Here’s vid from the Ratio Christi Facebook page of Joshua Swamidass vs. Michael Behe. at the LIVE Veritas Forum 2020: God and/or Evolution.
It’s raw footage so you must scroll in a bit to get to the start. They seem to be getting themselves organized at maybe 17 min in.
Note: Forget the raw vid. Here’s the cleaned-up version (February 28, 2020):
Yup, and the evo regulars over on Peaceful Science are all lying about and choking on, bacterial flagella. They actually think that Nick Matzke solved it- he didn’t come close. Then Art Hunt jumps in with a HUGE strawman and acts as if he did something.
Evos are such a pathetic lot when confronted with the science and evidence
Can someone please explain Joshua’s “argument” that because mice and rats share a common ancestor then humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The reason provided is that chimps and humans are allegedly more genetically similar than rats are to mice.
Of course this ignores the basic fact that the body plans of rats and mice are very similar, whereas the body plans of chimps and humans have major differences. Rats and mice sharing a common ancestor is a great example microevolution and the limits phenotypic plasticity. How does that translate to from mice and rats to chimps and humans?
They get started at about an hour into this video.
What major differences do you mean?
Bob O’H:
All of them. Chimps are knuckle-walkers. Humans are upright bipeds. That alone is enough but there is more. Just to be an upright biped the spine inserts into the head at a different location. The musculature to allow for that has to change. The jaws are different- again, it’s the musculature. The feet are different. The eyes are different. And on and on…
ET @5
as to major differences, lets talk numbers:
here is a nice sum up of human/chimp genetic ‘similarity’
this is a mainstream science video (2,000,000 views)
(go to 1:42)
https://youtu.be/IbY122CSC5w?t=106
ET – those aren’t even differences to the body plan. It’s relatively minor modifications to it. Still the same muscles, the same bones, just a different size and shape. And even the sizes and shapes are similar, as compared to (say) mice.
Bob O’H:
Of course they are.
That is your unsupportable opinion
Actually, no.
Perhaps you should take a course on chimp and human anatomy.
What are the new muscles and bones?
Starting at the top- Chimps have 28 bones for the skull. Humans have 22.
@7 Bob O’Hara claims that
ET disagreed with Bob so at post 9 Bob O’Hara asks ET
To which ET responded
And indeed we find that Chimps have 28 bones for the skull. Humans have 22.
And in terms of facial muscles we find that Humans have fifty facial muscles,, and Chimps only have twenty-three facial muscles
Here are some more major anatomical differences between human and chimpanzees,
A more complete list of the differences can be found here:
In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, (since, surprisingly, pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are), actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:
Humorously, since the preceding article so badly upset the Darwinian narrative, many Darwinists reacted very strongly against Eugene McCarthy’s findings. Yet, Physorg published a subsequent article, (since the preceding article so badly upset many Darwinists), showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than many Darwinists had supposed it would be since “he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits.”
I wonder if Bob O’Hara, (since it directly contradicts the Darwinian narrative he wants to believe in), will ever honestly admit that pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are. My bet is that Bob will just ignore this piece of evidence as he does with every other piece of evidence that falsifies his Darwinian worldview.
Moreover, in the “Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes” paper. which I listed previously, the authors honestly admitted that “For the most part, we do not know which genetic features interact with the environment to generate these differences between the “phenomes”3 of our two species.”
And indeed phenotype is simply irreducible to genotype. More specifically, the biological form that any organism may take simply is not reducible to mutations in DNA as was presupposed within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution.
In fact, although Darwinists have a long history of falsely inflating the supposed genetic similarity between humans and chimps to be closer than what it actually is,
In fact, although Darwinists have a long history of falsely inflating the supposed genetic similarity between humans and chimps to be closer than what it actually is, the fact of the matter is that the genetic similarity between chimps and humans, as well as the genetic similarity between all the other animals and humans, presents an insurmountable problem for Darwinists. As James Le Fanu noted, “Contrary to all expectations, many DNA sequences involved in embryo development are remarkably similar across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimeter-long worm to ourselves.7 There is, in short, nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly should have six legs, a pair of wings, and a dot-sized brain and we should have two arms, two legs, and a mind capable of comprehending that overarching history of our universe.”
