May I chime in with a couple of posts from That Other Thread?
The infrastructure for creationism are still in their beginning stages just as a Darwinian interpretation of science was in the late 19th Century.
Creationism technically
precedes the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. By about thousands of years, too. I hope you didn't mean this as an excuse.
I don't know when this will change, but there are all kinds of theories involving mtDNA halogroup lineages or geometric reversal or Lorentz
force and Maxwell equations which remain unpublished. I don't intend
to publish them here.
Which means we might as well consider them non-existent for the time being. "All kinds of theories" unfortunately doesn't offer us much to work with.
There is no contradiction between true science and the Torah,
And what would be "true" science? Just curious.
and conventional interpretations do not have a monopoly science itself.
Sure they don't. After all,
evolution managed to break into science in its own time
In the fields of micro biology and genetics we see the clear need
for a Creator as a result of current positive data.
Let's see if I can see it (never saw any during my studies so far, but then I'm still a beginner)
You can start with the schematic complex information present in RNA and DNA which is a blue print for biological existence.
Ok, issues here. What does "schematic complex information" mean?
You can look at the "quote unquote" negative data involving abiogenesis
Sorry, what exactly is this "quote unquote" negative data?
and see clearly that we can not reconstruct a living cell or recreate life in any way.
Don't be hasty in declaring stuff like that. Are you familiar with
Jack Szostak's work?
This video on a possible origin of life is based on his results. It is new stuff (for me at least
) and quite neat:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
This is often a starting point for those who come out of the deception of common decent with modification as theory for an origin for all species.
This sentence doesn't entirely make sense. Is common descent the deception or is it its use as a theory [...]?
Anyway, universal common descent
(1) only applies to organisms alive today - i.e. there may have been different life forms of separate origin that we don't know anything about because they didn't make it into the family tree of modern life forms. Though if those things existed and deserved the name "life" then they would have their
own common descent.
(2) explains the origin of species given that there is something capable of descent with modification. It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself (although, depending on how you define life, biological evolution may have predated life proper)
(semantics IOW)Evolution is just speciation and mutation...
Evolution at its most fundamental is mutation, selection and random drift. Speciation is made up of these, just like other evolutionary processes.
Common ancestry, speciation, and natural selection are all part of the creative processes that God used to make variety...
Against that I have no objection.
...which are falsely taken and induced to be an origin for all species.
One: again, what do you mean by "an origin for all species"? Universal common descent or the origin of life? Two: it'd be nice if you explained why it's used "falsely". That's a rather strong statement. It not only implies that we
may not be right, it implies that we
are wrong. And a statement like that requires some support (that is, support for "falsely" rather than "prematurely" or something like that).
My long 3 page endless litany on everything from HGP and PCR in the 90's and Darwinian interpretations being the only guiding force was just lost once again when I clicked on a different window.
Ctrl+c is your friend. (And PCR has been in use since the '80s
)
To summarize I am not aware of any find where we have been able to observe the fusion of two chromosome feet to form one larger hromosome. Telomere to Telomere fusion of two ancestral apes
(chromosomes from them) may look like the right fit to a puzzle, but
"commonalities do not equal relatedness" UNLESS that relatedness
is observed within species, subspecies, breeds (and in some rare
cases of engineering with plants -genera)
What kind of arbitrary criterion is that? You don't technically
observe relatedness at
any level of classification unless the organisms in question breed right under your eyes. So I think you owe us another explanation there.
As for chromosome 2 specifically, are you just doubting for doubt's sake or do you have some more serious objections?
And don't forget that there's much more to the evidence for common descent than human chromosome 2.
The genetic code, for one. It's
completely arbitrary, and I think no two organisms differ in more than half a dozen out of 64 codons (though it's been a while since I last looked up the various codes). Given 64 codons for 20 amino acids and a full stop, there are enough possible genetic codes that such a coincidence makes one wonder. (And if you only count those then you are missing codes that use more or fewer amino acids or codons of length other than 3, although I'm somewhat suspicious that we use 3-letter codons for good evolutionary - economic - reasons)
(now luckily I saved the small above, but I just lost a whole
section comparing this to pharyngeal gill slits)
I can't wait to see that section. Evo-devo is fun stuff.
Maybe I am trying to do too many things at once and I keep losing what I've typed here and I now feel like an idiot.
Don't, it happens regularly to me when I
forget my friend ctrl+c... (and then I say things that wouldn't make it past the prudery filter here
)
I would love to spend (more) time on this, because believe me, I have a lot more to say. But it doesn't really matter whether you compare
rats to mice. bears to dogs. or chimpanzees to humans to try and
make your induction (and BTW, rats and mice are a possibility with
many creationists)just think of the difference that 1% or more makes.
... and what, according to you, should we think of that difference?
IOW, you can compare orthologous proteins and nucleotide alignments all you want, but just ask yourself "how many millions and millions of nucleotides are there?
Which is precisely why it's amazing that so many of them line up so neatly. AND often so consistently with our morphology-based ideas of relatedness.
I understand about finding the uniqueness of finding chromosomes that appear as though they could fuse together as 2A and 2B. But what evidence do we have to support that this actually occurs?
Let me turn this question around. What other explanation could you suggest for the similarity between the two chimp chromosomes and the one human chromosome? Including the telomeres - which are more than useful at the
end of a chromosome but what on earth are they doing in the
middle?