When Asked this Question, Darwinians are Silent

[Archie Dupont]

I have issues with the Darwinian philosophy of natural history for one reason, the Scriptures are clear, God created life. If you are anyone else is convinced that Darwinian evolution has made it's case conclusively I say go in peace I have no problem with you. I'm just not going to pretend what they are telling me about the actual scientific evidence is true when I know for a fact it's otherwise.
Mark

I never denied that evolution is a real phenomenon in nature, I never suggested anything of the sort.

This sound actually a lot like denying the idea of darwinism (evolution red.), so don't try to water down your original argument to aid your position later in the discussion. You clearly have a problem with evolution and are using this human-ape comparison story as an example, not just as an incidental mathrpoblem. Don't try to make it anything less because it will deligitimise your entire position.

Stick with your original story

 

[Job 33:6]

I still dont understand what this topic is even about. An argument being made about a "recipe for extinction" and a quoted source document on ethics behind the treatment of chimpanzees. This is like a bad comedy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Talk Origins is a propaganda tool for Darwinians who made a statement that is impossible to reconcile to the facts. You might have no problem with a deletion of 3 million base pairs but the respective genomes would. Such mutations on this scale would be deleterious at best and we have every reason to believe they would be lethal on an epic scale. That's why the response is effectively silence.

I have no problem ignoring Talk Origins for lack of value.
It doesn't even rate as a tool with value to those wanting to
learn what they are attempting to promote.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have no problem ignoring Talk Origins for lack of value.
It doesn't even rate as a tool with value to those wanting to
learn what they are attempting to promote.

It speaks to the fact that they have many willing victims. Anyone could catch the obvious error and by the way, I seen one of the authors make the same false statement. I used to try to calculate what the mutation rate would have to be which is pointless when you can't get people to honestly acknowledge the divergence due th indels.

 

[SkyWriting]

It speaks to the fact that they have many willing victims. Anyone could catch the obvious error and by the way, I seen one of the authors make the same false statement. I used to try to calculate what the mutation rate would have to be which is pointless when you can't get people to honestly acknowledge the divergence due th indels.

Diverted infidels, exactly.

 

[mark kennedy]

Diverted infidels, exactly.

That's divergence thought to be due to indels.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

At one time I was on the brink of becoming a Theistic Evolutionist, I had reorganized my theology and was ready to concede. Then the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome came out in 2005, just three years after joining CF. It was a whole different ball game after that. I have an obvious error I uncovered in Talk Origins, there is no defending it, there is no talking around it. Evolutionists get conspicuously silent when confronted with the indels. I'm trying to avoid the long technical discussions I could add to the OP, this is a simple math question.

-----------------------taken from another discussion---------------------

I have issues with the Darwinian philosophy of natural history for one reason, the Scriptures are clear, God created life. If you are anyone else is convinced that Darwinian evolution has made it's case conclusively I say go in peace I have no problem with you. I'm just not going to pretend what they are telling me about the actual scientific evidence is true when I know for a fact it's otherwise. This is what I'm talking about, a statement that is corrected and easily refuted with basic math:

The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). (Talk Origins, Claim CB144)
​

The question is what is 1.23% plus 3%, this isn't a trick question, it's not between 1% and 2% it's 4.23%. That's not my opinion, that's not my interpretation, that's exactly what the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome paper, that they specifically cite, actually says:

Genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events,

• Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
• we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb
• the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb.

This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
​

That is their cited source material, the comparison is base pairs, NOT NUMBER OF EVENTS. The number of events does not change the percentage, it's explicitly stated in the paper. No Creationist would get away with such an obvious misstatement, accidental, intentional or otherwise.

The question is simple, did Talk Origins get this statement right, yes or no?

There is nothing complicated about this, it's as simple as 3 plus 1.23, there is no way it's between 1 and 2 percent. Not once have I seen an evolutionist honestly admit this statement is obviously in error. If I can't trust someone with the obvious, why would I take them seriously with the obscure?

If your a Creationist and trying to make a point and the Darwinians have you on the ropes. Just point this one out. They will either change the subject or go silent, at least that's been my experience. Try it sometime.

Grace and peace,
Mark

A good response.

P.S.

There are many answers on our side. They have far fewer answers.

They tend to ignorant and conceited... as do many people these days, and I know why.

 

[mark kennedy]

A good response.

P.S.

There are many answers on our side. They have far fewer answers.

They tend to ignorant and conceited... as do many people these days, and I know why.

Glad you enjoyed the posts, I've always liked the things the opposing view can't deny. I enjoy these kind of exchanges until it gets bogged down in semantics and rationalizations. I was kind of hoping we would get into some of the scientific literature before this gets too wordy.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

A good response.

P.S.

There are many answers on our side. They have far fewer answers.

They tend to ignorant and conceited... as do many people these days, and I know why.

Yes, sadly aware of that. BTW I am 47. Spent much of the 90s trying to make sense out of everything is why... *trust fund baby*

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Glad you enjoyed the posts, I've always liked the things the opposing view can't deny. I enjoy these kind of exchanges until it gets bogged down in semantics and rationalizations. I was kind of hoping we would get into some of the scientific literature before this gets too wordy.

You are one smart man.

And smart is brilliant.

Because...

 

[mindlight]

At one time I was on the brink of becoming a Theistic Evolutionist, I had reorganized my theology and was ready to concede. Then the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome came out in 2005, just three years after joining CF. It was a whole different ball game after that. I have an obvious error I uncovered in Talk Origins, there is no defending it, there is no talking around it. Evolutionists get conspicuously silent when confronted with the indels. I'm trying to avoid the long technical discussions I could add to the OP, this is a simple math question.

-----------------------taken from another discussion---------------------

I have issues with the Darwinian philosophy of natural history for one reason, the Scriptures are clear, God created life. If you are anyone else is convinced that Darwinian evolution has made it's case conclusively I say go in peace I have no problem with you. I'm just not going to pretend what they are telling me about the actual scientific evidence is true when I know for a fact it's otherwise. This is what I'm talking about, a statement that is corrected and easily refuted with basic math:

The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). (Talk Origins, Claim CB144)
​

The question is what is 1.23% plus 3%, this isn't a trick question, it's not between 1% and 2% it's 4.23%. That's not my opinion, that's not my interpretation, that's exactly what the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome paper, that they specifically cite, actually says:

Genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events,

• Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
• we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb
• the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb.

This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
​

That is their cited source material, the comparison is base pairs, NOT NUMBER OF EVENTS. The number of events does not change the percentage, it's explicitly stated in the paper. No Creationist would get away with such an obvious misstatement, accidental, intentional or otherwise.

The question is simple, did Talk Origins get this statement right, yes or no?

There is nothing complicated about this, it's as simple as 3 plus 1.23, there is no way it's between 1 and 2 percent. Not once have I seen an evolutionist honestly admit this statement is obviously in error. If I can't trust someone with the obvious, why would I take them seriously with the obscure?

If your a Creationist and trying to make a point and the Darwinians have you on the ropes. Just point this one out. They will either change the subject or go silent, at least that's been my experience. Try it sometime.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Wish I had seen this before posting in another thread on the difference between apes and humans. If the size of the insertion or mutation is as large as millions of base pairs clearly macroevolution becomes a natural impossibility. If I was dedicated to evolution then I would have to cite a supernatural cause for such large and significant differences if I wanted to cling to this perspective!! ;-) Thanks for posting and sharing your insights.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wish I had seen this before posting in another thread on the difference between apes and humans. If the size of the insertion or mutation is as large as millions of base pairs clearly macroevolution becomes a natural impossibility. If I was dedicated to evolution then I would have to cite a supernatural cause for such large and significant differences if I wanted to cling to this perspective!! ;-) Thanks for posting and sharing your insights.

Apparently, it's been noted in the ongoing research you can have an indel millions of base pairs long effecting a significant number of genes. This would be very rare and it's not going to be permanently fixed. Mutations rather then being some driving force of adaptive evolution have dangerous deleterious effects. Actual adaptive evolution comes from large gene pools, mutations do nothing but shrink them. There are molecular mechanisms that adapt certain things in the genome but mutations are a failure of DNA repair. It becomes increasingly obvious as you become better acquainted with adaptive evolution and the effects of genetic mutations.

