The origin of life and evolution

Loudmouth · Jul 5, 2016

mark kennedy said:
Love the link, it's been known for years that we are not 98% the same:

It has been known for years that the DNA we share is 98% homologous. That is how the description has always been used by scientists, and it is still true. When we include the DNA we don't share through common ancestry (i.e. indels), then our genomes are about 96% similar. It is also worth noting that when we compare chimps and gorillas, their genomes differ by more than chimps and humans, no matter which comparison you use. Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with other ape species. It is this fact, among others, that evidences evolution.

pat34lee · Jul 6, 2016

Jimmy D said:
Yet there they are, as are the similarities, go figure.

Similarities are the easy part to explain. Common design.
You don't have to get into bad theories about non-related
animals and plants because they were created separately.

pat34lee · Jul 6, 2016

Loudmouth said:
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?

And, as the article said, these differences are more like
human-chicken than the previously thought human-chimp.

Loudmouth · Jul 6, 2016

pat34lee said:
Similarities are the easy part to explain. Common design.

Common design does not form nested hierarchies. Only evolution does that. What we observe is that life falls into a nested hierarchy, exactly what we would expect from evolution and not what we would expect from common design.

For example, there would be nothing stopping a common designer from creating a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. A common designer could also create a species with a genome containing an exact copy of a jellyfish gene, a mouse gene, and a bird gene. So why don't we see any of these types of creatures?

Evolution predicts that we should never see a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features since none of the ancestors of mammals was a bird, and none of the ancestors of birds was a mammal. Those features evolved independently in different lineages, and there is no way for evolution to move adaptations from one branch to another branch.

This is the argument that you and all other creationists avoid like the plague.

Loudmouth · Jul 6, 2016

pat34lee said:
And, as the article said, these differences are more like
human-chicken than the previously thought human-chimp.

No, they aren't more like human-chicken comparisons. You have to compare shared DNA in order for the comparison to be made. What you are pointing to with respect to the human and chimp Y-chromosome is inserted and deleted DNA, DNA that just isn't there due to indel events. The differences between homologous chicken and human DNA that you are referring to is due to changes in the actual bases, not deletions of DNA.

Added in edit:

"As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%)15. Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa (Supplementary Fig. 8 and Supplementary Note 3)."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

When we look at the genes shared by chimps and humans on their Y-chromosome, we see that the sequences are 98.3% homologous, as expected. The differences are due to DNA that isn't shared due to recombination events and deletions. IOW, large chunks of DNA that have either been cut out of the Y-chromosome or have been copied from other chromosomes.

USincognito · Jul 6, 2016

pat34lee said:
Similarities are the easy part to explain. Common design.
You don't have to get into bad theories about non-related
animals and plants because they were created separately.

You've been told at least once that common design is an ad hoc and unscientific proposition.

JonFromMinnesota · Jul 6, 2016

pat34lee said:
Similarities are the easy part to explain. Common design.

Why doesn't that explanation appear in any peer reviewed research? Oh, that's right, because it's wrong.

USincognito · Jul 6, 2016

pat34lee said:
And, as the article said, these differences are more like
human-chicken than the previously thought human-chimp.

Again, you have been corrected on this previously. They found that there had been as much change in the human and chimp MSY chromosome since common ancestry as there has to the human and chicken genomes.

Kenny'sID · Jul 6, 2016

Loudmouth said:
It has been known for years that the DNA we share is 98% homologous. That is how the description has always been used by scientists, and it is still true. When we include the DNA we don't share through common ancestry (i.e. indels), then our genomes are about 96% similar. It is also worth noting that when we compare chimps and gorillas, their genomes differ by more than chimps and humans, no matter which comparison you use. Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with other ape species. It is this fact, among others, that evidences evolution.

How does similar DNA evidence evolution? Where did the DNA come from to begin with?

You can conveniently discount the need for the full story if you want but that's like my giving partial directions to somewhere....you will never get where you want to be if you don't have all the info and you will never conclude evolution as fact without all the equation, unless you are one of the small minded that choose to forget the basic necessities for finding a solution to anything.

Loudmouth · Jul 6, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
How does similar DNA evidence evolution?

Similarity by itself does not evidence evolution. Matching phylogenies of DNA and morphology do evidence evolution. Read more here:

"Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

A common designer can not explain this pattern which is a nested hierarchy. Things like cars, paintings, and buildings do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Only evolution produces this pattern of both similarities and differences, and it is the exact pattern we see in life.

Where did the DNA come from to begin with?

We don't need to know where DNA came from in order to know that life evolved from a common ancestor.

You can conveniently discount the need for the full story if you want but that's like my giving partial directions to somewhere....

You can give directions to somewhere without needing to know the origin of the universe, or did you forget that.

Should we throw out DNA fingerprinting in court cases because we don't know the origin of DNA?

Do we have to throw away the Germ Theory of Disease because we don't know the ultimate origin of life?

Do we have to know the origin of the universe in order to know how lightning is made?

you will never get where you want to be if you don't have all the info and you will never conclude evolution as fact without all the equation, unless you are one of the small minded that choose to forget the basic necessities for finding a solution to anything.

