Creationism will only destroy science

[Liberalscience]

Charles Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution in 1859. In his theory Darwin noted that there were biological variations among individuals of a species. At the time Darwin didn’t know what caused these variations, since that time we have learned that that such variations were caused by mutations, or physical changes in a gene or chromosome. Darwin noted that within a situation which presented limited resources and a continued growth of a species’ populous, there would emerge competition for resources, and in this competition, members of the species with useful mutations would be more likely to survive and reproduce than those without.



This may seem like common sense to us now, it’s fairly obvious that, lets say, a cheetah which is faster then all the other cheetahs will be more likely to catch its pray, and by catching this pray, it will further its life span and be more likely to reproduce and pass on its genes.



The mutations that cause this variation can be split up into 3 groups; useful, neutral and harmful. Most mutations are neutral, with useful and harmful mutations often being dictated by there surroundings.



This is simple stuff.



Darwin’s theory of evolution caused a major stir when it introduced in England in 1859. Opponents of the theory included many religious groups. At the time, a large number of people throughout the English-speaking world believed that the word of noted church theologian Bishop Ussher, who had determined through rigorous study of the bible that the exact date of the creation of the Earth was October 22, 4004 B.C. By Usshers calculations our world was approximately 6,000 years old. Needless to say Darwin’s theory was in direct conflict with the bishops date, as his evolution could only take place on grand scales of millions of years. The inevitable happened and within a short period a war of the words began between those who believed Darwin, and those that didn’t.



Lets take America as a model, mostly because the evolution/creationism debate has received the most press there. Up to the 1960’s the creationism belief was the most predominant one, with practically no biology textbooks even mentioning evolution. The best example of this predominant belief structure being the famous Scopes trial, where a teacher was prosecuted for teaching evolution in the classroom. However, the space race changed all this, in the early 1960’s the American government believed that the Soviets were beating America in the space race because of better schooling in science and technology. A long, hard look was taken at textbooks, and biology instruction was changed to firmly embrace evolution.



As the government continued to bar religion in classrooms Evangelical Christians switched tactics. For years they had objected to teaching evolution because they considered it a scientific religion, a part of secular humanism that stood directly opposed to organised faith. Instead of attacking science, the fundamentalists became part of it. A number of theologians and scientists started promoting a concept they called creation science, in which they challenged the basic principles of evolution as being unproven and improvable. The “creation scientists” offered their own version of how life began on earth using the old testament as their only source book. In the debates that followed, Fundamentalists argued that the evidence that they presented proved that evolution was false. They asked that teachers only be able to present Darwin’s theory of evolution only if it was clearly labelled a ‘theory’, and nothing more. More importantly they demanded that if evolution was to be taught in schools, their viewpoint, creationism should be taught as well.



Despite the fact that creationism was largely ridiculed and rejected throughout most of the western world, American began to adopt it again, and it was embraced by a large section of the American Population.



The American battle between creationism and evolution came to a boil in the late 1990’s when the state school board of Kansas rewrote the science education policy. Students would no longer be tested on their knowledge of evolution, and as subjects that weren’t tested weren’t taught, Evolution dropped out of sight in Kansas. As you can imagine this led to a storm of protest across the country, people throughout the state complained that Kansas had become the laughing stock of the country. As Kansas received flak from collage professors to late-night comedians, the Evangelical Christians, who had pushed for the change, accused everyone of attacking their beliefs. Creationists claimed that liberal politicians and big media players were out to quash viewpoints different from their own. Viewpoints, that creationists claimed were obviously true to anyone with common sense.



Thankfully the voting public made their view known, Kansas had its evolution bad rescinded. However none of the old arguments were settled and neither side backed down.



Everything stands or falls with Darwin’s theory. If god created everything at one time and god created everything in his own image man is already perfect as god intended. Mutations in humans would demonstrate that man wasn’t perfect when he was created. Moreover, the notion of humanity evolving upward into an even greater species suggests that one species can evolve into another, a claim that creationists say is absolutely impossible.



The main thrust of creationism is an attack on the theory of evolution. If the theory is not true, the creationists declare, then any conclusions drawn from it are equally tainted. Proving evolution not true would be a cataclysmic event in the history of modern science and technology. Much of our understanding of the physical and biological world relies on concepts derived from the theory of evolution. Creationists argue that because it would cause so much disruption, scientists are willing to go to any lengths to falsify data to prove evolution.



Unfortunately for the creationists, though they have found evidence of fake fossils and other deceitful activities by a small number of people aiming to make fast cash, they’ve yet to find a single hard fact that proves Darwin wrong. Despite all of their trying, the protestors are forced to use hyperbole, oftentimes inaccurate and misleading information, and arguments based on “obvious” material to make their case. Creationist rely too much on ‘facts’ they claim are obvious – but cant be proved.



Theory is a word that generates much debate when brought up with evolution. Other theories, like the theory of general relativity, the laws governing electricity and the 3 laws of thermodynamics have been proven so many times that no one doubts them. Evolution is a theory that has been proven time and time again. A vast majority of the worlds scientists believe it is true, as do most religious leaders and theologians. In 1996, the pope released a formal statement to the “Pontifical Academy of Science” stating that “Fresh knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more then just a hypothesis”.



Any other theory with such overwhelming support would be considered true in an instant. Only the theory of evolution, which according to fundamentalists contradicts the unalterable truth of the Bible, has faced so many challenged for 140 years.



“Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of out fastest-growing controversial minorities”, proclaim numerous internet sites. Not mentioned anywhere on these sites is the Gallup pole that shows that 95% of scientists in the U.S. believe that evolution is fact. Surveys taken from scientific groups around the world place the number of scientists believing in evolution at 99%.



Creation scientists not only believe that god created the world in 4004 B.C, but, by implication, that he created the entire universe at the same instant, locating distant galaxies millions of light years away from earth so that they would correspond with modern relative theory and astronomy. Millions of years of fossil remains are described as residue from one big flood taking place only several thousands of years ago, while carbon dating is dismissed as totally false and inaccurate. In other words, the accept only the data that fit their conclusions and dismiss any information that contradicts their belief.



In the 140 years since the theory of evolution was proposed, no real challenge to its validity has been proven. The theory of evolution fits with every other scientific discovery we’ve made about the universe. Consider this evidence.



Darwin predicted that the ancestors of trilobites would be found in pre-Silurian age rocks. His predictions turned out to be true, as they were later found.



