Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

[tas8831]

The OP is a load of baloney, it continually amazes me that you will go ballistic on Creationists for errors but you give guys like him a pass when he makes blatantly erroneous statements.

You continue to prove that you do not understand why this thread was even started.

I have explained it to you and re-posted the OP for you 3 or 4 times, yet here you are, still freaking out over what you think the OP was about, not what it plainly really was about.

The % similarity thing was only mentioned BECAUSE a creationist quote-bombing plagiarist had provided an erroneous citation and a quote produced by some third-party creationist that ignored the rest of the paper.

And you keep complaining about a textbook not being mentioned - re-read the OP - the third section is about a professional creationist lying about the content of a textbook.

I would think that you might be a bit embarrassed by all this, but then I remember we are dealing with creationists suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect...

 

[tas8831]

Ignoring 90 Mb is not hyperbole, it's a common and misleading rationalization.

That 90Mb was produced via how many actual mutational events?


You go to a store and buy an apple. The cashier puts it in 1 bag for you.

The next day, you go to the same store but buy 10 apples. The cashier puts all 10 apples into 1 bag.

If we use your "logic", we would argue that you really had 10 bags on that second trip, no matter what you say.

I literally cannot understand how you have had so hard a time understanding this for over a decade.

He's calling Creationists liars for making a straightforward statement that it's not 98%.

For at least the 6th time - no, I am pointing out the dishonesty of creationists for using erroneous citations and out of context quotes. Here from the OP, I will break it down for you, in segments that even Trump could possibly understand, for the last time:

...our current quote-bomb-spammer presented this quote in response to an abstract I had presented that mentioned human-chimp % similarities:

“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16​

OK? Got it so far? That was the quote and the citation presented by the YEC. Agreed?

The quote is in red, the citation in blue - easier for you that way?

Ok, let us continue...

That is verbatim. Googling the quote returned several hits - all only to places where the quote-bomber had spammed before. So I searched for the citation:

-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

Nothing. Well, except for the quote-bomber's footprint. Long story short, I finally found the source:

​

What follows is the ACTUAL source - note that the ACTUAL citation (to include the author's name) is DIFFERENT from what the creationist presented!! Understand so far?

Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jun 26; 109(Suppl 1): 10709–10716.
Todd M. Preuss

So you can see why it was so hard to find - misspelled name... erroneous title.... garbled citation...

And even the quote was not correct- a comma where a semi-colon belonged:

"It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."
​

OK so far? How would YOU respond if there was an evolutionist presenting quotes and the citation was garbled and useless and even the author's name was misspelled?

And NOW I comment on the context of that quote:

Now, that statement is unwarranted hyperbole in my opinion, especially when we consider what the author explains later in the paper:

"Humans possess species-specific genes, as a result of the numerous tandem duplications of chromosome segments that occurred in human evolution, and also recombination events (46, 47). One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96% (41, 48, 49), although the rearrangements are so extensive as to render one-dimensional comparisons overly simplistic."
​

Clearer now? The creationist presented that quote to make some kind of 'we are not so identical to chimps, therefore, creation!' argument, when the quoted paper posits at worst 4% lower estimates.

You want to stake your salvation on the "fact" that some evolution-friendly sources present a % similarity figure that, in your opinion, is a few points off?

Pretty desperate, no?

Is that really 'entirely appropriate' to equivocate 5 million events with 5 million base pairs because it's more like 90 million base pairs Steve. You of all people should see this clearly and you would never allow a Creationist to make such an obviously erroneous statement.

For crying out loud....


You go to a store and but an apple. The cashier puts it in 1 bag for you.

The next day, you go to the same store but buy 10 apples. The cashier puts all 10 apples into 1 bag.

If we use your "logic", we would argue that you really had 10 bags on that second trip, no matter what you say.

I literally cannot understand how you have had so hard a time understanding this for over a decade.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Hmm... let's see... predictions of evolutionary theory...

"Fitness tends to increase in a population over time".... Verified

Which you should have done in the first place.

You're confusing fitness with mutations. Fitness in a population tends to increase because natural selection tends to preserve favorable mutations and tends to remove unfavorable ones.

