[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution

[Barbarian]

They have diagram showing the species coming from a single ancestor..

The first time this was noticed was several hundred years ago. Linnaeus showed that phenotypes sorted out into a family tree of all living things. Only later was the genetic basis for this family tree demonstrated, after Darwin showed how it formed.

.

Of course, the Bible says neither of these things. At one time, creationists merely denied evolution entirely. Later, when the evidence became to great to ignore, they fell back to admitting a little, but not all of it. The problem for your creationist diagram is that all insects fit nicely into the same kind of diagram, on fossil, genetic, and morphological data. And all arthropods do also. And all protostomes, and all metazoans, and so on. Slippery slope.

The problem is God created all creatures according to kinds...

But He didn't say how. Darwin figured that out.

and each was to show speciation according to its kind....Biologically a kind must be a family concept of animal broader than a species....

That is not in scripture. But I'd be happy to see if you can divide all mammals into kinds and show us the criteria by which you did it.

What science needs to do is to confirm what is "myin" at a genetics level, instead of mapping the genome of species, why not map the entire DNA including the junk bits to find out what is common within species of certain myin groups?

It's called "DNA hybridization", and it confirms common descent.

My prediction is common myin fragments of DNA will exist within kind creatures and other myin fragments will exist for other kind creatures.

Turns out, it's a gradual change with DNA matching depending on how closely the phyla are related. And we know it works, because we can check it on organisms of known descent.

However evolution model on the left is very different to the Bible model on the right....

It's not a "Bible model" at all. It's just someone's addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to them.

Now Barbarian evolution does not speak of kinds.

"Kinds" is a religious term. So science doesn't use that. You could use if, if you had a rigorous and testable definition of "kind." Tell us about yours.

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian, you did not comment on my latest post, but some earlier one?

You seem to think evolution is not a religion.

Evolution is a process of thinking regarding the past. That makes it historical science.
And historical science cannot be proved. One has to assume the assumptions one observes with observational science is valid for historical science to be valid. And that by definition makes any investigation into a religion, because it is founded on faith, belief and assumptions about the past.

Specifically:-

Evolution violates the concept of kinds, a Hebrew word used in Creation called "myin".
Therefore on the basis of this one evidence alone, evolution is not based on Bible Creation.
The Bible says God created creatures after their kinds "myin" and did not intend one kind to evolve into another kind.

http://www.icr.org/article/455/

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations".6 Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83

Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8 Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.

An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11 Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
"Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth."16 SirHuxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and 'Row, 1964), p. 125

These quotes are by Evolutionists Barbarian. I can source more but you get the idea.
Shalom

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian,

Of course, the Bible says neither of these things. At one time, creationists merely denied evolution entirely. Later, when the evidence became to great to ignore, they fell back to admitting a little, but not all of it. The problem for your creationist diagram is that all insects fit nicely into the same kind of diagram, on fossil, genetic, and morphological data. And all arthropods do also. And all protostomes, and all metazoans, and so on. Slippery slope.


Actually it would be very easy to test your idea of the slippery slope, assuming science was willing to prove God did in fact create all creatures according to their kinds.

A long time ago you showed me a paper where science showed the homologous regions of DNA between different kinds, the drosophila fruit fly and the nematode worm as I remember....
All you would have to do is map the entire DNA genome of fruit flies and nematode worms and see if there is any differences between them.
Then you look at the other species of fruit flies and compare the mapping with them, to find what is the same between them. You do the same for the nematode worm species.
But when you compare these two kinds there should be DNA differences in all the species between each of these two kinds making them different.
Now as far as I know such studies have never been done, we have not even mapped the entire DNA of species....as yet ?


But I'd be happy to see if you can divide all mammals into kinds and show us the criteria by which you did it.

It would be impossible for any sea mammal, porpoise, sea lion, whale etc to successfully mate with any land mammal, ie cow, horse, dog cat, mouse etc.


It's called "DNA hybridization", and it confirms common descent.


Hybridization are successful mating's between species of the same kind.
For example a tiger and lion, even the domestic cat should be able to make offspring.

But a dog with a cat should not do hybridization, or even using genetic fertilization...such as union is not Biblical and the two kinds gametes should fail as a zygote.


"Kinds" is a religious term. So science doesn't use that. You could use if, if you had a rigorous and testable definition of "kind." Tell us about yours.

