[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Barbarian]

I should have mentioned I used to believe in evolution. If you are saying we have a lot in common with apes and mammals, I agree. I just don't see how that is proof that we "evolved", if anything it only proves the same God that made apes made humans.

With the DNA demonstrating our common ancestry. And we know it works because we can check it on organisms of known descent.

We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary."-Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

Never heard of him. But if he was right, there would never be new theories. Maybe there's a reason he's not a well-regarded physicist.

"... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ..." H.S. Lipson. A Physicist Looks at Evolution. Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p138 (1980)

Never heard of him, either. (Barbarian checks) Oh, he wrote that in 1908, before Mendel's work was rediscovered, validating Darwin's theory.

Piltdown man: This fossil evidence was presented in 1916. It was exposed as a forgery in 1956.

We don't know who faked it. But we do know a Darwnian evolutionist debunked it. This seems to be evidence against your belief.


Darwin said:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.†DNA was discovered 10 years after he wrote those words.

You're wrong about that, too. There's no evidence whatever that DNA can't evolve. In fact, we can show that it has evolved.

Darwin's Black Box by Behe is a whole book filled with complex organs which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

Show us one. That might be interesting.

This is what Sir Fred Hoyle had to say about evolution "to believe life arose in that manner is to believe a Boeing 747 would result from a tornado striking a junkyard."

Evolution isn't about the way life began. Darwin, for example, suggested that God just created the first living things. And given what we know today, Hoyle's belief is about as reasonable as Hoyle's belief that insects are smarter than humans.

I hope i don't come across as harsh.

Misinformed. Most people are down on things they aren't up on. If you get a nasty infection, and they save your life, thank evolutionary theory. Antibiotic protocols are founded on evolutionary theory.

 

[Sparkey]

Maybe there's a reason he's not a well-regarded physicist.

Yeah, like those in the boys club know that it is in their own interest to be 'exclusive' - I don't know the details, but I do know what that kind of thing smells like. My silence on the matter would be better because then I would not have to do right and confess ignorance in the matter.

 

[Vaccine]

With the DNA demonstrating our commonancestry. And we know it works because we can check it on organismsof known descent.

No sarcasm intended, but can you share those facts? I would bevery interested to see the proof of a common ancestor. I know we share 96% of our DNA with chimps, but that only proves we share 96% of our DNA with chimps. As far as I know there are no transitional forms or method that can bridge that 4% gap (other than wishful thinking). If you know of any proof I would be very interested in it.

This seems to be evidence against your belief.

I think you misread my statement. It's nice to know an evolutionist discovered it as a forgery but the reason I brought it up is it played a significant role in getting Darwin's theory taught in schools. Basically, the ACLU knowingly or not used a forgery to push their agenda into the schools and are you guys saying you're OK with this??

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Piltdown_man_was_presented_as_significant_evidence_in_the_Scopes_trial

There's no evidence whatever that DNA can't evolve. In fact, we can show that it has evolved.

If you can, please, show me how it evolved. As far as I know DNA doesn't evolve:

For many years, medical science has tried to patch people with SCID, or 'Severe Combined Immunodefeciency', which is a very nasty disease which in effect disables the immune system - leading to very ill patients. It has been clear for quite a while now which letters in the DNA need to be fixed in order to cure these people. Many attempts where made to patch running people, using viruses that insert new DNA into living organisms, but this proved to be very hard. The genome is guarded far too well for such a simple approach to work - cells guard their code better than Microsoft!

If it is hard for scientists, who know what they are doing,to change DNA, isn't it a little ridiculous to think the blind, random, unguided forces of nature would fare any better? Especially considering DNA's ability to correct most mutations nature can throw at it:

http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3.rhtml

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

Show us one. That might be interesting.

