Will China overthrow Darwin?

mark kennedy said:

This is what I think, after the flood the ape ancestor was adapting. The split between the orangutan, chimpanzee and gorilla happens and this was part of that transition. Most of the ape ancestors were simply apes but different from what we have today. The early Homo genus fossils are automatically one of our ancestors even though fossils like the Taung Child and Lucy are obviously more like the chimpanzee then modern humans. They throw in all kinds of things like tools and footprints that indicate, supposedly, the early ancestors are making tools and walking with a bipedal gait. There is another explanation never explored. The supposed tools are contrived and obviously human inventions, the dating comes down to the way they were mineralized. The early apes were semibipedal and later became more arboreal (tree dwelling). That is so much more easily defended then simply assuming the nearly three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. There is no genetic basis for evolution on the scale required and the dirty little secret, Darwinians know that.

Click to expand...

So these are all still apes and it is just like comparing alsatians and poodles within the dog type. That is possible I suppose cause speciation within a type clearly does occur. There were not 43 species of sparrow on the ark. But as you say the brain development evolutionists say happened is simply impossible. Within creationist timescales that is even more clear. My only way of deciding where the boundaries of a type are beyond which evolution is sterile regression is reproduction. If we have the DNA then this was a form of human. Do you have any other way of doing this when there is no DNA. Is Homo Erectus human for example?

Bible2+ said:

That's right (Exodus 20:11), in that there were no gaps in the 6 days (Genesis 1:3-31), which were literal, 24-hour days.

But note there could have been a long gap of time before the 6 days, that is, a gap of some 4.5 billion years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Also, there could have been some 10 billion years between the time that God first created the universe and the time He created the earth and its atmosphere (the 1st heaven) in Genesis 1:1.

Also, note that nothing requires that God created the universe during the 6 days of Genesis 1:3-31, or even during the preceding time of Genesis 1:1.

-

For example, Genesis 1:3-5 doesn't have to mean: "Let light exist for the 1st time anywhere", but can mean: "Let there be light on the earth".

Compare Goethe's last words: "More light!". He didn't mean: "There needs to be more light throughout the universe". Instead, he was saying: "Let there be more light in this room!", in which he was about to die. A woman I knew similarly made her husband turn on every light in her house, shortly before she died. Compare also what Job 10:21-22 says.

Genesis 1:3-5 could simply mean that God had some light source in space temporarily light up 1/2 the earth as bright as day, 3, literal 24-hour days before He created the sun (Genesis 1:14-19).

-

Also, Genesis 1:6-7 can refer only to God (re)creating the earth's atmosphere (the firmament, the 1st heaven, in which the birds fly: Genesis 1:20b) to hold water up in the air, such as in rain clouds, above and separate from the water in the ocean.

-

Also, Genesis 1:14-17 doesn't contradict that God could have also made, at some prior times, such as billions of years earlier, a trillion other suns (stars) and moons for a trillion other inhabited planets elsewhere in the universe.

-

Also, Genesis 1:16 only requires that at that time, God created the sun and moon. For there's no "he made" in the original Hebrew before "the stars also", which phrase could mean the stars (which God could have created at some prior times, such as billions of years earlier) also "rule" the night along with the moon.

Or, because there's no "the" before "stars" in the original Hebrew, Genesis 1:16 could mean God made only some stars at that time to serve as "signs for seasons" (Genesis 1:14), such as the stars in the Mazzaroth (compare the Zodiac) constellations (Job 38:32), which stars are extremely few in relation to the total number of stars in the universe.

Even in the night sky as a whole, there are only about 6,000 stars visible to the naked eye, while the universe contains about 100 billion galaxies, each containing about 100 billion stars. So even if Genesis 1:16 refers to God creating at that time the 6,000 or so stars visible to the naked eye, this doesn't require He created the other stars in the universe at that time (instead of at some prior times), which other stars aren't visible to the naked eye, and so would serve no function for people on the earth before the invention of telescopes.

Click to expand...

The text in Genesis 1 says he created the stars , sun and moon on the fourth day. This does not really allow for a preexistent universe even if you take the Genesis 1 account as purely the earthside phenomenological experience of creation.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Oh come on, that reasoning was proven wrong when Luther used it to prove the earth doesn't rotate.

Click to expand...

The earth does rotate and that can be demonstrated. Macro evolution is unobservable and unrepeatable. So it is a speculative theory built on analogous rationalisation that lies outside the scope of real science

sfs said:

You didn't respond to my challenge. I asked you what creationism predicts the transition to transversion ratio would be if we compared two primate genomes. That's not 10,000 different predictions; that's one prediction. I can make that prediction, based on common descent. Creationists can't. You're quite confident that I'm working only from speculation and indoctrination -- and yet my speculation lets me make predictions that you can't.

I'll be more specific. Let's compare the human and gorilla genomes, since those two are easy to find alignments for and I've never compared them. Align the two genomes and count how often there are single-base differences between them, specifically differences in two classes: transitions (A<->G or C<->T differences) and A<->T transversions, counted as number of differences per available base (and masking out highly mutable CpG sites). I say the ratio of the two classes will be approximately 3.2 (+/- 0.5, say)(*). What's your prediction? Heck, I'll even put some skin in the game: I'll donate an extra hundred dollars to World Vision in your name if my prediction is wrong. Are you willing to donate $100 if I'm right?

How confident are you really that biologists don't know what they're talking about when it comes to common descent?

(*) The evolutionary reasoning here is really simple. If you look at human genetic variation, the same ratio between kinds of substitutions is 3.2. Since genetic differences between individual humans and genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are both the result of accumulated mutation, and since the mutational processes in all primates are pretty similar, the ratio should be the same within-species and between-species. That's assuming common descent is true. If humans and/or chimps were created ex nihilo, there's no reason the genetic differences between them should form any particular pattern.

Click to expand...

My answer to this post is going to be long one because the thought process that led to this answer took time and really illustrates that though we inhabit different planets when it comes to this discussion there is some value to the conversation.

My first question and I am sure it is shared by many other non biologists was what on earth is he talking about, am I qualified to give a proper answer and is there any value in doing so in the context of this thread and given the theme being discussed here.

So first I looked up transitions and transversions which was mainly not that helpful for a non expert cause it assumed a lot of prior knowledge about why this might be relevant and useful. So I had to dig further as to the context in which these might be observed and reasons for that. But I persevered and as far as I can see you are talking about pairwise comparisons of nucleotide substitutions in the form of transitions or transversions. Evolutionists like yourself obviously love these kind of comparisons in which microevolution can be observed and macroevolution hypothesised. So Biologists will compile lists of transitions and transversions by aligning sequences of what they assess as homologous genes. So comparisons of this sort could be used to demonstrate homologousness, to discover when sequences share domains, repeatable regions of low complexity and palindromes, identify the location of common features and compare genes with their products.

At this point I thought you were just spouting the internal and self referential logic of evolutionists and the ways in which they set up the debate to make it appear that macro evolution was obvious. So I wondered at this point whether I should even bother replying. But then I realised that there were other applications for this kind of analysis that might have real world benefits e.g. medical research and plant science for example and my attitude softened towards looking further.

So then I went through a sequence of questions about these kinds of analysis:

1) Is the analysis helpful and can it be trusted?
2) Does it have any practical impacts on this discussion?
3) Does it ever demonstrate type to type evolution?
4) Would a Creationist or ID perspective be a better explanation of alignment when it occurs?

So then I went to my Bioinformatics Text Book to check on what programmes were used to plot the alignments and what assumptions they made and found that I may well be more qualified than most Biologists on this as they used computer programmes for most of their analysis that they could not themselves write. So the issue was to understand the logic of these programmes and the assumptions they made.

The two main programmes used seemed to be BLAST and LaligN. The programmes plot alignments when there is a 70% match or more. BLAST returns a best match and the slower LaligN a list of best matches. There is a weighting scheme for the cost of alignments and perfect matches almost NEVER occur. Sometimes global alignments are attempted and other times just local alignments. Now if I adopted a purist approach to computer programming then I would have to say anything less that 100% is just a probability score and the alignment may actually be meaningless in those circumstances. Afterall in the real IT world a single letter can destroy the functioning of a programme, with biology also the difference it seems sometimes makes all the difference. Chimps share much of our DNA but have not sent anyone to the moon or built any pyramids for example. But then it struck me that on occasions it was possible to use this kind of knowledge to turn bananas blue or add nutritional value to rice crops through targeted GM modifications. So imprecise as the science here is sometimes with a lengthy and necessary decades long testing process to back it up there is a practical impact/value to it. Also if this understanding contributes to the alleviation or cure of disease it has to be considered valuable and sometimes research of this sort does do this.

So the next question was is It possible to use these programmes to demonstrate type to type evolution. Imprecision would be one obvious way to suggest that it is not but so also a Creationist can read the same alignment data you produce using the same techniques that you have clearly mastered and have a different conclusion about what it says about macroevolution. Thus there is no need for me to become a Biological expert overnight to discuss this you. I can simply trust you to perform these tests reliably and then disagree with you about what they mean. Creationists believe that the same God created all the creatures in the fossil record. If God solved similar problems with similar code (that is after all never absolutely homologous even within a type) then that does not prove a guided process from the one fossil to the other. It could just as easily be used to prove the uniqueness of every individual creature let alone species. What it proves is that the same intelligence was responsible for all creation and that the evidence of his design is present in all creatures. Microevolution is real albeit imprecisely observed but can be explained in terms of the flexibility of the Creators design adapting to different conditions and passing on workable solutions to environmental changes to their offspring.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Macro evolution is deductable based on kinship as established by DNA similarities, morphological similarities, vestiges, and shared imperfect design features. It is as valid as determining paternity via DNA or determining guilt in court by forensic evidence. It is real science. And to affirm the earth rotates is to deny the literal words of scripture, which assert over and over that the sun rises and sets and moves across the sky.

Click to expand...

Phenomenologically the sun does rise and set and move across the sky and there is nothing inaccurate about saying so. As long as we live on this planet it is the best way to explain what the sun does in fact. Living in an orbiting space station one might have a different primary perspective of course. I do not believe you understand how imprecise and flawed these mappings are and especially the further back you go. Also there is an alternate explanation in a flexible and intelligent type by type design. Micro evolution does not prove macro evolution, vestigial organs only demonstrate a flexible design that is not in itself yet properly understood. This is not court level evidence by any means as there is no accounting for the interferences or warping or unknown variable factors that may have influenced the audit trail, there are no direct witnesses at all, the evidence itself is only a small % of the total suspected level of evidence contained in the original creature and represents normally a fossil without any preserved DNA evidence at all.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Sure, you can excuse the literally inaccurate bible language . . . using such words as "phenomenologically the sun does rise and set" . . . but you are only concocting nice sounding words to excuse the fact that the bible, literally interpreted, is incorrect there.

Its what you do. You claim literal interpretation except you also claim the right to specify what that literal interpretation actually is. And in so doing, you become the one who actually determines the Bible message, instead of God.

Let God tell you, through His universe, what is really true . . . that the earth rotates and that evolution was used . . . and let that guide your biblical interpretation.

Or, otherwise, you can keep telling God what His bible must mean.

It is your choice.

Click to expand...

