What about the DNA evidence?

[Ursus scientia]

My point of view:
-
http://www.christianforums.com/t7679160-14/#post64631224
-
-

Intermediate fossils aren't needed: the theory stands just fine without them. They're nice supporting evidence and they look pretty, but we're way beyond putting bones together at this point. We have molecular evidence.

DNA cannot increase on its own: it most certainly can. Look up gene duplication or trinucleotide repeat expansion.

I don't take the Qur'an as an authority on scientific matters so the remainder of your post (quotes from the surah) aren't persuasive to me.

 

[stevevw]

Sadly those sites are maintained by people who either understand enough science to be able to distort it to fit their agendas, be those political, religious or financial. You can normally gauge this from any mission statement the site may have, or in this case the "APOLOGETICS" tab on the site's header. Other warning signs are a lack of links to the primary literature, unprofessional journalism and sensationalism. : P The overwhelming consensus (99.85%) among Bioscientists is that phylogeny is an imperfect but highly useful model for studying the diversity of life, and that when phenomena such as HGT surface, it's easy to bear this in mind, refine the model and make it more accurately represent what we see in nature. : )

Ok thanks for that. Taking that into consideration you must know at least as much or if not more to assess that. So anyone else who doesn't have that level of knowledge cannot really comment without qualification. That begins to narrow it down. I am not sure but this site would have a varied level of knowledge so there will be a reasonable amount of unqualified statements. If we need the level of understanding that some of these sites have to participate in the debate then i have no hope and so do many of others. I am not sure how many people on this site are qualified to that level 5% maybe 20%. The qualifications seem pretty high to be able to make web sites and have scientists or biologist come in and argue for the religious side.

Even if you dispute what they say, to have that level of knowledge would not be to common on a site like this. I spoke to one person who seemed to have a very high level of knowledge and qualification and that is about it. You seem to have a good understanding but what about the rest of us. Does that mean we cant even comment. Does that mean everything that these sites are saying is totally wrong. I have even read that science sites and individual evolutionists disagree within themselves, some agreeing with what the religious sites have said. I agree that some religious sites are bias but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water in regards to all religious sites or certain aspects of what they are saying. I also believe science sites can be bias as well.

 

[Ursus scientia]

Nothing is stopping anyone from commenting on anything! So long as you do it honestly, with a will to learn, yet also with a healthy degree of scepticism. However sometimes a bit of background knowledge is necessary to fully appreciate some nuances of whatever you're trying to understand. Fortunately ToE is, broadly, very easy to comprehend. Here we're talking about nuances such as HGT, which do require some explaining.

For this reason, when you want advice about your health you should go and talk to a doctor. When you want to know about Biology you should go and talk to a Biologist.

Some - fortunately very few - doctors, like Dr. Wakefield, lie to people because it's in their interest to. He patented separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella and then began a rather brilliantly engineered marketing/scaremongering campaign in an attempt to earn lots of money.

Some - fortunately very few - Biologists lie to people because it's in their interest to. They can't reconcile ToE with their (usually creationist) worldview, so they insist that ToE has to be wrong. Unfortunately the evidence is overwhelming for ToE.

The vast, eclipsing majority of Biologists understand that just because you want something to be true does not mean that it is true, and that science is a tool we use to understand the world to the closest degree possible. This demands objectivity, which in turn precludes bias.

So in short, if you can detect a vested interest, alarm bells should start to ring. EVERY page relating to ToE that is written by a christian apologist should trigger these bells.

 

[mzungu]

Intermediate fossils aren't needed: the theory stands just fine without them. They're nice supporting evidence and they look pretty, but we're way beyond putting bones together at this point. We have molecular evidence.

Indeed; just like havint a few photos of a person's life are enough to establish that it is the same person and the photos represent his gradual growth to adulthood. Also we do not need all the numbers in a sequence in order to understand the sequence and more importantly extrapolate the sequence (predict) to what numbers will follow.

1 ... ... 3 4 5 ... 7 ... ... 10 ... ...
2 ... 6 ... 10 12 ... ... ... 20

ToE makes accurate predictions and has the tools of technology to better refine the Theory so much so that even if we were to remove Darwin from the picture we still will have ToE as sound as it can be.

Anyone who dismisses ToE should never seek medical help nor accept chemistry and biology. Why even the Atomic theory should be discarded. Chemistry depends on the Atomic theory and biology depends on chemistry, and medicine depends on biology. Now dismissing ToE is basically dismissing science altogether.

