DNA: Mutations, Versatility and Probability

[Erasmus7]

Hi all,

I’m a newbie to the forum, this being my second post.

At the beginning of this year I set as my goal to ‘crack’ the creation-evolution nut once and for all, if possible. To this end I have been watching numerous debates on youtube, downloading stuff, etc.

Science is not my natural bent (I am a theologian) and I am constantly amazed by what I am learning.

I am endeavouring to maintain as open a mind as I can in an effort to interpret the available scientific evidence on this subject. I intend posting different observations and questions I have from time to time, and would be interested to get feedback.

My first questions pertain to the issue of mutations. As I say, I cannot ‘think’ in science as such, this not being my subject, but I would appreciate observations of those who are versed in science.

On the one hand, I have seen that nature, genetics and DNA have a remarkable propensity for ingenuity and inventiveness. When under pressure, when they have to, mutations can do impressive things. Wolves apparently developed into dogs over time (BTW are creationists in agreement with this?), etc. I suppose this is par for the course with a vital aspect of nature, as per ‘adapt or die’.

The standard creationist view on this is to say that DNA is limited to what it is programmed to do, like software, ie, if it is not programmed to become another species, it cannot, no matter how badly the environmental pressures demand it.

I believe evolutionists rebut this by saying that DNA ‘gets out of’ this in that the DNA from one creature will merge with the slightly different DNA from another, albeit similar, creature, and new forms and DNA types will develop or ‘evolve’ through this.

To this Creationists raise the rebuttal that the first cell that was struck by lightning and became alive must yet have merged somehow with some different DNA to develop and evolve beyond its basic DNA programming.

I think it was Michael Shermer who said that why would God create DNA with the propensity and capability to develop or evolve into very creative creatures, perhaps virtually limitless capabilities, if the DNA of one creature merged with the right DNA, and then not use that ability to evolve life all the way from the very small to homo sapiens.

For me, the layman, this seems to make sense – if it is true that for one type of DNA coming into contact with another type of DNA, there is nothing stopping potentially unlimited development or ‘evolving’.

To put it another way, is there anything in biology, genetics or nature, to stop one creature with one type of DNA from sexually reproducing with another creature, perhaps of a slightly different variant of the same species, and so producing a new species altogether?

In other words, is there anything in genetics or DNA to stop a small rodent, in the right environmental circumstances and pressures, and given enough time and pushed in the right direction by natural selection, from correctly mating and in time mutating drastically through form after form and ultimately ending up as homo sapiens?

To put another spin on it: I was intrigued as seeing the whole creation-evolution question as a sort of ‘Aristotelian vs Darwinian’ issue. Apparently it was Aristotle who placed a wedge between different species, and said they did not mix. He said that different species were created differently in different lines, developing in parallel lines to each other. This line of thinking was confirmed by Genesis, with its emphasis on separation and all being created and maintained ‘according to their kinds’. It was only in the mid-nineteenth century that the West switched to the Darwinian model, which veered away from the idea of different species running parallel, and said that all species came from a single common point.

As a theologian, I am deeply impressed by the Mosaic-Genesis emphasis, nay, almost obsession, on maintaining distinctions between many things, not just creation and life (this ‘keep ye separate’ doctrine fires through the Pentateuch as a key motif). If evolution were true, it would create an interesting conflict here.

To summarise, however: my key question revolves around the question of the length, depth and ingenuity of mutations. Is there anything in genetics, DNA, etc., that dictates or limits the extent to which mutations may work?

Moreover, is there anything in nature or DNA that might reflect the Aristotelian-Mosaic notion of separation, confirming that there are limits DNA either cannot go past or is unwilling to go past?

Would appreciate a scientific assessment of this, my first question.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm a Creationist but I was intrigued by the questions, it's always refreshing to see someone interested in basic terminology. As a student of Theology I expect you would appreciate the need for specific definitions, like philosophy you must define your terms:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. Mutations ​

Genetic research has made great use of mutations, for instance, they can 'knock out' a gene to see what it does by observing what is doesn't do when it's gone. More importantly, a mutation in a protein coding gene will almost always result in a deleterious (harmful) effect, usually followed by a frameshift. What the genomic machinery will do is insert a stop codon at the beginning of the mutation and a new start codon a little further down producing a truncated protein.

That's a pretty general idea what is meant by a mutation in the context of genetics. I can also be used to speak of an alternate allele (trait), even something as normal and functional as color in a mouses fur. Usually, in Mendelian genetics the gene doesn't really change but sometimes they can be various versions of the gene.

At any rate, I think the article above should prove informative.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Hi all,

I’m a newbie to the forum, this being my second post.

Welcome to CF!!

If no one has been a proper host, let me be one and offer you a virtual cookie.
`)

At the beginning of this year I set as my goal to ‘crack’ the creation-evolution nut once and for all, if possible. To this end I have been watching numerous debates on youtube, downloading stuff, etc.

Enjoy your search! There is a lot of information out there, but many falsehoods too. I recommend treating this like any other subject - if you want to learn about, say, hearts, you learn the scientific consensus of cardiologists, if learning about chemistry, ask chemists about the scientific consensus in chemistry, etc.

The consensus view is in many biology textbooks, and so on, and is summarized here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

As a theologian, I am deeply impressed by the Mosaic-Genesis emphasis, nay, almost obsession, on maintaining distinctions between many things, .... If evolution were true, it would create an interesting conflict here.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Notice that the "separation" issue only applies at each specific time - in other words, it's "horizonal", not "vertical". Over time, things change, and that's fine.

For instance, babies are all similar - it's only when they grow up that they are separated into men and women. Another example is towns - towns grow bigger, and then may split into two towns or even two nations, and be separate at that time. The fact that thing grow, change, and separate doesn't disagree with the mosaic tend to separate things.

We even see that confirmed in Genesis itself - where humanity begins as one group, then separates to different groups (Ammonites, Israelites, Canaanites, Egyptians, etc.). In the same way, for a type of animal to start as one species, and then gradually separate into two or more is exactly in line with other narratives in Genesis.

make sense?

To summarise, however: my key question revolves around the question of the length, depth and ingenuity of mutations. Is there anything in genetics, DNA, etc., that dictates or limits the extent to which mutations may work?

Sexual recombination is not required for mutations. Mutations are simply changes to the DNA sequence, and they happen due to normal chemistry.

Here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:

• Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example – when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12
• Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC
• Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC
• Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA

All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for, or an affect which is selected against.

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does (such as digesting nylon, as in a species of bacteria). This has been observed by scientists numerous times.

The most common mutations have no effect or an irrelevant effect. After that, the most common types are harmful, with fewer beneficial mutations. Natural selection removes the harmful ones, and makes the beneficial ones more common, resulting in evolution.

Moreover, is there anything in nature or DNA that might reflect the Aristotelian-Mosaic notion of separation, confirming that there are limits DNA either cannot go past or is unwilling to go past?

No. Any mutational change can be followed by additional mutational change. DNA can't be "unwilling" to do something - it can't think. It's just a chemical.

The compatibility of evolution with Christianity is shown in many ways, both in the fact that worldwide, Christians teach evolution to more people than anyone else (including atheists), and that the majority of those who support evolution in the United States today are Christians.

You might find this site useful too:

http://biologos.org/

In Christ-

Papias

 

[tucker58]

To put it another way, is there anything in biology, genetics or nature, to stop one creature with one type of DNA from sexually reproducing with another creature, perhaps of a slightly different variant of the same species, and so producing a new species altogether?

Hi Erasmus7 and welcome to this message board! Mixing species DNA is like plugging a cord into your computer. Both the pins and the plug shape of the male end of the cord have to match with the female slot/receptical of the computer that you are attempting to plug into. If they do not match, then they will not plug in. Now if you cross two closely related species (the time distance from their common ancester is not too great) then you will get a hybred of those two species. But, in order for that hybred to be classified a new species it has to be able to reproduce its own kind which it can not do. Because if you cross a hybred with another hybred that carries the same genetics, then you get something similar to shuffling a deck of cards and not getting the same sequence of cards each time you deal with most of the time or a lot of the time getting card sequences that are fatal in some way. When you are dealing with a species the deck is basically never shuffled and you get the same sequences of cards every time they are dealt and if you don't, then you have a mutation and most of the time that mutation is fatal in some way. But every once in a while it is not and it contributes to a higher potiental for survival.

Now here is what is fun ! All living things have the same foundation genetic building blocks, but in the different forms of life/animal and plant types, as an example, these blocks are put together in different ways. Sometimes the difference is subtle, but there is always a difference or all life would be of the same species. And today's genetic science is studying how these common foundation building blocks are put together in different ways to create the different living things. And once they figure out how that is done they will be able to create their own living things. And if they wish, the new things that they create will be able to reproduce themselves (produce genetic copies of themselves) and they will be new species .

 

[-57]

Hi all,

I’m a newbie to the forum, this being my second post.

At the beginning of this year I set as my goal to ‘crack’ the creation-evolution nut once and for all, if possible. To this end I have been watching numerous debates on youtube, downloading stuff, etc.

Science is not my natural bent (I am a theologian) and I am constantly amazed by what I am learning.

I am endeavouring to maintain as open a mind as I can in an effort to interpret the available scientific evidence on this subject. I intend posting different observations and questions I have from time to time, and would be interested to get feedback.

My first questions pertain to the issue of mutations. As I say, I cannot ‘think’ in science as such, this not being my subject, but I would appreciate observations of those who are versed in science.

On the one hand, I have seen that nature, genetics and DNA have a remarkable propensity for ingenuity and inventiveness. When under pressure, when they have to, mutations can do impressive things. Wolves apparently developed into dogs over time (BTW are creationists in agreement with this?), etc. I suppose this is par for the course with a vital aspect of nature, as per ‘adapt or die’.

The creationist would say the wolf and dog speciated from a common canine kind after leaving Noah's Ark.

The standard creationist view on this is to say that DNA is limited to what it is programmed to do, like software, ie, if it is not programmed to become another species, it cannot, no matter how badly the environmental pressures demand it.

Creationist say speciation is possible. They draw the line at genus.

I believe evolutionists rebut this by saying that DNA ‘gets out of’ this in that the DNA from one creature will merge with the slightly different DNA from another, albeit similar, creature, and new forms and DNA types will develop or ‘evolve’ through this.

This would be considered as micro-evolution which is far away from macro-evolutionism.

To this Creationists raise the rebuttal that the first cell that was struck by lightning and became alive must yet have merged somehow with some different DNA to develop and evolve beyond its basic DNA programming.

I think it was Michael Shermer who said that why would God create DNA with the propensity and capability to develop or evolve into very creative creatures, perhaps virtually limitless capabilities, if the DNA of one creature merged with the right DNA, and then not use that ability to evolve life all the way from the very small to homo sapiens.

For me, the layman, this seems to make sense – if it is true that for one type of DNA coming into contact with another type of DNA, there is nothing stopping potentially unlimited development or ‘evolving’.

To put it another way, is there anything in biology, genetics or nature, to stop one creature with one type of DNA from sexually reproducing with another creature, perhaps of a slightly different variant of the same species, and so producing a new species altogether?

No. This happened to the animals once they got off of Noah's Ark

In other words, is there anything in genetics or DNA to stop a small rodent, in the right environmental circumstances and pressures, and given enough time and pushed in the right direction by natural selection, from correctly mating and in time mutating drastically through form after form and ultimately ending up as homo sapiens?

Yes. Chance/odds for one thing stops evolutionism dead in its tracks.
For mutations to accumulate in the fashion you described a very rare so-called beneficial mutation must occur in just the right place at just the right time of an animals progeny DNA over and over again, many, many times.

To put another spin on it: I was intrigued as seeing the whole creation-evolution question as a sort of ‘Aristotelian vs Darwinian’ issue. Apparently it was Aristotle who placed a wedge between different species, and said they did not mix. He said that different species were created differently in different lines, developing in parallel lines to each other. This line of thinking was confirmed by Genesis, with its emphasis on separation and all being created and maintained ‘according to their kinds’. It was only in the mid-nineteenth century that the West switched to the Darwinian model, which veered away from the idea of different species running parallel, and said that all species came from a single common point.

As a theologian, I am deeply impressed by the Mosaic-Genesis emphasis, nay, almost obsession, on maintaining distinctions between many things, not just creation and life (this ‘keep ye separate’ doctrine fires through the Pentateuch as a key motif). If evolution were true, it would create an interesting conflict here.

If evolutionism were true...then much of the bible neeeds to be re-rwitten

To summarise, however: my key question revolves around the question of the length, depth and ingenuity of mutations. Is there anything in genetics, DNA, etc., that dictates or limits the extent to which mutations may work?

Moreover, is there anything in nature or DNA that might reflect the Aristotelian-Mosaic notion of separation, confirming that there are limits DNA either cannot go past or is unwilling to go past?

Would appreciate a scientific assessment of this, my first question.

[/QUOTE]

 

[tucker58]

There is something to keep in mind here and that is that if The Flood and Noah happened six thousand years ago, then there hasn't been enough time for any kind of evolution to have occurred. For evolution to occur there is needed at least thousands of years of time span and most of what is considered evolution has taken millions of years to occur. So if one believes that The Flood was six thousand years ago, then evolution is just plain not possible.

If one were to consider the possibility of evolution, then the flood would have to have occurred 60,000,000 years ago at the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs. And four more zeros would have to be added to the ages of the "begots" which would then make Adam and the others extremely long lived.

 

[-57]

There is something to keep in mind here and that is that if The Flood and Noah happened six thousand years ago, then there hasn't been enough time for any kind of evolution to have occurred. For evolution to occur there is needed at least thousands of years of time span and most of what is considered evolution has taken millions of years to occur. So if one believes that The Flood was six thousand years ago, then evolution is just plain not possible.

Actually the flood was more like 4,000 years ago. Creation was app 6,000 years ago.

 

[tucker58]

Actually the flood was more like 4,000 years ago. Creation was app 6,000 years ago.

OK ! Thanks! So anyway, evolution is not possible if one is creationist. Oh well

 

[-57]

OK ! Thanks! So anyway, evolution is not possible if one is creationist. Oh well

Evolution isn't possible even if your not a creationist.

 

[tucker58]

Evolution isn't possible even if your not a creationist.

I respect your beliefs. Not a problem.

 

[Hoghead1]

Evolution isn't possible even if your not a creationist.

I see. Well, it sure is funny that you, an untrained lay person, know so much more about it and can see so much farther than all these scientists can.

 

[-57]

I see. Well, it sure is funny that you, an untrained lay person, know so much more about it and can see so much farther than all these scientists can.

Hoghead, please get backk to me when you can show us how an organelle can evolve to build another organelle.

 

[omega2xx]

Hi all,

I’m a newbie to the forum, this being my second post.

At the beginning of this year I set as my goal to ‘crack’ the creation-evolution nut once and for all, if possible. To this end I have been watching numerous debates on youtube, downloading stuff, etc.

Science is not my natural bent (I am a theologian) and I am constantly amazed by what I am learning.

I am endeavouring to maintain as open a mind as I can in an effort to interpret the available scientific evidence on this subject. I intend posting different observations and questions I have from time to time, and would be interested to get feedback.

My first questions pertain to the issue of mutations. As I say, I cannot ‘think’ in science as such, this not being my subject, but I would appreciate observations of those who are versed in science.

On the one hand, I have seen that nature, genetics and DNA have a remarkable propensity for ingenuity and inventiveness. When under pressure, when they have to, mutations can do impressive things. Wolves apparently developed into dogs over time (BTW are creationists in agreement with this?), etc. I suppose this is par for the course with a vital aspect of nature, as per ‘adapt or die’.

The standard creationist view on this is to say that DNA is limited to what it is programmed to do, like software, ie, if it is not programmed to become another species, it cannot, no matter how badly the environmental pressures demand it.

I believe evolutionists rebut this by saying that DNA ‘gets out of’ this in that the DNA from one creature will merge with the slightly different DNA from another, albeit similar, creature, and new forms and DNA types will develop or ‘evolve’ through this.

