Evidence for God from Science

I only read the first post, so that's what I'm replying to.
It may seem like evolution is true and that the first chapter of Genesis is simply a picture of what is happening, but there are many dangers to believing that. See for yourself: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Lets begin with one topic at a time and you tell me how it supports your side.
1.) Biogeography of marsupials and their cytochrome C comparisons.

First I will say that biogeopraphy of marsupials is an evolutionary hypothesis that I feel is diproven by the similarity of their Cytochrome C process and it's role in aerobic respiration.

As everyone knows Mitochondrial DNA has “proven” that all people have a common “Grandmother”. There is some debate about when and where she lived, but the theories range from 6000-6500 years ago in Eden (which has support in ancient writings) to 200,000 years ago in Africa (pulled from thin air). In any case it seems to indicate when taken together with lineage information from the Y chromosome showing a common “grandfather”, that mankind didn't slowly evolve, but are all the offspring of a pair of humans. As it turns out the Theory of Creation is supported by this information taken from Mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome.

If you would like more information on this topic you can read Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, if you haven't got time to read the entire book scan pages 87-89.
--
Bgood wrote:
A biogeographical study shows that marsupials have been isolated from other mammals for a long period as their cytochrome C differs substantially from those of other mammals yet are similar to each other.

Are you sure? Even in Marsupials Cytochrome C is vital for aerobic respiration and the transport of electrons. I guess then that you are saying that all life even in very different environments all evolved the exact same processes of cellular respiration. So I guess then you would say that the variety of shapes in apples also proves evolution. Or that the variety of hair color proves evolution. The similarity of Cytochrome C functioning in hugely different species is stronger evidence for Intelligent Design and for the Theory of Creation than it is for evolution. I guess your “proof” is that, “look they have a different shape therefore evolution!!!???” That's a grand leap.
--

Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally equivalent amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Most importantly, Hubert Yockey[36] has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on several exhaustive genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey 1986; Hampsey 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). . . . Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.
The alleged prediction and fulfillment are:
1. If universal common ancestry is true, then ubiquitous proteins with high functional redundancy will have the same or a similar amino acid sequence in two or more species.
2. Ubiquitous proteins with high functional redundancy have the same or a similar amino acid sequence in two or more species.
It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that ubiquitous proteins with high functional redundancy will have the same or a similar amino acid sequence in two or more species. Evolution can accommodate this phenomenon, but it can also accommodate its absence.
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Lets begin with one topic at a time and you tell me how it supports your side.
1.) Biogeography of marsupials and their cytochrome C comparisons.

First I will say that biogeopraphy of marsupials is an evolutionary hypothesis that I feel is diproven by the similarity of their Cytochrome C process and it's role in aerobic respiration.

Not clear. What does this mean?

Jbuza wrote:As everyone knows Mitochondrial DNA has “proven” that all people have a common “Grandmother”. There is some debate about when and where she lived, but the theories range from 6000-6500 years ago in Eden (which has support in ancient writings) to 200,000 years ago in Africa (pulled from thin air). In any case it seems to indicate when taken together with lineage information from the Y chromosome showing a common “grandfather”, that mankind didn't slowly evolve, but are all the offspring of a pair of humans. As it turns out the Theory of Creation is supported by this information taken from Mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome.

Actually the date is closer to 10,000 years.

Jbuza wrote:If you would like more information on this topic you can read Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, if you haven't got time to read the entire book scan pages 87-89.
--
Bgood wrote:
A biogeographical study shows that marsupials have been isolated from other mammals for a long period as their cytochrome C differs substantially from those of other mammals yet are similar to each other.

Are you sure?

Yes

Jbuza wrote: Even in Marsupials Cytochrome C is vital for aerobic respiration and the transport of electrons. I guess then that you are saying that all life even in very different environments all evolved the exact same processes of cellular respiration.

No, cellular respiration predates all multicellular life, thus the ability to measure cytochrome C differentiation.

Jbuza wrote:So I guess then you would say that the variety of shapes in apples also proves evolution. Or that the variety of hair color proves evolution. The similarity of Cytochrome C functioning in hugely different species is stronger evidence for Intelligent Design and for the Theory of Creation than it is for evolution. I guess your “proof” is that, “look they have a different shape therefore evolution!!!???” That's a grand leap.

Not quite the reasoning is that differences between the proteins are proportional to the time since common descent. Since aerobic respiration predates all multicellular life.
--

Jbuza wrote:Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally equivalent amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Most importantly, Hubert Yockey[36] has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on several exhaustive genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey 1986; Hampsey 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). . . . Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

Yet the closer the species are related the more similar the cytochrome C is.

