What about the DNA evidence?

[lasthero]

Well, I'd assume its because you clearly don't understand what you were posting. The recollection of the interpretation of the paper or whatever stated the paper said it was looking at the number of genes on the y chromosome. I highly doubt that for two reasons. First, the number reported in that post was incorrect, second, the table included referenced only degenerate genes.

Furthermore, you stated humans came from chimps. Dead giveaway that you don't know what you are talking about. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that. It says both chimps and humans came from a common ancestor. Both chimps and humans have undergone genetic changes from that split. Treating modern chimps as somehow older than modern humans is complete nonsense.

<_<; Huh?

 

[[serious]]

<_<; Huh?

X-degenerate region. The X-degenerate region is a deteriorated version of the ancestral autosome that formed the Y chromosome. It contains 16 single-copy genes in humans with homologues on the X chromosome that mostly have housekeeping functions16, 18. Genes located in the X-degenerate regions are well-conserved among primates. Specifically, all of the 16 X-degenerate genes are shared between human and rhesus macaques, whereas chimpanzees have lost four of them through inactivating mutations.

Box 1 : Y-chromosome evolution: emerging insights into processes of Y-chromosome degeneration : Nature Reviews Genetics

As far as the chimps and humans, saying humans evolved from chimps is silly.

Think of it this way. Imagine two distant cousins meet. Bill Smith and John Jones
Bill: "My great grandfather was Phil Jones"
John: "So was mine! We came from the same common ancestor!"
Bill: "Yeah, my great grandfather was a Jones, you are a Jones, thus I must be descended from you!"

Chimps and humans both evolved from a common ancestor, possibly one resembling an Ardipithecus:

Though Ardipithicus could certainly be down the line a bit closer to Humans.

 

[lasthero]

Yeah, I get that. My confusion stems from you saying I said things I don't think I said. >_>;

 

[stevevw]

Just one question, you say your a geneticist and a christian do you believe we evolved from apes.

 

[[serious]]

Yeah, I get that. My confusion stems from you saying I said things I don't think I said. >_>;

yeah, that was totally "hey it's late and I kind of think I know who said what"

SteveVW was the one who had no idea what he was talking about. you were the inadvertent target of late night tablet based response. Now that I'm back on the comp, I see my error. Apologies, you have yet to say anything that suggests you are woefully out of your depth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just one question, you say your a geneticist and a christian do you believe we evolved from apes.

I take it you mean "Do you believe we evolved from other apes." Since we are apes.

 

[stevevw]

yeah, that was totally "hey it's late and I kind of think I know who said what"

SteveVW was the one who had no idea what he was talking about. you were the inadvertent target of late night tablet based response. Now that I'm back on the comp, I see my error. Apologies, you have yet to say anything that suggests you are woefully out of your depth.

Yeah that's right blame me. And hey i only referenced something that i thought looked interesting about human and ape genetics. Me I am no geneticist so i cant really comment without qualification.At least i am trying to understand and acknowledge when i dont know.

 

[stevevw]

I take it you mean "Do you believe we evolved from other apes." Since we are apes.

Yes if you want to put it that way. I was asking someone who says they are a christian and a geneticist to get their opinion as they will have more knowledge about genetics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes if you want to put it that way. I was asking someone who says they are a christian and a geneticist to get their opinion as they will have more knowledge about genetics.

There are countless Christians who accept the theory of evolution. Worldwide it seems that most Christians do accept the theory. The fundamentalist disease seems to be concentrated in the U.S..

 

[stevevw]

There are countless Christians who accept the theory of evolution. Worldwide it seems that most Christians do accept the theory. The fundamentalist disease seems to be concentrated in the U.S..

We dont have that here in Australia. Just everybody goes about their own business and no one tries to push their agenda. Very multicultural and layed back. I guess it is also tied in with politics as well in the US.

The reason i was asking because if a christian believes that we evolved from apes then how does that reconcile with Jesus and that we have a soul. How does that work with Christs death and resurrection for our souls.

I know some believe that there was some evolution involved and God still created man but i dont understand this as it contradicts each other.

 

[Loudmouth]

How is it an insane request that i ask for the same level of quality referencing that you are asking of me.

Does it matter? Do you really care if we present mountains of DNA evidence from experts in the field showing that we share a common ancestor with other species? Does evidence matter at all to you?

 

[Loudmouth]

The reason i was asking because if a christian believes that we evolved from apes then how does that reconcile with Jesus and that we have a soul. How does that work with Christs death and resurrection for our souls.

I suppose you reconcile it the same way that other scientific discoveries have been reconciled for the last 400 years.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Reality has this way of being . . . well . . . reality. Things are a certain way. In my eyes, pitting your beliefs against reality is a good way for your beliefs to lose. Denying evolution in modern times is the equivalent of Cardinal Bellarmine pitting scripture against astronomy. Heliocentrism was reluctantly accepted within christian theology, and the same is happening with evolution in modern times. I think we will all be better off when religions stop requiring followers to reject science in order to belong to that religion. Dr. Francis Collins put it best:

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

I would suggest that you read the entire assay. It is written by a devout christian scientist, in fact one of the most prominent scientists in the US. Even though I don't share your religious beliefs, the essay spoke to me in a lot of ways as well.

 

[stevevw]

Does it matter? Do you really care if we present mountains of DNA evidence from experts in the field showing that we share a common ancestor with other species? Does evidence matter at all to you?

But that same DNA evidence can be used to show the connection with all creatures as being created. The evidence only says that we are made from the same blue print. There is a part of that blue print in everything that's just the way things were made. If they were created from the same blue print then the DNA will also be accross the board.

 

[Loudmouth]

But that same DNA evidence can be used to show the connection with all creatures as being created.

Why would the evidence for creatures being created look exactly like they evolved?

If I find fingerprints and DNA at a crime scene is this evidence that God planted the evidence?

The evidence only says that we are made from the same blue print. There is a part of that blue print in everything that's just the way things were made. If they were created from the same blue print then the DNA will also be accross the board.

Why would life need to be created from the same blue print? Why would it be exactly what we would expect from the process of evolution? Again, from the same essay I cite above:

"The DNA evidence for evolution. I mentioned the ancient repeats we share with mice in the same location showing no conceivable evidence of function, diverging at a constant rate just as predicted by neutral evolution. One could only conclude that this is compelling evidence of a common ancestor or else that God has placed these functionless DNA fossils in the genome of all living organisms in order to test our faith. I do not find that second alternative very credible. After all God is the greatest scientist. Would he play this kind of game?"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

Would God change DNA just to make it look like evolution in order to fool us?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would the evidence for creatures being created look exactly like they evolved?

If I find fingerprints and DNA at a crime scene is this evidence that God planted the evidence?



Why would life need to be created from the same blue print? Why would it be exactly what we would expect from the process of evolution?

stevevw is posting an argument for ID, that is Incompetent Design.

Since evolution works off of "good enough" small drawbacks are acceptable. ID does not work off of that and the only excuse for IDists is that their god is incompetent.

 

[Loudmouth]

stevevw is posting an argument for ID, that is Incompetent Design.

Since evolution works off of "good enough" small drawbacks are acceptable. ID does not work off of that and the only excuse for IDists is that their god is incompetent.

ID would actually take extra effort just to make it look like evolution occurred. That's the problem.

 

[stevevw]

Why would the evidence for creatures being created look exactly like they evolved?

No evolution says they must have evolved because we all can be linked and traced back to a common ancestor. But this is based on the fossil records which are incomplete and now claiming DNA is proof. They try to fit the story to whats out there and when it doesn't fit they come up with another explanation. It can look the same because the DNA evolutionist use is the same DNA that's in everything.

The difference is you say because of that DNA we all evolved from that single cell and the evidence is because we all have a connection through the DNA. They say an ape is 98% similar to a man in its genetics and therefor we see the connection that man evolved from ape. Firstly this doesn't apply to everything and secondly if God created an ape then the obvious way to then create the man is to use the same formula but with adjustments for a human. The same blue print but with adjustments and this is the same for all living things. Why throw out the plan and have a different set of mechanisms to make different creatures.

DNA is a relatively new field and we are discovering more all the time. In fact it is very complex enough to fill 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica&#8212; an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information. So this came from a single cell organism and evolved into this complexity. This to me talks more of intelligent design rather than somehow it all came together partly by chance and random selection.

If I find fingerprints and DNA at a crime scene is this evidence that God planted the evidence?



Why would life need to be created from the same blue print? Why would it be exactly what we would expect from the process of evolution? Again, from the same essay I cite above:

"The DNA evidence for evolution. I mentioned the ancient repeats we share with mice in the same location showing no conceivable evidence of function, diverging at a constant rate just as predicted by neutral evolution. One could only conclude that this is compelling evidence of a common ancestor or else that God has placed these functionless DNA fossils in the genome of all living organisms in order to test our faith. I do not find that second alternative very credible. After all God is the greatest scientist. Would he play this kind of game?"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

Would God change DNA just to make it look like evolution in order to fool us?

