Evidence for God from Science

I'm not an evolutionist but I take a keen interest in science and the philosophy of science. I'm going to give it to you in the form of straight questions…

1.Is macroevolution true? Is it observable?
2.Is there “evidence for macroevolution” in the fossil record?
3.Aren't there numerous missing links in the fossil record?
4.Isn't the so-called “microevolution” observed in nature just adaptation?
5.Is it true that, as Jerry Coyne mentions in his “Evolution is True”, there are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimpanzees?
6.If true, wouldn't this make a mockery of the claim that there is little genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees? And, in turn, wouldn't this show that, actually, there is a substantial genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees?


Thank you in anticipation.

Peace

I bet you get many good responses to your thread. In the meantime, I just want to point you to that search field in the top right portion of your screen. Many many threads exist on this forum on exactly the topic you're interested in discussing. Also, don't forget to search reasons.org on this subject. They deal with it in depth as well.

ageofknowledge wrote:I bet you get many good responses to your thread. In the meantime, I just want to point you to that search field in the top right portion of your screen. Many many threads exist on this forum on exactly the topic you're interested in discussing. Also, don't forget to search reasons.org on this subject. They deal with it in depth as well.

I'm sure I will, Age. I'll take a butcher's at 'reasons.org' — thanks — and I hope some of our own can help me with this; I was debating a “scientist” the other day and, I kid you not, he was full of rhetoric and obfuscation. Get this: when I questioned him he went berserk and called me “a typical creationist”. I asked him to define a “creationist” and he said, after some mumbling, “Well, someone who denies the science…” I had him all wound up and I'm not even a bloody scientist and have a limited knowledge of the discipline!

Peace brother

DannyM wrote:I'm not an evolutionist but I take a keen interest in science and the philosophy of science. I'm going to give it to you in the form of straight questions…

1.Is macroevolution true? Is it observable?

No... In a nutshell, the problem here is that many take micro-evolution (small adaptive changes) to mean macro-evolution (the bigger changes). Micro-evolution can be demonstrated, macro can't. It's just an assumption. Today even if you bring this up with an evolutionist, they will even deny that macro-evolution or micro-evolution even exists. They just call the whole process evolution.

DannyM wrote:2.Is there “evidence for macroevolution” in the fossil record?

No... Please read. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... LWIET5hgrm

DannyM wrote:3.Aren't there numerous missing links in the fossil record?

No... Please read. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... rJAS2P1FIZ

DannyM wrote:4.Isn't the so-called “microevolution” observed in nature just adaptation?

Not according to strict evolutionary dogma. Explained above.

DannyM wrote:5.Is it true that, as Jerry Coyne mentions in his “Evolution is True”, there are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimpanzees?
6.If true, wouldn't this make a mockery of the claim that there is little genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees? And, in turn, wouldn't this show that, actually, there is a substantial genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees?

Many say that the chimps blueprint is 99% identical to ours. Humans are much more identical to a chimp than a rat, that is true. It sounds close, only 1%, but you also have to remember that our genome is 3 billion base pairs long. So one 1% of 3 billion we are still talking about millions of letters that are different. It's still a big difference. There are also considerable differences involved in the development of the brain, also our diet and how we digest food are really different. Speech is another area. A sequence called FOXP2 may help give humans the delicate muscle control in their face to produce words far more complex than animal sounds. And the difference from leathery paws to sensitive hands that build computers maybe the result of another sequence dubbed R2.

Gman wrote:Many say that the chimps blueprint is 99% identical to ours. Humans are much more identical to a chimp than a rat, that is true. It sounds close, only 1%, but you also have to remember that our genome is 3 billion base pairs long. So one 1% of 3 billion we are still talking about millions of letters that are different. It's still a big difference.

30million base pairs to be precise. You can split the difference between humans and chimps (assuming that both species have undergone similar rates of change in their genomes since they diverged) to get a rough guesstimate of 15million base pair changes from the human/chimp most recent common ancestor.

Just doing some rough calculations based on gene size (a bit of googling found that the smallest gene known in any species is 20base pairs, the largest human gene is 2.4million base pairs, and the average human gene size is 10-15thousand base pairs) and the time (6million years) since humans and chimps diverged then, based solely on changes to genome of the "gene duplication type", you end up with:
- An upper limit of one gene duplication every ~8.5 years (assuming every gene is 21base pairs)
- An average of one gene duplication every ~4-6thousand years
- A lower limit of one gene duplication every ~1million years (assuming every gene is 2.4Mbases)

I have to stress that that is a very rough calculation done by someone not "in the know". There are a lot of factors that would have to be taken into consideration to come up with a more robust answer (e.g. what proportion of changes are due to gene duplication rather than other methods, whether the size of a gene affects the likelihood of it being duplicated, etc. etc.).

