Ultimate "blind" proof of Darwinian Evolution

[David Blacklock]

Hi Anita,

The thing is, Anita, The way the DNA evidence unfolds, there's no question that God did it through evolution. It's like all the other sciences. For every scientist making an assertion, there are hundreds that would like to prove him wrong. The things that end up surviving in mainstream science are strong indeed.

Suppose Joe took a test and the teacher accused him of cheating off of Sam. Apparently, they had all the same right answers on the test and the same wrong answers. Sam and Joe said, well, that was because they studied together. Okay, maybe, but then the teacher points out that on the discussion question, they mispelled the same three words and made the same three grammatical errors. They were caught.

That is the way it is with DNA geneologies. The errors that don't matter continue to pass down because the progeny don't die. Those who deny the validity of evolution are caught, just like Joe and Sam, by these errors.

DB

[Anita]

David,

I'm not understanding you, can you elaborate a little more?

[Himantolophus]

Look Himan, I don't know all the answers to these questions either. That's why I'm here to discuss them. What I had stated was in my own “opinion” and I tend to be G-d orientated, so of course I am going to refute all evolutionary prospects.

but therein lays a critical problem. You state:

so of course I am going to refute all evolutionary prospects

yet, you just stated the sentence before:

Look Himan, I don't know all the answers to these questions either.

If you cannot answer those questions, then you can't begin to even try and refute evolution. You cannot refute what we are saying by quoting an ambiguous Bible passage. On the flip side, if you can't answer those questions your YEC position is rendered intenable by the opposition. Sp basically, there is no debate, just a one-sided argument.
That's why I get frustrated by YEC's that do not answer questions. They assert and assert that this and that are true yet they cannot back it up with evidence nor can they rebut arguments used against their position by OEC/TE/evolutionary biologists. This is the reason why I am short on patience.

[Anita]

Yes I am going to refute them with my opinions, but that doesn't mean that I know all the answers (just like I said).

[zoegirl]

[DB 1506 (9); OAB 37] It is claimed that the case for a young Earth is strengthened by the calculation that the current world population could be produced from only two people in 4,000 years, using the appropriate exponential arithmetic (Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1987 edition, pp.167-169). The fallacy in this claim, of course, is that the human population has not been growing at a steady rate. This is a classic One-Sided Equation, failing to consider factors that limit the population. Human population is limited mainly by its ability to feed itself, and until the past few hundred years, that limitation (combined with humanity's lower ability in the past to cope with natural catastrophes) has kept the population steady and fairly low. Only recently have we had the technology to remove these environmental limitations, resulting in a population explosion. Therefore, it is not valid to extrapolate the current rate of growth, which is much less affected by its past limitations, back in time.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... s.html#pop

[David Blacklock]

Hi Anita,

I'll give it a try, but this is a little hard to simplify:


Think of our DNA to be a messy storage attic that may have some useful items, but tends to filled with "junk". Both the junk and useful stuff are similar in closely related species, more so than they are in less related species. The difference between the "stuff" in the attic increases as species diverge.

There are several different types of mutations and millions of places on the genome where a given mutation might happen. When mutations occur in active coding genes (>2% of the genome), an impaired embryo usually results and neither the new life-form nor the new mutation survives. The mutations that occur in most non-coding segments of DNA have no effect on the embryo, so the life-form is normal, and any mutations (attic junk) accumulate harmlessly in that life-form and its descendants. The combination of what type of mutation (attic junk) it is and where it is in the genome is highly unique, like a birthmark - something recognizable. Because they are so unique, the courts use them for paternity testing and identity evidence. Others are used by scientists to find things out, such as to fine-tune the "tree of life." The earlier on the tree of life the mutation occurs, the more species will carry it. Our DNA is full of these gene-prints left by our ancestors. Tracking fossil evidence in DNA means following the histories of this “junk in the attic” in non-coding DNA segments.

With a boost from the human genome project, hundreds of species' genomes have been published in the last few years. Studying DNA sequences in species thought to be closely related shows exactly when one species branched off in relation to the other. Since you can use this method for all living things, including living species that haven't changed in 400 million years, molecular biologists are having a field day. A few species have been relocated but by and large, the tree of life painstakingly put together from fossil and geological evidence by paleontologists has been confirmed.

DB

[godslanguage]

Anita, just one thing, when David B. tells us that DNA is a messy storage attic and that it contains non-coding DNA in one sentence, we know that he is just stating his opinion, since even Wiki defines junk DNA as such:

In molecular biology, junk DNA is a provisional label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has been identified. Scientists expect to find functions for some, but not all, of this provisionally classified collection. About 95% of the human genome has been designated as "junk", including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA. While much of this sequence may be an evolutionary artifact that serves no present-day purpose, some junk DNA may function in ways that are not currently understood. Moreover, the conservation of some junk DNA over many millions of years of evolution may imply an essential function. Some consider the "junk" label as something of a misnomer, but others consider it appropriate as junk is stored away for possible new uses, rather than thrown out; others prefer the term "noncoding DNA" (although junk DNA often includes transposons that encode proteins with no clear value to their host genome). About 80% of the bases in the human genome may be transcribed,[1] but transcription does not necessarily imply function.

and since Wiki defines DNA as such:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses.

The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information

. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.

...the difference is substantial, David's underlying bias is showing.

[Anita]

Hi David,

Is this like the Jurassic park scenario where they merged dinosaurs DNA with that of a frogs?

I'm still not understanding this fully. what are we talking about here, mutations, gene sequencing, tandem repeats, duplications, copies or sequencing???

[David Blacklock]

Hi GL, I agree with everything in your post.

Hi Anita,

It is asking way too much to expect someone without a science background to follow this completely, but here is my paraphrase of the below article. There was a nice picture of comparative chromosomes that didn't make it through the scan.

“Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry” by Robert
Williams, from The Evolution Evidence Page at http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

Here is striking evidence for the common ancestry of humans and the great apes independently of the usual paleontological, morphological, and molecular phylogenetic data that we usually see.
Looking at the chromosomes of humans and the living great apes (orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee), it is immediately apparent that there is a great deal of similarity between the number and overall appearance of the chromosomes across the four different species. The four species have a similar number of chromosomes, with the apes all having 24 pairs, and humans having 23 pairs. The fact that humans have 23 chromosomes and the other three have 24 — tells us the fusion of chromosome two and three occurred in the future homo species after chimps split off from the common ancestor of chimps and humans.
Most of the chromosomal differences among the four species involve inversions - localities on the chromosome that have been inverted, or swapped end for end. This is a relatively common occurrence among many species, and has been documented in humans. An inversion usually does not reduce fertility.
There are two potential explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. The evidence favors a fusion event in the human line. This presents two predictions. Since the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the ends of chromosomes (called the telomere ) have a distinctive structure from the rest of the chromosome, there may be evidence of this structure in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the fusion apparently occurred. Also, since both of the chromosomes that hypothetically were fused had a centromere (the distinctive central part of the chromosome), we should see some evidence of two centromeres.

The first prediction (evidence of a telomere at the fusion point) is shown to be true. Telomeres in humans have been shown to consist of head to tail repeats of the bases 5'TTAGGG running toward the end of the chromosome. Furthermore, there is a characteristic pattern of the base pairs in what is called the pre-telomeric region, the region just before the telomere. When the vicinity of chromosome 2 where the fusion is expected to occur (based on comparison to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q) is examined, we see first sequences that are characteristic of the pre-telomeric region, then a section of telomeric sequences, and then another section of pre-telomeric sequences. Furthermore, in the telomeric section, it is observed that there is a point where instead of being arranged head to tail, the telomeric repeats suddenly reverse direction - becoming (CCCTAA)3' instead of 5'(TTAGGG), and the second pre-telomeric section is also the reverse of the first telomeric section. This pattern is precisely as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of the chimpanzee (ancestor) 2p and 2q chromosomes, and in precisely the expected location. Note that the CCCTAA sequence is the reversed complement of TTAGGG (C pairs with G, and T pairs with A).
The second prediction: The normal centromere found on human chromosome 2 lines up with the 2p chimp chromosome, and the remnants of the 2q chromosome is found at the expected location based upon the banding pattern.
Some may raise the objection, how could the first human ancestor with the fusion have successfully reproduced? The last remaining species of wild horse, Przewalski's (sha-val-skis) Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes while the domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number, Przewalski's Wild Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossed and do produce fertile offspring.
Now, the question has to be asked - if the similarities of the chromosomes are due only to common design rather than common ancestry, why are the remnants of a telomere and centromere (that should never have existed) found at exactly the positions predicted by a naturalistic fusion of the chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?
Another chromosomal rearrangement has recently been discovered, this one shared both by humans and chimpanzees, but not found in any of the other monkeys or apes that were tested. This rearrangement was the movement of about 100,000 DNA pairs from human chromosome 1 to the Y chromosome10. See "The Promise of Comparative Genomics in Mammals" Science, Oct. 1999 to learn how similar chromosomal comparisons are being used to map the evolutionary relationships of all living mammals.

