Creation vs. Evolution

[adza]

Hi Bryan,

Whoops - Their's more...

It is as close to fact as we can prove. Every measure we've made screams this fact to us - be it genetic similarity, the fossil record, biological and biochemical comparisons, the tendacy of us to share pathogens, etc, all support this conclusion.

Ochams razer; the simplest explanation is the most likely. That this similarity is due to a common ancestor is the simplest explanation. That we derived this similarity independently is much less likely.

Only if you take God out of the picture. One of the flaws IMO with science looking for life, is that they place restraints around it - totally excluding the possibility of their being a God.

Now - that's obviously not a problem if God really doesn't exist - but it strikes a problem if He does exist - and if He did do it the biblical way. It would mean that scientists are trying to look for evidence to support a theory that God didn't do it a particular way - restricting the outcome of their findings. This would cause scientists to be selective in their approach (in this area) right from the beginning.

But the bible DOES NOT SAY it took 6 thousand years. That claim is based on a calculation made by some priest back in the middle ages. In fact, in older versions of the old testament (i.e. old hebrew), the term "days" isn't even used to describe the timing of creation - rather a word describing what is effectively "generic period of time" is used.

In that light, creationist claims seem to be little more then a mistranslation of the bible...

Yeah - I've seen that statement made a few times on this forum, and I'll address it here. If one is to take the bible seriously about what it says in Genesis - one will most likely address the issue as 6 literal days.

Those who are more liberal with the bible are willing to say that it was a 'period' of time. This is where the noise comes in - and makes it more difficult to have a forum on the topic.

(I can see I'm about to get hammered by other "christians" on this forum, but I'll continue to explain where I'm comming from)...

The word 'day' in the hebrew can be similar to the word day in english. One could say 'In the day of my grandfather they had horse and carts'. Someone fluent with english would recognise that this is not talking about a litteral 'day', but a period of time.

Likewise, when you go through the scriptures, and find where the term 'day' was used - we can get an understanding of the context - to see what is being referred to. Especially, when the word is being used in conjunction to 'evening' and 'morning'.

If the genesis 'day' was a thousand or million years - then we do end up with a scientific problem. How did the trees survive without animals or man around to create CO2?

The problem that we face here, is that we range from those who believe that every word is in the bible by design from God, to those who believe that the bible is simply a lose interpertation of what God really is. If it's the former - it gives us good grounds on where we can prove, or disprove the bible. If it's the latter - you can believe whatever you want (depending on how far you push it).

I believe those using the genesis term 'day' as anything else other than a standard 'day' are the ones mistranslating the bible so it will better fit in with what they're comfortable with. Lets face it - the people who'll cop the most flack are the ones that take it literally. It's the hardest stance to take from a secular point of view.

Cheers

Adam.

 

[adza]

Half of my last post seems to have disappeared, and of course it was the important half. Rather then re-replying, I'll just go over the major points I wrote:

1) You failure to acknowledge humans and chimps as the same "kind" is a perfect example of why that "definition" is useless for discussions of scientific theories. By every measure we have humans and chimps are closer related than are horses and donkeys. Genetically, biochemically, structurally, immunologically, etc, humans are closer to chimps then horses are to donkeys. "Kind" is simply too subjective for any practical use in these discussions, and too easily redefined. This is why scientists have such stringent definitions of things like "species", "family", "genus", "theory" and whatnot - it leaves no room for quibbling over the definition of the word.

Kind may be a bit hard to work with, but then let's see what the bible says. The bible distinctly puts man and ape/chimp/monkey as seperate "kinds". All throughout the bible, you wont see man referred to along side monkey. (In fact, we're kinder than the bible, by calling ourselves mammals - which puts us in the same kind).

I would then - without too many hastles whatsoever be confident in telling you that man and chimp are completely seperate kinds of animals according to the bible. If man and chimp are closer than other 'kinds' of animals, then it shouldn't be too hard for science to disprove the bible.

