Evidence for evolution?

[Mallon]

Of course, if the earth is say, much younger, then there wouldn't be time for any divergence, which is what we see in the video.

That's not what the Creation Museum says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk

 

[sfs]

The key is not beneficial mutations. What's beneficial for one can be lethal to another.

The key is new structures.

That may be key for you, but that wasn't what the previous poster was talking about.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070


CHROMOSOMAL COUNTS It would make sense that, if humans and chimpanzees were genetically identical, then the manner in which they store DNA also would be similar. Yet it is not. DNA, the fundamental blueprint of life, is tightly compacted into chromosomes. All cells that possess a nucleus contain a specific number of chromosomes. Common sense would seem to necessitate that organisms that share a common ancestry would possess the same number of chromosomes. However, chromosome numbers in living organisms vary from 308 in the black mulberry (Morus nigra) to six in animals such as the mosquito (Culex pipiens) or nematode worm (Caenorhabditis elegans) [see Sinnot, et al., 1958]. Additionally, complexity does not appear to affect the chromosomal number. The radiolaria (a simple protozoon) has over 800, while humans possess 46. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, have 48 chromosomes. A strict comparison of chromosome numbers would indicate that we are more closely related to the Chinese muntjac (a small deer found in Taiwan’s mountainous regions), which also has 46 chromosomes.
This hurdle of differing numbers of chromosomes may appear trivial, but we must remember that chromosomes contain genes, which themselves are composed of DNA spirals. If the blueprint of DNA locked inside the chromosomes codes for only 46 chromosomes, then how can evolution account for the loss of two entire chromosomes? The task of DNA is to continually reproduce itself. If we infer that this change in chromosome number occurred through evolution, then we are asserting that the DNA locked in the original number of chromosomes did not do its job correctly or efficiently. Considering that each chromosome carries a number of genes, losing chromosomes does not make sense physiologically, and probably would prove deadly for new species. No respectable biologist would suggest that by removing one (or more) chromosomes, a new species likely would be produced. To remove even one chromosome would potentially remove the DNA codes for millions of vital body factors. Eldon Gardner summed it up as follows: “Chromosome number is probably more constant, however, than any other single morphological characteristic that is available for species identification” (1968, p. 211). To put it another way, humans always have had 46 chromosomes, whereas chimps always have had 48.

Wow, really bad argument. Chromosome number is not constant within species; there are quite a few species (including mammals) that are known to have variable number of chromosomes. So there is no reason the number could not have changed in either humans or chimpanzees. If common descent is true, that's what must have happened, and this is a question that can be investigated.

Looking at the other apes, we find that all of them also have 48 chromosomes, so it is likely that the change (if there was one) occurred in the human lineage. If you line up the chromosomes of the various apes with human chromosomes (e.g. here is the comparison with chimpanzees), you quickly see that human chromosome 2 looks exactly like two ape chromosomes fused end to end. Such fusions occur not that infrequently (look up "Robertsonian fusion"). If you then look in more detail at human chromosome 2, exactly at the point where the two chromosomes must have joined, you will find the sequence for the telomeres, the repetitive sequence at the end of chromosomes. If you look on chromosome 2 at the point where the ape centromere (a crucial piece of chromosomal machinary) must have been, you find the decayed sequence of that feature.

In summary, then, common descent makes very specific predictions here, predictions that are beautifully borne out by the data. You would have had a hard time choosing a better illustration of the scientific utility of common descent if you had tried.

 

[SnapCount]

DNA is the blueprint of all life. If all species were created, it would only make sense that primates, who share similar traits and created by the same Creator, share a lot of the same blueprints.

Common descent would not expect to see no divergence at all. The video implied that the glumatic acid proteins among all primate are the same, even though it is far more likely than not to be at least some discrepancy, and that's assuming the mutation rates for the millions of years in question are only a tiny fraction of the rates we have seen for the last 5,000 years.

 

[random_guy]

DNA is the blueprint of all life. If all species were created, it would only make sense that primates, who share similar traits and created by the same Creator, share a lot of the same blueprints.

You keep saying this, but how do you explain what sfs just said? You choose a horrible example to defend your view. Why would one of our chromosomes contain endpoints in the middle of another chromosome? Why would that same chromosome match up with two other chromosomes as if a fusion occurred?

Creationism has answers for everything but explains nothing.

 

[SnapCount]

Like I said, what else would we expect to see if there is one Creator? We would expect to see vast similarities and the same DNA segments for organisms with similar traits.

