Evidence for God from Science

IgoFan wrote:http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm gives a short and easily understandable explanation of the amazing evidence for the human fusing of chromosomes 2p and 2q from the ancestor of humans and chimps.

It's almost as if God coded in the DNA of chromosomes 2, 2p, and 2q, a pamphlet named "Common Ancestry for Dummies" for people like me.

As I've stated before, no one is denying the similarities between chimps and humans. But a lot of this can also be explained by a common designer and not ancestor. And what about the differences such as the Y chromosome being a different size and has different markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee? Or that humans have much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long than the primates? Or what about chromosomes 4 and 17 that exhibit different banding patterns in humans and also among different species of apes? That site didn't seem to think those facts were significant.

Thats what I'm talking about... Being exposed to all the evidence. Not just one's bias. And when we do that, we usually find that no one really has an answer to our origins with science.. Not even the creationists.. Ideas? Yes. Solid evidence? No..

Hey Gman - 2 things:
1 - Is there anything that could not be explained in terms of the common designer hypothesis?
2 - Do you have any good resources for info about the 14, 7 & y-chromosome difference, and the telomere length differences? Would save me quite a bit of googling if you had some links to hand!

Thanks...

No problem...

touchingcloth wrote:Hey Gman - 2 things:
1 - Is there anything that could not be explained in terms of the common designer hypothesis?

To be honest with you, I really don't know. What I usually do is look at the evolutionist sites and compare them to the intelligent design sites..

touchingcloth wrote:2 - Do you have any good resources for info about the 14, 7 & y-chromosome difference, and the telomere length differences? Would save me quite a bit of googling if you had some links to hand!

Thanks...

A few different sources.. They come referenced mainly from scientific journals at the bottom (of their page).

IDEA
//www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392



Creation Ministries
//creation.com/greater-than-98-chimp-human-dna-similarity-not-any-more

From our site: Human and Chimpanzee Chromosomes
//www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld071. ... lHAlEJxEP2
//www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld072. ... KHRoTpSNQ5

Chromosomes 4 and 17 exhibit different banding patterns.

The scientific hypothesis we're talking about here is that today's apes (yes, humans are apes) share a common ancestor, and specifically that the orangutan split off 1st from that common ancestor, followed by the gorilla, and finally the chimp split off from humans 6+ million years ago.

The chromosome 2p & 2q fusion in humans is a magnificent piece of evidence consistent with that hypothesis. The fusion could not have occurred before humans split off from any of the other apes, because otherwise we'd see that chromosome fusion in chimps, gorillas, or orangutans.

But why do scientists give NO WEIGHT to Gman's creationist-sponsored references, which promote the idea that chimps and humans could have been independently created with similar chromosomes but only the human 2p & 2q chromosomes fused?

The reason is that the fusion of chromosome 2p & 2q is not the only DNA anomaly that agrees perfectly with the above scientific hypothesis on the apes' common descent tree!

Two (of many) other evidences are: Endogenous RetroViral(ERV) insertions, which are inactive genes that viruses insert into a specie's genome, and pseudogenes, which are broken genes that no longer code for proteins.

ERV insertions and pseudogenes virtually litter the human, chimp, gorilla, and orangutan genomes. If you make a list of which of the 4 ape species have which of the many ERV insertions and pseudogenes, a spectacularly remarkable and consistent pattern emerges. Just like the chromosome 2 fusion, the shared (and non-shared) ERV insertions and pseudogenes are consistent with only ONE ordering of the split offs, viz., orangutans 1st, gorillas next, and then chimps last, to leave us humans!

For example, a specific ERV insertion from the list that occurs only in humans and chimps (and not in gorillas and orangutans), is only consistent with that specific ERV insertion occurring after the gorillas and orangutans split off from the common ancestor, but before the humans and chimps split.

Furthermore, what you DON'T see in the list are shared ERV insertions or pseudogenes that would be inconsistent with the above scientific hypothesis. For example, you DON'T see humans and orangutans sharing some specific pseudogene that neither chimps nor gorillas share. The reason is simple: according to the hypothesis, if humans and orangutans shared the same pseudogene, then the common ancestor of all 4 ape species should have had that pseudogene, which means chimps and gorillas also should have had that specific pseudogene!

So in summary, one chromosome fusion, many ERV insertions, and many pseudogenes, are ALL consistent with the above scientific hypothesis regarding the apes' common descent tree. Chimps are our 1st cousins, gorillas are our 2nd cousins, and orangutans are our 3rd cousins. Every time you visit the zoo's ape house, you're really attending a close family reunion. How cool is that!

The creationist hypothesis of the independent creation of orangutans, gorillas, chimps, and humans looks downright peculiar given the above convergence of multiple independent lines of corroborating evidence. Where would all this strict and pervasive ordering of inter-species DNA anomalies have come from, if NOT from the hypothesized ape common descent tree?!

Interestingly, this inference technique from chromosome fusions, ERV insertions, and pseudogenes shares some ideas with one method that theologians use to help trace the "common ancestry" of slightly different Biblical manuscripts back to the original autographa! An (over?) simplified example might be: if 2 of 50 manuscripts (of the same verse in the Bible) use the word "abcd", instead of the word "dcba" that the other 48 manuscripts use, scholars would have evidence for a working hypothesis that the 2 manuscripts are closely related. For example, 1 of the 2 manuscripts may have made a transcription error and later the other manuscript simply copied the error!

Regarding the banding mis-matching of chromosomes 4 and 17 between humans and chimps... Non-lethal inversions, and to a lesser extent translocations, of interior sections of chromosomes during cell division are relatively common. Scientists already know that just a few inversions and translocations are the simple cause for over 90% of the banding mis-matches over ALL the human chromosomes. And millions of years after humans split off from the rest of the apes is sufficient time for such a number of mis-matches to occur.

Regarding the shorter telomeres in humans... Telomeres are a simple repetition of a fixed DNA section that is only a few bases in length. I'm not familiar with how telomere length varies with species, but given 6+ million years since the split of humans and chimps, if I were you, I wouldn't hang my hopes of bringing down evolution by your coy hinting at the non-existence of some relatively simple (and probably already known) mechanism to shorten or lengthen embryonic telomeres in species.

IgoFan wrote:The scientific hypothesis we're talking about here is that today's apes (yes, humans are apes) share a common ancestor, and specifically that the orangutan split off 1st from that common ancestor, followed by the gorilla, and finally the chimp split off from humans 6+ million years ago.

The chromosome 2p & 2q fusion in humans is a magnificent piece of evidence consistent with that hypothesis. The fusion could not have occurred before humans split off from any of the other apes, because otherwise we'd see that chromosome fusion in chimps, gorillas, or orangutans.

But why do scientists give NO WEIGHT to Gman's creationist-sponsored references, which promote the idea that chimps and humans could have been independently created with similar chromosomes but only the human 2p & 2q chromosomes fused?

What we have here are only weights of evidence in favor of one view and sometimes neglecting the other. Sometimes even scientists don't always agree on the scientific outcome of the evolutionary or design predictions either. The weight is one sided because the other side of the debate is considered religious.. Plain and simple. By default it cannot be considered scientific. There are no if's, and's or but's. This discussion is closed...

IgoFan wrote:The reason is that the fusion of chromosome 2p & 2q is not the only DNA anomaly that agrees perfectly with the above scientific hypothesis on the apes' common descent tree!

Again this is pure speculation or circumstantial evidence. And yet it is entirely possible that our genus Homo underwent a chromosomal fusion event within its own separate history. It's just how you examine the evidence..

See this YouTube segment on it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCrJuGg-bCI

IgoFan wrote:Two (of many) other evidences are: Endogenous RetroViral(ERV) insertions, which are inactive genes that viruses insert into a specie's genome, and pseudogenes, which are broken genes that no longer code for proteins.

ERV insertions and pseudogenes virtually litter the human, chimp, gorilla, and orangutan genomes. If you make a list of which of the 4 ape species have which of the many ERV insertions and pseudogenes, a spectacularly remarkable and consistent pattern emerges. Just like the chromosome 2 fusion, the shared (and non-shared) ERV insertions and pseudogenes are consistent with only ONE ordering of the split offs, viz., orangutans 1st, gorillas next, and then chimps last, to leave us humans!

And it is entirely possible too that the virus selects very specific segments of the genome for that insertion. It certainly could have inserted itself, in those specific genomes, separately within these species just like the HIV virus. And if the retrovirus is advantageous to the species, it could have spread itself throughout the entire species. The only way you could prove what you are saying is going back in a time machine..

In other words, it's all faith based..

IgoFan wrote:For example, a specific ERV insertion from the list that occurs only in humans and chimps (and not in gorillas and orangutans), is only consistent with that specific ERV insertion occurring after the gorillas and orangutans split off from the common ancestor, but before the humans and chimps split.