2) The experiment you keep asking for to "prove" evolution - the rapid creation of a different "kind", actually represents a disproof of evolution. Keep in mind that evolution predicts gradual change - gradual as in taking hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of generations. So if I made a human form form a chimp in the lab, this would directly disprove the theory as evolution which should occur over millions of years would have occurred in a matter of years.

I'll leave this to the previous response I made a few posts above to a similar statement.

A second point worth making here is that the kinds of changes you're asking about have been demonstrated in simpler organisms, and they occur over the expected period of time (as measured by generations). Evolutionary changes on the scale of the difference between humans and chimps (i.e. 1-2% difference in coding genes) have been observed (in lab and in nature) in things like bacteria, nematodes and insects. A lot of that was covered in the links I provided previously. And these observations support evolution - they take a long period of time (in terms of generations, a bacterial generation can be as short as 20 minutes, a nematode 1 day, etc), they occurred gradually, and occurred in response to selective pressures.

I'll leave this with the question about a change of 4 nucleotides.

3) You claimed that "many evolutionary scientists" have switched teams and now support creationism. The "list 5" comment I made was a request for the names of five such scientists - i.e. proof that there are "many" evolutionary scientists who have done this.

Sorry - I missed that. Leave it with me, and I'll get back to you regarding it.

4) Your claims that beneficial mutations (i.e. ones which add, rather than remove genetic information) do not occur, or somehow "degrade" genetics, is wrong. In fact, one of the most common forms of mutation (duplication mutations) do exactly that - replicate regions of DNA, leading to an overall increase in the amount of DNA an organism has. In addition to this, numerous point mutations have been identified which are beneficial and do not incur a loss of the genes function.

I'll leave this with my reply on duplication vs new information above.

That's all I have tome for now - I'm writing this during my coffee break. Back to ye olde grindstone...

You're a quicker typist than I. Thanks again for being interested enough to converse!

Cheers

Adam.

 

[adza]

God loves you whether you will ever love Him back.[/i]

]nice to know ...

i'll keep it in mind when i'm frying in hell

This is where I see the deception from the devil coming through regarding Gods love to us all.

God is a Holy God - something that we can't even begin to comprehend. When He says something - He doesn't go back on his word. He doesn't cheat, lie, steal, etc.

Bearing that in mind - who of us, if caught out in a very difficult situation (that might cost us a lot, or send us to jail), wouldn't seriously consider telling a "small white lie" to get us out of trouble? You know - the way the legal system is these days, the opposition might be lying too - fabricating evidence or something - so maybe the only way to fight is to 'stretch the truth a little'.

Well - God won't do that - regardless of the cost. He gave us this earth - and we handed it, and ourselves over to Satan. (Adam did that originally, and we've all done it when we played by Satans rules).

For God to turn around and simply 'dismiss' what we've done - would be cheating against what He already established. Satan might use all kinds of deceptions, lies, etc to get his own way, but God will not use the same tactics to fight back - he is a Holy God. This puts him in a bit of a bind.

Because of this God was forced to make a decision - see all of man go to Hell - or pay the ultimate price - send His only Son to come to earth, and suffer, and go to Hell in our place, that we might have the option to be saved.

God loved us that much that He didn't just allow this - He asked it of His Son! God has given you a way out. It cost Him more than you'll ever know. And - because of deception - people hurl the insult at God after He's done all this - calling Him a God of hate, and not love - and that He's going to send everyone to hell.

We think that God can do whatever He wants. True - but only to a point. He is restricted by His own words. He can not lie or cheat. He's done all He can for you.

Whether you accept it or not is your choice. God won't be sending you to Hell - you're already on your way. The Devil (not God) is making sure of that! Whether you take His hand to pull you out or not is your decision.

 

[Soggy]

It would also appear to show that 'scientific evolution' (as opposed to 'monkey evolution') is not capable of showing the origins of life to start with.

GOOD GRIEF!

Any discussion with you is pointless until you get better at reading comprehension

One more time, with feeling...

EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

Let's try that again

EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE


Get it yet?


EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

Evolution is about....the EVOLUTION of life, not how it began. You can keep your creator there breathing life into the lifeless if it makes you happy.

 

[Thalassamania]

Maybe then, you'd agree with me (correct me if I'm wrong) - that at the least - the evolution studies that are taught in our schools or on TV disagree with the scientific studies of "evolution" - or that some parts agree, but their's a lot of hogwash being thrown around about evolution (such as it being FACT that we came from apes) that it gives scientists working on 'true mutation/evolution' a bad name?

I was taught in school that evolution showed that we came from apes, and prior to that some fish, and prior to that from some goo. If this is not what evolution is about, and as you have explained previous, it's about new species (which can be the same 'type' of animal) emerging - then maybe it would make it easier for us all to try and have a good understanding of each other.

As you stated, you’re wrong. Humans and apes evolved from an “ape-like” common ancestor who in turn shared a "shrew-like" common ancestor with the insectivores, who in turn shared a "lobe-fined-fish-like" common ancestor with the amphibians, etc. back to a "goo-like" common ancestor for all of life. That is scientific evolution (rather compressed and simplified) and I suspect is also what you are calling “monkey-evolution.”

If this is what evolution is - simply existing information been inserted / added / altered, then from what I've seen - yes - there is plenty of evidence to support that this can happen. But then, that fails to explain how lungs were formed from gills, etc. (Again - if this is not what evolution is about (ie, gills to lungs) - then as posted above, it looks like we agree on things more than we probably first thought - I'd just wish then, that the schools and TV stations would get it right).

It would also appear to show that 'scientific evolution' (as opposed to 'monkey evolution') is not capable of showing the origins of life to start with.

This is a perfect example of why this discussion is so difficult. You lack the background to engage in the conversation. No one has ever theorized that lungs evolved from gills, yet you slip that as though it were an acknowledged fact. Take a course in comparative anatomy and one in embryology and pay close attention to the difference between analogous and homologous structures.

Only if you take God out of the picture. One of the flaws IMO with science looking for life, is that they place restraints around it - totally excluding the possibility of their being a God.

Now - that's obviously not a problem if God really doesn't exist - but it strikes a problem if He does exist - and if He did do it the biblical way. It would mean that scientists are trying to look for evidence to support a theory that God didn't do it a particular way - restricting the outcome of their findings. This would cause scientists to be selective in their approach (in this area) right from the beginning.

There is no objective evidence of god, there is plentiful objective evidence of evolution. The "believers" have, for thousands of years, been shown wrong, time and time again, with respect to their knowledge and understanding of the world around them whilst persecuting and vilifying those who have been shown right, time and time again. There’s a basic rule of management: “past performance is the best predictor of future outcomes.” If we apply that rule to this topic, it’s damn near proof perfect of the scientific viewpoint.

Kind may be a bit hard to work with, but then let's see what the bible says. The bible distinctly puts man and ape/chimp/monkey as seperate "kinds". All throughout the bible, you wont see man referred to along side monkey. (In fact, we're kinder than the bible, by calling ourselves mammals - which puts us in the same kind).

I would then - without too many hastles whatsoever be confident in telling you that man and chimp are completely seperate kinds of animals according to the bible. If man and chimp are closer than other 'kinds' of animals, then it shouldn't be too hard for science to disprove the bible.

Man and chimp have been shown to be closer than most other “kinds” of animals. What must be done to convince you, produce a fertile man-chimp hybrid? Some Christians believe that to already have happened. So on the basis of Christian testimony, according to your statement, we can now unequivocally produce the finding that the bible has been disproved.

RAmen.

 

[Warthaug]

Hi Bryan,
Maybe then, you'd agree with me (correct me if I'm wrong) - that at the least - the evolution studies that are taught in our schools or on TV disagree with the scientific studies of "evolution"

While obviously I cannot comment on every educational system in the world, what is being taught here (Canada) is correct. Obviously, they are taught only the basics, but what they are taught is accurate.