Jbuza wrote:The alleged prediction and fulfillment are:
1. If universal common ancestry is true, then ubiquitous proteins with high functional redundancy will have the same or a similar amino acid sequence in two or more species.
2. Ubiquitous proteins with high functional redundancy have the same or a similar amino acid sequence in two or more species.
It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that ubiquitous proteins with high functional redundancy will have the same or a similar amino acid sequence in two or more species. Evolution can accommodate this phenomenon, but it can also accommodate its absence.
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp

The fact remains that cytochrome C vital for aerobic respiration and present throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, displays variations proportional to proposed length of time of divergence, between species.

The fact remains that cytochrome C vital for aerobic respiration and present throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, displays variations proportional to proposed length of time of divergence, between species.

Such a thing is not evidence for evolution, if that's where you're going.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The fact remains that cytochrome C vital for aerobic respiration and present throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, displays variations proportional to proposed length of time of divergence, between species.

Such a thing is not evidence for evolution, if that's where you're going.

I am open to alternative explanations.

smrpgx wrote:I only read the first post, so that's what I'm replying to.
It may seem like evolution is true and that the first chapter of Genesis is simply a picture of what is happening, but there are many dangers to believing that. See for yourself: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html

I beg to differ. I will try to answer each point as I see it (my personal beliefs):

Danger NO. 1 ... Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that "God is love", "light", and "life" (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as "very good" (Genesis 1:31) and "perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)

This is an argument from ignorance. Does anyone honestly believe there's a difference to God between a few thousand years and a few billion years? God is outside time and space and is not bound by them. Besides, the Bible does not forbid the killing of animals. Why is it not possible that we physically evolved then were made in God's imgage (spiritually, not physically) 6 to 10 thousand years ago? I see it exactly like that. Therefore, danger 1 is no danger.

Danger NO. 2 ... God becomes a God of the Gaps

The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" (1 Corinthians 8:6).

However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot "explain" with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a "god of the gaps" for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that "God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is evolution".2

That is simply ridiculous. God is still the cause of all things, whether He did it in 6 literal days 6 to 10 years ago or did it 13 billions years ago in an instant has no bearing whatsoever on the eternality or the continuity of God. The analogy employed is false and as such, danger 2 is no danger.

Danger NO. 3 ... Denial of Central Biblical Teachings

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable "ramp" leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an Allegory, but as a historical report, because:
o Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
o In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
o In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
o Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

I certainly do not regard the biblical creation as myth nor as an allegory. But again there's a perseptual difference in reading the creation accounts. This has been totally explained on this very website here http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html. Genesis is completely harmonized with day age creation. Ergo, danger 3 is no danger.

Danger NO. 4 ... Loss of the Way for Finding God

The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who "came to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does - He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding "God" to the evolutionary scenario.

I truly don't know what this means. How exactly is the conclusion drawn that evolution makes sin meaningless? Evolution does not address the issue of sin in any way nor does it address the issue of God for that matter. We're not referring to neo-darwinian evolution here that things evolved from total randomness, but modern biology and the evolution of like species, and purpose. Sorry, no danger there.

Danger NO. 5 ... The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is Undermined

The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), "Christ Jesus ... was made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:5-7).

The idea of evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation. Evolutionist Hoimar von Ditfurth discusses the incompatibility of Jesus' incarnation and evolutionary thought: "Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review ... of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the 'incarnation' of God ... ".3

Jesus was made in the likeness of men (physically) after men were made in the likeness of God (spiritually). When seen from this perspective then there's nothing in evolution that contradicts Chrisitian formulations and as such, danger 5 is no danger.

Danger NO. 6 ... The Biblical Basis of Jesus' Work of Redemption Is Mythologized

The Bible teaches that the first man's fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from "the dust of the ground" by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible - Romans 5:16-18. Thus any view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus' work of redemption.

Again, from my perspective it is completely reconciled with the bible because I do believe that Adam was the first man made in the likenss of God (spiritually) when God bestowed a conscience and an eternal soul into him. No mythology and no biblical contradiction and what's more. no danger.

Danger NO. 7 ... Loss of Biblical Chronology

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:
o The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).
o The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).
o The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it can not be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.
o Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world's history: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son." This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
o The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:
1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Danger NO. 8 ... Loss of Creation Concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:
o God created matter without using any available material.
o God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of "cosmic evolution", such as the "big bang" cosmology.

Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God's omnipotent acts of creation.

