[_ Old Earth _] Creation and Evolution Presentation

[Barbarian]

Downplaying contradictions like this doesn't make them go away.

As you know, these are not contradictions.

For those who don't know genetics has provided considerable discordance across phylogeny trees for the last 30 years. Pig insulin being closer to human than chimp insulin is is just the tip of the iceberg.

Well, let's take a look at that, and see how it plays...

So differences in conserved molecules happen by random mutations to sites on the molecule that don't affect its function. So let's say that 25 amino acids on the small (51 amino acids) insulin molecule are not conserved and can vary without changing function.

So a random mutation is relatively unlikely to work, but it does happen now and then. So humans had zero to two since the last common ancestor with chimps, and chimps had zero to two also. At the same time, chimps differ by two amino acids from swine and humans have one difference.

This would most likely be the result of one random mutation in humans that substituted an amino acid that also happened to be in swine at that site. Which is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory. And quite likely as well. This, as I pointed out before, is why creationists like to cite very small molecules, rather than large ones, which would have many more mutations, and with a large number would not show what they would like to regard as "contradictions." Of course, they ignore the much more significant evidence from statistically valid sources.

A theory that only uses evidence tht supports itself and ignores evidence contrary is akin to someone promoting a doctrine based on scriptures that only support their idea and completely ignoring scriptures to the contrary. So creationists ignore the data, and try to find anomalies in smaller molecules, and imagine single mutations are impossible.

The gene for interleukin-26 gene is only found in humans and chickens,

Turns out, it's actually a viral fragment, inserted by a virus similar to herpes, which infects both chickens and humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC256879/?page=1

Is it beginning to dawn on you that all these "contradictions" aren't really contradictions at all?

if evolution were true there would be a common ancestor and transitionals.

Or at some point, humans happened to be infected by a virus that infects birds.

I hope you would reconsider Intelligent Design theory,

There is no such thing. As the courts have found, it's a religion, not a theory. Creationism with a shave and clean clothes.

it takes an open approach to the observations and makes more sense.

"Sense" like that, science can't use. The purpose of science is to find the truth, not to obscure it.

Yet, relaxins of a pig and whale are almost identical.

Both being ungulates, that's not a surprise.

Well they are now, but ungulates used to be only hooved animals.

Actually, scientists had long suspected whales of having evolved from ungulates, since they had ungulate digestive systems, and other anatomical features common to other ungulates. But then genetic analysis nailed it.

They either had to reject evolution as a failed theory or make a radical change and combine cows, sheep, hippos, goats, etc, with whales and dolphins.

And now, you know better. Scientists knew there must be a connection long before DNA analysis confirmed it.

So now evolution says a sheep and dolphin are related.

Anatomy first said so. Then genetic data said so. Then, the predicted transitionals were found. So you've been given some false information there.

J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Research 39 (2001) 77±90
Evidence from the digestive tract on phylogenetic relationships
in ungulates and whales
P. L ANGER
Although Honeycutt and Adkins (1993) acknowledged disagreement between results based on morphological and molecular investigations, they emphasized a sister-group relationship between Artiodactyla and Cetacea. According to Broham et al. (1999) the `split' between whales and even-toed ungulates took
place about 60 million years ago, thereafter the cetaceans entered the oceans (Williams 1999). However, during the early to middle Eocene (about 50 million years ago) Ambulocetus natans (i.e. walking whale that swims') could locomote in water as well as on land (Thewissen et al. 1996). The Cetacea show considerable adaptation to aquatic life, such as the replacement of hind-legs
by an eff€ective fluke and the transformation of forelimbs into fippers, but according to Milinkovitch et al. (1998) `cetaceans are highly derived artiodactyls.' `Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales' (Nikaido et al. 1999).

There is a better explanation for the genetic information.

None that can adequately explain these facts.

Depending on which gene we look at humans are closer to elephants and distant to armadillos.

Let's test that.
Show us the data from some big molecules, like hemoglobin, DNA, and mitochondrial DNA. Creationists won't do that, because the sample size makes them reliable indicators of relationship. Instead, they cherry pick the few small molecules that don't show relationships. If you want to use small molecules, use a few dozen random conserved molecules and show us that.

If you want to test that all you have to do is...

Test those that represent samples large enough to be significant. You've done the equivalent of hand-picking fifty-one people as a suitable sample of American opinion.

You've been misled about those phylogenies. Note that the phylogenies you did use were from small molecules, which have lower resolution, but they still show the same general trend. Vertebrates have a common ancestor, tetrapods have a common ancestor, amniotes have a common ancestor, and so on.

The cytochrome-C protein in humans and horses differs by 14 amino acids. Compared to kangaroo's it differs by eight. When the same strand is examined, turtles appear closer to man than to a reptile such as the rattlesnake

For such a small molecule, with only a few non-conserved sites, it's remarkably accurate. Grasse is wrong, of course, about humans and horses. It's twelve. And turtles, being primitive reptiles, should be closer to humans than they are to snakes, which are highly evolved reptiles.

Turtles and snakes are both reptiles

But snakes and lizards are the outgroup compared to turtles and mammals. If mammals evolved from therapsids (and the anatomical and fossil data show that they did), then turtles and humans should be more closely related than humans and snakes.

yet turtle's should be closer to humans than they are to snakes?

Yep, and lungfish are closer to humans than they are to bass.

That's contrary to what evolutionists have been teaching bout reptiles and mammals.

Nope. That's just a story creationists like to tell.

And because snakes are highly evolved?

Yep. Radically changed from the ancestral reptile.

Are you suggesting snakes are more evolved than humans

Such a question is meaningless in science. We are both highly evolved in different ways. But we're closer to the ancestral amniote than snakes are.

and that is why some turtle DNA sequences are closer to humans than snakes?

Yep. Snakes have diverged longer from the common ancestor with turtles than humans have diverged from reptiles. And lungfish have diverged longer from teleosts than they have from humans.

Downplaying contradictions like this with Darwin's theory doesn't make them go away.

You've just been given a lot of false information about what evolution is, and what evolutionary theory says.

I hope you would reconsider taking a more critical approach to Darwin's theory.

Modern evolutionary theory does. It's rather changed from Darwin's theory on a good number of points. Darwin's main points remain, but a lot has been changed. It probably seems like cheating to creationists. Theories change and adapt as new evidence demands. You guys are stuck with the modern revision the Adventists promoted.

About 94% based on the human genome data.
"At the level of indivdual protein sequences, humans are about 97-100% identical to the great apes"

http://cmm.ucsd.edu/varki/varkilab/Publications/B84.pdf

So one study says 97-100% and another says no common ancesrty with chimps for 23% of the genome.

Measuring two different things. But of course, there is no scientific study that says "no common ancestry with chimps."

Looking at the study that said 97-100%, that study was from 2002 and they didn't have the entire chimp genome sequenced until 2005, so thats invalid.

In fact, it used the entire genome. DNA hybridization uses the entire genome. I thought you knew.

The one I cited was from the Molecular Biology and Evolution Journal, and they said "For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee."

As you seem to now understand, they did not say "no common ancestry with chimps." They said the opposite.

The most anyone can honestly claim is 87%.

No that's wrong. It' merely means that there are huge stretches of non-coding DNA, repeats, and so on that are present. But it still means the actual proteins produced by our genes shows 97-100% identity.

…in two-thirds of the cases a genealogy results in which humans and chimpanzees are not each other’s closest genetic relatives.

We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. This explains recurrent findings of very old human-specific morphological traits in the fossils record, which predate the recent emergence of the human species about 5-6 MYA. Furthermore, the sorting of such ancestral phenotypic polymorphisms in subsequent speciation events provides a parsimonious explanation why evolutionary derived characteristics are shared among species that are not each other’s closest relatives.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/868.abstract

It seems you unwittingly cite research that confirms human ancestry from the apes. It merely suggests that many genes now common to humans were present in the ancestors of all apes, and were subsequently lost in chimps, with many in chimps that were lost in humans, and some of these were retained in other apes. You've undercut your own argument.

By comparison 75% of human genes have some counterpart in nematodes (worms).

That's about what evolutionary theory would predict. Do you have a point?

Evolution did not predict worms and humans would have 75% of anything in common.

It did and does. Humans and nematodes are out on one branch of the bush of life. We are both metazoans, and as such, we have most of our genes in common. Not as many as we share with chordates, vertebrates, tetrapods, aminotes, mammals, and apes (in order of increasing similarity), but still, most of them.

My point was evolution is just looking more and more silly in light of molecular phylonegy.

And now you know better.

Barbarian observes:
The reason no other theory has seriously challenged his theory is that no other theory can effectively explain the evidence.

After comparing 2000 genes common to that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes Syvanen said:
"Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,"

Well, let's take a look...

And that from a relatively small molecule, cytochrome c. How can both of these be true? If you think about it, I'm sure you'll realize how.

No other theory is necessary to challenge evolution, a theory that is 50/50 fails all by itself.

See above. If your argument depends on cherry-picking a few small molecules, and ignoring the data from much larger and therefore statistically more reliable ones, isn't that a tip-off for you?

Based on this cherry-picking, humans have been paired with chickens, sea squirts paired with frogs. It's a sad thing when creationists have to resort to deception to make their points.

Dolphins paired with sheep,

Which would have to be true, if evolutionary theory is correct. Not surprisingly, the predictions based on anatomy were confirmed by fossil transitionals and genetic data.

You've offered several times to produce a transitional for any two said to be related.

In that comparison of 2000 genes Sea squirts were found to be related to frogs, I'd ask you to produce transitionals for those but I don't think any good would come of asking.

