vs Earth, estimates, etc.? My goodness, you're right, based on your standard I've been working too hard!! I should be making this up as I go...
Quote: You put all that effort in trying to make it appear like I am the bad guy,
(laughing, honestly) You don't need my help, you appear to be doing a splendid job of that all by your little old self. Besides, it requires mental acuity you don't give me credit for. (Is Orange man saying Keruso smart? Naw, must be teasing.)
Part 5
Quote: all the while you never bothered to back up your original claim regarding 10% more Chimp DNA. I guess for you it’s much easier to argue over such things then address the actual facts.
Here is again, what seems like the bzillionth time, the same article I've been giving you all along, you know the one by Jonathan Marks, expert in Primate Genetics and evolutionist. Strangely, it seems to be governed by variation of Heisenberg's Uncertain Principle that applies only to you, at times it is real and at other times nonexistent. First page, third column, second paragraph, look for ‘10’.
personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/98.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle - in case you need the reference to understand what I am referring to. I wouldn't want you to think wasn't researching my information...
me: [1 Chronicles 16:29-30 "Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name... ] Fear before him, all the earth [or dry ground]: the world [or habitable part] also shall be [>>]stable[<<], that it be not moved”
Quote: How does this not indicate the EARTH DOESN’T MOVE again? It might not literally say ‘earth moveth not’, but it implies the very same thing regardless.
“A 'stable' earth”
Yes, you are right, this verse is obviously referring the most terrible punishment God could ever devise, the proper motion of the planet Earth. Give God his due or suffer the awesome and terrible 'rotating planet' punishment (darn, can't use that one the Sun is already rising and setting so the Earth is already rotating). Ooo, how about, fear and dread the hideous and unbearable 'orbital' punishment (nope, can't use that one, there are already seasons, so the Earth is already in orbit). I know! Whimper and cower before the mighty 'relative galactic motion' punishment (and the ancient peoples will notice this how?) Yes, clearly God is referring to celestial motion, not something as mundane and relatively harmless as an earthquake. Who would possibly fear anything as insignificant as that?
If you can not grasp the distinction between plate tectonics (earthquakes) and celestial mechanics (planetary rotation and orbits) nor comprehend that ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, ancient Latin, or any other contemporary ancient language does not contain an equivalent to Modern English's planet Earth (which would be required to describe this planet as 'moveth' or 'moveth not' through space), then I can not explain it to you. Your insistence on the planetary definition of Earth (ground, water, AND atmosphere - two of which are NOT 'dry land' or 'habitable parts') over the reasonably similar ground/earth definition will prevent all comprehension on your part.
planet - derived from the Latin or Greek: to wander - In ancient time was one of the seven celestial bodies that 'wandered' against the background stars - the Moon, the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn
Part 6
“No example of so-called speciation is uncontested.”
Riiihgt, like all these right? www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Oh I was sooo hoping you'd pull this back up, you mean those '[>>]only[<<] four examples of speciation events' (that's a direct quote) which have failed to peak even the liberal, pro-evolution media’s interest? Funny that.
And what exactly is the definition of a species? To quote talkorigins "what constitutes a species... is a topic of [>>]considerable debate within the biological community[<<]." And according to Stephen Jay Gould, one of the high priest of evolution, "Cerion is the land snail of maximal diversity in form throughout the entire world. There's 600 described species of this single genus. In fact, [>>]they're not really species[<<], they all interbreed, but the names exist to express a real phenomenon which is this incredible morphological diversity." Hmmm, 600 species of snail that aren't really different species but are just different in appearance, like Darwin's finches (with, currently, 14 morphological and species), dogs (with 400 morphological and 1 species), etc (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould ). Now if a man you probably worship say defining a species is a bit arbitrary (and talkorigin agrees) exactly why should I believe talksorigin's assertion on speciation?
Yes I flagged myself