Both dangers 7 and 8 are adequately answered by the God and Science link above. there simply is no contradiction between the bible and day age creation. No danger exists.

Danger NO. 9 ... Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative - whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, "Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants".4

If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform with evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!

Whose reality and from what perspective? They use a Darwinist to prove a point against theism. Why is it so inconceivable that both evolution and God can be harmonized? Why is it that we have to shut our eyes to huge leaps in the sciences (though imperfect) so that we can believe in God? I just don't get it. Science can only enhance my understanding of God as it was part of his creation after all. certainly no danger there.

Danger NO. 10 ... Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man as in the Bible. For example:
1. Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
2. Man is the purpose of God's plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. "Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus can not be regarded as teleonomical."5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. Maybe to some atheistic evolutionists but certainly not to evolution. Evolution deals with how. It does not deal with why, that is left to God. And that is specifically why they can be harmonized as they complete one another. I sense no danger here either.

CONCLUSION

The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. The theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines; however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.

Again, I beg to differ.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The fact remains that cytochrome C vital for aerobic respiration and present throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, displays variations proportional to proposed length of time of divergence, between species.

Such a thing is not evidence for evolution, if that's where you're going.

I am open to alternative explanations.

No you're not.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The fact remains that cytochrome C vital for aerobic respiration and present throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, displays variations proportional to proposed length of time of divergence, between species.

Such a thing is not evidence for evolution, if that's where you're going.

I am open to alternative explanations.

No you're not.

Yes I am.

Jbuza wrote
First I will say that biogeopraphy of marsupials is an evolutionary hypothesis that I feel is diproven by the similarity of their Cytochrome C process and it's role in aerobic respiration.
Bgood Wrote
Not clear. What does this mean?


Well First it means that the idea that geography determines biology and the concept that differentiation has happened as a result of divergence since most recent common decent are constructs and interpretations of evolution, and as such they are not observations and do not need to be addressed as if they are facts when demonstrating how the vast similarities in cytochrome c and cellular respiration are explained by the theory of creation or the theory of intelligent design.

Second the fact that organisms are similar in phylogenetic trees that are arranged by similarities is proof of nothing. The charts and stories that are created in support of evolution are all garbage if evolution is false. How would you say to me see everything has evolved I have made this chart. If I believe the construct of evolution to be false don't expect me to put much stock in phylogenetic trees or ideas like biogeography. These constructs are arranged presupposing that evolution is true, they are not evidence for evolution they are interpretive arrangements of animals. You can't now come to me and say see this chart is evidence that evolution happened.


Two years earlier, Schwabe and Gregory Warr were equally blunt in their criticism of molecular phylogenies. They saw the field of molecular evolution as being mired in subjectivity driven by an a priori commitment to universal common ancestry. They wrote:
We believe that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary models:
1. All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all species, respectively.
2. Complexity evolves mainly through duplications and mutations in structural and control genes.
3. Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes.
4. Ad hoc arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence.
This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory.
The absolute, explicit and implicit, adherence to all the monophyletic principle and consequently the decision to interpret all observations in the light of this principle is the major cause of incongruities as well as for the invention of all the genetic sidestepping rules cited above. (Schwabe and Warr, 467.)
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

Jbuza wrote:Jbuza wrote
First I will say that biogeopraphy of marsupials is an evolutionary hypothesis that I feel is diproven by the similarity of their Cytochrome C process and it's role in aerobic respiration.
Bgood Wrote
Not clear. What does this mean?

There's no doubt that cytochrome C is required for aerobic respiration. The theory suggests that aerobic evolution proceeds multicellular life, therefore the comparisons can be made. Unless you are suggesting that all life forms somehow independantly evolved the ability for aerobic respiration.

Jbuza wrote:Well First it means that the idea that geography determines biology and the concept that differentiation has happened as a result of divergence since most recent common decent are constructs and interpretations of evolution, and as such they are not observations and do not need to be addressed as if they are facts when demonstrating how the vast similarities in cytochrome c and cellular respiration are explained by the theory of creation or the theory of intelligent design.

Very well take away the preconception of evolution. How do you explain the differences in the protien among the different organisms? Why is there more correlation between gene sequence between dog and cat then lets say a dog and an insect? It's the same protien, in the same function.

Jbuza wrote:Second the fact that organisms are similar in phylogenetic trees that are arranged by similarities is proof of nothing. The charts and stories that are created in support of evolution are all garbage if evolution is false. How would you say to me see everything has evolved I have made this chart. If I believe the construct of evolution to be false don't expect me to put much stock in phylogenetic trees or ideas like biogeography. These constructs are arranged presupposing that evolution is true, they are not evidence for evolution they are interpretive arrangements of animals. You can't now come to me and say see this chart is evidence that evolution happened.