 

[stevevw]

Nothing is stopping anyone from commenting on anything! So long as you do it honestly, with a will to learn, yet also with a healthy degree of scepticism. However sometimes a bit of background knowledge is necessary to fully appreciate some nuances of whatever you're trying to understand. Fortunately ToE is, broadly, very easy to comprehend. Here we're talking about nuances such as HGT, which do require some explaining.

For this reason, when you want advice about your health you should go and talk to a doctor. When you want to know about Biology you should go and talk to a Biologist.

Some - fortunately very few - doctors, like Dr. Wakefield, lie to people because it's in their interest to. He patented separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella and then began a rather brilliantly engineered marketing/scaremongering campaign in an attempt to earn lots of money.

Some - fortunately very few - Biologists lie to people because it's in their interest to. They can't reconcile ToE with their (usually creationist) worldview, so they insist that ToE has to be wrong. Unfortunately the evidence is overwhelming for ToE.

The vast, eclipsing majority of Biologists understand that just because you want something to be true does not mean that it is true, and that science is a tool we use to understand the world to the closest degree possible. This demands objectivity, which in turn precludes bias.

So in short, if you can detect a vested interest, alarm bells should start to ring. EVERY page relating to ToE that is written by a christian apologist should trigger these bells.

Unfortunately the ones that are most skeptical that will ask the hard questions and push the limits of main stream evolution thinking are the religious ones. There are a few that seem neutral but still people view them as suspicions. Unless its a science site with good credentials then it wont be allowed.

I came to the conclusion that genetics would be the best way to prove or disprove evolution. The fossil records can sometimes be misinterpreted and some things have been proved wrong when they were used as an example. But now i am beginning to realize genetics is very complicated and to really understand enough to have some qualification you would have to have extensive knowledge.

I can understand some of the basics but that is limited as they are associated with other more complex mechanisms. So i am restricted in my participation until i learn more. I can get the basic premise of what someone is talking about with genetics when they explain it in more simpler terms but as a whole i cant really explain it myself in the context of the entire subject. Im beginning to think it might be easier to go back to the fossil records as that is a bit easier to understand.

 

[Ursus scientia]

Unfortunately the ones that are most skeptical that will ask the hard questions and push the limits of main stream evolution thinking are the religious ones. There are a few that seem neutral but still people view them as suspicions. Unless its a science site with good credentials then it wont be allowed.

You are right in a sense, but this form of scepticism doesn't seem scientific: in many instances religious sceptics tend to reject empirical evidence that more than meets the burden of proof.

There is very much still an academic debate on the subtleties of evolution: when exactly did we become bipedal, how does evolution tie in with psychology, etc. I'd argue these are hard questions that push ToE, the other questions posed by creationists have largely been answered.

If you're interested, iTunesU and MIT Open courseware have lectures available on genetics that you might find interesting.

 

[mzungu]

You are right in a sense, but this form of scepticism doesn't seem scientific: in many instances religious sceptics tend to reject empirical evidence that more than meets the burden of proof.

There is very much still an academic debate on the subtleties of evolution: when exactly did we become bipedal, how does evolution tie in with psychology, etc. I'd argue these are hard questions that push ToE, the other questions posed by creationists have largely been answered.

If you're interested, iTunesU and MIT Open courseware have lectures available on genetics that you might find interesting.

If science did not make mistakes then we would not have progressed beyond blood letting!

 

[stevevw]

You are right in a sense, but this form of scepticism doesn't seem scientific: in many instances religious sceptics tend to reject empirical evidence that more than meets the burden of proof.

There is very much still an academic debate on the subtleties of evolution: when exactly did we become bipedal, how does evolution tie in with psychology, etc. I'd argue these are hard questions that push ToE, the other questions posed by creationists have largely been answered.

If you're interested, iTunesU and MIT Open courseware have lectures available on genetics that you might find interesting.

Thanks i may check it out when my brain stops hurting.

 

[ganan emeth]

You are right in a sense, but this form of scepticism doesn't seem scientific: in many instances religious sceptics tend to reject empirical evidence that more than meets the burden of proof.

There is very much still an academic debate on the subtleties of evolution: when exactly did we become bipedal, how does evolution tie in with psychology, etc. I'd argue these are hard questions that push ToE, the other questions posed by creationists have largely been answered.

If you're interested, iTunesU and MIT Open courseware have lectures available on genetics that you might find interesting.

Not sure who is apologizing for what with apologists. No apology here. God Is The Creator, and The King.
For DNA it is something that has been so much covered recently it is hard to miss some very interesting information. And note this is about DNA in reference to evolushun.