In 1859, Darwin said the total lack of Precambrian age fossils was unexplainable and that the lack could be a strong argument against his theory. However, such fossils were discovered in 1953. They had been around all along, just too small to be seen by microscope.



Evolutions predicted that animals on far islands will be related to animals on the closest mainland; that the older and more the distant the island, the more distant the relationship. This has been shown numerous times to be true.



And finally I shall finish on the biggest nail in the coffin. When detailed results of the Human Genome Project were announced at the 2001 meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, data tied human organisms to earlier forms of life, going back as far as primitive bacteria.

These fundamental lies of creationism will only serve to destroy the scientific community. Feel free to argue, please fight back at PM me for contact info.

 

[Delta One]

I will just briefly explain one fallacy that you have overlooked here now; science is a creationist invention!

Of course the founders of modern science were not materialists (Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant. This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ‘coherency of truth’. See The Religious Nature of Evolution article <http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/evolution.asp>. In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.



Loren Eiseley stated (Loren Eiseley: Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, Doubleday, Anchor, New York (1961):

‘The philosophy of experimental science…began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’​

Most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive. A sample:

• Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin.
• Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay.
• Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz.
• Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier.
• Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo,Kepler, Herschel, Maunder.
• Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz.

These are just a few names. As you can easily see, your fallacy of believing that creationists are 'against science' or will 'destroy science' as outlined by the topic heading "Creationism will only destroy science" is quite absurd as it goes directly against what HISTORY tells us. Science really only began to flourish in Christian Europe when scientists did their studies directly from the Bible taking it as the literal and inspired Word of God. You have demonstrated to all here that you lack the knowledge of the nature of the creation/evolution debate. It science vs. religion, but religion vs. religion as I have explained many a times on other various threads in this forum and on other forums such as GA.

Your argument with comments like the following are quite easy to refute and show to everyone that you lack the proper understanding of creationary theory:

Mutations in humans would demonstrate that man wasn’t perfect when he was created.

Mutations would not have happened before the Fall of man as God was upholding His creation 100%. It was only after Adam's sin and God's judgement of the curse that things started to fall apart and run down. We started to fall apart and fun down. Mutations then started to happen in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. Paul says that the whole creation is in bondage to decay (including our genes). As you can see, your argument proves nothing. Mutations started to happen as a direct result of God's judgement on His creation because of Adam's sin.

 

[Delta One]

Oh, I didn't realise you were new. This probably isn't the nicest way to be 'welcomed'. I'd just like to say welcome and I hope you enjoy your time here. These topics can get a little bit hot at times, so I apologise for any times I may sound harsh with you in advance. I don't mean to, sometimes it just happens.

 

[mark kennedy]

One of the biggest fallacies in this topic of discussion is that creationists are anitevolution. Many are but for the most part the accept evolution as it is defined scienticlly.

Evolution- The change of alleles in populations over time.

What Darwin offered was a proposal that was directly opposed to scientific creationism. Darwin simply proposed that natural selection was the mechanism by which populations most often change. One of the most radical proposals was the universal common ancestor. This is one of the few diagrams found in Origin of Species.

This is the famous Darwinian Tree of Life and it was the heart of his premise. Neodarwians insist that this is a demonstrated fact of science but the empirical backbone of evolution is genetics. When creationists oppose evolutionary theory they do not reject it entirely, what they reject is universal common ancestory.

Creationists would concede that human beings have a single common ancestor and the Human Genome Project has confirmed this in no uncertain terms. Where evolution becomes untenable is major mophological changes like the common ancestor of men and apes, particularly the chimpanzee. We have been told for decades that we are 98.5 % simular to the chimpanzee. After mapping the Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 and comparing it to the human counterpart Human Chromosome 21 this was found to be false. Based on the discovery of nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions, the question comes up, how did these differences get in there. There is only one way this could have happened, there would have had to be insertions and deletions of nucleotides on a macro scale. The problem is that when these kind of mutations occur they most often results in a frameshift in the reading frame making it useless.

Not all of these indels would effect the protein coding, in fact, most of the DNA doesn't do anything. Only about 2-3% is actually involved in producing the amino acids and proteins that cells are built from. In the protein coding structures they discovered some fifteen structural changes:

"Fifteen genes have indels within their coding region yet retain frame consistency in all but one case...Our data suggest that indels within coding regions represent one of the major mechanisms generating protein diversity and shaping higher primate species....Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins)"

DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22

That means that there is about a 5% differences in the overall genomes and 20% of the protein coding genes in these two chromosomes. Throughout this paper they call these differences mutations (indels and single base substitution) but most of them are not mutations, they are just differences. The reason they picked these two chromosomes for comparison is stated in the opening paragraph.

"Human–chimpanzee comparative genome research is essential for narrowing down genetic changes involved in the acquisition of unique human features, such as highly developed cognitive functions, bipedalism or the use of complex language. Here, we report the high-quality DNA sequence of 33.3 megabases of chimpanzee chromosome 22. By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level."

83% of the 231 coding sequences? Dawinism explains everything and it explains absolutly nothing. Darwin talked about pigeons all having a common ancestor and had he left it at that there would be no problem with it. Where evolution is a fallacy and baseless supposition is the universal common ancestory. I resent seeing creation scientists being classified as antiscience and antievolution when it is the philosophy of Darwinism that they take issue with. There is no genetic basis for a transition on this level and yet we are being told that evolution is a fact. Darwinism is neither a fact of science nor a theory, it has never accumulated the empirical credibility that would be needed. It is accepted as a unifying theory because it avoids attributing anything in creation to God in any way shape or form. It is antithestic rethoric, nothing more and it is nothing new either:

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 1:25)

 

[Ceris]

Mod Note:

Thread has been moved to OT forum so that it may be openly debated.

God Bless,
Ceris

 

[gluadys]

This is one of the few diagrams found in Origin of Species.

Actually, it is the only diagram found in Origin of Species.

We have been told for decades that we are 98.5 % simular to the chimpanzee. After mapping the Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 and comparing it to the human counterpart Human Chromosome 21 this was found to be false.

Not so. It was always stated that the 98.5% similarity applied to coding DNA only. It was always expected that many additional differences would be found in non-coding DNA. That is what is showing up on the chromosome comparison.

Based on the discovery of nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions, the question comes up, how did these differences get in there. There is only one way this could have happened, there would have had to be insertions and deletions of nucleotides on a macro scale.

