Creation vs. Evolution

[Warthaug]

My last post continued sort of...

In regard to genetic sequencing. Is this a reasonable (though partial) explanaition of how DNA sequencing is used?

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

It’s a lot more advanced now, especially in the genomics age. But the concept is the same. Basically, if you know the rate in which mutations accumulate in certain genes, you can begin comparing those genes between organisms and start determining their genetic relation to each other, as well as how long its been since they separated into different species.

It appears that sequencing data is calibrated or scaled (in regard to time) based on assumptions originally inferred from the fossil record in order to infer time lapsed since diversion. Genetic difference is what is measured.

Not so much anymore. A lot of effort has been put into validating the genetic timeline. This is done by monitoring the rates of mutations in existing populations, as well as (when available) comparing mutations between old samples vs. the species as it exists today.

As you may image this form of record is quite complete for quickly reproducing species - bacteria on upto insects. For "higher" animals we've got less data, but the data we do have agrees 100% with both the fossil record, as well as our previous genetic estimates.

This assumes, rather than establishes, that there was a common ascestor and that there ever was ever a divergence in the first place.

Ockham’s razor - simplest explanation is the most likely one. Nearly all of the genetic and fossil evidence supports the concept of common ancestry. When you see two species share a certain amount of genetic material, and you see that the parts which differ in a predictable and regular way, and the dating of this differentiation agrees quite closely with what’s observed in the fossil record, common ancestry is the simplest explanation for what you’ve observed. After all, what is more likely, that these predictable and consistent differences occurred via changes in the same thing, or that they (plus the similarities) developed randomly, from different sources? For that matter, we observed the formation of new species which confirms it. And we've seen speciation events in everything from the simplest of bacteria and viruses, right through to complex things like plants and animals.

Going back to the study that we've been discussing I'm not sure that we can really consider DNA sequencing as being independant of stratigraphy with regard to a "time lapsed since diversion" estimation.

But it is - at least now that we have mutation rate analysis that has been determined empirically - i.e. has been measured in nature, rather then inferred through the fossil record.

Bryan

 

[Hank49]

It is especially unsatisfying to attempt a discussion of the metaphysical with a monkey.

They are most likely to just fling feces at you, grin and hoot wildly.

I never tried to have this type of conversation with the Macaque monkey I had in the Philippines. But if you pretend to pick ticks and fleas off of her, and eat them while discussing our common ancestors, she was a great listener...
She also never once flung feces at me or anyone else. The "grin" is actually a submissive show of fear in hope that baring teeth may scare you away. Once she realized it wouldn't work, she would leap onto my shoulder and hope that picking ticks and fleas off me would pacify me.

 

[rookers]

I always appreciate being picked clean by a fellow primate.

 

[sandjeep]

Really? Everything I can find suggests that it is a vestigial tail. Sometimes people are born with it in which case it is usually removed by a doctor. Can you site where you have found that is not a tail?

What about the appendix? I wonder what that is for.... Occasionally people are even born without them.

Sorry, trying to find a non-creationist or non-evolution web site was very difficult. The medical cases I've read all point to the tail bone being a malformation. Only 24 cases worldwide since 1800s have been recorded with any non-connective cartledge. Here's more

Additionally, there are several muscles that attach to the tailbone as well. If I believed evolution was actually true, I would really wonder why Man got rid of the tail!! I could do mask drills, wouldn't need a Jon line, hold a beer while I used my hands to work on the mower. ect.

The appendix is a litttle harder, but all the doc's I know are leaning toward function and I found this

 

[Soggy]

Additionally, there are several muscles that attach to the tailbone as well.

I'm not talking about the tailbone. The tailbone is just the end of the spine. The spine has to end somewhere! What we are referring to is the vestigal tail that occurs during early embryo stages.

Regarding the appendix, there seems to be a lot of contention about it and most still favor the vestigal organ theory.

 

[mislav]

Additionally, there are several muscles that attach to the tailbone as well. If I believed evolution was actually true, I would really wonder why Man got rid of the tail!! I could do mask drills, wouldn't need a Jon line, hold a beer while I used my hands to work on the mower. ect.

You got it backwards. The humanity is slowly evolving into growing the tail so we can be able to hold a beer while using hands on the mower etc.

 

[Thalassamania]

As they used to say, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."

 

[sandjeep]

Haeckel didn't draw very well either, but anyway, back to this no tail issue!! Its not right I tell you, Evolution has ripped mankind off!!.........or wait a minute..how about a tail like Tigger, no more giant strides, instead giant springs!!

sorry, sometimes I can't help it.

 

[Thalassamania]

Haeckel

You're good!

 

[TStrick]

After reading through some of the pages of blah, blah, blah in this thread my feelings are still the same. When you die you go into a hole in the ground where all sorts of creatures enjoy your presence, you will smell and decay...Best part you will never know or care.