And as Ruth Williams noted, “A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
As should be needless to say, “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?” is not a minor question for evolutionary biologists to be asking themselves.
As Ruth Williams also touched upon in her preceding article, “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,”
And indeed we find that, “Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes, collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms”
And as the following article noted, “The humans included in the next cluster (p = 1.91 x 10^-30) are remarkably similar in expressed proteins among themselves and strikingly different from all other animals.”
It is also interesting to note that Alternative splicing patterns are part of the Gene Regulatory Network, and also that the Gene Regulatory Network is not “essentially deterministic” as was presupposed within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian thought,
In fact, besides Gene Regulatory Network not being “essentially deterministic”, as was presupposed in Darwinian thought, we now also have, due to advances in quantum biology, very good evidence for a causal Agent, acting outside of space-time itself, to be directly influencing embryological development:
In short, we now also have, due to advances in quantum biology, very good evidence for God forming each of us in our mother’s womb:
Supplemental note as to the misleading fossil record that Darwinists put forth:
Besides Human evolution, the other place that atheists try to attack the notion that we were created by God is with the Copernican principle. Yet, the Copernican principle has now also been overturned,
Verse:
Death by a thousand cuts can be more entertaining than a shotgun blast.
ET at 14:
Hate to be too picky with metaphors, but with the finding of “perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification” that, via alternative splicing, separate us from chimps, should not your metaphor be “death by a million cuts”?
No. I was just getting started with Bob. I was going to take it one step at a time to see how much back-peddling and juggling we would be subject to. And you just blasted him away. 😎
ManBearPig.
“you just blasted him away”
Oh, he’ll recover. Nothing that a band-aid won’t fix: 🙂
I’m disappointed that the video of Behe and Swamidass is inaudible. I was looking forward to hearing it.
As to the disingenuous nature in which Darwinists, for decades, falsely inflated the supposed genetic similarity between chimps and humans to 98.5%, the following article is insightful.
According to a Darwinist, who studied the methodology of how one of the original 98.5% Chimp-Human DNA similarity comparisons were derived, stated that the comparison “needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years”,,,
Humorously, even the guy behind the very questionable and misleading 98.5% figure, i.e. (Ahlquist), honestly admits that the “techniques used by phylogeneticists to make their ‘trees’ are laden with evolutionary assumptions. They simply assume that evolution is a fact and then stuff their data into their algorithms, which therefore will always produce an evolutionary result.”
In the following article a Darwinist honestly admitted that the 1% genetic similarity myth was basically a useful lie that “served us, (i.e. Darwinists), well”
And as mentioned previously, the actual genetic similarity between chimps and humans is far lower than 98.5% and in turning out to ‘probably’ be around 80% to 85%
And as also mentioned previously in post 12, even that 80% to 85% number is still not enough of a genetic difference to explain how the “physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
To drive this point home, dolphins, kangaroos, and even frogs, although being very different morphologically from humans, are found to have very similar DNA sequences.
And as was also mentioned previously in post 12, where differences are greatest between chimps and humans, (and between all other animals) are in alternative splicing patterns. In fact, due to alternative slicing, “Alternatively spliced isoforms,,, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,” and “As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms,,”
Thus, a very different picture emerges when we strip away the false Darwinian myth that humans are 98.5% similar to chimps and when we look at genetic data honestly. A very different picture in which species are radically demarcated from each other via vastly different alternative splicing patterns in which “Alternatively spliced isoforms,,, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,”
To say that these findings are unexpected under the reductive materialistic presumptions of Darwinists is a understatement. In fact, these findings provide yet another falsification of Darwinian presuppositions.
hnorman42 @19
i agree, the audio is terrible, i hope they will re-post the video soon …
Of related interest: