[_ Old Earth _] The genes have it

[reznwerks]

"Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... ref=slogin

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

...The study of selected genes may help reconstruct many crucial events in the human past. It may also help physical anthropologists explain why people over the world have such a variety of distinctive appearances, even though their genes are on the whole similar, said Dr. Spencer Wells, director of the Genographic Project of the National Geographic Society...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... ref=slogin

ID has postulated this all along: Genetic variation is designed into each

species genes, and natural selection acts upon the variability to ensure the

survival of the species. This is referred to ( as most of you know)

micro-evolution. ID types postulate that all humans came from one set of

genes. Look at the marvelous variety (variation) though!!


What's not valid is when it is assumed, because this variability

exists in each species genes, that it continues to "vary" into a new species.

(macro-evolution)


For this (macro-evolution), there is no scientific evidence, just speculation.


ID types contend that macro-evolution does not happen.

"Enormous," "tremendous," "staggering"--��all these are adjectives used by geneticist Francisco Ayala to describe the amount of variation that can be expressed among the members of a single species.1 Human beings, for example, range from very tall to very short, very dark to very light, soprano to bass, etc., etc. This tremendous amount of variation within species has been considered a challenge to creationists. Many ask: "How could the created progenitors of each kind possess enough variability among their genes to fill the earth with all the staggering diversity we see today and to refill it after a global flood only a few thousands years ago?"


If we use Ayalas figures, there would be no problem at all. He cites 6.7 % as the average proportion of human genes that show heterozygous allelic variation, e.g., straight vs. curly hair, Ss. On the basis of "only" 6.7 % heterozygosity, Ayala calculates that the average human couple could have 10^2017 children before they would have to have one child identical to another! That number, a one followed by 2017 zeroes, is greater than the number of sand grains by the sea, the number of stars in the sky, or the atoms in the known universe (a "mere" 10^80)!

A single human couple could have been created with four alleles (two for each person) at each gene position (locus). Just two alleles for vocal cord characteristics, V and v, are responsible for the variation among tenor (VV), baritone (Vv), and bass (vv) singing voices in men, and hormone influences on development result in soprano (VV), mezzo-soprano (Vv), and alto voices (vv) as expressions of the same genes in women. Furthermore, several genes are known to exist in multiple copies, and some traits, like color, weight, and intelligence, depend on the cumulative effect of genes at two or more loci. Genes of each different copy and at each different locus could exist in four allelic forms, so the potential for diversity is staggering indeed!

Dr. Gary E. Parker is a Research Associate in Bioscience at the Institute for Creation Research and teaches Genetics and Biosystematics at Christian Heritage College, El Cajon CA.

Peace

 

[Heidi]

"Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... ref=slogin

Evolving into what? :o Another species like what evolutionists claim happened to primates? Or perhaps superhuman beings. Sorry, but we are closer to annihilating ourselves than ever before. If you consider that improvement, then march on towards death, my friend.

 

[reznwerks]

"Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... ref=slogin

Evolving into what? :o Another species like what evolutionists claim happened to primates? Or perhaps superhuman beings. Sorry, but we are closer to annihilating ourselves than ever before. If you consider that improvement, then march on towards death, my friend.

Will you get off that kick already? Species evolve unto themselves and not into something else. Man IS a primate and separate from apes and chimpanzees. I do agree on one thing man does have the capability to annhilate himself if he chooses to do so. Is that progress ? Probably not but I can tell you for sure if it comes to that there will be no cavalry to the rescue.

 

[reznwerks]

left out

...The study of selected genes may help reconstruct many crucial events in the human past. It may also help physical anthropologists explain why people over the world have such a variety of distinctive appearances, even though their genes are on the whole similar, said Dr. Spencer Wells, director of the Genographic Project of the National Geographic Society...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... ref=slogin

ID has postulated this all along: Genetic variation is designed into each

species genes, and natural selection acts upon the variability to ensure the

survival of the species. This is referred to ( as most of you know)

micro-evolution. ID types postulate that all humans came from one set of

genes. Look at the marvelous variety (variation) though!!


What's not valid is when it is assumed, because this variability

exists in each species genes, that it continues to "vary" into a new species.

(macro-evolution)


For this (macro-evolution), there is no scientific evidence, just speculation.


ID types contend that macro-evolution does not happen.


[quote:ab5ab]

"Enormous," "tremendous," "staggering"--��all these are adjectives used by geneticist Francisco Ayala to describe the amount of variation that can be expressed among the members of a single species.1 Human beings, for example, range from very tall to very short, very dark to very light, soprano to bass, etc., etc. This tremendous amount of variation within species has been considered a challenge to creationists. Many ask: "How could the created progenitors of each kind possess enough variability among their genes to fill the earth with all the staggering diversity we see today and to refill it after a global flood only a few thousands years ago?"


If we use Ayalas figures, there would be no problem at all. He cites 6.7 % as the average proportion of human genes that show heterozygous allelic variation, e.g., straight vs. curly hair, Ss. On the basis of "only" 6.7 % heterozygosity, Ayala calculates that the average human couple could have 10^2017 children before they would have to have one child identical to another! That number, a one followed by 2017 zeroes, is greater than the number of sand grains by the sea, the number of stars in the sky, or the atoms in the known universe (a "mere" 10^80)!

A single human couple could have been created with four alleles (two for each person) at each gene position (locus). Just two alleles for vocal cord characteristics, V and v, are responsible for the variation among tenor (VV), baritone (Vv), and bass (vv) singing voices in men, and hormone influences on development result in soprano (VV), mezzo-soprano (Vv), and alto voices (vv) as expressions of the same genes in women. Furthermore, several genes are known to exist in multiple copies, and some traits, like color, weight, and intelligence, depend on the cumulative effect of genes at two or more loci. Genes of each different copy and at each different locus could exist in four allelic forms, so the potential for diversity is staggering indeed!

Dr. Gary E. Parker is a Research Associate in Bioscience at the Institute for Creation Research and teaches Genetics and Biosystematics at Christian Heritage College, El Cajon CA.

Peace[/quote:ab5ab]
However what you conveniently left out of the premise of ID'rs is that GOD did it. Nowhere in the articel does it mention a superior being being involved. You are still using the God of the gaps explanation for things not known or understood. The bottom line of the article is that evolution is a fact and I am still not firmly convinced that most ID'rs share your premise.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

However what you conveniently left out of the premise of ID'rs is that GOD did it.

And ToE proponents say Evolution did it. The bottom line is, either

interpetation requires an element of faith. There has been provided no

opportunity for observation, and to demonstrate repeatability.

ID types hypothesize an intelligent force is behind this variation, whereas

ToE types hypothesize Evolution.


Their two Gods, or Creators, in a way.


Peace.

 

[ArtGuy]

However what you conveniently left out of the premise of ID'rs is that GOD did it.

And ToE proponents say Evolution did it. The bottom line is, either

interpetation requires an element of faith.

And when an apple falls to the ground, Newtonian physics proponents say gravity did it. And?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

And?

Are you equating ToE and Newtonian Physics...I see your point.

:wink:

Peace

 

[jwu]

ID types hypothesize an intelligent force is behind this variation, whereas

ToE types hypothesize Evolution.

Their two Gods, or Creators, in a way.

Not really. Evolution does not rule out an intelligent force, it just doesn't explicitly include it. ID and Evolution can be congruent with the sole disagreement being about the question if the intelligent agent can be detected or not.

That's one of the problems i have with considering ID a scientific theory (even its main proponents like Behe call it a "research hypothesis" by the way, not a theory) - it can fall back all the way towards theistic evolution, and in order to falsify it one would have to prove a negative.

 

[Heidi]

"Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... ref=slogin

Evolving into what? :o Another species like what evolutionists claim happened to primates? Or perhaps superhuman beings. Sorry, but we are closer to annihilating ourselves than ever before. If you consider that improvement, then march on towards death, my friend.

Will you get off that kick already? Species evolve unto themselves and not into something else. Man IS a primate and separate from apes and chimpanzees. I do agree on one thing man does have the capability to annhilate himself if he chooses to do so. Is that progress ? Probably not but I can tell you for sure if it comes to that there will be no cavalry to the rescue.

Sorry, but apes still exist today and they are a species separate from ourslves. A species has to able to breed with its members in order to be considered the same species. And no scientists has ever yet proven that a primate can breed with a human. So since primates and humans cannot interbreed, then they cannot be the same species. Therefore, evolutionists are definitely claiming that primates bred a new species when they claim that they are our ancestors.

So again, are imperfect humans supposed to still only breed imperfect humans, or change into another species as evolutionistists claim that primates did? :o Or are they supposed to one day breed perfect humans? :o Either way, your theory tries to describe the impossible and certainly doesn't describe anything that's been proven in reality!

 

[jwu]

I know it's futile to try to explain this again...

Therefore, evolutionists are definitely claiming that primates bred a new species when they claim that they are our ancestors.

Humans still are Primates as well...

However, speciation of course is about the emergence of new species. That however does not happen within one generation, as you imply here.

Let's say that a species is represented by a range of numbers. An individual can interbreed with other individuals which aren't further than "100" away from its own number.

We start with a population whose individuals are all within 990-1010, with 1000 being the average individuum. They all can interbreed. Over time that value can shift, e.g. after a few hundred generations it can have moved to 1010 as the average, and all individuums fall into a range of 1000-1020

Now there can be two different groups of that population being formed, e.g. by migration. These can then develop independently

Fast forward many generations. Each value is a snapshot taken with many generations in between:
1000 1000
1010 990
1023 982
1031 975
1040 967
1043 955
1051 943
1058 940


At no time did an individual give birth to something that is not of its oen species, i.e. that is farther than 100 away from its parent. But over time the two population have accumulated sufficient difference to be different species.

 

[Heidi]

I know it's futile to try to explain this again...

Therefore, evolutionists are definitely claiming that primates bred a new species when they claim that they are our ancestors.

Humans still are Primates as well...

However, speciation of course is about the emergence of new species. That however does not happen within one generation, as you imply here.

Let's say that a species is represented by a range of numbers. An individual can interbreed with other individuals which aren't further than "100" away from its own number.

We start with a population whose individuals are all within 990-1010, with 1000 being the average individuum. They all can interbreed. Over time that value can shift, e.g. after a few hundred generations it can have moved to 1010 as the average, and all individuums fall into a range of 1000-1020

Now there can be two different groups of that population being formed, e.g. by migration. These can then develop independently

Fast forward many generations. Each value is a snapshot taken with many generations in between:
1000 1000
1010 990
1023 982
1031 975
1040 967
1043 955
1051 943
1058 940


At no time did an individual give birth to something that is not of its oen species, i.e. that is farther than 100 away from its parent. But over time the two population have accumulated sufficient difference to be different species.

Sorry, but since we cannot breed with primates, then we cannot be primates. Humans are not capable of breeding with any animal so we cannot even be in the animal kingdom! People making up words for things or trying to fit a square peg into a round hole don't realize they are not God and cannot make the impossible possible. Again, any child can tell the difference between humans and animals. Only evolutionists cannot.

 

[jwu]

Sorry, but since we cannot breed with primates, then we cannot be primates. Humans are not capable of breeding with any animal so we cannot even be in the animal kingdom!

Do you realize that "primate" and "animal kingdom" are groups of distinct species? That not everyone within these groups has to be able to breed with anyone?

Humans not being able to breed with other primates doesn't make us any less primates than chimps not being able to breed with gorillas.

 

[Heidi]

Sorry, but since we cannot breed with primates, then we cannot be primates. Humans are not capable of breeding with any animal so we cannot even be in the animal kingdom!

Do you realize that "primate" and "animal kingdom" are groups of distinct species? That not everyone within these groups has to be able to breed with anyone?

Humans not being able to breed with other primates doesn't make us any less primates than chimps not being able to breed with gorillas.

So if we cannot breed with primates then how can they be our ancestors? Is it lost on you that mating and breeding between ancestors is what produces descendants? :o If so, then you need to go back and study biology 101, my friend. But once you realize that, you will see why it's a no-brainer that wild animals cannot be our ancestors. That's a principle that even children understand. :roll:

 

[jwu]

Heidi, i have explained that just a few posts above. At no time is it required for the theory of evolution that something gives birth to something that is not of the same species. Just to something slightly different. These changes accumulate over many generations.

And do you seriously think that if your objection would hold water, billions of evolutionists (many of them, probably even a majority Christians) wouldn't have noticed?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:

Heidi, i have explained that just a few posts above. At no time is it required for the theory of evolution that something gives birth to something that is not of the same species. Just to something slightly different. These changes accumulate over many generations.

Sorry to butt in, but I've heard ToE proponents use this reasoning before,

and never have understood the reasoning.

If the scenario you state above is true, how could we differentiate species?

It would be one big blur between the original species, and the resultant

species. That's not what we observe though. We see clearly differentiated

species. The fossil record reveals the same distinct speciation.


Peace

 

[jwu]

If the scenario you state above is true, how could we differentiate species?
It would be one big blur between the original species, and the resultant
species. That's not what we observe though. We see clearly differentiated
species. The fossil record reveals the same distinct speciation.

Actually, exactly that is what we observe. There is a thing called ring species, which is basically speciation in progress.
Population A can interbreed with population B, which technically marks them as the same species. Population B can interbreed with population C, which marks them as the same species as well - but A cannot interbreed with C.

Now all it takes is B to become extinct and we had a full fledged speciation event.

A nice example:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 52_05.html

 

[Heidi]

jwu:

Heidi, i have explained that just a few posts above. At no time is it required for the theory of evolution that something gives birth to something that is not of the same species. Just to something slightly different. These changes accumulate over many generations.

Sorry to butt in, but I've heard ToE proponents use this reasoning before,

and never have understood the reasoning.

If the scenario you state above is true, how could we differentiate species?

It would be one big blur between the original species, and the resultant

species. That's not what we observe though. We see clearly differentiated

species. The fossil record reveals the same distinct speciation.


Peace

You again, are completely missing my point. You are saying that humans are primates. So if they are one in the same, then you're claiming that humans came from humans, are you not? If so, then I agree with you 100%. Or are you not claiming that primates and humans are one in the same? Which is it? :o

But you still haven't answered how the first human got here, my friend. :wink:

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:

If the scenario you state above is true, how could we differentiate species?
It would be one big blur between the original species, and the resultant
species. That's not what we observe though. We see clearly differentiated
species. The fossil record reveals the same distinct speciation.

jwu:

Actually, exactly that is what we observe. There is a thing called ring species, which is basically speciation in progress.
Population A can interbreed with population B, which technically marks them as the same species. Population B can interbreed with population C, which marks them as the same species as well - but A cannot interbreed with C.

Now all it takes is B to become extinct and we had a full fledged speciation event.

A nice example:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 52_05.html

Here's an excerpt from the article you referenced:

A well-studied example of a ring species is the salamander Ensatina escholtzii of the Pacific Coast region of the United States. In Southern California, naturalists have found what look like two distinct species scrabbling across the ground. One is marked with strong, dark blotches in a cryptic pattern that camouflages it well. The other is more uniform and brighter, with bright yellow eyes, apparently in mimicry of the deadly poisonous western newt. These two populations coexist in some areas but do not interbreed -- and evidently cannot do so.

Moving up the state, the two populations are divided geographically, with the dark, cryptic form occupying the inland mountains and the conspicuous mimic living along the coast. Still farther to the north, in northern California and Oregon, the two populations merge, and only one form is found. In this area, it is clear that what looked like two separate species in the south are in fact a single species with several interbreeding subspecies, joined together in one continuous ring...


By the time the salamanders reached the southernmost part of California, the separation had caused the two groups to evolve enough differences that they had become reproductively isolated. In some areas the two populations coexist, closing the "ring," but do not interbreed.

This could be easily interpreted as different species from the beginning.

The two species in the South are obviously not the same two species that

exist a little farther North (or they just haven't been able to catch the

Southern ones producing offspring...it was noted in the article, that it was

rare for the ones a little further up the coast to breed). To say the two

Southern species or more Northerly species evovled from the single species

in Oregon is a long, long stretch. Why do the authors believe this? Maybe

I'm missing some info.

Do you have any clarifying info such as: can the Oregon species mate with

the other species in Southern California; can the Oregon species mate with

the other species in Northern California; and can either of the species in

Northern California breed with either of the species in Southern California.

The article was a bit sketchy on the details.

Peace

 

[Heidi]

Acutally, it's not hard to see the differneces between species. Al you have to do is look at them. Children don't mix humans and animals but evolutionists do. All they need to is get out of their labs and into reality to see what the truth is.