• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The origin of life and evolution

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Sorry, not much sense in fully reading this, much less bothering to reply, after what you did with a prior post of mine...waste of time. You did what I said and I somehow don't see you manning up and admitting it so denial would naturally follow, even with the facts right there in black and white.....
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Armoured said:
You love a link... called Darwinconspiracy? Sure, why not?
Click to expand...

I know what your saying, the site is kind of fishy and the source material is dated. It has been my experience that something like that can steer you toward resources. It's been a while since I looked at chromosome comparisons, I recognized some of the discussion from reading I had done years ago. I run into the same thing with Talk Origins and Answers in Genesis. Actually Wikipedia can be the worst for source material but it can still make a handy primer.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
DogmaHunter said:
For me, that is not an assumption. I have never seen any christian creationist present any evidence at all for their beliefs. And many have tried.
Click to expand...

Funny, I do it all the time. Fossil evidence is ignored and it seems futile to offer expositions of scientific literature. What you usually get in return is a lot of sharp, personal remarks with on the vaguest reference to the actual evidence. It's usually close encounters of the pedantic one liners.


You failed to consider one thing, the Scriptures are credible as historical texts, thus primary source material. They are a living history since they have been in the possession of living communities their entire history, the Christian and Hebrew communities respectively. Now if you don't know or care about internal, external or bibliographical testing it's easy to mock and snipe but there is a scientific approach to examining historical documents. You just don't get to decide to categorically reject miracles and then to pretend your presupposition was based on objective proof. If on the other hand you have an actual interest in how the historical narratives relate to paleontology and biology it's fascinating to take the evidential approach.

Tell me, was the adam and eve story discovered under a rock? Did a biologist conclude it? Or is it rather ONLY known through a story in a religious book?
Click to expand...

Genesis is an historical narrative:

Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer." (Simon Greenleaf, Harvard School of Law)​

Science is a methodology. A methodology designed precisely to leave human biases and emotions at the door.
Click to expand...

Then why so many personal, inflammatory remarks in a row without the slightest hint of a scientific acumen. Science is an epistemology based on an inductive approach to investigating natural phenomenon. There is certainly not sign over the door indicating a suspension of your emotions, it's cause and effect determined by directly observed or demonstrated phenomenon. For reason I have never been able to fathom you guys think you are all scientists simply because you castigate and ridicule people of faith. You obviously are too busy pouring out fallacious rhetoric to be bothered with actual facts.


You are describing lab work and science was around a long time before the empirical, experimental processes were developed during the Scientific Revolution. A miracle is a phenomenon, to you it might seem supernatural but for God it's perfectly natural. Astronomy has been around since the dawn of civilization and they simply developed it based on observation, even keeping records in certain instances. Same with miracles, an eye witness along with a consensus of observers experience the power of God displayed. While that might not be the subject of lab work it has a verifiable credulity.

So yes, science is neutral when it comes to gods.
Click to expand...

Apparently your not.


That's not very scientific or you. The Big Bang model project backward from the known pattern of the expanding universe. Einstein actually predicted that the universe was expanding through theoretical physics but because of a lot of harsh criticism decided to rework the equations. Then Hubble determined it through observation.

We do know there was a beginning but when you are discussing the subject of origins you leave the comfortable world of controlled experiments. It's a branch of philosophy known as metaphysics:

Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. (Oxford Dictionaries)
​
Metaphysics is a systematic search for transcendence, the substantive element that transcends all reality, sometimes refereed to as ontology. String theory is an attempt at such a unified theory, Darwinism was and is another one and Aristotelian Scholasticism was the unified theory of the western world for a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation brought about the Scientific Revolution.

You really should learn something about history and philosophy before you start pontificating about it.

Have a nice day
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat

He repeated himself a lot, some generalities about science and evidence, that's about it. I'm a little late in the conversation so I hope you will forgive the fact I'm not entirely sure what facts are in evidence here. If you would care to describe the facts being considered here I would be interested in discussing them with you.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
bhsmte said:
What do you think about the guy in the link you posted agreeing with evolution?
Click to expand...

Evolution is defined as the change of alleles in populations over time, which makes pretty much everyone an evolutionist. Then there is something called the theory of evolution that is intended to assume the origin and development of life was by exclusively naturalistic means. These are two different things, there is the phenomenon of evolution that no one really questions and then there is a philosophy of natural history based on a presupposition of exclusively naturalistic causes.

