Death Knell Of Creationism Or A Flawed Watchmaker?: L-Gulonolactone Oxidase

[bu11fr0g]

DNA has been extracted from extinct species and shares the same pseudogenes and mutations as living species. This firmly establishes the relationship.

The fossil and modern species are related to each other. The idea of previous separate creation or amalgamation of previous planets is not even slightly plausible with knowledge that has accumulated over the last ten years or so.

[bu11fr0g]

Appeal to the atonement or belief in other miracles? Really?

The earth is the center of the universe because that is how the sun could be stopped. This is the same logic as the anti-Copernican Catholic clergy.

My rejection of your personal false creation story does not affect my ability to call on the Atonement. I don't have to believe in Rudolf to believe in Christmas.

[mathonihah]

DNA has been extracted from extinct species and shares the same pseudogenes and mutations as living species. This firmly establishes the relationship.

The fossil and modern species are related to each other. The idea of previous separate creation or amalgamation of previous planets is not even slightly plausible with knowledge that has accumulated over the last ten years or so.

You weave a tangled web of falsehood to promote your false ideas. It is not possible to extract reliable DNA from ancient fossils that are millions of years old. Reasonably reliable DNA can be extracted from specimens that lie within the 7,000 time period of the creation story. Here is a quote from a Wikipedia article on Ancient DNA (emphasis added):

Ancient DNA is DNA isolated from ancient specimens. It can be also loosely described as any DNA recovered from biological samples that have not been preserved specifically for later DNA analyses. Examples include the analysis of DNA recovered from archaeological and historical skeletal material, mummified tissues, archival collections of non-frozen medical specimens, preserved plant remains, ice and permafrost cores, Holocene plankton in marine and lake sediments, and so on.

Unlike modern genetic analyses, ancient DNA studies are characterised by low quality DNA. This places limits on what analyses can achieve. Furthermore, due to degradation of the DNA molecules, a process which correlates loosely with factors such as time, temperature and presence of free water, upper limits exist beyond which no DNA is deemed likely to survive.

Allentoft et al (2012) tried to calculate this limit by studying the decay of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA in Moa bones.

The DNA degrades in an exponential decay process.

According to their model, mitochondrial DNA is degraded to 1 base pair after 6,830,000 years at −5 °C.[2] Nuclear DNA degrades at least twice as fast as mtDNA.

As such, early studies that reported recovery of much older DNA, for example from Cretaceous dinosaur remains, may have stemmed from contamination of the sample.

In the future I suggest you provide citations from reliable scientific sources to back up your claims.

Edited April 4, 2013 by mathonihah

[bu11fr0g]

@mathonihah

"You weave a tangled web of falsehood..."

"In the future i suggest..."

I will be as straightforward as I can: just read the full article in wikipedia you quote and look at its references.

Wikipedia has problems and is not original source, though, so look here for a nice article that talks about wooly mammoths, chimps and humans.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7220/abs/nature07446.html

There is a reason there are no reputable scientific publications for your theories-- there is no basis that holds up to even minimal scrutiny.

Amplification of dna from 100s of millions of years ago is suspect especially since it hasnt been replicated. The same is not true for dna from 50,000 years ago.

Here is a good article on wooly mammoth dna:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7220/abs/nature07446.html

Wooly mammoths themselves, by nature of their genetic relationship with modern elephants, thoroughly destroy your theory.

Try not to get tangled up in your own shoelaces and be more generous with your comments if you can. Good luck -- you really dont have a chance other than to be confused by what is there. .

[mathonihah]

@mathonihah

"You weave a tangled web of falsehood..."

"In the future i suggest..."

I will be as straightforward as I can: just read the full article in wikipedia you quote and look at its references.

Wikipedia has problems and is not original source, though, so look here for a nice article that talks about wooly mammoths, chimps and humans.

http://www.nature.co...ature07446.html

There is a reason there are no reputable scientific publications for your theories-- there is no basis that holds up to even minimal scrutiny.

Amplification of dna from 100s of millions of years ago is suspect especially since it hasnt been replicated. The same is not true for dna from 50,000 years ago.

