How do creationists explain applications of common descent in modern comparative genomics?

[mark kennedy]

I thought I was pretty clear; I'm interested in the methodology of the comparison. Namely, the fact that methodologies in comparative genomics often rely on phylogenetic relationships of the species being compared. The paper I linked was an example of such a methodology.

The methodology is to compare common sequences, mostly protein coding and RNA sequences. I found the '1,000 primate and human-accelerated elements', of interest but there are better studies for getting into that.

Is there something not clear about this?

Yes, a comparison that doesn't look at a comparison the comparison is based on. Your just interested in a methodology you neither discuss nor seem to even be aware of.

Uh, yeah it is applied evolutionary biology. In effect, it's applied common descent.

It's not applied, it's assumed.

It's also not really a point of argument. The reason I linked to the AiG article in the opening post was the fact was simply pointing out that they also acknowledge it. I mean, we're talking real world applied science here. There's no debate about this.

They have dozens of papers on comparative genomics, there's really not that much in the article except comparative data sets.

Again, I'm referring to the methodology used, not the outcomes (although certain there is a lot of that in the literature; hence why it's an applied science).

Applied science is when you find something you can do with it. The principles of motion and calculas made it possible to build machines for instance.

Do you have any comments about the methodology?

You mean their assisted assembly approach or the detection of constrained sequences?

 

[pitabread]

Yes, a comparison that doesn't look at a comparison the comparison is based on. Your just interested in a methodology you neither discuss nor seem to even be aware of.

...

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. You seem to be going out of your way to avoid talking about what I started this thread to discuss, and now you're suggesting I'm the one not aware of the methodology (even though I specifically pointed you to the section of the paper where it is discussed).

Is today opposite day?

It's not applied, it's assumed.

No, it's applied. Unless you're trying to argue that phylogenetic relationships aren't evolutionary in nature. Which begs the question, what are they then?

Applied science is when you find something you can do with it.

Of course. Which is why comparative genomics is an applied science particularly in agriculture (both for crops and livestock). If you want some examples, there are some listed here: Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet

But it's pretty easy to Google this stuff and find more examples. I'm not really out to get into a discussion proving it's an applied science though. The material is out there in droves and is easy to find.

You mean their assisted assembly approach or the detection of constrained sequences?

Primarily constrained sequence detection, although I'd recommend going through the whole methodology section and the supplementary material for a full understanding.

 

[mark kennedy]

...

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. You seem to be going out of your way to avoid talking about what I started this thread to discuss, and now you're suggesting I'm the one not aware of the methodology (even though I specifically pointed you to the section of the paper where it is discussed).

You not talking about anything specific, you link to a paper on genomic comparisons and you don't want to talk about the comparisons.

No, it's applied. Unless you're trying to argue that phylogenetic relationships aren't evolutionary in nature. Which begs the question, what are they then?

Alike, even identical, that doesn't mean common ancestry. That's not an applied evolutionary biological principle, it's an assumed one.

Of course. Which is why comparative genomics is an applied science particularly in agriculture (both for crops and livestock). If you want some examples, there are some listed here: Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet

Thanks but I know what comparative genomics are.

But it's pretty easy to Google this stuff and find more examples. I'm not really out to get into a discussion proving it's an applied science though. The material is out there in droves and is easy to find.

Do what all evolutionists do, just keep saying it no matter how that expression is used.

Primarily constrained sequence detection. Any thoughts?

It's like calling a single base difference a substitution or a gap of a million base pairs an indel. In their minds the genes in common are constrained. Which they probably are, most protein coding and regulatory genes are highly constrained. What on earth you think is of interest here is a mystery to me. It's a highly technical paper that appears to have been generated to support further study. Down the road someone can look at the data sets

 

[pitabread]

You not talking about anything specific

I've listed that I'm interested in talking about the methodology (specifically the basis of using phylogenetics as part of the comparative methodology) at least three times now. Again, how is this unclear? Is there something specific that is confusing you?

Alike, even identical, that doesn't mean common ancestry. That's not an applied evolutionary biological principle, it's an assumed one.

Phylogenetic trees are, by definition, evolutionary relationships of organisms. If they aren't that, then what are they? You do know what a phylogenetic tree is I trust?

Thanks but I know what comparative genomics are.

Then why don't you want to talk about the methodologies used? For someone professing an interest in the subject, you sure are doing your best to avoid a discussion.

Do what all evolutionists do, just keep saying it no matter how that expression is used.