To this Creationists raise the rebuttal that the first cell that was struck by lightning and became alive must yet have merged somehow with some different DNA to develop and evolve beyond its basic DNA programming.

I think it was Michael Shermer who said that why would God create DNA with the propensity and capability to develop or evolve into very creative creatures, perhaps virtually limitless capabilities, if the DNA of one creature merged with the right DNA, and then not use that ability to evolve life all the way from the very small to homo sapiens.

For me, the layman, this seems to make sense – if it is true that for one type of DNA coming into contact with another type of DNA, there is nothing stopping potentially unlimited development or ‘evolving’.

To put it another way, is there anything in biology, genetics or nature, to stop one creature with one type of DNA from sexually reproducing with another creature, perhaps of a slightly different variant of the same species, and so producing a new species altogether?

In other words, is there anything in genetics or DNA to stop a small rodent, in the right environmental circumstances and pressures, and given enough time and pushed in the right direction by natural selection, from correctly mating and in time mutating drastically through form after form and ultimately ending up as homo sapiens?

To put another spin on it: I was intrigued as seeing the whole creation-evolution question as a sort of ‘Aristotelian vs Darwinian’ issue. Apparently it was Aristotle who placed a wedge between different species, and said they did not mix. He said that different species were created differently in different lines, developing in parallel lines to each other. This line of thinking was confirmed by Genesis, with its emphasis on separation and all being created and maintained ‘according to their kinds’. It was only in the mid-nineteenth century that the West switched to the Darwinian model, which veered away from the idea of different species running parallel, and said that all species came from a single common point.

As a theologian, I am deeply impressed by the Mosaic-Genesis emphasis, nay, almost obsession, on maintaining distinctions between many things, not just creation and life (this ‘keep ye separate’ doctrine fires through the Pentateuch as a key motif). If evolution were true, it would create an interesting conflict here.

To summarise, however: my key question revolves around the question of the length, depth and ingenuity of mutations. Is there anything in genetics, DNA, etc., that dictates or limits the extent to which mutations may work?

Moreover, is there anything in nature or DNA that might reflect the Aristotelian-Mosaic notion of separation, confirming that there are limits DNA either cannot go past or is unwilling to go past?

Would appreciate a scientific assessment of this, my first question.

Mutations do not add characteristics, they alter characteristics. When the gene for skin mutates and causes albinoism, the species does not change. If it happens in a human, the person remains homo sapian. If it happens in dog, the dog remain a dog.

In DNA close does not count. Every living creature has different DNA. Chilldren will have slightly different DNA as their parents, but thier DNA will identify them as children of their parents.

It is no the similarities in DNA that is important, it the difference, no matter how close they are. as the old saying goes, close only counts in horse shoes and hand granades.

DNA does not link, it separates.

 

[stevevw]

Hi all,

I’m a newbie to the forum, this being my second post.

At the beginning of this year I set as my goal to ‘crack’ the creation-evolution nut once and for all, if possible. To this end I have been watching numerous debates on youtube, downloading stuff, etc.

Science is not my natural bent (I am a theologian) and I am constantly amazed by what I am learning.

I am endeavouring to maintain as open a mind as I can in an effort to interpret the available scientific evidence on this subject. I intend posting different observations and questions I have from time to time, and would be interested to get feedback.

My first questions pertain to the issue of mutations. As I say, I cannot ‘think’ in science as such, this not being my subject, but I would appreciate observations of those who are versed in science.

On the one hand, I have seen that nature, genetics and DNA have a remarkable propensity for ingenuity and inventiveness. When under pressure, when they have to, mutations can do impressive things. Wolves apparently developed into dogs over time (BTW are creationists in agreement with this?), etc. I suppose this is par for the course with a vital aspect of nature, as per ‘adapt or die’.

The standard creationist view on this is to say that DNA is limited to what it is programmed to do, like software, ie, if it is not programmed to become another species, it cannot, no matter how badly the environmental pressures demand it.