Again you are saying that if you take away the construct the correlation dissapears, this is just not the case.

Jbuza wrote:Two years earlier, Schwabe and Gregory Warr were equally blunt in their criticism of molecular phylogenies. They saw the field of molecular evolution as being mired in subjectivity driven by an a priori commitment to universal common ancestry. They wrote:
We believe that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary models:
1. All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all species, respectively.
2. Complexity evolves mainly through duplications and mutations in structural and control genes.

This may be a major component, as molecular biology remains pretty constant and since the onset of multicellular life most of the evolution since then has been mostly body plan and inter cellular biochemistry.

Jbuza wrote:Christian Schwabe 3. Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes.

There may have been cases where viruses were a vector for transfering genes from one species to another but to say that this has happened for the majority of genes is a bit of a stretch if that is what you are infering. Schwabe would not advocate this I assure you. As for the other mechanisms, are you an advocate of so called uniformitarianism? We can take any process and find that there is an average rate of change or whatnot however there are always exceptions to this rule and it is up to us to try and interpret the data in the way that makes the most sence. Again if you have an alternative explanation for the data or if you would like to see the data let me know.

Jbuza wrote:4. Ad hoc arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence.
This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory.

If you have another explanation you are free to share. Until then I would not call them inventions but more a hypothesis on what occured with certain genes.

Jbuza wrote:The absolute, explicit and implicit, adherence to all the monophyletic principle and consequently the decision to interpret all observations in the light of this principle is the major cause of incongruities as well as for the invention of all the genetic sidestepping rules cited above. (Schwabe and Warr, 467.)
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

The studies are there for you to reach your own conclusions. Quoting a scientist is simply not an effective argument. As I am sure you are aware there are plenty of quotes to go around but the data stands for itself. If you have an alternative hypothesis, or at least try to show how the evidence supports your ideas then I would pleasantly surprised.

Bgood Wrote
Unless you are suggesting that all life forms somehow independantly evolved the ability for aerobic respiration.


No, I'm not suggesting that life forms evolved at all. IT wouldn't be a problem for evolution if they did it could explain that to.
--
Bgood Wrote
How do you explain the differences in the protien among the different organisms? Why is there more correlation between gene sequence between dog and cat then lets say a dog and an insect? It's the same protien, in the same function.


Why are you asking me that which you have already answered for yourself? You are convinced that the very charts depicting evolution generated from cytochrome comparisons are independent verification of evolution. There are 114 amino acids in cytochrome C and 2.3X10e93 possible proteins sequences that could work (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992). I think that differences in different animals are proof of nothing; especially given the similarities in different animals. By all means evolution can create yet another phylogenetic tree showing the absurdity of itself, but now well have to be careful to define which phylogenetic tree we are talking about.
--
Again you are saying that if you take away the construct the correlation dissapears, this is just not the case.

Uh. Yes it does. Without evolution we simply have a case were different animals have differences in cytochrome C. Creating a chart and claiming ancestries isn't evidence of anything.

So I guess this latest version of evolution based on this cytochrome c phylogenetic chart says that some strange unknown unduplicated unvarified untestable force “created” mitochondria which evolved into bacteria and nearly all creatures are equal distance from that first life? So only one life originally arose for some unknown reason, and that life was able to mutate into all life. It seems like evolution is trying to argue that it has the answer for all the similarities in cytochrome C and also arguing that it has the answer for all the differences in cytochrome c. All these grand claims through forces that have no scientific or evidentiary basis. Where are the intermediate forms, what was the force that only existed once to create life? Without these answers you have nothing. You can create charts based on Cytochrome comparisons, but you have nothing without proving the construct of evolution.


Oh and before I forget, in case your ties with story telling in evolutionary science have altered your understanding of science. Consulting the literature and quoting other scientists is in fact a grand way to make an argument.

With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986). Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988). Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally similar amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

All life arose from sugar.

Sugar somehow mutated and evolved over eons of time and is now represented by all of life.

I have generated this chart prooving this <imagine chart>, see those animals and plants with greateat availability of sugars to their cells are more closely related to sugar, and see how these distant ones with less sugar are more recently in common decent, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I have no idea why suger will no lnoger create life, or what force once caused it to, but we will just ignore that and preach the truth of it everywhere we go.

Jbuza wrote:With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986). Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988). Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally similar amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

Yet the cytochrome c in humans and chimpanzees are identical.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
Unless you are suggesting that all life forms somehow independantly evolved the ability for aerobic respiration.