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. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​
There is a difference between evolution as phenomenon and evolution as a unified theory of natural history. We do well to make that distinction rather then equivocating the two.

Have a nice day
Mark
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single

You either missed the exact quotes I took from
the page, or you're reading something else.
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
bhsmte said:
What do you think about the guy in the link you posted agreeing with evolution?
Click to expand...

I don't care what he believes, only the facts he posted. I have posted
the video about the earth growing before. The person in the video
thinks it took millions of years or more to expand. I think it happened
after the flood, within a century or three.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
pat34lee said:
You either missed the exact quotes I took from
the page, or you're reading something else.
Click to expand...

You guys seem to be struggling with source material, I have a suggestion:

...In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor...​

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%

The Nature article linked to above was only the abstract, the full content is available in PDF form.

Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content

I thought this was quite a statement:

Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7% with a range of 66.1% to 77.9%, depending on the chromosome (Table 1 and Fig. 1).
​
The direct comparisons are something you will never be able to reconcile to the staggering mutation rate that would be required:

Table 1. Individual chromosome similarities for chimpanzee compared to human using optimized sequence slices and the BLASTN algorithm.

Chromosome 1
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 350
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 70.9%
Chromosome 2A, 2B vs 2 (human)
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 69.0%
Chromosome 3
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 68.9%
Chromosome 4
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 66.1%
Chromosome 5
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 68.2%
Chromosome 6
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 69.2%
Chromosome 7
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 350
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 67.3%
Chromosome 8
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 68.4%
Chromosome 9
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 350
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 70.1%
Chromosome 10
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 71.0%
Chromosome 11
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 70.8%
Chromosome 12
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 70.1%
Chromosome 13
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 70.8%
Chromosome 14
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 71.6%
Chromosome 15
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 350
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 72.0%
Chromosome 16
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 450
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 73.3%
Chromosome 17
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 500
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 76.1%
Chromosome 18
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 250
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 72.5%
Chromosome 19
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 500
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 72.0%
Chromosome 20
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 400
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 75.2%
Chromosome 21
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 500
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 76.2%
Chromosome 22
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 450
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 77.9%
Chromosome X
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 300
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 69.4%
Chromosome Y
Optimized slice size producing top similarity (number bases) 400
Percent chimp sequence aligned to human 43.2%
​
I'll have some fun with this one in the common forum.

Have a nice day
Mark

​
 
Reactions: pat34lee
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
mark kennedy said:
You guys seem to be struggling with source material, I have a suggestion:
Click to expand...

Thank you. I hate making such large quotes, and it
seems most of the atheists don't want to read the
source for themselves, beyond a sentence or two.
Many never go past the title or author before turning
their noses up and ignoring the rest.

As you posted, the numbers mean that the differences
in chimp and human DNA are far larger than can be
accounted for using any means currently theorized.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Kenny'sID said:
Sorry, not much sense in fully reading this, much less bothering to reply, after what you did with a prior post of mine...waste of time.
Click to expand...

Right, right, but *I* am the one that ignores what people say, ha?

You did what I said and I somehow don't see you manning up and admitting it so denial would naturally follow, even with the facts right there in black and white.....
Click to expand...

I asked you to point out what I apparantly ignored that you said which was apparantly so important.

If you don't wish to support your many repeats of calling me a liar, I'll just draw the obvious conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
pat34lee said:
Since you appear to be the only one who doesn't
know what it is, look it up.
Click to expand...

Actually I know all about it. I have a feeling that you only know the dishonest Creationist version of the story. So, why don't you just step up to the plate and tell us all about Nebraska "man".
 
Reactions: tyke, Warden_of_the_Storm and 46AND2
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
pat34lee said:
Thank you. I hate making such large quotes, and it
seems most of the atheists don't want to read the
source for themselves, beyond a sentence or two.
Many never go past the title or author before turning
their noses up and ignoring the rest.
Click to expand...

Well sure, the original was in a table, I had to write it out to post here. I had to because they are not going to bother reading it, especially if it's from AIG. Now they have seen it and when you confront them with something like that the thread gets a little bet quieter, sometimes almost civil.