We're talking modern, applied science. If you don't want to acknowledge it, that's your business. But this is tantamount to denying that the moon orbits the Earth as far as I'm concerned.

This is why I don't really have a much of an interest in "proving" it as such. Even Answers in Genesis seems to accept it based on the article I linked of theirs (of course, they don't seem to acknowledge much beyond human-chimp comparisons, but that's not surprising.)

Look, if you don't want to acknowledge it, there's not likely much I can do to change your mind. And whether you choose to accept it or not doesn't change the science in question.

In their minds the genes in common are constrained. Which they probably are, most protein coding and regulatory genes are highly constrained. What on earth you think is of interest here is a mystery to me.

It's a wee bit more involved than that, especially when dealing with relative levels of divergence between species. After all, even conserved regions will show genetic differences. Specifically, I'm interested in the application of phylogenetic relationships of the species in question and the utilization in the comparative methodologies. It's something which is common in comparative genomics; in effect, it's a direct application of common descent.

As someone with a professed interested in the subject, I would think you would be aware of this.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Some of the commonality is kind of interesting, there are genes that are called household genes, they are very much the same across broad taxa. For a long time they were saying chimps and humans were so much alike that the differences had to be accounted for by regulatory genes. Come to find out with whole genome sequences the differences to over 120 mbp (million base pairs) because of indels (insertions/deletions). There is at least one codon difference in 70% of the protein coding genes, in 20% of the protein products they found gross structural differences.

Comparative genomics is a fascinating study, I'm constantly learning more. Recently I heard about the Krispur gene that can actually cut and splice genes anywhere on the genome. I'm often astonished at the people who pursue these discussions for years and never bother to learn anything about the life sciences. There are some truly amazing things going on.

I know a lot has gone on, and even though I don't really keep my ear to the ground anymore, I still hear fascinating bits sometimes. ALMOST enough to tempt me to brush up and study again. But this has moved too far down my priority list, and life and learning are finite, it seems - so I have other things I prefer to apply myself to.


To the OP, what can often begin to answer this question is if you can drum up the intellectual determination to honestly apply yourself to the opposite presupposition, pretend you believe it to be true, and reexamine evidence with those suppositions in mind. This is often useful no matter what the subject area, and no matter if one accepts what is actually right, or what is false. I'm not saying that as some kind of trick to change your mind, but it's simply an intellectual exercise, if one has the discipline to truly apply it. At least in this case, there is not so much background to make it an impossible attempt. But such exercises can often shed a great deal of light on both sides of any disagreement, as well as benefit interpersonal relations. And if what you believe is true, it can sometimes make the case stronger than examining only one side. But I think most people find the discipline near-impossible to really embrace, even as an exercise.

 

[mark kennedy]

I know a lot has gone on, and even though I don't really keep my ear to the ground anymore, I still hear fascinating bits sometimes. ALMOST enough to tempt me to brush up and study again. But this has moved too far down my priority list, and life and learning are finite, it seems - so I have other things I prefer to apply myself to.

I can understand and appreciate that but the life sciences are growing by leaps and bounds and Creationists are being corralled into a position where they seem opposed to it. Nothing could be further from the truth, I've never seen a Creationist who was opposed to Mendelian genetics. I think one of the reasons for the drama is because knowledge is power and the contentious nature of these debates is meant to discourage creationists from learning more.

To the OP, what can often begin to answer this question is if you can drum up the intellectual determination to honestly apply yourself to the opposite presupposition, pretend you believe it to be true, and reexamine evidence with those suppositions in mind. This is often useful no matter what the subject area, and no matter if one accepts what is actually right, or what is false. I'm not saying that as some kind of trick to change your mind, but it's simply an intellectual exercise, if one has the discipline to truly apply it. At least in this case, there is not so much background to make it an impossible attempt. But such exercises can often shed a great deal of light on both sides of any disagreement, as well as benefit interpersonal relations. And if what you believe is true, it can sometimes make the case stronger than examining only one side. But I think most people find the discipline near-impossible to really embrace, even as an exercise.

I know what he is trying to do, it's what's called an homology argument. Things in common are an argument for common ancestry, unfortunately he selected a very obscure comparison and highly technical bread and butter research project. Now an effective argument can be made, Darwinians have been doing it for generations. They just have one major problem, the inverse logic is intuitively obvious. In other words, if things alike are an argument for common ancestry does that mean divergence is an argument for independent creation? Of course they will never consider the inverse logic, which is the major flaw in Darwinian logic.