DB

[Himantolophus]

Yes I am going to refute them with my opinions, but that doesn't mean that I know all the answers (just like I said).

your opinion does not equal a refutation. But I'll throw you a bone just to get answers. I'd like to see you give your best possible "refutations" to all of those questions I posted before.

But since you asked previously in this thread to do the math for the worlds population and I refused at the time, but I will now put forth that information.

Briefly, we have a current population of approximately 7 billion people on the planet today. Now we've been taken population censuses ever since biblical times and it has been determined that the world population has historically doubled every 150 years. Upon which the 7 billion population we have today is equivalent to 8 people walking off an ark and 150 years later there are only 12 people (give or take a few) on the earth and 300 years later 24 people (give or take a few) on the earth, you find out you only have to double 30 times to get the current population of the world 30x150 years means they walked off that ark after the great flood approximately 4500 years ago. Its not a perfect method or estimation, but it sure does agree with G-d's word. Genesis 7:21 - And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. Job 22:15-17 - Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood: Which said unto G-d, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them? 2 Peter 3:6 - Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

there's one questiopn addressed, and immediately you fall smack into a fallacious argument

See the Bunny Blunder:
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bunny.html

there has only been exponential growth for the past couple hundred years.... prior to that man's population remained steady or increased slowly for thousands of years due to things like war, famine, lack of resources, even predation. Only when Man was advanced to the point we are today did we see growth rates increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg
this is what the Earth's population has looked like since 10000BC

[Anita]

Its very interesting David, but I'll tell you what I think about it all.

So we share common chromosomes with apes and chimps. Did you know that we also share the same chromosomes with cats. Our X and Y chromosomes are remarkably alike. Additionally, these same X and Y chromosomes are also found within mice.

[David Blacklock]

Oh, sweet Anita, there are hundreds of transitional forms. You just aren't willing to see the power of evidence.

DB

[Himantolophus]

Anita: off topic: why don't you ever type "God" in your posts? I've never heard of Christians doing that.

So we share common chromosomes with apes and chimps. Did you know that we also share the same chromosomes with cats. Our X and Y chromosomes are remarkably alike. Additionally, these same X and Y chromosomes are also found within mice.

These genes are miraculous because they have MAINTAINED identical order and spacing over the millennia.

These genes also seem to be associated with sex and sperm production, and the significance of this is that it may help scientists better understand male infertility, human genetics, and may even help preserve endangered cat species. Additionally, there are many human hereditary diseases also manifest in cats, including diabetes, Tay Sachs disease and hemophilia. Furthermore, certain viruses behave in cats much as they do in humans. Feline leukemia and FIV, the Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (which is very similar to HIV), rank high on this list. So the significance in all this is that it may help us find the cures to our most debilitating human diseases.

you think that this indicates "designer", scientists see the same thing and think "common descent". Depending on who you talk to both can make sense.

But in my opinion this does not suggest that we evolved from cats or mice. All this simply means is that for what ever reasons we share the same genes.

no one says we evolved from cats and mice

Or it may also mean that G-d in His infinite wisdom put animals on the earth to benefit and aid mankind. In the same breath G-d may also be trying to tell us the opposite such as humans catching the HIV virus from infected monkeys that we are not suppose to mate. Genesis 2:18 - The LORD G-d said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

there are a lot of things on Earth that are detrimental to mankind or else do nothing of any significance for mankind. And why would humans catch HIV from monkeys if they werem't closely related? If humans were a "special creation", shouldn't we have been created immune to the diseases of "ordinary" mammals?

One thing is for sure though, cats are cats and dogs are dogs and apes and monkeys are apes and monkeys and humans are humans. None of this constitutes or brings forth any authentically found transitional forms.

what transitional forms do you want to see?

[godslanguage]

there are a lot of things on Earth that are detrimental to mankind or else do nothing of any significance for mankind. And why would humans catch HIV from monkeys if they werem't closely related? If humans were a "special creation", shouldn't we have been created immune to the diseases of "ordinary" mammals?

Himan, depending on what you mean by special I don't see this as an argument against special creation (if that is what you are implying). Special is not a very technical term, in this case I'm not sure whether its relative to God alone, physiology, other creation or all of these.

...but anyways, nothing to argue about here.

On a side note, "God made man perfect" never appears in any verses and for good reasons.

[Anita]

Oh, sweet Anita, there are hundreds of transitional forms. You just aren't willing to see the power of evidence.

Oh there is evidence all right… evidence of a creator in action. Just because we share genes/chromosomes with other living things does not imply in any way that we are in a transitional state between them.