No one is saying that we shouldn't look for the answers. In fact, scientists are studying these questions as we speak. What we are saying is that you don't have to know everything in order to know something.

USincognito · Jul 6, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
How does similar DNA evidence evolution? Where did the DNA come from to begin with?

You can conveniently discount the need for the full story if you want but that's like my giving partial directions to somewhere....you will never get where you want to be if you don't have all the info and you will never conclude evolution as fact without all the equation, unless you are one of the small minded that choose to forget the basic necessities for finding a solution to anything.

How ironic. The whole purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that the origin of life has no effect on evolution or our understanding of it. Yet here you are 16 pages in still claiming that it does.

That's very dishonest.

Kenny'sID · Jul 6, 2016

Well, I've done my best to show how ridiculous it is to think one can come up with proper answers without all the info, but you seem to think you can so, go for it. But please understand, as I have made clear why I can't buy a bit of it because I know you can't possibly know what's going on now without knowing what went on.

It's all a very important part of the equation.

Kenny'sID · Jul 6, 2016

USincognito said:
How ironic. The whole purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that the origin of life has no effect on evolution or our understanding of it. Yet here you are 16 pages in still claiming that it does.

That's very dishonest.

Oh, please. You guys love that dishonest word don't you? Did you stop for a moment to consider evolution may be an outright lie and you all are spreading that nonsense? Is it your own insecurity that makes you want to see others as dishonest? I mean I don't care really but at the very least, stop that little game you play, it gets old.

Of course it has an effect. Because the thread was supposed to demonstrate that, am I to automatically conclude that is reason to believe it did? Sorry but I'm not done demonstrating a few things of my own in that area.

Loudmouth · Jul 6, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
Well, I've done my best to show how ridiculous it is to think one can come up with proper answers without all the info,

Can you use a DNA test to establish paternity without knowing the origin of life?

Can you determine that germs cause disease without knowing the origin of life?

It is ridiculous to claim that we have to know everything in order to know something.

It's all a very important part of the equation.

Then prove it. What part of the theory of evolution would need to change if God created a very simple replicator that then evolved into all of the species we see today?

Kenny'sID · Jul 6, 2016

You have my take on things, LM, repeating things won't change a thing for me.

Loudmouth · Jul 6, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
Oh, please. You guys love that dishonest word don't you? Did you stop for a moment to consider evolution may be an outright lie and you all are spreading that nonsense?

Instead of making accusations, why don't you show us evidence that the theory of evolution is a lie.

Is it your own insecurity that makes you want to see others as dishonest? I mean I don't care really but at the very least, stop that little game you play, it gets old.

Projection much? You just accused us of spreading lies.

Of course it has an effect. Because the thread was supposed to demonstrate that, am I to automatically conclude that is reason to believe it did? Sorry but I'm not done demonstrating a few things of my own in that area.

What effect does it have? What part of the theory of evolution would need to change if God created a very simple replicator that then evolved into all of the species we see today?

Loudmouth · Jul 6, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
You have my take on things, LM, repeating things won't change a thing for me.

That is false. We don't have your take on what would need to change in the theory of evolution if the first replicator was created by God, from which all species evolved.

bhsmte · Jul 6, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Instead of making accusations, why don't you show us evidence that the theory of evolution is a lie.

Projection much? You just accused us of spreading lies.

What effect does it have? What part of the theory of evolution would need to change if God created a very simple replicator that then evolved into all of the species we see today?

Because he has no evidence.

Kenny'sID · Jul 6, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Instead of making accusations, why don't you show us evidence that the theory of evolution is a lie.

Seriously? You are asking me to disprove your claims? I see. So we have to prove what we claim is true and it's not up to you to disprove it, but when the shoe is on the other foot, the rules are, we should have to prove your claims. You know better, but why am I not surprised you'd try to get that by me too.

You're all about changing rules when it benefits you. But when one has nothing to support their claims I guess the mentioned "dishonesty" junk you keep pushing off on others becomes a necessity for yourselves. Insincerity at it's finest.

Loudmouth said:
Projection much? You just accused us of spreading lies.

Nope, just fact, and you are fortunate that's all I indicated possible.

Loudmouth said:
What effect does it have? What part of the theory of evolution would need to change if God created a very simple replicator that then evolved into all of the species we see today?

The very beginning of your so-called evolution/all of it. "If God" as you say, were the God, there would be no evolution for all you know. If you knew how he worked with DNA, you might understand why DNA may have no bearing when it comes to supporting evolution. You are missing entirely too much of the puzzle to even get started. So simple....yet

Loudmouth said:
That is false. We don't have your take on what would need to change in the theory of evolution if the first replicator was created by God, from which all species evolved.

You have my take, I made it clear before and I just made it clear again.

Kenny'sID · Jul 6, 2016

bhsmte said:
Because he has no evidence.

Don't you know your own rules? It's on you to prove it's a fact first, and you know that.

The origin of life and evolution

Contributor

Messianic

Messianic

Contributor

Contributor

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Contributor

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency