Evidence that Contradicts Common Descent

[WinAce]

This topic is for the bona-fide evidence that contradicts descent with modification.

Whether it's a horn atavism on a human, a hair atavism on a fish, a pseudogene broken in a different way in chimps than humans and monkeys, a phylogeny of viral insertions that drastically contradicts those based on anatomy and other features, a mammalian species with a squid eye, a fossil transitional between apes and elephants, a bird species that has vestigial nipples, or really pretty much anything that would falsify shared ancestry, let's have it here.

Squabbling over the effectiveness of random mutations and natural selection as the driving mechanism of evolution should be left to a different thread, as this topic is about evidence that contradicts shared ancestry only.

[QED]

a pseudogene broken in a different way in chimps than humans

... would not falsify chimp/human common ancestry. One broken the same way in old world monkeys, and humans, but left intact in chimps would go a lot further toward the cause.

Actually, almost any gene or group that is homologous between two species, but not found in a third species that should have diverged after the first two groups did would be a data point that would point away from evolution. After deletion rates are considered, if there are significantly more of these "randomly" spaced homologies than would be expected from the deletion rate and any relevant selective pressure that would eliminate individuals with such a deletion, then we would have good evidence against that phylogeny -- and if it was a phylogeny as well established as the human/chimp one, then there would be good reason to question our whole understanding of common descent.

[WinAce]

Today @ 05:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77825#post77825)
QED:

... would not falsify chimp/human common ancestry. One broken the same way in old world monkeys, and humans, but left intact in chimps would go a lot further toward the cause.

I went a step further by saying a "... broken in a different way in chimps than humans and monkeys". If our vitamin C gene was broken with a three-nucleotide deletion and was identical to that of monkeys, but chimps had it broken with a frame shift, that would be quite damaging... wouldn't you agree?

[QED]

Yesterday @ 11:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77833#post77833)
WinAce:



I went a step further by saying a "... broken in a different way in chimps than humans and monkeys". If our vitamin C gene was broken with a three-nucleotide deletion and was identical to that of monkeys, but chimps had it broken with a frame shift, that would be quite damaging... wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely. And more so if the chimp's were intact (since once broken, mutations accumulate independently, and we might see a later frame-shift hiding an earlier deletion). But the real reason I posted was that I read your post too quickly, and was under the impression that your example was a pseudogene broken differently in humans and chimps, without qualification that it was a pseudogene shared with monkeys. Re-reading now, I realize I was mistaken and your example is relevant.

[Dr.GH]

I predict that this thread will disapear. But, I promise to bump it when I am around.

Good list.

[WinAce]

Darn! No evidence contradicting evolution was presented yet. Or maybe the creationists were all on vacation. Anyway, let's try it again.

[Bald Ape]

But... but... but pseudo genes have functions! According to AiG, that refutes your argument, doesn't it?

(translation: creative bump)

[Woman]

Bumpety

[Socrates]

Indeed, much "junk DNA" DOES have important functions, as shown in the articles under www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/vestigialorgans.asp That's why I don't take any such arguments serious, any more than the crazy "vestigial organs" argument should be treated with anything but contempt. Once, evolutionists argued that over 80 human organs were vestigial, and by the "reasoning" here, Christians should have capitulated. But now we know that the list is practically non-existent, because of the important functions discovered for these organs.

And to return to the thread, there are plenty of features that are contrary to what is predicted by common ancestry evolution, but they are explained away as convergent evolution. For example, an antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:11,804).

[tgamble]

Today @ 11:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79961#post79961)
Socrates:

Indeed, much "junk DNA" DOES have important functions, as shown in the articles under www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/vestigialorgans.asp
[QUOTE]

Lots of misinformation there, nothing that refutes common descent or the fact that junk DNA provides evidence for common descent.

[QUOTE]And to return to the thread, there are plenty of features that are contrary to what is predicted by common ancestry evolution, but they are explained away as convergent evolution. For example, an antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:11,804).

Says who? Certainly not any scientist.

Here's the proper citation. one would think that someone who claims to be a scientist would know how to properly cite a scientific paper!