Cephalochordates. Transitional between sea squirts and true chordates like frogs.


It's a long way from amphioxus
It's a long way to us…
It's a long way from amphioxus
To the meanest human cuss.
It's good-bye, fins and gill slits,
Hello, lungs and hair!
It's a long, long way from amphioxus,
But we all came from there!

A fish-like thing appeared among the annelids one day;
It hadn't any parapods or setae to display.
It hadn't any eyes or jaws, or ventral nervous chord,
But it had a lot of gill slits and it had a notochord.

(chorus)

It wasn't much to look at, and it scarce knew how to swim.
And Nereis was very sure it hadn't come from him.
The molluscs wouldn't own it, and the arthropods got sore,
So the poor thing had to burrow in the sand along the shore.

He burrowed in the sand before a crab could nip his tail.
He said "Gill slits and myotomes are all to no avail.
I've grown some metapleural folds, and sport an oral hood.
And all these fine new characters don't do me any good!"

(chorus)

He sulked a while down in the sand without a bit of pep.
Then he stiffened up his notochord and said "I'll beat 'em yet!
Let 'em laugh and show their ignorance; I don't mind their jeers!
Just wait until they see me in a hundred million years!"

"My notochord shall turn into a chain of vertebrae;
As fins, my metapleural folds will agitate the sea.
My tiny dorsal nervous chord shall be a mighty brain
And the vertebrates will dominate the animal domain!"

(chorus)
Fight Song of the University of Ediacara

Well, technically, it now appears that we aren't directly descended from Amphioxus (now known as Brachiostoma), but rather from a slightly different offshoot of the urochordata. Most likely, the Appendiculara.

 

[Sparkey]

Well they are now, but ungulates used to be only hooved animals.

What was the quote from Pretty Woman when that oyster popped up and the waiter caught it? Oh, that's right, I remember, "Slippery little suckers, aren't they?"

Maybe she was talking about the habit of reclassifying things as they are discovered. It would make sense to re-define plant and animal classifications, just as it would make sense to eliminate Pluto from the official list of planets. They are slippery little suckers, aren't they? Sometimes, it does seem that way.

 

[Barbarian]

Well they are now, but ungulates used to be only hooved animals.

Actually, Vaccine wrote that. He does quotes that make it look as though I said those things. I don't think he intends it to be misleading, but I guess it is.

What was the quote from Pretty Woman when that oyster popped up and the waiter caught it? Oh, that's right, I remember, "Slippery little suckers, aren't they?"

Vaccine was assuming things that were actually false. Long before we had the genetic evidence, or any fossil transitionals, scientists suspected whales were ungulates because they have (among other things) an ungulate digestive system.

Maybe she was talking about the habit of reclassifying things as they are discovered.

Not this one, at least.

It would make sense to re-define plant and animal classifications, just as it would make sense to eliminate Pluto from the official list of planets.

Actually, if we reclassified whales, it would be quite different than reclassifying Pluto. Nothing changes as far as our knowledge of Pluto. It's just that as a host of Pluto-sized objects were found, it became clear that we'd have to either change the classification of Pluto, or have a very large number of planets. Astronomers chose the former. On the other hand, reclassifying whales would mean that our understanding of their ancestry had changed. But of course, it didn't. The opposite happened. Previous predictions, based on partial evidence, were confirmed, by fossil and genetic evidence.

They are slippery little suckers, aren't they?

Not this time, at least.

 

[Sparkey]

Barb, thanks for the corrections, I should have taken more time when I did the quoting. I do think that my comment apples more to you than to the other guy though because I was actually addressing you, to get your input, you know how that can happen.

Anyway, to your comment about the suspicion of Scientists, quote: "scientists suspected whales were ungulates because they have (among other things) an ungulate digestive system," and in context of the Ex-Planet Pluto and "them slippery suckers," it was my hope that you could see why there is in fact suspicion that remains outside of realm of science, focused toward scientists and may very well have been earned. Give credit where it's due, right?

 

[Barbarian]

Barb, thanks for the corrections, I should have taken more time when I did the quoting. I do think that my comment apples more to you than to the other guy though because I was actually addressing you, to get your input, you know how that can happen.

Yep.

Anyway, to your comment about the suspicion of Scientists, quote: "scientists suspected whales were ungulates because they have (among other things) an ungulate digestive system," and in context of the Ex-Planet Pluto and "them slippery suckers," it was my hope that you could see why there is in fact suspicion that remains outside of realm of science, focused toward scientists and may very well have been earned.

I notice that it's concentrated mostly among those who know the least about science and scientists. It boils down primarily to the fact that scientists are human and therefore fallible.

That's what peer-review is for, and why a single case wherein results can't be replicated is enough to put a scientist's career in jeopardy. The point is, it works. It works better than almost anything else we can do. That's why we've seen such progress in science. If we could match that in ethics or philosophy in general, we'd be much better off.

Give credit where it's due, right?

Right.

