Apes and humans have different designs

[mindlight]

Simply astonishing. Have you ever stepped foot in a biology lab? Are you really unaware that biologists all over use evolution in their studies, and that they also spend an awful lot of time in the lab? Have you ever even read a scientific paper?

It is a background theory and I have talked to a lot of prominent biologists who are totally committed to it. However when challenged to show how it actually feeds into the practical benefits their work provides none of them were able to show how evolution contributed to that apart from cutting out a whole load of irrelevance which might have otherwise distracted them by providing pat answers to these questions.

Fact is you sign up to evolution to get the job cause if you do not believe it then you probably won't get the job or the funding or the respect of your peers. But in terms of its practical impact its about as important as one of those mission statements from an HR department to its employees that comes out every 1-2 years.

 

[Loudmouth]

After 15 pages, no-one on the evolutionist side of the argument has proved that such a thing as a 'nested hierarchy' actually exists in the created world (or world of nature to speak more neutrally).

Show me a species with fur and no notochord.

I think what 'ThouShaltNotPoe' and 'Loudmouth' are trying to say is that something like this is a nested hierarchy:

Common ancestor of apes & man > australopitchecines > ape-men > homo erectus > homo habilis > home neanderthalensis > homo sapiens.

That would be a line of descent, not a nested hierarchy. All species in the genus Homo are contained within the Hominidae order with other great apes. The great apes within Hominidae are grouped with gibbons and all old world monkeys with Catarrhini. All Catarrhini are grouped with all other lemurs, tarsiers, and new world monkeys within the Primate group. And on and on it goes. Check it out here:

Primates

Shared and derived features fall into a pattern of groups within groups just as we should observe if evolution is true.

The theory that this, or something like it, is a 'nested hierarchy', assumes that the allegedly gradual transition from a common ancestor of apes and man to today's homo sapiens has actually happened. That simply cannot be demonstrated.

A nested hierarchy assumes no such thing. A nested hierarchy is an observation. Nothing more. No assumptions are involved. It was a creationst 100 years before the birth of Darwin that first put these facts together. His name was Linnaeus. He founded Linnaean taxonomy (again, 100 years before Darwin).

Only the theory of evolution is able to explain why we see a nested hierarchy. Only the theory of evolution is able to predict that newly found fossil species will fall into this same nested hierarchy.

The total absence of genuine 'missing links' is powerful evidence against evolution.

I found them. They are no longer missing:

Evolution -- Transitional Hominids

The facts of biology are also against the theory of evolution; no new DNA information can be transmitted to the next generation, except for mutations, which, as must be admitted by the evolutionists here, are corrupted data and not a mechanism for improvement.

We need to see evidence for these claims.

There is no actual evidence of a nested hierarchy.

That is simply false. The nested hierarchies have been a fact within biology for over 200 years.

One fascinating thing about this thread is that no actual examples of a 'nested hierarchy' have been given, except the very vague 'apes to humans'.

Start here:

Homo sapiens

Keep clicking on the containing group.

And yet, if evolution were true, EVERY SINGLE animal, plant, bird, insect, mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish or other creature would - axiomatically - be part of a nested hierarchy.

If evolution were not true we would not expect to see a nested hierarchy.

So where are all these 'nested hierarchies'?

Here:

Tree of Life Web Project

Let's look to give just one example at the caterpillar > butterfly > caterpillar miracle.

What so-called 'nested hierarchy' does this magnificent creature fall into?

Lepidoptera:

Lepidoptera

It is so sad to see these attempts to back up a theory - evolution - with all the facts stacked against it.

Denial is not evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is a background theory and I have talked to a lot of prominent biologists who are totally committed to it.

Yes, just like a lot of prominent physicists are committed to gravity and a lot of doctors are committed to the germ theory of disease.

However when challenged to show how it actually feeds into the practical benefits their work provides none of them were able to show how evolution contributed to that apart from cutting out a whole load of irrelevance which might have otherwise distracted them by providing pat answers to these questions.

PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Oct;1(5):e45. Epub 2005 Oct 7.
Protein molecular function prediction by Bayesian phylogenomics.
Engelhardt BE, Jordan MI, Muratore KE, Brenner SE.

Source
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America. bee@cs.berkeley.edu

Abstract

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5'-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.

​

That is a direct application of evolution. Using evolution, scientists are able to predict protein function with 96% accuracy. This is just one example of many.

Do you have any more misinformation for us?

 

[Loudmouth]

Common designer theory makes better sense of many of these features than a view of evolution based on natural selection and survival of the fittest.

How does it make better sense? How does a common designer explain a nested hierarchy? You STILL haven't answered this question.

Yes it might just be an ascetic choice. Indeed the survival of these oddities in a whole variety of creatures points to a younger rather than older earth as according to the principles of evolution they are mistakes that would impede the capacity to survive rather than thrive.