I'll give you 2 examples, vision and cilium. A light sensitive cell is needs these proteins to function:

• 11-cis-retinal
• rhodophsin
• transducin
• phosphodiesterase

Linked together in a cell with pumps, resynthesizers, and other cell proteins they interact to produce vision. This is incredibly oversimplified but 11-cis-retinal is linked with rhodophsin, only 11-cis-retinal reacts to light but since they are linked they both change shape and rhodophsin triggers transducin to bind to Phoshodiesterase and cuts the molecule GMP. When enough GMP is cut it eventually causes am imbalance of charge which is something the nervous system recognizes. And all this has to be reset back to its original state for the next cycle. On its own 11-ris-retinal can't trigger transducin or cut GMP itself, rhodophsin doesn't react to light or have the ability to cut GMP, Transducin and phosphodiesterase don't react to light and simply serve to cut GMP. On their own these proteins can not produce vision and serve no useful purpose. Only when they all exist together do they make a light sensitive cell. This system is irreducibly complex and can not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.they are useless

Cilium needs these 3 components to function.

• microtubules
• motor
• connectors

The connectors hold the motor to the cell and the motor drives the microtubules. These 3 components work together to give the cell propulsion like an oar for a boat in one application or of the cell is stationary like a pump pushing fluid. Individually these components serve no function, only in conjunction do the provide propulsion. This system is irreducibly complex and can not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

Misinformed. Most people are down on things they aren't upon.

Really, I do get a lot of my information from evolutionists:

• 
  
  The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.-Stephen Jay Gould Harvard professor, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.
  
  
  ​

If you get a nasty infection, and they save your life, thank evolutionary theory. Antibiotic protocols are founded on evolutionary theory.

Actually, I would say evolution holding back progress. Imagine if research was done from the point of view humans were designed and are actually devolving. Instead of seeing life as some anomaly with a bunch of leftover “junk” DNA, that “junk” DNA as they call it might just hold more secrets to being healthy than anyone could imagine. Humans today only operate on 3% of our DNA, Adam probably operated on much closer to 100% of his DNA and he lived to over 900years old and was 15 ft tall. Just imagine how healthy he must have been to live that long.

 

[Barbarian]

No sarcasm intended, but can you share those facts? I would bevery interested to see the proof of a common ancestor. I know we share 96% of our DNA with chimps, but that only proves we share 96% of our DNA with chimps.

And we know that indicates common ancestry, because we can test the idea on organisms of known descent. But it's not just that. Humans have one less chromosome than other apes. Scientists hypothesized that a chromosome fusion must have happened. And later, the hypothesized fusion site was found on a human chromosome that is almost identical to two chimp chromosomes, right down to the remains of the telomeres where they would be if a fusion happened.

But there's a lot more than that. Observed macroevolution; new species evolve, and sometimes we're lucky enough to have been watching.

As far as I know there are no transitional forms or method that can bridge that 4% gap (other than wishful thinking). If you know of any proof I would be very interested in it.

There are a very large number of transitional forms between humans and chimps. Keep in mind that both humans and chimps have evolved from the common ancestor. What would you expect a common ancestor for each to look like?

(Barbarian notes that evolutionists debunked Piltdown Man)
This seems to be evidence against your belief.

I think you misread my statement. It's nice to know an evolutionist discovered it as a forgery but the reason I brought it up is it played a significant role in getting Darwin's theory taught in schools.

No. If you look in books from the time, Piltdown man gets rather little mention, because it was the opposite of the sort of thing evolutionary theory predicted. A fossil with a large skull and an ape's jaw was a bit of an embarrassment.

Basically, the ACLU knowingly or not used a forgery to push their agenda into the schools and are you guys saying you're OK with this??

Bad assumption, goofy conclusion.

Barbarian observes:
There's no evidence whatever that DNA can't evolve. In fact, we can show that it has evolved.

If you can, please, show me how it evolved. As far as I know DNA doesn't evolve:

Milano mutation in humans, for example. New gene, a few hundred years ago, in a man in a small village in Italy. The fact that there are a few variations even in the code for DNA across the domains of life, is another example. Even the way it codes has evolved a bit over time.

If it is hard for scientists, who know what they are doing,to change DNA, isn't it a little ridiculous to think the blind, random, unguided forces of nature would fare any better?

See above. Turns out, God's creation is a good deal more interesting than creationists would like it to be.

Especially considering DNA's ability to correct most mutations nature can throw at it:

Turns out, DNA has an effective error rate in vertebrates that is just about ideal for maintaining a healthy amount of variation in populations. Another evidence that it's evolved.

If you'd like more information on any of this, I'll be glad to show you. I'll get to the rest of your post this evening.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I think you misread my statement. It's nice to know an evolutionist discovered it as a forgery but the reason I brought it up is it played a significant role in getting Darwin's theory taught in schools. Basically, the ACLU knowingly or not used a forgery to push their agenda into the schools and are you guys saying you're OK with this??

Yeah, back then, crooked sheriffs got away with pushing their agenda as well.

It's hard to get away with stuff like that today.

Nevertheless, Evolution prevails in an ever-increasingly skeptical world.

Because it works.

 

[Vaccine]

And we know that indicates common ancestry, because we can test the idea on organisms of known descent. But it's not just that. Humans have one less chromosome than other apes. Scientists hypothesized that a chromosome fusion must have happened. And later, the hypothesized fusion site was found on a human chromosome that is almost identical to two chimp chromosomes, right down to the remains of the telomereswhere they would be if a fusion happened.

You mislead me when you said “With the DNA demonstrating our common ancestry. And we know it works”. I though you had proof, instead you're offering speculation. A common ancestor is on the same ground as a common designer, they are both hypotheses.

Observed macroevolution; new species evolve, and sometimes we're lucky enoughto have been watching.

Can you provide an example?

There are a very large number of transitional forms between humans and chimps.

Can you provide an example?

This seemsto be evidence against your belief.

I believe it is a forgery, it is. I believe it played a significant role in getting evolution taught in the schools, it did. Please don't read something that wasn't there. I didn't say anything about who made it or who found it out. Yes, you are 100% correct it was an evolutionist who discovered the forgery, why it took him 12 years to point this out I don't know.

If you look in books from the time, Piltdown man gets rather little mention, because it was the opposite of the sort of thing evolutionary theory predicted. A fossil with a large skull and an ape's jaw was a bit of an embarrassment.

I never said otherwise. Please don'tread something that wasn't there.

Milano mutation in humans, for example. New gene, a few hundred years ago, in a man in a small village in Italy. The fact that there are a few variations even in the code for DNA across the domains of life, is another example. Even the way it codes has evolved a bit overtime.

Very good, excellent evidence for micro-evoltion. Just like changes in color for a species prove there are indeed small changes within a species, aka micro-evolution. This is why I stopped believing in evolution. They take a little change like that and speculate it can cross the huge gap between species. All humans share 99.99% of their DNA. Your example is evidence DNA can change .00001% of its code and still live, excellent. Demonstrating a .00001% change and speculating it can amount to a 4% change and live is not good science.

God's creation is a good deal more interesting than creationists would like it to be.

Actually that is precisely the point I am making. DNA has better error protection than any hard drive,thumb drive, or other form of storage any human can make. "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised." -Bill Gates. Scientists used the design taken from the eye of a lobster to improve the hubble telescopes ability to view x-rays. At what point are we going to realize there are countless examples of design in nature makes a better case for God not evolution. Like Paley's analogy: Suppose I came across a rock. If asked where it came from it would be reasonable to conclude it was formed through natural processes, such as rain, erosion, gravity, etc. But suppose I came across a watch. If asked where it came from it would be unreasonable to conclude it was formed the same way as the rock, through natural processes. It would be reasonable to conclude it was the cause of intelligent agent, a watchmaker. Pointing out design in nature as evidence for evolution is an oxymoron, it is like saying “this metal was polished by rusting”.

Anotherevidence that it's evolved.