I believe evolutionists rebut this by saying that DNA ‘gets out of’ this in that the DNA from one creature will merge with the slightly different DNA from another, albeit similar, creature, and new forms and DNA types will develop or ‘evolve’ through this.

To this Creationists raise the rebuttal that the first cell that was struck by lightning and became alive must yet have merged somehow with some different DNA to develop and evolve beyond its basic DNA programming.

I think it was Michael Shermer who said that why would God create DNA with the propensity and capability to develop or evolve into very creative creatures, perhaps virtually limitless capabilities, if the DNA of one creature merged with the right DNA, and then not use that ability to evolve life all the way from the very small to homo sapiens.

For me, the layman, this seems to make sense – if it is true that for one type of DNA coming into contact with another type of DNA, there is nothing stopping potentially unlimited development or ‘evolving’.

To put it another way, is there anything in biology, genetics or nature, to stop one creature with one type of DNA from sexually reproducing with another creature, perhaps of a slightly different variant of the same species, and so producing a new species altogether?

In other words, is there anything in genetics or DNA to stop a small rodent, in the right environmental circumstances and pressures, and given enough time and pushed in the right direction by natural selection, from correctly mating and in time mutating drastically through form after form and ultimately ending up as homo sapiens?

To put another spin on it: I was intrigued as seeing the whole creation-evolution question as a sort of ‘Aristotelian vs Darwinian’ issue. Apparently it was Aristotle who placed a wedge between different species, and said they did not mix. He said that different species were created differently in different lines, developing in parallel lines to each other. This line of thinking was confirmed by Genesis, with its emphasis on separation and all being created and maintained ‘according to their kinds’. It was only in the mid-nineteenth century that the West switched to the Darwinian model, which veered away from the idea of different species running parallel, and said that all species came from a single common point.

As a theologian, I am deeply impressed by the Mosaic-Genesis emphasis, nay, almost obsession, on maintaining distinctions between many things, not just creation and life (this ‘keep ye separate’ doctrine fires through the Pentateuch as a key motif). If evolution were true, it would create an interesting conflict here.

To summarise, however: my key question revolves around the question of the length, depth and ingenuity of mutations. Is there anything in genetics, DNA, etc., that dictates or limits the extent to which mutations may work?

Moreover, is there anything in nature or DNA that might reflect the Aristotelian-Mosaic notion of separation, confirming that there are limits DNA either cannot go past or is unwilling to go past?

Would appreciate a scientific assessment of this, my first question.

I think what you share are two possibilities and this is often how the debate goes and is polarized at either end of the possibilities for how life can change, develop and evolve. Some say that evolution is too fixated on adaptations as the means for change and there are other mechanisms that can also influence how life came about and changes. I think most people who believe in a creator realized that there is more to how life came about and change.

You mention two different areas, one about how life originally emerged and how life evolves as an ongoing process. Most supporters of traditional evolution will say that these two areas are separate and there are different processes going on. Yet I think there is a fine line between when life began to evolve and when it was first created. Even after the first instant point of when life began as a single cell there are big questions that cannot be answered by evolution theory without evoking speculation and I don't think it can ever be explained.

I think we can only look at whats in front and try to minimize speculating about what may have happened. Neo Darwinism relies on assumption that what has been demonstrated in tests on a small scale can be applied on a large scale and for me this is not science as there may be other reasons. Some of those reasons have been discovered in recent times and this is challenging the standard theory of evolution. Neo-Darwinism looks at all change in adpative terms which then requires extraordinary explanations that cannot be verified. When anomalies come up the theory has to introduce new ideas to accommodate this so that the basic theory is maintained and this seems to be more about protecting a theory rather than being open to reassess it.

New perspectives on how life change and evolve include a wider view which includes the creatures behaviour, cohabitants, the environment and development process and involves other areas of science such as developmental biology, epigenetics, genomics and social science to get a complete picture for how life evolves. This puts mutations and natural selection as perhaps one small part of the picture and gives more options for explaining what we see without having to speculate. In this sense the blueprint for life may have been around from a very early stage as all life stems from the same basic genes which were needed from the beginning. Life may have inbuilt developmental processes which allow it to tap into existing genetic info or be influenced by other life forms it cohabitates with and the environment to gain genetic material for change.