We need to see evidence for these claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

No the existence of computers, modern telecommunications and the internet is empirically verifiable while the theory of evolution is not.

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

​

We share over 200,000 ERV's with chimps at the same position in our genomes. It has been verified. We have the proof.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing could falsify the existence of God- TRUE. But the real question is whether or not my assumptions work better or not in explaining the evidence. Even atheistic thinkers like Thomas Nagel think a purely materialistic approach is inadequate in explaining the formation of consciousness etc. I know that there is more to our existence than just the material by which you try and label our existence as do the vast majority of the worlds population regardless of religious position, including many scientists. These non material realities have a bearing on such issues as the formation of life and it is dishonest and in the end bad science to exclude them by definition.

What are we excluding? Please evidence these mechanisms that you want included.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

Some of the creatures in that rock wall , even low down, look remarkably similar to creatures I see today - others may include fish giving birth or in the act of swallowing other fish and do not look like they formed in a matter of millions of years.
.

They "look remarkably similar to creatures I see today" because I will bet that you have zero training in anatomy or even the basics of paleontological methodologies. You tell us that they "do not look like they formed in a matter of millions of years." But in fact, they DO.

Your posts are little more than denial of facts. Nested hierarchies exist at MANY levels. From the genome to general morphologies.

I accept the evidence for nested hierarchies and evolutionary processes because God chose to make them evidence literally everywhere we look in his creation.

I was a young earth creationist for many years, until I started reading my Bible much more carefully and reading the evidence in God's creation much more carefully. Sadly, I had been blaspheming some of the greatest wonders of God's creation (that is, evolutionary processes) for many years because that was the tradition in my church. I was little more than a modern day Pharisee who looked down on my brethren who didn't share my love of anti-evolution traditions.

I was so much like you. For example, I had just as little understanding of nested hierarchies as you have revealed here. And I denied "transitional fossil forms" because THE GENESIS FLOOD (by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb) had established my understanding of "creation science" in the 1960's and I never bothered to read any of the detailed critiques of its pseudo-science. So when modern paleontology exponentially expanded the list of transitional fossil form examples into the hundreds and hundreds, I was still foolishly chanting the mantra that there were ZERO.

But the problem wasn't merely my ignorance of God's Creation. I was giving non-believers the impression that following Christ meant ignoring evidence and refusing to use my brain----and then being proud of it! No wonder the Apostle Paul warned us not to mix unnecessary tangents into the Great Commission. (A recent article described it well: "Ken Ham has pushed far more young people away from the Kingdom than Charles Darwin ever will.")

I would encourage you to AT LEAST learn some basic terminology and fundamentals of the theory of evolution before so condescendingly judging those who actually understand it. And before presuming that the Bible condemns it, why not reading your Bible a little more carefully? Tell us what verse most explicitly declares that living things have not evolved over time to produce every greater diversity, just as the evidence God provided in his creation tells us? (Or is the Creator a liar, a deceiver who creates nested hierarchies and profuse evidence of billions of years in the geologic column and in the biosphere, all to confuse us and to place his Bible and his Creation in contradiction?)

 

[Loudmouth]

Its my perspective that scientists are doing a great deal more than just observing evidence. They are also collating it and then interpreting it.

I would hope so. What good are facts unless we interpret them into a larger framework?

What you need to show is that the interpretation is wrong.

It is these value laden theories which are debatable not the evidence itself.

But you are not debating them. You are just ignoring them.

It may appear consistent to explain things merely in terms of materialistic evidences and still be disastrously wrong. Any good court room lawyer can take the same forensic evidence and come up with a totally different account of a crime scene and indeed motivations. In the end the jury makes a plausibility assessment based not only on the evidence but on how credible the story is that is used to explain the evidence.

What would a jury think of a lawyer claimed that God planted all of the evidence at a crime scene in such a way that it was indistinguishable from the commission of a real crime?

 

[Tomk80]

How about a complete lack of credible evidence showing the chain of events from A to B.

The twin-nested hierarchy indicates a pattern of inheritance. Even if you were actually correct in your assertion of a lack of other evidence, this does not negate this pattern. If there would be no evidence for a good mechanism (as was the case before Darwin for example), this pattern of inheritance is still there. So we know from the twin-nested hierachy that species must have derived from a common ancestor, even if we do not know the mechanism.

It is also a line of evidence which can potentially be falsified. The theory of evolution hinges on inheritence of traits. If there would be no twin-nested hierarchy, the evidence would not indicate a lineage which came about through inheritance. And this would falisify evolution. So while the twin-nested hierarchy only verifies the common ancestry part of evolution, it would falsify the entire theory of evolution if it would not be found.

