Human evolution and dna

[vickers_m]

Hi I'm the one who put up the list of evolution evidences I can't refute. This kinda goes along with that but dis mostly has to do with just general knowledge. In regards to humans and chimps, many say their dna is almost identical or 98% identical. How strong of a point is that in terms of one thing descending from it? Is human and chimp similarity any closer than say for instance the similarity between a fish and a bird or is more like the similarity between two dog breeds like a Scottish Terrier and a Golden Retriever? Because if the similarity between two dog breeds is about as similar as apes are to humans then that gives more evidence that we descended from them. Because after all, we LOOK JUST LIKE apes! Just like how we can't easily see that both a Scottish Terrier and a Golden Retriever are both dogs and both related than thus by using the same common sense logic see that we are just simply another breed of apes. Thoughts? Rebuttals?

[Reactionary]

In regards to humans and chimps, many say their dna is almost identical or 98% identical. How strong of a point is that in terms of one thing descending from it?

That's an evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy. The alleged similarity between human and chimp DNA keeps receding as we discover more about them. It used to be 99+%, then 98, in 2003 it was about 95%... I won't be surprised if it "falls" under 90% in the following years (if it hasn't already). But nevertheless, even a 5%-difference is a lot. Human DNA has about 3 billion base pairs. If all the required mutations took place in the recent several hundred thousand years, evolution would actually be observable. However, we know that even the tiniest mutation in the human DNA leads to a fatal genetic disease, such as the Down's syndrome.

Because after all, we LOOK JUST LIKE apes! Just like how we can't easily see that both a Scottish Terrier and a Golden Retriever are both dogs and both related than thus by using the same common sense logic see that we are just simply another breed of apes. Thoughts? Rebuttals?

The Scottish Terrier and the Golden Retriever are two different breeds of the same species. As such, they can interbreed - can humans and chimps interbreed? Not a chance, because we belong to the different species. Where did all these stories about looking similar come from anyway? When I look at chimps, I don't see any remarkable similarity between us and them. In fact, I find it insulting when some "scientists" say that we are related. Besides, there are animals that look similar, but are not related at all - for instance, the marsupial wombat vs. marmot, or wolf vs. thylacine.

For further reference, I suggest that you have a look at this site, it has many useful articles about this topic:
http://creation.com/anthropology-and-ap ... nd-answers
http://creation.com/are-look-alikes-related

[dorkmaster]

One theory I've always pondered that relates to this is, couldn't the reason they're so close in terms of DNA be because one being aka God created them both?

[Proinsias]

One theory I've always pondered that relates to this is, couldn't the reason they're so close in terms of DNA be because one being aka God created them both?

Yes, common template vs. common descent.

[neo-x]

The alleged similarity between human and chimp DNA keeps receding as we discover more about them. It used to be 99+%, then 98, in 2003 it was about 95%... I won't be surprised if it "falls" under 90% in the following years (if it hasn't already). But nevertheless, even a 5%-difference is a lot. Human DNA has about 3 billion base pairs. If all the required mutations took place in the recent several hundred thousand years, evolution would actually be observable. However, we know that even the tiniest mutation in the human DNA leads to a fatal genetic disease, such as the Down's syndrome.

I agree with reactionary, and you have to understand, from a DNA's point, 2% or 5% is a HUGE HUGE difference. If someone is to take life forms as a yardstick then we haven't witnessed anything new coming out of DNA, which would imply that it's evolution has stopped, what change has occurred is only in mutations. Therefore a minute percentage could result in a large diversity as almost all DNA has roughly the same structure.

[Legatus]

Actually, the idea that a something % difference in the DNA will result in the same % change in the result is so simplistic that it isn't really science, but is merely a trick of rhetoric. Lets look at some of that idea:

Most of the info in DNA is determining the molecular structure of cells. Much of that is the same for all life forms on this planet.
Plants are carbon based lifeforms, so are you, so there will be some similarities between you and say a corn stalk.
This is nessisary since if you weren't both carbon based you could not eat the corn.
There is also much similarities on the molecular level between you and, say, an ant, yet no one claims we are decended from ants.
There is also much similarity between us and any animal, especially mammals, even mammals that no one compares us to (nessissary if man is to eat animals and the same plants that animals eat) .
Monkeys have two arms and legs (more or less) and so do we, so if a creator were designing DNA that is common between monkeys and man (instead of say using DNA for one and something else for another, which assumes that something else would even work) then the DNA must also be similar. The DNA genes for two arms, two legs, two ears, one head etc will be the same unless you use a totally different system, ie not DNA, in one creature compared to another.
However, saying that the DNA itself determines such things as limbs is simplistic, it is much more complicated than that, and is determine by vary complicated interactions between adjecent cells as the creature is growing from one single fertilized cell to adulthood. There is a lot more going on there than DNA alone, and so to say that DNA alone determines things is so simplistic as to be irrelevent.

