Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At last, a proposed answer re 98% human-chimpanzee similarity claim

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From this comment (by Gordon Davisson, in response to this post):

In other words, I’m agreeing with Denyse here:

BUT claimed 98% similarity due to a common ancestor (a claim that hundreds of science writers regularly make, in support of common descent) *undermines anything else they have to say on the subject.*

I do not know how to put the matter more simply than this: A person who does not see the problem is not a credible source of information.

He responds:

…just disagreeing about which side is not credible. Take the 98% similarity figure as an example: one of the basic principles of science is that you must follow the evidence. If the evidence supports the 98% figure, and that conflicts with your intuition, then you either have to throw that intuition into the trash bin, or stop claiming to be doing science.

No. Absolutely not.

One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science.

Genetic science is likely generally true but needs to be reformed and put in better, more realistic, less theory-laden hands.

In any event, today, vast corruption reigns in science findings. There is no reason to believe anything that contradicts carefully considered experience, simply because the claim appeared in a science journal.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
bornagain77, Looks like Aceofspades25 wimped out on you. Safer that way, I suppose. And I imagine it's not so fun when someone tells them that their prized "Norwegian Blue" parrot is dead rather than restin' or pinin' for the fjords---especially when it's not moving. ;-) -QQuerius
August 13, 2014
August
08
Aug
13
13
2014
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
Well Aceofspades25, thanks for the link:
Jeff Tomkins response (1): I used the complete chimp and gorilla GULO genome sequences as queries against the human GULO region as a target database. This was all done on a local server and the human GULO database was constructed using the makeblastdb tool. I had to use optimized sequence slices to determine the similarity since the transposable element fragment differences, which are very large in this region as previously noted by several evolutionary authors, made the alignments highly discontinuous. In contrast, you did NOT do a one-to-one genomic regional comparison for the gulo region in human to the gulo region in chimpanzee. You also used human GULO as the query sequence and the entire chimp genome as the target database. Therefore, because you used the standard default web server blastn parameters, your alignment was chained across the entire chimp genome - which included partial sequence 'best' matches. ============== Jeff Tomkins response (2): No, basically you are wrong and you are merely pushing your evolutionary agenda and fake information in disregard of the scientific evidence. And you are misrepresenting my work with your imaginations. You invited me to download data which I already did and presented in a thorough peer-reviewed paper - and you didn't like it because it conflicted with your presuppositions. Well, I downloaded the data again for good measure and this time performed a MUSCLE alignment which shows the same thing I reported in my paper. You can access this data here. http://www.designed-dna.org/resources/human-chimp_gulo_muscle_alignment.png And more info here. http://www.designed-dna.org/blog-2/ http://www.reddit.com/r/NaturalTheology/comments/2625uu/my_first_reply_to_jeffrey_tomkins/
I will keep it for my notes. One more thing Ace, seeing as I, especially since I have caught Darwinists lying to me many times before in regards to the evidence, have no reason to trust you, whereas I have no reason to doubt Tomkins results, (seeing as he is more than qualified in this specific area of genetics), why in blue blazes do you think I should trust you, a Neo-Darwinist, now? Especially with the not too subtle invective, (any idiot, 3 year old), to which you try to defend your neo-Darwinian position? Since I'm not nearly as qualified as Tomkins to call your bluff in genetics, I'll make a deal with you Aceofspades25. I'm a practical man and trust experimental results much more than the chest thumping antics of a Darwinist on a blog. Thus I'll give you a chance to exonerate yourself, (and all other Darwinists), experimentally. Can you show me the lab work that refutes Dr. Behe's analysis of four decades of lab work? If so I will gladly admit that you have a scientific leg to stand on in the first place so as to make the grand claims that you do as to how life came to be on earth. Elsewise, if you fail to refute Dr. Behe, I will reasonably conclude that you are just desperately, by bluff and bluster, trying to defend your preferred atheistic worldview no matter what.