I ran this by Fuz once and he easily explained it in terms that led away from evolutionary theory. He dotted his i's and crossed his t's. A very smart man and a very good explanation. Unfortunately, I am not Fuz so you'll have to ask him directly when you get a chance.

Consider the 1% myth:

http://www.reasons.org/latest-human-chi ... s-part-1-2

Gman wrote:No... In a nutshell, the problem here is that many take micro-evolution (small adaptive changes) to mean macro-evolution (the bigger changes). Micro-evolution can be demonstrated, macro can't. It's just an assumption. Today even if you bring this up with an evolutionist, they will even deny that macro-evolution or micro-evolution even exists. They just call the whole process evolution. .

The so-called evolutionary scientist I was talking to, when I asked him if, basically, lots of micro = macro said, “effectively, yes”. He said the evidence was in the fossil record…

Gman wrote:No... Please read. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... LWIET5hgrm.

I'm halfway through reading this, Gman and it's very interesting.

Gman wrote:No... Please read. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... rJAS2P1FIZ.

Will do!

Gman wrote:Not according to strict evolutionary dogma. Explained above. .

Talking of “evolutionary dogma,” what *is* it about this post-modern dogmatism that appears to exist among evolutionists? Is it purely down to desperation for a worldview to be right and thus evolution becomes a prop of sorts?

Gman wrote:Many say that the chimps blueprint is 99% identical to ours. Humans are much more identical to a chimp than a rat, that is true. It sounds close, only 1%, but you also have to remember that our genome is 3 billion base pairs long. So one 1% of 3 billion we are still talking about millions of letters that are different. It's still a big difference. There are also considerable differences involved in the development of the brain, also our diet and how we digest food are really different. Speech is another area. A sequence called FOXP2 may help give humans the delicate muscle control in their face to produce words far more complex than animal sounds. And the difference from leathery paws to sensitive hands that build computers maybe the result of another sequence dubbed R2.

Gman, you're a gentleman. I knew you'd pop up for me on this one. Thank you.

Peace brother

touchingcloth wrote:I have to stress that that is a very rough calculation done by someone not "in the know". There are a lot of factors that would have to be taken into consideration to come up with a more robust answer (e.g. what proportion of changes are due to gene duplication rather than other methods, whether the size of a gene affects the likelihood of it being duplicated, etc. etc.).

Well let's look at it this way... There are approximately 3 billion base pairs in the human genome.

3 billion = 3 x 109

The average gene has 1,350 base pairs.

The human genome has 30,000 — 40,000 genes (from the Genome Project)

3% = 3 x 10-2

(3 x 10-2) x (3 x 109) = 9 x 107 or 90 million base pairs.

Number of base pairs per gene ≈ 1.4 x 103
Number of genes in human genome ≈ 4.0 x 104

(1.4 x 103) x (4.0 x 104) = 5.6 x 107

Remember that 9 x 107 base pairs is our 3% difference, so…

9 x 107 ÷ 5.6 x 107 = 1.6

Therefore, 1.6 copies of the entire human genome could fit in the 3% difference.

ageofknowledge wrote:I ran this by Fuz once and he easily explained it in terms that led away from evolutionary theory. He dotted his i's and crossed his t's. A very smart man and a very good explanation. Unfortunately, I am not Fuz so you'll have to ask him directly when you get a chance.

Consider the 1% myth:

http://www.reasons.org/latest-human-chi ... s-part-1-2

So I'm one-third daffodil, Age? Yeah, erm, makes sense to me…

There are many housekeeping genes that every cell that is seen in most cells. So yes, we have similarities to flower cells.

zoegirl wrote:There are many housekeeping genes that every cell that is seen in most cells. So yes, we have similarities to flower cells.

But Zoe, although we have similarities to flower cells, the point I'm making is that we couldn't be more *different* to them in our make up. Hence the so-called 99% similarities with Chimpanzees turns out to be not so profound...?

Please go easy with me if I'm making a catastrophic error, as this really isn't my field; I'm just searching. Heck, go rough on me if I deserve it

yes, I don't disagree with that, just addressing the incredulity I heard about the plant..

DannyM wrote:

zoegirl wrote:There are many housekeeping genes that every cell that is seen in most cells. So yes, we have similarities to flower cells.

But Zoe, although we have similarities to flower cells, the point I'm making is that we couldn't be more *different* to them in our make up. Hence the so-called 99% similarities with Chimpanzees turns out to be not so profound...?

Please go easy with me if I'm making a catastrophic error, as this really isn't my field; I'm just searching. Heck, go rough on me if I deserve it

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.

Consider: http://www.reasons.org/bible-and-brains ... milarities

touchingcloth wrote: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?