Life has more say in how it is affected by environment rather than always being forced to compete and adpat and may change its surroundings or itself within its own lifetime to fit in with the environment. Life may also be affected by the way it lives such as diet, behaviour and stress a bit like Lamarckism which can also have an influence on the way genes are expressed in future generations. So how life changes and evolves is much more complex than just creation or evolution and needs to be considered in the light of all these influences.

 

[sfs]

In DNA close does not count. Every living creature has different DNA. Chilldren will have slightly different DNA as their parents, but thier DNA will identify them as children of their parents.

DNA also identifies them as offspring of a long line of ancestors, back to a common ancestor with chimpanzees, with gorillas, monkeys, and much farther back than that.

 

[omega2xx]

DNA also identifies them as offspring of a long line of ancestors, back to a common ancestor with chimpanzees, with gorillas, monkeys, and much farther back than that.

It does not. Every living thing has DNA. All DNA is different. DNA points back to a specific species. It will show that you and I are the same species, but not related biologically

 

[mark kennedy]

It does not. Every living thing has DNA. All DNA is different. DNA points back to a specific species. It will show that you and I are the same species, but not related biologically

When it comes to DNA yes, you have a unique DNA sequence but it will diverge from other humans by 1/10th of 1%. When it comes to Chimpanzees it will diverge by 4-5%, including highly conserved genes. That divergence is across the respective genomes and major adaptive evolution like the 3 fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes defies all probability, logic and reason. An assumed gradual accumulation of stepwise adaptations is untenable by Darwinians which is why they don't like being reminded of the enormous divergence they have no viable cause for.

 

[sfs]

It does not. Every living thing has DNA. All DNA is different. DNA points back to a specific species. It will show that you and I are the same species, but not related biologically

No, it really does show that we're related. Have you ever compared the DNA of two species? The differences form really interesting patterns. If you look at specific kinds of differences, you'll find that they look exactly like mutations. That is, differences that would be caused by common mutations occur frequently, while differences that would be caused by rare mutations occur rarely. The obvious explanation for this is that the differences really were caused by mutations -- that the two species are related by descent from a common ancestor.

Do you have a better explanation?

 

[omega2xx]

No, it really does show that we're related. Have you ever compared the DNA of two species? The differences form really interesting patterns. If you look at specific kinds of differences, you'll find that they look exactly like mutations. That is, differences that would be caused by common mutations occur frequently, while differences that would be caused by rare mutations occur rarely. The obvious explanation for this is that the differences really were caused by mutations -- that the two species are related by descent from a common ancestor.

Do you have a better explanation?

All differences are not cause by mutations. They are caused by which characteristic in the gene pool of the parents is dominant and which ones are recessive. When you see the children of a black and white couple, their skin is always dark because the gene for dark skin is dominant.

Our DNA will show we are the same species , but not related biologically. You are trying have mutations overcome the laws of genetics. Legs cant become fins

 

[mark kennedy]

All differences are not cause by mutations. They are caused by which characteristic in the gene pool of the parents is dominant and which ones are recessive. When you see the children of a black and white couple, their skin is always dark because the gene for dark skin is dominant.

Our DNA will show we are the same species , but not related biologically. You are trying have mutations overcome the laws of genetics. Legs cant become fins

The reason mutations are the default explanation is that most of the variation in the genome are the result of mutations. The problem is that they are a poor explanation for adaptive evolution, the odds of a spontaneous mutation resulting in an adaptive trait on an evolutionary scale are vanishingly small. We now know there are mechanisms in the genome that can modify sequences. They discovered one such mecanism that adapted the immune system of bacteria. Its call the Crisper gene and it literally can be used to edit any DNA sequence, it's a genomic cut and paste tool. The point being the Darwinian adage of mutations plus selection has proven itself to be false.

The ability of the genome to preserve, repair and adapt living systems speaks elegantly of design and providence. The Darwinian insistence on random mutations and exclusively naturalistic causes is producing flawed explanations. As more evidence comes to light science is showing us ever clearer details of systems that are meticulously and purposely designed.