Jump to content


Photo

Same Genome, Different Proteome

expressions of phenotype

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
46 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2012 - 12:20 PM

Just on the primitive to complex bit.... HBD you do appreciate the complexity of a single bacteria cell? The myriad of cellular processes of which most are still quite unknown as they are too advanced for us to even comprehend, this doesn't seem "primitive" in any sense of the word.

Furthermore as far as I know the first multicelluar organism found within the fossil record is the trilobrite which in fact has THE most advanced eyes ever created in Biology or via man-made invention.. Again doesn't seem very "primitive".

It seems to me that you've bought "hook, line and sinker" the media hype surrounding fossils. Some of the little shared facts about fossils are these

-fossils show statis of organisms (ie there is no perceivable change observed)
- based on the above the "transitions" are unique fully formed organisms in and of themselves, there has yet to be found an intermediary between two fully formed organisms.. ie- something with "half" a wing or a wing stump etc.
- Fossils cannot empirically demonstrate how they came to be, nor can the similarities demonstrate how they came to be. Evolution is merely assumed as the conclusion. Which as you now know, (from my rant before), assuming the conclusion is not scientific at all. This demonstrates the lack of critical thinking evolutionists tend to display since this is a very simple point of logic yet it goes by unnoticed by most....

Additionally the fossil "evidence" is based on the assumption that the layers in the rock is a show of time, furthermore it requires the assumption that the first instance of an organism within a layer is when it first lived... Who is to say that it didn't live beforehand but just didn't leave a fossil within that layer?

#22 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 16 July 2012 - 07:54 AM

To gilbo and joman ...

First off, you are misrepresenting (probably due to misunderstanding) my "worldview." I am not an "evolutionist" nor an atheist, nor a materialist, nor a theist. I oppose any label as such. When I registered for this site it was a requirement to chose a label for worldview. I wished there was a "none of the above" choice. But "Old Earth Creationist" was the closest to what I accept. I accept what the evidence combined with the scriptures suggests. As evidence is presented and weighed, I am willing to discard any previous notions to keep my worldview consistent with both my faith in the Bible and with the evidence of the Creation.

I already confessed that I accept that everything in the creation owes its existence to Almighty God who made everything through Jesus Christ. I have certainly NOT bought into evolution "hook, line and sinker". That is a complete misrepresentation of my position. If you want to know what I have "bought into" and what I have not "bought into", it needs to be done on a case by case basis. For example, I do not give much credibility to abiogenesis as the origin of life (which technically is not part of the ToE). For the most part I do accept biological evolution, but there are some major sticking points. We certainly have not had a long enough conversation for you to know everything I believe.

joman - I owe you an apology. I responded to you in a rude and snarky manner, which only leads to anger. This is no way for Christians to behave and there can be no constructive discussions under those conditions. So I apologize for my behavior. I see that you have a new thread on the genetic tampering topic and I have been working on a response. I will be replying periodically.

gilbo - There is no way we can adequately discuss every aspect of evolutionary theory in one thread, so let's get back on topic and finish discussing this topic. Then maybe we can move on to some of these other issues.

from the OP ...

Considering this, then by what relevance does the degree of similarity of DNA between organisms tell us?...... Practically nothing...



OK, yes I will agree that the degree of similarity actually tells us very little all by itself. I will also agree that there is issues with how these similarity numbers are arrived at. But I guess more of what I am trying to get across to you is that if you want to argue against evolutionary theory, you should know what evolutionary scientists actually say about the theory, not just what creationists say the evolutionist say. Evolutionary scientists agree with your point that a raw DNA sequence comparison alone does not tell us much about an organisms history. This from Berkeley:




However, DNA sequences alone do not answer all the questions that biologists ask, and knowing a gene's sequence is still many steps away from understanding how it actually works and what it does. DNA sequences are only one line of evidence illuminating evolutionary relationships. For example, human and chimpanzee DNA is 98% identical, and genetic sequencing can tell us exactly where in the genome those few DNA differences are — but anatomical, behavioral, and developmental studies are also crucial in deeply understanding our differences, similarities, and shared evolutionary history.

Pasted from http://evolution.ber...icle/history_26



Similarity between DNA sequences suggests homology. Homology suggest common ancestry. But, homology also suggests common design elements, which is part of the reason it is inconclusive as evidence for common descent. So, I agree that DNA sequence similarity is not conclusive evidence for evolution.

We have only begun to unravel the mysteries of DNA and developmental processes and comparative sequencing is helping us to decipher its secrets. Raw DNA sequences do so little to enlighten us on those processes, so comparative genomics is only a tool scientists use to analyze genomic function. As I have stated previously, it is the differences that really matter. This from the Human Genome Project.

However, the most significant differences between mice and humans are not in the number of genes each carries but in the structure of genes and the activities of their protein products. Gene for gene, we are very similar to mice. What really matters is that subtle changes accumulated in each of the approximately 25,000 genes add together to make quite different organisms.

Pasted from http://www.ornl.gov/...q/compgen.shtml


Does one assume evolution to be true prior to doing an alignment? Yes, I suppose you could make that claim. But I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim that is a problem.

First, scientists are not basing that premise simply on personal beliefs, but on a theory that has been tested and verified through multiple lines of evidence. It is along the lines of the atomic theory (which is a long way from being absolutely proven but has enormous support empirically). It is assumed true when beginning a chemistry experiment. So, whether you agree with the conclusions that have been reached or believe there is sufficient empirical evidence to support it, the ToE is a scientifically accepted theory that has enormous credibility in the scientific community. Now again, I need to reiterate I do not agree with all the conclusions that have been reached by evolutionary scientist, but if I am going to argue against those portions of the theory I disagree with, I first need to understand what those theories actually are and then approach the question using accepted scientific practices
.

Secondly, the assumption of evolution is perfectly valid, at least in some circumstances - even from a YEC point of view. Thus I used the example of the Northern Flicker. I still don't see how this is a red herring as it illustrates my point that the assumption of evolution is valid in at least this particular case. It is in response to your claim is that it is invalid to assume evolution in order to justify DNA sequence alignments. Why do you think that it is not valid to assume the Yellow-shafted flicker and the Red-shafted flicker did not, at one time, have a common ancestor?

So again, I do not agree that it is circular reasoning to assume evolution when aligning sequences for the reasons discussed above. It is testing a hypothesis and there is justification for the assumption.

There is more of a purpose to comparative genomics than to simply "prove" evolution. They use it to help understand function of genes and non-coding regions better.

Comparative genomics is the analysis and comparison of genomes from different species. The purpose is to gain a better understanding of how species have evolved and to determine the function of genes and noncoding regions of the genome. Researchers have learned a great deal about the function of human genes by examining their counterparts in simpler model organisms such as the mouse. Genome researchers look at many different features when comparing genomes: sequence similarity, gene location, the length and number of coding regions (called exons) within genes, the amount of noncoding DNA in each genome, and highly conserved regions maintained in organisms as simple as bacteria and as complex as humans.

Pasted from http://www.ornl.gov/...q/compgen.shtml>



The idea that different organisms would have similar DNA sequences grew from the idea that organisms share common ancestry (again I am not agreeing that all organisms share a common ancestor, I am stating that is where the idea came from). If we still held the idea that all organisms were fixed and unchanging, created as is, would we have pursued this line of research? It is easy to say in hind-sight that we would have, but what reason would we have to predict that organisms share commonality for function in their DNA? If it is such an obvious prediction, why did creation scientists not discover this first? Creation science, IMO, is reactionary science, not revolutionary science. It has not produced predictions that can be tested and verified, and so, it can only react to claims of evolutionary science.

I agree that DNA similarity points to an intelligent designer, a creator - but where do we stop and say "this is no longer something we can understand" so here is the creator? Its like a puzzle with 10,000 pieces but you only having 50 of the pieces. You do the best you can with those pieces and even if someday we find 1000 of those pieces, we still won't know the full picture. This is how I view science. This is how I view this issue. We can only go by what evidence we have and make the most of it.

I disagree that the analysis of mRNA would change anything significantly. It would probably show organisms to be less similar, but so what? If you compared the mRNA of a butterfly with the mRNA of a caterpillar would it be determined they were different organisms? They would certainly show significant differences in mRNA expression. But so what? The concept of similarity is only a starting point and only one line of evidence that is used to support the ToE. And the evidence comes not from the similarity itself, but from the prediction of that similarity and the subsequent confirmation of it.

The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.)

Pasted from http://www.ornl.gov/...q/compgen.shtml



Scientists already acknowledge that % similarity is not the end all evidence. In the quote above they explain that this similarity is comparing genes. Scientists are not confused about the role of non-coding regions of DNA in developmental process. They used to refer to these regions as "junk DNA" but have since learned the importance of these control regions. Scientists are not confused about this fact. No, they don't understand how it all works (maybe not even a fraction of a percent of how it works) but they are slowly unraveling it, piece by piece. And it is the type of experiments that you describe, comparative genomics, that are helping them to do it.

I am not, I repeat not trying to convince you the the entire ToE is correct or suggesting that you should step-in-line and believe it. I agree that the ToE has some problems, some major problems, but the one you mention in your OP is not one of them, IMO... And I don't think that comparing mRNA would do any better job of disproving the ToE.

HBD

#23 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:08 AM

Just on the primitive to complex bit.... HBD you do appreciate the complexity of a single bacteria cell? The myriad of cellular processes of which most are still quite unknown as they are too advanced for us to even comprehend, this doesn't seem "primitive" in any sense of the word.

Furthermore as far as I know the first multicelluar organism found within the fossil record is the trilobrite which in fact has THE most advanced eyes ever created in Biology or via man-made invention.. Again doesn't seem very "primitive".


Thank-You, That was exactly my point to joman. He was suggesting that evolutionists believed that life started out stupid and banal. And I was pointing out that was not the case. Everything is amazing in its own way. No evolutionist disagrees with this.

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:22 AM

Thank-You, That was exactly my point to joman. He was suggesting that evolutionists believed that life started out stupid and banal. And I was pointing out that was not the case. Everything is amazing in its own way. No evolutionist disagrees with this.

No problem :)

Then how is it claimed that life started simple? Admitting the complexity of life puts more pressure on the processes to which we can credit its origins, (that is assuming there is a process of which I believe is not naturalistic).

#25 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 16 July 2012 - 08:52 AM

Then how is it claimed that life started simple?


Not my claim. The complexity of "early" life does create some difficult questions.

Not the topic here. I would be willing to discuss a) why evolutionary scientists don't believe this is a problem; b ) what I believe the problems are that it poses for the ToE and; c) what I feel the problems are at arriving at a solution to this question ... at another time.

Don't overlook the post prior to this one where I respond to the topic - I am not sure .. but I don't get notifications that someone has responded to my post, I don't know if you do or how that works on this forum

HBD

#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:53 AM

Not my claim. The complexity of "early" life does create some difficult questions.

Not the topic here. I would be willing to discuss a) why evolutionary scientists don't believe this is a problem; b ) what I believe the problems are that it poses for the ToE and; c) what I feel the problems are at arriving at a solution to this question ... at another time.

Don't overlook the post prior to this one where I respond to the topic - I am not sure .. but I don't get notifications that someone has responded to my post, I don't know if you do or how that works on this forum

HBD

Not my claim. The complexity of "early" life does create some difficult questions.

Not the topic here. I would be willing to discuss a) why evolutionary scientists don't believe this is a problem; b ) what I believe the problems are that it poses for the ToE and; c) what I feel the problems are at arriving at a solution to this question ... at another time.

Don't overlook the post prior to this one where I respond to the topic - I am not sure .. but I don't get notifications that someone has responded to my post, I don't know if you do or how that works on this forum

HBD

No problem, feel free to start a different thread to these other topics if you wish to discuss them :)

I don't get notices, hence why I come on here to check regularly or just leave my browser on this site so I can refresh and check



I left the other post because I realised I was getting a bit rilled and felt I needed to take a bit of a rest lol. This is possibly the first time I have been asked to actively comment on an evolutionists own post, its refreshing lol :D




Yes similarities do infer both common ancestry and common design.

I would state that mRNA analysis would allow the following
- determination of the mechanisms within the cell ie- how each cell type works at a specific time
- can look at the similarities between cell types between organisms, thus adding another level of analysis
- for your worldview you can see from where did each cell type originate and which are more distinct than the supposed ancestors
- for the creationist worldview- major differences between cell types can thus infer that such did not evolve from each other

(for the last two points it really determines on the results)

I watched a video a few years ago stating that the stomach of frogs, mudskippers and crocodiles form in different ways- this is not predicted via evolution since if one evolved from the other the same methods of body formation would be used. Such a difference would be much more easily discernible using mRNA evidence.

#27 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 16 July 2012 - 01:36 PM

Does one assume evolution to be true prior to doing an alignment? Yes, I suppose you could make that claim. But I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim that is a problem.

First, scientists are not basing that premise simply on personal beliefs, but on a theory that has been tested and verified through multiple lines of evidence. It is along the lines of the atomic theory (which is a long way from being absolutely proven but has enormous support empirically). It is assumed true when beginning a chemistry experiment. So, whether you agree with the conclusions that have been reached or believe there is sufficient empirical evidence to support it, the ToE is a scientifically accepted theory that has enormous credibility in the scientific community. Now again, I need to reiterate I do not agree with all the conclusions that have been reached by evolutionary scientist, but if I am going to argue against those portions of the theory I disagree with, I first need to understand what those theories actually are and then approach the question using accepted scientific practices[/font][/size].

Secondly, the assumption of evolution is perfectly valid, at least in some circumstances - even from a YEC point of view. Thus I used the example of the Northern Flicker. I still don't see how this is a red herring as it illustrates my point that the assumption of evolution is valid in at least this particular case. It is in response to your claim is that it is invalid to assume evolution in order to justify DNA sequence alignments. Why do you think that it is not valid to assume the Yellow-shafted flicker and the Red-shafted flicker did not, at one time, have a common ancestor?

So again, I do not agree that it is circular reasoning to assume evolution when aligning sequences for the reasons discussed above. It is testing a hypothesis and there is justification for the assumption.


What you are claiming is that the evidence fits evolutionist assumptions. This is incorrect. The assumption are made and changed to fit the evidence, and this is not scientific. While this IS an example of inductive reasoning based on scientific data, it cannot be asserted as scientific since it goes against the scientific method (as gilbo asserted previously).

Inductive reasoning based on scientific data is at the center of the creation vs evolution debate, so to say that science has proven evolution is to sideline the points made by the creationists and deny bias and philosophical presuppositions of the mainstream scientific community. When all is said and done, this is the whole reason that the debate is still ongoing, both sides are claiming that the evidence is pointing in different directions.

Have supernatural occurrences altered scientific rates and scientific data that we currently observe? We cannot know, yet atheists fallaciously claim, through arguments from ignorance, that they have not occurred. Christians have the Bible to examine, yet this is still difficult to discern. This is another example of philosophical presuppositions everyone brings to the table when looking at scientific data which shapes the creation vs evolution debate.

In the Berkeley article that you referenced, it even goes as far as to invoke evolution, even though they admit that the DNA evidence does not confirm the assumption, rather it does not negate the assumption. Such storytelling is not helpful to scientific inquiry, yet it pervades so many mainstream scientific articles, it works wonders to indoctrinate school age children. To say that anatomy, behavior and development are also included in proving common ancestry is just as fallacious of an argument as to claim DNA does. Adding multiple fallacious arguments together does not make them any less fallacious.

"Secondly..." This entire point is seems suspiciously close to equivocation. Are you insinuating that the mechanisms that drive adaptation or "micro-evolution" as you prefer, are the same as those that drive "macro-evolution"?

#28 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 17 July 2012 - 08:43 AM

Hi JayShel.

Yes, science does operate under several assumptions. They are indeed assumed to be true without proof but without these assumptions, science (more specifically, natural science) could not work.

1. There is order in the natural world. IMO, this is the greatest evidence for the existence of God. It is absolutely incredible how natural phenomenon can be described using mathematical models. This is the assumption that leads to predictability. Without this assumption, we could have no idea what the results of a scientific test should be.

2. There are natural causes for things that happen in the natural world. Does this preclude supernatural causes? Not necessarily. Some have certainly taken it to mean that. But in reality, it means that supernatural causes are beyond the ability of science to test and to verify or falsify. How do you verify a supernatural event? Because you can’t explain a cause with natural causes? Ancient man believed that the sun and moon rising and setting were supernatural events. Do we still believe that today? Again, this assumption does NOT preclude supernatural causes but it places them outside of scientific inquiry.

3. Evidence from the natural world is used to learn about those causes. Causes are not determined willy-nilly but are derived from the physical evidence that is collected, studied, tested and verified. Supernatural evidence is not useful to scientific inquiry because it cannot be tested using physical means. Evidence for the reality of God and his relationship with man lies in the change in the lives of believers. How is that tested empirically? There are other sciences besides natural science that can study this phenomenon - theology, philosophy, etc … Natural science just cannot study the change in a believer’s life.

4. These causes are consistent throughout the natural world. This is an obvious extension of the first assumption. What reason do we have to believe that processes operating elsewhere in the known universe operate differently than they do here on earth? What reason do we have to believe that processes operated differently in the past?

Yes, these are assumptions that natural science makes. But, they can be challenged by new data. Assumptions may need to be modified or explanations developed for anomalies, but it would be really difficult to throw them away and operate with no assumptions or with assumptions that cannot be verified. What you seem to propose is that we should discard assumption # 2,3 and 4. How then would natural science work?

Inductive reasoning based on scientific data is at the center of the creation vs evolution debate, so to say that science has proven evolution is to sideline the points made by the creationists and deny bias and philosophical presuppositions of the mainstream scientific community. When all is said and done, this is the whole reason that the debate is still ongoing, both sides are claiming that the evidence is pointing in different directions.


Pretty much the only “points” that creationists bring up is that evolutionary scientists are liars, atheists, deceivers and basing their conclusions on biased thinking. And they think that this “wrong” scientific process should be replaced with their “right” scientific process. So I ask … what is it that makes your “faith-based” science better that an evolutionist’s “faith-based” science?

I have been wrestling with this issue for about 5 years now. And what really cinched it for me was a report on a YEC book I had to do for one of my courses. I did my report on Jonathon Sarfati’s Refuting Evolution. The book was nothing but misrepresentations, arguments from ignorance, ambiguous claims and outright deception. And the thing that angered me most was that it was explicitly stated, in no uncertain terms, that unless I (or the reader that is) accepted his interpretation of the Bible I was outside of Christianity and in danger of hellfire.

So, if anything, I came into this controversy with the bias that evolution was not true and the literal interpretation of Genesis was correct and have been persuaded by the evidence that the earth Is indeed not young. But I have an open mind and would change my position on any issue if the evidence or the Holy Spirit so convicts me. So far …

This is another example of philosophical presuppositions everyone brings to the table when looking at scientific data which shapes the creation vs evolution debate.


One of the things I have become absolutely convicted of is that this is really not a black and white issue. It is not either creation or evolution. It is not if you believe in creation you are a Christian and if you believe in evolution you are an atheist. So I guess that is my philosophical presupposition that I “bring to the table.”

"Secondly..." This entire point is seems suspiciously close to equivocation. Are you insinuating that the mechanisms that drive adaptation or "micro-evolution" as you prefer, are the same as those that drive "macro-evolution"?


No, not at all. I chose an example that was not ambiguous; there should not be any disagreement that these two populations of birds, at one time, had a common ancestor. Do you not accept that organisms change over time? Why would it be faulty to assume these birds had a common ancestor? Both you and gilbo are dodging this question for the very reason that the boundary between micro and macro evolution is blurry. I am not equivocating, I am making a point that just because you make an assumption doesn’t make it automatically wrong. Assumptions can be made based on logical conclusions.

My personal position on the micro / macro question is that I feel there is great difficulty in applying known, observable evolutionary phenomenon to events in the distant past. It leaves many questions and much uncertainty. However, uncertainty does not preclude it from being true, but means we can’t take “macro-evolution” (however you define that) for granted.

