In dispute of common ancestory

[Pats]

Hi.

As you all know, the debate between Creationism and Evolutionism is one fought on both spitual and scientific planes.

At this time I am specifically seeking arguements to dispute common ancestory, especially as in apes/chimps to man. I have been trying to keep up with some of the info provided in the Evolution/Creation forum, but I guess some of those threads are difficult for me to follow.

Some folks here have graciously provided me with some links to begin delving more deeply into the entire Creat. vs Evo battle, and I've been reading up on those. Right now, though, I'm begining another debate in wich I am taking some of the issues in evolution one at a time. I have read some about this topic, but have had a difficult time providing effective arguements that I know how to back up. Since I am willing to take God's wisdom over man's, I know there is a lot of scientific data I am missing, and I need a little help in finding it.

All helpfull responses, links, and specific scientific data that disputes common ancestory would be appreciated. It's probably also a great topic for us to delve into on this forum

Here's part of a post I wrote wich relates to aspects of alternative conclusions to common ancestory. I was told by an atheist on this forum that even the Creationists here would dispute this view, so I'd be interested in discussing that while we're at it.

This is an excerpt:

I do not believe it is possible for genes to improve on themselves or gain information, as would be required for (as one example) a lizard species to eventually evolve into a bird species.

I believe the natural selection we observe is rather a loss of information.

Take the Dog/Wolf discussion that we began above. It is highly probable, and provable, that canines began as a much smaller group than what we see today, like people, in the Creation view point.

In my view, canines too come from an originally perfect DNA gene pool. The original group was quite virulent with many possibilities of gene combinations. The original group would have inter-mated quite a bit causing a decrease in variation due to continual intermixing of the gene pool.

When canines were moved into say an arctic area they did not gain the ability to grow white, long thick fur. They simply lost the portion of their populace in that region which did not posses the best fur for survival in that climate. Over time, they only mated amongst themselves and were not able to regain their ancestor’s ability to produce offspring with short, dark fur. They lost genetic information.

To put this theory into practice with humans requires an understanding of many things such as how melanin works. Melanin, as you may know, protects us from the sun. A larger amount of melanin, resulting in darker skin pigmentation, would offer more protection from the sun against such ailments as skin cancer in very sunny regions. Likewise, when a person with a large amount of melanin moves to a region with less sunshine, their melanin prevents them from gaining the necessary amounts of vitamin D from the sun for bone health and proper overall healthy surviving.

Now, it would make sense that the original group, Noah and family, being as closely related to the original group of humans, Adam and Eve, as they were would have mid colored skin and genes that contained the possibilities for many various genetic traits. The passing on of genetic traits, as is commonly known, can be worked out in a Punnett’s square.

This original group of Noah’s decedents who built the tower of Babel etc. were not spreading to populate the earth as God commanded. They were all inner breeding in one large group. That being the case, those born with particularly light or dark skin or particular features could easily intermix with a very different looking person and the gene pool would remain virulent and full of variety. They would mainly remain similar to one another in this scenario.

Once they were punished for banding together to work against God and not spreading throughout the Earth as originally commanded, and their languages divided at Babel, it makes sense that those with common languages would be forced to move away from those they could not understand and therefore not trust to be their neighbors.

It also makes sense that a person with more melanin would not thrive in a place with a low amount of sunshine due to the lack of vitamin D. Health problems lead to a lack of reproductive capabilities, natural selection steps in, the genetic information to have dark skin in an area is lost. Over time, the original information necessary for offspring with greater amounts of melanin is lost entirely due to the smaller gene pool.

It is the same for persons with small amounts of melanin not thriving in a particularly sunny place. And then off course, there are areas where a medium amount of melanin is the most suitable.

This same exchange of genetic information, and loss of information in smaller, more confined gene pools, can be used to explain the various physical traits most common to particular groups of people. For instance, the eyes of an Asian person are no different than a Caucasian, except that there is more fat in the fatty layer that surrounds their eyes. There are still occasional instances when Asians are born without this layer, causing their eyes to appear more round. Likewise, there are Caucasian born with larger, broader noses than others.

Now, of course, I can go into more detail later. This is just the tip of the ice burg. But, it’s all I have time for this morning, so it’ll have to do.