Your claim was that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified. As I explained to you in more detail now again, it can be. An absence of evidence does not provide falsification. Observations contrary to the theory do. A gross violation of the twin-nested hierarchy would be contrary to the theory of evolution, and hence is a potential falsification.

What is more, what you have proposed so far offers nothing that comes even close to this. As Loudmouth also pointed out multiple times now, you have yet to explain how a designer would provide a better explanation for the twin-nested hierarchy. Because as both Loudmouth and I have explained already, all design we have ever seen anywhere voilates the twin-nested hierarchy. You have yet to answer this in a way that is anywhere near comprehensive.

We have chimps and we have humans and we have various other creatures that look very much like both

Which is another line of evidence indicating common descent. We have a line of fossil ancestors of humans, indicating a line of descent from a common ancestor of chimps and humans to humans. So this observation verifies the theory of evolution, even if not finding these fossils would not falsify the theory of evolution.

but we have no chain of evidence that would hold up in a court of law,

It doesn't have to hold up in a court of law. It has to be the best explanation of the evidence available.

Lines like "it would not hold up in a court of law" only serve no purpose in the discussion, because I would say it does and than you would say it does not. Of course I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the theory of evolution has actually been held up in court of law multiple times, McLean v Arkansas determined in detail what the legal definition of science is and that "creation science" is not science, while the theory of evolution is. Edwards v Aguillard came to a similar conclusion, as did Pelosa v Capistrano School District. Lastly, Kitzmiller v Dover School Board ruled that Intelligent Design is not science.

we could not duplicate the process by a guided approach of DNA replication with carefully chosen mutations.

We don't have to. There are other ways to show that the theory of evolution (and here I mean not just the common ancestry part but the theory as a whole) is the best explanation of the evidence. The differential rate of mutations between neutral and coding regions of the genome are an example, as are ERV-insertions and the evidence of a fusion event in chromosome 2.

Evolutionary theory is just a speculation based on an hypothesis at the end the day that explains little and very badly.

And this just shows your ignorance of the material.

Question, have you ever even come close to reading a scientific paper on the human and chimp genomes?

 

[Tomk80]

Umm J.B.S. Haldane....



Another one bites the dust.

No I am not trolling but the Mount Everest sized pile of evidence you cite is mainly explicable in other terms e.g. a global flood etc.

The evidence contradicts a global flood in a meriad of ways. The absence of evidence of a major genetic bottleneck 6,000 years ago in all species alive today alone is enough to falsify that idea. There is no verifying and only falsifying evidence for a global flood.

There is little to no DNA evidence at all from these ancient times as it degrades rapidly and we are talking thousands of years. So to speculate on common ancestory based on comparisons of the genomes of todays creatures is purely speculative.

No, it is not. The patterns in the DNA of creatures living today, provide us clear evidence of what happened in the past.

There are no missing links just big gaps which we are supposed to understand as sudden leaps.

There are no sudden leaps in the fossil record for the evolution of humans from their last common ancestors with chimps. Just as there are gradual transitions for horses, for the evolution of birds, for the evolution of mammals etc etc. While the existence of gaps does not falsify the theory of evolution (since fossilization is a rare event and the theory of evolution is supported through other lines of evidence), the amount of gaps is not nearly as large as you'd like it to be.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

And yet, if evolution were true, EVERY SINGLE animal, plant, bird, insect, mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish or other creature would - axiomatically - be part of a nested hierarchy.

So where are all these 'nested hierarchies'?

Let's look to give just one example at the caterpillar > butterfly > caterpillar miracle.

What so-called 'nested hierarchy' does this magnificent creature fall into?

You don't understand what a nested hierarchy is, do you? This is painful to read, mainly because you are by all appearances a brother in Christ.

Years before Darwin came on the scene, a remarkable scientist who Christians often cite as one of the pioneers of "creation science" established the modern taxonomy classification system and even the genus-species system which established man as "Homo sapiens". His name was Carl Linnaeus. Surely you know of him.

And even though the theory of evolution was years future, he used nested hierarchies as the basis of his classification system. Yet, do I understand correctly that you deny it. So our Christian brother was all wrong? And was he wrong because ---according to you---sin deceived him?

It doesn't, of course. It is gloriously unique, and with the most wonderful design features, if only your blindness didn't prevent you seeing this wonder of design.

Why can't COMMON DESCENT be part of God's design? Tell us.

In fact, it's my guess that you believe COMMON DESCENT and COMMON DESIGN look identical. But are you sure that that is the case? (In fact, they look NOTHING alike.)

It is so sad to see these attempts to back up a theory - evolution - with all the facts stacked against it.

Tell what facts those would be. In fact, to make this easier, why not just pick the #1 most convincing "fact" stacked against the Theory of Evolution. (And then tell us why despite your lack of scientific knowledge, you've see the "error" that the world's scientists keep missing for decades now. Feeling superior?)