In the Berkeley article that you referenced, it even goes as far as to invoke evolution, even though they admit that the DNA evidence does not confirm the assumption, rather it does not negate the assumption. Such storytelling is not helpful to scientific inquiry, yet it pervades so many mainstream scientific articles, it works wonders to indoctrinate school age children. To say that anatomy, behavior and development are also included in proving common ancestry is just as fallacious of an argument as to claim DNA does. Adding multiple fallacious arguments together does not make them any less fallacious.


Where does this article “admit that DNA evidence does not confirm the assumption?” Please cite an example.

In fact, this article gives a good example of how assumptions actually work in science:

Expanding upon the work of others and making the assumption that fewer protein differences corresponded to shorter times of separation, Vincent Sarich (above left) and Allan Wilson (above right) estimated that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas shared a common ancestor only 5 million years ago — a much shorter length of time than was commonly accepted at the time.
(italics mine)

http://evolution.ber...icle/history_26


Notice they identify the key assumption (fewer protein differences = shorter times of separation) that they made in drawing their conclusion (common ancestor 5 million years ago). Now it’s your turn … let’s say you believe that their assumption is wrong because fewer protein differences does not equal shorter times of separation. How do you go about demonstrating that? Disprove their assumption and you disprove their conclusion.

I did not cite this article to confirm their conclusions, but to illustrate what scientists actually say. IMO, your comment misrepresents both my intention and what the quote said. My point was that scientists do not claim that DNA evidence is the only line of evidence they use to reach a conclusion, it is only one of many. If you disagree with some or all of these lines of evidence, fine; but scientists do not say that DNA evidence is conclusive by itself, but supports other lines of evidence.

In short, natural science works. It is the study of the natural world, not the metaphysical or the spiritual. It does not exclude the presence of these supernatural forces, but simply cannot study them. Sure everyone has preconceptions as they approach scientific questions, but faulty assumptions can be shown to be faulty.

HBD

#29 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 20 July 2012 - 01:09 PM

Hi JayShel.
[…]
What you seem to propose is that we should discard assumption # 2,3 and 4. How then would natural science work?


I proposed no such thing. I’m afraid you completely missed the point. My whole point was not about natural science, but evolution. The arguments for the evolutionary assumption are pulled from data and information gleaned from natural science experiments and observation, the same as evidence for creation. It is a bit of a process of elimination in the creation vs evolution debate scene. We must find evidence that rules out either evolution or creation in order to prove one or the other to be true.

Pretty much the only “points” that creationists bring up is that evolutionary scientists are liars, atheists, deceivers and basing their conclusions on biased thinking. And they think that this “wrong” scientific process should be replaced with their “right” scientific process. So I ask … what is it that makes your “faith-based” science better that an evolutionist’s “faith-based” science?


Wow that is quite the sweeping generalization. This is the problem, various proponents of evolution are attempting to pass it off as “scientifically proven” when nothing could be further from the truth. Evolution is not science, it is an assumption which, if it is not true, has no consequence to science whatsoever. Genetics, astronomy, geology, etc etc etc etc, could still keep progressing full steam if the science community as a whole discarded the idea of evolution as an assumption to describe the cause of biodiversity on this earth.

My faith-based view of science stems from a historical understanding of the world through the eyes of Jesus Christ. The only thing that makes my faith based science more believable to me than their assumption is revelation from God. I believe there is a fair amount of difficulty in trying to prove either creation or evolution based on scientific inquiry. When it comes to discerning the origin of life, and the history of biodiversity on earth, science plays a small part, and cannot hope to give us all of the answers. We can get more answers by applying inductive and deductive reasoning to scientific details, historical details, and life experience.


I have been wrestling with this issue for about 5 years now. And what really cinched it for me was a report on a YEC book I had to do for one of my courses. I did my report on Jonathon Sarfati’s Refuting Evolution. The book was nothing but misrepresentations, arguments from ignorance, ambiguous claims and outright deception. And the thing that angered me most was that it was explicitly stated, in no uncertain terms, that unless I (or the reader that is) accepted his interpretation of the Bible I was outside of Christianity and in danger of hellfire.

So, if anything, I came into this controversy with the bias that evolution was not true and the literal interpretation of Genesis was correct and have been persuaded by the evidence that the earth Is indeed not young. But I have an open mind and would change my position on any issue if the evidence or the Holy Spirit so convicts me. So far …

One of the things I have become absolutely convicted of is that this is really not a black and white issue. It is not either creation or evolution. It is not if you believe in creation you are a Christian and if you believe in evolution you are an atheist. So I guess that is my philosophical presupposition that I “bring to the table.”


I understand your position for the most part. To be fair, one thorough read through of one person’s book is never the end-all-be-all of YEC views or arguments. New arguments spring up all the time, and that is what makes this forum so fun to visit in my opinion. I doubt God will slam anyone for being wrong on origins, but I have to keep a clear conscience in looking forward to judgment day, so I do what I can to not lead the flock astray.

No, not at all. I chose an example that was not ambiguous; there should not be any disagreement that these two populations of birds, at one time, had a common ancestor. Do you not accept that organisms change over time? Why would it be faulty to assume these birds had a common ancestor?


It is not unreasonable to think that two populations of birds that are very similar, with different colors, or features, had a common ancestor.

Both you and gilbo are dodging this question for the very reason that the boundary between micro and macro evolution is blurry.


Wrong, micro-evolution is observed, and macro-evolution is unsubstantiated. Can we say that some bird populations are related? Yes. Can we say that birds evolved from dinosaurs millions of years ago? No.

I am not equivocating,
[...]

My personal position on the micro / macro question is that I feel there is great difficulty in applying known, observable evolutionary phenomenon to events in the distant past. It leaves many questions and much uncertainty. However, uncertainty does not preclude it from being true, but means we can’t take “macro-evolution” (however you define that) for granted.


As a Moderator I just wanted to be clear that you were not in violation of rule #6 of the forum rules.

I am making a point that just because you make an assumption doesn’t make it automatically wrong. Assumptions can be made based on logical conclusions.


I never said that they could not, so we are in agreement. My objection is to people that deny that evolutionists are making assumptions and bringing their personal bias to the table when they write stories about evolution in science magazines. While creationist assumptions get scoffed at, they are just as valid as evolutionary assumptions. A diversity in biases is actually helpful in scientific inquiry, but evolutionists would rather not consider an alternative.

Where does this article “admit that DNA evidence does not confirm the assumption?” Please cite an example.


I guess they never admitted it, but it is a good example of confirmation bias.