Conclusion, if mankind and animal kind are to live on the same planet, they must both use DNA (and other things). If they both use the same things, most of their DNA programming will be similar regardless of if they evolved, were created, were created by some preccess of guided evolution, or even something completely different. The programming will be even more similar if they are more similar, both mammals, both with two arms and two legs, etc, regardless of whether they are or are not related. If one were God, then, and created monkeys and man, one would use some of the same DNA program regardless of the method used to arrive at that DNA, whether one or both evolved or one or both did not evolve. The % of DNA similar, or not similar, is therefor irrelevent to the question of if God did or did not use whatever method God preffers to create that DNA and that creature. The very idea that it is suggested (and in a way that is rather out of date with even that 'science') shows that the one stateing it is merely using a trick of rhetoric to fool people who know little about DNA with an irrelevent idea.

And we know anyway that, considering just the creation of life from non living matter, sceinece has completly failed to show how life can evolve from non living matter regardless of how it is done (either sticking to the natural laws rules or cheating and breaking them with a miricle), and conversly, has shown that it is impossible for it to happen by random chance.
Result:
If evolution happened, there must be a God.
If evolution did not happen, there must be a God.
Either way, there is a God.
So the monkey idea is irrelevent anyway.

[neo-x]

Result:
If evolution happened, there must be a God.
If evolution did not happen, there must be a God.
Either way, there is a God.
So the monkey idea is irrelevent anyway.

very nicely put, indeed.

[waynepii]

Conclusion, if mankind and animal kind are to live on the same planet, they must both use DNA (and other things).

Not really. We eat simple sugar, there's no DNA in sugar. There's no DNA in much of our processed food. Although many foodstuffs are derived from living things (thus the sources have DNA), many of the simpler compounds could be created in the lab from non-DNA sources. It is usually more cost-effective to start with living sources but it is not necessary.

And we know anyway that, considering just the creation of life from non living matter, sceinece has completly failed to show how life can evolve from non living matter regardless of how it is done (either sticking to the natural laws rules or cheating and breaking them with a miricle), and conversly, has shown that it is impossible for it to happen by random chance.

First off, researchers have successfully generated amino acids from a primordial "soup" under conditions similar to those of the primitive Earth. Once they have amino acids, proteins and the other building blocks of life conceivably can occur given enough time. Again, this experiment doesn't show HOW life actually originated, it shows only one way it COULD have come about.

Secondly, even if science were unable to demonstrate life forming from non-living matter, that wouldn't disprove the hypothesis that life originated from non-life.

Thirdly, the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is the adaptation and diversification of life.

Result:
If evolution happened, there must be a God.
If evolution did not happen, there must be a God.
Either way, there is a God.
So the monkey idea is irrelevent anyway.

This is invalid on several levels.

EDIT Added link to cite in first point.

[jlay]

First off, researchers have successfully generated amino acids from a primordial "soup" under conditions similar to those of the primitive Earth. Once they have amino acids, proteins and the other building blocks of life conceivably can occur given enough time.

Wow. that is quite a faith you have there.

Researchers (Intelligent beings) generated amino acids. Whose point are you trying to prove here Wayne?
Also, who traveled back in time to record the conditions of primitive earth? Those are some amazing researchers. Or, are they speculating? Either way, they recreated the conditions. Seems like a pre-existant intelligence is all up in your theory.

Once they have (created) amino acids, proteins and other building blocks of life conceivably occur given enough time. I can conceive a lot of things. But that isn't evidence my friend. Evidence? If that is true, then we should see abiogenesis happening in nature all the time. We know the conditions for life are right today, because we have life. We also have proteins, amino acids and other building blocks. Yet, it seems without intelligent beings manipulating things, life can't get going. Thanks for clearing all this up. You are quite the creation apologist.

[Gman]

First off, researchers have successfully generated amino acids from a primordial "soup" under conditions similar to those of the primitive Earth. Once they have amino acids, proteins and the other building blocks of life conceivably can occur given enough time. Again, this experiment doesn't show HOW life actually originated, it shows only one way it COULD have come about.

Interesting... I didn't know the word "could" was a scientific term.

Secondly, even if science were unable to demonstrate life forming from non-living matter, that wouldn't disprove the hypothesis that life originated from non-life.

But it wouldn't prove it either...

Thirdly, the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is the adaptation and diversification of life.

Yes, however, abiogenesis is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly). It is NOT science… First and foremost, we know that abiogeneis has nothing to do biology or evolution. Molecules don’t evolve, they react. Before life begins there is only chemistry (and some physics). Chemistry is repeatable and testable. Many college biology books, however, are clearly using the mechanisms of abiogenesis to promote it's view for, in many cases macroevolution.