Mapping the entire DNA of dogs and cats should lead to DNA myin fragments that are common to dogs and common to cats, but not common to both. We will find DNA code common to both because all protein functions of all living systems are similar, so we need to find the DNA code that makes a dog a dog and a cat a cat and see if there are differences in the DNA code.

On a sex level a dog gamete united artificially with a cat gamete should not make a living zygote....that's a biological way to test for kinds. But any dog gamete to any other dog gamete should make a zygote grow.
Same for any cat gamete...even though naturally some species do not sex one another.

Hope this helps defines biologically a kind.
Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

You seem to think evolution is not a religion.

Hmm... depends on evidence, and testable predictions, many of which have been confirmed. Science. The Dover trial established that ID/creationism is a religion.

Evolution is a process of thinking regarding the past.

It's about the way we observe it working to day, as well as in the past. You've been misled about that. The examples, of new information, features, and structures, I showed you are all the results of direct observation.

And historical science cannot be proved.

Since science is inductive, nothing can be "proven." However, you can't do much better than direct observation. And predictions about earlier eras by evolutionary theory have been repeatedly confirmed. Would you like to see some more of them?

One has to assume the assumptions one observes with observational science is valid for historical science to be valid.

You've been misled about that, too. Science make predictions, and the theory is validated or overturned, based on how the predictions are verified or refuted.

On the other hand, creationism and ID begin with assumptions about the past, instead of making testable predictions about it.
And that by definition makes ID/creationism into a religion, because it is founded on faith, belief and assumptions about the past.

Specifically:-
Evolution violates the concept of kinds

"Kinds" is a religious belief, first advanced in the early 1900s by the Seventh-Day Adventists. So it really doesn't matter at all.

The Bible says God created creatures after their kinds "myin" and did not intend one kind to evolve into another kind.

Sorry, that's not what the Bible says. Nothing at all about not intending one kind to evolve into another. That's another creationist "adjustment" to scripture. The difference between creationists and the rest of Christianity is that creationists object to the way God created kinds.

And the final resort, quote-mining...

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought.

You've been misled about that,too:

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

As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.
It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.

But I have no difficulty putting that together with what I believe as a Christian because I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire [the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.

I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God.

[He] had the plan all along of how that would turn out. There was no ambiguity about that.
Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project

When asked during a question and answer session about God’s role in the universe, Ayala responded that even though he does not believe God created everything, he does believe that He is involved in everything that happens indirectly.


“Now I would argue that God is present in all things in the world, and is present for a person of faith so that the person of faith would be willing to accept the peaceful nature of God. And while each being develops by their own natural processes … there is a way of looking at creation and the presence of God which descend the literal interpretation of God manipulating objects.”
http://www.newuniversity.org/2014/03/news/ayala-god-and-evolution-can-coexist/

Francisco Ayala is one of the most prominent biologists in the world today.

He is known for his research on population and evolutionary genetics, and has been called the "Renaissance Man of Evolutionary Biology".[8] His "discoveries have opened up new approaches to the prevention and treatment of diseases that affect hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide", including demonstrating the reproduction of Trypanosoma cruzi, the agent of Chagas disease, is mostly the product of cloning, and that only a few clones account for most of this widespread, mostly untreatable South American disease that affects 16 million to 18 million people.
(Same source)

Like many other scientists who hold the Catholic faith, I see the Creator's plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe. I see a planet bursting with evolutionary possibilities, a continuing creation in which the Divine providence is manifest in every living thing. I see a science that tells us there is indeed a design to life.
Kenneth R. Miller
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/k/kenneth_r_miller.html#YYMhmv760mZliYGI.99

Kenneth Raymond Miller (born July 14, 1948) is an American cell biologist and molecular biologist who is currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University

Theo Dobzhansky was one of the giants of biology in his time, and modern evolutionary biology is what it is, mostly due to Dobzhansky, Mary, and Morgan.
Ernst Mayr stated: "On the other hand, famous evolutionists such as Dobzhansky were firm believers in a personal God."[11] Dobzhansky himself spoke of God as creating through evolution, and considered himself a communicant of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky

There's more. How much more would you like? Does this suggest why quote-mining is a bad idea for creationists? As you see, there's no world-class biologist who will claim that God and evolution are at odds.

 

[Barbarian]

Of course, the Bible says neither of these things. At one time, creationists merely denied evolution entirely. Later, when the evidence became to great to ignore, they fell back to admitting a little, but not all of it. The problem for your creationist diagram is that all insects fit nicely into the same kind of diagram, on fossil, genetic, and morphological data. And all arthropods do also. And all protostomes, and all metazoans, and so on. Slippery slope.