1)DNA is so incredibly complicated the chancess of randomly mixing things to get just the 20 amino acids together are deemed as impossible.
2)DNA is in the necleus of a cell, too small to see even the cell, yet made straight it is over 6 FEET in length, 2 meters... just one DNA.
3)It is said that one person's DNA from their entire body made straight would go from earth to the moon and back 5 MILlion times.
4)The complexity of one DNA code is apparently sufficient to encode the entire library of congress, in one DNA!
5)Information to make a jpg image on this screen is complicated... consider what it must mean when the DNA not only represents instruction for our appearance, but the code to read the code, the code to reproduce the code, the entire instruction of every functional component, and the instructions on performing the functions.
5)Someone said that not only does the information in DNA read in one direction, but in sections and overlapping sections it reads many different ways, it may read backwards in the same way. Just one direction is extremely impressive.
6)Are there any DNA in organisms that are not exactly this construction? Not personally knowing this, do you know? Surely the amount of info must vary for different things, but are they not all made in exactly the same format?
7)Apart from the technicalities... have you ever looked into the things predicted by God in The Bible and looked around us? It is getting late dear friend, i ask that you take an objective look at things, if you can.



And the waters are healed unto this day, according to the word of Elisha, that he spake. And he goeth up thence to Beth-El, and he is going up in the way, and little youths have come out from the city, and scoff at him, and say to him, `Go up, bald-head! go up, bald-head!' And he looketh behind him, and seeth them, and declareth them vile in the name of Jehovah, and two bears come out of the forest, and rend of them forty and two lads.
(2Ki 2:22-24) Healing waters cames first here
Since you quoted this i felt it very important to point out this simple truth, the youth here were offending a man following The Lord's Will here on earth... what shall God's response be to those offending Him? Just for consideration. Since i trust Him, we all know He Is.

What a hard thing it is to come to be sorry for being directly against Him, but i have know two men who came to respect Him even after cursing at Him. Many more soon, if He allows.

hope The Best for you.

 

[[serious]]

Evolution was a mechanism used by The Creator to bring about life:
But it was a step-ladder style evolution; NOT Darwinian style continuous & spontaneous evolution.

The sciency term for step like evolution is punctuated equilibrium.

i think you would do well to seek out some further formal training on what modern evolutionary theory actually says. You may find that there isn't as much distance between your views and theirs after all.

 

[Ursus scientia]

1)DNA is so incredibly complicated the chancess of randomly mixing things to get just the 20 amino acids together are deemed as impossible.
2)DNA is in the necleus of a cell, too small to see even the cell, yet made straight it is over 6 FEET in length, 2 meters... just one DNA.
3)It is said that one person's DNA from their entire body made straight would go from earth to the moon and back 5 MILlion times.
4)The complexity of one DNA code is apparently sufficient to encode the entire library of congress, in one DNA!
5)Information to make a jpg image on this screen is complicated... consider what it must mean when the DNA not only represents instruction for our appearance, but the code to read the code, the code to reproduce the code, the entire instruction of every functional component, and the instructions on performing the functions.
5)Someone said that not only does the information in DNA read in one direction, but in sections and overlapping sections it reads many different ways, it may read backwards in the same way. Just one direction is extremely impressive.
6)Are there any DNA in organisms that are not exactly this construction? Not personally knowing this, do you know? Surely the amount of info must vary for different things, but are they not all made in exactly the same format?
7)Apart from the technicalities... have you ever looked into the things predicted by God in The Bible and looked around us? It is getting late dear friend, i ask that you take an objective look at things, if you can.
.

Hello again!

1) DNA is complex. Its formation was likely not random. But this has nothing to do with whether DNA undergoes mutations, whether those mutations lead to an altered phenotype, whether that phenotype is acted on by selection pressures, and whether that leads to speciation. This point is irrelevent.
2)3)4)A molecule of DNA is small/long/complex. Its formation was likely not random. But this has nothing to do with whether DNA undergoes mutations, whether those mutations lead to an altered phenotype, whether that phenotype is acted on by selection pressures, and whether that leads to speciation. These points are irrelevent.
5) Most of our DNA does not play any meaningful part in what makes us human. The DNA that does is relatively well understood by scientists and contains repeats and motifs we can use to track how it changed over time through evolution.
5 again) DNA is complex and messy and the same stretch of DNA can exert a number of effects. That's why we have genetic diseases like cancer, muscular dystrophy, familial alzheimer's disease, etc. Go to any children's hospital and visit the ward they reserve for children with terminal, genetic illnesses. It will likely be alarmingly full. Mutations can be good or bad, but they happen. This has little to do with evolution.
6) DNA developed (comparitively) early on in life and its stability and functional potency as a replicating unit has made it ubiquitous. RNA, a potential precursor, is still used as a genetic storage molecule by viruses and an intermediary information molecule in all modern forms of life, from bacteria to humans. This doesn't diminish evolutionary theory.
7) The Bible is a storybook to me. I don't see any reason to ascribe it any authority.