Roux KH, Greenberg AS, Greene L, Strelets L, Avila D, McKinney EC, Flajnik MF. Structural analysis of the nurse shark (new) antigen receptor (NAR): molecular convergence of NAR and unusual mammalian immunoglobulins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Sep 29;95(20):11804-9.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9751746&dopt=Abstract


Structural analysis of the nurse shark (new) antigen receptor (NAR): Molecular convergence of NAR and unusual mammalian immunoglobulins

Kenneth H. Roux, Andrew S. Greenberg, Lesley Greene, Lioudmila Strelets*, David Avila§, E. Churchill McKinney, and Martin F. Flajnik

_ABSTRACT
We recently have identified an antigen receptor in sharks called NAR (new or nurse shark antigen receptor) that is secreted by splenocytes but does not associate with Ig light (L) chains. The NAR variable (V) region undergoes high levels of somatic mutation and is equally divergent from both Ig and T cell receptors (TCR). Here we show by electron microscopy that NAR V regions, unlike those of conventional Ig and TCR, do not form dimers but rather are independent, flexible domains. This unusual feature is analogous to bona fide camelid IgG in which modifications of Ig heavy chain V (VH) sequences prevent dimer formation with L chains. NAR also displays a uniquely flexible constant (C) region. Sequence analysis and modeling show that there are only two types of expressed NAR genes, each having different combinations of noncanonical cysteine (Cys) residues in the V domains that likely form disulfide bonds to stabilize the single antigen-recognition unit. In one NAR class, rearrangement events result in mature genes encoding an even number of Cys (two or four) in complementarity-determining region 3_(CDR3), which is analogous to Cys codon expression in an unusual human diversity (D) segment family. The NAR CDR3 Cys generally are encoded by preferred reading frames of rearranging D segments, providing a clear design for use of preferred reading frame in antigen receptor D regions. These unusual characteristics shared by NAR and unconventional mammalian Ig are most likely the result of convergent evolution at the molecular level.

"The gist of the story is that, unlike the typical antigen receptor which consists of heavy and light chains, they have found that nurse sharks express an antigen receptor that consists of only the heavy chain. Something similar has been seen in camels and llamas, where "two of their three IgG subclasses contain no L chains and the unassociated VH domains interact with antigen as monomers". So, basically, we have a case where certain animals use a monomer rather than a dimer -- something that isn't too hard to imagine happening independently in evolution.

The real kicker, though, and evidence that that fraud Socrates never read the paper, is this bit from the conclusion:"
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52168


There is every reason to believe that the camelid V regions represent bona fide mammalian VH that recently have been modified to form monomers as they have up to 75% amino acid identity with other mammalian V regions. Can the same be said for the NAR V domain? Of the various unique characteristics of NAR, two stand out. First, the overall NAR V sequence is not at all similar to conventional IgVH (25% identity) and is only somewhat more similar to VL and TCR V (3), suggesting that NAR must have diverged from Ig/TCR long ago. The origin of the second characteristic, the unpaired V domain, is less obvious. It may have been an early trait that coevolved with or perhaps influenced the overall uniqueness of the NAR V domain sequence. By this view, the unpaired V domain may represent a primordial relic that has been superseded largely by the more efficient two-domain, antigen-binding motifs.

"They know the sequence. The camel monomer has a sequence that is very similar to that of mammals in general, suggesting a recent divergence. The nurse shark monomer is very, very different in sequence, suggesting a much more ancient divergence."

We're still waiting for evidence that contradicts common descent. Actual scientific evidence, not AIG propaganda.

[ardipithecus]

Today @ 11:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79961#post79961)
Socrates:

[snip]
And to return to the thread, there are plenty of features that are contrary to what is predicted by common ancestry evolution, but they are explained away as convergent evolution. For example, an antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:11,804).

This claim is debunked here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52168)

Socrates did you read what you cited? If you did not you should have cited your true source. Remember that a citation is an outright claim that you have directly consulted the cited sources unless it is clearly maked as a secondary citation (i.e. [some source] cited by [some other source]).

[geochron]

Today @ 04:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80046#post80046)
ardipithecus:



This claim is debunked here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52168)

Socrates did you read what you cited? If you did not you should have cited your true source. Remember that a citation is an outright claim that you have directly consulted the cited sources unless it is clearly maked as a secondary citation (i.e. [some source] cited by [some other source]).