In fact, this article gives a good example of how assumptions actually work in science:


Expanding upon the work of others and making the assumption that fewer protein differences corresponded to shorter times of separation, Vincent Sarich (above left) and Allan Wilson (above right) estimated that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas shared a common ancestor only 5 million years ago — a much shorter length of time than was commonly accepted at the time.

http://evolution.ber...icle/history_26


Notice they identify the key assumption (fewer protein differences = shorter times of separation) that they made in drawing their conclusion (common ancestor 5 million years ago). Now it’s your turn … let’s say you believe that their assumption is wrong because fewer protein differences does not equal shorter times of separation. How do you go about demonstrating that?

Disprove their assumption and you disprove their conclusion.

I did not cite this article to confirm their conclusions, but to illustrate what scientists actually say. IMO, your comment misrepresents both my intention and what the quote said. My point was that scientists do not claim that DNA evidence is the only line of evidence they use to reach a conclusion, it is only one of many. If you disagree with some or all of these lines of evidence, fine; but scientists do not say that DNA evidence is conclusive by itself, but supports other lines of evidence.



The evidence fits the conclusion of a common designer just as well as it fits a common ancestor. Any implied relationship between differences in proteins is confirmation bias, which doesn’t help you get any closer to determining which assumption, creation or evolution, is correct. The main issue I take is that the evolutionary bias is spread all throughout the mainstream science community and indoctrinated into our youth.

#30 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 01 August 2012 - 05:56 AM

Hi JayShel, sorry for the delay in responding ... I have had too much going on in the "real" world, lol.

I proposed no such thing. I’m afraid you completely missed the point. My whole point was not about natural science, but evolution.



But that is the point. As I see it, and as evolutionary scientists see it, evolution is an attempt to explain the history of life in a naturalistic way. Many go so far as to suggest that the natural world is all that exists; I don't suggest that at all. But we can't use natural science to draw conclusions about any reality other than that of the natural world.

From your first post:

Have supernatural occurrences altered scientific rates and scientific data that we currently observe? We cannot know, yet atheists fallaciously claim, through arguments from ignorance, that they have not occurred.



This type of statement is what lead to my response about natural science assumptions. As soon as we invoke supernatural causes to explain natural observations, we discard assumptions 2,3 and 4. Natural science just doesn't work that way. As we investigate the natural world we have to expect that there are natural causes, and that we can discover those causes.

The arguments for the evolutionary assumption are pulled from data and information gleaned from natural science experiments and observation, the same as evidence for creation. It is a bit of a process of elimination in the creation vs evolution debate scene. We must find evidence that rules out either evolution or creation in order to prove one or the other to be true.



I think this is a fundamental flaw in the pursuit of creationism / IDism. That if one aspect of the evolutionary theory can be debunked that the whole theory will collapse and creation will be true by default. Not so. At this point creation / ID proponents at the least need to recognize how strong the theory is (you may consider it to be dogmatically held, but regardless) and understand that even if one part of the theory is shown to be incorrect, the rest will stand and the theory will be adjusted accordingly. The ToE is not going to collapse without some major discovery. And it would pretty much require positive proof of creation / ID, not negative evidence against evolution. For example: human remains in "antediluvian" deposits.

I don't see this as both sides viewing the same evidence and merely interpreting it differently. A major case, the age of the earth. The data suggests that the earth is really, really old. The only way around that for those that believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old is to say that scientists doing this research are biased, wrong, liars etc... Can you understand the problem I have here? And why I made the "sweeping generalization" that I made about this being the only "point" that YEC seems to have? That theme seems to run through every thread on this site. Maybe you aren't making those arguments, but it seems to me to be a prevailing idea.

Evolution is not science, it is an assumption which, if it is not true, has no consequence to science whatsoever. Genetics, astronomy, geology, etc etc etc etc, could still keep progressing full steam if the science community as a whole discarded the idea of evolution as an assumption to describe the cause of biodiversity on this earth.




I am sure you have heard the idea that the ToE is the single unifying theory in the natural sciences that unites all the biological sciences. I am also sure you disagree with that idea, but think about it for a minute. If we stop at every place we don't understand at invoke "supernatural causation" how could that possibly move us forward? We should have done that with cancer 25 years ago, and quantum mechanics, ect... We have gained so much knowledge about how the world works but pushing further and further into realms that at one time were the realm of the "supernatural" ie. we did not understand or have any idea how that could have happened by a naturalistic process. Although the ToE doesn't address geology and astronomy directly, the implications of change over time are applied and the idea that there are natural causes for everything we observe and that pushes us froward into domains that we never could have imagined before. At this point in history, I see creation science as being primarily reactionary, not progressive.


My faith-based view of science stems from a historical understanding of the world through the eyes of Jesus Christ. The only thing that makes my faith based science more believable to me than their assumption is revelation from God. I believe there is a fair amount of difficulty in trying to prove either creation or evolution based on scientific inquiry. When it comes to discerning the origin of life, and the history of biodiversity on earth, science plays a small part, and cannot hope to give us all of the answers. We can get more answers by applying inductive and deductive reasoning to scientific details, historical details, and life experience.



You are absolutely right that there is a fair amount of difficulty in discerning the history of life on earth. But what better way to learn about our natural history than through natural science? I do believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word and that it is His revelation to mankind. But it was not meant to be understood in the sense of interpreting natural phenomenon. It was intended to reveal how God relates to mankind.

I also believe the natural world to be God's revelation about himself. The natural world tells us so much about His providence, His creativity, His majesty. Do you think that the majesty of God ends at the complexity of any of the supposed "irreducibly complex" systems. I expect the place where we would have to stop and invoke the supernatural is far, far, far beyond where we could ever comprehend.

When these two revelations are in conflict, one must decide which revelation is being misinterpreted. For me, I have concluded that the interpretation that the scripture teaches a literal 7 day creation less than 10,000 years ago is incorrect. It seems more likely to me that a text written to a culture far removed from our own could be misinterpreted than it would be to misinterpret data that is right in front of our faces and can be tested and verified. So I have had to find ways to reconcile those conflicting ideologies.

I understand your position for the most part. To be fair, one thorough read through of one person’s book is never the end-all-be-all of YEC views or arguments. New arguments spring up all the time, and that is what makes this forum so fun to visit in my opinion. I doubt God will slam anyone for being wrong on origins, but I have to keep a clear conscience in looking forward to judgment day, so I do what I can to not lead the flock astray.



Not the only YEC material I have read by any means. I said it was the final straw that cinched it for me that the YEC understanding of scripture was the conflicting interpretation that needed to be adjusted. I find those problems that I mentioned in Sarfati's book to be characteristic of YEC work. I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

I never said that they could not, so we are in agreement. My objection is to people that deny that evolutionists are making assumptions and bringing their personal bias to the table when they write stories about evolution in science magazines. While creationist assumptions get scoffed at, they are just as valid as evolutionary assumptions. A diversity in biases is actually helpful in scientific inquiry, but evolutionists would rather not consider an alternative



On one level I understand your point here. But the difference is that the assumptions that evolutionists make can be falsified (except for the 4 I mentioned regarding natural science assumptions) Creationists assumptions cannot. If you want to relate the assumption that your interpretation of the Bible is correct to the 4 assumptions natural science makes as being foundational to interpreting the natural world, then OK. But then it goes back to my point that you suggest we discard scientific assumption 2,3 and 4 and replace it with "Biblical" (and by that I mean interpretations of Biblical teachings) assumptions.