The Modern Synthesis is often called neodarwinism, because it's inextricably linked to the philosophy of Charles Darwin originating in his book On the Origin of Species. He said and I quote:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)
​

Now, if you believe that, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition', then you are Darwinian in your worldview. These two worldviews would appear to be mutually exclusive. To date I have nothing but problems with every aspect of universal common descent and at the heart of this philosophy I see the core problem being naturalistic assumptions.

Calvinists have been arguing for years, the evidential, cosmological and even rationalistic arguments are essentially pointless since your up against presuppositional logic. I would agree if I thought the goal here is persuasion, what keeps my fascination is this shimmering rising star of the natural sciences, Genetics. You may not be aware but Genetics was not considered a real science for 50 years of it's history. The molecular biologist who knew the physical properties and the geneticist who to the outward traits could never get together on the cause and effect. With the unveiling of the DNA double helix model of Crick Watson and their colleagues the true science of Genetics emerged, newborn and destined to lead the life sciences to unparalleled heights.

While I enjoy these discussions for that reason it's a little sad and disappointing that I feel my creationist brethren are missing it. Would to God it were otherwise.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[pitabread]

I know what he is trying to do, it's what's called an homology argument. Things in common are an argument for common ancestry, unfortunately he selected a very obscure comparison and highly technical bread and butter research project.

If that's what you think, then you clearly don't understand the topic at all. The fact that you completely evaded any discussion of comparative genomics methodology and acted like you had no idea what the topic was even about only cemented that.

Better luck next time.

 

[mark kennedy]

If that's what you think, then you clearly don't understand the topic at all. The fact that you completely evaded any discussion of comparative genomics methodology and acted like you had no idea what the topic was even about only cemented that.

Better luck next time.

I understand what you think your trying to do and it's just a bait and switch. You want to post a random link with no discussion of the methodology and an insistence that the methodology is the point of the thread. Then you don't want to talk about what is being compared in a paper on comparative genomics. Yea, hopefully I'll have better luck the next time someone wants to talk about comparative genomics and actually talks about the substance of the research. No luck this time.

 

[pitabread]

I understand what you think your trying to do and it's just a bait and switch. You want to post a random link with no discussion of the methodology and an insistence that the methodology is the point of the thread. Then you don't want to talk about what is being compared in a paper on comparative genomics.

edited:

I just found out that your initial response to this thread was actually a partial copy-paste of this thread topic. Which now explains why it didn't have anything to do with what I posted in the OP.

Considering you can't seem to follow the topic and instead just copy-pasted something from another thread... well, I don't know what to think anymore. Regardless your accusation that I'm somehow performing a "a bait and switch" when you can't even respond to the thread topic is a little odd.

At this point, we're done here.

 

[USincognito]

If that's what you think, then you clearly don't understand the topic at all. The fact that you completely evaded any discussion of comparative genomics methodology and acted like you had no idea what the topic was even about only cemented that.

Better luck next time.

In his "understanding" everything is an argument from homology (even the arguments that aren't).

 

[~Anastasia~]

I can understand and appreciate that but the life sciences are growing by leaps and bounds and Creationists are being corralled into a position where they seem opposed to it. Nothing could be further from the truth, I've never seen a Creationist who was opposed to Mendelian genetics. I think one of the reasons for the drama is because knowledge is power and the contentious nature of these debates is meant to discourage creationists from learning more.



I know what he is trying to do, it's what's called an homology argument. Things in common are an argument for common ancestry, unfortunately he selected a very obscure comparison and highly technical bread and butter research project. Now an effective argument can be made, Darwinians have been doing it for generations. They just have one major problem, the inverse logic is intuitively obvious. In other words, if things alike are an argument for common ancestry does that mean divergence is an argument for independent creation? Of course they will never consider the inverse logic, which is the major flaw in Darwinian logic.

The Modern Synthesis is often called neodarwinism, because it's inextricably linked to the philosophy of Charles Darwin originating in his book On the Origin of Species. He said and I quote:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)
​

Now, if you believe that, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition', then you are Darwinian in your worldview. These two worldviews would appear to be mutually exclusive. To date I have nothing but problems with every aspect of universal common descent and at the heart of this philosophy I see the core problem being naturalistic assumptions.