[waynepii]

First off, researchers have successfully generated amino acids from a primordial "soup" under conditions similar to those of the primitive Earth. Once they have amino acids, proteins and the other building blocks of life conceivably can occur given enough time.

Wow. that is quite a faith you have there.

Researchers (Intelligent beings) generated amino acids. Whose point are you trying to prove here Wayne?

They recreated the conditions that have been postulated as probable for the young Earth - and amino acids resulted. That means that amino acids are producible without intelligence being required under some conditions (at least the one set of parameters used for the experiment).

Also, who traveled back in time to record the conditions of primitive earth? Those are some amazing researchers. Or, are they speculating? Either way, they recreated the conditions. Seems like a pre-existant intelligence is all up in your theory.

They were using commonly accepted parameters of the conditions of the young Earth. Seems like you're really stretching to claim a preexistent intelligence was involved.

Once they have (created) amino acids, proteins and other building blocks of life conceivably occur given enough time. I can conceive a lot of things. But that isn't evidence my friend. Evidence? If that is true, then we should see abiogenesis happening in nature all the time. We know the conditions for life are right today, because we have life. We also have proteins, amino acids and other building blocks. Yet, it seems without intelligent beings manipulating things, life can't get going. Thanks for clearing all this up. You are quite the creation apologist.

I never claimed it was evidence of what actually happened, in fact I quite explicitly said it wasn't. I was merely pointing that under one set of parameter that could have existed on the young Earth, amino acids happened without intelligent input. Or are you saying that the intelligent designer was complicit in the success of the experiment?

[waynepii]

Secondly, even if science were unable to demonstrate life forming from non-living matter, that wouldn't disprove the hypothesis that life originated from non-life.

But it wouldn't prove it either...

I never said did.

Thirdly, the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is the adaptation and diversification of life.

Yes, however, abiogenesis is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly). It is NOT science… First and foremost, we know that abiogeneis has nothing to do biology or evolution. Molecules don’t evolve, they react. Before life begins there is only chemistry (and some physics). Chemistry is repeatable and testable. Many college biology books, however, are clearly using the mechanisms of abiogenesis to promote it's view for, in many cases macroevolution.

The vast majority in the scientific community would disagree with your assertion that evolution is not science.

[Gman]

The vast majority in the scientific community would disagree with your assertion that evolution is not science.

Macro-evolution is most certainly not science... It's a belief.

[Legatus]

Conclusion, if mankind and animal kind are to live on the same planet, they must both use DNA (and other things).

Not really. We eat simple sugar, there's no DNA in sugar. There's no DNA in much of our processed food. Although many foodstuffs are derived from living things (thus the sources have DNA), many of the simpler compounds could be created in the lab from non-DNA sources. It is usually more cost-effective to start with living sources but it is not necessary.

So for simple sugar eating life, we must assume that sometime in the distant past, there were labratories on earth making the stuff (staffed by...what, exactly?), right? Can you describe exactly how the first simple sugar eating life on this planaet got it's simple sugars without a labratory to make it? Your argument depends on prehistoric labratories, please show me the evidence for these. If there is no such evidnece, where do these sugars come from? What did people, to say nothing of animals and many other life forms, do for food before labratories came along? Did they get their food from living sources? Did those living sources have DNA? Is your "lab" argument even valid? Why, exactly, did you make it? Do you know?

And we know anyway that, considering just the creation of life from non living matter, scienece has completly failed to show how life can evolve from non living matter regardless of how it is done (either sticking to the natural laws rules or cheating and breaking them with a miricle), and conversly, has shown that it is impossible for it to happen by random chance.

First off, researchers have successfully generated amino acids from a primordial "soup" under conditions similar to those of the primitive Earth. Once they have amino acids, proteins and the other building blocks of life conceivably can occur given enough time. Again, this experiment doesn't show HOW life actually originated, it shows only one way it COULD have come about.

I am quite well aware of this experiment, are you aware that that is old news, that the new news is that the idea that life originated starting with amino acids has been abandoned because of insolvable problems, and that they are now trying to say if came from "RNA-like" compounds, but have run into a fresh set of insolvable problems from that angle also? I suggest you look here, where a readable and understandable explaination of all this is given http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/chap ... tein-1.php . Simply put, science has completly failed to tell us how life evolved from non living matter, and the more they look at it, the more impossible it looks. They have managed to produce some simple building blocks, however to make even the simplest life, you need a lot more than that, and to create the more complex blocks often takes rare and mutually exclusive conditions that make creating all the many compounds nessissary so improbable (especially all in one place) as to be effectively impossible by random chance.There are far more compounds needed than you realise if you think a few simple amino acids are going to do it And this is not to even cover the huge problem of somehow getting all these compounds connected together just right, giving them some sort of DNA or equivilent AND the correct gene sequence on it (that one is HARD) so that it can reproduce and later evolve. Don't even think about the now discredited idea that life somehow evolved without any means to propagate, it would then eventually die and that would be the end of it.

I am not saying that abiogenesis cannot happen (is physically possible), just that for it to happen BY RANDOM CHANCE is now known to be so improbale as to be effectively impossible in this universe. After all, it is possible to find an occasional square peice of rock lying around, the question is, how did they all get together as this cathedral? But then, for a big bang to create a universe with these natural laws is now known to be equally improbable, such that scientists have had to invent an infinite number of imaginary parallel universes, for which there is not one single shred of evidence, requiring one to beleive that on blind faith. Thus, for us to accept anything without an initial infinately intelligent planner, we must accept two impossible things before breakfast. That is not science, that is fantasy, that is blind faith.[/quote]

Secondly, even if science were unable to demonstrate life forming from non-living matter, that wouldn't disprove the hypothesis that life originated from non-life.

What you are saying here is that you are willing to accept life forming from non living matter entirely on blind faith. After all, you are claiming that you will eccept it even if there is no scientific evidence for it. Without evidence, your belief has no backing, and is therefor blind faith and nothing more. And that does not even touch on the problem that, so far, science has shown such problems with their theories that the theories themselves may have been falsified. Blind faith DESPITE the evidence, now thats pushing it!

Second, you are probaly under the mistaken impression that I am denying evolution (and abiogenesis), I am not. I am merely saying that the problems of it happeneing by random chance, with no intilligent designer, are so great that it cannot happen BY RANDOM CHANCE. If it is to happen at all, there must be a designer of infinite intelligence, just as is true for a universe like this from a big bang. In fact, I have looked at the science, and then looked at the bible, and seen something "new" (which has been there all along). What it actually SAYS is :Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass..." etc. Note that it does not say "and God created grass from nothing", or "and God formed grass from the clay, and breathed life into it, and it became living grass", or any other such "miracle", that is, it does not say that it was created in a way that breaks natural law (although it does specifically say that about human beings, and only human beings). It also does not say what method was used, or how long it took. Thus, simply from what it does not say, we can neither confirm nor deny abiogeneis or evolution. From what it DOES say, it says "let the earth", which means it was an earthly, i.e. a natural (conforming to natural laws) proccess.

Thus the bible does not deny evolution, in fact, it demands it. And science does not deny the nessesssity of there being a designer for that to happen (or the universe to happen), in fact, it demands it.

You probably beleive that just because I beleive evolution to be so improbably as to be impossible by random chance that I do not believe it happend. You also probably believe that I go with the curent universally eccepted idea that one can EITHER believe evolution OR God, but not both. You probably believe that simply because of that fact that, right now, apperently everyone else on the planet does. Well, they used to beleive the sun went around the earth (especially the scientists), they were wrong. Now they beleive this, despite that the bible clearly says differently. Nothing new there, the Great Reformation shows that millions can beleive something even when the bible very very VERY CLEARLY says something completly different than what they believed. It is simply time to change beliefs, based on FACT this time, just as they did before.

Thirdly, the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is the adaptation and diversification of life.

If I use the word '"biogenesis", most people will say "huh?". Most people do now know what that word means. They do, however, know what evolution means, and lump abiogenesis in with it. Thus I use the word evolution so that the average reader can actually understand me. However, just for you, so as to be totally clear, I have amended my statement below.
If abiogenesis happened, there must be a God.
If abiogenesis did not happen, there must be a God.
Either way, there is a God.
So the monkey idea is irrelevent anyway.


Your statement "This is invalid on several levels" is itself invalide unless you can actually state what the 'several levels" are. I have stated my reasons, what are yours?

[DannyM]

First off, researchers have successfully generated amino acids from a primordial "soup" under conditions similar to those of the primitive Earth. Once they have amino acids, proteins and the other building blocks of life conceivably can occur given enough time

First off, this is outright false. Even if amino acids existed in a prebiotic soup, they would interact with other chemicals to produce something resembling a brown sludge which would not be life-friendly at all. This is exactly what occured with the Miller-Urey experiment which you linked!

Secondly, in all origin of life experiments amino acids do not demonstrate the 'bonding affinities' required to conform to any of the known patterns of sequencing found in functional proteins. So your comment that 'Once they have amino acids, proteins and the other building blocks of life conceivably can occur given enough time' is plain wrong. It is one of the most anti-empirical assertions I have seen made in a long time.