Why? How do you know it is on a macro-scale? You only have one chromosome comparison so far. And only a comparison of a human chromosome to a chimp chromosome. How can you compare that to say a comparison of a jackrabbit chromosome to a snowshoe hare chromosome? Where is your base line for saying this is out of line with normal mutation rates?

The problem is that when these kind of mutations occur they most often results in a frameshift in the reading frame making it useless.

But the study did not show that.

Not all of these indels would effect the protein coding, in fact, most of the DNA doesn't do anything. Only about 2-3% is actually involved in producing the amino acids and proteins that cells are built from. In the protein coding structures they discovered some fifteen structural changes:

"Fifteen genes have indels within their coding region yet retain frame consistency in all but one case...Our data suggest that indels within coding regions represent one of the major mechanisms generating protein diversity and shaping higher primate species....Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins)"

See, your own quotation shows only one out of 68,000 indels resulted in a frame-shift---and it doesn't say the frameshift was deleterious.

Throughout this paper they call these differences mutations (indels and single base substitution) but most of them are not mutations, they are just differences.

And what is the difference between "mutation" and "difference"? Isn't a mutation a difference in DNA sequencing?

"These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level."

83% of the 231 coding sequences?

Are you doubting the results of the study? Why do you put a ? after the statistic?

Where evolution is a fallacy and baseless supposition is the universal common ancestory. I resent seeing creation scientists being classified as antiscience and antievolution when it is the philosophy of Darwinism that they take issue with. There is no genetic basis for a transition on this level and yet we are being told that evolution is a fact.

If you really want to challenge the philosophy of Darwinism, define what it is and what is wrong with it and leave the science aside. Your very next statement shows that you do want to attack the science, not just a philosophy. The statement that there is no genetic basis for common ancestry is a scientific statement, not a philosophical statement. And it is beyond ironic that you make this statement immediately after quoting a paper which does lay out a genetic basis for common ancestry (83% of 231 coding sequences show differences at the amino acid level that affect functioning proteins).

Darwinism is neither a fact of science nor a theory, it has never accumulated the empirical credibility that would be needed.

That depends on how you define Darwinism. Meanwhile evolution (including common ancestry) is both a fact and a theory.

It is accepted as a unifying theory because it avoids attributing anything in creation to God in any way shape or form. It is antithestic rethoric, nothing more and it is nothing new either:

Darwinism (whatever it is) is not accepted as a theory at all. The theory of evolution is accepted as a unifying theory because it does unite most biological observations together under a single explanatory umbrella. Not because it is opposed to theism.

Your basic problem Mark is that you fail to discriminate between science and philosophies which claim to be derived from science. The errors of the latter do not imply errors in the former.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, it is the only diagram found in Origin of Species.

I wasn't sure, thanks for the clarification.

Not so. It was always stated that the 98.5% similarity applied to coding DNA only. It was always expected that many additional differences would be found in non-coding DNA. That is what is showing up on the chromosome comparison.

You never were able to discern the difference between this:

"Among the 231 genes associated to a canonical ORF, 179 show a coding sequence of identical length in human and chimpanzee and exhibit similar intron–exon boundaries. For those 179 genes, the average nucleotide and amino acid identity in the coding region is 99.29% and 99.18%, respectively. Of these, 39 genes show an identical amino acid sequence between human and chimpanzee, including seven in which the nucleotide sequence of the coding region is also identical."

And this:

"A total of 140 of these 179 genes show amino acid replacements, but no gross structural changes are expected...Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins)"

(Taken from, Gene catalogue and characterization of coding sequences)

In the gene expression analysis it was found that:

"We detected 60 genes expressed in brain (this study) and 40 in liver in at least one species. Of these, 9 in the brain and 12 in the liver showed a significant change in expression level between humans and chimpanzees in the range of a 1.5–10-fold difference."

1)Of the 231 genes examined only 39 were of identical length.
2)Taken together the gross structural differences are ~20%.
3)9 genes expressed in the brain and 12 in the liver had from a 1.5-10 fold difference.

That means that the differences are far greater then previously estimated, in fact I would say dramaticlly different.

Why? How do you know it is on a macro-scale? You only have one chromosome comparison so far. And only a comparison of a human chromosome to a chimp chromosome. How can you compare that to say a comparison of a jackrabbit chromosome to a snowshoe hare chromosome? Where is your base line for saying this is out of line with normal mutation rates?

Just compare old world monkeys to new world monkeys or something along those lines. I don't think there are any creation scientists that would have any problem with that being used as a baseline. Now as far as comparing the nuceotide sequences to a jackrabbit chromosome would require a lot more time and money then you realize. The Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reguired years of research and dozens of scientists so I don't think what you are suggesting is withing the realm of possibility at this point.

But the study did not show that.

Genetic studies of the effects of indels on the reading frame has.

See, your own quotation shows only one out of 68,000 indels resulted in a frame-shift---and it doesn't say the frameshift was deleterious.

Only because they were not the result of an alteration of the original DNA sequences. That is something else you don't seem to understand, they identified differences.

And what is the difference between "mutation" and "difference"? Isn't a mutation a difference in DNA sequencing?

A mutation is a transcript (copy) error that some times makes it through the check points of the cell cycle. A difference would be if you sat down and compared two long (and I mean very long) strands of beads. When layed side by side when there was a bead in one that was not in the same place of the other it is an insertion, when one is missing in one it is called a deletion, thus an indel.

Are you doubting the results of the study? Why do you put a ? after the statistic?

The question mark was for you, how is an difference in 83% of the 231 coding sequences occur on a genetic level?

If you really want to challenge the philosophy of Darwinism, define what it is and what is wrong with it and leave the science aside. Your very next statement shows that you do want to attack the science, not just a philosophy. The statement that there is no genetic basis for common ancestry is a scientific statement, not a philosophical statement. And it is beyond ironic that you make this statement immediately after quoting a paper which does lay out a genetic basis for common ancestry (83% of 231 coding sequences show differences at the amino acid level that affect functioning proteins).

It make perfect sense for a comparison of the coding seqeunces to be a logical disproof of the single common ancestor model. There limits to how much change can provide a selective advantage and when the physiological costs outweigh the benefit it dosen't happen.

"The different patterns of mutation rates among taxa indicate clearly that the rate of mutation is subject to evolutionary change. Because the fidelity of DNA replication depends on elaborate enzymatic machinery, mutational inactivation of any component of which can greatly elevate the mutation rate, selection acts primarily to reduce the standard mutation rate, although allowing higher rates in specific circumstances...This led him to ask why the mutation rate does not fall to zero." (Genetics, Vol. 148, 1667-1686, April 1998)

Selective pressure can be relaxed when the fidelity of the DNA replication demands it. That is why the mutation rate is not zero and why the development of the brain from that of an ape to modern man in 1.5 - 2 million years is not a gradual process but would have to be a giant leap in evolutionary development.