He posted enough for his claim to be assessed - this is an internet forum, not a journal. Of course you can draw your own conclusions about how reliable future citations are, but I'm not aware of any such rule on this forum.

I post this in self defence - I spend my professional life complying with these rules, this is part of my outside existence and I welcome the chance to discuss without complying with full academic requirements.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80046#post80046)
ardipithecus:
This claim is debunked here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52168)

Socrates did you read what you cited? If you did not you should have cited your true source. Remember that a citation is an outright claim that you have directly consulted the cited sources unless it is clearly maked as a secondary citation (i.e. [some source] cited by [some other source]). (Wishing someone told Jimmy Higgins about this when he wrote his history paper on the Socialist Democratic Party in the very late 1800's to early 1900's) Granted, I did say that I did get those from the one book I took alot of stuff from.

Geochron: You'd think a "scientist" would know how to cite other people's work, especially if he's done some published work. We don't expect 100% professional quoting, however, that is in cases where misquotes aren't involved!

[djnoz]

:rofl:

I enjoy reading these arguments. I've been reading this thread... and in response to the challenge by WinAce all I have seen (out of the few responses that were made) is YECs trying to explain away evidence that (by popular scientific opinion) points towards evolution. Come on guys, take the offensive!

[Bald Ape]

(EDITTED to fix typo - changing word descent to design where noted).

Let me get this straight. Evolution predicts that certain structures, macroscopic or microscopic, will evolve independently. This makes sense: if camels can evolve a certain type of antigen receptor, there is certainly no logic that would preclude sharks from being able to evolve a similar antigen receptor (one can envision how humorous it would be to think otherwise: a shark says "I think I'll evolve a antigen receptor with qualities A, B, and C... oops, wait, nevermind - I didn't realize camels already had it).

But is convergent evolution complete ad hoc, with no associated predictive power? No. It has predictive ability that even a layman can use to make accurate predictions about things not yet observed:

Statistically, it is virtually impossible that the series of mutations that led to the evolution of the antigen receptor in camels would be matched exactly - or even closely - by the series of mustations that led it's evolution in sharks, if it did indeed evolve independently. Thus, even though we might see antigen-receptors in sharks and camels which share many characteristics, we absolutely do not expect to see the same (or even very similar) gene sequences used to generate these receptors. In fact, based on the theory that the two structures evolved independently (that is, the theory of convergent evolution), we predict with near certainty that the gene sequences coding for the receptors will be vastly different from each other in many fundamental ways.

An identical or near-identical genetic sequence responsible for both the shark receptor and camel receptor would imply either a very recent ancestor - or a common designer. No existing theory of common descent posits a recent ancestor between camels and sharks, thus a matching sequence of genes responsible for both the shark and camel antigen receptors would be grounds for rejecting all existing common descent theories.

Reworded: the theory of evolution specifically precludes near-identical gene sequences for the shark and camel antigen receptors. The "theory" of common [EDITTED to change 'descent' to 'design - oops!] design, at best, can only provide an ad hoc explanation that is valid either way (identical gene sequences = same designer; different gene sequences = mysterious designer), and thus utterly useless in the realm of science.

This is what I try to drive home time and time again: the theory of evolution has such amazing predictive power! I have never seen the sequence of genes responsible for the shark and camel antigen, but in some MIRACULOUS way, I KNOW these sequences will not match, even though they encode for things with many similar characteristics. Where does this predictive power come from? How can I know this?

[RufusAtticus]

A link to the article:

Roux et al. (1998). PNAS 95 (20) : 11804 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/20/11804)

[ardipithecus]

Today @ 05:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80059#post80059)
geochron:



He posted enough for his claim to be assessed - this is an internet forum, not a journal. Of course you can draw your own conclusions about how reliable future citations are, but I'm not aware of any such rule on this forum.

I post this in self defence - I spend my professional life complying with these rules, this is part of my outside existence and I welcome the chance to discuss without complying with full academic requirements.

I never claimed that having correct citations is a forum rule. :-)

The requirement that one's citation actually be the source used is not just a requirement for academia, it is a requirement for basic honesty. Clearly full academic requirements don't apply in a forum.