Four decades worth of lab work is surveyed here, and no evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution surfaces: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper in this following podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time – December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00
Thus, as far a empirical science is concerned, neo-Darwinian evolution is false. Feynmann sums the current situation up best for Darwinists in regards to experimental evidence:
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
Verse and Music:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. Good To Be Alive - Jason Gray http://myktis.com/songs/good-to-be-alive/
bornagain77
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Dear BA77 Your hero Jeffrey Thomkins doesn't know what he is talking about. Please see the continued conversation I have had with him on Reddit after that thread was shut down preventing any further dialogue between myself and Jeffrey. http://www.reddit.com/r/NaturalTheology/comments/2625uu/my_first_reply_to_jeffrey_tomkins/ As any idiot can see, Jeffrey is plainly wrong. I have demonstrated this to him using analysis after analysis, showing all my workings and inviting him to duplicate my work. Frankly a three year old could count the number of differences between sequences so this isn't an "armchair analysis". Feel free to verify this for yourself, I assume you can count? My last reply to him was over a month ago now. He hasn't come back to me, nor has he printed a retraction. It seems he is content to allow blatant misinformation to persist in his pseudo-scientific papers. He hasn't done the honest thing by clearing up his mistakes. Thomkins is one of those "scientists" that expects to be taken seriously but clearly doesn't care about the truth enough to admit his mistakes and correct the people he has fooled into believing him.Aceofspades25
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
When theory trumps observation -- According to NOAA, "The last 12 months were the warmest 12 months ever recorded". Well, not exactly, 'recorded'. NOAA has begun adjusting the recorded temps upwards. So if actual data upsets theory, we simply adjust the data. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/leodp
August 10, 2014
August
08
Aug
10
10
2014
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Odd. PhD geneticist, Gene McCarthy, claims that many fertile animal hybrids are known, and that the evidence points to humans as actually hybrids of chimps and pigs. What's particularly interesting is the list of differences that he provides:
A list of traits distinguishing humans from other primates DERMAL FEATURES Naked skin (sparse pelage) Panniculus adiposus (layer of subcutaneous fat) Panniculus carnosus only in face and neck In "hairy skin" region: - Thick epidermis - Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis - Patterned epidermal-dermal junction Large content of elastic fiber in skin Thermoregulatory sweating Richly vascularized dermis Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans) Dermal melanocytes absent Melanocytes present in matrix of hair follicle Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids FACIAL FEATURES Lightly pigmented eyes common Protruding, cartilaginous mucous nose Narrow eye opening Short, thick upper lip Philtrum/cleft lip Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips Eyebrows Heavy eyelashes Earlobes FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebrae Seventh cervical vertebrae: - long dorsal spine - transverse foramens Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs More lumbar vertebrae Fewer sacral vertebrae More coccygeal vertebrae (long "tail bone") Centralized spine Short pelvis relative to body length Sides of pelvis turn forward Sharp lumbo-sacral promontory Massive gluteal muscles Curved sacrum with short dorsal spines Hind limbs longer than forelimbs Femur: - Condyles equal in size - Knock-kneed - Elliptical condyles - Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur - Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip - Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions Short malleolus medialis Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot Long calcaneus relative to foot (metatarsal) length Short digits (relative to chimpanzee) Terminal phalanges blunt (ungual tuberosities) Narrow pelvic outlet ORGANS Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach Valves of Kerkring present in small intestines Mesenteric arterial arcades Multipyramidal kidneys Heart auricles level Tricuspid valve of heart Laryngeal sacs absent Vocal ligaments Prostate encircles urethra Bulbo-urethral glands present Os penis (baculum) absent. Hymen Absence of periodic sexual swellings in female Ischial callosities absent Nipples low on chest Bicornuate uterus (occasionally present in humans) Labia majora CRANIAL FEATURES Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent Thermoregulatory venous plexuses Well-developed system of emissary veins Enlarged nasal bones Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side) Styloid process Large occipital condyles Primitive premolar Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars Thick tooth enamel Helical chewing BEHAVIORAL/PHYSIOLOGICAL Nocturnal activity Particular about place of defecation Good swimmer, no fear of water Extended male copulation time Female orgasm Short menstrual cycle Snuggling Tears Alcoholism Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal) Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods RARE OR ABSENT IN NONHUMAN PRIMATES: Heart attack Atherosclerosis Cancer (melanoma)
Wow, that supposed 1.4% difference in humans sure is busy. And isn't it interesting after all that evolution since the LCA, that one of the four primates is missing a baculum? But which one? -QQuerius
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
Arcatia_bogart:
All rational and sane people accept the fact that humans are closely related to other apes (and we are apes). The evidence is not only overwhelming, it is conclusive.
