Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse

My post wasn't talking about DNA in fossils.

I'm not currently under the impression that neither you or @dcalling understands what is being said, and neither of you are actually responding to my post.

All I am asking, is why can geneticists predict the location of fossils (depth, temporal time and geographic location) based on genetic relatedness of life that exists today? Assuming evolution is not true...

And to flip the question, how can I predict genetic relatedness and morphological relatedness of modern day life, based on fossils that exist in the earth?

You two are denying things left and right, but neither of you are actually responding to my posts.

 

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse

My post wasn't talking about DNA in fossils.

I'm not currently under the impression that neither you or @dcalling understands what is being said, and neither of you are actually responding to my post.

All I am asking, is why can geneticists predict the location of fossils (depth, temporal time and geographic location) based on genetic relatedness of life that exists today? Assuming evolution is not true...

Yes, I am not a scientist so I cannot get into the granularity too much. Where are you getting this idea that genetics is predicting the location of things? I tried Googling "How do genetics predict the location of fossils" and it came up with nothing directly related. Do you have an online source you could direct me towards? Since I know nothing of genetics this will be a reasonable test: Let's just go off of observation and what the Bible says. Bible says God created each kind and each kind is to multiply and fill the earth. Observation shows that there are kinds in different environments: in the water, near the water, on land, in the mountains and in the air, and we can see that that there is variation within each kind that makes it well suited for the environment. I (as a lay observer) can "predict" I will not see arctic wolves on beaches, nor desert lizards in Antartica. I'm not predicting anything at all; all I'm doing is starting to understand the intelligence in God's design.

And to flip the question, how can I predict genetic relatedness and morphological relatedness of modern day life, based on fossils that exist in the earth?

See above; you are not predicting genetic relatedness and morphological relatedness, but you have attained some degree of understanding about the intelligence God already built into life from days 3, 5, and 6. Since God created it, it isn't going to be random or 'unpredictable'. The way I'd flip the question is: why would it not be predictable being that God created it and told us about it? No tricks or slight of mind here, even a meager-minded mouse can 'hang' with this logic.

You two are denying things left and right, but neither of you are actually responding to my posts.

You better believe it! I'm denying the vain imaginings of man who were never there and instead adhering to the truth of God's word. I wish I could answer all of your questions with all of the technical terms you would appreciate. I am seeing more and more evidence emerging that challenges the old assumptions from Lyell/Darwin: Dinosaur fossils with genetic material and soft tissue keep showing up, fossils of identical creatures showing up in multiple layers, helium in zircon crystals, etc...

God's word alone should give rise to question the conventional dating assumptions, but evidence is also mounting to cause skepticism.

 

[The Barbarian]

No. "Transitional" is just a defined set of imaginary steps that scientists loosely classify as an "in-between" and are built upon a false set of assumptions in the case of assuming kind A evolves into kind B, hence why creationists reject them.

You've been misled about that YE creationist Kurt Wise says that they are very strong evidence for evolution.

[qoute]The "predictability" you speak of is like me predicting I will find sand on a beach.[/quote]

No. It not only makes very specific predictions about what we should find, it makes very specific predictions about what we should not find. And it's even more compelling that no transitionals appear where they shouldn't be.

The characteristics of these transitionals are clearly preserved in the fossils.

No they are not,

They are. For example, we see the bones of Acanthostega, clearly laid out. We find the lateral line system, and many other things that are important. No point in denying it.

They are their own kind.

So some tetrapods have no legs? Turns out, some snakes have vestigial legs. So the "kind" objection fails.

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
Transitional forms

Based on, "hey it looks like a half-way version of the other, they must be a transitional form".

No. For example, that would put whales and fish in the same lineage. You're not getting it.

(Barbarian shows how non-trilobites seamlessly transition to real trilobites)

Thank you for showing me varieties of the trilobite kind with no common ancestor.

Some of those aren't actually trilobites. Notice that they form a nice connection between early arthropods and trilobites?

Living fossils resembling chordates have been found

There are still bacteria, too. If you're alive, it doesn't mean your uncle has to be dead.

chordata kind did not become fish kind...

Anatomical, genetic, and fossil evidence shows that vertebrates evolved from chordates. Claims to the contrary are presuppositional bias not based upon biblical truth.

And I quote, "... larvae look very much like..." [/quote]

That is, they have the notochord, the digestive system, the respiratory system, and nervous system of chordates. And genetics has confirmed the fact...

Dev Biol. 1996 Feb 1;173(2):382-95.
Hox genes and chordate evolution.
Holland PW1, Garcia-Fernàndez J.
Abstract
Hox genes are implicated in the control of axial patterning during embryonic development of many, perhaps all, animals. Here we review recent data on Hox gene diversity, genomic organization, and embryonic expression in chordates (including tunicates, amphioxus, hagfish, lampreys, teleosts) plus their putative sister group, the hemichordates. We consider the potential of comparative Hox gene data to resolve some outstanding controversies in chordate phylogeny. The use of Hox gene expression patterns to identify homologies between body plans both within the vertebrates and between the chordate subphyla is also discussed. Homology between the vertebrate hindbrain and an extensive region of amphioxus neural tube is suggested by comparison of Hox-3 homologues and strengthened by new data on amphioxus Hox-1 gene expression reported here. Finally, we give two examples of how Hox genes are giving glimpses into chordate developmental evolution. The first relates changes in Hox gene expression to transposition of vertebral of vertebral identities; the second describes a correlation between vertebrate origins and Hox gene cluster duplication. We suggest that the simultaneous duplication of many classes of genes, often interacting in gene networks, allowed the elaboration of new developmental control mechanisms at vertebrate origins.

Also dragonflies - the highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

(Barbarian shows an example of a transitional which has those features)

Good, dragonfly evolved from....

A plant-eating insect lacking the predatory equipment of a dragonfly, but which has the flying ability of a dragonfly. Exactly what your source said not to exist.

Yes, we agree here! God's word lines up with each kind being created in the beginning.

No. God says that the earth brought forth life after the beginning. And He doesn't say how that happened. So God's word aligns nicely with kind A becoming kind B as it explicitly states God created each according to their kind and evolution produces each living thing according to its kind. In other words, stating that kind A never evolves into kind B is unbiblical.


The fact that all of these have been labeled as transitioning from one kind into a completely different kind is actually just strong evidence that my statement in post #143 is correct:

"Whatever "truth" one seeks, one will find it - just as many have found the "truth" that no god exists (the Atheist), which you and I see as the living out of 2 Peter 3:5. So philosophically it stands to reason that if we are looking for transitional forms, they will be found; if we believe God created kinds from the beginning as His word says, then we will see that kinds do not become other kinds and the evidence will support both views. Creation is over; there are no new 'kinds', only a diversification of the already created kinds."

Transitions can be seen within a created kind; however, transitions do not move between kinds except in museums and illustrations presented in scientific academia.

We can test that belief. Give me a list of "kinds" for mammals,and we'll take a look.

 

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse

If you don't understand what I am saying, then we just cant have this conversation.

I'll try explaining...

Ok so, in the world there are an endless number of species. I mean, literally just millions of species. There are hundreds of thousands of genus.

And each species has its own particular genetic makeup. And so, with that, a phylogenetic tree can be made. A tree that just reflects genetic similarities (and differences). To simplify it, an iguana is closer on this tree to a comodo dragon, than say, a bird or mammal. And a mammal, like a giraffe, is closer to reptiles than it is to amphibians or fish, or arthropods, or insects. Amphibians, are genetically closer to fish, and reptiles, than they are birds or mammals or arthropods or insects or other invertebrates. Mammals, like people, are closer to things like mice, than birds, and further we are closer to birds or reptiles, than we are to fish.

So there is a tree that exists, that can be made, explicitly through an understanding of genetics.

Ok, so...

Anatomically, this same tree exists. DNA correlates to comparative anatomy, we are morphologically closer to mice than birds, and further closer to birds or reptiles, than we are to fish etc. etc. etc.

It just repeats in comparative anatomy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, paleontological cladistics.

Tiktaalik...it is more morphologicaly similar to fish and amphibians, than it is a reptile, or a mammal, or an invertebrate, or a spider or squid or any arthropod or insect.

Right, so, morphologically, where would one predict tiktaalik to be? If evolution were true?

It would be predicted to be present closest to fish and amphibians (in fact between them). Because anatomically, cladistically and morphologically, it is a fish and amphibian.

------------------------------------------------

So here we have two links,

Animals

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...of_life.png/revision/latest?cb=20130707190549

In the first link, a website that has built its own tree, based on cladistics and morphology of both currently living animals and extinct fossils including those of tiktaalik.

The second link, a tree built based on genetics, and sequenced genomes.

But in fact, if you look closely, you see that they match.

-----------------------------------------------

So now, we understand that genetics and morphology can be directly correlated, as morphology is a product of our genetics.

So, now, the question becomes, can someone who knows about genetics, predict where fossils should be (temporally and/or geographically)?

In fact geneticists can predict where fossils ought to be, simply by looking at living day organisms.


Geographically, thus is the case of tiktaalik. More specifically, ted deaschler and neil shubin used comparative anatomy (which we know is a 1 to 1 match with genetic phylogeny), and said, if tiktaalik is half fish, and half tetrapod (or something similar), then if it evolved into existence, it must have been post fish and pre amphibian. If fish dominate in the devonian and reptiles in the carboniferous, then tiktaalik must be in between, and so it was. But further...

And there are two parts to this.

In one hand, temporal predictions can be made based on knowledge of how the succession is already known to exist through pre discovered fossils (as tiktaalik was found), in another hand, rates of divergence can be predicted by comparison of genetic similarity in currently living organisms and can be calibrated with the fossil succession, but most importantly, in the third hand, temporal predictions can also be made based off of rates of genetic mutation and divergence in currently living species, completely independent of and without any knowledge of the fossil succession.

By looking at the rate of mutations between two living things, and by looking at their current genetic differences, you can predict when their common ancestor existed, and you can then go and temporally look into the geologic succession to find that common ancestor.

Neutral theory of molecular evolution - Wikipedia

This is to the extent that microbiologists and geneticists have actually made predictions more accurate than paleontologists have, at where fossils are located (without calibration with the fossil succession). Which is mind blowing because you have to ask, how in the world would someone looking at DNA sequences, know when an extinct organism existed?

Relative rate test - Wikipedia

But this is exactly what has happened. Microbiologists have in some cases beaten paleontologists at their own field.

But these capabilities are only possible through an understanding of biological evolution. All of this, only makes sense through a genetic form of common descent caused, at least in part, by mutation and genetic drift.

 

[Job 33:6]

And this is what instantaneous and/or young earth creationists really have no response to^

 

[NobleMouse]

No. God says that the earth brought forth life after the beginning. And He doesn't say how that happened. So God's word aligns nicely with kind A becoming kind B as it explicitly states God created each according to their kind and evolution produces each living thing according to its kind. In other words, stating that kind A never evolves into kind B is unbiblical.

You skipped some verses; seems a re-read of Genesis 1 is in order.

Genesis 1:21
"So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Genesis 1:25
"And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Sorry, your attempt to twist scripture to the twisted views of evolution fails because we have record from God confirming He made fish, then He made beasts.... sea creatures did not become beasts of the earth.

But maybe Genesis is just allegory... until you read the 10 commandments --> see Exodus 20:8-11 (especially verse 11). You can continue to believe what you want about evolution, but it is not in any way supported biblically. Keep up those mental gymnastics on (mis)interpreting scripture boys...

 

[dcalling]

Nevertheless the more confirmed predictions a theory has, the better-confirmed it is.

However, the more points you get, the closer and closer you get to the actual shape of the curve. And as you see, there are many, many points now. If you have plotted a hundred points, and every single one of them is the same distance from the origin, it becomes increasingly clear that the equation is likely to be
x 2 + y2 = r2. That would be where we are with evolution, except there are thousands of points.

Except in the example I give, the seemingly correct answer is wrong.

Nature has already done that with bats.

that is hypothesis without experiments to back up.

The probability is 1.0.

Same as above

 

[dcalling]

I addressed all of your key points.

I already showed you by algrithm how some predication that come true all the time on many occasions yet has a complete wrong model.

And software does not always go up in complexity. Sometimes a total rewrite will simply things.

God created living things just like software, with some parameters to tweak so they can change in certain ways, but if the change ever get out of the pre-defined boundary the software crashes. That is why you see living things change, but all fossiles has gaps.

People evolved bacteria 66k generations, and they are still single celled bacteria, did not evolve into multi-celled stuff. Assuming primates live for 20 years, that is more than a million years and primates should evolved to humans in that many generations.

You have not responded to key points in my post.

"why does this logic, match genetic phylogeny? Why can a geneticist who knows nothing about fossils, make a prediction based on the DNA of amphibians, where a fossil like tiktaalik would be? Tiktaalik could have been found anywhere on the planet at any depth beneath the earth. But it wasnt anywhere, it was right where it was predicted to be based on evolution."

Also, we improve our software and technology because we actually have to learn to do that. We had kites before fighter jets because we didn't know any better, and had to learn how to make a jet. God already knows how to make the fighter jet from the start. So what is the logic?

Also, the fossil succession doesn't succeed in a straight line, it reverses its direction where fossils will grow big, then later will shrink in size, then grow big, then shrink in size. And it varies. It isn't like climbing up a ladder where you only go in one direction, or you only improve like software.

also, we aren't talking about something caused by a flood. we are talking about hundreds of thousands of scenarios where animals go extinct, and are replaced by modified versions of themselves.

And just for some additional food, see below for an extinction chart. 5 global floods?

Biological evolution can explain the evidence. It can explain why tiktaalik was found where it was. It explain why animals thousands of times over have disappeared and been replaced by modified versions of the same. It can explain why our genetics and comparative anatomy match the fossils succession and can explain why geneticists can predict where bones will be in the earth.

The reason the fossil succession matches our genetic phylogeny? Because the fossil succession is a product of it.

The alternative of instantaneous creation offers nothing. Nothing but a bunch of empty answers and unanswered questions.

 

[dcalling]

You are mistaken. You asked for a test of common descent and The Barbarian supplied chromosome 2. You replied that the fusion was mere speculation and could not be tested. That claim is what I was responding to. We can test the hypothesis that human chromosome 2 results from a fusion. I just don't think the occurrence of that fusion is particularly good evidence for common descent.

That is fine. Do you have a repeatable, verifiable test that shows how chromosome 2 fused in a lab?

Sorry, I wasn't completely explicit: I meant an alternative explanation that anyone would actually entertain as plausible. Every possible scientific test can always be explained by "undetectable aliens manipulated the results." Your DNA showed up on the murder victim? Undetectable aliens planted it there. Try that in court and see how far you get.

I am simply use that as an example. So in software development, because the environment is so simple (compare to live organisms), if something strange happens, we always want to dig in and find out why (in rare instances we can attribute to system glitch, since as we all know the size of harddrives has grown out of the error rate of SATA spec already).

But when you have facts that can be attributed to both (i.e. are we evolved from some primates or created?), it is totally unscientific to claim that we must been evolved from primates WITHOUT repeatable, verifiable and testable facts.

Now, do you have any possible explanation that isn't ludicrous?

I believe I already linked to the kind of evidence you say doesn't exist: one species changing gradually into another. What was wrong with it?

Can you show me the link again? Don't tell me those are the fossiles again.

 

[Job 33:6]

I addressed all of your key points.

I already showed you by algrithm how some predication that come true all the time on many occasions yet has a complete wrong model.

And software does not always go up in complexity. Sometimes a total rewrite will simply things.

God created living things just like software, with some parameters to tweak so they can change in certain ways, but if the change ever get out of the pre-defined boundary the software crashes. That is why you see living things change, but all fossiles has gaps.

People evolved bacteria 66k generations, and they are still single celled bacteria, did not evolve into multi-celled stuff. Assuming primates live for 20 years, that is more than a million years and primates should evolved to humans in that many generations.

Yes because God totally rewrites things over and over...please...you're just making stuff up now.

on that note, ill move on from the convo. One side has a world of correlating evidence. The other...is simply in denial.

@sfs I applaud your efforts. Thanks for the read.

 

[The Barbarian]

People evolved bacteria 66k generations, and they are still single celled bacteria, did not evolve into multi-celled stuff.

They just evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Precisely what creationists said was impossible. They didn't evolve into a new phylum in a few weeks. The first time that multicellularity evolved, it took about a billion years.

Assuming primates live for 20 years, that is more than a million years and primates should evolved to humans in that many generations.

So the evidence indicates. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[The Barbarian]

You skipped some verses

None of the other verses contradicts the one I showed you. Take a look:

Genesis 1:21
"So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Genesis 1:25
"And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

But maybe Genesis is just allegory...

That's what a plain reading of the Creation story says.

until you read the 10 commandments -->

I'd be open to your evidence that if a Bible verse references a figurative verse, that makes it literal. Show us that.

As you now realize, there is nothing in the Bible that rules out evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Transitions can be seen within a created kind; however, transitions do not move between kinds except in museums and illustrations presented in scientific academia.

(2nd request)
We can test that belief. Give me a list of "kinds" for mammals,and we'll take a look.

 

[dcalling]

Yes because God totally rewrites things over and over...please...you're just making stuff up now.

on that note, ill move on from the convo. One side has a world of correlating evidence. The other...is simply in denial.

@sfs I applaud your efforts. Thanks for the read.

God did not rewrite, God reused his prior designs, just like how software engineers build on prior systems. None of the softwares you are using right now are not build on prior software, even if you write a simple "hello word" it uses printf console.log etc depend what language it is. If you feel the look somewhat alike fossile are great evidence of evolution, I surely feel all this is like software design.

This is the issue with those "lookalike" evidences, unless they are repeatable, verifiable and testable, they are not scientific. What's wrong with demanding such evidences from someone who claim to be scientific?

 

[dcalling]

They just evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Precisely what creationists said was impossible. They didn't evolve into a new phylum in a few weeks. The first time that multicellularity evolved, it took about a billion years.

So the evidence indicates. Would you like to learn about that?

OK, let's think about this. The e.coli are in the wild for more than 30 years right? How come it evolved this ability in 6 years or shorter but did not have this in the wild? And other are able to reproduce this even faster. The answer is this trait is already in the virus, it is not evolved, it is simply a per-existing gene that showed up through mutation. All the test does is show how many permutations are permissable with the original design .

So basically I could make a predication based on my hypotheses of creation, that since God created items and designed parameters for them to change, there will be a boundry on how much items mutate. So my predication is, the long term e.coli tests will show decreased rate of persisting mutations and eventually run out of mutations (unless the DNA strands allows unlimited insertions of useless segments, which I highly doubt would happen since the human Y chromsome keeps shrinking, which is another great evidence of creation)

 

[2tim_215]

Old Earth may be very well true, but young man may also be true. Two (or even more0 separate creations one being man and modern day animals around 6000-10000 years ago and the "others" however far back you'd like to go. I don't really see what happened before Adam was created as really all that important to us although a great amount of human energy has been expended trying to find this out and what great benefits have resulted from it.

 

[The Barbarian]

OK, let's think about this. The e.coli are in the wild for more than 30 years right? How come it evolved this ability in 6 years or shorter but did not have this in the wild?

Different environment. For example, billions of years wemt by without bacteria with the ability to use nylon as a food source. It didn't exist. Then, when nylon starting showing up in waste ponds of chemical processing plants, that ability evolved.

If you thought about it, you could probably figure out why.

And other are able to reproduce this even faster. The answer is this trait is already in the virus, it is not evolved, it is simply a per-existing gene that showed up through mutation.

Bacteria are not viruses. And the trait didn't exist before. Mutations make new alleles, and in this case, a pre-existing enzyme was modified by mutation to produce a new enzyme that could digest nylon.

All the test does is show how many permutations are permissable with the original design .

That's what evolution is. It never makes anything out of nothing. It always modifies something already there. That's why we have all those things fish have.

So basically I could make a predication based on my hypotheses of creation, that since God created items and designed parameters for them to change, there will be a boundry on how much items mutate.

Lots of boundaries. For example, having an extra set of hands would be great. But fish from which all tetrapods evolved, had just four legs. And it seems that Darwin's rule on evolution of new traits ruled out the evolution of a new set of limbs. The intermediate steps are just too much of a disadvantage to make it work.

So my predication is, the long term e.coli tests will show decreased rate of persisting mutations and eventually run out of mutations

After a few billion years, no sign of that yet. Conceptually, there are limits, but trillions of years would not be sufficient to get there.

(unless the DNA strands allows unlimited insertions of useless segments, which I highly doubt would happen

One mammal has over a hundred chromosomes, so the limit is much greater than we've see so far.

since the human Y chromsome keeps shrinking, which is another great evidence of creation)

Don't see how. Care to explain that belief?

 

[dcalling]

Different environment. For example, billions of years wemt by without bacteria with the ability to use nylon as a food source. It didn't exist. Then, when nylon starting showing up in waste ponds of chemical processing plants, that ability evolved.

If you thought about it, you could probably figure out why.

This is the part you and I differ, in my hypothesis, those traits are designed upfront and mutation of such traits are simply change of pre-designed parameters.

Bacteria are not viruses. And the trait didn't exist before. Mutations make new alleles, and in this case, a pre-existing enzyme was modified by mutation to produce a new enzyme that could digest nylon.

Same as above. It actually fits the narrative that all features are pre-designed very well, don't you agree?

That's what evolution is. It never makes anything out of nothing. It always modifies something already there. That's why we have all those things fish have.

To me it is strong evidence that God designed us using pre-existing libraries. By the way what things are you refering to?

Lots of boundaries. For example, having an extra set of hands would be great. But fish from which all tetrapods evolved, had just four legs. And it seems that Darwin's rule on evolution of new traits ruled out the evolution of a new set of limbs. The intermediate steps are just too much of a disadvantage to make it work.



After a few billion years, no sign of that yet. Conceptually, there are limits, but trillions of years would not be sufficient to get there.

Then you agree on the concept of boundaries?

One mammal has over a hundred chromosomes, so the limit is much greater than we've see so far.

Well, from your response you actually agree that what we actually observed limits is much stricter than what hypothesis of evolution implies.

Don't see how. Care to explain that belief?

Just google y chromosome getting shorter. I asked one of my friend who worked in biology before, and she know it is a fact, but failed to let me know how we find out (i.e. how we found out humans are lossing y chromosomes over millions of years), so it might be another case of scientific community has consensus of something happened but it is not a scientific fact, but this consensus is definitely great evidence of creation.

 

[2tim_215]

@NobleMouse

My post wasn't talking about DNA in fossils.

I'm not currently under the impression that neither you or @dcalling understands what is being said, and neither of you are actually responding to my post.

All I am asking, is why can geneticists predict the location of fossils (depth, temporal time and geographic location) based on genetic relatedness of life that exists today? Assuming evolution is not true...

Let me try an answer if I understand what you're asking.
1) First let us assume that the earth were billions of years old
2) I think that's safe to say that "Modern Day Man" is no older that 10000 years in existing (Adam).
Based on 1), it would be reasonable to say that during all those "billions" of years, that there was some form (or forms) of life existing on this earth at one time or another before modern day man (Adam) appeared on this earth in addition to the other creatures which supposedly appeared in the "beginning". In the meanwhile, all other creation prior to this would have died out and thus became extinct but would have still been encrusted in/under the earth and under the seas if their if in particular their extinctions would have occurred as a result of a massive flood which is why they would likely show up in the fossil record.

And to flip the question, how can I predict genetic relatedness and morphological relatedness of modern day life, based on fossils that exist in the earth?

The most realistic and logical answer to this you probably won't care for, but it's logical (or intelligent) design which requires a designer (God). You may or not be aware of this, but in the design world, a technique often used is "leveraging your design" which instead of "reinventing the wheel" is to take an existing design to start with and either "modify" or add incremental changes to it, which is much more cost effective (in human terms) and is certainly a much more efficient approach. This is more efficient since you likely will have the major building blocks necessary to create life and there's no need to reproduce it all over again, especially since you know it works.

So in looking at creation in general prior to Adam, the "basics" for life (actually the most complex part of it) was already determined and implemented (which must be in all created beings, including those beings who were created in the distant past) and thus it should be relatively simpler for the creator (designer) to add whatever attributes the designer wanted incorporated into His new design which is why you see the closeness in terms of dna between the various creations. Probably one of the reasons that it only took Him 6 days, lol.

It's no wonder there's only a difference of 1 chromosome between the human genome and that of a chimpanzee. It makes sense if you consider there's not much difference in terms of their physical attributes. First of, they both have life, which probably makes up at least 50% of it. Then they both have arms, legs, feet, eyes, ears, mouth, genitals etc. As far as what's left, it shouldn't be much different. It would be quite interesting to be able to get an accurate dna reading from some of these fossils to compare with the DNA in modern man.

"Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation."

1. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7
2. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
3. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1
4. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3

For contents of full article see:
Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more - creation.com

Sorry if I got off-track a bit by mentioning fossils and dna.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Different environment. For example, billions of years wemt by without bacteria with the ability to use nylon as a food source. It didn't exist. Then, when nylon starting showing up in waste ponds of chemical processing plants, that ability evolved.

If you thought about it, you could probably figure out why.

This is the part you and I differ, in my hypothesis, those traits are designed upfront and mutation of such traits are simply change of pre-designed parameters.

It comes down to evidence. You have nothing to support your belief. And the evidence clearly shows a new mutation that allows bacteria to use nylon oligomer as a food source.

Barbarian observes:
Bacteria are not viruses. And the trait didn't exist before. Mutations make new alleles, and in this case, a pre-existing enzyme was modified by mutation to produce a new enzyme that could digest nylon.

Same as above.

Perhaps you don't know what a virus is. And of course, the observation that a mutation produced a new enzyme that degrades nylon demonstrates that evolutionary theory is correct.

It actually fits the narrative that all features are pre-designed very well,

If they were pre-designed, it wouldn't require a mutation to make it work.

Barbarian observes:
That's what evolution is. It never makes anything out of nothing. It always modifies something already there. That's why we have all those things fish have.

To me it is strong evidence that God designed us using pre-existing libraries.

If that were true, it wouldn't be necessary to make all sorts of additions to the genome to make it work.
That's why we have all those things fish have.

To me it is strong evidence that God designed us using pre-existing libraries.

If you have to add all those books to a library, it's clear that it wasn't sufficient as it was.

By the way what things are you refering to?

Bones, eyes, brains, lungs, myotomes, Hox genes, jaws from modified branchial arches, livers, notochords, ...(very long list).

Barbarian observes:
Remember, Darwin's theory showed that there are boundaries that constrain evolution. Most notably, Darwin pointed out that a trait would have to, at every point in its evolution, be useful for the organism. He pointed out that a trait that was exclusively for the benefit of a different species of organism would not evolve.

Then you agree on the concept of boundaries?

I'm pleased to know you're with Darwinism on that, at least.

Well, from your response you actually agree that what we actually observed limits is much stricter than what hypothesis of evolution implies.

No. As you learned, the limits are precisely what Darwin predicted them to be.

Just google y chromosome getting shorter. I asked one of my friend who worked in biology before, and she know it is a fact, but failed to let me know how we find out (i.e. how we found out humans are lossing y chromosomes over millions of years)

Ah, that's not difficult.

But researchers have found that, over the millennia, the Y chromosome has lost most of it genes. What if it were to disappear altogether? NPR's Joe Palca explores that possibility in the first report of a three-part series on the End of Men.


Each of our cells contains 23 pairs of chromosomes. Twenty-two of those pairs are matched pairs, shared by men and women. The 23rd is different.


In women, the 23rd pair is made up of two X chromosomes. In men, it's made up of an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. That Y chromosome determines maleness in humans — it holds genes necessary for forming testes and making sperm.


The fact that it doesn't have a matching pair poses a bit of a problem for the Y chromosome.


All the other chromosomes come in two copies. Every time a cell divides, mistakes in genes can creep in. In paired chromosomes, that means that if there is a mistake on one chromosome, a cell can always get the correct gene sequence from the other chromosome.


Over time, mistakes have crept into the Y chromosome, too. But every time a gene on the Y chromosome went bad, it basically disappeared. Scientists theorize that the X and Y chromosome started out with about the same amount of genes — about 1,000. Today, the Y chromosome has less than 80 genes.


Some geneticists think the Y chromosome is now little more than a genetic wasteland that will eventually just disappear. If that were to happen, it would certainly spell the end of sexual reproduction.

But David Page of MIT's Whitehead Institute vigorously disagrees. "At the same time that it is continuing to lose genes, it's found some new ways of replenishing itself," Page says.


Last year, Page and his colleagues reported a finding that brightened the outlook for the future of men: The Y chromosome has been secretly creating backup copies of its most important genes. These are stored in the DNA as mirror images, or palindromes — which read the same way forwards and backwards. ("Madam, I'm Adam" is a famous example.)


In Y chromosome palindromes, the first half contains the gene and the second half contains the same information, just in reverse.


That means that many of the genes on the Y chromosome do occur as pairs. Page says members of these pairs appear to be swapping out or recombining with each other — allowing the genes to repair themselves when they get damaged.


Page says this helps explain why these genes have been able to persist despite millions of years of assault from random mutations. And, he says, it means the Y chromosome won't simply keep shrinking away until it disappears altogether.
As Y Chromosome Shrinks, End of Men Pondered

So the mystery as to why the Y chromosome hasn't disappeared, is solved.

so it might be another case of scientific community has consensus of something happened but it is not a scientific fact, but this consensus is definitely great evidence of creation.

For creation, but against creationism.