Evolution - Just show me the money!

[touchingcloth]

It's quite profound when you consider how the differences in our genomes vs that of chimps compares to the difference between our genomes and gorillas for example.

How does this equate to it being profound?

Because there are elements of the genome that humans and gorillas share, that are also shared by chimps (and if we find elements that are shared by humans and gorillas we know that they must be shared by chimps if it is true that all 3 species share common ancestors and that the human line diverged from that of gorillas before chimps). The same holds true as you add in other apes in the order form which the diverged from humans (or vice versa depending on how you look at it).

[DannyM]

Because there are elements of the genome that humans and gorillas share, that are also shared by chimps (and if we find elements that are shared by humans and gorillas we know that they must be shared by chimps if it is true that all 3 species share common ancestors and that the human line diverged from that of gorillas before chimps). The same holds true as you add in other apes in the order form which the diverged from humans (or vice versa depending on how you look at it).

Okay. The similarities are obvious. But a) how does this show that the three species *must share* (my emphasis, of course) a common ancestor? And b) why *wouldn't* there be shared elements of the genome of the three species? In other words, how does this negate the overall uniqueness of each species?

Forgive me if my questions are basic.

[touchingcloth]

Because there are elements of the genome that humans and gorillas share, that are also shared by chimps (and if we find elements that are shared by humans and gorillas we know that they must be shared by chimps if it is true that all 3 species share common ancestors and that the human line diverged from that of gorillas before chimps). The same holds true as you add in other apes in the order form which the diverged from humans (or vice versa depending on how you look at it).

Okay. The similarities are obvious. But a) how does this show that the three species *must share* (my emphasis, of course) a common ancestor? And b) why *wouldn't* there be shared elements of the genome of the three species? In other words, how does this negate the overall uniqueness of each species?

Forgive me if my questions are basic.

No forgiveness needed - they are good questions.

It doesn't show that the species *must* share a common ancestor, but the implication is in the nesting of the shared parts of the genome. You don't get, for example, bits that are shared between humans and gorillas, but not between humans and chimps (chimps and humans diverged later from each other than they did from gorillas) and so on.

We can only get DNA from extant, recently extinct, or exceptionally well preserved fossil species - but just looking at fossils the same applies; we only get certain traits after a certain point in time (for example you find mammalian fossils younger than a certain age, but none older).

[DannyM]

No forgiveness needed - they are good questions.

It doesn't show that the species *must* share a common ancestor, but the implication is in the nesting of the shared parts of the genome. You don't get, for example, bits that are shared between humans and gorillas, but not between humans and chimps (chimps and humans diverged later from each other than they did from gorillas) and so on.

We can only get DNA from extant, recently extinct, or exceptionally well preserved fossil species - but just looking at fossils the same applies; we only get certain traits after a certain point in time (for example you find mammalian fossils younger than a certain age, but none older).

Thank you, Touchingcloth. This is the point where I try to digest what you've told me. If there's a counter-point to be made, well, it won't be made by me!

Thank you again, and I hope to come back with more questions as we go on.

[touchingcloth]

No forgiveness needed - they are good questions.

It doesn't show that the species *must* share a common ancestor, but the implication is in the nesting of the shared parts of the genome. You don't get, for example, bits that are shared between humans and gorillas, but not between humans and chimps (chimps and humans diverged later from each other than they did from gorillas) and so on.

We can only get DNA from extant, recently extinct, or exceptionally well preserved fossil species - but just looking at fossils the same applies; we only get certain traits after a certain point in time (for example you find mammalian fossils younger than a certain age, but none older).

Thank you, Touchingcloth. This is the point where I try to digest what you've told me. If there's a counter-point to be made, well, it won't be made by me!

Thank you again, and I hope to come back with more questions as we go on.

Please do - I'd encourage you to read up about "endogenous retroviruses" specifically as a good starting point for information about how the DNA of different species is nested. Don't start by thinking that you won't be able to make any counter points - the information is available to you just as much as anybody else (although you may spend a while at first having to wrap your head around terminology).

[Gman]

Okay. The similarities are obvious. But a) how does this show that the three species *must share* (my emphasis, of course) a common ancestor? And b) why *wouldn't* there be shared elements of the genome of the three species? In other words, how does this negate the overall uniqueness of each species?

Forgive me if my questions are basic.

It doesn't... There maybe shared parts of the genome, just like there are visible parts that we share between the gorilla or chimps. Like the fact that we have two legs and two arms or the same number of digits in the hand. But this can also be explained by a common designer.

Again it's just how you perceive the data based on one's philosophy...

[Gman]

Please do - I'd encourage you to read up about "endogenous retroviruses" specifically as a good starting point for information about how the DNA of different species is nested. Don't start by thinking that you won't be able to make any counter points - the information is available to you just as much as anybody else (although you may spend a while at first having to wrap your head around terminology).

We've already been through the "endogenous retroviruses" fiasco and it has done little to support the evolutionary theory.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=165

[ageofknowledge]

Yes Gman but one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. touchingcloth obviously believes if he just keeps saying it over and over somehow it will come true... even though we've already shown that it isn't. A point he'll disagree with (and be wrong) so we'll have to relive it over and over and over again... lol. That's where the definition of religion enters into his worldview.

[DannyM]

So there are no questions to be answered?

Are we done?

[Gman]

So there are no questions to be answered?

Are we done?

I believe so...

[DannyM]

So there are no questions to be answered?

Are we done?

I believe so...

Gman wake up! I've got a question

I've been taking a look at various pro-evolution/abiogenesis forums just to get an idea of their take on abiogenesis. I'd say that 75-80% of the evolutionists I've seen are saying that abiogenesis is fact. Aparently it's only a matter of time before it is *proven* fact, according to some. According to others, it *is* fact because it's "so obvious"...?