"There must have been transitionals between ungulates and whales" ... verified
(this one also verified for salamanders and frogs, apes and humans, wasps and ants, cockroaches and termites, fish and tetrapods, (very long list)

It's another verified prediction of evolutionary theory. Something you said did not exist.

I never said that.

You said evolutionary theory made no predictions.

Barbarian observes:
Hall's bacteria were observed to evolve a new enzyme system by random mutation and natural selection. Reality beats anyone's denial.

Characterize the mutation.

It was a series of mutation, modifying existing proteins. Each step was a little better than the previous. The last mutation produced a regulator so that the enzyme was produced only if the substrate was present.

Would you like to see some more, or more detail for the ones I've shown you?

Go for it, after you define what a mutation is.

A change in an organism's genome.

Then there are dozens, if not hundreds of human ancestors, most of which look like chimpanzees.

Except for large skulls, smaller teeth, different hips, feet, knees, hands, backs, etc. And some of them look a lot more like chimps than later ones. Pretty much what you'd expect if humans and chimps had a common ancestor.

What is the average cranial capacity?

Well, let's take a look...

Because until 2 mya they were consistent with Chimpanzees.

See above. You've been misled about that. Chimps run between 320-480 cubic centimeters. So no, that's not the case.

 

[mark kennedy]

Barbarian observes:
Hmm... let's see... predictions of evolutionary theory...

"Fitness tends to increase in a population over time".... Verified

Not from mutations and not on the level required for humans to evolve from apes.

You're confusing fitness with mutations. Fitness in a population tends to increase because natural selection tends to preserve favorable mutations and tends to remove unfavorable ones.

No it tends to purge mutations, when they are strong enough to create a selective reaction it's almost always deleterious.

"There must have been transitionals between ungulates and whales" ... verified
(this one also verified for salamanders and frogs, apes and humans, wasps and ants, cockroaches and termites, fish and tetrapods, (very long list)

It's another verified prediction of evolutionary theory. Something you said did not exist.

I never said that, now your just making things up.

You said evolutionary theory made no predictions.

No I didn't, I've always recognized the expression 'theory of evolution' to be code for the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions involved with the Darwinian three of life. It's not a theory, it's an assumption.

Except for large skulls, smaller teeth, different hips, feet, knees, hands, backs, etc. And some of them look a lot more like chimps than later ones. Pretty much what you'd expect if humans and chimps had a common ancestor.

I've seen some error prone evolutionists but this one takes the cake. There are no chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record. Actually there are but they are passed off as hominids.

See above. You've been misled about that. Chimps run between 320-480 cubic centimeters. So no, that's not the case.

I don't need to see anything and your right I'm being misled. I've just done enough study to know when someone trying to sell me on nonsense.

 

[Brightmoon]

Mark , humans never evolved out of being great apes! Family Hominidae includes the chimps, bonobos, gorillas and humans

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Hmm... let's see... predictions of evolutionary theory...

"Fitness tends to increase in a population over time".... Verified

Not from mutations.

Yep. Mutations. Want to see some examples?

and not on the level required for humans to evolve from apes

Show us your evidence for that.

Barbarian observes:
You're confusing fitness with mutations. Fitness in a population tends to increase because natural selection tends to preserve favorable mutations and tends to remove unfavorable ones.

No it tends to purge mutations,

As you just learned, it only purges unfavorable ones. As you also see, it tends to preserve favorable ones. In the case of the evolved enzyme system, each generation retained the favorable mutations which were the raw material for further evolution.

when they are strong enough to create a selective reaction it's almost always deleterious.

Usually, which is why you normally only see the favorable ones passed on. And each generation, natural selection works on that slightly more fit population.

I never said that, now your just making things up.

So you now agree that evolutionary theory makes testable predictions?

No I didn't, I've always recognized the expression 'theory of evolution' to be code for the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions involved with the Darwinian three of life.

Well, that's a testable claim. Here's the points of Darwin's theory:

1. More are born than can survive.
2. Every organism is slightly different than others of it's kind
3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of the organism surviving long enough to reproduce.
4. The favorable differences tend to accumulate and over time can produce new species.

Which of these points is false? (Show your evidence)

It's not a theory, it's an assumption.

Since the theory has made numerous predictions which have been verified, it is a theory.