True that diversity helps scientific inquiry. But natural science works in a particular way, operating outside of those parameters does not help scientific inquiry. We are talking about two separate issues: a spiritual reality and a natural reality. And while the two intersect, each exists in and of itself. I have been doing some thinking about this idea and will post a new topic on it when I get the chance.

The main issue I take is that the evolutionary bias is spread all throughout the mainstream science community and indoctrinated into our youth.



The main issue I take is that some people are so adamant that there understanding of the Bible's teaching on origins is absolutely correct that they are willing to spread what in my opinion are deceptive and incorrect information about the world around us, which is indeed God's revelation. When they teach that if the book of Genesis is wrong (at least their interpretation of it) then you have to throw out the entire Bible and one of their followers goes out and learns what reality actually says, and they do just that ... throw out the whole Bible and their faith too. It almost happened to me, fortunately I had already worked through many issues of faith and was able to avoid the trap. But many others are not as strong. That is the issue I have and why I am interested in this debate. If I can be convinced I am wrong, I would adjust my thinking again, but so far ...

I am really not coming to this forum to convince anyone that evolution is true. As I have said, there are issues I have with some parts of the theory. But I am hoping that I can have open and honest discussion about these issues with other Christians. So thanks for your comments

HBD

#31 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 01 August 2012 - 07:51 AM

Quote: "The main issue I take is that some people are so adamant that there understanding of the Bible's teaching on origins is absolutely correct that they are willing to spread what in my opinion are deceptive and incorrect information about the world around us, which is indeed God's revelation. When they teach that if the book of Genesis is wrong (at least their interpretation of it) then you have to throw out the entire Bible and one of their followers goes out and learns what reality actually says, and they do just that ... throw out the whole Bible and their faith too. It almost happened to me, fortunately I had already worked through many issues of faith and was able to avoid the trap."

Really? What incorrect information Mr. pretender-at-being-a-creationist? Tell us.

But first tell us where Moses in wrong in his chronologies of the early human family (Gen. 5 & 10) as compared to I Chronicles and the family tree of Israel and also in relation to the family lineage of Jesus as given by Luke. Cover that first and let us see if you really trust God's word above nature's message which you obviously think speaks of long ages.

#32 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 01 August 2012 - 10:49 AM

herebedragons,

What I can tell you is this, I am agnostic about the age of the earth, weather it be supernaturally aged by necessity, created a long time ago, or wether scientists are interpreting the earth age wrong, I am agnostic about biodiversity, weather it was adaptation of animals to unique and changing environments based on DNA that was present since creation, or wether it was an algorithm built into the genome that produces superficial variety (some may call micro-evolution). I am certain that the universe requires initial causation from a divine being and I am convinced by the historicity of the Bible that Jesus was God in the flesh revealing Himself to the world. He confirms the Bible, and therefore we know that supernatural occurances for natural events, and some supernatural events have occurred in the past.

I will have to take some time to answer your post in further detail, but in the mean time, I am wondering what your beliefs are about the origin of life and how biodiversity came to be so that I can better understand where you are coming from.

#33 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 01 August 2012 - 11:05 AM

Mr. pretender-at-being-a-creationist?



Why the name calling? I not pretending anything. I have clearly stated my position. Perhaps I am not a creationist as you define it, but I was required to choose one of the listed options to register. Old earth creationist was the closest choice that represented my view. No pretending.

But first tell us where Moses in wrong in his chronologies of the early human family (Gen. 5 & 10) as compared to I Chronicles and the family tree of Israel and also in relation to the family lineage of Jesus as given by Luke. Cover that first and let us see if you really trust God's word above nature's message which you obviously think speaks of long ages



This really has nothing to do with anything I said, and we certainly can't cover every aspect of the debate in one thread. I was merely trying to make my position clear to JayShel as he felt I was equivocating on my position. I hope that is cleared up now and it is clear that while we may not agree in this debate, I am not an atheist nor am I a YEC nor am I pretending to anything I am not.

What incorrect information ...? Tell us.



How about the topic at hand. gilbo has asserted that:

a) the use of DNA to establish similarity of organisms is improper because it is circular reasoning.

B) the use of mRNA would be a more appropriate approach to determining similarity

I believe this is incorrect information. (I do not accuse gilbo of doing anything deliberate or malicious) I have attempted to explain why I don't believe that his assertions are correct. You can read my position and his upthread. Do you agree with his assertions or not? and why.

HBD

#34 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 August 2012 - 11:17 AM

You're welcome to express your own opinion, however that in no way makes your claim correct.


Do you deny that evolution is assumed to occur in the first place to allow for the gaps in alignment?

No- Then it is in fact an exercise in circular reasoning
Yes- Then by what justification are gaps used in alignment?


Do you deny that mRNA would give much more data into the ACTUAL daily use of gene products the cells rather than going on their mere potential. Some genes may not be used therefore such a thing would skew the results if only the potential of gene products was used... Merely stating its too hard is not an argument against what we would achieve with mRNA analysis.

#35 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 01 August 2012 - 11:18 AM

herebedragons,

What I can tell you is this, I am agnostic about the age of the earth, weather it be supernaturally aged by necessity, created a long time ago, or wether scientists are interpreting the earth age wrong, I am agnostic about biodiversity, weather it was adaptation of animals to unique and changing environments based on DNA that was present since creation, or wether it was an algorithm built into the genome that produces superficial variety (some may call micro-evolution). I am certain that the universe requires initial causation from a divine being and I am convinced by the historicity of the Bible that Jesus was God in the flesh revealing Himself to the world. He confirms the Bible, and therefore we know that supernatural occurances for natural events, and some supernatural events have occurred in the past.

I will have to take some time to answer your post in further detail, but in the mean time, I am wondering what your beliefs are about the origin of life and how biodiversity came to be so that I can better understand where you are coming from.


I pretty much agree with your statement there. I am not quite as "agnostic" where it comes to some of the things you mentioned, but I wouldn't say I have an absolute position on anything related to this debate. I have been thinking of something lately that may help better explain how I am viewing this debate. I don't have all the details worked out yet, but when I do I will post a new thread. Maybe some folks here can help me work through that thought process. But I don't think is thread is the place for that.

What is your position on the OP? Do you think gilbo is correct is stating that the way DNA is used to establish similarity between organisms is improper because it uses circular reasoning? And do you believe that mRNA would be a better choice for that purpose?