 

[Sparkey]

I notice that it's concentrated mostly among those who know the least about science and scientists...
That's what peer-review is for...

Nicely self-reinforcing that. That is what is often said about those who believe the bible. I thought I'd take it for a test drive.

If we could match that in ethics or philosophy in general, we'd be much better off.

Pardon me, but now that is indeed a scary thought. I was smiling at what you were saying before, you know, but a peer reviewed "ethics" committee? You're kidding, right?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding antipathy to science:
I notice that it's concentrated mostly among those who know the least about science and scientists...

Regarding the ethical rigor of science:
That's what peer-review is for. A scientist whose results cannot be replicated is likely to see his career come to an end.

Nicely self-reinforcing that.

It's a fact.

That is what is often said about those who believe the bible.

I notice those most critical of the Bible often know the least about it. So I guess you're right about that.

Barbarian, regarding the success of science in understanding the world:
If we could match that in ethics or philosophy in general, we'd be much better off.

Pardon me, but now that is indeed a scary thought. I was smiling at what you were saying before, you know, but a peer reviewed "ethics" committee?

Peer review works when you're dealing in facts. Ethics and philosophy seem to be having a problem finding a way to make their discipline as useful and reliable. Copying science isn't going to help philosophy. Note the "train wreck" (its founder's term) that happened to "intelligent design" when they tried to copy from science.

You're kidding, right?

I'm just looking at the results. And they seem pretty persuasive to me.

 

[Vaccine]

The gene for interleukin-26 gene is only found in humans and chickens,

Turns out, it's actually a viral fragment, inserted by a virus similar to herpes, which infects both chickens and humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...256879/?page=1

Is it beginning to dawn on you that all these "contradictions" aren't really contradictions at all?

Scroll down for more about the contradictions.
The article you cited said nothing whatever about interleukin 26. It was research from 1981 using rats and HSV-2 virus, where they figured out how the HSV-2 virus, known to cause tumors, might possibly cause tumors.

The Interleukin 26 gene is not a fragment and it wasn't inserted by a virus.
I think you might want to read up on viral transfers being cell specific and gonadal tissue before using an article like that to leap to such a conclusion.
Interleukin 26 was previously only found in humans, is now found in chickens. They're going to have to rethink the whole idea they evolved separately from mammals ~320 million years ago.

Actually, scientists had long suspected whales of having evolved from ungulates, since they had ungulate digestive systems, and other anatomical features common to other ungulates. But then genetic analysis nailed it.

Ungula is latin for hoof and it was known all along whales would wind up classified with pigs? It's easy enough to say that now, but let's see your evidence for that.

Anatomy first said so. Then genetic data said so. Then, the predicted transitionals were found. So you've been given some false information there.

Ambulocetus cannot be counted as a transitional form because it is actually younger than the oldest recognized cetacean Himalayacetus. (Bajpa and Gingerich 1998).

The most anyone can honestly claim is 87%.

No that's wrong. It' merely means that there are huge stretches of non-coding DNA, repeats, and so on that are present. But it still means the actual proteins produced by our genes shows 97-100% identity.

Math isn't my best subject but even I know there is no such thing as 123% of a genome. 100% identity is just nonsense, the Molecular Biology and Evolution journal says 23% of the genome shares no immediate genetic ancestry. Claiming anything above 87% similar is just being dishonest at this point.

In that comparison of 2000 genes Sea squirts were found to be related to frogs, I'd ask you to produce transitionals for those but I don't think any good would come of asking.
Cephalochordates. They are transitional between sea squirts and true chordates like frogs.

That was easy.

Tunicates (seasquirts) and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16495997
It was a rhetorical question, there is no transitional between them anymore. If evolution is to be believed seasquirts, made a colossal leap to vertibrates, which is just ridiculous. The evidence points toward common designer now, not common ancestor.

Show us the data from some big molecules, like hemoglobin, DNA, and mitochondrial DNA. Creationists won't do that, because the sample size makes them reliable indicators of relationship.

Here's the whole chromosome.
"Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content."
"By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

Of course rapid evolution is contrary to everything we know about the human genome. Next to gonorrhoea and tuberculosis, humans are the one of the least varied species on the planet. Articles assuming rapid evolution and the SRGAP2 gene assuming 3 gain of function mutations from copying the same gene just show desperate evolutionists are. I imagine during the copernicus revolution geocentrists dug in with bold claims as well.

I know I posted this before but I read more about the article "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009) on evolution news. Notice it says, "why" not "was?".