Also, in answer to Aabh’s last post, with regard to how species become extinct, I would have to answer that I can see that natural selection is one way a species becomes extinct.

I would also have to say that hunting a species into extinction is another example or Genocide. Changes in the ecosystem, which a species is not able to survive, would be another. I’m sure there are more.

Acknowledging that Natural Selection is one cause of extinction, also supports the theory that gene mutations and natural selection is the process of loosing information rather than gaining. There’s lots more research on that subject I’m only beginning to delve into at this time.

 

[vossler]

Here's part of a post I wrote wich relates to aspects of alternative conclusions to common ancestory. I was told by an atheist on this forum that even the Creationists here would dispute this view, so I'd be interested in discussing that while we're at it.

Pats, I'm not one to look to for scientific information, I just don't have much of an interest there. However, I will comment on the assertion by this atheist that Creationists would dispute the view you posted. For what it's worth, I for one have nothing against anything you stated, it all lines up with my line of thinking.

 

[mark kennedy]

You have to understand something pretty basic to Biology. Genes recombine during meiosis and these combinations are what enables organisms to adapt to their environments. What ends up happening when a certain population arrives in an ecological niche is it creates a bottleneck effect for the genes. Instead of having a fairly large gene pool it becomes reduced through inbreeding. As important adaptive traits emerge through known and unknown mechanisms the changes become fixed. The pharse heard often by Darwinians is that evolution is irreversable. In other words, if the Polar Bear migrates south he can't really change into his ancestoral form (brown bear, Grizzley...etc). He has to go there and start over with the altered gene pool he now has.

When wild horses were domesticated they were selected for special traits, size, strength, intelligence...etc. What happened is this created a bottleneck because the only way of doing this was to breed only certain horses with these traits. The tendancy is to revert back to the wild type or with continued inbreeding develop health problems through severly reduced gene flow. So what breeders have to do is back breed in order to keep the line healthy. In the case of horses for instance, the wild hourses have two extra sets of chromosomes, what happened to the extra set from the wild type? It was breed out through bottlenecks.

Common descent is based on the idea that the competition is what drives adaptation. That's not really true, it is cooperation of members of an ecosystem that contributes to the success of the populations. Rain forests have the largerst diversity anywhere in the world, because of the mututal benefit of abundant food and water. So inbreeding isn't nearly as big a problem as you would have in the artic or desert regions so the gene pool has more genes to use.

In evolution as natural history major epochs show very little variation, for millions of years. Then it appears suddenly in the geological column. The explanation is that there was an ice age or an astoroid drove these major changes. We don't really see this in the natural world. If one group of monkeys are seperated by a river for several generations, sometimes when reunited they cannot interbreed. Why? Because their respective gene pools have been altered, the genes don't recombine the way they used to.

At any rate, good discussion starter. I know it got me going a little.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Remus]

Pats, I'm not one to look to for scientific information, I just don't have much of an interest there. However, I will comment on the assertion by this atheist that Creationists would dispute the view you posted. For what it's worth, I for one have nothing against anything you stated, it all lines up with my line of thinking.

Same here. I agree with everything you've said so far Pats. I'll try to help in any way that I can. I'm usually good at finding stuff, so if you have something specific that you need found, then let me know.

 

[Remus]

One other thing to keep in mind; most of the evidence that supports common ancestry also supports a common designer. In fact, it often is better support for a common designer.

 

[mark kennedy]

One other thing to keep in mind; most of the evidence that supports common ancestry also supports a common designer. In fact, it often is better support for a common designer.

"Biology is the study of complicated things that GIVE THE APPEARANCE of having been designed for a purpose." (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker)

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (F.Crick 1988)

I wonder if it ever occured to these two that maybe it looks designed because it was designed.

 

[Remus]

I wonder if it ever occured to these two that maybe it looks designed because it was designed.

I'm sure it has

 

[Crusadar]

Here are a few links you can gleam over - which I believe poses problems for monkey to man evolution.

• Monkey-Man Hypothesis Thwarted by Mutation Rates
• Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology
• Haldane's Dilemma

 

[Pats]

Here are a few links you can gleam over - which I believe poses problems for monkey to man evolution.

• Monkey-Man Hypothesis Thwarted by Mutation Rates
• Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology
• Haldane's Dilemma

These have some nifty stuff on 'em, thanks.

Reading..........