As for TV, it depends on what you watch. If you're watching documentaries on a reputable channel (i.e. not fox ), they're usually pretty accurate.

I no longer trust news broadcasts to get the science right. A while ago my lab (including me - look mom, I'm famous) was on the national news about some liver work we had done. Before we started the interview we gave the reporter a little sheet that said "There are four major forms of hepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis, and 3 form viral hepatitis - HepA, B and C".

In the actual report this somehow got mutated into "There are three forms of hepatitis, hepatitis A which is autoimmune, and hepatitis B & C, which are viral". Someone didn't read the dammed sheet.

I was taught in school that evolution showed that we came from apes, and prior to that some fish, and prior to that from some goo.

Which is the conclusions supported by every little piece of evolutionary data collected to date (aside from the goo, it appears more likely that life formed in suspension, within the early seas). But at the end of the day there are three major, independent lines of evidence which all point to the above conclusion:

1) Genetic evidence, where genetic sequencing has demonstrated a clear evolutionary path from the simplest of lifeforms (archea) through to humans.

2) Fossil record, which independently demonstrates the exact same evolutionary progression observed in the genetic studies.

3) Physiological/biochemical/immunological comparisons, which show the exact same evolutionary links as 1 & 2.

This is why science is certain that the whole simple organisms -> fish -> apes -> humans thing is correct. Every piece of evidence we have ever collected points in that direction. And the evidence comes from multiple scientific discipline, uses very different measures and methods, and yet all come to the exact same conclusion. This congruence of evidence, from independent sciences, screams out that these links are real.

If this is not what evolution is about, and as you have explained previous, it's about new species (which can be the same 'type' of animal) emerging - then maybe it would make it easier for us all to try and have a good understanding of each other.

Evolution, simply and plainly, is nothing more then the genetic changes which occur over time. Although events such as speciation occur as a result of evolution, the actual theory of evolution deals with HOW genetic changes occur, HOW those changes are selected for/against, and WHAT the result of those changes are.

That is all that evolutionary theory is. The study of how life changes over time. Nothing more, nothing less.


Damn, too long again. Stay tuned for part II...

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Part II...

I couldn't find anything relating to new information in the links you posted. I saw parts of duplication mutations (if my definition of this is correct) - such as the ant with the extra legs where the antennae should have been

That is not a duplication mutation. Duplication mutations occur when a region of DNA gets copied, so that region now appears twice within the organisms DNA.

- but I would not see this as having new information added to the gene pool, but rather a duplication (or insertion) of existing information.

Except that the new information is now free to evolve, without consequences to the organism (as it has 2 copies of the genes now, so it can change one without destroying the function of the other).

Sequencing the human genome was one of the most informative tings we've done in terms of understanding how this process works. For example, our body is full of receptors called "G-protein coupled receptors", or GPCR. These are the receptors which allow you to taste, smell, feel, contract/relax your muscles, activate your immune system, and a whole other host of functions. It appears that all GPCR's came from the same "parent" receptor, which was duplicated and mutated over 2000 times to for the entire repitiour of these receptors in our bodies.

Many other genes in our bodies arose through duplication/mutation events. We have several hemoglobin genes, and mutations in some of these provide resistance to malaria. There are multiple insulin-like genes, which are also duplication mutants.

Duplication is probably the most useful form of mutation, as you get to keep a working copy of the old gene, while being able to mutate the new copy (or vice versa) into something new.

As for insertioonal mutation - correct me if I'm wrong here too - but doesn't that imply inserting data/information from somewhere else. (ie - with both mutations, nothing new has just appeared. It's been gathered from previously existing information).

Insertional mutations are the insertion of foreign DNA into your genome. Some species of bacteria do this all the time - some by having the bacterial version of sex, others by simply soaking up any free DNA that happens to be lying around.