HBD

#36 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 01 August 2012 - 03:18 PM

What is your position on the OP? Do you think gilbo is correct is stating that the way DNA is used to establish similarity between organisms is improper because it uses circular reasoning? And do you believe that mRNA would be a better choice for that purpose?

HBD


I believe examining DNA can determine the degree of similarity between organisms, but whether the similarity arose from common ancestor or common designer is not explicit in DNA. Certainly we share 50% DNA with bananas, and there is much information about an organism that is absent when comparing DNA, such as brain capacity, temperament, instincts, etc (speaking of the animal kingdom). As far as mRNA, I don't have much of an idea just yet. I intend to do some research.

#37 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 02 August 2012 - 07:02 AM

Hello again gilbo …

You're welcome to express your own opinion, however that in no way makes your claim correct.


Have you not been reading my posts? I did way more than merely express my opinion. I gave my objections and explained why I had those objections.

Do you deny that evolution is assumed to occur in the first place to allow for the gaps in alignment?


No, I don’t deny that, but it is not simply a yes or no. When issues like this are put in a simple yes or no format it shows a basic misunderstanding of the overall context. You can’t just focus on one piece; you have to understand the context. I will reiterate some of my main points regarding this topic.

a) I gave you a valid example of a specific situation where the assumption of descent would be perfectly reasonable and justified, but you chose to ignore it. If you are using this logic to refer to alignments between worms and humans - then yes, it would be an illogical assumption. But that is not exactly how it is done, as I have already pointed out.

b ) DNA similarity is far from the only evidence that evolutionists use to establish common ancestry. Other lines of evidence allow certain assumptions when generating phylogenies. They don’t simple say 98% similar must have evolved. It is not that simple. DNA similarity is merely one line of evidence that suggests common ancestry.

c) DNA similarity compares homologous genes. IOW, saying chimps and humans are 95% similar means we share 95% similarity in our genes - not in non-coding regions, which is why gaps are allowed in the alignment. Yes, if you lined up chimp DNA directly next to human DNA the similarity % would greatly diminish. And yes, you are absolutely right in saying that DNA sequences in those gaps are very important to the development of the organism. But that doesn’t change what “DNA similarity” means.

d) Similarity in genes between organisms helps us explore and determine how these genes and the non-coding regions function. Check out how mice are being used to understand the human genome. That research is due to the similarity between the mouse genome and our own genome.

e) I would agree that DNA similarity could indicate ID. But does ID predict DNA similarity? Do we assume that an Intelligent Designer would use modular components in the construction of organisms? Human designers do use modular components (which are really only an innovation of the last 100 years or so) to reduce costs, make assembly cheaper, reduce inventory, etc… This is hardly advantageous to an Intelligent Agent that can speak things into existence. So ID does not require or predict DNA similarity. Common ancestry both predicts DNA similarity and is consistent with the observation of similarity. I don’t doubt the existence of an Intelligent Designer (more specifically the God of the Bible) but DNA similarity is ambiguous as to His role and actually favors common descent.

Do you deny that mRNA would give much more data into the ACTUAL daily use of gene products the cells rather than going on their mere potential. Some genes may not be used therefore such a thing would skew the results if only the potential of gene products was used...


No, I do not deny any such thing. It would definitely give more information as to what is going on with cellular processes. If fact, this is what they are doing when they are studying processes such as the lac operon in bacteria. But to use it to compare similarity between organisms … I don’t feel it would be useful, at least not in the context you are referring to.

Merely stating its too hard is not an argument against what we would achieve with mRNA analysis.


Again, do you even read what I post? I said much more than it is too hard.

a) Proteins that are translated from mRNA can be modified after translation. You would need to know every possible modification.

b ) mRNA molecules are very unstable and subject to degradation. This, in fact, is one method the cell uses to control gene products - faster degradation = less product. So you would also need to know how much gene product can be produced from the mRNA.

c) Every cell type would have differing levels of mRNA expression. Do you know how many different cell types there are in the human body?

d) Cells can have different expression levels in different environments. Again, consider the bacterial lac operon; the expression of mRNA is different depending on whether lactose is present or not and if glucose is present, then the presence of lactose is irrelevant. So, which state would you use for comparison purposes? Glu+ / Lac+; Glu+ / Lac-; Glu- / Lac+; or Glu- / Lac- ? You get back to “potential” gene products.

e) Many organisms have different mRNA expressions during their lifetimes, as in the example of a butterfly you used. Do you realize that you could compare an adult human to a human infant and find different levels of mRNA expression? Do you know that human females and human males have different levels of mRNA expression? What would you compare what to what and why? You come right back to “potential” expression.

Scientists are exploring the issue of mRNA expression every day. It definitely is a key to understanding biological processes and development. But to think that generating an enormous database and comparing mRNA expression levels will show that organisms did not evolve is merely a pipe dream.

So, you may not agree with me, but you can’t say I only offered my opinion or merely stated “its too hard”. I put a lot of time and effort into my posts and I don’t just shoot off the cuff. And for you to say that I am merely offering my opinion and stating “its too hard” is a gross misrepresentation of my responses.

HBD

#38 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 02 August 2012 - 11:07 AM

Human designers do use modular components (which are really only an innovation of the last 100 years or so) to reduce costs, make assembly cheaper, reduce inventory, etc… This is hardly advantageous to an Intelligent Agent that can speak things into existence. So ID does not require or predict DNA similarity. Common ancestry both predicts DNA similarity and is consistent with the observation of similarity. I don’t doubt the existence of an Intelligent Designer (more specifically the God of the Bible) but DNA similarity is ambiguous as to His role and actually favors common descent.


Have you built an organism from the ground up? because if you have not, then you aren't really qualified to judge the efficiency of designing in a modular fashion over another. How do you know that modular design is not the best? Apparently, even by evolutionary standards, it is the best as evidenced by organisms around the world. Regardless of which worldview you hold, you are arguing against the evidence with this one.

No we cannot predict such minute details about God's creation that He has not revealed. We must observe them. So which is it, presupposing common descent predicts DNA similarity, or DNA similarity favors common descent as evidence? It would seem that you are arguing in circles here. To say that DNA similarity favors common descent is a baseless claim. It supports both worldviews equally. If you ask me if two organisms look similar, would I expect their DNA to be similar. It is easily predictable without assuming common descent, so I refuse to give evolution credit for predicting it.

Let me ask you a simple question; Do you believe humans and apes share a common ancestor?

#39 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 02 August 2012 - 12:56 PM

Let me ask you a simple question; Do you believe humans and apes share a common ancestor?



I will answer this question first. I would a say that there is some pretty strong evidence that they did share a common ancestor. However, I am not really convinced of it. There are aspects of humankind that are hard to explain with evolutionary theory - such as the will, morality, consciousness, etc. There is something special about humans that sets us apart from the animals and make us special in God's sight. So at this point I would say no, I am not convinced that humans shared a common ancestor with apes.

