How to choose between creation and evolution.

[mark kennedy]

Speaking of informed decisions regarding DNA and evolution:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2

That doesn't tell me much about the evidence. In one of the areas of the human genome that would have had to change the most, Human Accelerated Region (HAR), we find a gene that has changed the least over just under 400 million years HAR1F. Just after the Cambrian is would have had to emerge de novo, fully formed, fully functional and permanently fixed along broad taxonomic categories. In all the time since it would allow only two substitutions, then, while the DNA around it is being completely overhauled it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene only 118 nucleotides long. The vital function of this gene cannot be overstated:

The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)
​

This all has to occur after the chimpanzee human split, while our ancestors were contemporaries in equatorial Africa, with none of the selective pressures effecting our ancestral cousins. This is in addition to no less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)
​

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.

That's what I mean by evidence, it's a little hard to navigate but it's devastating to the universal common ancestor model.

 

[pitabread]

What I would like explained from Evolutionists is that if an animal did not have what it took to survive in a hostile environment, how did that animal thrive to produce offspring?
In one single generation it had to have mutated offspring while unable to survive.
Why wouldn't the animal just move to a different environment?

First it helps to understand that populations evolve, not individuals. Second, the ability for an organism to survive and produce offspring is not a purely binary condition. Organisms can have relative rates of reproductive success with respect to their contemporaries within a population.

Also, mutations and selective forces don't necessarily need to occur at exactly the same time. For example, there could be organisms in a population with a mutation that happens to convey resistance against a particular disease. In absence of the disease those mutations might be completely neutral and could still exist, but there just wouldn't be any selective pressure acting on them.

 

[bhsmte]

That doesn't tell me much about the evidence. In one of the areas of the human genome that would have had to change the most, Human Accelerated Region (HAR), we find a gene that has changed the least over just under 400 million years HAR1F. Just after the Cambrian is would have had to emerge de novo, fully formed, fully functional and permanently fixed along broad taxonomic categories. In all the time since it would allow only two substitutions, then, while the DNA around it is being completely overhauled it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene only 118 nucleotides long. The vital function of this gene cannot be overstated:

The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)
​

This all has to occur after the chimpanzee human split, while our ancestors were contemporaries in equatorial Africa, with none of the selective pressures effecting our ancestral cousins. This is in addition to no less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)
​

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.

That's what I mean by evidence, it's a little hard to navigate but it's devastating to the universal common ancestor model.

Would you then conclude, that people with extensive knowledge and education on this topic, like Francis Collins, are misguided individuals?

Do they not understand the science as well as you?

Or, are they part of a huge conspiracy?

 

[pitabread]

That's what I mean by evidence, it's a little hard to navigate but it's devastating to the universal common ancestor model.

As much as you like to believe otherwise, your copy-paste argument-from-incredulity is not devastating to anything except precious bytes of information storage on this forum's servers.

 

[mark kennedy]

Correct. It is abiogenesis that deals with that issue of biology.

No it doesn't:

“I, for one, have never subscribed to this view of the origin of life, and I am by no means alone. The RNA world hypothesis is driven almost entirely by the flow of data from very high technology combinatorial libraries, whose relationship to the prebiotic world is anything but worthy of “unanimous support”. There are several serious problems associated with it, and I view it as little more than a popular fantasy” (reviewer's report in Primordial soup or vinaigrette: did the RNA world evolve at acidic pH? Biol Direct. 2012).
​

Abiogenesis is little more the a popular fantasy.

 

[mark kennedy]

Would you then conclude, that people with extensive knowledge and education on this topic, like Francis Collins, are misguided individuals?

Do they not understand the science as well as you?

Or, are they part of a huge conspiracy?

Francis Collins was the director of the Human Genome Project, I've read the paper. I've also read the comparative genomic papers comparing the DNA of humans and chimpanzees, something I've never heard him comment on. I've been on his blog, Biologos, and searched both biblical and secular subject matter. If there is something on there about comparative genomics I haven't seen it, therefore I reserve the right to remain unconvinced. Arguments from authority do not intimidate me, read what they publish not what they say.

 

[r4.h]

If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

The bible talks of people who swallow a lie. An open mind is ripe for anything to be poured in.

Our mind needs to be settled, "let God be true (the bible also by extension) and every man a liar"

Evolution denies that God has power to create instaneousley and that He would mislead us by saying one thing but meaning something else. Just because God has left gaps in what He deems nescessary for us to know, does not mean we need to or are to fill them in.

 

[bhsmte]

Francis Collins was the director of the Human Genome Project, I've read the paper. I've also read the comparative genomic papers comparing the DNA of humans and chimpanzees, something I've never heard him comment on. I've been on his blog, Biologos, and searched both biblical and secular subject matter. If there is something on there about comparative genomics I haven't seen it, therefore I reserve the right to remain unconvinced. Arguments from authority do not intimidate me, read what they publish not what they say.

Ok, but you didn't answer my questions.

You must then conclude that Collin's and the many thousands of educated Phd level scientists that agree with his conclusion on how strong the evidence is, are either wrong on the science, or they have some motivation to mislead people.