In the case of more advanced organisms, such as ourselves, this type of mutation is usually the product of our genomes being invaded by a virus. Once "stuck" in our DNA, the virus becomes a part of our DNA, and evolves just like we do. Our bodies have "stolen" genes from many of these viruses - for example, there is a gene in the placenta which is used to fuse the placental cells together. This gene was "stolen" from one of these viruses. Another example is HIV itself - if it wasn't for a gene expressed by one of these trapped viruses HIV wouldn't be able to infect us.

If this is what evolution is - simply existing information been inserted / added / altered, then from what I've seen - yes - there is plenty of evidence to support that this can happen. But then, that fails to explain how lungs were formed from gills, etc.

But it does. The thing you keep loosing track of is that these changes occur slowly, over time. It wasn't one day there were gills, the next lungs. Rather, you start with gills, then you get gill that can also support brief exposures to air (say for crawling from stream, to stream, an adaptation which some fish still have today). From there you develop more-and-more air-compatible "gills" until eventually you get a specialized organ (primitive lungs) which only support life on land, and not in the water. More:

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/2/289
http://ajrcmb.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/1/8

EDIT: Thal just pointed out to me that I've made an error here - lungs developed from swim bladders, not gill arches. I think I may have confused salamander evolution (which have air-compatible gills) with mammal evolution...

It would also appear to show that 'scientific evolution' (as opposed to 'monkey evolution') is not capable of showing the origins of life to start with.

As I've said 5 or 6 times now, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary science. It is a separate group of theires called "abiogenesis". Obviously there is some overlap, but they are separate fields.

Hmm - so in that respect, evolution as far as fly to cat can not be observed, or proven to be fact, but is moreso a conclusion as to what some scientists believe may have happened from the direct observations they've been able to see on a macro/micro scale?

No. No scientist thinks that cats came from flies. Insects are not direct descendants of vertebrates. Hence, it cannot be observed, or proven as fact. However, cats did, at one point in time, share an ancestor with jawed fish. And this we can prove - by looking at comparative genetics, the fossil record, and so forth. And the scientific evidence we have today shows this link, quite clearly.

From the examples I've seen most mutations normally end up with loss of information (or errors which cause loss of function). Some have duplication, but no natural mutations end up with new information where their was none prior.

Completely wrong. There are literally hundreds of known beneficial mutations - from CCR5 mutations which make people immune to HIV, to mutations which changed moths colorings to better hide in a polluted environment, to mutations which allow pathogens to survive drug treatments. These mutations occurred without the loss of genes, and instead represent the modification of a gene such that it preforms its function, but in a better adapted way.

Being serious though - I've heard that the gap between humans and chimps is of least 48x10^6 nucleotides- and that a change of 3 or 4 nucleotides is fatal to an animal. From what you've heard - is this true?

I'm not sure if that number is correct. However, it is not as simple as that. Genes code for proteins, which are the building blocks of life (think of DNA as the instruction manual for a lego set, proteins the lego blocks), so when we're talking about mutation and adaptation, we're actually talking about changes to the proteins - mutations which effect DNA, but not proteins, are meaningless.

It turns out that human/chimp DNA is about 90% "junk". A huge portion (about 50%) is just random pieces of DNA - leftovers of viruses that invaded our DNA thousands of generations ago, repetitive elements that tend to get duplicated (because during the process of chromosome cross-over, these sequences tend to mis-align), and other non-functional "junk".

The remaining 50% consists of genes and their regulatory elements. But even in this region, only about 4% (i.e. 2% of the total DNA) actually codes for proteins. The rest is regulatory sequences (most of which can be mutated without consequence), spacer sequences (can also be mutated without consequence), and introns (mutatable with minimal consequence).

So although there may be a lot of difference between us at a DNA level, most of those differences are within the "junk", and only a small portion is within the genes and the genes regulatory regions themselves.

Although the chimpanzee genome project is not yet complete, current evidence suggests that the difference between us and them is about 2% at the protein-coding level (i.e. the parts of the DNA that actually make protein).

As for mow many mutations is lethal, the answer is "it depends". There are entire sets of genes who's functions are either redundant with other genes, or just not required. These genes can be mutated wholesale, or even outright deleted, without consequence. There are other genes which become lethal after even the most minor of tinkering (say, altering the regulatory region so a little more of the gene is made).

EDIT: Just remembered I wanted to add something here. There is a group of scientists who are trying to find the minimal set of genes required to support life. I do not remember the exact amount that they've deleted from the bacteria they're working with, but if I remember correct they've removed about 80% of that bacterias DNA and it still lives. That's a pretty big mutation.

So whether mutations are lethal or not depends on where they occur - and keep in mind that evolution will select against the bad ones. The difference between humans and chimps is pretty minimal - in fact, there is a greater difference between some strains of dogs (i.e. chiwawas and wolves) then there is between us and chimps. In fact, about the only reason humans and chimps cannot cross-bread is due to some of those duplication, inversional and translational mutations I mentioned previously. Basically, our DNA is almost the same, it's just been rearranged a little - just enough to prevent cross-breading.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Kind may be a bit hard to work with, but then let's see what the bible says. The bible distinctly puts man and ape/chimp/monkey as seperate "kinds". All throughout the bible, you wont see man referred to along side monkey. (In fact, we're kinder than the bible, by calling ourselves mammals - which puts us in the same kind).

And there you see the issue of "kind". Its so non-specific that you can group pretty much any groups of animals together and call them kind. Be it primates (i.e. grouping humans & chimps), mammals (grouping humans & mice), vertebrates (grouping humans and fish), chordates (grouping humans and tunicates) animals (groping humans and sponges), etc, etc, etc.

That is why it is useless for discussing scientific concepts like evolution - it is far to variable, and open to personal opinions, to be a useful measure of anything.

I would then - without too many hastles whatsoever be confident in telling you that man and chimp are completely seperate kinds of animals according to the bible. If man and chimp are closer than other 'kinds' of animals, then it shouldn't be too hard for science to disprove the bible.

But we have shown that we are closer to chimps than are horses and donkeys - genetically, structurally, immunogenically, etc, we are far, far closer to chimps then are horses and donkeys. I am unaware of any scientific more which does not show a closer relationship between and & chimp then it does between horse and donkey.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Man and chimp have been shown to be closer than most other “kinds” of animals. What must be done to convince you, produce a fertile man-chimp hybrid? Some Christians believe that to already have happened.

Wow, now there is a deceitful article, full of lies:

"Comparison of whole genomes indicates that humans and chimpanzees have a genetic similarity that is less than 90 percent"

Preliminary gene-sequence evidence shows something quite different:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16136131&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16136132&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

These studies estimate a 2-2.7% difference (i.e. 97.3% to 98% similarity) between species.

But my favorite:
"Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, PhD, a well-known origin-of-life researcher from the science/faith think-tank, Reasons To Believe"

So this pro-creationist group has declared their in-house expert as being "well-known". Funny thing is, a search of the scientific literature shows:

1) 29 papers published by authors with the name "Rana F, representing at least 3 separate authors (Rana F, Rana FS, and Rana FR).

2) The author "Rana F", AKA Dr. Farazana Rana, who has the largest number of publications (18), can be eliminated as this supposed expert because, we'll, I know her. We worked together at the same uni for years, I've even published two papers in collaboration with her PhD supervisors lab!

3) Of all the publications by "Rana F"s, including Farazana's, not one of the articles is about evolution, or the origin of life.

So this supposed "well known expert" has, at best, 5 or 6 publications in an unrelated field, and yet somehow is an "expert" in evolution? And that's assuming that he's one of the two remaining "Rama F"'s listed in the scientific literature...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Christians supposed to tell the truth?

Bryan

 

[chrisch]

.. it shouldn't be too hard for science to disprove the bible.
...

That pre-supposes anyone is willing to listen or to believe the proof.....

History suggests this is unlikely.

Chris