 

[mindlight]

Apparently, it's been noted in the ongoing research you can have an indel millions of base pairs long effecting a significant number of genes. This would be very rare and it's not going to be permanently fixed. Mutations rather then being some driving force of adaptive evolution have dangerous deleterious effects. Actual adaptive evolution comes from large gene pools, mutations do nothing but shrink them. There are molecular mechanisms that adapt certain things in the genome but mutations are a failure of DNA repair. It becomes increasingly obvious as you become better acquainted with adaptive evolution and the effects of genetic mutations.

So the 3 million base pair insertion or deletion you are referring to occurs in an indel. Indels are generally excluded from discussion by dedicated Darwinists cause they do not help the cause for common ancestry ideas about evolution. Indels have multiple effects on multiple genes. Removing one or inserting new ones would therefore have catastrophic impacts on those genes and the genome per see. Significant Mutations are mainly bad and mainly regressive. Actual adaptive evolution depends on larger gene pools and molecular mechanisms I clearly do not understand yet. Thanks for the correction.

Though clearly I did not fully understand your argument I meant to use the word deletion rather than mutation in my post. But one word makes all the difference to the meaning of what I said in this case. Change a million words and we are talking about a completely different subject. Which I suppose is the point here.

 

[mark kennedy]

So the 3 million base pair insertion or deletion you are referring to occurs in an indel. Indels are generally excluded from discussion by dedicated Darwinists cause they do not help the cause for common ancestry ideas about evolution. Indels have multiple effects on multiple genes. Removing one or inserting new ones would therefore have catastrophic impacts on those genes and the genome per see. Significant Mutations are mainly bad and mainly regressive. Actual adaptive evolution depends on larger gene pools and molecular mechanisms I clearly do not understand yet. Thanks for the correction.

Though clearly I did not fully understand your argument I meant to use the word deletion rather than mutation in my post. But one word makes all the difference to the meaning of what I said in this case. Change a million words and we are talking about a completely different subject. Which I suppose is the point here.

It sounds like you have a pretty good handle on this. Sometimes a sequence is inserted or deleted, they are usually fairly short but it can happen on a larger scale, that would be very rare and virtually never permanently fixed. When comparing Chimpanzee and Human genomes these indels would have had to be permanently fixed on a massive scale since human genomes only diverge between one another by a fraction of a percent. This would have had to happen on a massive scale about 2mya. That's not even the worst part, the evolution of the human brain from that of apes could never happen as a result of genetic mutations. Indeed, genes do evolve over time, but there is something called functional constraint where highly highly conserved genes don't.

 

[mindlight]

It sounds like you have a pretty good handle on this. Sometimes a sequence is inserted or deleted, they are usually fairly short but it can happen on a larger scale, that would be very rare and virtually never permanently fixed. When comparing Chimpanzee and Human genomes these indels would have had to be permanently fixed on a massive scale since human genomes only diverge between one another by a fraction of a percent. This would have had to happen on a massive scale about 2mya. That's not even the worst part, the evolution of the human brain from that of apes could never happen as a result of genetic mutations. Indeed, genes do evolve over time, but there is something called functional constraint where highly highly conserved genes don't.

So if a 3 million base pair indel was deleted. How would the genome or what genomic processes would attempt to fix that? Where is the line between a copy error that can be fixed and a large scale change that cannot be fixed? Since an indel impacts on so many genes it seems to me to be even more significant than the genes themselves in some ways. Something like comparing the chassis of a car with the bits you attach to that chassis e.g. seats, doors etc. Clearly you need the chassis for the rest to fit together and work properly.

There is new stuff in the human brain and a massive increase in neuron density and also a development of functionality by comparison to apes to far more complex levels. I agree that would be an impossible development by normal evolutionary processes and indeed is evidence of specific design. Commonalities between ape and human DNA are merely evidence of a Common Designer.

 

[mark kennedy]

So if a 3 million base pair indel was deleted. How would the genome or what genomic processes would attempt to fix that? Where is the line between a copy error that can be fixed and a large scale change that cannot be fixed? Since an indel impacts on so many genes it seems to me to be even more significant than the genes themselves in some ways. Something like comparing the chassis of a car with the bits you attach to that chassis e.g. seats, doors etc. Clearly you need the chassis for the rest to fit together and work properly.

One of the things that help clean up mutations in a genome is the fact that there are two set of chromosomes to choose from. The quest to understand the molecular mechanisms is ongoing but they do manage to fix mutations most of the time.

The three researchers carried out their work separately, unearthing different mechanisms cells use to fix problems in a range of cells. (3 Scientists Win Nobel Prize In Chemistry For DNA Repair Research. NPR. October 7, 2015)​

SPECTER: CRISPR is actually an ancient bacterial defense system. It's like an immune system for bacteria, which is surprising because for a long time, scientists didn't think bacteria had adaptive immune systems. But in 1987, some Japanese scientists were looking for something in DNA, and they saw this weird group of nucleotides, pieces of DNA. (New Gene-Editing Techniques Hold the Promise Of Altering The Fundamentals Of Life. NPR)
​

What they found out about the Crispr gene is that it was a mechanism that modified immune systems in bacteria. Now it's become this amazing gene editing tool. If you have 38 minutes to spare it's a fascinating interview.

There is new stuff in the human brain and a massive increase in neuron density and also a development of functionality by comparison to apes to far more complex levels. I agree that would be an impossible development by normal evolutionary processes and indeed is evidence of specific design. Commonalities between ape and human DNA are merely evidence of a Common Designer.

My thing is this, if things alike are arguments for common ancestry then it only makes sense that differences are an argument for separate creation. They will try to argue that we have no major differences but that is not what comparative genomics is revealing, quite the opposite.

Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with ∼29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage. (Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 2005)
​

Only 29% are identical with the ones that are 'extremely similar' diverging by, 'two amino acids, one per lineage'. This wouldn't have had millions of years to happen, or it wouldn't be identical throughout human genomes. When there is a difference due to mutations it virtually always deleterious and an amino acid substitution with a beneficial effect would be exceedingly rare.

Genetics is an acquired taste, but a fascinating pursuit. It's just been my experience that it's gold for creationists and raises questions the Darwinian doesn't have answers for.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mindlight]

One of the things that help clean up mutations in a genome is the fact that there are two set of chromosomes to choose from. The quest to understand the molecular mechanisms is ongoing but they do manage to fix mutations most of the time.

Actually I am still confused as to what an indel is. On Wikipedia it is described as an insertion deletion event that would not exceed 10000 base pairs. So when you talk about a 3 million base pair insertion deletion event are you looking at a single indel event resulting in the difference across multiple genes in chimpanzee and human DNA and counting a total of 3 million insertions and deletions?

Regarding genetic fixing having a base pair structure is the key to many fixes. Even if one half of the base pair is damaged the information for the repair is still there in the undamaged half. Are the repair mechanisms intrinsic to these base pairs or a separate mechanism. Also I guess an evolutionist would argue that this indel occurs over millions of years in small sustainable increments. So while the total difference of 3 million base pairs looks unsustainable as a single event it could be explained in terms of a process of smaller indels. How would you counter that?

The three researchers carried out their work separately, unearthing different mechanisms cells use to fix problems in a range of cells. (3 Scientists Win Nobel Prize In Chemistry For DNA Repair Research. NPR. October 7, 2015)

SPECTER: CRISPR is actually an ancient bacterial defense system. It's like an immune system for bacteria, which is surprising because for a long time, scientists didn't think bacteria had adaptive immune systems. But in 1987, some Japanese scientists were looking for something in DNA, and they saw this weird group of nucleotides, pieces of DNA. (New Gene-Editing Techniques Hold the Promise Of Altering The Fundamentals Of Life. NPR)
​

What they found out about the Crispr gene is that it was a mechanism that modified immune systems in bacteria. Now it's become this amazing gene editing tool. If you have 38 minutes to spare it's a fascinating interview.

The idea of a gene editing tool is both fantastic and deeply disturbing. While I would welcome that in terms of countering disease and premature aging the possibility of genetic engineering and bio weopans will fundamentally alter the level of risk we experience in our world.

It is incredibly cool to think that the cellular damage caused by carcogenic substances, hereditary mistakes built into our genes and the harmful effects of sunlight could be countered by a better understanding and control of cellular repair mechanisms. This research seems to be in its infancy but should really be a priority. In medicine for example drugs are not always so specific and may cause all sorts of unforeseen effects. If gene therapy becomes real it will precisely target and fix the problems. It is a whole new ball game for medicine if this becomes real and would allow preventative fixes etc. I happen also to believe that the best and brightest examples of humanity are actually glimpses of how we were all made to be. Whatever dampens our IQs or limits our capacities to use our brains and bodies as effectively as God intended may well be something that could be removed by such gene therapy whether in the womb or later in life.

My thing is this, if things alike are arguments for common ancestry then it only makes sense that differences are an argument for separate creation. They will try to argue that we have no major differences but that is not what comparative genomics is revealing, quite the opposite.

Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with ∼29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage. (Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 2005)
​

Only 29% are identical with the ones that are 'extremely similar' diverging by, 'two amino acids, one per lineage'. This wouldn't have had millions of years to happen, or it wouldn't be identical throughout human genomes. When there is a difference due to mutations it virtually always deleterious and an amino acid substitution with a beneficial effect would be exceedingly rare.

Genetics is an acquired taste, but a fascinating pursuit. It's just been my experience that it's gold for creationists and raises questions the Darwinian doesn't have answers for.

Grace and peace,
Mark

As you say comparative genomics reveals a vast number of significant differences. Mutation is not a good explanation for this development as it is mainly harmful. If humans evolved we would see more diversity in the human examples we have regarding these differences but actually humans are mainly the same. So the difference implies a separate creation not an evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually I am still confused as to what an indel is. On Wikipedia it is described as an insertion deletion event that would not exceed 10000 base pairs. So when you talk about a 3 million base pair insertion deletion event are you looking at the difference between a specific gene in chimpanzee and human DNA and counting a total of 3 million insertions and deletions in that comparison?

An indel is either an insertion or deletion of a DNA sequence, it's as simple as that, thus an indel. With the human genome project there began a comparison of human genomes, the thousand genome project for instance. There are documented instances where an insertion or deletion can be as many as 3 million base pairs including a significant number of genes but it is very rare. I've only seen it reported once and the details were scarce.

Regarding genetic fixing having a base pair structure is the key to many fixes. Even if one half of the base pair is damaged the information for the repair is still there in the undamaged half. Are the repair mechanisms intrinsic to these base pairs or a separate mechanism. Also I guess an evolutionist would argue that this indel occurs over millions of years in small sustainable increments. So while the total difference of 3 million base pairs looks unsustainable as a single event it could be explained in terms of a process of smaller indels. How would you counter that?

Sure they could accumulate over time in a certain lineage, there is just one problem, how would it be permanently fixed throughout the entire species? That process would have to be happening simultaneously is populations that are separated coming up with the exact same results. The Arctic Cod has this unique gene that produces an antifreeze protein coding gene. It has coevolved at least four times. They are all four different but they do the same thing and are really composed of simple repeats. If indels are becoming permanently fixed on this scale routinely we would expect vastly different DNA sequences.

The idea of a gene editing tool is both fantastic and deeply disturbing. While I would welcome that in terms of countering disease and premature aging the possibility of genetic engineering and bio weopans will fundamentally alter the level of risk we experience in our world.

Oh they want to use this on fetuses. It sounds like something out of a science fiction movie and there are profound ethical questions here.

It is incredibly cool to think that the cellular damage caused by carcogenic substances, hereditary mistakes built into our genes and the harmful effects of sunlight could be countered by a better understanding and control of cellular repair mechanisms. This research seems to be in its infancy but should really be a priority. In medicine for example drugs are not always so specific and may cause all sorts of unforeseen effects. If gene therapy becomes real it will precisely target and fix the problems. It is a whole new ball game for medicine if this becomes real and would allow preventative fixes etc. I happen also to believe that the best and brightest examples of humanity are actually glimpses of how we were all made to be. Whatever dampens our IQs or limits our capacities to use our brains and bodies as effectively as God intended may well be something that could be removed by such gene therapy whether in the womb or later in life.