"For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."
"Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)


"Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts--also known as tunicates--are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says."
"Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

Even among higher organisms, "[t]he problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories," leading Syvanen to say, regarding the relationships of these higher groups, "We've just annihilated the tree of life." This directly contradicts Hillis' claim that there is "overwhelming agreement correspondence as you go from protein to protein, DNA sequence to DNA sequence."
"Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)


"Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves."Carl Woese "The Universal Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 95:6854-9859 (June, 1998)


I've heard people say evolution is as solid as gravity, if they mean species change over time, then yes, if they mean common ancestor it's 50/50%. In 2008 The journal of molecular biology and volution published 23% of human and chimp DNA is not similar. They "annihilated the tree of life" in 2009. An article in Genome Research in 2009 said "a new scientific era is dawning". And in 2012 ENCODE published an article affirming specified-complexity in the human genome. Notice, these aren't creationists saying these things. These are scientists saying "our fundamental view of biology needs to change".

 

[Vaccine]

Pig insulin being closer to human than chimp insulin

Being a diabetic I've heard of studies like this. They hope to be able to learn to make cheaper (synthetic?) insulin. I don't inject but consider the research useful for this purpose. My sister, also a diabetic, suffered from a wound to the heel of her left foot. They used foreskins that were taken from babies and I joked with her about the "patchwork" material she found under her bruised heel after the repair. Eventually her foot had to be amputated but I still have a lot of appreciation for the science that was used to save her life as well as prolong the comfort of her last remaining years with us. I am convinced that in her case to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

That's just one of the differences that I find in my heart for the various appreciations that I have for both science and for the Bible.

Sorry to hear about your sister. Pretty impressive they could ..uh re-purpose those. I'm not a big fan of synthetic thyroid hormone, but my mother in law is diabetic and she has seen huge improvements in insulin over the last few decades. I hear there is one huge diabetes forum online that has almost taken on a life of its own.

 

[Barbarian]

The article you cited said nothing whatever about interleukin 26. It was research from 1981 using rats and HSV-2 virus, where they figured out how the HSV-2 virus, known to cause tumors, might possibly cause tumors.[/QUOTE

It is another small molecule (about 170 aas) one of several cherry-picked by creationists, because small genes are much more likely to have few mutations, which makes them statistically less reliable than large molecules. Of course, the vast majority of such small molecule point to the same phylogeny as a few large ones, because of course, larger samples are more reliable.

They're going to have to rethink the whole idea they evolved separately from mammals ~320 million years ago.

Surprise. It random variations in small molecules don't mean much, so no geneticist thinks it matters.

Barbarian observes:
Actually, scientists had long suspected whales of having evolved from ungulates, since they had ungulate digestive systems, and other anatomical features common to other ungulates. But then genetic analysis nailed it.

Ungula is latin for hoof

That's why they call them "ungulates."

and it was known all along whales would wind up classified with pigs?

Actually the closest ungulate to whales is the hippopotamus. But yes, there were a good number of ungulate characteristics that led biologists to predict that whales evolved from mammals with hooves. Later, as you know, fossil transitionals (with hooves) and genetic analyses confirmed that prediction.

It's easy enough to say that now, but let's see your evidence for that.

There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure” (ICR leader Duane Gish 1985:

In 1994, the transitional Ambulocetus natans, complete with a whale's skull and teeth, but with hooved feet, was found.

However, a close phylogenetic relationship between cetaceans and ungulates was first suggested over 100 yr. ago.
Phylogeny of All Major Groups of Cetaceans Based on DNA Sequences from Three Mitochondrial Genes
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/6/939.full.pdf

Barbarian oberves:
Anatomy first said so. Then genetic data said so. Then, the predicted transitionals were found.

So you've been given some false information there.

Nope. It's all true.

Ambulocetus cannot be counted as a transitional form because it is actually younger than the oldest recognized cetacean Himalayacetus . (Bajpa and Gingerich 1998).

Ah, the "If you're alive, your uncle has to be dead" argument. Sorry, not convincing. But you've also failed to realize that Himalyacetus is an Ambulocetid, of the same family as A. natans. They just found a later example first, before the earlier one.

Himalayacetus is an extinct genus of carnivorous aquatic mammal of the family Ambulocetidae.Three genera of whales make up the family Ambulocetidae: Ambulocetus , Gandakasia , and Himalayacetus . Gandakasia and Himalayacetus are only known from a single lower jaw fragment each, and cannot be compared in detail with Ambulocetus .

http://www3.neomed.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/whales/Ambulocet.html

The most anyone can honestly claim is 87%.

No that's wrong. It' merely means that there are huge stretches of non-coding DNA, repeats, and so on that are present. But it still means the actual proteins produced by our genes shows 97-100% identity.

Math isn't my best subject but even I know there is no such thing as 123% of a genome.

That's not what it says. Read the article again. People are switching around definitions on you to confuse you.

In that comparison of 2000 genes Sea squirts were found to be related to frogs, I'd ask you to produce transitionals for those but I don't think any good would come of asking.

Cephalochordates. They are transitional between sea squirts and true chordates like frogs.

That was easy.

Tunicates (seasquirts) and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates

One researcher thinks so. But appendicularans are still the closest relatives to chordates for anatomical and genetic data.