Humans are not apes and there is no scientific method of ascertaining that that humans are apes. No rational or sane person would accept as fact that humans are apes on the word of someone posting on a blog on the internet.Mung
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
HD, all the supposed 'evidence' for evolution is contrived and imaginary and falls apart on scrutiny. Moreover, there NO empirical, observational, evidence for evolution. Why Evolution Is Misunderstood - P.J. Levi - March 4, 2013 Excerpt: Consider the evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor, to which Coyne in his talk referred several times. Rather than offering evidence for such common ancestry, Coyne simply took it as a fact and then used it to support Darwinian selection. Yet the ubiquity of selection in creating these species makes little sense at the level of DNA -- the very level at which heritable change (evolution) occurs. By current estimates, the genomes of these two species differ by at least 300 million nucleotides. Given the premise that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor 6 million years ago, such a degree of divergence can only be accounted for by an average of 25 nucleotide changes per year in each line of descent. For Coyne's gradual version of the Darwinian mechanism to account for these differences, 25 new mutations would have to appear, conferring a reproductive advantage, and spread through each population every year. Yet even 25 advantageous substitutions per generation is unfathomable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/why_evolution_i069771.htmlbornagain77
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
AB states: "All rational and sane people accept the fact that humans are closely related to other apes (and we are apes),,", actually, atheists are shown to be more irrational than Christian Theists,, Look Who's Irrational Now Excerpt: "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Moreover, this psychopathic characteristic inherent to the atheistic philosophy is born out empirically, in that people who do not believe in a soul tend to be more psychopathic than the majority of normal people in America who do believe in a soul. You can pick that psychopathic study of atheists around the 14:30 minute mark of this following video: Anthony Jack, Why Don’t Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUmmObUi8Fq9g1Zcuzqbt0_g&feature=player_detailpage&v=XRGWe-61zOk#t=862s The atheists worldview is simply insane: Is Metaphysical Naturalism (Atheism) Viable? – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQbornagain77
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
AB states, 'Please don’t insult our intelligence',,, but alas, your materialistic worldview demands that all is just molecules in motion. Thus 'Intelligence' must be, as with consciousness, merely an illusion in your scheme of things. Thus how is it possible to insult a hallucination your molecules are having? :)
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Physicalism and Reason - May 2013 Summary: So we find ourselves affirming two contradictory propositions: 1. Everything is governed by cause-and-effect. 2. Our brains can process and be changed by ground-consequent logical relationships. To achieve consistency, we must either deny that everything is governed by cause-and-effect, and open our worldviews to something beyond physicalism, or we must deny that our brains are influenced by ground-consequence reasoning, and abandon the idea that we are rational creatures. Ask yourself: are humans like falling dominoes, entirely subject to natural law, or may we stand up and walk in the direction that reason shows us? http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2012/09/physicalism-and-reason/ Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason? - On the terms of the New Atheists, the very concept of rationality becomes nonsensical - By R. Scott Smith, May 03, 2012 Excerpt: If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we'd be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we do know many things. So, naturalism & atheistic evolution by NS are false -- non-physical essences exist. But, what's their best explanation? Being non-physical, it can't be evolution by NS. Plus, we use our experiences, form concepts and beliefs, and even modify or reject them. Yet, if we're just physical beings, how could we interact with and use these non-physical things? Perhaps we have non-physical souls too. In all, it seems likely the best explanation for these non-physical things is that there exists a Creator after all. http://www.patheos.com/Evangelical/Atheists-Own-the-Market-on-Reason-Scott-Smith-05-04-2012?offset=1&max=1
bornagain77
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
HD: ". So if there is evidence for evolution, can we deduce that man also evolved? And if man did evolve, how far fetched would it be that chimps and man share the same genes? Why is this so controversial?" It's not. All rational and sane people accept the fact that humans are closely related to other apes (and we are apes). The evidence is not only overwhelming, it is conclusive.Acartia_bogart
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Ringo: " You do not know the difference between creationism and intelligent design?" There is no difference. One requires an intelligent creat called "god" and the other requires an intelligent creator called "god or some other name". Please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that there is a difference.Acartia_bogart