 

[gluadys]

Like I said, what else would we expect to see if there is one Creator? We would expect to see vast similarities and the same DNA segments for organisms with similar traits.

Why? I don't see any logic here. Just a post hoc accommodation of belief to data.

Why would we expect to see vast similarities? What is there about creation that predicts similarities?

Why would we expect to see similarities in different species coded for by similar DNA sequences? Is a creator not capable of imitating evolution and getting similarities via different routes? (e.g. we get the same dynamic form in fish, ichthyosaurs and dolphins in spite of the fact that they do not have similar internal morphology). Why could the Creator not also produce similar designs from different DNA starting points?

Beginning with the presumption of creation, I do not see any reason to expect vast similarities.

Nor do I see any reason why visible similarities should have the same genetic coding.

It seems to me that you are not working logically from the Creator to explain the existence of similarities, external and internal, but starting from the observed similarities and simply asserting that this is what one expects from a Creator.

You haven't worked out the logic of why one would expect it from a Creator.

 

[sfs]

Like I said, what else would we expect to see if there is one Creator? We would expect to see vast similarities and the same DNA segments for organisms with similar traits.

Why would we expect to see the same DNA in this case for organisms with similar traits? The whole point of this exercise was that these particular bits of DNA make no difference at all to the traits of the organism. So why should the DNA be identical in similar organisms, but different (as it surely will be) in organisms that look more different, when the DNA differences have nothing to do with the trait differences?

 

[SnapCount]

What would you expect from a single creator? For the organisms living on the same planet to have radically different properties?

Would you ever expect a car manufacturer to make extremely different cars?

Is it or is it not logical to expect an artist to write songs with similar themes?

 

[SnapCount]

DNA is the blueprint. Similar DNA causes similar traits. If humans share the same traits with different animals, than the DNA is similar as well.

If the other millions and millions of pairs of DNA are similar, it only makes sense that glumatic acid proteins are too. Humans and chimpanzees share about 95% of the same DNA, which includes glumatic acid proteins.

If the DNA which causes similar traits are similar between two organisms, the DNA which does not have any affect on traits are more likely to be similar as well.

 

[sfs]

What would you expect from a single creator? For the organisms living on the same planet to have radically different properties?

I have no a priori expectations of a creator. That's why the concept of creation is not useful as an explanation for observations: whatever is observed, that's what could have been chosen.

Would you ever expect a car manufacturer to make extremely different cars?

Sure.

Is it or is it not logical to expect an artist to write songs with similar themes?

So are you arguing that the organisms that show these close relationships (apes and monkeys, in this case) are the work of one creator, and that quite different organisms (yeast, say), that don't show these similarities are the product of different designers? If not, what are you arguing?

 

[sfs]

DNA is the blueprint. Similar DNA causes similar traits. If humans share the same traits with different animals, than the DNA is similar as well.

If the other millions and millions of pairs of DNA are similar, it only makes sense that glumatic acid proteins are too.

Why? This is the point you are supposed to explain, rather than just repeating. If DNA similarities exist for functional reasons (i.e. humans and chimps have similar DNA because they need similar proteins), why do the same kind of similarities exist when there is zero functional reason for them? And why do they only exist for closely related species, and not for others? If a protein serves the same function across a wide range of species, and can be described in many different synonymous ways, why should the creator choose to use identical descriptions some of the time and not all of the time? Why not make them all the same, or all different? And if some of them are going to be different, why choose ones that are identical only for species that share certain other, unrelated traits? And why make organisms that look grossly similar (like dolphins and fish) have very different descriptions? And why have humans look more like chimpanzees than like gorillas in two-thirds of their genome, equidistant from them in one-sixth, and more similar to gorillas in one-sixth?

Evolution offers simple answers to all of these questions.

Humans and chimpanzees share about 95% of the same DNA, which includes glumatic acid proteins.

Yes, and common descent offers a clear explanation for that fact. You still haven't offered one from a creationist perspective. The similarity in form can't be the explanation, since 90% or more of the similar DNA doesn't seem to have any effect on form.

If the DNA which causes similar traits are similar between two organisms, the DNA which does not have any affect on traits are more likely to be similar as well.

Why? Was the creator xeroxing existing blueprints and only changing them where needed?

 

[Mallon]

Maybe a better question to ask SnapCount would be to what degree would creation have to differ in order for him to consider that maybe two or more (or no) designers were involved. According to ID, how can we be sure the one God created life and another didn't create, say, rocks?

I think random_guy said it best when he said "Creationism has answers for everything but explains nothing."

 

[gluadys]

What would you expect from a single creator? For the organisms living on the same planet to have radically different properties?

Why not? Artists can work in different media. Why not a creator? Why not some silicon based organisms as well as carbon based ones?

Would you ever expect a car manufacturer to make extremely different cars?

Sure. In terms of propulsion alone a single manufacturer can provide vehicles that run on gasoline, diesel, propane, steam, electricity and solar power.

Is it or is it not logical to expect an artist to write songs with similar themes?

No. Some artists specialize in one or two themes. Some like to explore many themes.

 

[gluadys]

DNA is the blueprint. Similar DNA causes similar traits. If humans share the same traits with different animals, than the DNA is similar as well.

If the other millions and millions of pairs of DNA are similar, it only makes sense that glumatic acid proteins are too. Humans and chimpanzees share about 95% of the same DNA, which includes glumatic acid proteins.

If the DNA which causes similar traits are similar between two organisms, the DNA which does not have any affect on traits are more likely to be similar as well.

Basically, what you are doing is using observed data to explain the actions of the Creator. But to make your case you need to show how the data is derived from the hypothesis of a Creator.

 

[random_guy]

Like I said, what else would we expect to see if there is one Creator? We would expect to see vast similarities and the same DNA segments for organisms with similar traits.

You're still avoiding the details. Do you understand what sfs said? Here's an analogy. Humans and chimps share similar set of blueprints, which you say is attributed to a common creator rather than common descent. Now, every animal contains a set of blueprints in them that follow a similar patter, again, you attribute to a common creator. All these blueprints is sandwiched by the same outside material, let's say a white cover.

So the blueprints of life looks like this:

Blue Print A
white paper | blueprints | white paper

Blue Print B
white paper | blueprints | white paper
....
Blue Print Z
white paper | blueprints | white paper

Again, you attribute this to the common designer. Now, what happens if you see this:

Blue Print D

white paper | blueprints | white paper| white paper | blueprints | white paper

You now have two covers sandwiched between two blueprints. Suppose we also know that the binder that binds the blueprints to the cover sometimes makes mistakes where it binds two blueprints together. To me, it seems logical that the most likely scenario is that two blueprints got binded together. You are suggesting that it just happened be this way due to a common designer. Why would a designer combine two together when the majority of the blueprints don't have this pattern?

You use common designer to explain similarities, but how do you explain differences? Multiple designers? Creative design?
That's the flaw of Creationism, and that's why I said Creationism has answers for everything but explains nothing. You have no explanation for the binding of the blueprints other than because the designer wanted it like that. Science has an explanation, it was due to a fusion of blueprints. It has the evidence to back it up, the blueprints line up well with another pair of unfused blueprints. It also have a mechanism, the observation of the fusing of blueprints.

Which side has the evidence and the logic, and which side is nothing more than ad hoc reasoning?

 

[SnapCount]

Not every organism is similar to every other organism. There's a mosiac of traits, characteristics and properties.

There are many similarities between all life. All life is carbon based, composed of cells, grow and reproduce.

 

[random_guy]

Not every organism is similar to every other organism. There's a mosiac of traits, characteristics and properties.

There are many similarities between all life. All life is carbon based, composed of cells, grow and reproduce.

That's a stock reply if I ever heard it. I said it before, and I'll say it again, Creationism has answers for everything but explains nothing.

 

[Assyrian]

Actually 'mosiac of traits' is a very interesting description it suggests a wide scattering of different traits plugged in where they suit best for some design purpose, rather than the nested hierarchy that would be expected from common ancestry and that is in fact found.

 

[gluadys]

Not every organism is similar to every other organism. There's a mosiac of traits, characteristics and properties.

There are many similarities between all life. All life is carbon based, composed of cells, grow and reproduce.

Again you are simply using data. You are telling us what we all know from observation.

But how is this data explained by the hypothesis of a Creator?

Why does a mosaic of similarities exist? Are there recognizable patterns and clusters of similarities both among living species and fossil species? If so, why do these patterns and clusters exist.

You are still not deriving the observed data from your hypothesis. There is no logic in it, only assertion.

 

[ArcticFox]

Unfortunately, such observations as this are neither proof for or against either position. The argument of similarity will always remain a weapon and a shield for both positions.

Similar creatures? Similar evolutionary ancestry, says some.

Similar creatures? Similar designer, says some.

Fortunately, through all the shifts and turns that man-centered and man-made science (and the man-made scientific methods), there is always the Word of God. Now if only we could all agree on that...