It was a rhetorical question, there is no transitional between them anymore.

Classification: Class Appendicularia

Classification (1960)
Kingdom Animalia (1948)
Phylum Chordata (Chordates) (520)
Class Appendicularia (10)
Subphylum Urochordata (16)
Class Appendicularia (10)
http://archive.serpentproject.com/view/classification/Appendicularia.html


Doklady Biological Sciences
January 2013, Volume 448, Issue 1, pp 41-44
The organization of body cavity in appendicularians (Chordata: Appendicularia) is not typical of deuterostomia

If evolution is to be believed seasquirts, made a colossal leap to vertibrates,

Not so colossal. Very simple. Appendicularians are the simplest known chordates, the only known tunicates to continue free swimming lifestyle. The larval tunicate has the structures of an adult chordate:

The adult degenerates into a sessile organism, and loses most of those characteristics. By the process of neotony, the Appendicularians retain those characteristics, as do all other chordates.

No "colossal leap" at all. In fact, the transitionals still exist. Creationists, to maintain their beliefs, have to deny the appendicularians exist.

which is just ridiculous.

Yep.

The evidence points toward common designer now, not common ancestor.

Surprise.

Barbarian suggests a departure from cherry-picking small molecules:
Show us the data from some big molecules, like hemoglobin, DNA, and mitochondrial DNA. Creationists won't do that, because the sample size makes them reliable indicators of relationship.

Here's the whole chromosome.

Sorry, no more cherry-picking. Let's use the whole genome, not just the smallest available chromosome.

Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives...The researchers also found that bonobos share about 98.7% of their DNA with humans—about the same amount that chimps share with us.
http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

Of course rapid evolution is contrary to everything we know about the human genome.

No, that's wrong, too:

High Alt Med Biol. 2011 Summer;12(2):149-55. doi: 10.1089/ham.2010.1089.
Rapid recent human evolution and the accumulation of balanced genetic polymorphisms.
...Among many examples, these studies include those that have followed the rapid evolution of traits that may permit adaptation to high altitude in Tibetan and Andean populations. In some cases, directional selection has been so strong that it may have swept alleles close to fixation in the span of a few thousand years, a rapidity of change that is also sometimes encountered in other organisms.

I've heard people say evolution is as solid as gravity

More so. We can observe both, but we know why evolution works. We still don't know for sure why gravity works.

if they mean species change over time, then yes, if they mean common ancestor it's 50/50%.

Oh, you mean microgravity. Everyone admits microgravity. But no one has ever seen a galaxy make a complete revolution, so macrogravity is "just a theory." ;)

Notice, these aren't creationists saying these things.

Turns out, it was. ICR simply didn't tell the truth about the ENCODE findings.

These are scientists saying "our fundamental view of biology needs to change".

Their leader, Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, says that the evidence for evolution is compelling. So it's probably not a coincidence that we don't see them saying our view of evolution should change.

If your argument depends on rewriting what real scientists say, and cherry-picking anomalies in small molecules (while steadfastly refusing to even discuss the evidence from larger and statistically valid molecules) isn't that an important clue for you?

 

[Sparkey]

Actually the closest ungulate to whales is the hippopotamus. But yes, there were a good number of ungulate characteristics that led biologists to predict that whales evolved from mammals with hooves. Later, as you know, fossil transitionals (with hooves) and genetic analyses confirmed that prediction.

In the case of Genesis 1:20, God's command was to (in part) let the seas teem with life. Interestingly, Genesis does not mention or describe the land mammals from before the appearance of whales. It does not have to. If Evolution is true, then it is assumed that for the seas to teem with whales, the land and seas would first produce the mammalian forms that precede them.

Old Earthers adopt Day Age theories that tell us Days 5 and 6 overlap... because they are told by scientists that whales clearly developed after land mammals first appeared; Young Earthers correctly point out that such theories contradict the plain meaning of scripture; the Creation Days do not overlap. The key is that overlaying Evolution upon a literal interpretation of scripture does not result in overlapping days.

What happened on Day 5 ? He specifically named sealife and birds. "Sealife" includes whales
According to the estimations of evolution proponents, Whales appear around 45 Ma, and 'evolved' from land mammals that precede those named in Day 6
On Day 6, God let cattle, creeping things, and beasts, 'evolve' according to their kind...

There are two keys to understanding that I would support with one being a sequence key (Day: 5th -and- Day: 6th), the other being specific mention of "kinds" of life that were separated out (myin). My thought is that boundaries were place where one 'kind' would produce like kind and nothing else. Science has no tool in its box to see this.

 

[Barbarian]

In the case of Genesis 1:20, God's command was to (in part) let the seas teem with life. Interestingly, Genesis does not mention or describe the land mammals from before the appearance of whales. It does not have to. If Evolution is true, then it is assumed that for the seas to teem with whales, the land and seas would first produce the mammalian forms that precede them.