Barbarian observes:
See above. You've been misled about that. Chimps run between 320-480 cubic centimeters. So no, that's not the case.
http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4718

Even Australopithecine crania are larger:
Afarensis (early Australopithecine) 380–530 cc

I've seen some error prone evolutionists but this one takes the cake. There are no chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record.

Seeing as they evolved fairly recently, that isn't a surprise, especially as they lived mostly in forests, where fossilization is quite rare. As you know, the only fossil chimp known happened to be from an area that was not forested.

Actually there are but they are passed off as hominids.

Show us one of those.

I don't need to see anything

Creationist mantra.

and your right I'm being misled.

Yep. As you see, other existing apes have smaller brains, Australopithicines had somewhat larger brains, and the various species of humans had even larger ones.

But you have to remember that body mass has to be considered when comparing. Size requires more brain. So you have to do a cephalization index to compare reasonably.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing..../F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

As you see, late Australopithecines overlapped early species of Homo. But notice that even early Australopithecines averaged significantly larger brains than chimpanzees average.

I've just done enough study to know when someone trying to sell me on nonsense.

Apparently not, if you actually think that Australopithecines, even 3 million years ago had EQs as low as chimps have.

 

[tas8831]

Barbarian observes:
Hmm... let's see... predictions of evolutionary theory...

"Fitness tends to increase in a population over time".... Verified

Not from mutations and not on the level required for humans to evolve from apes.

Please provide documentation regarding the "level required" for human evolution. I would like to see the evidence for your oft-repeated but never-supported assertion for once.

 

[mark kennedy]

Please provide documentation regarding the "level required" for human evolution. I would like to see the evidence for your oft-repeated but never-supported assertion for once.

No you wouldn't, you would like to continue to argue in circles. The problem comes from the loose definition of what a mutation is, any change in the DNA sequence, alternate genes are even an external gene is considered a mutation, it's a very general term. Genetic mutation are copy errors and virtually never result in adaptive traits on an evolutionary scale. Beneficial traits while relatively rare do happen, but adaptive evolution is something else entirely. There is no point in chasing this in circles:

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutations)
​

You won't even acknowledge the divergence, let alone to rule of mutations in adaptive evolution which is negligible at best.

 

[The Barbarian]

Please provide documentation regarding the "level required" for human evolution.

What we observe is that a single point mutation, involving one amino acid in a protein, is sufficient.

 

[tas8831]

No you wouldn't, you would like to continue to argue in circles.

Projection.

I want to see what you mean by:

"Not from mutations and not on the level required for humans to evolve from apes."

and what your evidence is for this. I am so far of the opinion that you have no actual evidence for your assertion, as is the norm?

The problem comes from the loose definition of what a mutation is, any change in the DNA sequence, alternate genes are even an external gene is considered a mutation, it's a very general term.

I have never seen an 'alternate gene' called a mutation. A mutated gene is called an allele - is that what you are thinking of?

What is a gene mutation and how do mutations occur?

"A gene mutation is a permanent alteration in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene, such that the sequence differs from what is found in most people. Mutations range in size; they can affect anywhere from a single DNA building block (base pair) to a large segment of a chromosome that includes multiple genes."

You know of different definitions?

Genetic mutation are copy errors and virtually never result in adaptive traits on an evolutionary scale.

Tempo and mode of genome evolution in a 50,000-generation experiment

Beneficial traits while relatively rare do happen, but adaptive evolution is something else entirely.

if you say so.
I am still curious if you think that 1 mutation = 1 small specific change.

There is no point in chasing this in circles:

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutations)
​

You won't even acknowledge the divergence, let alone to rule of mutations in adaptive evolution which is negligible at best.

I cannot parse that last sentence - I won't acknowledge what divergence?
And if you think that your quote supports your notion that "to rule[sic] of mutations in adaptive evolution which is negligible at best" you are mistaken, as is your notion itself. Devoid of support, that is.

Also, 1998 is a long time ago in the world of genetics when it comes to the specifics like this - you might want to update your archives.

The dynamics of molecular evolution over 60,000 generations



I take it that you still believe that all of the nucleotides in an indel should count in the number of mutational differences between organisms, to include those believed by creationists to have descended from a created Kind?