Actually it would be very easy to test your idea of the slippery slope, assuming science was willing to prove God did in fact create all creatures according to their kinds.

That's a religious notion. We just know that it happened by evolution. God uses nature for most things in this world.

Now as far as I know such studies have never been done, we have not even mapped the entire DNA of species....as yet ?

We have some, including chimps and humans. And not surprisingly, they confirm common descent. Francis Collins (an evangelical Christian) did the work for humans.

But I'd be happy to see if you can divide all mammals into kinds and show us the criteria by which you did it.

(Declines to do so, but offers the idea that mice and whales can't reproduce)

Neither can anyone else. Every attempt to define "kinds" in a testable way, falls apart.

What science needs to do is to confirm what is "myin" at a genetics level, instead of mapping the genome of species, why not map the entire DNA including the junk bits to find out what is common within species of certain myin groups?

Barbarian observes:
It's called "DNA hybridization", and it confirms common descent.

Hybridization are successful mating's between species of the same kind.

Not DNA hybridization. It's a way of matching up the DNA of two different organisms. Not surprisingly, it confirms the phylogenies going back to Linnaeus, to a very high degree of precision:

For example a tiger and lion, even the domestic cat should be able to make offspring.

Nope. Panthera and Felis are generally not interfertile. But interfertility is not a requirement for common descent. We have seen speciation directly, and although common descent is known, many times the new species cannot reproduce at all with the old one.

Barbarian observes:
"Kinds" is a religious term. So science doesn't use that. You could use if, if you had a rigorous and testable definition of "kind." Tell us about yours.

(stuff about dogs and cats mating)

Hope this helps defines biologically a kind.

Not at all. As you see, your assumptions about cats are wrong. The two existing groups of cats are genetically unable to reproduce with each other. Humans and chimps are much, much more genetically similar than wildcats and tigers. Are you beginning to see why creationists never offer a testable definition of "kind?"

 

[rthom7]

Nice responses Barbarian,



"Kinds" is a religious belief, first advanced in the early 1900s by the Seventh-Day Adventists. So it really doesn't matter at all.
Please detail not heard of this before...how does the Hebrew word myin fit into your concept of evolution then?


Sorry, that's not what the Bible says. Nothing at all about not intending one kind to evolve into another. That's another creationist "adjustment" to scripture.

Ge 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb seeding seed (zera zera) after his kind (myin)

So what does "zera zera myin" mean to you as one following evolution Barbarian?

Le 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

These sentences seem to define "kinds", so what do they tell us ?



The difference between creationists and the rest of Christianity is that creationists object to the way God created kinds.

OK so how do you see kinds fitting into evolution then?



As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.
It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

That's an interesting quote, has all the DNA been mapped? For example when it says humans and apes are 95 to 98 % similar DNA, does that mean all DNA of both species? Or just the protein coding DNA ?
Have we mapped the entire human DNA, everything including noncoding protein ? How much of human DNA is protein coding anyway compared to the grand total of all DNA?

I did not know many science people also worship God and follow evolution. My question is then how can we be sure of truth and error? Some may believe ignorantly....sorry for quote mining, your assuming that these evolutionists did not really mean what they said...fair enough...

Shalom

 

[Sinthesis]

Barbarian,

I am so glad you finally agree on a evolution process we both understand, even it comes from Berkley university....

They have diagram showing the species coming from a single ancestor...they also say the same in words....

View attachment 6222

However evolution model on the left is very different to the Bible model on the right....

Take your hand and cover up the bottom half of the evolution model on the left. Notice that what remains is fundamentally the same as the bible model on the right.

 

[rthom7]

Sinthesis,

Take your hand and cover up the bottom half of the evolution model on the left. Notice that what remains is fundamentally the same as the bible model on the right

Precisely my friend, you are correct. But when Satan counterfeits religion with religion He always mixes truth with error. Creation has built into the DNA system speciation that allows variation of creatures within kinds to change within their limits. God for saw the fall and the flood and programmed the DNA for this adaptation.

Evolution calls this speciation ability microevolution and continues to develop the theory that all creatures have descended from a common ancestor ignoring the boundaries GOD set with kinds.

And there are limits genetic engineering can achieve with creatures containing DNA. One cannot genetically engineer a sexual gamete of pig with a dog, or a the gamete of a cat with the gamete of a dog. Why ? Because such unions are outside o the DNA kind boundaries and forbidden by the DNA code GOD designed within each creature. But one could genetically make zygotes of any cat family the species of any cat species because they are all of a kind, even though naturally such cats would not mate with each other. This is how we can in science verify that myin or kind DNA code exists and limits the creatures speciation.