Old Earthers adopt Day Age theories that tell us Days 5 and 6 overlap... because they are told by scientists that whales clearly developed after land mammals first appeared; Young Earthers correctly point out that such theories contradict the plain meaning of scripture; the Creation Days do not overlap.

This is based on an assumption that the Genesis account was meant to also be a literal history. That assumption was never Christian orthodoxy, although some Christians have believed that, even very close to apostolic times.

The key is that overlaying Evolution upon a literal interpretation of scripture does not result in overlapping days.

Obviously, much of science is completely incompatible with the assumption of Genesis as literal history. And the YE assumption of life ex nihilo is incompatible with Scripture, even if it's taken as literal history.

What happened on Day 5 ? He specifically named sealife and birds. "Sealife" includes whales

Unless, of course, He was speaking of the way He created them. And in that case, no whales.

According to the estimations of evolution proponents, Whales appear around 45 Ma, and 'evolved' from land mammals that precede those named in Day 6
On Day 6, God let cattle, creeping things, and beasts, 'evolve' according to their kind...

Again, this depends on the assumption that Genesis has a second meaning, as literal history. And that assumption is not held by most Christians.

There are two keys to understanding that I would support with one being a sequence key (Day: 5th -and- Day: 6th), the other being specific mention of "kinds" of life that were separated out (myin).

Doesn't say they were separated out.

My thought is that boundaries were place where one 'kind' would produce like kind and nothing else.

A demonstration that such boundaries exist would be a big step. But nowhere do we find any organism at such a supposed boundary; all of them continue to demonstrate increasing variation and new mutations.

Science has no tool in its box to see this.

It's quite testable. But so far, no organism has ever been found to be at that apparently imaginary boundary.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

That's kinda disturbing coming from a brother in christ, akin to a crime? I agree, in the past Creationists believed some odd science, but times have changed I hope. We shouldn't lump everyone in one group and dismiss them, what would Jesus do with them? I am only recently a Creationist, I used to hold to billions of years and evolution.

By the time I got home from work I saw that Barbarian responded to this post, and did a better job than I could (being an Engineer and only a layman in biology), so I did not see the point in responding further.

Also, I find your claim that you used to hold to evolution rather shocking. Especially now that you hold to YEC, which is strange that you suggest others have believed some odd science, when you yourself believe in a global flood, a young Earth and a rejection of biological evolution. This is STRANGE science, and creationism is not science, it's religious dogma.

Unfortunately, hybridization is not evidence of Darwinian evolution. By definition, hybridization only takes place within a species not between them. Shuffling pre-existing genes until we have a reproductively isolated organism is speciation, but not the kind of progress required to support Darwin's theory. We can call hybridization macro-evolution, it's like calling alleles mutations. An allele is a type of mutation but when a child is born with blue eyes from a parents of brown eyes that's hardly evolutionary progress. Same applies to hybridization, horizontal macro-evolution isn't considered progress by scientists.

To this I would like to reiterate Barbarian's question which you did not answer, why do you think this wouldn't be consistent with Darwinian Evolution?

If the only tools we give a bulider are a hammer and saw can he a build a house? Probably. Are there better tools for the job? Absolutely.

Fallacy of the weak analogy, this is akin to someone who works an office job going to the most advanced construction workers in the world and telling them they are using the wrong tools.

Scientists are only given Darwin's theory to explain biology, so naturally biology is only explaned by Darwin's theory.

Who gave Darwin his theory? Or did he discover it, and it has been clarified and further substantiated as one of the core foundations of modern science.. hmm..

According to the evolution, we are closely related to chimps.

Just evolution?

If we examine Chimp insulin and human insulin are they the same? No. Are they similar? yes. But what about pig insuin? It's closer to human insulin than chimp insulin is.
Yet, relaxins of a pig and whale are almost identical.

"Theoretical Limitations of Molecular Phylogenetics and the evolution of Relaxins" Christian Schwabe vol107b, 1974 p171-172.
Click image for larger version

Name: Molecular_Phylogeny.jpg
Views: 3
Size: 179.0 KB
ID: 4716

Depending on which gene we look at humans are closer to elephants and distant to armadillos.
Looking at another gene humans are closer to armadillos than elephants.

Analyzing protein sequences humans were paired of closer to chickens, with the crocidile being the next closest.
"Is a Dog More Like Lizard or a Chicken?," Mike Benton New Scientist, vol. 103, August 16, 1984, p. 19.

The cytochrome-C protein in humans and horses differs by 14 amino acids.
Compared to kangaroo's it differs by eight. When the same strand is examined, turtles appear closer to man than to a reptile such as the rattlesnake
"Evolution of Living Organisms",Pierre Paul Grassé 1977, p. 194

In regards to an estimate of human–chimp genome similarity, it is safe to say it is no more than 87%, and possibly as low as 70%. 23% of the human genome shares no immediate genetic ancestry with chimpanzees.