You keep saying that, but nothing you have shown proves a common ancestor, or gradual changes over time can change one species into another. "it must have happeded", "it just works" are the language of speculation.

 

[cupid dave]

which chemically fused two of the normal 24 Ape chromosomes together producing the new branch of life called man who thereafter has had only 23 chromosomes.

I agree the first man was an act of God and had no mother or father. I see no evidence or reason to suggest God used Ape DNA to do it.

And now the unbelievers discover by their Science that He did!
The evidence is a matter of Science.
The evidence of science supports the Bible, like when archeology supports the Bible.

God does not tell us HOW he created man from the atomic dust.
The atheists have doubted Scripture on this matter.

Now Science explains that Genesis was correct, in that it did happen.

 

[cupid dave]

Natural selection-

Preferring one trait over another is not the same as adding a trait. In every example of natural selection a species undesirable DNA is eliminated or desirable DNA is perpetuated, but nothing is being added to the DNA. It's like thinking I can build something better by only subtracting material or keeping material.

Actually when mutations occur traits can be added.

using the example of the mutation of those two chromosomes which support Genesis, in that man had neither father nor mother... we see that mutation added a trait which affected the Intelligence of this new creature.

That intelligence is the bottom line in distinguishing between apes and man, this new genetically based characteristic found in men, BECAUSE of the fusion of the two chromosomes supports both the argument that this was the way God created man, and that, minded, Traits are added in strange ways:


"Recentstudies suggest that genes on chromosome 2 may play an important role in humanintelligence:"



A LinkageStudy of Academic Skills Defined by the Queensland

Core SkillsTest

Mark A.Wainwright,1,2,3 Margaret J. Wright,1 Michelle Luciano,1 Grant W. Montgomery,1

Gina M.Geffen,2 and Nicholas G. Martin1

Received 18Apr. 2005—Final 15 Aug. 2005



This studyused genome-wide linkage analysis to detect Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs)implicated in variation in general academic achievement as measured by theQueensland Core Skills Test (QCST) (Queensland Studies Authority, 2004).





“While noempirically derived significant or suggestive peaks for general academicachievement were indicated, a peak on chromosome 2 was observed in aregion where Posthuma et al. (2005) reported significant linkage forPerformance IQ (PIQ) and suggestive linkage for Full Scale IQ (FSIQ), andLuciano et al. (this issue) observed significant linkage for PIQ and wordreading.



Inaddition, on chromosomes 2 and 18 peaks for a number of specific academicskills, two of which were suggestive, coincided with the general academicachievement peaks.



Thefindings suggest that variation in general academic achievement is influencedby genes on chromosome 2 which have broad influence on a variety of cognitiveabilities.





http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/CV453.pdf

 

[Vaccine]

Thank you for pointing this out. I realized I left out some vital information to my basic premise that you can't build something better by subtracting, or keeping the same amount of material. I apologize since I was not as clear as I should have been. Allow me to add this: "OR adding a incredibly small amount of material". As in the case of the Milano mutation or even sickle cell anemia which has the side effect of malaria immunity. Sickle cell anemia is a .006% mutation, the Milano mutation is 0.0005%. To me, this is not good science to extrapolate a 4% mutation can occur based on a .006% mutation occuring.

 

[Barbarian]

Thank you for pointing this out. I realized I left out some vital information to my basic premise that you can't build something better by subtracting, or keeping the same amount of material. I apologize since I was not as clear as I should have been. Allow me to add this: "OR adding a incredibly small amount of material". As in the case of the Milano mutation or even sickle cell anemia which has the side effect of malaria immunity. Sickle cell anemia is a .006% mutation, the Milano mutation is 0.0005%. To me, this is not good science to extrapolate a 4% mutation can occur based on a .006% mutation occuring.

It's not adding material. It's adding information by producing new genes. BTW, the HbC muation does not cause sickle cell disease. You're thinking of HbS. This newer mutation is even more favorable because it never causes illness, even in homozygotes. But show us how you got those numbers, and what you think they mean.