That depends on how you define Darwinism. Meanwhile evolution (including common ancestry) is both a fact and a theory.

Which is why I can accept evolution as it is properly defined, 'the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Then at the same time reject to presumption of single common ancestory.

Darwinism (whatever it is) is not accepted as a theory at all. The theory of evolution is accepted as a unifying theory because it does unite most biological observations together under a single explanatory umbrella. Not because it is opposed to theism.

The modern synthesis is based on the work of Darwin and Mendel as they were developed into the neodarwinian model of natural descent and modern genetics. The unifying theory of descent with modification is the heart of evolutionary biology and arguments to the contrary are self defeating.

Your basic problem Mark is that you fail to discriminate between science and philosophies which claim to be derived from science. The errors of the latter do not imply errors in the former.

I have no problem with the science of genetics but it is neodarwinism that is the philosophy of evolutionary biology that I take issue with. I do discern between philosophy and empirical science and Darwinism is essentially philosophical.

While it is true that most of the indels are found in ALU elements there are signifigant structural differences. These have been clearly, empirically and systematiclly identified. In order for changes to occur on this level would require hundreds, if not thousands of mutations in hundreds, if not thousands of genes. That is why the genetic basis for the single ancestor for chimpanzees and humans is still a mystery. This is exactly what creationism would predict and the often stated proof of common descent being a 98% identical DNA of the chimpanzee and human beings is false. The protein coding sequences are very different and the evolutionary biologists that have been saying this were dead wrong.

Edited to add:

To emphasis the signifigance of this comparision I would like to offer a statement from on of the leading researchers:

"Sakaki said their analysis found about 68,000 insertions or deletions. "That is almost one insertion/deletion every 470 bases," he said. In addition, a small proportion of genes showed a relatively higher rate of evolution than most other genes. "We haven't known what proportion of the genes shows adaptive evolution. This study shows it to be about 2 to 3%," he said.


Early molecular comparisons between humans and chimpanzees suggested that the species are very similar to each other at the nucleotide sequence level - a difference of between 1.23% and 5%, Sakaki said. The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee - only 17% are identical - so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said."

Chimps are not like humans

 

[gluadys]

You never were able to discern the difference between this:

"Among the 231 genes associated to a canonical ORF, 179 show a coding sequence of identical length in human and chimpanzee and exhibit similar intron–exon boundaries. For those 179 genes, the average nucleotide and amino acid identity in the coding region is 99.29% and 99.18%, respectively. Of these, 39 genes show an identical amino acid sequence between human and chimpanzee, including seven in which the nucleotide sequence of the coding region is also identical."

And this:

"A total of 140 of these 179 genes show amino acid replacements, but no gross structural changes are expected...Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins)"

What is to understand? We have 231 genes associated with an open reading frame. Out of these we have 179 whose coding regions, when compared with the chimp homologue have identical length, similar intron-exon boundaries, and whose amino acid sequences fall well within the approximately 98% similarity for the coding regions of the human/chimp genomes as a whole. In fact 39 are identical.

Now subtracting the 39 genes that have identical coding regions, we have left 140 genes which show amino acid substitutions. i.e. the amino acid sequence in the chimp chromosome does not match the amino acid sequence in the human chromosome. In just under 79.7% of these instances, no gross structural changes in the gene products (presumably proteins?) are expected because of these differences. This leaves 20.3% of the changes in these 140 genes in which gross structural changes are expected. The researchers had expected far fewer of the amino acid substitutions to result in gross structural changes in the gene products.

I think that sums up the scenario correctly. Please correct me if you see an error.

What I am left wondering is what point you think you are making.

In the gene expression analysis it was found that:

"We detected 60 genes expressed in brain (this study) and 40 in liver in at least one species. Of these, 9 in the brain and 12 in the liver showed a significant change in expression level between humans and chimpanzees in the range of a 1.5–10-fold difference."

So, out of 100 genes studied, 17 have a markedly different level of expression in the two species. Clearly this is one of the reasons humans and chimpanzees are different even when they share so many of the same genes.

Again, mark--what is your point?

That means that the differences are far greater then previously estimated, in fact I would say dramaticlly different.

It seems to me, Mark, that you are confounding two different kinds of difference. None of what you have pointed to has any bearing on the question of similarity in the genomes. In reference to the coding DNA, the overall difference between the human and chimp genome is approximately 2%. We already noted that when the 231 genes on the human Chromosome 21 & the chimp Chromosome 22 are compared, that difference is even less. 0.69% difference in nucleotide sequences and 0.78% difference in amino acid sequences.

But then you go on to look at gross structural differences. This is not the same thing as how similar the sequences are. What is being looked at here is the impact of the amino acid substitutions on the gene products. In this case we are looking at those 0.69% and 0.78% of the nucleotide/amino acid substitutions and asking, how much difference do they make? And we find that in 79.7% of cases, they make very little difference. But in 20.3% of the cases they have a much larger impact.

Remember that these latter percentages come within those less than 1% differences in DNA/amino acid sequencing. They are percentages of these percentages. They don't change either that 2% difference in overall human/chimp coding DNA sequences at all, nor the smaller differences in DNA/amino acid sequences on these particular chromosomes.

The only surprise to the researchers is that within the small volume of differences, more of the differences had a gross structural impact than they expected.

Same goes for the gene expression business. It doesn't change the volume of differences at all. In fact, what we are looking at here may be genes in which there is no nucleotide or amino acid difference between human and chimp at all. But there is a difference in the extent to which the gene is expressed---sometimes a very significant difference.

In short, you have described two types of impact difference (more amino acid substitutions than formerly estimated result in gross structural change, some homologous genes are expressed in humans much more than in chimps) which don't change in any way the estimated volume of difference (by how much do the coding sequences of DNA differ between humans and chimpanzees).

You are comparing apples and oranges and upon finding that some assumptions about differences in oranges were underestimated, you are now claiming that this has some relevance to the estimates about differences in apples. And, you are just plain wrong.