Also, anyone who enters these discussions to object is roundly set upon and called a "creationist wacko" and mocked. Only 1 or 2 forums I looked on was there a sensible debate where believers in abiogenesis admitted that it is not factual and just a theory. And you won't be surprised to hear that these forums were civilised, with both sides respecting eachother.

Is it me or has this become a fanatical religion where any dissenters are attacked and demonised...? Is the truth really unimportant to these people? Has empiricism really been sacrificed for this fanatical bunch of people? And ultimately, how do you converse with such people who call you a "creotard" for pointing out that abiogenesis is a postulation which has not been proven? Or has it been proven, and we are the ones in denial?

Peace.

[Gman]

Gman wake up! I've got a question

I've been taking a look at various pro-evolution/abiogenesis forums just to get an idea of their take on abiogenesis. I'd say that 75-80% of the evolutionists I've seen are saying that abiogenesis is fact. Aparently it's only a matter of time before it is *proven* fact, according to some. According to others, it *is* fact because it's "so obvious"...?

Also, anyone who enters these discussions to object is roundly set upon and called a "creationist wacko" and mocked. Only 1 or 2 forums I looked on was there a sensible debate where believers in abiogenesis admitted that it is not factual and just a theory. And you won't be surprised to hear that these forums were civilised, with both sides respecting eachother.

Is it me or has this become a fanatical religion where any dissenters are attacked and demonised...? Is the truth really unimportant to these people? Has empiricism really been sacrificed for this fanatical bunch of people? And ultimately, how do you converse with such people who call you a "creotard" for pointing out that abiogenesis is a postulation which has not been proven? Or has it been proven, and we are the ones in denial?

Peace.

Abiogenesis is certainly NOT a fact by any means.. No one has ever seen life occurring from non-life. Ever. Consider the following:

Is the Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) a Realistic Scenario?

Problems with the Origin of Biological Membranes in an Early Earth Environment

According to John Horgan, senior writer for Scientific American, has called the origin of life "the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology."

The National Academy of Sciences puts the problem in an interesting way:

“The study of the origin of life is a very active research area in which important progress is being made, although the consensus among scientists is that none of the current hypotheses has thus far been confirmed.” Science and Creationism : A view from the National Academy of sciences, 2nd ed., 1999.

In other words, it is fair to say that we do not know how life originated.

Because of the obvious problems abiogenesis is, at best, myth of modern science. At worst, abiogenesis is the lie we tell ourselves so we can pretend to know more about the origin of life than we actually do; we are fooling ourselves.

Results so far indicate that

1. Life is not the result of unguided chemistry and random processes.
2. Life is also not the result of purposeful physical laws and initial conditions.
3. The “laws of nature” and fine tuning of the initial conditions are insufficient to account for the origin of life.
4. Limiting our options to natural processes alone does prohibit the origin of life.

Molecules don't evolve, they react.

Is the current “scientific” explanation for the origin of life. A = not, bio- life or living, genesis = origin or beginning. The non-biological origin of life.

First and foremost, abiogeneis has nothing to do biology. Before life begins there is only chemistry (and some physics). Chemistry is repeatable and testable.

Ideas to consider or test when confronting abiogenesis

1. Life is the result of unguided chemical reactions and random processes.
2. Life is the result of purposeful physical laws and initial conditions.
3. The “laws of nature” are fine tuning of the initial conditions are insufficient to the account for the origin of life.
4. Natural processes alone prohibit the origin of life.

Wald: all we need is time. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probably virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

Even Darin admitted this, as he stated, “To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of science.”



If someone has ever witnessed life occurring from inorganic materials, please contact The National Academy of Sciences. They would love to record it and get the word out... You would have to be a wacko to prove it.

[DannyM]

Top man, Gman.

So what *is it* with so many evolutionists and this dogmatic, anti-empirical approach? Has evolutionary science come to this? Has it been hijacked by the evolutionary mullahs as a result of a shaky world view?

Peace

[Gman]

Top man, Gman.

So what *is it* with so many evolutionists and this dogmatic, anti-empirical approach? Has evolutionary science come to this? Has it been hijacked by the evolutionary mullahs as a result of a shaky world view?

Peace

I think why so many accept it and don't refute it is because any other view is not considered science. In their minds there is only one conclusion to it all. In fact, no other conclusion will ever suffice because supposedly it is solely based on "faith" not realizing that evolutionary science is also based on some faith.

I think a lot of it also stems from the separation between church and state. No God can be taught in the classrooms, therefore God is automatically nixed from science and the philosophies. Without question... There can only be one pervasive view. Naturalism.

[MisterOZ]

I am not a scientist, although this is an area of interest for me since it solidifies my agreement with Christ, but there actually is a 5% genetic difference between humans and chimps, and what a difference that 5% makes.

But, to answer the question microevolution are small adaptive changes as we see with Darwin's finches who are able to change physical characteristics in their changing environment and will also change back when suitable, no matter what though the finch stays a finch and always was a finch as it will also always be a finch. Macroevolution is speciation meaning that a population diverges enough from ancestor organism to become sexually incompatible, their genes cannot mix. Granted this is not enough to explain plants to fish, to reptiles, to birds, to mammals. This is left to story telling, conjecture and myth and is not even remotely provable by the fossil record which actually proves large "gaps" in the evolution of organisms and no Darwinian gradualism, attempted to be explained away by punctuated equilibrium.

All in all I'd bet on God who in his wisdom made things simple enough for our puny brains to understand so as to make this world a better place for as many human beings as can be created.