No we cannot predict such minute details about God's creation that He has not revealed. We must observe them. So which is it, presupposing common descent predicts DNA similarity, or DNA similarity favors common descent as evidence? It would seem that you are arguing in circles here. To say that DNA similarity favors common descent is a baseless claim. It supports both worldviews equally. If you ask me if two things look similar, would I expect their DNA to be similar, obviously yes regardless of origins



Let me see if I can clarify my thoughts here. When we observe DNA similarity across a wide range of organisms it is compatible with both common descent and with ID. We agree on that part.

The prediction part is where the confusion comes in. Lets say we have two organisms that we are unsure if they are related or not. Common descent would predict that in order for these organisms to be related by descent they must have similar DNA sequences. In fact, the sequences should be different such that it can be explained by a known process. As a simple example, consider the hypothetical organisms below (the letters represent genes)

A B C D E F G H I J K L - Organism 1
A B F E D C G H I J K L - Organism 2

We can see that these organisms differ by an inversion of the sequence C D E F, which is a known genetic phenomena and has been observed and studied in several model organisms.

If the sequences were more like this:

A B C D E F G H I J K L - organism 1
B D L J A C F H I K E G - organism 2

We could conclude that these organisms are not related because there is no mechanism that can explain these genetic changes. My primary area of study / interest is in plants, and this is exactly what is going on in plant systematics right now. With the data that is coming in from mDNA studies there is a major reshuffling as scientists are concluding that plants that were formerly thought to be related cannot actually be related and instead are related to other genera. I don't believe things are moving past the family level, but genera are certainly being reorganized.

So, that is how the predictive aspect of common descent works.

ID or more specifically special creation does not have that predictive aspect, IMO. What is to require the designer to build organisms in this type of predictable manner. For example, what would preclude the designer from building these organisms in the following way?

A B C D E F G H I J K L - house mouse
B D L J A C F H I K E G - white rat

Nothing would prevent the designer from organizing them in this way. So that means there is no ability to falsify any hypothesis about ancestry. Actually the human / chimp issue is a good example of this. Human chromosome 2 is thought to be a result of a fusion event between two chimp chromosomes. The correlation is stunning. Here is a bit about it http://www.evolution...hromosome_2.htm .

Common descent explains and predicts this (as I explained above). Fusion events are observed and studied. There is even a human living today that has undergone a similar fusion http://genetics.thet...al_news/news124

How does ID / special creation predict this situation. Lets forget for a second that we are talking about the human / chimp issue. What could you conclude about the following senario:

A B C D E F G H I J K - organism 1 (2 separate chromosomes)
A B C D E F G H I J K - organism 2 (1 fused chromosome)

You could easily conclude that organism 1 underwent a fusion event which gave rise to organism 2 (remember, fusions are observed - not just made up).

But now make it about the human / chimp issue and suddenly the rules change. Now an Intelligent designer could have designed it that way and it just looks like a fusion event. Do you see where I am coming from now? There is no predictive power in that. There is nothing to preclude a designer from designing in any fashion he chooses and there is no requirement that it be consistent.

I hope that clears up what I mean by predictability favors common descent rather than special creation in this case. And note that I am restricting this statement to the topic at hand only - I am not broadly painting this on every aspect of this debate.

That said, I am seriously puzzled by the evidence for human evolution, but I just am not convinced. I guess this is one area I do hold onto the in the Biblical account. It is hard to get around the fact that God made man in His image in order to have a relationship with Him. I have been unable to reconcile that idea with the idea of humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor.

HBD

#40 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 August 2012 - 08:44 PM

from the OP ...



OK, yes I will agree that the degree of similarity actually tells us very little all by itself. I will also agree that there is issues with how these similarity numbers are arrived at. But I guess more of what I am trying to get across to you is that if you want to argue against evolutionary theory, you should know what evolutionary scientists actually say about the theory, not just what creationists say the evolutionist say. Evolutionary scientists agree with your point that a raw DNA sequence comparison alone does not tell us much about an organisms history. This from Berkeley:


However, DNA sequences alone do not answer all the questions that biologists ask, and knowing a gene's sequence is still many steps away from understanding how it actually works and what it does. DNA sequences are only one line of evidence illuminating evolutionary relationships. For example, human and chimpanzee DNA is 98% identical, and genetic sequencing can tell us exactly where in the genome those few DNA differences are — but anatomical, behavioral, and developmental studies are also crucial in deeply understanding our differences, similarities, and shared evolutionary history.

Pasted from http://evolution.ber...icle/history_26

The 98% is counting only substitutions, and not insertions and deletions. It depends on the study. This one says 95% if you count indels http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12368483

I do have to credit the honest question, so WHAT GENES MAKE US HUMAN? http://cogweb.ucla.e...Gibbons_98.html
If only 5 % of our DNA is different, then obviously the approximately 150,000,000 (5% of the human 3 billion) base pairs must be accountable for the upright gait, speech, ability to compose music, build, calculate math, practice medicine, run a business and government, as well as other large differences. The following quotes are from the above cited article.

We really don't know all of the differences yet..." the primate genome has been almost virgin territory. 'You could write everything we knew about the genetic differences in a one-sentence article,' quips neuroscientist Thomas Insel, director of the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center of Emory University in Atlanta. And you agree with this in your statement...

We have only begun to unravel the mysteries of DNA and developmental processes and comparative sequencing is helping us to decipher its secrets. Raw DNA sequences do so little to enlighten us on those processes, so comparative genomics is only a tool scientists use to analyze genomic function. As I have stated previously, it is the differences that really matter.


So we don't have that much to go on to find the causes for these differences. Like why is it that, "Humans lack a particular form of a ubiquitous cell surface molecule found in all other apes...?" Easy, right? Selection just got rid of it, but all the other apes 'on the tree' still have it. And if it is ubiquitous in the apes, then it is a common and important molecule, so what happened to us, and why?

Interesteringly, other teams "are reporting newfound differences in the arrangements of DNA on the chromosomes of humans and other primates."
Obviously, they didn't study it all, or they wouldn't be finding new arrangements. Many studies are done by producing the assay through plasmids, so it's not the entire genome. http://en.wikipedia....cial_chromosome





Similarity between DNA sequences suggests homology. Homology suggest common ancestry. But, homology also suggests common design elements, which is part of the reason it is inconclusive as evidence for common descent. So, I agree that DNA sequence similarity is not conclusive evidence for evolution.

But only revelation can pull the naturalist into the reality of God's presence, theu inducing one to be convinced of the truth of his word. Obviously the miracle of life stands for itself, and no human can create it. This is natural revelation (Romans 1), but the revelation of the Holy Spirit convinces us that Christ is indeed Lord, and that by Him all things consist.

Edited by AFJ, 03 August 2012 - 08:46 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)