Do we conclude that we have a common ancestor and evolved from that or that we just have these genetics in common as all were made from the same blue print with variations of those Genetics for different organisms. This will still show the same outcome which links us all together.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do we conclude that we have a common ancestor and evolved from that or that we just have these genetics in common as all were made from the same blue print with variations of those Genetics for different organisms. This will still show the same outcome which links us all together.

It is the PATTERN of commonality which points to evolution, and that pattern is a nested hierarchy.

Lines of Evidence: Nested Hierarchies

Humans who design using similar blue prints do not produce designs that fall into a single, objective nested hierarchy. Cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Buildings do not fall into a nested hierarchy. There is NO reason why common design would produce a nested hierarchy. It would actually take extra effort to make common design look like evolution, and that effort would be useless for any functional reason.

For example, scientists have actually replaced cytochrome c in yeast with the human version of the gene. The two genes differ by 40%, and yet they both functionally equally fine in yeast. So why change a design to mimic a nested hierarchy predicted by evolution when an exact copy works just fine?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

Why, if you are a designer, do you not give anything feathers a set of three middle ear bones? Why don't we see a single fossil or living species with a mixture of mammal and avian features? Why do we only see the pattern of shared characteristics that evolution would produce?

It all comes down to one question. Why the massive amounts of extra effort to make common design look like evolution occurred?

 

[AV1611VET]

[youtube]qccj-yTlJ4Q[/youtube]

 

[stevevw]

It is the PATTERN of commonality which points to evolution, and that pattern is a nested hierarchy.

Lines of Evidence: Nested Hierarchies

Humans who design using similar blue prints do not produce designs that fall into a single, objective nested hierarchy. Cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Buildings do not fall into a nested hierarchy. There is NO reason why common design would produce a nested hierarchy. It would actually take extra effort to make common design look like evolution, and that effort would be useless for any functional reason.

BUt if you looked at not just cars but all mechanical things would that show much variation within the design. So then you would not just have cars but also boat engines that go on water, train engines, plane engines that fly, computers, clocks, TVs, cranes, conveyor belts, ipads, robotics and anything that moves or works mechanically is all man made. They all perform different functions and all look different but have common mechanisms some in related areas such as electronics but all are more or less mechanical and man made. There is a relationship between them all and there are basic blue prints up to more complicated designs but all are traced back to a simple device that started it all. All will have aspects of the others from simple to complex depending on their purpose.

For example, scientists have actually replaced cytochrome c in yeast with the human version of the gene. The two genes differ by 40%, and yet they both functionally equally fine in yeast. So why change a design to mimic a nested hierarchy predicted by evolution when an exact copy works just fine?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

Why, if you are a designer, do you not give anything feathers a set of three middle ear bones? Why don't we see a single fossil or living species with a mixture of mammal and avian features? Why do we only see the pattern of shared characteristics that evolution would produce?

Because that is probably not possible in the genetic code. From what i understand with genetics it is a complicated process of sorting, matching, sequencing, fitting, accepting, rejecting, synthesizing and a whole lot of other thing all working together to an exact process. So there is a process that is followed and you cant put a round peg in a square hole. If that happens then it will be defective in some way. It all fits together nicely to produce a living cell. With natural selection it relies on mutations and something to go wrong to produce a different outcome which will create a variation of the gnome which will produce the change eventually in the organism. So almost a mistake makes something better and more complicated.

The process is so exact and complicated that to think you could get the amount of species with different shapes and sized creatures it would need eons of time. Thats even if it happens as this is partly done by chance that either the organism sort of knows that it needs that particular change to adapt or after many chances the right change in that complicated process comes up and is taken on. We are composed of some 3 billion genetic letters in the DNA molecule so over time all that had to happen by more or less mutations, chance and lining up the right sort of adaptaion that would work and be taken on in the genes to adapt and survive.

If man has built all the machinery in the world including the computer "and its not the vessel but the written codes and stored information that make it work" if we see man make this happen with a complicated computer codes then how can you say something many times more complex wasn't from some intelligent design but had to have a lot of things fall into place to happen.

A teaspoon of DNA, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written. Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?

"The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task, the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters&#8212;far from it.

So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.

It all comes down to one question. Why the massive amounts of extra effort to make common design look like evolution occurred?

No the question should be why the massive amount of effort to make evolution look like it made something partly by chance and a whole lot of other things falling into place. When the design is so complex that it would appear to be a miracle in itself for that to happen. But as they say given enough time all things are possible.