Just compare old world monkeys to new world monkeys or something along those lines. I don't think there are any creation scientists that would have any problem with that being used as a baseline. Now as far as comparing the nuceotide sequences to a jackrabbit chromosome would require a lot more time and money then you realize. The Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reguired years of research and dozens of scientists so I don't think what you are suggesting is withing the realm of possibility at this point.

What makes you think it would be any less expensive or time-consuming to compare a chromosome of an old world monkey to that of a new world monkey than to do the same with a jackrabbit and a snowshoe hare? For that matter what makes you think it would be any less expensive to compare human Chromosome 6 with chimp Chromosome 7?

All you are doing is confirming that we don't have a base line. The human21/chimp22 chromosome comparison is the first of its kind and will be the base line for other chromosome comparisons. Until other chromosome comparisons are done we can't draw any conclusions as to whether the level of mutations in this comparison is more or less than average or by how much.

Genetic studies of the effects of indels on the reading frame has.

What those genetic studies showed is that the consequence of an indel may be a frameshift under certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is that it must occur in a reading frame. Most of those 68,000 indels did not. Another is that the indel must not affect a triplet or multiple of triplet sequences. That does not produce a frameshift, it merely adds or subtracts whole amino acids.

What this study showed is that out of 68,000 indels, including those in exons, only one produced a frameshift. Are you quibbling with that?

Only because they were not the result of an alteration of the original DNA sequences. That is something else you don't seem to understand, they identified differences.

Please explain this in more detail. Show me how an insertion or deletion can NOT alter the original DNA sequence.

A mutation is a transcript (copy) error that some times makes it through the check points of the cell cycle. A difference would be if you sat down and compared two long (and I mean very long) strands of beads. When layed side by side when there was a bead in one that was not in the same place of the other it is an insertion, when one is missing in one it is called a deletion, thus an indel.

Ok, let's take this slow and easy to be sure we are not missing anything.

We have a chromosome ready to reproduce. It makes a copy of itself. But the copy is not perfect. There are some places in which it has added some nucleotides not in the original, or has subtracted or reversed or transposed or substituted nucleotides.

Would you not say that in each case where this has happened that the copy is different from the original? Would you not say that these differences exist because of the changes that occurred as the information of the original chromosome was being transcribed onto the copy? Is not the name we give to such changes mutations? Can we not say then that the identified differences are a consequence of changes aka mutations?

Now on to the next step. The cell has error-correcting mechanisms. It can reverse changes that occurred in the initial transcription. So now we have fewer differences between the original and the copy. But the differences that remain, are they still not the result of changes/mutations?

Now on to the next step. The cell has a quality control mechanism. If the differences in the copy render it sub-par, the cell destroys itself. Only daughter cells which are identical to the mother cell, or whose differences do not impair its quality go on to become available for reproduction.

But those differences that make it through are still the same differences (or rather a surviving sub-set of them) which first occurred as the copy was first made. All that has happened is that they successfully passed through the filtering mechanisms. Passing through the filter is not what makes them mutations. They were mutations (changes) way back when they first happened during transcription. Getting through the filter just means they are surviving mutations.

Now try to explain to me again what is the difference between "difference" and "mutation".

The question mark was for you, how is an difference in 83% of the 231 coding sequences occur on a genetic level?

Read the study again. "A total of 140 of these 179 genes show amino acid replacements." Why do you see a problem with this?

It make perfect sense for a comparison of the coding seqeunces to be a logical disproof of the single common ancestor model. There limits to how much change can provide a selective advantage and when the physiological costs outweigh the benefit it dosen't happen.

This sounds like you think we have to go from a universal common ancestor to the current bio-diversity in one generation. I know that even you can't mean that, so you are going to have to go into more detail as to why a narrow range of change per generation means no common ancestor.

Selective pressure can be relaxed when the fidelity of the DNA replication demands it. That is why the mutation rate is not zero and why the development of the brain from that of an ape to modern man in 1.5 - 2 million years is not a gradual process but would have to be a giant leap in evolutionary development.

Define "gradual" in this context and show why human brain development cannot take place within the time constraints.

Which is why I can accept evolution as it is properly defined, 'the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Then at the same time reject to presumption of single common ancestory.

What you always fail to recognize is that common ancestry was never a presumption. It is a logical conclusion from the theory which happens to be quite well supported by the evidence.

The modern synthesis is based on the work of Darwin and Mendel as they were developed into the neodarwinian model of natural descent and modern genetics. The unifying theory of descent with modification is the heart of evolutionary biology and arguments to the contrary are self defeating.

Why would you expect an argument on that?

I have no problem with the science of genetics but it is neodarwinism that is the philosophy of evolutionary biology that I take issue with. I do discern between philosophy and empirical science and Darwinism is essentially philosophical.

I don't see where the philosophy or retreat from empiricism comes in. You said that you had not problem with evolution defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population. So you are obviously agreeing that descent with modification occurs. What is not empirical and genetically based about that?

While it is true that most of the indels are found in ALU elements there are signifigant structural differences.

Agreed.

These have been clearly, empirically and systematiclly identified.

Agreed.

In order for changes to occur on this level would require hundreds, if not thousands of mutations in hundreds, if not thousands of genes.

Agreed. 68,000 indels on this chromosome alone in addition to amino acid substitutions.

That is why the genetic basis for the single ancestor for chimpanzees and humans is still a mystery.

Sorry, what mystery? How are 68,000 indels and amino acid substitutions occurring on 83% of 231 genes not a genetic basis for descent with modification from a single human/chimp ancestor?

And that is just the genetic basis on one chromosome. Lots more to come.

This is exactly what creationism would predict and the often stated proof of common descent being a 98% identical DNA of the chimpanzee and human beings is false.

Sorry, I fail to follow the logic here. Would you like to explain in smaller steps so I can understand your reasoning?

The protein coding sequences are very different and the evolutionary biologists that have been saying this were dead wrong.

The protein coding sequences are only very different in 2% of the human/chimp genomes. You have not substantiated anything different than that.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think you have really missed the signifigance of the differences in functionally important genes.

"Sakaki said their analysis found about 68,000 insertions or deletions. "That is almost one insertion/deletion every 470 bases," he said. In addition, a small proportion of genes showed a relatively higher rate of evolution than most other genes. "We haven't known what proportion of the genes shows adaptive evolution. This study shows it to be about 2 to 3%," he said.


83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee - only 17% are identical - so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said." (See bottom of my previous post)

1 out of 470 bases and only 17% of the genes are identical. Not the tidy little picture it is supposed to be. I'll get to the rest of your post later but you seem completly oblivious to the enormous number of differences in this chromosome comparison. The reason these indels do not create frameshifts is because they are not the result of mutations, these two genomes were independantly created.

 

[gluadys]

I think you have really missed the signifigance of the differences in functionally important genes.

No, I don't think I have. I do know that you have not explained your point well. I don't see why you draw the conclusions you do from the figures you quote. There is a disconnect somewhere in your reasoning, or at least in the way you express your reasoning. I see A (the quotation from the paper) and I see B (your conclusion). What I don't see is how you get from A to B.

"Sakaki said their analysis found about 68,000 insertions or deletions. "That is almost one insertion/deletion every 470 bases," he said. In addition, a small proportion of genes showed a relatively higher rate of evolution than most other genes. "We haven't known what proportion of the genes shows adaptive evolution. This study shows it to be about 2 to 3%," he said.

ok. what is your point?

83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee - only 17% are identical - so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said." (See bottom of my previous post)

ok. Here is what I understand Sakaki to be saying.

a) We have all heard about the 1.2% difference in DNA coding sequences.
b) The impression given by that difference is that humans and chimpanzees are very much alike.
c) This impression is somewhat misleading because it does not take into account what the impact of the 1.2% difference is on protein structures.
d) When they studied 213 of the genes on chromosome 21 (as compared to chimpanzee chromosome 22), they found that 83% of those genes showed amino acid replacements.
e) So even though not many sequences are different (only 1.2%) those differences have a significant impact.
f) IOW protein difference between chimps and humans may be more significant than DNA sequence difference suggests.

Is this your understanding? Is this the point you are trying to make?

Because what it sounded like is that you were disputing the amount of DNA sequence difference. And that is not what Sakaki is saying at all. He is speaking of an impact difference, not a sequence difference.

1 out of 470 bases and only 17% of the genes are identical. Not the tidy little picture it is supposed to be.

What do you mean "tidy little picture it is supposed to be"? I don't think anyone had any idea what the picture would turn out to be when they began the study. Finding out what the picture is was the reason for doing the study.

I'll get to the rest of your post later but you seem completly oblivious to the enormous number of differences in this chromosome comparison.

I can count as well as you Mark. What I don't know is why you call the number "enormous". Enormous in comparison to what? This is the first direct comparison of human-chimp homologous chromosomes. There is no other to compare it to. Nor do we have any comparable studies of chimp to gorilla, OW monkey to NW monkey, or many other related species. So how do we know this is an enormous number? Will it still be enormous if we do a different chromosome comparison and find 268,000 indels? And 300 genes in which 95% of the coding sequences are different?

The reason these indels do not create frameshifts is because they are not the result of mutations, these two genomes were independantly created.

How many times do you have to be told that indels are never the result of mutations because indels are mutations?

You can believe these genomes were independently created if you wish, but you certainly have made no scientific case for it.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Despite the fact that creationism was largely ridiculed and rejected throughout most of the western world, American began to adopt it again, and it was embraced by a large section of the American Population.

Gallop has been polling on this question since 1982 and the numbers haven't changed much since then.

“Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of out fastest-growing controversial minorities”, proclaim numerous internet sites. Not mentioned anywhere on these sites is the Gallup pole that shows that 95% of scientists in the U.S. believe that evolution is fact.

To be accurate the question was:
"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?"
and the two views held by 40% and 55% of scientists respectively were:
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
Although it uses the Gallup questions, I don't believe this particular poll was done by Gallup. I could be mistaken though.

 

[Smidlee]

Robert , if you haven't notice this was a "hit and run" post and hasn't been back since the post.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Robert , if you haven't notice this was a "hit and run" post and hasn't been back since the post.

Pah!
Nope, didn't notice the date or total newbie status of the OP...

 

[mark kennedy]

What is to understand? We have 231 genes associated with an open reading frame. Out of these we have 179 whose coding regions, when compared with the chimp homologue have identical length, similar intron-exon boundaries, and whose amino acid sequences fall well within the approximately 98% similarity for the coding regions of the human/chimp genomes as a whole. In fact 39 are identical.

No they don't and it has since been revised to 95%, oh, and by the way. There are only four possible combinations of the nucleotide bases so we would be 25% simular to any living thing in creation. The protein coding sequences are about 80% simular and do have gross structural changes in fifteen of them. The point is that there is no genetic basis for the changes in the protein coding genes and it's over 20%, clearly stated. When only 39 of 231 genes are identical the question is where the changes came from? The amount of divergance has been calculated and reduced to ratios and they are dramatic.

For Humans it 1.03, for chimpanzees its .66, for orangutans its .43 and that is the measure of divergance since spliting from the mrca.

dN/dS ratios for the entire ASPM coding sequence

The amount of divergance from the single common ancestor for old world monkeys from the mrca is .23, for the new world monkey its .22, for the chimpanzee its .32 (mrca of all). Now from the mrca of humans its .61.

In other words the amount of divergance from OW monkeys, NW monkeys and Chimpanzees in about .10. For humans its .29 (nearly 3X) and you have been shown repeatedly that the amount of divergance far greater then they have been telling us.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jkim2/MolEvo/CellNeural2004.pdf

Now subtracting the 39 genes that have identical coding regions, we have left 140 genes which show amino acid substitutions. i.e. the amino acid sequence in the chimp chromosome does not match the amino acid sequence in the human chromosome. In just under 79.7% of these instances, no gross structural changes in the gene products (presumably proteins?) are expected because of these differences. This leaves 20.3% of the changes in these 140 genes in which gross structural changes are expected. The researchers had expected far fewer of the amino acid substitutions to result in gross structural changes in the gene products.

There were gross structural changes in fifteen of the coding sequences and differences in all but 39 of the 231 seqeunces they looked at. The reason that they expected the amino acid substitutions to cause gross structural changes is because that is what happens when muatations are directly observed and demonstrated in genetics research, if they do anything at all.

I think that sums up the scenario correctly. Please correct me if you see an error.

What I am left wondering is what point you think you are making.

I dont' think there is any point in continuing this, it just keeps going in circles. I don't know what is so hard to understand hundreds, if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes but it's in the papers and there is no genetic basis for them.

"According to graduate student Eric Vallender, a coauthor of the article, it is entirely possible by chance that that two or three of these outlier genes might be involved in controlling brain size or behavior. "But we see a lot more than a couple -- more like 17 out of the two dozen outliers," he said. Thus, according to Lahn, genes controlling the overall size and behavioral output of the brain are perhaps places of the genome where nature has done the most amount of tinkering in the process of creating the powerful brain that humans possess today...