It does spark the imagination and raise some grave concerns. This editing tool can literally cut and paste any DNA sequence. What interested me about this originally was that we have been told that the adaptation of immune systems was the result of mutations, it turns out there was a molecular mechanism responsible for the adaptive evolution of these immune systems. I remember the nylon eating bug was big for a while, supposedly demonstrating how random mutations had beneficial effects. When I got to the bottom of it I found that they were actually swapping out reading frames in the protein coding genes, this was not novel genetic coding. They are starting to realize that mutations are not the cause of evolution, they are a problem for it. The real work is being done by molecular mechanisms that are there by design.

As you say comparative genomics reveals a vast number of significant differences. Mutation is not a good explanation for this development as it is mainly harmful. If humans evolved we would see more diversity in the human examples we have regarding these differences but actually humans are mainly the same. So the difference implies a separate creation not an evolution.

Exactly.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mindlight]

An indel is either an insertion or deletion of a DNA sequence, it's as simple as that, thus an indel. With the human genome project there began a comparison of human genomes, the thousand genome project for instance. There are documented instances where an insertion or deletion can be as many as 3 million base pairs including a significant number of genes but it is very rare. I've only seen it reported once and the details were scarce.

Thanks again for a brilliant post. I think I understand enough to use your argument now. But how would you distinguish one indel from another - what makes this insertion or deletion part of this indel rather than another one? Do you have a link that an evolutionist would respect for that 3 million bp example.

Sure they could accumulate over time in a certain lineage, there is just one problem, how would it be permanently fixed throughout the entire species? That process would have to be happening simultaneously is populations that are separated coming up with the exact same results. The Arctic Cod has this unique gene that produces an antifreeze protein coding gene. It has coevolved at least four times. They are all four different but they do the same thing and are really composed of simple repeats. If indels are becoming permanently fixed on this scale routinely we would expect vastly different DNA sequences.

This is a killer argument in my view for a distinct and recent creation of Adam as the first man. That we are so interrelated and our genomes so relatively homogenous is not the pattern of a species with a diverse, localised and planet wide base in earlier forms. Rather it points to Adam being a common ancestor. As you say if we had coevolved on parallel lines there would be larger differences in how we evolved to cope with different challenges to our genome in different strands of humanity.

Oh they want to use this on fetuses. It sounds like something out of a science fiction movie and there are profound ethical questions here.

It does spark the imagination and raise some grave concerns. This editing tool can literally cut and paste any DNA sequence. What interested me about this originally was that we have been told that the adaptation of immune systems was the result of mutations, it turns out there was a molecular mechanism responsible for the adaptive evolution of these immune systems. I remember the nylon eating bug was big for a while, supposedly demonstrating how random mutations had beneficial effects. When I got to the bottom of it I found that they were actually swapping out reading frames in the protein coding genes, this was not novel genetic coding. They are starting to realize that mutations are not the cause of evolution, they are a problem for it. The real work is being done by molecular mechanisms that are there by design.

In the end evolution may well be defeated by market forces here. In the case of gene therapy theory comes back into the realm of practical medical or military application. If someone finds a way to extend human lifespans, cure cancer, Alzheimers or whatever then people will buy their cures. If in the name of healing they kill the people they try them on their theories will be discredited and they will go out of business or worse they will go to prison.

A creationist perspective on gene therapy seems to me that we were created perfect and that the recovery of Gods original design for us may actually solve most of our problems. Thus the attempt is there to find what works in people with good health and then compare that with damaged people and then fix them with the gene therapy tool. We can use the molecular mechanisms that God Himself designed for us to help us deal with the stuff that goes wrong. The mission of the healer becomes one of understanding what should be there and then restoring that using the mechanisms already present in the human host.