Again, we don't know when these insertions happened. It is entirely possible that humans and apes were independently infected with the same virus. It just so happens that the virus targeted the same place..

IgoFan wrote:Furthermore, what you DON'T see in the list are shared ERV insertions or pseudogenes that would be inconsistent with the above scientific hypothesis. For example, you DON'T see humans and orangutans sharing some specific pseudogene that neither chimps nor gorillas share. The reason is simple: according to the hypothesis, if humans and orangutans shared the same pseudogene, then the common ancestor of all 4 ape species should have had that pseudogene, which means chimps and gorillas also should have had that specific pseudogene!

So in summary, one chromosome fusion, many ERV insertions, and many pseudogenes, are ALL consistent with the above scientific hypothesis regarding the apes' common descent tree. Chimps are our 1st cousins, gorillas are our 2nd cousins, and orangutans are our 3rd cousins. Every time you visit the zoo's ape house, you're really attending a close family reunion. How cool is that!

Not my family..

It's cold... So cold it generates no heat for this discussion.

"But the chromosomal fusion evidence is not a “shared error” argument for human / ape common ancestry, because apes do not have a fused chromosome. The human chromosomal fusion argument focuses on a fusion event that is specific to the human line, and therefore provides a highly limited form of evidence for human / ape common ancestry. "

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1392

And about pseudogenes...

"What is common to all these pseudogene studies is that the pseudogenes from humans and apes are not identical..."

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... xaTltGN0vL

IgoFan wrote:The creationist hypothesis of the independent creation of orangutans, gorillas, chimps, and humans looks downright peculiar given the above convergence of multiple independent lines of corroborating evidence. Where would all this strict and pervasive ordering of inter-species DNA anomalies have come from, if NOT from the hypothesized ape common descent tree?!

Again, it's all about how you interpret the evidence..

IgoFan wrote:Regarding the banding mis-matching of chromosomes 4 and 17 between humans and chimps... Non-lethal inversions, and to a lesser extent translocations, of interior sections of chromosomes during cell division are relatively common. Scientists already know that just a few inversions and translocations are the simple cause for over 90% of the banding mis-matches over ALL the human chromosomes. And millions of years after humans split off from the rest of the apes is sufficient time for such a number of mis-matches to occur.

ALL the human chromosomes? What about the apes? And how do you know that couldn't have progressed separately in the species?

IgoFan wrote:Regarding the shorter telomeres in humans... Telomeres are a simple repetition of a fixed DNA section that is only a few bases in length. I'm not familiar with how telomere length varies with species, but given 6+ million years since the split of humans and chimps, if I were you, I wouldn't hang my hopes of bringing down evolution by your coy hinting at the non-existence of some relatively simple (and probably already known) mechanism to shorten or lengthen embryonic telomeres in species.

Such as? I don't have to bring down evolution.. We just have to let the science speak for itself.. And leave our prejudices out the door.

Gman wrote:

IgoFan wrote:Regarding the banding mis-matching of chromosomes 4 and 17 between humans and chimps... Non-lethal inversions, and to a lesser extent translocations, of interior sections of chromosomes during cell division are relatively common. Scientists already know that just a few inversions and translocations are the simple cause for over 90% of the banding mis-matches over ALL the human chromosomes. And millions of years after humans split off from the rest of the apes is sufficient time for such a number of mis-matches to occur.

ALL the human chromosomes? What about the apes? And how do you know that couldn't have progressed separately in the species?

IgoFan wrote:Regarding the shorter telomeres in humans... Telomeres are a simple repetition of a fixed DNA section that is only a few bases in length. I'm not familiar with how telomere length varies with species, but given 6+ million years since the split of humans and chimps, if I were you, I wouldn't hang my hopes of bringing down evolution by your coy hinting at the non-existence of some relatively simple (and probably already known) mechanism to shorten or lengthen embryonic telomeres in species.

Such as? I don't have to bring down evolution.. We just have to let the science speak for itself.. And leave our prejudices out the door.