 

[Vaccine]

So, then, you might agree that the first "man" was created, without a father or mother like himself, but by an Act-of-God which chemically fused two of the normal 24 Ape chromosomes together producing the new branch of life called man who thereafter has had only 23 chromosomes.

Going back to this for a moment, I really want to understand this. So God made man, and evolution is how? Correct? I agree God made man so I suppose we are on the same page. What is confusing me is I was taught evolution (the common descent of man which started with an ameoba and eventually got to man) happened by chance. I was taught God was not involved and it all happed through natural selection and random mutations over time. If I am understanding this correctly theistic evolution is supernatural selection? Again, I belive supernatural forces aka God are necessary to explain the complexities of life and "chance" alone can't do it. I suppose I don't have an issue with theistic evolution since it involves God aka supernatural selection. As for natural-only causes explaining life Sir Fred Hoyle said it best: "to believe life arose in that manner is to believe a Boeing 747 would result from a tornado striking a junkyard."

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And we know that indicates common ancestry, because we can test the idea on organisms of known descent. But it's not just that. Humans have one less chromosome than other apes. Scientists hypothesized that a chromosome fusion must have happened. And later, the hypothesized fusion site was found on a human chromosome that is almost identical to two chimp chromosomes, right down to the remains of the telomereswhere they would be if a fusion happened.

You mislead me when you said “With the DNA demonstrating our common ancestry. And we know it worksâ€.

We do, because we have checked it on organisms of known descent. That's how it works.

I though you had proof, instead you're offering speculation.

Direct observation is about as good as it comes. No speculation necessary.

A common ancestor is on the same ground as a common designer, they are both hypotheses.

No. Common ancestor is a conclusion based on evidence. Common designer is a religious belief.

Barbarian observes:
Observed macroevolution; new species evolve, and sometimes we're lucky enoughto have been watching.

Can you provide an example?

First observed example was O. gigas from O. lamarckania, by a polyploidy event.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Drosophila miranda, a new species
http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

Barbarian observes:
There are a very large number of transitional forms between humans and chimps.

Can you provide an example?

Australopithecus afarensis

(Barbarian, noting that evolutionists debunked the Piltdown hoax)
This seemsto be evidence against your belief.

I believe it is a forgery, it is. I believe it played a significant role in getting evolution taught in the schools, it did.

No. In fact, it got pushed aside, because it didn't fit the theory very well. A large brain and and apelike jaw just didn't make sense. What actually got Darwin's theory in schools was the rediscovery of Mendel's work on genes, which cleared up a rather difficult problem for Darwnism.

The "Modern Synthesis" was a compelling theory, and carried the day.

Barbarian observes:
Milano mutation in humans, for example. New gene, a few hundred years ago, in a man in a small village in Italy. The fact that there are a few variations even in the code for DNA across the domains of life, is another example. Even the way it codes has evolved a bit overtime.

Very good, excellent evidence for micro-evoltion.

Just as the evolution of O. gigas is evidence for macroevolution. In fact, the only difference between the two is that one prevents interbreeding of the old and new. I think you'd be much better at these discussions if you knew what evolutionary theory was about.

This is why I stopped believing in evolution.

It's true. People are often down on things they aren't up on.

They take a little change like that and speculate it can cross the huge gap between species. All humans share 99.99% of their DNA.

No. Many do, but you've been misled about "all."

God's creation is a good deal more interesting than creationists would like it to be.

Actually that is precisely the point I am making. DNA has better error protection than any hard drive,thumb drive, or other form of storage any human can make.

Fortunately, that's not true. If it was, the world would have only bacteria living here. A little bit of error is necessary for evolution and even survival of a species.

Like Paley's analogy: Suppose I came across a rock. If asked where it came from it would be reasonable to conclude it was formed through natural processes, such as rain, erosion, gravity, etc. But suppose I came across a watch. If asked where it came from it would be unreasonable to conclude it was formed the same way as the rock, through natural processes. It would be reasonable to conclude it was the cause of intelligent agent, a watchmaker. Pointing out design in nature as evidence for evolution is an oxymoron, it is like saying “this metal was polished by rustingâ€.

The reason Paley chose a man-made object, was because, if he chose any natural object, no one would see any sign of a designer.

Especially considering DNA's ability to correct most mutations nature can throw at it:

Barbarian observes:
Turns out, DNA has an effective error rate in vertebrates that is just about ideal for maintaining a healthy amount of variation in populations. Another evidence that it's evolved.

You keep saying that

Evidence is the way science proceeds.

but nothing you have shown proves a common ancestor, or gradual changes over time can change one species into another.

That's been directly observed, as you see above.

 

[Vaccine]

It's not adding material. It's adding information by producing new genes. BTW, the HbC muation does not cause sickle cell disease. You're thinking of HbS. This newer mutation is even more favorable because it never causes illness, even in homozygotes. But show us how you got those numbers, and what you think they mean.

Thanks for pointing that out about HbS. An analysis by scientists at Ohio State University suggested between 65,000 and 75,000 human genes (3), and another study published in Cell in August 2001 predicted a total of 42,000 (4). The Milano Mutation is 1 amino acid or roughly .0005% of the entire genome. Sickle cell anemia is 4 genes or roughly .006% of the entire genome. All humans share 99.9%. If just .1% difference accounts for over 6 billion people on the planet, that 4% gap between chimps and humans sure seems far to me. Without God's involvement I don't see any reasonable alternatives that can bridge that gap.

 

[Vaccine]

I think you'd be much better at these discussions if you knew what evolutionary theory was about.

OK, enlightem me. What is evolution theory about?

 

[Sparkey]

Introductions may be in order. Vaccine, may I present Barbarian. Barb? Vaccine.

Vaccine feels science and religion compliment each other quite well. Although he doesn't support evolution any longer or at least in the way he has in the past (I suspect a story behind this) he does subscribe to the Big Bang.

Barbarian is one of the Members to this forum who has been here longer than I have. He is an educator and his 6000+ post count has been earned primarily by his written support of Evolution. He is also adept at showing supposedly "missing" links in oftentimes great detail.

And me? I'm just the welcoming committee. Mostly I'm allowed to hold fast to my beliefs as well as I can while I entertain the thoughts and beliefs of others.

You've already "met" some of the other "key players" who frequent this niche of the larger forum. VirginShallConceive has never objected to being called VSC as far as I know and cupid dave, who is an acquired taste, may also be called, hopefully with affection, "cd".

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Introductions may be in order. Vaccine, may I present Barbarian. Barb? Vaccine.

Vaccine feels science and religion compliment each other quite well. Although he doesn't support evolution any longer or at least in the way he has in the past (I suspect a story behind this) he does subscribe to the Big Bang.

Barbarian is one of the Members to this forum who has been here longer than I have. He is an educator and his 6000+ post count has been earned primarily by his written support of Evolution. He is also adept at showing supposedly "missing" links in oftentimes great detail.

And me? I'm just the welcoming committee. Mostly I'm allowed to hold fast to my beliefs as well as I can while I entertain the thoughts and beliefs of others.

You've already "met" some of the other "key players" who frequent this niche of the larger forum. VirginShallConceive has never objected to being called VSC as far as I know and cupid dave, who is an acquired taste, may also be called, hopefully with affection, "cd".

Great summary, Sparrow. I agree with every last detail of it.

And since Sparrow has shed some light on it, Barbarian, you have contributed a lot over the years. Sparrow's acknowledgment of you in the previous post might be as close as we can get to a "Lifetime Achievement Award". :toofunny

And Cupid Dave is . . . unique.



And yes . . . as our conversations can easily become a tangled web of confusion and excessive typing . . . "VSC" is totally acceptable.

 

[Vaccine]

Introductions may be in order. Vaccine, may I present Barbarian. Barb? Vaccine.