I am sorry you think like that but the bible does not use "literally inaccurate" language when it says the suns rises, moves and sets. That is the experience we all have of the sun. Experientially we are all flat earthers and will one day be flat Martians or flat Lunans also. The sun hits one side of the house in the morning and the other in the evening. When you speak to a child or indeed even to adult to whom you want your meaning to be clear you do not use heliocentric language, you use earth centered and personally relevant language. When my neighbour says he wants me to cut a branch of my tree so that his patio gets a little more sun in the afternoon he does not use heliocentric language. He says things like when the sun gets lower in the sky at the time I like to sit on my terrace that branch puts me in the shade. As if the tree could really stand against the sun and deprive him of the experience of the sun!!! The bible is not a scientific text book, it talks to real people in real people language. But nor does it contradict science when properly interpreted.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Lets think for a minute about fish. There are sharks, there are rays, there are all kinds of fish. Have you ever noticed that every fish, everywhere, the tails in the back go up and down?

Now lets think about marine mammals. There are whales, there are dolphins, there are orcas . . . have you ever noticed that every marine mammal, everywhere, the tails in the back go left and right?

It's not as if there was an alternate environment. They are all swimming in water, whether fresh or salty.

There is an evolutionary explanation. It has to do with evolution carrying over alternate patterns from different starting points, carrying into multiple species from common ancestral starting points. There is no creationist explanation for this fact.

Click to expand...

God made each animals "according to its kind" works better as an explanation than such guessing and speculations.

" And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

sfs said:

Thank you for trying to understand the issues involved. Note that I am a computational biologist, so writing computer programs to analyze genetic data is pretty much what I do for a living.

Click to expand...

Ah so you are the one to blame ;-)

Sounds good.

No disagreement here. Similarity of DNA could be the result of a common designer solving common problems with similar code.

Click to expand...

But similarity isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the genetic differences between species. Why should the genetic differences look exactly like the result of lots of mutations? If the common designer wants humans and chimpanzees to have different DNA for functional reasons, why did he arrange for there to be 3.2 times as many A-G and C-T differences as A-C and G-T differences? Mutation will create that ratio, but why should a designer do so?

(By the way, I was looking at the wrong column in my spreadsheet when I posted my prediction. The ratio of 3.2 is for transitions to A<->G/C<-T transversions, not A<->T. So that's the ratio I'm actually making a prediction about.

Click to expand...

We do not disagree that those differences are there. Also I do think that microevolution is happening to some extent, so the mutational history of this sparrow when compared to an alternate species of sparrow is interesting and I am curious as to why different sparrows have flown different paths to different manifestations of the same kind of creature.

When comparing apes and humans the brain capacities are a major difference which as Mark Kennedy explained earlier seem impossible to explain in merely evolutionary terms.

But even without looking at the DNA we can see warm blooded mammals that walk on two legs and look similar to each other. The same design problems have been resolved in creatures that look similar. But here the differences make all the difference. If you are suggesting that the crucial differences are all to do with mutational history then two possible answers from a Creationist perspective might be these:

1) God created Humans and Apes with a similar physical structure and the crucial mutational differences stem from the act of breathing his spirit into a man and moulding him in his image. So one possibility is that this what God did when he chose man to rule the animals. He in a sense mutated an apelike creature in an act of special creation into a man and into an ape. The one for noble use and the other for common use. The advantage of this is that all the differences you observe would be granted the status that you give them but in a massively accelerated timescale. You could then apply that across the board to the whole history of evolution. IN a single day starting from basic templates for birds, fish, land creatures God created a massive diversity of different types mutating them by grace into their different kinds.

2) These are not the crucial differences between what makes a man a man and an ape an ape but rather the important difference is the misunderstood combination of all the dimensions of design present in the original design. The mutational history would then be an incidental symptom of the basic design difference outworked over time.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

I agree completely, and that's why I accept the Bible and still accept evolution. I'm glad to see us on the same page here.

Because if we interpret the Bible to deny evolution, we are making the Bible out to be false.

Click to expand...

An honest reading of scripture is going to have a difficult time getting round certain key statements.

1) God made the heavens, the earth, all plant life and creatures on this earth in just 6 days and given the bibles genealogies a matter of thousands of years ago. (Genesis 1:11).

2) God created Adam directly from the clay not via a billion year period of evolution. (Genesis 2:7)

3) The flood is described as global:

"In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.....For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days." Genesis 7