If your conclusion is Collins and everyone else is simply wrong, why would anyone be convinced with you disagreeing with them?

 

[pitabread]

Evolution denies that God has power to create instaneousley and that He would mislead us by saying one thing but meaning something else.

Evolution, like everything else in science, is completely silent on the subject of what God could or could not do. One must be careful not to conflate science with philosophies related to the supernatural.

All science can really do is tell us what things look like. And life looks like the product of an evolutionary process. One can believe otherwise if they want, but that isn't going to change what life looks like.

 

[mark kennedy]

As much as you like to believe otherwise, your copy-paste argument-from-incredulity is not devastating to anything except precious bytes of information storage on this forum's servers.

Wow you really don't have a clue do you? Those are comparative studies and the fossil record has no chimpanzees, because they are passed off as our ancestors. I'm not incredulous, I've followed the comparative genomics studies for years and they are hardly a convincing argument for human chimpanzee common ancestry.

 

[bhsmte]

The bible talks of people who swallow a lie. An open mind is ripe for anything to be poured in.

Our mind needs to be settled, "let God be true (the bible also by extension) and every man a liar"

Evolution denies that God has power to create instaneousley and that He would mislead us by saying one thing but meaning something else. Just because God has left gaps in what He deems nescessary for us to know, does not mean we need to or are to fill them in.

And those gaps have slowly been closing in the last 100 years or so and will likely continue to narrow.

Don't worry though, you are free to insert a God where ever you like.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok, but you didn't answer my questions.

You must then conclude that Collin's and the many thousands of educated Phd level scientists that agree with his conclusion on how strong the evidence is, are either wrong on the science, or they have some motivation to mislead people.

If your conclusion is Collins and everyone else is simply wrong, why would anyone be convinced with you disagreeing with them?

I'm not arguing with Francis Collins, I'm saying he never spoke substantively to the issue of comparative genomics. I have no idea why he came to the conclusions he did and unless or until he does speak to comparative genomics I consider his voice silent.

 

[mark kennedy]

And those gaps have slowly been closing in the last 100 years or so and will likely continue to narrow.

Don't worry though, you are free to insert a God where ever you like.

Well thank you for condescending to us creationists, we really appreciate that you know. I want to insert God at the point of origin of life please, would that be ok?

 

[mark kennedy]

The bible talks of people who swallow a lie. An open mind is ripe for anything to be poured in.

Our mind needs to be settled, "let God be true (the bible also by extension) and every man a liar"

Evolution denies that God has power to create instaneousley and that He would mislead us by saying one thing but meaning something else. Just because God has left gaps in what He deems nescessary for us to know, does not mean we need to or are to fill them in.

Your confusing evolution, which is actually a phenomenon in nature, and the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians. Watch out for that.

 

[VirOptimus]

That doesn't tell me much about the evidence. In one of the areas of the human genome that would have had to change the most, Human Accelerated Region (HAR), we find a gene that has changed the least over just under 400 million years HAR1F. Just after the Cambrian is would have had to emerge de novo, fully formed, fully functional and permanently fixed along broad taxonomic categories. In all the time since it would allow only two substitutions, then, while the DNA around it is being completely overhauled it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene only 118 nucleotides long. The vital function of this gene cannot be overstated:

The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)
​

This all has to occur after the chimpanzee human split, while our ancestors were contemporaries in equatorial Africa, with none of the selective pressures effecting our ancestral cousins. This is in addition to no less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)
​

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.

That's what I mean by evidence, it's a little hard to navigate but it's devastating to the universal common ancestor model.

Hi Mark, written an article for peer-review yet? No? Well, then your ”opinion” has no merit.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Mark, written an article for peer-review yet? No? Well, then your ”opinion” has no merit.

I haven't seen you published in Nature magazine lately so we're even.

 

[pitabread]

Those are comparative studies and the fossil record has no chimpanzees, because they are passed off as our ancestors.

Are you going to ignore the fact you've already had this discussion a dozen times in the past already with various members of this forum?

I'm not incredulous

Of course you are. That's what your entire argument boils down to: belief that something couldn't have happened because you don't want to believe it happened.

It's no different than the arguments you used to make against chromosome fusions or mutations affecting large numbers of DNA bases.

 

[bhsmte]

Well thank you for condescending to us creationists, we really appreciate that you know. I want to insert God at the point of origin of life please, would that be ok?

And like I said, people are free to insert a God where ever they like.

 

[mark kennedy]

Are you going to ignore the fact you've already had this discussion a dozen times in the past already with various members of this forum?

Not if they were actually made.

Of course you are. That's what your entire argument boils down to: belief that something couldn't have happened because you don't want to believe it happened.

That sounds like classic projection to me.

It's no different than the arguments you used to make against chromosome fusions.

Never really cared about chromosome fusions, a tag sequence in the middle of a chromosome doesn't impress me much. Especially when the protein coding genes on the various chromosomes are so different.

 

[VirOptimus]

I haven't seen you published in Nature magazine lately so we're even.

Nope, I accept the science so I dont need to. Its you who try to, and the way to do so is within peer-review. If you cant then your views can safely be dismissed.