We also know the flood occurred in Scripture. We can calculate the age when this happened from Scripture as well, roughly 4,500 years ago. We also know only 2 animals of each unclean kind entered the boat, and took only 4,000 years to undergo speciation to adapt to its new environment, though the world continued to change after the flood, many died, some got isolated, but the DNA was already encoded to cope rapidly with such demands for living in strange places. Evolution cannot work in a world of rapid development framework of 4,000 years, each creature has to have inside it the DNA code already to change, and this did not come about gradually over millions of years.

Jesus spoke of the flood and Adam as historical facts, we either believe in the Scripture words, or we allow historical science to prove a different interpretation of how things happen in the past. The book of Genesis is a historical scientific account of our past, and we trust this account with our faith and with some evidence.

It says in Scripture Jesus is the word that became flesh...DNA is a molecule like flesh, that carries words that is not accounted for using naturalistic means. Words or information only comes from a programmer.
This programmer was Jesus. This fact alone tells you the DNA code for life is incredibly complex.

I am a child like programmer, I code using PHP. A good programmer of C++ for example writes code that producers more code when it is required. Jesus code is so clever that it reads the DNA at different starting points...science is barely beginning to learn the code...my understanding is they have mapped about 10% of the human genome so far, they say the other 90% code is left over junk from evolution ...how silly we assume such code to be...if we assume DNA is a programmed code then let's start reverse engineering it with some respect from a programmers point of view. That means reading 100% of the code and finding out why it is arranged in this way.

Will science ever read the Code fully? no, no more than a physicist understanding quantum mechanics mathematical codes of the basis of materialistic matter. God is more complex than we give God credit for and this shows life is more mysterious then we give life credit for as well.

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian,

Nope. Panthera and Felis are generally not interfertile. But interfertility is not a requirement for common descent. We have seen speciation directly, and although common descent is known, many times the new species cannot reproduce at all with the old one.

Can you supply some science papers on this please?
So you saying a Panther gamete when artificially engineered into a zygote with a domestic cat gamete, that such a zygote fails to grow and develop? Has this been tested? Such a union should grow.

Has anybody tried a ape gamete artificially joined into a zygote with a human gamete? This should NOT grow at all.

You say I cannot define kinds, but science has not mapped the entire DNA of hardly any species to begin such research? Science barely knows anything so far about the complex reading of the DNA?

For example

Science know epi-genetics plays a role in phenotype an the lowest level of DNA in genotype.
But somewhere in higher levels of the DNA there must be code that controls the epi-genetic expression.
Not just code for protein production, but code for sensing the animals needs for environmental changes to the code required for change.
We also know DNA ACTG bases have different starting points and stop codon from reading the DNA code. How does Science unravel all this? If the human genome is over 3 billion bases, how does one ask a computer to read this code and what are we looking for and where is it found. Just reading the ACGT may not allow us to find the information we need, because a good programmer has the ability to make more code and unpack more code as required by the code itself. How do we know that such letters when alive and running make more code as required? Reading a dead string of 3 billion base pairs is not the same as reading the code when the code is functioning and alive. One also has to learn about loop functions, if functions and possible new functions science has never heard of before we begin to read the code at all. So far we have assumed the code merely make protein sequences for ribosome to fold, and this mechanical 3D arrangement of proteins is life.
Evolutionists scoff they experiment with DNA code and claim to know some things. But really we have a long way to go. I suspect we will never be able read the DNA code at any confident level. However I am certain myin fragments of code will exist in each kind and unique to each kind. If only science can , map some species so we can begin the research.

Genetic distance. Given at the bottom of the diagram, the genetic difference between humans and chimps is less than 2%,[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics


What does this mean? Have we really read all the DNA between humans and chimps ?

For example the sequence divergence varies between 0% to 2.66% between non-coding, non-repetitive genomic regions of humans and chimpanzees.[5]


This statement suggest we have read the entire DNA between humans and chimps and they compare almost the same ? Is this true ?

