I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[Dizredux]

Either that, or the sky is blue because God put the Rayleigh effect into operation.

Did you ever think of that?

Good grief AV, this is the point I was making. Just saying God did it is not very useful nor productive. To try to discover how God did it is much more so. If it exists, God did it by my religious beliefs. The trick for the Christian is to accept this and try to find out how. This is basically what science and scientists do no matter what their faith.

I'm not a big fan of just saying GOD DID IT to everything.

But you used that argument when you posted

If God can create both bronze (copper & tin) and brass (copper & zinc) separately, can't He create both chimpanzees and humans separately?

There can indeed be some intermediary steps between the Cause and the effect.

A tad too obscure for me.

Dizredux

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But only if one is willing to jump gaps, correct?

If an evolutionist tells me that, DNA-wise, we are 98% chimpanzee; what about that 2% that tells me I'm a human?

Am I supposed to interpret that as both of us coming from a common ancestor?

If God can create both bronze (copper & tin) and brass (copper & zinc) separately, can't He create both chimpanzees and humans separately?

You line of thinking makes all those judicial determinations of parenthood from DNA testing invalid.

Your line of thinking is false.

But why do you think it is strange that a species that has evolved to be different from another species has a little bit of different DNA? I am puzzled by the thought process you attempt to go through here.

 

[Delphiki]

As I was messing around with my cat today, I came to a startling conclusion: he kind of looks like a bird.

I am now a believer.

Evo's: 1
Creationists: 0

If this is what you accept as evidence for evolution, then it's not surprising you have a total lack of understanding of basic biology.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This is first the assumption that common genes came from a common ancestor but the scientist are finding many surprises where creatures share common genes that was not the result of common ancestor. One of those surprises were bats and dolphins shared over 200 genes. (The exact opposite is also true. Features that suppose to be the result of common ancestor were surprisingly developed by different genes.)

The theory common genes has to be the result of common ancestor has been falsified by the evidence.

Bats and dolphins are both mammals. As such, they SHOULD share MANY genes.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't have faith in that assumption. There is the assumption that needs to be proven. There is also ORFans and singleton problem.

The fossil evidence has never support Darwin's theory since the tree has always been upside down. The genetics evidence is totally destroying Darwin's tree.

It has been proven. Only, creationists keep saying the proof isn't proof. But it is.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Either that, or the sky is blue because God put the Rayleigh effect into operation.

Did you ever think of that?

I'm not a big fan of just saying GOD DID IT to everything.

There can indeed be some intermediary steps between the Cause and the effect.

Careful, it won't be long and you'll be a Theistic Evolutionists yourself!

 

[AV1611VET]

I am puzzled by the thought process you attempt to go through here.

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots that I refuse to play.

 

[AV1611VET]

Careful, it won't be long and you'll be a Theistic Evolutionists yourself!

Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Herman Hedning]

If God can create both bronze (copper & tin) and brass (copper & zinc) separately, can't He create both chimpanzees and humans separately?

I'm pretty sure both those alloys were created by man.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is first the assumption that common genes came from a common ancestor . . .

We OBSERVE that common genes come from common ancestors. Why do you think you and your siblings have nearly the same DNA?

but the scientist are finding many surprises where creatures share common genes that was not the result of common ancestor. One of those surprises were bats and dolphins shared over 200 genes. (The exact opposite is also true. Features that suppose to be the result of common ancestor were surprisingly developed by different genes.)

They do share those genes through common ancestry. What the study was looking at was nonsynonymous mutations that produce a different tree than the synonymous mutations.

Yet another example of creationists talking about science they don't understand.

Added by edit: for those who are interested, this is the paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836225/

First, they are comparing orthologous proteins which means that they are shared due to common ancestry:

"Systematic analyses of convergent sequence evolution in 805,053 amino acids within 2,326 orthologous coding gene sequences compared across 22 mammals (including four new bat genomes) revealed signatures consistent with convergence in nearly 200 loci."

Right from the start, Smidlee gets it way wrong. These are genes shared through common ancestry as the author states. If the authors did not think that they were shared through common ancestry, then they would call them non-homologous proteins. They didn't. They called them orthologs:

"Homologous sequences are orthologous if they are inferred to be descended from the same ancestral sequence separated by a speciation event: when a species diverges into two separate species, the copies of a single gene in the two resulting species are said to be orthologous."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)#Orthology

Second, they are comparing PROTEIN sequence and not DNA sequence. Genetic relatedness is established using DNA, not amino acid sequence. What the authors are showing is that there is selection for the same amino acid residue at specific loci in the same protein in clades that have independently evolved echolocating. That's why they call it convergent evolution.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots that I refuse to play.

??? Why not? Wouldn't the purpose of playing the connect-the-dots game be to determine if the dots actually connect to make a coherent picture?

Maybe I don't understand your metaphor.

 

[AV1611VET]

??? Why not? Wouldn't the purpose of playing the connect-the-dots game be to determine if the dots actually connect to make a coherent picture?

Maybe I don't understand your metaphor.

1

 

[FreedByte]

This is not actually true. What you have is a finding that humans and chimpanzees DNA is 98 percent similar. You think that this is evidence for common descent, but it is not.

You see, the theory of common descent predicts that chimps and humans will have similar DNA. Once you find that the DNA is similar, you think that your theory has been proved true. In reality, however, you have merely committed a logical fallacy.

By way of comparison, if the Christian God created the universe, the universe will be an orderly place. Since it is orderly, some people might think that God has been proved. In reality, however, nothing has been proved.

Certainly everyone can agree that the DNA is too similar to have occurred by chance alone. As such the "by chance" theory is ruled out. However, since the main bone of contention is between intelligent design (and/or creationism) and Darwinism, simply ruling out chance neither supports nor harms your argument in any way.

Yes but you're ignoring the fossil record.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is not actually true. What you have is a finding that humans and chimpanzees DNA is 98 percent similar. You think that this is evidence for common descent, but it is not.

You see, the theory of common descent predicts that chimps and humans will have similar DNA. Once you find that the DNA is similar, you think that your theory has been proved true. In reality, however, you have merely committed a logical fallacy.

By way of comparison, if the Christian God created the universe, the universe will be an orderly place. Since it is orderly, some people might think that God has been proved. In reality, however, nothing has been proved.

Certainly everyone can agree that the DNA is too similar to have occurred by chance alone. As such the "by chance" theory is ruled out. However, since the main bone of contention is between intelligent design (and/or creationism) and Darwinism, simply ruling out chance neither supports nor harms your argument in any way.

Using your logic, we can not use DNA and fingerprints found at crime scenes because God could have planetd them there.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes but you're ignoring the fossil record.

He is trying to make the evidence go away by proclaiming that it could have got there by magic. It is intellectual nihilism where he must destroy all knowledge in order to make evolution go away.

 

[Zosimus]

It's not merely the fact that living creatures have similar DNA, it's the pattern of similarities. The fact that the DNA and in particular the ERV insertions line up with a nested hierarchy of life from a common ancestor.

First of all, the pattern of ERV insertions and whatever is the same logical fallacy that the previous poster relied on. Certainly you can argue that it didn't occur that way by accident, but that doesn't mean that it supports your theory.

Second, there was another thread here where someone posted information refuting the nested hierarchy argument. I was interested in hearing a response, but never got one. Accordingly, until I hear otherwise, I consider the nested hierarchy argument to be DOA.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots that I refuse to play.

Sanity is a game of following the facts that you refuse to play.

 

[bhsmte]

First of all, the pattern of ERV insertions and whatever is the same logical fallacy that the previous poster relied on. Certainly you can argue that it didn't occur that way by accident, but that doesn't mean that it supports your theory.

Second, there was another thread here where someone posted information refuting the nested hierarchy argument. I was interested in hearing a response, but never got one. Accordingly, until I hear otherwise, I consider the nested hierarchy argument to be DOA.

Well, you can consider it whatever you like.

I have a feeling, you will do that anyway, regardless of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all, the pattern of ERV insertions and whatever is the same logical fallacy that the previous poster relied on. Certainly you can argue that it didn't occur that way by accident, but that doesn't mean that it supports your theory.

We can argue that the observed pattern of shared and derived features is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution were acting in the past.

Second, there was another thread here where someone posted information refuting the nested hierarchy argument. I was interested in hearing a response, but never got one. Accordingly, until I hear otherwise, I consider the nested hierarchy argument to be DOA.

I would be more than willing to give a response if you are able to present the data from the peer reviewed primary paper. I am not addressing vague mispresentations by creationist websites.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes but you're ignoring the fossil record.

I'm not ignoring the fossil record. I was just making an argument about something else.

Personally I'm of the opinion that the Cambrian Explosion is a problem for Darwinism. Let's say, however, for the sake of argument, that it isn't.

It still does not provide support for Darwinism. Even assuming that Darwinism predicted a Cambrian Explosion, confirmed predictions don't support theories. The best you could say is that the fossil record is neutral to Darwinism, or that said explosion refutes a competing scientific explanation, but it does not prove Darwinism correct or even more probable.