As you posted, the numbers mean that the differences
in chimp and human DNA are far larger than can be
accounted for using any means.
Click to expand...

This paper had a way of calculating a U, which is a calculation based on time (5mya), generation (20 years), then population size which I think was about 100,000, but they tried different variations:

Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common. (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans. Genetics 2000)
​
The divergence here is at 1.33%, what are the effects on fitness when the divergence is 5% or 30% or 50%? We know that evolution happens, this is my favorite example of evolution in action. I should add that given the time line from the Ark touching down on Ararat I believe that adaptive evolution must happen quickly. In fact, Mendel, who I quote in my signature was trying to develop hybrids. He said the reason the research was started was because of a strong tendency to revert back to the grandparent form. In other words gradualism doesn't square with Mendelian genetics. At any rate, check this out:

Chen et al. (1) describe an antifreeze glycoprotein (AFGP) gene in an Antarctic fish that has arisen (in part) from noncoding DNA. Further, they show that a very similar AFGP from an Arctic fish is the product of some completely unrelated molecular processes. (Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution)
​
A brand new gene that is not produced from gene duplication or exon shuffling, it was produced from non-coding regions of the arctic cod's genome. This suggests design, a providential molecular mechanism for the adaptive evolution of living creatures. It's coevolved at least 4 times. You can't get there from copy errors which is was genetic mutations actually are:

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.
​
This is one of the repair mechanisms:



DNA ligase, shown above repairing chromosomal damage, is an enzyme that joins broken nucleotides together by catalyzing the formation of an internucleotide ester bond between the phosphate backbone and the deoxyribose nucleotides. DNA Repair
​
Three guys got a Nobel Prize for figuring out how this stuff works.

Trio gets chemistry Nobel for figuring out DNA repair

Just imagine if someone figured out the molecular mechanism responsible for that cod fish. My point is simply this, there is nothing scientific or empirical that can dismiss God as the first cause of the universe, life in general or man. These posters and the scientific community at large my not believe the Genesis account or the New Testament witness regarding creation but it's not because of science. Their bias is cultural and presuppositional, not clinical or empirical.

The critical thing to realize is Creationism is not anti-evolution or anti-science, it's opposed to Darwinian naturalistic assumptions:

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​
The power of modern genetics is that most of their work can be found online or the library. Fossils they keep hidden away in vaults with an occasional paper cropping up from time to time. Science is the tool, evolution is the process and genetics is the prize. Never let them tell you otherwise, there is no rational reason we must assume exclusively naturalistic causes unless we reject God himself in our understanding.

Grace and peace,
Mark




​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Kenny'sID said:
Evidence is something that shows one something is evident.
Click to expand...

How does evidence do that?


I would hope that we can all agree to common rules for what evidence is and isn't.

In my view, events in the past have consequences. If something happened in the past, then we should be able to say what we should see in the present as a consequence of those past events, AND what we should NOT see. Evidence is a set of observations that can be put in one of those categories.

Another important point is that if any imaginable observation can be said to be consistent with a past event, then nothing can be evidence. This is often the problem with creationism. When any imaginable fossil or any imaginable result from comparing genomes can be said to be consistent with creationism, then you have no evidence.

For example, would a fossil with a mixture of mammal and bird features be consistent with creationism? Can you explain why you would answer one way or the other? Evolution does make predictions about fossils that have a mixture of mammal and bird features, but can creationism do the same?

I can also discuss several examples as they apply to DNA sequences, if you like.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic

How is that a problem? The human Y-chromosome is 59 million base pairs, just 2% of the human genome. Are you aware that evolution causes species to become less similar to each other over time?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Evolution conflict and division
Replies
137
Views
6K
Creation & Theistic Evolution
The Barbarian
The Way, The Truth, The Life
Replies
0
Views
365
Daily Devotionals
Christsfreeservant
Catholics reflect on 100th anniversary of Scopes trial, 1920s evolution debate
Replies
1
Views
266
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
The Barbarian
The "unified" theory of evolution
Replies
220
Views
12K
Creation & Evolution
The Barbarian
Holy Strikes! Nuns Hit the Bowling Alley in Viral Video, Radiating Joy of Religious Life
Replies
0
Views
96
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
Menu
Log in
Register