Calvinists have been arguing for years, the evidential, cosmological and even rationalistic arguments are essentially pointless since your up against presuppositional logic. I would agree if I thought the goal here is persuasion, what keeps my fascination is this shimmering rising star of the natural sciences, Genetics. You may not be aware but Genetics was not considered a real science for 50 years of it's history. The molecular biologist who knew the physical properties and the geneticist who to the outward traits could never get together on the cause and effect. With the unveiling of the DNA double helix model of Crick Watson and their colleagues the true science of Genetics emerged, newborn and destined to lead the life sciences to unparalleled heights.

While I enjoy these discussions for that reason it's a little sad and disappointing that I feel my creationist brethren are missing it. Would to God it were otherwise.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I understand your point.

Years ago I used to argue these things (many years ago!). I studied under eminent persons in the life sciences, but the pace was frenetic. There was no TIME to ask critical questions - it was simply learn and regurgitate, and do an excellent job in the labs, or be left behind. Especially for a female. The prevailing attitude at the time was that "women didn't belong". I actually had a class that was so difficult, it washed out well over 50%, but I had near-perfect scores. I had a vehicle accident as I was pulling into the university one day, and as I was coming for an exam, I went to tell him I was going to the hospital instead because I thought my arm was broken. He took one look at me (it was my left arm) and said, "you're right-handed, aren't you? Take the exam." So I persevered. I believed it all, as taught to me. It wasn't until years later, when I wanted to construct a better curriculum, and I set out to PROVE evolution, that I started finding holes, errors, and kept running into various things that would prevent me from demonstrating what I wished to demonstrate. Anyway, that was about the time I decided to go back and change specialties.

If there was a "current research for dummies" out there, or at least a succinct stay-on-top source, I'm still half-interested. But seriously, I don't have enough hours in the day to study and practice what I'm interested in now. I've discovered the early Christianity, and there are literally millions of pages, and most not in any order of importance (most not translated either). I also received a diagnosis last year that has made me realize time is precious. And even back when I used to argue these things, people will see what they want to see. If they come asking because they truly want to know how this can be so, then I was willing to take all the time I had with them. But if they are just trying to gather evidence so they can mock against it, that's a waste of my time, and further hardens their hearts. And those who may observe may end up more confused. No one wins.

However, it's refreshing to see at least the direction you are taking. When I ran into brick walls with "proving evolution" I had a look at what "Creation Science" was offering. I know Ken Hovind personally, btw. And I have a collection of books and data files from many proponents. And while they do ask many good questions, and have a few good points, too much of it was an embarrassment to read as "science" and would be better never brought up to critical examination.

Anyway ... I wish I could help. But what I am working with now suits me better. The Gospel is a message of healing, and when it works to make a person whole and at peace in his mind and soul (sometimes body as well) even after decades or a lifetime of issues, then people are benefited and others take notice. I changed to psychology and neuroscience when I abandoned Life Sciences, btw. So that's why my interest is stronger here, and I'm better suited, I think. Whether I have a short or long time left (if God grants it) I do not know, but it will never be long enough for what I'd like to do. So I try to stay on one course.

(And these were all comments relating to myself, btw, absolutely NO criticism was intended, and please forgive me if any part came across that way.)

God be with you.

 

[pitabread]

To the OP, what can often begin to answer this question is if you can drum up the intellectual determination to honestly apply yourself to the opposite presupposition, pretend you believe it to be true, and reexamine evidence with those suppositions in mind.

I've been mulling over this for the last day or so. It's an interesting mental exercise, but if I try to apply it to the issue of applied evolutionary biology, I run into a wall of cognitive dissonance.

The problem is that on the one hand, we have evolutionary biology including evolutionary relationships (i.e. common descent) being applied in various fields by scientists today. On the other hand, then there is this idea that the science they are utilizing is patently false.

It creates a huge disconnect. And part of the issue is I can't merely disavow myself of the knowledge and experience I already have. I think is probably why the issue of applied evolutionary biology is largely ignored by the creationist movement; it's an unanswerable problem for them.

Now I could adopt a tenant like seem to be proposing earlier; that things are the way they are. But if life was created to look like it evolved, then that: a) absolves the science of biological evolution; after all, the science tells us that life looks evolved and if that's what it was created to look like, then that's what it's going to tell us; and b) creates a philosophical challenge around how one distinguishes what is created at all. It's basically The Last Thursdayism in a nutshell. It might make for an interesting philosophical discussion about the nature of reality, but I don't find it particularly useful.