One of the study's major surprises is the relatively large number of genes that have contributed to human brain evolution. "For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution," said Lahn. "Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes -- and even that is a conservative estimate."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/hhmi-eth122804.php

17 out of 24 oulier genes being effected and that does not take into the vast differences in the ASPM and FOX2 genes and you don't see my point. Dozens of diseases and disorders identified with genetic mutations in every single chromosome in the human genome and you don't think I am explaining myself. No such list of beneficial effects that result from mutations to the human chromosome most responsible for unique human features and you don't know what I am trying to say. With some 52 million base pairs there is 1 difference for every 427 base pairs and you don't know what my problem with this is. It's simple, there is no genetic basis for this transition and the scientists who are researching this are starting to realize it.

 

[gluadys]

No they don't and it has since been revised to 95%,

They do, Mark. Look at the figures (these are figures of similarity in DNA sequences in coding sections of the human and chimp genomes.)

Original estimate for whole genome: about 98% (Sukaka used the figure 98.8%.)
Revised estimate 95%

Now look at the figures for the 179 genes they studied in depth.

For those 179 genes, the average nucleotide and amino acid identity in the coding region is 99.29% and 99.18%, respectively.​

Let’s repeat that to make sure it sinks in: On those 179 genes....

The nucleotide sequences on the two chromosomes were 99.29% identical.
The amino acid identity was 99.18% identical.

This means that whether you compare to the original estimate, Sukaka’s higher estimate, or the lower revised estimate, the sequences on these genes showed even more similarity than that estimated for the genome as a whole.


The reason you are getting confused is that you are not taking into account that these percentages apply to sequencing and the other figures do not. The other figures don’t change these figures.

There are only four possible combinations of the nucleotide bases so we would be 25% simular to any living thing in creation.

No, Mark. Gee, I am a klutz at math, but it looks like you are totally at sea when it comes to numbers.

There are four nucleotide bases, not four possible combinations of nucleotide bases. Four bases.

The bases are read in groups of three.

The bases may be repeated in the group.

This means there are four possible bases at each of the three positions of the triplet.

And this means the total possible combinations is 4 x 4 x 4 (aka 4^3) = 64.

64 combinations. Three of these combinations signify “stop”. Each of the other 61 signifies one of the 20 amino acids used to build proteins. Note the redundancy. One amino acid can be signified by one, two, four or six different triplet combinations.

The protein coding sequences are about 80% simular and do have gross structural changes in fifteen of them.

No, the sequences are not just 80% similar, they are 99.18% similar. (See above) The 80% refers to the proportion of amino acid replacements for which gross structural changes are not expected. This has nothing to do with the similarity of the sequences. In the remaining 20% of amino acid replacements (not DNA sequences) gross structural changes are expected.

The point is that there is no genetic basis for the changes in the protein coding genes and it's over 20%, clearly stated. When only 39 of 231 genes are identical the question is where the changes came from?

The genetic basis being discussed here are amino acid replacements. What do you not get about that?

The amount of divergance has been calculated and reduced to ratios and they are dramatic.

For Humans it 1.03, for chimpanzees its .66, for orangutans its .43 and that is the measure of divergance since spliting from the mrca.

dN/dS ratios for the entire ASPM coding sequence

The amount of divergance from the single common ancestor for old world monkeys from the mrca is .23, for the new world monkey its .22, for the chimpanzee its .32 (mrca of all). Now from the mrca of humans its .61.

In other words the amount of divergance from OW monkeys, NW monkeys and Chimpanzees in about .10. For humans its .29 (nearly 3X) and you have been shown repeatedly that the amount of divergance far greater then they have been telling us.

First, let’s remember that we are talking about one gene here. Not a whole genome. Second, remember that a common ancestor has at least two descendants, and you can’t compare the mrca of humans/chimps to the mrca of OW & NW monkeys, because you are dealing with a different mrca. And finally, you have forgotten that these figures are not measures of divergence. Certainly not of overall divergence as we are still talking about just one gene. They are measures of adaptive evolution. And they do show that the pressure of adaptive evolution on this gene was significantly greater in humans than in other primates. Given that this gene is implicated in the development of human brain size, that is not surprising.

There were gross structural changes in fifteen of the coding sequences and differences in all but 39 of the 231 seqeunces they looked at. The reason that they expected the amino acid substitutions to cause gross structural changes is because that is what happens when muatations are directly observed and demonstrated in genetics research, if they do anything at all.

Mark, you continually fail at basic reading comprehension. The gross structural changes were not to coding sequences, they were changes in gene products i.e. in proteins. And they did not expect the amino acid substitutions to cause gross structural changes, at least not in the proportion they found. They found that 20.3% of the amino acid changes could be expected to produce gross structural changes in the proteins they affected. And the researchers were surprised that the proportion was that high. (I don’t know what proportion they did expect: 15%, 10%, 5%???).

I dont' think there is any point in continuing this, it just keeps going in circles. I don't know what is so hard to understand hundreds, if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes but it's in the papers and there is no genetic basis for them.

It is not that I don’t understand that the evolution of the human brain took a lot of mutations. What I don’t understand is why you insist there is no genetic basis for these mutations when the genetic basis has been pointed out to you many times. Nor do I understand why you think this number of mutations poses a problem. You seem to be merely dazzled by large numbers.

"According to graduate student Eric Vallender, a coauthor of the article, it is entirely possible by chance that that two or three of these outlier genes might be involved in controlling brain size or behavior. "But we see a lot more than a couple -- more like 17 out of the two dozen outliers," he said. Thus, according to Lahn, genes controlling the overall size and behavioral output of the brain are perhaps places of the genome where nature has done the most amount of tinkering in the process of creating the powerful brain that humans possess today...

Your point? (other than “gee, that’s a lot of mutations.”)

One of the study's major surprises is the relatively large number of genes that have contributed to human brain evolution. "For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution," said Lahn. "Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes -- and even that is a conservative estimate."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/hhmi-eth122804.php

Ditto.

17 out of 24 oulier genes being effected and that does not take into the vast differences in the ASPM and FOX2 genes and you don't see my point.

If your point is anything other than “gee, that’s a lot of mutations” no I don’t see it. That is why I keep asking you. Just what is your point?

Dozens of diseases and disorders identified with genetic mutations in every single chromosome in the human genome and you don't think I am explaining myself.