Gman,

Can you point me in the direction of any robust retorts to Darwinism, anything of worth? I'm pretty fed up with the media presenting, not just evolution, but Darwinism, if you please, as if it were solid fact. Over here we recently had Dawkins presenting a three-part series on Darwinian evolution. I simply watched with mouth wide open at the one-sided promotion of Darwinism as fact and the silmultaneous ridiculing of religion. Dawkins even went back to Africa, his place of birth, found a suitable preacher to use for the straw man stunt I'm going to tell you about, start a dialogue with the preacher, saying, "how do you do, my name's Richard, and I'm an ape". The conversation quickly degenerated to the point where the prescher came out with the age-old and long-ridiculed question - clincher, if you will! - of, "if we are descended from apes, why are there still existent apes". Well, in superbly rehearsed timing, Dawkins broke in to a patronising smile, and duely pointed out the preacher's mistake.

Thus we have the preacher's view portrayed as typical of Christianity, Christianity itself portrayed as backward thinking and ignorant in the face of progress, and Dawkins the "intelligent scientist" in his "struggle" for truth as the knight put on this earth to put right such wrongs. This diceitful man portrays a certain, localised view as though it were characteristic of Christianity as a whole. The media are complicit in this, and I find it disturbing, even Stalinist in its approach.

Evolution, Darwinian or other, is an interesting hypothesis - it has not even reached theory stage - and I see some merit in it as a postulation. But our children are having this one-sided pantomime of "nasty, ignorant religion" being countered by "enlightened science", and I find this deeply disturbing. I know you know your stuff, so a point in the right direction would be appreciated. I am looking for something I can absorb and in future perhaps articulate when encountering some of the dribble I sometimes encounter. Thanks in advance

Dan

Gman wrote: And it is entirely possible too that the virus selects very specific segments of the genome for that insertion.

False.

An ERV RANDOMLY inserts its DNA at any of MILLIONS of possible places along the host DNA. But a specific shared ERV is always on the SAME chromosome and at the SAME location in humans and chimps. The chance of that happening independently in humans and chimps is essentially zero.

The only reasonable conclusion is simple: the ERV inserted its DNA before humans and chimps split into two separate species.

IgoFan wrote:

Gman wrote: And it is entirely possible too that the virus selects very specific segments of the genome for that insertion.

False.

An ERV RANDOMLY inserts its DNA at any of MILLIONS of possible places along the host DNA. But a specific shared ERV is always on the SAME chromosome and at the SAME location in humans and chimps. The chance of that happening independently in humans and chimps is essentially zero.

The only reasonable conclusion is simple: the ERV inserted its DNA before humans and chimps split into two separate species.

The odds for the fine-tuning of the universe are infinitely less than that. Would you take those odds? If not, why not.

Byblos wrote: The odds for the fine-tuning of the universe are infinitely less than that. Would you take those odds? If not, why not.

Fine-tuning in what sense?

touchingcloth wrote:

Byblos wrote: The odds for the fine-tuning of the universe are infinitely less than that. Would you take those odds? If not, why not.

Fine-tuning in what sense?

In this sense:

IgoFan wrote:The chance of that happening independently in humans and chimps is essentially zero.

The only reasonable conclusion is simple: the ERV inserted its DNA before humans and chimps split into two separate species.

I think Igo's point was that, although there's nothing physically stopping ERVs impacting all ape species individually, that's much less likely than it being the result of shared ancestry (especially when taking into account how the set of shared ERVs between any 2 species matches the supposed order of divergence).

touchingcloth wrote:I think Igo's point was that, although there's nothing physically stopping ERVs impacting all ape species individually, that's much less likely than it being the result of shared ancestry (especially when taking into account how the set of shared ERVs between any 2 species matches the supposed order of divergence).

Thanks. I know exactly what his point is and it's probably a little more precise than what you stated above. What he's saying is that the odds of not only having the same ERVs but also identical insertion points (there are I believe 7 of them out of literally millions) are so extremely rare as to render the odds of them occurring independently in two unrelated species virtually nil.

Putting aside the validity of such argument (which I don't necessarily disagree with by the way), I would like to know if you or IgoFan view the odds of there being a life-producing planet in a universe otherwise hostile to life as virtually nil and what that says about it.

Byblos wrote: Putting aside the validity of such argument (which I don't necessarily disagree with by the way), I would like to know if you or IgoFan view the odds of there being a life-producing planet in a universe otherwise hostile to life as virtually nil and what that says about it.

Ah, got ya.

Facetiously I'd view the probablity of that as 1.
To give a more satisfactory answer I'd put the odds of there being a planet in our universe capable of producing life as we know it at a very, very tiny number. I'd put the odds of there being a planet that could produce life as we don't know it at being higher, but I wouldn't be able to venture a guess at how much higher (and that begins to beg the question of "what is life?").