The alignable sequences within genomes of humans and chimpanzees differ by about 35 million single-nucleotide substitutions. Additionally about 3% of the complete genomes differ by deletions, insertions and duplications.[12]


This suggests a lot of differences, 35 million differences is a lot of different information...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
Since 2001, 40 non-natural amino acids have been added into protein by creating a unique codon (recoding) and a corresponding transfer-RNA:aminoacyl – tRNA-synthetase pair to encode it with diverse physicochemical and biological properties in order to be used as a tool to exploring protein structure and function or to create novel or enhanced proteins.[41][42]

H. Murakami and M. Sisido have extended some codons to have four and five bases. Steven A. Benner constructed a functional 65th (in vivo) codon.[43]


Sounds like DNA code is getting more complex....

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode

Encode is the largest single update to the data from the human genome since its final draft was published in 2003 and the first systematic attempt to work out what the DNA outside protein-coding genes does. The researchers found that it is far from useless: within these regions they have identified more than 10,000 new "genes" that code for components that control how the more familiar protein-coding genes work. Up to 18% of our DNA sequence is involved in regulating the less than 2% of the DNA that codes for proteins. In total, Encode scientists say, about 80% of the DNA sequence can be assigned some sort of biochemical function.


At last some science people are taking DNA code for what it is, complex and more complex...

The Encode consortium's 442 researchers, situated in 32 institutes around the world, used 300 years of computer time and five years in the lab to get their results.

Are we ready to start looking for myin fragments of DNA code between species of kinds? I really don't think we know much about the DNA cause so far....my computer is not that powerful for such research....

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Take your hand and cover up the bottom half of the evolution model on the left. Notice that what remains is fundamentally the same as the bible model on the right.

It's not the "Bible" model. That's just another add-on from the creationists. It is, as you note, the scientific model, with some of the data cut away to a level creationists find tolerable.

 

[Barbarian]

But when Satan counterfeits religion with religion He always mixes truth with error.

In this case, He's just presenting part of the truth, and hiding the rest of it. The YE "model" is a perfect example of the way Satan told Eve that if she ate from the tree, she'd become like God. That much was true. But Satan hid the rest of the truth from her, in the same way creationists hide the rest of the data on evolution.

Evolution calls this speciation ability microevolution

No. That's another misconception. Microevolution is variation within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words.

and continues to develop the theory that all creatures have descended from a common ancestor ignoring the boundaries GOD set with kinds.

And this is yet another addition to scripture. God does not say there are "boundaries" between "kinds."

And there are limits genetic engineering can achieve with creatures containing DNA. One cannot genetically engineer a sexual gamete of pig with a dog, or a the gamete of a cat with the gamete of a dog. Why ?

Different numbers of chromosomes, for one thing. It's why a cross between humans and chimps probably wouldn't work. Our DNA is close enough, but the different number of chromosomes would probably mean no viable offspring would result. There was, sometime after humans and chimps diverged, a chromosome fusion that almost certainly ruled out a viable hybrid. Some cats, with different numbers of chromosmes can produce viable offspring, but the males are apparently infertile.

But one could genetically make zygotes of any cat family the species of any cat species

You can get gamete fusion with a few distantly-related organisms. Viable zygotes, that's a different story. And it's not just chromosome number. Leopard frogs in Minnesota can't successfully mate with leopard frogs from Louisiana. They have the same chromosomes, and the same genes, but the alleles of some of them change developmental timing so that the embryos don't survive. Intermediate populations of leopard frogs, however can successfully interbred, so gene flow continues, meaning that they are one species.

because they are all of a kind

"Kind" is a recently-invented religious idea, not a scientific term. Do you think all canids are the same "kind?"

Even though naturally such cats would not mate with each other. This is how we can in science verify that myin or kind DNA code exists and limits the creatures speciation.

That's wrong, too. Speciation is usually not by hybridization.

We also know the flood occurred in Scripture.

But since the Bible doesn't say it was worldwide, we don't know which of the large floods in the Middle East, if any were actually involved. We don't even know if the flood was allegorical or literally there.

We can calculate the age when this happened from Scripture as well, roughly 4,500 years ago.

Not possible. Unless the Egyptians and Sumerians were so monumentally inobservant, that they never noticed that they were underwater.

We also know only 2 animals of each unclean kind entered the boat, and took only 4,000 years to undergo speciation to adapt to its new environment,

That would have involved new species popping up monthly, with no one thinking that such a thing was remarkable enough to write about. No, not possible.

Jesus spoke of the flood and Adam as historical facts

I'd be open to your demonstration that if Jesus cites an allegory, that converts it to a literal history. What have you to show that?

The book of Genesis is a historical scientific account of our past

Sorry, it's nothing of the kind. It's about God and man and our relationship, not about biology or other scientific things.