 

[loveofourlord]

Nonsense, the the divergence between chimpanzees is easily 96% when you include indels. Is 1% and some change counting single base substitutation and another 2% to 3% based on indels, some as millions of base pairs in length. Try the, 'Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome", Nature 2005.

As far as those absurd slits in the embryos, they are ear hole dude. Your trolling, I've yet to see a serious argument from you and don't expect to see one.

The question of % comes down to how do you count changes. As I've shown before.

do you count
thequickbrownfox becoming
thequikbrownfox 1 change, or 9 changes? Now add that to a entire sequence.

Alot of the descrepencies come down to what your adding and counting, do you add in or not non coding regions and other parts.

 

[mark kennedy]

The question of % comes down to how do you count changes. As I've shown before.

do you count
thequickbrownfox becoming
thequikbrownfox 1 change, or 9 changes? Now add that to a entire sequence.

Alot of the descrepencies come down to what your adding and counting, do you add in or not non coding regions and other parts.

Its measured in base pairs or nucleotides depending on whether its DNA or RNA. The Chimpanzee genome was measured in base pairs with 45 million base pairs diverging in each genome which comes to 90 million base pairs on all, to include protien coding genes that diverged by one coden in each genome. Only 30% are identical. The divergence doesnt get rationalized away so easy.

 

[loveofourlord]

Its measured in base pairs or nucleotides depending on whether its DNA or RNA. The Chimpanzee genome was measured in base pairs with 45 million base pairs diverging in each genome which comes to 90 million base pairs on all, to include protien coding genes that diverged by one coden in each genome. Only 30% are identical. The divergence doesnt get rationalized away so easy.

Not sure what your saying, the issue is you can't do a 1 to 1 comparison, due to the DNA such as reversals and insertions and deletions tend to change massive parts of the DNA, but are effectivly 1 change. Thequickbrownfox and xofnworbkciuqeht is 1 change, that doesn't alter meaning, as it's still read from the start. But if you did a 1-1 comparison it's 16 changes. Heck chromosone 2 depending on how you count the change, is a complete massive change in the DNA that has 0 effect in the animals, but could be seen as 2 being half different or all different.

Then there are non coding DNA which were excluded, because they were looking at the differences in the DNA that create the animal. They arn't going to focus on all the junk DNA thats free to change and have no effect. The point was to look at the parts that do make up the difference between humans and other apes.

 

[The Barbarian]

By the creationist count, humans would be much less similar to other humans, since that counting method would be affected by the. fact that humans have more genetic diversity than chimpanzees.

 

[The Barbarian]

Please provide documentation regarding the "level required" for human evolution. I would like to see the evidence for your oft-repeated but never-supported assertion for once.

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. The minimum requirement would then be a single amino acid substitution in any protein. Essentially a single point mutation in DNA.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study

How is the 99% reached????

"One of the more popular methods is based on an algorithm called BLAST, which chops up DNA (or proteins) into small segments and then tries to compare them to the segments on a different set of DNA (or proteins). This seems like the most “generous” way to compare two genomes, because it doesn’t require one genome to be structured similarly to the other. The only thing that matters is whether a bit of information in one genome can be found anywhere in the other genome."

More likely, even using the fakery of BLAST....

"Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor."

 

[loveofourlord]

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study

How is the 99% reached????

"One of the more popular methods is based on an algorithm called BLAST, which chops up DNA (or proteins) into small segments and then tries to compare them to the segments on a different set of DNA (or proteins). This seems like the most “generous” way to compare two genomes, because it doesn’t require one genome to be structured similarly to the other. The only thing that matters is whether a bit of information in one genome can be found anywhere in the other genome."

More likely, even using the fakery of BLAST....

"Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor."

OR like I've said multiple times so far, it's the way to compare the X gene in chimpanzee's, and X gene in humans, and focusing on the comparisons between the various genes rather then the rest of all the junk DNA, or comparing human chromosome 2 to the corresponding chimp chromosomes it's a combination of and so on. Try not to be quiet so disingenuous please

 

[Jimmy D]

Try not to be quiet so disingenuous please

Good luck!

 

[tas8831]

Its measured in base pairs or nucleotides depending on whether its DNA or RNA.

LOL!

Well, unless you are Roy Britten...

 

[tas8831]

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study

Jay Wile, non-geneticist, relying on a YEC hack's claims that have been demolished.

Awsome!