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
I am not a frequent commentator here, and I believe in God, but I want throw in my two cents regarding this comment: "One should never discard intuitions formed from experience, especially about vast claims. Chimpanzees are so obviously unlike humans – in any way that matters – that claimed huge similarities only cast doubt on genetic science." I do not believe experience is necessarily a good metric for what is false or true. We are often wrong on so many things based on intuition. Chimps and man is obviously different but nobody has claimed we are the same. We ARE different. But just because we are different - in the things that matter - says nothing regarding the genetic similarities. The whole evolution enterprise is not intuitive, but the evidence is overwhelming. So it's either we evolved or came out of nothing. Again, evolution is not intuitive to human beings, but its something we see has so much evidence behind it (and no, I am not arguing in favor or neo-darwinism). So if there is evidence for evolution, can we deduce that man also evolved? And if man did evolve, how far fetched would it be that chimps and man share the same genes? Why is this so controversial?HD
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
JLAfan2001 "If you are not a creationist then you must believe in darwinian evolution since that is the only science with evidence." There is one MAJOR problem with the above statement -- darwinian evolution doesn't fit the evidence that exists. What does one do with this itty bitty little fact.Moose Dr
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Oh, and I forgot to mention the abrupt appearance of information, animals and there novel body plans in the fossil record! Again, the biblical account takes less faith!ringo
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
JLA, are you kidding me? You do not know the difference between creationism and intelligent design? Just do a google search! Your molecules to man evolution has no creating power and could not possibly account for even the first cell. Your starting points for the origin of the universe and the origin of life are doomed from the start! Natural Selection acting on random mutations can explain the "survival of the fittest", but not the arrival of fittest!! The biblical account at least can give us an intelligent designer or a higher power that can account for the arrival of the fittest! So, if your starting points are flawed from the very beginning then I will go with the biblical account before Darwinism any day my friend!ringo
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
JLAfan2001, perhaps you can also explain the epistemological failure inherent in naturalism? Alvin Plantinga has now shown that assuming naturalism as the driving force of Darwinian evolution is an epistemologically self-defeating assumption: Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga – video https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL80CAECC36901BCEE “Refuting Naturalism by Citing our own Consciousness” Dr. Alvin Plantinga https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8 Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ List from Dr. Craig's video 1.) Argument from intentionality 1. If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything. 2. I am thinking about naturalism. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 3.) The argument from truth 1. If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences. 2. Premise (1) is true. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 4.) The argument from moral blame and praise 1. If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. 2. I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 5.) Argument from freedom 1. If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely. 2. I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1). 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 6.) The argument from purpose 1. If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything. 2. I (Dr. Craig) planned to come to tonight's debate. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 7.) The argument from enduring 1. If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. 2. I have been sitting here for more than a minute. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. 8.) The argument from personal existence 1. If naturalism is true, I do not exist. 2. I do exist! 3. Therefore naturalism is not true.bornagain77
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
JLAfan2001, since Atheism is so amicable to science and Christianity is so hostile towards it, perhaps you can explain to me why atheists are absent from the who's who lists of founders of modern science and Christians are at the base of each modern scientific discipline?
The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD - Tihomir Dimitrov - (pg. 222) http://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal Of 10 highest IQ's on earth, at least 8 are Theists, at least 6 are Christians - July 10, 2014 http://www.examiner.com/article/of-10-highest-iq-s-on-earth-at-least-8-are-theists-at-least-6-are-christians
Moreover, when the predictions of materialism/naturalism are compared side by side to the predictions of Theism, I'll take Theism any day!