Regardless, none of this changes the fact that evolutionary biology is an applied science. Even if I choose not to accept the ToE as valid, evolutionary biology is still going to be an applied science.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I've been mulling over this for the last day or so. It's an interesting mental exercise, but if I try to apply it to the issue of applied evolutionary biology, I run into a wall of cognitive dissonance.

The problem is that on the one hand, we have evolutionary biology including evolutionary relationships (i.e. common descent) being applied in various fields by scientists today. On the other hand, then there is this idea that the science they are utilizing is patently false.

It creates a huge disconnect. And part of the issue is I can't merely disavow myself of the knowledge and experience I already have. I think is probably why the issue of applied evolutionary biology is largely ignored by the creationist movement; it's an unanswerable problem for them.

Now I could adopt a tenant like seem to be proposing earlier; that things are the way they are. But if life was created to look like it evolved, then that: a) absolves the science of biological evolution; after all, the science tells us that life looks evolved and if that's what it was created to look like, then that's what it's going to tell us; and b) creates a philosophical challenge around how one distinguishes what is created at all. It's basically The Last Thursdayism in a nutshell. It might make for an interesting philosophical discussion about the nature of reality, but I don't find it particularly useful.

Regardless, none of this changes the fact that evolutionary biology is an applied science. Even if I choose not to accept the ToE as valid, evolutionary biology is still going to be an applied science.

It can indeed be a very difficult mental exercise. I may not appreciate HOW difficult, as I've had various foundations of mine shift more than a bit in my lifetime, and while it does get easier, the first time there were huge clanging bells of cognitive dissonance just begging me to accept what I was most comfortable with, and what didn't render largely irrelevant thousands of dollars and years spent in pursuing a particular paradigm. (Not to mention if you voice such doubts, you are shut out if serious academia forever.)


So, what is your purpose? You mentioned absolving science? I don't think science had an evil intent. That does get into interesting questions - the science that led to weapons of mass destruction didn't have evil intent at some levels. Anything can be used, or misused. If nothing else, I think the science is helpful from a taxonomic sense, and to help understand systems. There may be useful information for the preservation of endangered species, and who knows what other kinds of potential benefits? But I just think the whole story of how those creatures ultimately came to be has too much supposition.

If the purpose is some kind of cognitive dissonance regarding faith, well ... I don't agree with them, but there are many in that situation who ARE Christians. They find all kinds of ways of reconciling the two. Personally, I only see it as a problem if the base motive is a greater trust in current scientific theory than in God Himself, but I don't think that's a given. It's not my place to judge anyway.

(And actually, I may agree with some of them just a bit. There are actually things the Creation account DOESN'T say that some people insist are true, so maybe I am part of the crowd that reads that part out of the Scriptures, since I don't see it. Mentioned for the sake of disclosure and honesty, not because it's important either way.)

(For that matter, I heard recently from someone who had some possible insights on the Hebrew hieroglyphics that were used in Genesis, and found it quite fascinating, but it is all but lost to us, and I of course can't read it, and have no way to verify.)

But I guess my real curiosity is, what do you hope to resolve or accomplish by asking the question? I'm not at all sure I can help, but that's where my mind usually goes.

And if I'm disrupting your thread or taking it off topic, feel free to say so and I'll stop, with no hard feelings.

 

[inquiring mind]

Well, I must say this is an interesting topic, including deviations thereof. I do not have much of a background in science, certainly not at this level or in this area, and I’m not much for cutting and pasting back-up information either, hence my simple and relatively brief responses. So, I have only a few short observations that are not really meant to be argumentative.

1. Despite all the great religious minds throughout the ages, not a single one has been able to show beyond a doubt and with irrefutable evidence (excluding faith) for everyone, even the proclaimed foundation for Christianity... the concept of The Trinity.

2. Likewise, scientists (those that can keep their minds in the pursuit) have strained every fiber of human reason and intellect to disprove Creation Theory and the Bible by pursuing in-depth studies, such as with genes and genomes... also, falling short of proving beyond a doubt and with irrefutable evidence that Creation Theory is wrong.

3. In regard to creation vs. evolution, and that’s really what it’s always about, it never ceases to amaze me that people can’t see that they will never fully understand God’s miracle of life. Yes, there’s nothing wrong with inquiring minds (no pun intended), but who and what is man that he would presume to ever understand beyond debatable and limited knowledge... God’s mysteries. God can do whatever He wants; He can make His creation utilizing, or to look like, evolution; time is His to play with as He desires; He could form the earth from older “other world” material; etc. I am convinced that even 10,000 years from now the only thing we will leave this life with is “faith”... and still wondering.