Sorry, you're simply not offering me any valid, scientific criticism. It might help if you studied the theory before trying to address it, as your claims seem to come from a complexity=design line of thought which is patently false. Many complex things, such as a volcanic eruption, are not designed. Many simple things, like a paperclip, are.

I have my signature because I like bears. : P I'm not quite sure what you're reading into it though.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unfortunately the ones that are most skeptical that will ask the hard questions and push the limits of main stream evolution thinking are the religious ones.

No they aren't. Twisting scientific data and using quote mines does not improve the science, and that is all that creationists are capable of.

Unless its a science site with good credentials then it wont be allowed.

Creationist sites twist the data and use quote mines. That's the problem.

The way to solve that is to read the original peer reviewed papers written by the scientists who did the actual science. That is what you should be referencing. A peer reviewed article will have an introduction, methods, results, and discussion section. It will detail experiments done by the authors themselves. If you are quoting anything other than these types of papers then stop and find the original paper that others are referencing.

I came to the conclusion that genetics would be the best way to prove or disprove evolution. The fossil records can sometimes be misinterpreted and some things have been proved wrong when they were used as an example. But now i am beginning to realize genetics is very complicated and to really understand enough to have some qualification you would have to have extensive knowledge.

I can understand some of the basics but that is limited as they are associated with other more complex mechanisms. So i am restricted in my participation until i learn more. I can get the basic premise of what someone is talking about with genetics when they explain it in more simpler terms but as a whole i cant really explain it myself in the context of the entire subject. Im beginning to think it might be easier to go back to the fossil records as that is a bit easier to understand.

I think Dr. Francis Collins qualifies as an expert. He is the former head of the NIH Human Genome Project, and current Director of the NIH. He is also a devout evangelical christian. He had this to say:

"Arguments against macroevolution, based on so-called gaps in the fossil records, are also profoundly weakened by the much more detailed and digital information revealed from the study of genomes. Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"

The reason that he says this is because of papers like this one,

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

In that paper, they show how ERV's are strong evidence for human-ape common ancestry.

 

[ganan emeth]

Not sure who is apologizing for what with apologists. No apology here. God Is The Creator, and The King.
For DNA it is something that has been so much covered recently it is hard to miss some very interesting information. And note this is about DNA in reference to evolushun.

1)DNA is so incredibly complicated the chancess of randomly mixing things to get just the 20 amino acids together are deemed as impossible.
2)DNA is in the necleus of a cell, too small to see even the cell, yet made straight it is over 6 FEET in length, 2 meters... just one DNA.
3)It is said that one person's DNA from their entire body made straight would go from earth to the moon and back 5 MILlion times.
4)The complexity of one DNA code is apparently sufficient to encode the entire library of congress, in one DNA!
5)Information to make a jpg image on this screen is complicated... consider what it must mean when the DNA not only represents instruction for our appearance, but the code to read the code, the code to reproduce the code, the entire instruction of every functional component, and the instructions on performing the functions.
5)Someone said that not only does the information in DNA read in one direction, but in sections and overlapping sections it reads many different ways, it may read backwards in the same way. Just one direction is extremely impressive.
6)Are there any DNA in organisms that are not exactly this construction? Not personally knowing this, do you know? Surely the amount of info must vary for different things, but are they not all made in exactly the same format?
7)Apart from the technicalities... have you ever looked into the things predicted by God in The Bible and looked around us? It is getting late dear friend, i ask that you take an objective look at things, if you can.



And the waters are healed unto this day, according to the word of Elisha, that he spake. And he goeth up thence to Beth-El, and he is going up in the way, and little youths have come out from the city, and scoff at him, and say to him, `Go up, bald-head! go up, bald-head!' And he looketh behind him, and seeth them, and declareth them vile in the name of Jehovah, and two bears come out of the forest, and rend of them forty and two lads.
(2Ki 2:22-24) Healing waters cames first here
Since you quoted this i felt it very important to point out this simple truth, the youth here were offending a man following The Lord's Will here on earth... what shall God's response be to those offending Him? Just for consideration. Since i trust Him, we all know He Is.