It is because of sin.

The fact that I once espoused your position is indeed explained by sin. I was caught up in the same "pride in ignorance".

Some of us have had the great good fortune to have been allowed to understand the truth about our existence, namely that the world and the universe and everything in it was created by God - a world in which, however, we have brought death and ruin by our rebellion against Him.

In that we agree. And thankfully, God convicted me of my sin and instead of condemning the wondrous processes of evolution, I praised God for creating such marvelous adaptive and diversifying wonders.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth, died and rose again to bring forgiveness of sins. So long as we reject Him, we will keep clinging on to desperate theories like evolution as a rationalisation for avoiding Him.

Why you think that God's evolutionary processes somehow conflict with his plan of redeeming grace, I don't yet know. But based on my own background in such a tradition, I have a lot of strong hunches. We observe evolutionary processes at work around us and in the fossil record. The FACTS of evolution are undeniable except by those ignorant of them---even their very definitions. [If anyone doubts that, take a look at the "15 Questions for Evolutionists" that is on Creation.com.] I've yet to meet an evolution-denier who understood even the fundamentals of the theory of evolution. No wonder they confuse it with abiogenesis, the Big Bang Theory, and the naturalism of science methodologies (by confusing it with philosophical naturalism, which is atheism.)]

No doubt you've been told that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic. So your motives are no doubt noble to an extent. But every time you post falsehoods about the evidence and facts of evolution, you created stumbling blocks to the Kingdom. (And we should all be wary of causing others to stumble. I regularly have to remind non-believers that the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible in general should not be assessed based upon the scientific ignorance [and Pharisaical arrogance] of far too many who claim to follow him.)

Praise God for the marvelous workings of evolution and for the abundance evidence for evolution that fills creation.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration ), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely . Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place .


​

We share over 200,000 ERV's with chimps at the same position in our genomes. It has been verified. We have the proof.

Loudmouth,

Thank you for your informative posts on evolution. Very instructive!

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I value TRUTH as well as those who are willing to teach others about the scientific evidence to be observed all around us. I've spent a lot of time here as a lurker and have learned much from your replies to my scientifically uninformed brethren.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Umm J.B.S. Haldane....

That goes without saying.

 

[And-U-Say]

When you say things like suboptimal with reference to the Creators design that makes me think you are missing something real important.

Like what? A perfect creator using a nested hierarchy resulting in sub-optimal design is an irrefutable indication of evolution and not creationism. What magical "something" could there possibly be that would make this different? You are falling back on the "well, we don't know everything so my guess must be right" position. Amazing.

There is a reason for everything even if people do not yet know what it is.

So, somewhere out there (in the great by and by) is a good reason why this creator of yours did such a poor job. Hilarious.

 

[SLP]

I'd like to see him apply it to two human genomes.

Interesting comment - one of the groups that Tomkins cites (an Italian creationist group, can't remember their names) had some data analyses regarding the same sort of issues Tomkins is discussing, and they showed, using some kind of algorithm, that when applied to the whole genome, that humans and chimps would differ by some huge amount.

I emailed the group after reading about it, and asked if they had compared pairs of taxa that creationists consider to belong to the same Kind, they replied that they had not, but that they had added data from a pair of humans, and they were nice enough to send me the graphic results.

It indicated, interestingly enough, that using their Tomkins-approved algorithm, that any 2 humans would differ overall by more than 5% - which, we that have been interested in this whole 'debate' for some time will note, is the level that creationists have insisted for decades is too much of a difference to allow for human-chimp shared ancestry.

I responded to them as much, and 2 years on have received no response.

I will try to locate the graph they sent.

 

[Loudmouth]

Interesting comment - one of the groups that Tomkins cites (an Italian creationist group, can't remember their names) had some data analyses regarding the same sort of issues Tomkins is discussing, and they showed, using some kind of algorithm, that when applied to the whole genome, that humans and chimps would differ by some huge amount.

I emailed the group after reading about it, and asked if they had compared pairs of taxa that creationists consider to belong to the same Kind, they replied that they had not, but that they had added data from a pair of humans, and they were nice enough to send me the graphic results.

It indicated, interestingly enough, that using their Tomkins-approved algorithm, that any 2 humans would differ overall by more than 5% - which, we that have been interested in this whole 'debate' for some time will note, is the level that creationists have insisted for decades is too much of a difference to allow for human-chimp shared ancestry.

I responded to them as much, and 2 years on have received no response.

I will try to locate the graph they sent.

As soon as creationists put chimps in the ape "kind", they have shot themselves in the foot. Any fair measure of differences, when equally applied to all species, will show that chimps share more DNA with humans than they do gorillas or orangutans. This would put humans squarely within the ape kind.

As you discuss, using a different method to produce a different number is meaningless until the same method is used on all of the species involved.