God is not a “God of the gaps”, he is God of the whole show. John Lennox 1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin - (video) http://vimeo.com/34084462
bornagain77
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
The "humans are apes" is rooted in Victorian Era racism. Those Euro White guys believed the "savages" (Blacks) living in Africa were closer to apes than themselves. Darwin's influence has had a dreadful impact on humanity. Continues to this day.ppolish
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
The BLASTN analyses done in this paper were performed after stripping all N’s from the data set and sequence slicing the large contiguous sequence into optimized slice sizes – all done on a local server using optimized algorithm parameters. My data not only takes into account gaps, but sequences present in human and absent in chimp, and vice versa. Doing an amateur armchair analysis on the BLAST web server with default parameters never designed for a one-on-one large scale genomic regional comparison as noted in the comment above by aceofspades25 is bogus. Of course, if the paper was actually read in it’s entirety in regards to the above comments this would have been obvious. Also, as noted in several evolutionary papers, which I cited in my paper, the large scale comparison and major differences in structural variability surrounding the GULO regions between humans and great apes in the intronic areas has been noted before. Interesting that the misleading post by aceofspades25 did not make note of that. My paper was in fact accurate in all respects and true to previous findings published by evolutionist themselves. My work just hashed out and exposed what was already known, but never previously elaborated upon because it shows just another aspect of what a complete fraud the human evolution paradigm truly is. - Jeffrey Tomkins PhD Genetics https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/evolutionary-convergence-saves-creationist-hypothesis-over-gulo/#comment-500813 The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity between Humans and Chimps – Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. – May 2014 – video https://vimeo.com/95287522bornagain77
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
"And I am not a Creationist, but I do believe the Biblical account actually is more scientific than Darwinism!" If you are not a creationist then you must believe in darwinian evolution since that is the only science with evidence. That's interesting because in post # 75 it sounds like you don't believe in it. If you do then show me how evolution and the bible can be reconciled. In fact, show me where and how science supports genesis. A reminder, though, don't twist or allegorize the texts because anyone can plainly see the texts were meant to be read literally. The historical church read it that way until Darwin and Lyell proved it wrong. This is why Darwin gets a day named after him. He did what so many in history sought to do and failed. He killed god.JLAfan2001
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Ringo: "And I am not a Creationist," So, if you are not a creationist, what are you?Acartia_bogart
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
JLA, the only reason I brought up the very first line of Genesis is because I found it rather humorous that your whole challenge was debunked within the first few words of Genesis!! God has a sense of humor! And I am not a Creationist, but I do believe the Biblical account actually is more scientific than Darwinism! JLA try to be a little more open minded. You have been spending way too much time on TALK ORIGINS!ringo
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
ringo This is really funny. I know that alot of christian apologists, especially willie craig, love to point out that the universe had a beginning as validation for the bible. What you guys leave out is how the rest of the creation text is all wrong. The bible gets one thing right and it's the word of god. My broken alarm clock MUST be divine because it's right twice a day. That's one more than the bible. “The purportedly overwhelming DNA evidence for a fusion event involving two primate chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 does not exist, even without the aid of new analyses”. What creationist babble site did you get this tripe from?JLAfan2001
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Good points DRC! "The purportedly overwhelming DNA evidence for a fusion event involving two primate chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 does not exist, even without the aid of new analyses". And JLA, you need to look no further than the first few words in the book of Genesis to answer your challenge. I think it went something like, " their are many universes..." No wait that is not it, "The universe was all their ever was and all there ever will be..." Dang it wrong again (that was Carl Sagan) Hmm, ah yes, "In the beginning God...." "For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Robert Jastrow God and the Astronomersringo