[Dr.GH]

I would most clearly request that proper citations be provided, and most importantly in the case of quoted material. There is a very well know pratice of "quote mining" without proper citation, and reposting other documents without citation (cut-N'-paste). This is basic intellectual dishonesty. The link below is for anyone not familiar with this rhetorical practise:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/#s4

When one is presenting personal opinion, or one's original research, citation is not needed. But too often we see in these discussions the misuse of documents, such as relying on secondary sources while pretending that the originals have be considered.

[Socrates]

But that's the whole point -- evolutionists have plenty of excuses to explain things when the similarities do NOT match recent common ancestry, e.g. lateral transfer, rapid mutations and convergence. Fact is, if any of the features that the non-scientist winace was discovered, evolutionists would think of some fantastic evolutionary explanation.

And even if they did not, they are so committed to materialism (as is the bigot winace) that they would certainly not give it up to become creationists. The more honest ones admit that there are plenty of unsolved problems with the GTE, e.g. chemical evolution, but they still hold to their paradigm.

BTW, as Geochron said, when writing for a proper journal as opposed to an Internet forum, I know full well about fuller citations. As a published author, I don't need advice from the Talk.Origins bozos.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 06:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80334#post80334)
Socrates:

But that's the whole point -- evolutionists have plenty of excuses to explain things when the similarities do NOT match recent common ancestry, e.g. lateral transfer, rapid mutations and convergence. Fact is, if any of the features that the non-scientist winace was discovered, evolutionists would think of some fantastic evolutionary explanation.


Let's see. If you had read the paper that you cited as evidence against evolution, you'd learned that camelid V regions are known to be mammalian because of their sequence similarity to other mammalian V regions. You would have also learned that NAR V regions are not at all similar to the mammalian ones. Roux and collegues found sequence similarities that we expected from common descent, despite your claims that it was an example of something "contrary to what is predicted by common ancestry evolution."

A link to their figure 2 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/20/11804/F2)


Fig. 2. NAR Type I and Type II protein V region sequences compared with each other and with human and camel V. . . . Note the following: (i) presence of evolutionarily conserved or invariant residues in NAR FR regions; (ii) poor conservation of residues that interact between Ig H/L chains (double-underlined in NAR, camel, and human; see ref. 13); (iii) the very short CDR2 of NAR (shown on model in Fig. 4c); (iv) high similarity of the two NAR classes to one another on one hand and of the human to the camel on the other; (v) low identity between NAR and the mammalian sequences; (vi) the unusual Cys residues (bold and shadowed) found in FR2 (C-35), FR4 (C-107), and CDR3 of Type I NAR, and in CDR1 and CDR3 of Type II NAR and the camel sequence; and (vii) the unusual glycine residue found at the end of NAR Type I FR3 (G-84, bold and double-underlined; see Figs. 3c and 4e).

[RufusAtticus]

Googling for Socrates' weird attribution, I found where it was lifed from: This AiG article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n2_icons_review.asp).

Note 11 reads "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:11804; cited in ‘The odd couple’, New Scientist 160(2154):23, 1998."

Note how the first part is identical to one offered by Socates, down to the usage of bold text.

An interesting thing is that Truman, the author of the AiG artical didn't read the Roux et al (1998) paper either. Instead he read about it in a secondary source, at least he understood enough about good citations to point that out. But here we have Socrates, working off a third hand report about what the results of a paper say, and referecing it like he read the original.
:whack:

[Butters]

Next time Rufus, save yourself some time and go straight to AIG, that's the only place he gets his info!

[WinAce]

Hello? I'm still waiting for some evidence that contradicts common descent. Where are those minotaur fossils or +monkey/human -chimp pseudogenes?

[ardipithecus]

Today @ 07:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82136#post82136)
WinAce:

Hello? I'm still waiting for some evidence that contradicts common descent. Where are those minotaur fossils or +monkey/human -chimp pseudogenes?

Make that +monkey/human -chimp -gorilla -orang -gibbon pseudogenes since it is possible that the chimps could loose a pseudogene since the common ancestor. But it being independently lost by the other great apes is incredibly unlikely. Alternatively having multiple +monkey/human -chimp pseudogenes (that are not next to each other in a chromosome and requiring independent deletions) would do.