No, I'm not suggesting that life forms evolved at all. IT wouldn't be a problem for evolution if they did it could explain that to.

It's not a problem for evolution, as I stated before all multicellular life is thought to have evolved after the biochemistry of aerobic life had been estabilished. Its like the internet, once computers have become ubiquitous then networking between them could begin to grow and adapt.
--

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
How do you explain the differences in the protien among the different organisms? Why is there more correlation between gene sequence between dog and cat then lets say a dog and an insect? It's the same protien, in the same function.

Why are you asking me that which you have already answered for yourself? You are convinced that the very charts depicting evolution generated from cytochrome comparisons are independent verification of evolution. There are 114 amino acids in cytochrome C and 2.3X10e93 possible proteins sequences that could work (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992). I think that differences in different animals are proof of nothing; especially given the similarities in different animals. By all means evolution can create yet another phylogenetic tree showing the absurdity of itself, but now well have to be careful to define which phylogenetic tree we are talking about.

Why is this not a valid question, why not use the same sequence for all the organisms? Why are there differences in the differences?
Let take language as an example. The cytochrome C of an aligator is like chinese. That of a Baboon is like German, and that of a leopard is like french. Upon analysis we can say that french and german are more similar than chinese is to either.

This is what I mean you are trying to tell me that there is no reason to analyse this information because it is meaningless. Do you want to stop the progress of science? Look at the data and tell me again that there is no significance. And why is this type of analysis ok for lets say linguistics, or DNA anlysis for criminal cases, but not ok for for this specific case.
--

Jbuza wrote:Again you are saying that if you take away the construct the correlation dissapears, this is just not the case.

Uh. Yes it does. Without evolution we simply have a case were different animals have differences in cytochrome C. Creating a chart and claiming ancestries isn't evidence of anything.

You can repeat this to yourself over and over but it does not make it so.
Here the data
Corn:
asfseappgn pkagekifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan
knkavvween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylkeat a

Sunflower:
asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan
knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a

Human:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw
gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

Common Chimpanzee:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw
gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

Rabbit:
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg
edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkde radliaylkk atne

Bullfrog:
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtc ekggkhkvgp nlygligrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg
edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdliaylks acsk

Jbuza wrote:So I guess this latest version of evolution based on this cytochrome c phylogenetic chart says that some strange unknown unduplicated unvarified untestable force “created” mitochondria which evolved into bacteria and nearly all creatures are equal distance from that first life? So only one life originally arose for some unknown reason, and that life was able to mutate into all life. It seems like evolution is trying to argue that it has the answer for all the similarities in cytochrome C and also arguing that it has the answer for all the differences in cytochrome c. All these grand claims through forces that have no scientific or evidentiary basis. Where are the intermediate forms, what was the force that only existed once to create life? Without these answers you have nothing. You can create charts based on Cytochrome comparisons, but you have nothing without proving the construct of evolution.

Well not quite, as there are many lifeforms which do not posess cytochrome C. But yes in general the theory states that all eukaryotic multicellular life is derived fom a common ancestor.

Jbuza wrote:Oh and before I forget, in case your ties with story telling in evolutionary science have altered your understanding of science. Consulting the literature and quoting other scientists is in fact a grand way to make an argument.

Sorry, I'll have to reject this notion. As I am sure you would appreciate that there are many more quotes contrary to your position than supporting them.

In any case this is all moot because your original assertion was that this evidnce supported your case. And as of yet, you have failed to show this. Note below.

Jbuza wrote:

Matthew_O wrote: ***What specific evidences that evolution has occurred are you talking about?***

1.) Biogeography of marsupials and their cytochrome C comparisons.
2.) Psuedogene consistency in primates
3.) Endogenous retroviruses

Where is the scientific evidence for Creationism? Can you please detail any of it?

1.) Biogeography of marsupials and their cytochrome C comparisons.
2.) Psuedogene consistency in primates
3.) Endogenous retroviruses

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Why is this not a valid question, why not use the same sequence for all the organisms? Why are there differences in the differences?
Let take language as an example. The cytochrome C of an aligator is like chinese. That of a Baboon is like German, and that of a leopard is like french. Upon analysis we can say that french and german are more similar than chinese is to either.

This is what I mean you are trying to tell me that there is no reason to analyse this information because it is meaningless.

Similarities between creations do exist. Why would you say (in effect) that they mean that God didn't create here, and how would this somehow mean evolution must have happened? What tells you that the simolarities must be the one, not the other?