What a hard thing it is to come to be sorry for being directly against Him, but i have know two men who came to respect Him even after cursing at Him. Many more soon, if He allows.

hope The Best for you.

No need for me to hunt around for the evidence, you know you have no truth in evolution as a whole. Nothing without God and nothing random.
Honestly i am no biologist, but if DNA is the instruction set for our construction, WOW! Could a jpg picture happen by accident if you turn loose a windstorm in the computer? an mpg video? DNA is much more complicated, we are occupying a 3 dimentional body capable of some pretty amazing things, most of them are automated functions. Do some research about information as talked about in science, as far as i would guess most would say it could not be accidental.

God created each kind with a tremendous ability to produce offspring, always the same kind as the parents but with lots of variations in their construction. You see a litter of dogs and you see a great variety often.
You also know that there is God, you may not know a lot about Him... yet. Hope so though.

If you would like to know a little more detail go and find "Beyond Coincidence" on youtube. He can help you if you humble yourself and ask Him. You are here. The only thing you have to lose is death.
Fascinating to see truth in science, but some say there is no truth in order to avoid it and God. Scoffers seldom want truth...

 

[Subduction Zone]

No need for me to hunt around for the evidence, you know you have no truth in evolution. You also know that there is God, you may not know a lot about Him... yet.

If you would like to know a little more detail go and find "Beyond Coincidence" on youtube. Scoffers seldom want truth... He still can help you if you humble yourself and ask Him. You are here.
Fascinating to see truth in science, but you would likely say there is no truth in order to aswage your conscience.

Why did you quote your own nonsensical post?

If you make a positive claim then it is up to you to provide evidence for it. Otherwise we can treat it the way you would treat the rantings of a Muslim or Hindu, laugh at you and ignore you.

Now we have more than enough evidence for evolution and there is no need to listen to some fool on YouTube who probably does not understand the theory he is trying to debunk. It is rather laughable, like watching a kid who failed math trying to show that 0.(9) ( which is an alternate way of writing point nine repeating) is not equal to one.

Now you may have been scoffed at. If you believe in such fairy tales as Adam and Eve or Noah's Ark you should not expect anything less. The evidence against those stories is monumental, yet some self delusional people still believe them because of a book of myth.

 

[Loudmouth]

No need for me to hunt around for the evidence, you know you have no truth in evolution.

So all of those Christian biologists who say that there is tons of DNA evidence supporting evolution, they are just lying?

 

[sfs]

No need for me to hunt around for the evidence, you know you have no truth in evolution.

Sorry, but I know no such thing. I just spent two hours discussing how we should be studying evolution in our research institute for the next ten years. There were far more avenues to pursue than we could possibly have the resources to work on. One of the problems we have that evolution is involved in most areas of the work we do in our (very large) biomedical institute, so singling out a few topics is difficult. Why do you think none of us know how to do our jobs?

 

[mathetes123]

Sorry, but I know no such thing. I just spent two hours discussing how we should be studying evolution in our research institute for the next ten years. There were far more avenues to pursue than we could possibly have the resources to work on. One of the problems we have that evolution is involved in most areas of the work we do in our (very large) biomedical institute, so singling out a few topics is difficult. Why do you think none of us know how to do our jobs?

If evolution takes millions or billions of years how can it benefit scientists who don't live long enough to observe this change and are reduced to speculating over what might have happened.

 

[Loudmouth]

If evolution takes millions or billions of years how can it benefit scientists who don't live long enough to observe this change and are reduced to speculating over what might have happened.

We don't have to speculate. We can use evidence to determine what happened in the past.

More importantly, do you think human curiosity is something we should avoid? I personally believe that one of our greatest human attributes is our curiosity. Even if new knowledge has zero practical use, so what? We are a species of explorers and learners. Knowledge is a benefit unto itself.

 

[freezerman2000]

If evolution takes millions or billions of years how can it benefit scientists who don't live long enough to observe this change and are reduced to speculating over what might have happened.

Here's some benefits...
Why evolution matters — evolution.ws

 

[stevevw]

Why dont we see evolution at work now. If a reptile grew wings or a a dog grew webbed feet and the fins why dont we see the beginnings of wings in anything. Not complete wings as they have to start somewhere they just dont pop out overnight. We see a duck with web feet is that going to turn into a fish one day.

The creatures that they say evolved into whales are shown with web feet. How did scientist decide they had web feet when all they had was bones. Did they assume this because it had some similar features. If so that is no proof that is an assumption.