Here is a good article on wooly mammoth dna:

http://www.nature.co...ature07446.html

Wooly mammoths themselves, by nature of their genetic relationship with modern elephants, thoroughly destroy your theory.

Try not to get tangled up in your own shoelaces and be more generous with your comments if you can. Good luck -- you really dont have a chance other than to be confused by what is there. .

There just isn't enough data to reach the definitive conclusions you have drawn:

DNA has been extracted from extinct species and shares the same pseudogenes and mutations as living species. This firmly establishes the relationship.

The fossil and modern species are related to each other. The idea of previous separate creation or amalgamation of previous planets is not even slightly plausible with knowledge that has accumulated over the last ten years or so.

How do you draw that conclusion from the DNA of the extinct woolly mammoth? Is that date sufficient for that conclusion? Where is the scientific study that proves it? I think you are the one who are confused, and confusing a lot of other people.

[bu11fr0g]

It is straightforward although it is not simple. Some people are confused by things that are not simple particularly if it forces them to discard a previously held false belief.

Which do you not understand?

DNA is how life inherits our bodies.

Woolly mammoths are extinct.

Elephants are not extinct.

Woolly mammoths used dna to inherit their bodies.

Elephants use and used dna to inherit their bodies.

The dna structure of elephants is known.

The dna structure of woolly mammoths is known.

There is great similarity between the dna structure of elephants and woolly mammoths.

The similarities include elements that would only be passed from a common template: pseudogenes and identical insertions, deletions.

Impossible explanation: mammoth fossils came from another planet.

Impossible explanation: mammoths are from a previous creation unrelated to living things now.

Impossible explanation: mammoths are not extinct or were only alive & dead within the last 10,000 years.

Impossible explanation: Martians are breeding and transporting mammoths and elephants around the universe.

Bad explanation: God is deliberately deceptive

The best explanation: The common template arises from an evolutionary relationship.

[bu11fr0g]

Read the full Nature article for an example scientific study. Further references to other scientific studies are noted in that paper or can easily be found in common search applications. Google scholar is a nice site.

Legitimate inquiry is required if there is to be any understanding.

[bu11fr0g]

"Propensity to believe" is not necessary.

[cdowis]

My new paradigm allows all of the above. Which "one" specifically applies to this planet is yet to be determined. Science is getting really good at examining and harmonizing the physical evidence into cogent theories of plausibility. Religion remains fixed in place, because to change it one iota would be admitting that earlier ignorance masqueraded as "revelation". So BRM, et al. "true believers" (by their own, dogmatic definition) cannot possibly dispense with the OT paradigm of this planet's temporal existence.

Can I assume that you are smart enough to realize that this is very insulting to those of faith, and shuts down a common dialogue. I guess we are just too stupid to have anything of value in this discussion.

Best of luck, pal.

Edited April 4, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

[ERayR]

The best explanation: The common template arises from an evolutionary relationship.

Or for me, better yet is the common template is from a common creator.

[ERayR]

Can I assume that you are smart enough to realize that this is very insulting to those of faith, and shuts down a common dialogue. I guess we are just too stupid to have anything of value in this discussion.

Best of luck, pal.

It is my observation that the adherents to the religion of science are the first to call other blind are themselves afflicted with a blind adherence to dogmas that leave no room for any but their own dogmas.

[bcuzbcuz]

religion of science

You probably think your cute phrase aptly defines the reality but instead it shows you neither understand religion, nor science.

[thesometimesaint]

It is my observation that the adherents to the religion of science are the first to call other blind are themselves afflicted with a blind adherence to dogmas that leave no room for any but their own dogmas.

Mere posturing. There is no such thing as the religion of science in anything but the most obtuse sense. Science by definition can not posit any God(s) or Supernatural force. Scientists of course are free to believe or disbelieve in any number of God(s), or Supernatural force(s) they choose. Including "0".

SEE: Mormon Scholars Testify

Edited April 4, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Rivers]

Whose? I firmly believe in God as revealed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also accept the Theory of Evolution as presently understood by scientists working in the field. IE; That Evolution is the means by which God used to Create the physical bodies for us his children.

You have failed the test. You aren't faithful enough.

[Hestia]

Sounds like a lot of insults being spewed. Time to close.