Ebersberger, I. et al. 2007. Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 24 (10): 2266-2276.

By comparison 75% of human genes have some counterpart in nematodes (worms).
"The Great Apes" New Scientist vol 62, p 27. 1999
The similarities with chimps is purely superficial.
Human eyes are all but identical with an Octupus.
These facts, make complete non-sense of the previous held conclusions based on Darwins theory. Should science throw out evolution or genetics?
Armour is made from desiccated pig thyroid, not chimp thyroids, not because chimps are closer copy, but because pig thyroid hormone is. Fertility testing is done on pig eggs because if the similarities.
It seems medicine is based more on genetics than assumptions from evolution. Darwinian evolution is a wholly inadeuate tool for the job, it completely breaks down on the molecular level.

Creationist pseudoscience, as Barbarian keeps challenging you to do, look at all the data not just the ones that fit your dogma. I also find it odd that you think evolution might be the end of genetics, when genetics is perhaps the strongest evidence we have for Darwinian evolution. lol

Is it reasonable nature can make a language?

Absolutely, because based on the evidence nature definitely did.

Or that atoms would self organize into a motor? Time will not fix this issue.

Natural selection takes time, an amount that you and I cannot fathom and I can understand how it might be difficult to some to comprehend how so much complexity can come out of so much simplicity, but you must remember Earth is not a closed system.

Winning a nobel prize is like the scientific cummunity giving a big stamp of approval to their work. Nobel prize winning scientists are now saying aliens made us because the idea nature made these things is unreasonable to them.

Classic Genetic Fallacy.

We, as Christians, should not make light of this "DESIGN!", but rather engage the scientific community to find common ground.

I'm sorry, but Creationists make Christians the laughing stock of the scientific community. None of the major scientific organizations recognize it as science (and rightly so) and therefore there is no common ground to be had except further alienating scientists from Christianity by proclaiming the Creationistic view of science.

I see evolution and punctuated equilibrium as a lie, not a crime. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Creationism is not a crime to be believed, but to require it be taught as truth in the class room is outrageous to the point where I would deem it a crime.

That's unfortunate.

Indeed it is unfortunate that all I have ever seen from Creationists is misrepresented data, falsehoods and fallacious arguments.

Gradual changes is not supported by the evidence. MOST didn't change, so technically that could be considered an exception, not propaganda.

I wonder, since you claim to have once held to Darwinian Evolution, if you could give us an accurate representation of Natural Selection and how it works. I'm baffled by this statement..

I take the observations and see what they support. Gradual changes doesn't fit the observations, common ancestor doesn't fit the observations, etc.

Confirmation bias.

 

[Vaccine]

The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth 2 Timothy 2:25-26

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth 2 Timothy 2:25-26

Thank you

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I want to make a correction, I did not read correctly the comment you left me. For some reason, I thought that it was referring to THIS forum, but it was in response to my efforts to avoid the debate in a separate forum. I would like to apologize for that, and have to say that I reacted rather rashly and firmly.

 

[turnorburn]

Evolution is a doctrine of Communism a doctrine of Atheism and a doctrine of Humanism all joined together with one purpose in mind, they all strive to make a monkey out of God. How can anyone claim the title of Christian and side with darkness?

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is a doctrine of Communism

It's odd that you think so. Darwinian evolution was banned in the Soviet Union as a capitalist ideology, and Darwinian scientists were persecuted, arrested, and killed. Communism could not tolerate a world where survival of the fit was the way nature works.

a doctrine of Atheism

Odd that you would imagine so:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species, 1872

People like Darwin, Asa Gray, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Charles Woolcott would have laughed to think anyone thought of evolutionary theory as atheistic.

and a doctrine of Humanism

Humanism is a Christian movement, which was the impetus to the Protestant and Catholic reformations. You're probably thinking of "Secular Humanism" which is an oxymoron.

all joined together with one purpose in mind, they all strive to make a monkey out of God.

Wrong there, too. It has been claimed that creationists want to make God out of an ape. That's not quite as wrong, but it's still wrong. God happened to choose to make our bodies by natural means. It's His choice. Let Him decide.

How can anyone claim the title of Christian and side with darkness?

I think the majority of creationists sincerely think they are serving the truth. The problem is mainly the professional creationists, who seem generally less ethical than most of their followers.

 

[Vaccine]

Ahh, that makes sense now.

Just wanted to let you know your effort to avoid a debate in the CT&A didn't go unnoticed.
Blessings!
Vaccine

I can see how, if that message applied to this forum, well yeah ....I completely understand. My apologies for not typing out Christian Talk and Advice.
Thank you for pointing that out.
I hold no ill will toward my brother in christ or keep any record of wrongs.

 

[turnorburn]

They are all doctrines of this world a world that killed Jesus Christ, a world that hates our savior. We as Christians should be doing all we can to expose these ungodly doctrines, doctrines that appose the things of God, that further separate man from his creator..

tob