No, you are not explaining yourself. What is the relationship between these two facts?

1. A lot of mutations were necessary to develop the human brain.
2. Harmful mutations are a source of disease.

No such list of beneficial effects that result from mutations to the human chromosome most responsible for unique human features

First we don’t know that any one chromosome is more responsible for unique human features than another. That is something we cannot know until more chromosome comparisons are carried out.

Second, as far as genes go, we do know the beneficial effects. For the ASPM gene, a larger brain. For the FOX2 gene, the capacity for speech.

With some 52 million base pairs there is 1 difference for every 427 base pairs and you don't know what my problem with this is.

No, I honestly don’t know what your problem with this is. I can only attribute it to a naïve bewilderment that settles on you when you are presented with large numbers.

It's simple, there is no genetic basis for this transition and the scientists who are researching this are starting to realize it.

So please explain to me why amino acid replacements and other forms of mutation are not a genetic basis.

 

[88Devin07]

Why do you care about Science more than you care about Scripture?

Science is being used to disprove the Bible. People are beginning to trust "Scientists" more than they trust their own Ministers! Don't you see the fallacy in that?

Evolution, even Theistic Evolution is a fallacy that shouldn't be commited by any Christian.

"In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

If you look at Strong's Concordance, that doesn't mean evolved, or formed, it means just simply, created.

God created the Earth in 6 days, he didn't evolve it over millions and billions of years.

NOTHING existed before God, God has always existed, but nothing was there before him.

He created the Earth in an advanced state. Just as he created Adam and Eve.

If you cannot accept those facts, then you are blinding yourself to the truth. If you choose to deny that Genesis is literal, then you are choosing to side with things that are only asumed and aren't supported by strong research. And you are choosing to side with Athiests and those people who choose to be against God.

Either you are for God, or you are against hiim, there isn't an in between.

God himself said:
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the LORD made the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why do you care about Science more than you care about Scripture?

----again with the radical polarization. just because someone wishes to understand the world around them doesn't say anything about their priorities. why this great either-or relationship of science(little s) and Scripture(capital S)? God wrote both books. They both reveal the character of God, creation is deficient in that it can not present God as Father or as Savior. But it is certainly not deficient in the ability to present God as majestic, glorious, all-knowing, powerful.

Science is being used to disprove the Bible. People are beginning to trust "Scientists" more than they trust their own Ministers! Don't you see the fallacy in that?

---no, at worse scientists are disproving particular interpretations of the Scriptures. Science says nothing about values, nor does it talk about theological things. The major reason many people trust scientific epistemology over religious reasonings is that it has proven to be more reliable and more unifying. But this doesn't prove the superiority of scientific reasoning only how people are using the two different ways of knowing the world. exactly what is the fallacy you wish to pursue? science has shown itself able to understand a wide variety of phenomena much better than the prescientific worldview which was often associated with superstition and religious ignorance.

Evolution, even Theistic Evolution is a fallacy that shouldn't be commited by any Christian.

---what is the fallacy?

"In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

---no TE i know of denies this.

If you look at Strong's Concordance, that doesn't mean evolved, or formed, it means just simply, created.

----i would prefer to build systems of ideas on more than entries in Strongs, but that is just me.

God created the Earth in 6 days, he didn't evolve it over millions and billions of years.

---see literary framework interpretation of Genesis 1

NOTHING existed before God, God has always existed, but nothing was there before him.

----and how does TE deny this?

He created the Earth in an advanced state. Just as he created Adam and Eve.

-----you are reading into Genesis your own conclusions, again.
Made the heavens and the earth does in no way rule out a history.

If you cannot accept those facts, then you are blinding yourself to the truth. If you choose to deny that Genesis is literal, then you are choosing to side with things that are only asumed and aren't supported by strong research. And you are choosing to side with Athiests and those people who choose to be against God.

----again, the radical polarization. YECist or atheist materialist. the error of composition. plus a little bit of excluded middle.


Either you are for God, or you are against hiim, there isn't an in between.

----if we are choosing up sides, i would prefer that God chose me, and He did before the foundation of the world. You can rant and rave all you desire about the inconsistency of TE with Gen. but i have struggled with the issues deeply since i dropped out of university and went to seminary 25 years ago. You can falsely accuse people of disbelief because they don't believe exactly as do you, you can align Christianity with the most right wing, literal interpretations you desire. But that doesn't change the fact that many godly men in the Church have been TE oftentimes fighting not just unbelief but your kind of interpretation as well. Nor does it change the fact that many godly people simply believe you are wrong, in interpretation and in the lack of charity to understand that brethren can differ without being satanic and under the power of the evil one. If that is your ultimate curse, your ultimate rant, that no one but the YECist can be real Christians, then i suppose the age of the earth really has been elevated to the position of a salvation issue, dispite the protestations here that it is not the same thing as belief that Jesus is the Christ.


....

 

[mark kennedy]

"Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins)"

I just thought I would remind you of that once again Glaudys. That makes us a heck of a lot less like the chimpanzee then previously estimated. By the way, that is gross structural changes (differences would be a better word). Gross stuctural differences, for the record, is not the same thing as gradualism.

Have fun Glaudys but don't expect too much from Darwinism, it will do well to survive our lifetime.

 

[gluadys]

"Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins)"

I just thought I would remind you of that once again Glaudys. That makes us a heck of a lot less like the chimpanzee then previously estimated.

But the similarity of the sequences have not changed. You can't compare proportions of amino acid replacements with sequences of base nucleotides. Different figures for different measurements.

Proportion of amino acid replacements on 179* genes of human chromosome 21 as compared to chimp chromosome 22 which are expected to yield gross structural changes in gene products: 20.3%

Proportion of human DNA coding sequences identical to chimp DNA coding sequences for the whole genome: ~95-99%

How does that make us "a lot less like the chimpanzee than previously estimated"?

By the way, that is gross structural changes (differences would be a better word). Gross stuctural differences, for the record, is not the same thing as gradualism.

It's not hopeful monsters either. Remember, we are talking about gross structural differences in proteins, not a third hand or a missing ear.

Have fun Glaudys but don't expect too much from Darwinism, it will do well to survive our lifetime.

People keep saying that about Christianity too.

I think both science and the church will survive their nay-sayers by many generations.





*Total number of genes in the human genome is estimated to be about 35,000. We are dealing with a very small sample here that may not be representative of genes in general.

 

[shernren]

*eyes glaze over* there is a definite need for the capability to rename threads.