Of course half-x half-y creatures would as you mention do it.

[WinAce]

Today @ 05:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82338#post82338)
ardipithecus:

Make that +monkey/human -chimp -gorilla -orang -gibbon pseudogenes since it is possible that the chimps could loose a pseudogene since the common ancestor.

I meant chimps having a functional copy of a gene broken identically in humans and monkeys. Pseudogenes rapidly deteriorate after they're made from normal genes, so you'd need the gene to spontaneously fix (?!) itself and establish itself in the entire chimp population for that.

[ardipithecus]

Yesterday @ 10:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82367#post82367)
WinAce:



I meant chimps having a functional copy of a gene broken identically in humans and monkeys. Pseudogenes rapidly deteriorate after they're made from normal genes, so you'd need the gene to spontaneously fix (?!) itself and establish itself in the entire chimp population for that.


Yes that would do it. :-)

Do specify that the functional copy is located at the same place that the broken copies are in the humans and monkeys. But I am sure you meant that.

[RufusAtticus]

bumpity

[wienerdog]

I'm not a scientist, so this is way open to correction. But...

Evidence against common ancestry:

1. The Cambrian Explosion. Within two or three million years you have all or nearly all of the animal phyla (over 70) beginning to exist, including jawless vertebrates. This is too short of a time for evolutionary processes to produce such diversity.

2. The fossil record. The primary characteristics of which are stasis and sudden appearance. Intermediate species are (pardon the pun) few and far between. This doesn't refute evolution, but on its face it doesn't support the idea of gradual change over time.

3. Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA studies. Analyzing non-recombinant sequences trace all women to a common ancestor within 200,000 years, and all men to a common ancestor within 50,000 years. This last figure rules out human descendence from nearly all hominids.

As I say, I'm no scientist, so I'm suggesting these very tentatively.

[QED]

wd,

I hope you will read these two pieces from the ASA about the Cambrian "explosion". They deal specifically with your first point but have a lot of good information about your second as well.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Miller2.html#Keith%20B.%20Miller*

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Morton.html#Evolution____

I think your third point has an unjustified conclusion. For one, humans don't descend from all hominids. Humans descend from a lineage that could theoretically be traced through several hominid species.

To bring mitochondrial eve (I'll leave out Y-chromosome Adam for pracitical purposes, because the explanation is the same) - to bring her to the twenty first century, all it means is this:

Your great-great grandmother has 50 living descendants today & in 200 years may have 1000 living descendants. Now if there is a massive extinction event and only 500 people survive - and if 450 of them are your g-great-grandma's descendants, then her mitochondrial DNA will be everywhere. If the other five people have bad luck (or bad genes - or happen to be male), then there is every chance that two or three generations down the road, only your g-g-grandma's descendants will be around. She will be the new mitochondrial Eve. That doesn't mean that those future humans have no ancestral history prior to your g-g-grandmother, though. Your g-g-grandmother has plenty of ancestral history, and carries genes that represent a decent chunch of the genome of H. sapiens.

Such a scenario is hard to imagine now, but in the distant past, when humans had already come to the dominance we enjoy now - when they lived in small and isolated tribes that were subject to destruction by famine, plague, or war.... over the course of a couple million years such a scenario doesn't seem so unlikely.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 01:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87012#post87012)
wienerdog:
3. Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA studies. Analyzing non-recombinant sequences trace all women to a common ancestor within 200,000 years, and all men to a common ancestor within 50,000 years. This last figure rules out human descendence from nearly all hominids.

You've misunderstood Y-chromosome and mitochondrial coalescence. What you've said is a common misunderstanding, even among biologists. Coalescence does not imply that we only have one ancestor at that point in time. It's hard to explain coalescence with out a blackboard, but I'll try.

Let's say we start out with a population of 6 individuals (12 genes). Now when they reproduce to form the next generation, by chance some of these 12 genes might not be passed on. So in the next generation of the original 12 genes, only 10 or 11 remain. The population reproduces again and more genes are lost, say only 9 of the original genese remain. This will continue until only one of the original 12 genes are left. Here are the results of an example I wrote in Excel. Each line is a generation, and each cell represents a gene. As you can see, only the "1" gene, or rather its descendents, remains in the population after thirty or so generations.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3 2 11 5 1 12 12 5 10 1 1 9
3 1 1 11 1 3 1 1 10 10 12 2
1 11 10 1 1 12 1 10 11 1 10 10
11 11 11 11 1 10 1 10 10 10 11 10
11 10 11 1 10 11 1 11 11 10 11 11
11 1 11 10 10 10 11 11 10 1 11 11
11 10 1 1 10 11 1 11 1 1 10 11
1 10 10 1 10 11 1 11 11 1 1 10
11 1 11 1 11 1 10 10 1 1 11 11
1 11 11 10 11 11 10 1 10 10 1 1
1 11 10 11 11 1 11 1 10 10 10 10
11 11 10 11 10 1 10 1 1 11 1 10
11 10 11 11 11 1 1 11 1 10 11 10
10 11 10 10 11 11 11 11 10 1 1 11
1 10 1 10 10 11 10 11 11 10 11 11
10 11 10 10 1 11 1 11 10 10 11 11
11 11 11 10 11 11 1 1 10 10 11 10
11 11 10 10 10 1 1 10 10 1 10 1
11 10 1 11 10 1 10 10 11 10 1 11
10 1 10 10 11 1 10 1 10 1 11 11
11 10 10 1 10 10 1 11 1 11 10 10
10 10 1 1 10 11 1 11 10 11 11 10
1 1 10 11 10 1 1 10 10 10 10 10
1 10 1 10 10 10 1 10 10 1 1 10
1 10 10 1 1 10 10 1 10 1 1 10
1 10 1 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 10
10 10 1 10 1 1 10 10 1 1 1 10
10 10 1 1 10 10 1 10 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


Now if this happens when going forward in time, it also happens going backwards. In other words, those twelve genes coalesce at some point in the past and share a common ancestral gene. This is what Mt-Eve and Y-Adam represent, the hypothetical ancestors who "won" the coalescence race, with respect to mitochondrial and the Y-chromosome.

[wienerdog]

Thanks, guys. I will check out those articles QED, and I'll try to pull my head out of my *** and get back to our debate on the Big Bang someday.

[biter]

04-27-2003 @ 11:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80334#post80334)
Socrates:
As a published author, I don't need advice from the Talk.Origins bozos.

I had read in another thread that one of the moderators believes that Socrates provides evidence for his disparaging comments, so they are not out of bounds.

I am curious - what is the evidence presented by Socrates that Talk.Origins participants are "bozos"?

[tgamble]

Today @ 02:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91898#post91898)
biter:
I am curious - what is the evidence presented by Socrates that Talk.Origins participants are "bozos"?

T.O is a good resource for refuteing YEC nonsense. Because they do such a good job, Socrates hates them. He can't refute them so he just insults em.

[WinAce]

Subjective value judgements based on their assessed threat level to his worldview.

[SlaveOfGod]

Evidence that contradicts common descent... Swallow this evilutionists:

1) Though I can't post a picture to prove it... my grandfather was neither a monkey nor an ape, in fact I asked him, and his grandfather wasn't a monkey or an ape either and I'm opretty sure my grandad's grandad, grandad wasn't as well... so if we are descendents from apes how cme none of my ancestors are monkeys?

2)If we evolved from lower life forms and are still evolving, how come we still have fags and homos, since according to the Lord's word, they are lower creatures... shouldn't we evolve into greater creatures?

3)I check everyday, and I have never grown wings, or horns, or another pair of legs or anything... so this is direct proof that we don't evolve...

4)FInally and mpost importantly, the Bible says that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor, so we obviously didn't...

I won't be waiting for a refutation any time soon, I guess invoking the devil to give you 'answers' to these, must be pretty time consuming...

[Dee Dee Warren]

SlaveofGod, I find it difficult to take your posts seriously and find them to be unnecessarily disruptive to, and out of touch with this thread. If you wish, please start your own thread that will set your own tone, and those who wish to participate may.

[Socratism]

Slave of God is apparently a troll, if I understand the meaning of the term correctly.