Evidence for a primate common ancestor.

[philadiddle]

This is just one of the many evidences that we share a common ancestor with other primates. I'd like to keep this thread on this specific topic pertaining to the chromosones in homo sapiens and other primates and the relationships they share. Here's a short clip (only 4 minutes) to explain the topic I would like to discuss. It's Ken Miller, professor of cell biology at Brown University. What he's talking about was used as evidence in court reguarding creation/evolution in the textbooks. Here's the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

I'd like everyone's comments on that video clip. For those who are interested here is a link to the full lecture. The first hour is the lecture and the last hour is Q&A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

 

[philadiddle]

Not even 1 reply yet?

 

[pgp_protector]

Not even 1 reply yet?

Just yours.

(and now this one also )

 

[HypnoToad]

I don't see how it supports evolution over intelligent design. We'd expect similar physiologies to have similar genomes. We'd expect efficient use of the gene system. Since primates were made the day before, it seems very efficient and simple to slightly alter what's already in use. It's just Miller's subjective belief that this would be "deceptive".

 

[philadiddle]

I don't see how it supports evolution over intelligent design. We'd expect similar physiologies to have similar genomes. We'd expect efficient use of the gene system. Since primates were made the day before, it seems very efficient and simple to slightly alter what's already in use. It's just Miller's subjective belief that this would be "deceptive".

If it's an effiecient use of DNA, then why use telemeres where they done't belong and are useless? The telemeres and other base pairs in human chromosone number 2 would not have any function except looking like fused primate chromosones. The fused chromosone matches 2 chromosones found in other primates. All that extra unused DNA seems to be more deceitful then efficient. Maybe you could explain in more detail how this is just God's efficiency.

If we would expect efficient use of the genome then why is something like 97% of our DNA junk DNA? Why so much unused DNA? I think it's because of millions of years of reproduction that has caused duplications and mutations without start/stop codons to give them any functions. I don't think there is a YEC explanation for it.

 

[mark kennedy]

If it's an effiecient use of DNA, then why use telemeres where they done't belong and are useless? The telemeres and other base pairs in human chromosone number 2 would not have any function except looking like fused primate chromosones. The fused chromosone matches 2 chromosones found in other primates. All that extra unused DNA seems to be more deceitful then efficient. Maybe you could explain in more detail how this is just God's efficiency.

Yea, the argument goes something like what are the Tag sequences doing exactly where we expect them to be. What they don't tell you is that this particular chromosomal rearrangement would have involved 4 million base pairs. Not only that it is one of 8 Chromosomal rearrangements from 2-4 million base pairs in length representing over 20 million base pairs worth of divergence.

A couple of tag sequences are not that big a deal.

If we would expect efficient use of the genome then why is something like 97% of our DNA junk DNA? Why so much unused DNA? I think it's because of millions of years of reproduction that has caused duplications and mutations without start/stop codons to give them any functions. I don't think there is a YEC explanation for it.

What if it's only 95% or less? What if we are talking about 145 million base pairs over a 5 million year period? Any problems there?

How about a mutation rate that allows 71 base pairs, on average, not only changed but fixed per year for 5 million years?

I know for a fact evolutionists don't have an answer for that one. What is more, Intelligent Design does not question human ancestry so the professor is talking out of his hat.

 

[archaeologist]

i have listened to his whole lecture and not one time can he show that dna proves the process of evolution was responsible.

what he does do is infer that evolution is responsible but similar dna's do not mean evolution at work,nor does a 'fused' genome mean evolution is right.

that is an assumption based upon a pre-conceived idea with the scientists being biased as they are looking to prove a certain result and not beng objective throughout the research.

 

[Mallon]

I don't see how it supports evolution over intelligent design. We'd expect similar physiologies to have similar genomes. We'd expect efficient use of the gene system. Since primates were made the day before, it seems very efficient and simple to slightly alter what's already in use. It's just Miller's subjective belief that this would be "deceptive".

How do birds and fish fit into the YEC/ID view that all life shares a common designer (rather than common ancestry)? According to Genesis, birds and fish were made of different building blocks (water) than humans and beasts of the field (earth). Should we not therefore predict that whales share more DNA in common with fish than with mammals?

Similarly, if phenotypic or genetic similarities are evidence for common design, are the differences not evidence for separate designers?

 

[HypnoToad]

According to Genesis, birds and fish were made of different building blocks (water)

Nowhere does it say water was the "building block" of any creature.

Similarly, if phenotypic or genetic similarities are evidence for common design, are the differences not evidence for separate designers?

That's just plain silly. Would you argue that Ford could not make both the Explorer and the Mustang because one is an SUV while the other is a sports car?

 

[Mallon]

Nowhere does it say water was the "building block" of any creature.

Genesis 1:20 says water gave rise to the fish and (arguably) the birds. Genesis 1:24 says the land gave rise to the beasts of the field. If that's the case, then surely you would expect their chemical compositions to differ, no? Land animals should contain more silica, for example.

That's just plain silly. Would you argue that Ford could not make both the Explorer and the Mustang because one is an SUV while the other is a sports car?

It's not that silly, really. Since cars are a favourite analogy for ID proponents, I could easily reverse your logic and point out that shared similarities are not necessarily evidence for a common designer. Both Ford and Honda make sedans, for example. The whole "common designer" argument is bunk!

 

[philadiddle]

Yea, the argument goes something like what are the Tag sequences doing exactly where we expect them to be. What they don't tell you is that this particular chromosomal rearrangement would have involved 4 million base pairs. Not only that it is one of 8 Chromosomal rearrangements from 2-4 million base pairs in length representing over 20 million base pairs worth of divergence.

A couple of tag sequences are not that big a deal.

It's not that "they" aren't telling me because it's a conspiracy. That information isn't in the video because it's meant for lay ppl to understand. What you've just said doesn't in any way debunk his statements.

What if it's only 95% or less? What if we are talking about 145 million base pairs over a 5 million year period? Any problems there?

How about a mutation rate that allows 71 base pairs, on average, not only changed but fixed per year for 5 million years?

Can't u just answer the question I asked instead of asking random questions?

I know for a fact evolutionists don't have an answer for that one. What is more, Intelligent Design does not question human ancestry so the professor is talking out of his hat.

Huh? You should be a politician. You have a way of responding without actually responding, and making it sound as if the person you are addressing said nothing of importance. I hope the anonymous readers in this forum recognize this.

 

[philadiddle]

i have listened to his whole lecture and not one time can he show that dna proves the process of evolution was responsible.

yet in a court of law they gave a lot of evidence for evolution from DNA and microbiology, and the ID proponents didn't even respond to them. Don't you think that if what they were saying wasn't actual evidence, that the ID side would have jumped on it, especially since it was in a court where they could have had a ruling in their favor?

what he does do is infer that evolution is responsible but similar dna's do not mean evolution at work,nor does a 'fused' genome mean evolution is right.

A fused genome is evidence for the theory of evolution. Of course it doesn't prove it, proofs are for math. Your continual dismissal of evidence makes me think of this clip from that lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj06cvj0VLQ

that is an assumption based upon a pre-conceived idea with the scientists being biased as they are looking to prove a certain result and not beng objective throughout the research.

Are you serious? How can you say that any scientist that comes up with creation science isn't being bias? They are all starting with the conclusion. You really shouldn't be pointing the finger about starting with a preconceived idea.

You must also understand that scientists don't want to study what has already been discovered. They want to be like the next Einstein, who replaced Newtonian physics. If someone could refute evolution with something like a missing chromosone, they would, and they would be famous for it.

 

[philadiddle]

Why do ppl avoid the hard hitting questions like this?

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

evidence...it follows that no amount of evidence would convince them of evolution. They are interested in evidence. Arguing with fundies about ID or Creationism accords their wacky ideas some measure of respect which they don't deserve...