Did some background checks on the sources for the claims. here is what I found:
http://www.icr.org/article/6886/ states:
Scientists have recently discovered that genetic recombination is directed away from sensitive parts of the genome that contain genetic control elements and features. These key parts of the genome carefully regulate how genes are turned off and on and function in precisely regulated networks. Partly false, the original research paper that was referenced states:
Surprisingly, hotspots are still observed in Prdm9 knockout mice, and as in wild type, these hotspots are found at H3 lysine 4 (H3K4) trimethylation marks. However, in the absence of PRDM9, most recombination is initiated at promoters and at other sites of PRDM9-independent H3K4 trimethylation. Such sites are rarely targeted in wild-type mice, indicating an unexpected role of the PRDM9 protein in sequestering the recombination machinery away from gene-promoter regions and other functional genomic elements..
So a protein directly affects how genetic recombination occurs. So the claim from ICR is false.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... E-20120517http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-similarities-common-ancestry/A bit deceptive based on what the studies indicate that were referenced.
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/13/7708.long - Indeed states that research indicates similarities between Humans and Chimpanzees are 86.7% but mentions that it is attributed to Indels. Indel:
indel describes a special mutation class, defined as a mutation resulting in a colocalized insertion and deletion and a net gain or loss in nucleotides The same journal states that average nucleotide and amino acid identities were 98.9% and 98.3% respectively. Not only that, but the report acknowledges that only half of the chimpanzee MHC has been worked on, that both species are still close related and that indels have the largest influence in major differences between humans and Chimpanzees.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2049197/ State only 6-8% of profiled orthologous exons display pronounced splicing level differences. Quote: "
In particular, the present results show that these two layers of regulation have evolved rapidly to affect different subsets of genes, and indicate that alternative splicing has served as an additional mechanism for diversifying gene regulation during the 5–7 million years of evolution separating humans and chimpanzees."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... ool=pubmedThe research does indicate that Human and Primate gene regulation vary in the Brain but does not state it is an indication that humans and primates are not related.
http://www.icr.org/article/4947/First 2 paragraphs use a source that is based on their own website, which in turn uses references that are misinterpreted.
First reference:
http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-sof ... here-stay/ States that we do not have knowledge (understanding) of decay. Referencing to a news article which interviewed the scientist that found soft tissue in dinosaur bones "
Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it."
Overall, this first source (
http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-sof ... here-stay/) keeps making assumptions that soft tissues in dinosaur bones disproves that dinosaurs existed for so many years ago. Yet most of the references used there state that the current knowledge of amino acid and tissue decay is insufficient. Also confirming that the bones are indeed as old as previously stated (~65 million years ago).
Read more:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... z1ySMnwALlhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/5118/160.full.pdfUses this reference to state:
"Why was Schweitzer, an eyewitness who microscopically observed the insides of a T. rex bone, afraid to believe her own eyes? Isn't empirical science all about observation?"
In referencing "
Mary Schweitzer, a
biology graduate student at Montana State
University's Museum of the Rockies, was
examining a thin section of Tyrannosaurus
rex bone under her light microscope, when
she noticed a series of peculiar structures.
Round and tiny and nucleated, they were
threaded through the bone like red blood
cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a
dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons
ago. "I got goose bumps," recalls Schweitzer.
"It was exactly like looking at a slice of modem
bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it.
I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after
all, are 65 million years old. How could blood
cells survive that long?'""
Leaving out the next sentence
"
Yet even as she was doubting the evidence
before her eyes, Schweitzer was moving
ahead to another daring thought. If red
blood cells had survived fossilization, it
should be possible to get at the dinosaur's
DNA. "The minute I saw those structures,
getting the DNA became my goal," she says.
"It was obvious that was the thing to try for."There is nothing about denying or "censoring" of dinosaur bone research.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/5118/161.full.pdfNext, ICR quotes "
...they rely on paleontological theory, which (according to most researchers) holds that dinosaurs and crocodiles came from the same stock, and that the dinosaurs' only living descendants are birds. Therefore researchers look for DNA that is similar, but not identical, to DNA from these groups of organisms." It then comes to the conclusion: "In other words, only DNA research that provides dinosaur DNA sequences similar to those of birds and crocodiles is allowed. As the flowchart indicates, all other results are deemed anomalies that should be rejected as though they were known contaminants, like fungal genes. This approach is not observation-directed empirical research; this is assumption-driven, theory-dictated censorship--"science" falsely so-called."
Leaving out a major paragraph that it is referencing from:
"
"The whole problem of the field is
that it is not scientific in the sense that many of these things are
not reproducible. People find things they and others cannot repeat,
and so that leaves them on shaky ground."
Raul Cano, whose lab at California Polytechnic State University
is in the thick of the race to clone dinosaur genes, agrees that
the solution is going to require work from more than one group.
"It's going to take hard work by several labs to finally verify
dinosaur DNA. And in the end, the only way you can be absolutely
certain that you've got it is to find a frozen dinosaur.""
They admit that using that process isn't the best thus far and improvements need to be made. There is no form of "
evolutionary gatekeeping".
Though it is an excellent example of quote mining.
Ariel wrote:Yanoda wrote:2. fossil records
Pssshhhh...did you
really just say that? The fossil record is the biggest evidence
against evolution there is! The lack of transitional fossils is appalling when you consider that the ground should be quite literally FULL of them, if evolution is to be believed.
Not necessarily, you seem to ignore the vast amounts of fossils found thus far that do indicate transitional forms. It is true we will likely not have all of them, but we find more and more fossils that provide a better overall picture of the fossil record. Please provide some examples as to why exactly the fossil record is evidence against evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... faq.php#e4Ariel wrote:Yanoda wrote:3. and observed evolving of animals
I will give you the point about micro-evolution, but you are still comparing apples and oranges. You are talking about evolution within a species, which is a proven scientific principle. Inter-special evolution (one species evolving into another), however, is a theory still to be proven. It is
this kind of evolution that is necessary for all the diversity we see today. You sneaky evolutionists...trying to change the subject.
You seem to have missed my post concerning divergent evolution with the link explaining it.
Here is an observed & researched example:
http://www.mendeley.com/research/popula ... ciation-7/Ariel wrote:Yanoda just likes to compare apples and oranges and change the subject.
Please refrain from making baseless assumptions. If you do feel I have done so, please provide examples and in turn I shall address them accordingly.
I have provided many references and links, that help explain my position and the research/evidence to back it up. Yet, I have a feeling that none of this is being properly read or accounted for. I have spent 3 hours reading 10 research papers in reference to ICR and writing this post. I will not be able to take part in this discussion as often, unfortunately, but I would very much appreciate if a little effort is given in checking the links I provide.
So I ask one question that I wish to have answered (which has been ignored many times, yet I'm being accused of changing the subject etc.).
Why is the God you know, considered real and existing despite no defined evidence to confirm the evidence? Why is the God you know, despite many more different deities and mythological creatures existing in different cultures, considered real?
Cheers
Yanoda
It might be just a difference in our backgrounds 
, and no I'm not disputing 2nd law, I believe that according to law, the only way molecules do not flow into equilibration is if a directed energy keeps them from doing so. My favored hypothesis is that God provides that energy. He is the force that cause the formation of life. No there is no proof other then what I find in the bible, so this does make it a belief of faith. 