An evolutionist perspective by contrast is that we can evolve beyond our programming and that they can improve on Gods original design. My belief is that sometimes they may intend add some skill or feature to humanity that was not originally there but the effect will be an unbalanced organism that will not be sustainable in the long run. But mainly any changes they make are more likely to kill than heal and their perspective will therefore be discredited by failed implementations.

My worry is that the creationist perspective will be the one used in practiced but they will describe it in evolutionary language.

The ethics here seem to revolve around whether the healer is playing God or submitting to Gods Design. Whether he is arrogantly trying to exceed Gods Design or humbly trying to restore it to its previous and potential glory.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks again for a brilliant post. I think I understand enough to use your argument now. But how would you distinguish one indel from another - what makes this insertion or deletion part of this indel rather than another one? Do you have a link that an evolutionist would respect for that 3 million bp example.

Start with this:

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. (Mutations)​

It has descriptions of indel and how they effect protein coding genes, deleterious effects, disease and disorder. If you get beyond that there is always a chance you could get some information from the 1000 genome project but that's a lot of statistical data to wade through. Stay focused on the known effects of indels and you can't go wrong.

This is a killer argument in my view for a distinct and recent creation of Adam as the first man. That we are so interrelated and our genomes so relatively homogenous is not the pattern of a species with a diverse, localised and planet wide base in earlier forms. Rather it points to Adam being a common ancestor. As you say if we had coevolved on parallel lines there would be larger differences in how we evolved to cope with different challenges to our genome in different strands of humanity.

We know that adaptation can happen by epigentics (DNA doesn't change), random shuffling of genes, exon shuffling and a whole host of mechanisms not requiring mutations. Everything we as humans have in common must have been there in the genome of the common ancestor. Isn't it rather odd that the Chimpanzee has speciated twice, the Gorilla twice and even though we span the globe humans are still one homogenous species? If our species did this giant leap in adaptive evolution why are the no tangents, nodes or extended family members?

In the end evolution may well be defeated by market forces here. In the case of gene therapy theory comes back into the realm of practical medical or military application. If someone finds a way to extend human lifespans, cure cancer, Alzheimers or whatever then people will buy their cures. If in the name of healing they kill the people they try them on their theories will be discredited and they will go out of business or worse they will go to prison.

The biggest danger is things like inheritable traits and designer babies.

A creationist perspective on gene therapy seems to me that we were created perfect and that the recovery of Gods original design for us may actually solve most of our problems. Thus the attempt is there to find what works in people with good health and then compare that with damaged people and then fix them with the gene therapy tool. We can use the molecular mechanisms that God Himself designed for us to help us deal with the stuff that goes wrong. The mission of the healer becomes one of understanding what should be there and then restoring that using the mechanisms already present in the human host.

It never fails, you get a process by which you can put more nitrogen in fertilizer you learn how to build a bigger bomb. I don't know, maybe they will figure out how to eradicate Lyme disease and malaria through genetic editing. Only to learn how to build a super virus that can kill us all. This Crispr gene, is easy to use and you can put the whole lab together kind of cheap. It's a mad scientists dream come true, can't believe we are not seeing it in cinema yet.

An evolutionist perspective by contrast is that we can evolve beyond our programming and that they can improve on Gods original design. My belief is that sometimes they may intend add some skill or feature to humanity that was not originally there but the effect will be an unbalanced organism that will not be sustainable in the long run. But mainly any changes they make are more likely to kill than heal and their perspective will therefore be discredited by failed implementations.

Look, this isn't speculation, they actually have a zoo.

(Welcome to the CRISPR zoo. Birds and bees are just the beginning for a burgeoning technology. NPR)

My worry is that the creationist perspective will be the one used in practiced but they will describe it in evolutionary language.

The ethics here seem to revolve around whether the healer is playing God or submitting to Gods Design. Whether he is arrogantly trying to exceed Gods Design or humbly trying to restore it to its previous and potential glory.

When they start thinking they can guide evolution in this way, all bets are off. If you trifle with the forces of nature she does have ways of getting you back and that's by design. My biggest concern isn't so much what they have done propagating fossils but what happens when they really get good at designing new genomic mechanisms that can produce inheritable traits. There's a lot of promise here but there is a very real danger as well.

Grace and peace,
Mark