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Aceofspades25 I would also like to propose a challenge. I believe JoeCoder has mentioned that you are a christian. My challenge to you and other christians here, after they fail your challenge, is to admit that the bible was wrong about our origins and can't be the word of god and therefore the christian god doesn't exist. I challenge christians to walk away from their faith after they realize we descended from ape like ancestors and were not special creations. Please answer this chalenge without having to distort, change or allegorize the genesis text like the clowns at BioLoonies do.JLAfan2001
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Ace: Go ahead and do them all. As long as you use a fair definition of "% similarity", the values will be less than 98%.* Start with Chromosome Y. Oh, wait, that's right - you cherry-picked out 10% of the chromosome data right from the start. So your 98% is already shot, even using your suspect comparison technique of completely ignoring entire sections. Here - we did some of the work for you: Chromosome comparisons *Make sure you use a method that would not state that a book containing the first and last chapters of "War & Peace" is 100% identical to the entire novel. Thanks.drc466
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Alright creationists, I would like to suggest a challenge: Pick 10 positions from the regions suggested below. For each of these 10 positions, make a prediction of how similar you think these sequences will be in Chimpanzees. For each of your chosen positions, I will personally go and retrieve 5000 nucleotides from either side. I will then take these 10 sets of 10,000 nucleotides and blast them against the chimpanzee genome to find the matching sequences and I will personally demonstrate a sequence similarity of about 98% Requests to compare regions around centromeres or defunct centromeres will be ignored since these are rich in Satellite DNA, meaning that multiple matches will likely be found. Here are the regions I invite you to choose positions from: Chromosome 1: 5 million - 240 million Chromosome 2: 5 million - 240 million Chromosome 3: 5 million - 190 million Chromosome 4: 5 million - 188 million Chromosome 5: 5 million - 170 million Chromosome 6: 5 million - 160 million Chromosome 7: 5 million - 150 million Chromosome 8: 5 million - 140 million Chromosome 9: 5 million - 130 million Chromosome 10: 5 million - 130 million Chromosome 11: 5 million - 130 million Chromosome 12: 5 million - 120 million Chromosome 13: 30 million - 110 million Chromosome 14: 20 million - 100 million Chromosome 15: 20 million - 100 million Chromosome 16: 5 million - 85 million Chromosome 17: 5 million - 80 million Chromosome 18: 5 million - 75 million Chromosome 19: 5 million - 55 million Chromosome 20: 5 million - 60 million Chromosome 21: 15 million - 45 million Chromosome 22: 20 million - 45 million Good luck with that.Aceofspades25
August 8, 2014
August
08
Aug
8
08
2014
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
At one point in my indoctrinated past, I remember my high school biology teacher and my World History teacher showing the "accent of man" illustration as if paleontologist had found complete fossils and hard data to confirm the accent from an ape like creature to modern humans. I had no idea that this illustration was born out of pure speculation. I had no knowledge of how weak the evidence for human evolution was at the time. But, I do not blame them! They were only teaching what they were taught. There is more than one way to interpret this shoddy incomplete fossil record.ringo
August 7, 2014
August
08
Aug
7
07
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
1.) Only 1% of DNA is 98% identical from human to chimp. And within that 98% there is suspiciously no consensus as we know that epigenetic variants create divergence. Ergo, our genomes are more like 0.0098% identical. Of course, genome doesn't play that big a role. Physical structure is dictated by overall "membranome" of which the entirety of DNA comprises but a relatively small component. Subsequently, after formation of the animal, there are all of the divergent ways in which one acts, reacts, thinks and expresses oneself. 2.) In the panoply of possibilities we are more like chimps than a stone; but even that is a certain perspective. I know personality types who share more characteristics in common with vegetation than animals. 3.) And last but not least, who cares? Genetic similarity tells us jack nothing. There is no meaningful disease study applicable to the good of humanity which uses any of the primates. That is, chimps are so unlike us that we can study no physical, emotional or social disease in them and learn anything worthwhile. We use mice and rats... And humans. Can this awful, tired and worthless meme please go away? We are not like any animal in any meaningful way.jw777
August 7, 2014
August
08
Aug
7
07
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
One can deny Design by using the "It's only the Appearance of Design" gambit. But an "It's only the Appearance of Information" would be silly right? Even an "appearance of information" would still be genuine information it would seem.ppolish
August 7, 2014
August
08
Aug
7
07
2014
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply