How old is the earth?

[CrowCross]

That is Funny! As I said evolution is my favorite joke.
There is an article posted on the Mitochondrial Eve Thread.
It notes that Chimps are not 1% genetically different from Man.
Chimps are 15% genetically different from Man
According to the Theory, chimps and Men evolved from a common ancestor 7 million years
1% mutation difference between humans and apes =35 million mutation @ 7 million years
15% = 525 million mutation @ 7million years
OK, so we have 535 million mutations, not 35 million.

The evolutionist can either
change the rate
535 million divided by 7 million = mutation rate per yr = 76 mutations for year (1% = 5 mutations per year)
OR
increase the time
15 x 7 million
1% would take 7 million yrs
15% would take 105 million yrs

Yes, there seems to be an issue with time.

A second problem occurs when one realizes a second, third and so on RANDOM mutation must occur in a fashion that it builds upon a previous mutation in a way that it enhances the fitness of the "evolving" man.

 

[CrowCross]

This post displays a misunderstanding of the issues, especially as this is not an either–or thing (i.e., a 1% difference and a 15% difference are BOTH true). It all comes down to what is being examined. If you examine this here, it's a 1% difference. If you examine that there, it's a 15% difference. Anti-evolutionists conflate the two (fallacious category error) and pretend there is a conflict.

Yes, it does depend on how the differences are examined. The evo's have flown the 1% flag up the flag pole for a long time...and many bought into that misrepresentation. It has been so misrepresented that it has become ingrained in the minds of the students force fed the error that it is now hard to overcome the error with the actual truth.

 

[QVQ]

Off Topic Deleted QVQ

 

[John Bauer]

I studied Lemaitre a bit a couple years ago and I remember well..... "It was Lemaître's firm belief that scientific endeavour should stand isolated from the religious realm. With specific regard to his Big Bang theory, he commented: 'As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question.'

Albeit he was a Catholic Priest... and Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. ...

I am reminded of something Denis R. Alexander pointed out in his book, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?, 2nd ed. (Monarch, 2014):

Now, there is a tradition in modern science not to use "God" as an explanation in scientific discourse. This tradition was nurtured by the early founders of the Royal Society partly in an attempt to let the natural philosophers (as scientists were then called) get on with their job without becoming embroiled in the religious disputes of the time, but also in recognition that the universe is, in any case, all the work of a wise Creator—so using God as an explanation for bits of it didn't really make much sense, given that God was in charge of all of it. (p. 215; emphasis mine)

 

[John Bauer]

And if I can't laugh at the absurdities of Darwinism ...

Of course you can. However, what you described was a strawman version (i.e., the laughable absurdity was something you invented).

You would assert, that 1% is what makes monkeys of us all.

I most certainly would not. This is yet another strawman—a distortion that is different from and usually weaker than the actual position.

My point is the evolutionist twiddle the math and deny the evidence, ...

What evidence do they deny, sir?

 

[John Bauer]

Yes, it does depend on how the differences are examined. The evo's have flown the 1% flag up the flag pole for a long time...and many bought into that misrepresentation. It has been so misrepresented that it has become ingrained in the minds of the students force fed the error that it is now hard to overcome the error with the actual truth.

As I said already, the "1% flag" was not their only one. They have also flown the 95% flag, and even the 85% flag. Again, it depends on how DNA is compared and what aspects of the genome are analyzed. The 99% figure captures how alike the shared parts of our genomes are, while the 85% reflects the total amount of DNA we actually have in common. Both are accurate, but they describe different levels of comparison.

99% similarity from aligned orthologous nucleotide identity: This figure typically refers to the similarity in aligned protein-coding regions of the genome. When comparing the sequences of genes that code for proteins (about 1-2% of the genome), humans and chimps share about 98.7% identical DNA. This number comes from early studies, like the 2005 Chimpanzee Genome Consortium genome analysis, which focused on single nucleotide substitutions in conserved, syntenic regions.

85% similarity from whole-genome content similarity: This lower figure often accounts for broader genomic differences, including insertions, deletions, and structural variations. When the entire genome is considered, including non-coding regions, repetitive sequences, and structural differences, the similarity drops significantly. Some studies emphasize these differences and estimate similarities around 85–87% by including indels and other genomic variations.

 

[QVQ]

What evidence do they deny, sir?

It is ma'am

Well it appears the US Gov't in the cannola field studies did not deny
They set up an experiment to determine a question about genetics
The question they asked was exactly on point
The results were divided out to reveal one of the 3 ways that mutationn (evolution) fails in plant studies.
That was encouraging.

At least the US Gov't researchers understood the problem and how to arrive at a correct answer.

Because one thing that evolutionist deny deny deny is that all evidence of evolution by mutation is circumstantial and speculative.
That is Deny

And you can't keep mindlessly mocking my 3 point mutation 1) Sterile (won't come true from seed) 2) not viable, can't survive outside cultivation (controlled breeding) 3) revert to type (sheds the mutation or transgene in a few generations)

I didn't make up that list. That is well known that man has never seen evolution by mutation although we have seen recombination of genes already present within the species (controlled breeding). That is not evolution or mutation.

The US Gov't used that list as it is the plant breeders lament.
"Well, we know angiosperms have evolved at least once?"
But there isn't any evidence angiosperms are evolving or will suddenly evolve in the future.
And as far as we have been able and we have tried, we can't make them.
No evolution.

 

[John Bauer]

It is ma'am

My apologies. Thanks for the correction.

Well it appears the US government in the canola field studies did not deny.

That is not relevant. You said evolutionists deny the evidence. What evidence do they deny?

[Reiterated material about canola crops.]

Objection, your honor. Asked and answered.

Because one thing that evolutionists deny is that all evidence of evolution by mutation is circumstantial and speculative.

I gave you a specific example of a point mutation (in Rht-B1b). Explain how it is "circumstantial and speculative."

Circumstantial: Implies a fact but doesn't directly prove it.

Speculative: Based on assumption or conjecture rather than solid evidence.

And you can't keep mindlessly mocking my 3 point mutation 1) Sterile (won't come true from seed) 2) not viable, can't survive outside cultivation (controlled breeding) 3) revert to type (sheds the mutation or transgene in a few generations)

I didn't mock it, much less mindlessly. I refuted each of those three points with direct evidence.

 

[QVQ]

I gave you a specific example of a point mutation (in Rht-B1b).

Do you undestand the difference between mutation and evolution?
And I have told you point mutation RhT-B1 is not an example of evolution.
It is an example of gene manipulation and induced mutations but those mutations did not evolve and will not evolve. Dead Ends

There are two ways to dwarf wheat
Hybrid (controlled breeding )
RhT 1b which is an induced mutation, irradiated or chemical

1) RhT Hybrids, if you buy a pack of F1 hybrid marigold, First planting big plants big flowers. Save seeds, Second planting flowers and plants are small like their ancestor. Hybrids are Controlled Breeding
The dwarf wheat in the Green Revolution is a hybrid.
The dwarfing is a natural gene (trait) that is selected by the plant breeder.
Won't come true from seed. You have to buy new seed or lose the dwarfing
Hybrid dwarf wheat is not a mutation or evolution. It is created by breeding which has been practiced for thousands of years. Certain traits inherent in the species will be selected but if the selective breeding stops, the animal or plant goes wild..poodle to mutt.

2) RhT 1b irradiation induced hybrids. Seeds require radiation and further contolled breeding to produce seeds with the mutation,
However the mutation is subject to repair and deselection so, in the long run, not viable. The irradiated strains shed the mutation in subsequent generations...deselection and repair
New seeds have to irradiateed to keep the mutation in subsequent generations.

I couldn't find any more specific information. Radiation mostly causes severe degeneration in genomes.
So no. RhT 1b is not a mutation that can evolve 1) won't come true from seed 2) not viable outside cultivation 3) repairs or deselects the mutation (reverts to type)

It helps to have hands on experience with animal and plant genetics as book learning is just repeat after me.

 

[Rella]

I am reminded of something Denis R. Alexander pointed out in his book, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?, 2nd ed. (Monarch, 2014):

Now, there is a tradition in modern science not to use "God" as an explanation in scientific discourse. This tradition was nurtured by the early founders of the Royal Society partly in an attempt to let the natural philosophers (as scientists were then called) get on with their job without becoming embroiled in the religious disputes of the time, but also in recognition that the universe is, in any case, all the work of a wise Creator—so using God as an explanation for bits of it didn't really make much sense, given that God was in charge of all of it. (p. 215; emphasis mine)

Ah, I see. Yes, I also have read and heard things similar.

Not being a scientist (praise God) (I barely could dissect a frog) I am what one would call an anti-evolutionist.... and am totally pro God in creating everything.

I cannot rationalize evolution no matter how far back one goes for the simple reason that you 99 44/100% of the time need a male and female and if one evolves, by the time a second evolves the first would be dead. I am more on the thought of interbreeding.

We have biblical examples of that when we read the Sons of God married and bred with the Daughters of man.... if you believe the account, as I do .

Or if you have had your DNA run (3 times in my case) and find that from somewhere a very long time ago I have Neanderthal varients.

But this is just my opinion.....

 

[CrowCross]

while the 85% reflects the total amount of DNA we actually have in common.

Which considering that amount...it shows we and chimps didn't split.
The amount of difference, mutation required and time allowed clearly shows that.

I'd stick with what God said.