Question About Creationists

[Godscreated]

First of all I made no response to Min, you have fabricated a response that is not true, so who's lowering the bar on stupidity.
Now to get this straight, one of the early responses to the pic of the coyote, was to call it wolf, then others started accepting what was said, all I have done was to point out that you city people, can't tell the difference between a coyote and a wolf. If your scientific identification of animals is no better than that, then why should I pay attention to anything you say.

Why the fuck did you quote me? Lol, I was making an aside about a cool thing I learned about dogs, wtf?

And also, I grew up on the grounds of a prison 20 minutes out of anything resembling a town. Don't assume things.

You're the one who brought it up in post #67.

[Welsh cake]

Now to get this straight, one of the early responses to the pic of the coyote, was to call it wolf, then others started accepting what was said, all I have done was to point out that you city people, can't tell the difference between a coyote and a wolf.

Have you even bothered to read my response to that yet?

[Minimalist]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32976657/ns/...7qIOcVek0U

New DNA evidence reveals that coyotes have bred with wolves in the the northeastern United States, turning mice-eating coyotes into much larger animals with a hunger for big prey, such as deer.

Coyotes and wolves are so genetically close that they can breed fertile offspring, G-C.

Nature is so much more magnificent than your sterile fucking god.

[Godscreated]

Wrong!

Hmm, I think we're both wrong, its usually impossible to distinguish between a Coyote – Red Wolf hybrid and a Red Wolf just by looking at it.

You must be a city boy, that is a coyote, we hunt them around here all the time, we use to have Red wolves around here and their appearance is different than a coyote.

[libalchris]

Why the fuck are we arguing over whether it's a wolf or coyote? Coyotes and wolfs are very closely related, and dogs descended from wolves. (It does appear to me to be a coyote btw)

The point is that creationists will agree that the two bottom share a common ancestry, but that the two on the top definitely did not.

[Annik]

Why the fuck did you quote me? Lol, I was making an aside about a cool thing I learned about dogs, wtf?

And also, I grew up on the grounds of a prison 20 minutes out of anything resembling a town. :) Don't assume things.

You're the one who brought it up in post #67.

I didn't bring shit up with you. I quoted Min and you swooped in randomly.

[Abishalom]

Let me be more specific. First of all, I would like to mention that the fact that all life using the same 4 nucleotides is evidence for common descent, considering there are many more could be used. Along with that, all life uses the same 20 amino acids, when there are also many many more that could have been used, providing very strong support of evolution.

I do not believe the argument was about whether there was a creator/designer or what not. But since you mention it...how many amino acids do you suppose were needed for God to create everything? Apparently the 23 we know of were sufficient enough to do the job...

Now, the similarities in the chromosomes has to do with the proteins and where they are found on the genome. In this case, when we look at the human genome vs the chimpanzee genome, based on the correspondence of different proteins in different locations on different chromosomes, we can show that each human chromosome corresponds to 1 chimpanzee chromosome (because they have the same, or similar, genes coding for the same things at the same location on the protein.

Are you aware that proteins only make up less than 1% of the total human genome? Oh and not to mention there are over 3 billion base pairs. So essentially, only 1% of these 3 billion+ base pairs represent protein coding. This means that 99% of the human genome function is noncoding DNA (meaning it doesn't code proteins). If you consider that fact that we only know about 2% of the genome's function and that half of that (1%) is protein coding, then we do not know 99% of the noncoding function. Why is this significant? Scientists making the claims of common descent on the basis of "protein coding similarities" are doing so with only 1% of the 3 billion+ base pairs of the genome and a vast amount of unknown function.

Again, in summary, each human chromsome can be found to correspond to a chimp chromosome. Now we find that one of our chromosomes (chromosome 2) has fused, when we "take apart" this chromosome we find that each of the pieces corresponds to the pairs of chimp chromosomes we were missing.

I'm sure I'm not very good at explaining this, so let me show you a diagram of chimp and human chromosomes

Well I do believe your explanation is lacking...What chimp chromosomes were we "missing"? All you've done is discuss how proteins in the human genome correspond to ape protein sequence in their genome. But proteins only make up 1% of the genome...what about the other 99%. Keep in mind there are over 3 billion base pairs in the human genome...

---

---

the left ones are humans and the right ones are chimps. You can see how similar they are, and how each human chromosme has a corresponding chimp chromosme. You see how we can tell that the 2 parts of the human corresponds to the 2 separate chimp chromosomes.

This is just a drawing of the chromosomes. Where is the sequence of the over 3 billion base pairs compared next to ape DNA?

Let me emphasize real quick that this need not be the case. If there were a creator he easily could have made the chromosomes in such a way that would render common descent impossible. For example if chromosome 2 existed not as the result of a fusion (ie if we found no extra centromeres and telomeres) then common descent would be destroyed.

Again the claim was not about a creator it was about the human/ape evolution claim on the basis of "DNA similarities"...

Besides you still haven't answered my questions about the processes that followed said fusion event (see post #65)

[libalchris]

I do not believe the argument was about whether there was a creator/designer or what not. But since you mention it...how many amino acids do you suppose were needed for God to create everything? Apparently the 23 we know of were sufficient enough to do the job...

He probably could have used fewer as well. Using more amino acids would have allowed for more diversity in life, preventing inters-species viral infection. All life shares the same metabolic pathways. Even with only 20 amino acids though, diversity is still a problem. There are enough different possible genetic codes – all functionally equivalent and all using the same amino acids—for every species that has ever lived to have its own unique code. If there were no common ancestor from whom all life inherited this code it would make sense to expect a wide variety of codes. This would protect each species from inter-species viral infections.

Are you aware that proteins only make up 1% of the total human genome? Oh and not to mention there are over 3 billion base pairs. So essentially, only 1% of these 3 billion+ base pairs represent protein coding. This means that 99% of the human genome function is noncoding DNA (meaning it doesn't code proteins). If you consider that fact that we only know about 2% of the genome's function and that half of that (1%) is protein coding, then we do not know 99% of the noncoding function. Why is this significant? Scientists making the claims of common descent on the basis of "protein coding similarities" are doing so with only 1% of the 3 billion+ base pairs of the genome and a vast amount of unknown function.

I'll say this again, you don't have to know what DNA does to see similarities. You simply have to look at the fact that the base pairs match up

Well I do believe your explanation is lacking...What chimp chromosomes were we "missing"? All you've done is discuss how proteins in the human genome correspond to ape protein sequence in their genome. But proteins only make up 1% of the genome...what about the other 99%. Keep in mind there are over 3 billion base pairs in the human genome...

see previous reply. You can see that the base pairs match up, without knowing what they do.

Is this a representation of the 3 billion base pairs located in these chromosomes? Probably not...

Yes, this is the actual diagram of human and chimp chromosomes, representing the whole of the DNA, not just the proteins.

Again the claim was not about a creator etc. So this is a moot point...

You still haven't answered my questions about the processes that follwed said fusion event (see post #65)

Alright, forget the creator. The point is that that need not be the case, and only makes sense in the light of common descent.

As to your questions about the processes, you're making a ridiculous request. The change from chimp-like ancestor to human was very gradual, and it was a number of many many different mutations over a long period of time that caused these changes. It would be absolutely impossible to nail down every change. The best that can be done is, through the fossil record, determine the overall changes that occurred over time.

[popeyespappy]

Do you understand don’t you Abishalom that even though we don’t know the function of most of that noncoding DNA it is still very similar between closely related species? For example most of the differences in the DNA of humans and chimps are in the noncoding genes not the coding genes.

Do you understand that the reason you don’t have a tail lies not in coding genes but in the noncoding genes? It is because noncoding regions control how the coding genes are activated and read.

[Abishalom]

Do you understand don’t you Abishalom that even though we don’t know the function of most of that noncoding DNA it is still very similar between closely related species? For example most of the differences in the DNA of humans and chimps are in the noncoding genes not the coding genes.

Similarities of noncoding DNA or protein coding DNA? If it's the former then we do need to know the function seeing the 99% of noncoding DNA function is unknown. If it's the latter, well that only makes up 1% of the 3+ billion base pairs so it is not an accurate representation of the whole genome (yet scientist still base said claim on it).

Do you understand that the reason you don’t have a tail lies not in coding genes but in the noncoding genes? It is because noncoding regions control how the coding genes are activated and read.

I actually am aware of that. Are you aware that 99% of the noncoding DNA function is unknown? So good luck trying to pinpoint which sequence controls tail function (or lack thereof). Which is my point. If you are going to prove humans evolved from an ape (or that humans are apes) you are going to have to crack that region and compare the known function to come to an accurate conclusion. It seems like scientist are just dragging their feet in the mud or just plain ignoring it.