 

[pitabread]

So, what is your purpose? You mentioned absolving science? I don't think science had an evil intent.

This isn't quite what I meant. Maybe "absolving" was the wrong word.

It comes down to the issue of why mainstream biology has generally agreed that evolutionary biology is fundamentally correct; IOW, life on Earth looks like they all share common ancestry. We may not know all the nuts 'n bolts of how everything interconnects (indeed, there is far more we don't know than we do know), but the fundamentals of common ancestry isn't really in doubt.

The question is then why would all the world's biologists reach this conclusion if it is as false as many creationists claim? Especially considering that work in evolutionary biology spans generations and cultures around the globe.

The only three reasons I can think of are:

1) All of the world's biologists are just grossly incompetent.
2) It's part of a vast, global conspiracy. This is where I find creationists sometimes end up, often invoking it as part of some bigger atheistic conspiracy they are imaging.
3) Biologists concluded life on Earth shares common ancestry because life on Earth looks like it shares common ancestry.

In the case of the latter option, that's as good as science can do. It can only tell us what things look like. If one wants to overlay a philosophical presumption about the nature of the universe on top of that, one is free to do so. But at which point, we're not really doing science anymore and therefore the underlying science doesn't change.

If nothing else, I think the science is helpful from a taxonomic sense, and to help understand systems. There may be useful information for the preservation of endangered species, and who knows what other kinds of potential benefits? But I just think the whole story of how those creatures ultimately came to be has too much supposition.

This is why I find the application of phylogenies in comparative genomics so poignant. After all, phylogenetic trees are by definition evolutionary relationships of species via common descent. These in turn are applied in comparative methodologies. After all, if you have a rough idea of how far apart two species are diverged timelines and overlay that in conjunction with estimates of neutral substitution rates and generation time, you can make more informed comparative analyses. And this is exactly what scientists are doing especially when it comes to identifying conserved regions of the genomes and adapted traits.

In turn, this knowledge of underlying genomics is then applied in fields like agriculture. There is great interest in breeding better crops and livestock. This allows researchers to perform breeding programs based on underlying genetics derived from the underlying genomics research.

Buried under all of this, are fundamental methodologies in comparative genomics that are directly based on evolutionary relationships of species.

When I first learned about all of this (about a decade or so ago), I started broaching this topic of discussion to see what creationists had to say in response. Mostly it was wall of silence. Occasionally I'd get hand-waving dismissals or deflections. But nobody has ever addressed it. Even with Answers in Genesis author acknowledges it, but only to complain about it.

So yeah. This is a conundrum for creationists.

If the purpose is some kind of cognitive dissonance regarding faith, well ... I don't agree with them, but there are many in that situation who ARE Christians. They find all kinds of ways of reconciling the two. Personally, I only see it as a problem if the base motive is a greater trust in current scientific theory than in God Himself, but I don't think that's a given. It's not my place to judge anyway.

IMHO, I don't really see a fundamental issue with faith and science unless one starts to overlay one on top of the other. This is where I think creationists run into severe problems. Because those beliefs seem dependent on making specific, testable claims about life, the Earth and the Universe, it sets up those beliefs for falsification. And the only way to really deal with this is to just dismiss anything not fitting that worldview (Answers in Genesis literally has this as part of their faith statement).

(And actually, I may agree with some of them just a bit. There are actually things the Creation account DOESN'T say that some people insist are true, so maybe I am part of the crowd that reads that part out of the Scriptures, since I don't see it. Mentioned for the sake of disclosure and honesty, not because it's important either way.)

Well, I think that's are more intellectually honest approach, so that says something.

But I guess my real curiosity is, what do you hope to resolve or accomplish by asking the question? I'm not at all sure I can help, but that's where my mind usually goes.

I'm just trying to understand how creationists reconcile the very science they argue is false with the fact that it is used in real world application.

And if I'm disrupting your thread or taking it off topic, feel free to say so and I'll stop, with no hard feelings.

Oh no worries. I welcome some interesting discussion.

 

[pitabread]

Likewise, scientists (those that can keep their minds in the pursuit) have strained every fiber of human reason and intellect to disprove Creation Theory and the Bible by pursuing in-depth studies, such as with genes and genomes... also, falling short of proving beyond a doubt and with irrefutable evidence that Creation Theory is wrong.

I think there is a misunderstanding of what scientists do. They're not out to "disprove Creation Theory and the Bible". Indeed, many scientists are Christians. Science is simply a method for understanding the natural world. That's it.