Vaccine feels science and religion compliment each other quite well. Although he doesn't support evolution any longer or at least in the way he has in the past (I suspect a story behind this) he does subscribe to the Big Bang.

Barbarian is one of the Members to this forum who has been here longer than I have. He is an educator and his 6000+ post count has been earned primarily by his written support of Evolution. He is also adept at showing supposedly "missing" links in oftentimes great detail.

And me? I'm just the welcoming committee. Mostly I'm allowed to hold fast to my beliefs as well as I can while I entertain the thoughts and beliefs of others.

You've already "met" some of the other "key players" who frequent this niche of the larger forum. VirginShallConceive has never objected to being called VSC as far as I know and cupid dave, who is an acquired taste, may also be called, hopefully with affection, "cd".

Thank you so much for the warm welcome! It means a lot to me. I hope to add whatever little I know to the discussion. When I was in college I was an evolutionist and probably more of a diest than atheist. I did not become a christian until I was 28. I love that song by Jason Grey with the lyric "Falling in love with Jesus brought the change in me". A bit of my story behind it was reconciling evolution v creation. I can't point to anything in particular that made me doubt evolution but I suppose Paleys anaology of using natural causes to explain a watch shed some light in a dark spot. Finding out about Millers experiments, Neanderthol, Lucy, Haeckels embryos, Java man, helped but it was DNA that nailed that coffin shut for me. Anyway, thanks for the intro's Sparrowhawke and VSC, call me Vac for short if you want!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's not adding material. It's adding information by producing new genes. BTW, the HbC muation does not cause sickle cell disease. You're thinking of HbS. This newer mutation is even more favorable because it never causes illness, even in homozygotes. But show us how you got those numbers, and what you think they mean.

Thanks for pointing that out about HbS. An analysis by scientists at Ohio State University suggested between 65,000 and 75,000 human genes (3), and another study published in Cell in August 2001 predicted a total of 42,000 (4).

The current estimate, given the Human Genome Project data, is about 30,000, but more work will need to be done in order to identify them all.

The Milano Mutation is 1 amino acid or roughly .0005% of the entire genome. Sickle cell anemia is 4 genes or roughly .006% of the entire genome. All humans share 99.9%. If just .1% difference accounts for over 6 billion people on the planet,

The Human Genome Project shows that human variation can be no less than 0.5%. It could be more.

And you're assuming that those are the only changes since Adam and Eve. But each gene locus has dozens of alleles that could only have evolved since then. That's tens of thousands of changes. And that's not even considering any alleles that reached fixation in that time. We could be significantly different than humans hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago.

And genetic differences aren't just in genes. We have had a gene fusion very early on; likely it was that which separated us from our common ancestor with chimps. We know that fusions often have major phenotypic effects.

that 4% gap between chimps and humans sure seems far to me.

As you see, it's not as great as you thought. Pointing to 2 recent mutations and then to the 4% (which is less than the genetic variation in many species) is simply declaring that a man can't walk a hundred miles because a single step only moves him a couple of feet.

Without God's involvement I don't see any reasonable alternatives that can bridge that gap.

Without God's involvement, we wouldn't even exist. But He doesn't have to do any magic; He did nature for that.

 

[Barbarian]

And since Sparrow has shed some light on it, Barbarian, you have contributed a lot over the years. Sparrow's acknowledgment of you in the previous post might be as close as we can get to a "Lifetime Achievement Award".

Isn't that what they give, at the Academy Awards, to washed-up actors who never got an Academy Award?

 

[Barbarian]

OK, enlightem me. What is evolution theory about?

When I take on a student, I first assess where he is.

So just so we know, tell us about the four major points of Darwinan theory, and how it was modified by the Modern Synthesis.

If you're better than average you can explain how it was further modified by neutralist theories and punctuated equilibrium.

What do you know, now? If you don't know what I just said, I'll start there. If you have some idea, we can save a lot of time. Let me know.