What scientists have concluded by examining the preponderance of evidence, particularly with respect to genetics and genomics is that life on Earth looks like it all shares common ancestry. And that modern species are a result of evolutionary processes acting over the span of life's existence on Earth. Now if people want to believe species on Earth were specially created, they can believe that. But that doesn't change the fact that modern species on Earth still looks like it evolved and share common ancestry.

In turn, and this is where the crux of this thread lies, is that scientists have for over a decade now been applying that understanding of evolutionary relationships to methodologies in researching genomics. Which is then used in various fields of applied biology including medical research, agriculture, etc.

 

[inquiring mind]

I think there is a misunderstanding of what scientists do. They're not out to "disprove Creation Theory and the Bible". Indeed, many scientists are Christians. Science is simply a method for understanding the natural world. That's it.

What scientists have concluded by examining the preponderance of evidence, particularly with respect to genetics and genomics is that life on Earth looks like it all shares common ancestry. And that modern species are a result of evolutionary processes acting over the span of life's existence on Earth. Now if people want to believe species on Earth were specially created, they can believe that. But that doesn't change the fact that modern species on Earth still looks like it evolved and share common ancestry.

In turn, and this is where the crux of this thread lies, is that scientists have for over a decade now been applying that understanding of evolutionary relationships to methodologies in researching genomics. Which is then used in various fields of applied biology including medical research, agriculture, etc.

Understood... I knew as soon as I hit reply that my statement generalizing scientists would be questioned. Of course, you are correct. I should have just said the scientific effort seems unsuccessful in its effort to definitely prove anything different regarding creation with God’s limitless power.

I think someone already touched on this, but what would preclude God from creating different species with these similarities.

I don’t see an argument... if God creates utilizing similarities, then inquire away for things He will reveal that does benefit us, but fully understanding His design will not be one of them.

 

[mark kennedy]

I understand your point.

Years ago I used to argue these things (many years ago!). I studied under eminent persons in the life sciences, but the pace was frenetic. There was no TIME to ask critical questions - it was simply learn and regurgitate, and do an excellent job in the labs, or be left behind. Especially for a female. The prevailing attitude at the time was that "women didn't belong". I actually had a class that was so difficult, it washed out well over 50%, but I had near-perfect scores. I had a vehicle accident as I was pulling into the university one day, and as I was coming for an exam, I went to tell him I was going to the hospital instead because I thought my arm was broken. He took one look at me (it was my left arm) and said, "you're right-handed, aren't you? Take the exam." So I persevered. I believed it all, as taught to me. It wasn't until years later, when I wanted to construct a better curriculum, and I set out to PROVE evolution, that I started finding holes, errors, and kept running into various things that would prevent me from demonstrating what I wished to demonstrate. Anyway, that was about the time I decided to go back and change specialties.

Wow, sounds like a tough program. I was pretty much a Liberal Arts major, it requires a lot of reading but not a lot of discipline. Spent a year at a Bible college where I learned quite a bit, not that there was much room in the papers after all the text variation and such.

If there was a "current research for dummies" out there, or at least a succinct stay-on-top source, I'm still half-interested. But seriously, I don't have enough hours in the day to study and practice what I'm interested in now. I've discovered the early Christianity, and there are literally millions of pages, and most not in any order of importance (most not translated either). I also received a diagnosis last year that has made me realize time is precious. And even back when I used to argue these things, people will see what they want to see. If they come asking because they truly want to know how this can be so, then I was willing to take all the time I had with them. But if they are just trying to gather evidence so they can mock against it, that's a waste of my time, and further hardens their hearts. And those who may observe may end up more confused. No one wins.

Sorry to hear about your medical issues, I got a simple operation last year and it took almost six months to put my life together. The Creavo thing has pretty much ran it's course, I took an interest during the Culture wars. When the decision for the Dover Intelligent Design case was handed down the traffic slowed down considerably. I'm amazed that some of the regulars can't seem to grasp basic biology, one guy I debated regularly for years didn't know DNA is composed of nucleotides. My thing is history and philosophy but the genetics thing is really interesting because they are publishing on an epic scale. Paleontology is more sparse and geology you can forget it, cosmology and astronomy are largely irrelevant. Here's one of those little gems I found along the way. It's from the opening lines of the Initial Sequence of the Human Genome Project:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.

The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Nature 2001)
​

Mendel was recruited by CP Napp at Bruno, to develop hybrids. This is the mid-nineteenth century so no one had seen a chromosome yet let alone DNA. Right around the turn of the century microscopes started picking up on chromosomes and Mendel's research was a mathematical model that proved invaluable. In the space between the development of chromosome theory and during the march toward the DNA double helix model Darwinism was synthesized with genetics. It was dubbed Neodarwinism and now it's piggy backed into natural science through no merit of it's own.

However, it's refreshing to see at least the direction you are taking. When I ran into brick walls with "proving evolution" I had a look at what "Creation Science" was offering. I know Ken Hovind personally, btw. And I have a collection of books and data files from many proponents. And while they do ask many good questions, and have a few good points, too much of it was an embarrassment to read as "science" and would be better never brought up to critical examination.

Hovinid came up repeatedly in these discussions and I honestly didn't know anything about him. I've read about the Leakys and actually learned a great deal from Richard Darwkins as a matter of fact. In his book, An Ancestors Tale, he discusses the expansion of the human brain from that of apes. The first thing I noticed when I cross checked it with brain related genes is a huge list of disease and disorder and absolutely nothing indicating mutations were capable of doing anything other then harm. When I introduced this in the discussions the response was diversion followed by virtual silence. The same thing happened with comparative genomics, my Guard unit was called up to respond to Katrina the very day I first heard of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. I won't bore you with specifics but there is a staggering amount of divergence genome wide and even in 3 out of four of the functional genes. What always fascinated me about that, they simply don't have an answer for how.

Anyway ... I wish I could help. But what I am working with now suits me better. The Gospel is a message of healing, and when it works to make a person whole and at peace in his mind and soul (sometimes body as well) even after decades or a lifetime of issues, then people are benefited and others take notice. I changed to psychology and neuroscience when I abandoned Life Sciences, btw. So that's why my interest is stronger here, and I'm better suited, I think. Whether I have a short or long time left (if God grants it) I do not know, but it will never be long enough for what I'd like to do. So I try to stay on one course.

Neuroscience huh? That's interesting. I generally encourage creationists to avoid these ridiculous debates unless there is just something they really want to run through the mill. I hear from them from time to time and most Christians won't tolerate the divisive and contentious spirit in these debates. For most Christians the Bible is more devotional then anything else, it enhances prayer and worship, that should always be our first priority.

Again I'm so sorry to hear about your illness, no one is promised tomorrow but getting diagnosed with a devastating illness has to be overwhelming. I can well see why you wouldn't want to bother with this no man's land of Creavo, I enjoy it but I always learn something new. It's almost comical, none of the regulars would share anything from cutting edge research but newbies don't know any better. I get most of my best ammunition from Darwinians, Richard Darwkins probably gave me my most important insights.

(And these were all comments relating to myself, btw, absolutely NO criticism was intended, and please forgive me if any part came across that way.)

God be with you.

I've seen a number of your posts, here and elsewhere, I've never seen any indication of a critical spirit. I thoroughly enjoy your posts, it's always nice to hear from some of the older traditions. While I'm pretty much a Calvinist and an old school evangelical the Orthodox and Catholic traditions have an abundance of scholarship and a history that goes all the way back to the first century. Things like this:

O Lord Almighty, the Healer of our souls and bodies, You Who put down and raise up, Who chastise and heal also; do You now, in Your great mercy, visit our sister Anastasia, who is sick. Stretch forth Your hand that is full of healing and health, and get her up from his her bed, and cure her of his her illness. Put away from her the spirit of disease and of every malady, pain and fever to which she is bound; and if she has sins and transgressions, grant to her remission and forgiveness, in that You love mankind; yea, Lord my God, pity Your creation, through the compassions of Your Only-Begotten Son, together with Your All-Holy, Good and Life-creating Spirit, with Whom You are blessed, both now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[pitabread]

I'm amazed that some of the regulars can't seem to grasp basic biology, one guy I debated regularly for years didn't know DNA is composed of nucleotides.

Glass houses, mark, glass houses.

 

[pitabread]

I should have just said the scientific effort seems unsuccessful in its effort to definitely prove anything different regarding creation with God’s limitless power.

Science can't make any claims one way or another about the supernatural. It can test specific claims people make with respect to what is in the universe, however.

I think someone already touched on this, but what would preclude God from creating different species with these similarities.

Nothing. But ultimately, life looks like if it evolved. So if life was created to look like it evolved, then it still looks like it evolved.