It says in Scripture Jesus is the word that became flesh...DNA is a molecule like flesh

Flesh is not a molecule.

.my understanding is they have mapped about 10% of the human genome so far,

You've been misled about that, too.

The Human Genome Project (HGP) was one of the great feats of exploration in history - an inward voyage of discovery rather than an outward exploration of the planet or the cosmos; an international research effort to sequence and map all of the genes - together known as the genome - of members of our species, Homo sapiens. Completed in April 2003, the HGP gave us the ability, for the first time, to read nature's complete genetic blueprint for building a human being.
http://www.genome.gov/10001772

The great mass of non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk" DNA) has no observable functions, but much of it does do specific things in the cell not related to protein synthesis.

 

[Barbarian]

Nope. Panthera and Felis are generally not interfertile. But interfertility is not a requirement for common descent. We have seen speciation directly, and although common descent is known, many times the new species cannot reproduce at all with the old one.

Can you supply some science papers on this please?

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2467513?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.genetics.org/content/20/4/377.full.pdf

So you saying a Panther gamete when artificially engineered into a zygote with a domestic cat gamete, that such a zygote fails to grow and develop?

Probably won't work, because there has to be specific recognition between sperm and egg to manage fusion. And that is an entirely different thing than the survival of the fertilize egg to birth.

Such a union should grow.

Show us your evidence for that.

Has anybody tried a ape gamete artificially joined into a zygote with a human gamete? This should NOT grow at all.

Almost certainly would grow, since the recognition in primates seems to be pretty much the same. Scientists have, for example, done this with a rhesus monkey and a baboon, which are much more different genetically than humans and chimpanzees. But with different numbers of chromosomes, it probably wouldn't be viable, or if it was, it would be sterile.

You say I cannot define kinds,

No one else can, either. It's a religious idea, and all attempts for a testable definition have failed.

but science has not mapped the entire DNA of hardly any species to begin such research?

See above. Meantime, take another shot at a testable definition of "kind."

Science know epi-genetics plays a role in phenotype an the lowest level of DNA in genotype.
But somewhere in higher levels of the DNA there must be code that controls the epi-genetic expression.

It's the other way around. Environmental factors produce chemicals that regulate gene expression, often a generation or two after the environmental stimulus. I suppose you could say the genes for those chemicals control epigenetic behavior.

Not just code for protein production, but code for sensing the animals needs for environmental changes to the code required for change.

The code doesn't change. It just affects which parts of the code happen to be expressed. This is normally done by histones that allow or prevent given segments of DNA being transcribed.

Evolutionists scoff they experiment with DNA code and claim to know some things.

Doesn't sound like scoffing. All these things came about because scientists investigated the matter. For example, what creationists assumed was "junk" DNA, turns out to have some functions in many cases. And this was first realized in the 1960s, long before creationists suspected anything.

Genetic distance

. Given at the bottom of the diagram, the genetic difference between humans and chimps is less than 2%,[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics

What does this mean? Have we really read all the DNA between humans and chimps ?

It means that genetically, chimps are closer to humans than humans or chimps are to any other organisms.

Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

This statement suggest we have read the entire DNA between humans and chimps and they compare almost the same ? Is this true ?

Yep. Depending on what you mean by "almost." Because there are so many bases in our DNA, there are millions of differences, but they only differ by a few percent.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian you said "Kind" is a recently-invented religious idea" that's not true..

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

tob

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian


R: Can you supply some science papers showing Panthers and domestic cats on this please?

B:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2467513?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.genetics.org/content/20/4/377.full.pdf

You were supposed to show me an example of a Panther not genetically capable of growing a successful zygote with a domestic cat.....
Instead you show me Evening flower, a plant, and some species of fruit flies...

I was interested to seeing if any species of cat could not successfully make a zygote grow. If the gamete of any cat species could not grow with the gamete of any other cat species , than we would falsify kinds.

You did not show me anything.

Now I am not asking they mate, or grow to make viable offspring or fertile offspring....we know mutations spoil things so any distant species may not grow fully successfully, but at least the zygote should develop and grow for a while...that would prove kinds exist between distance species of a kind. So any cat species should make a zygote grow if artificially implanted with a gamete of the same kind. (I would imagine species within a kind have the same chromosome number and other external DNA similarities)

R: So you saying a Panther gamete when artificially engineered into a zygote with a domestic cat gamete, that such a zygote fails to grow and develop?

B: Probably won't work, because there has to be specific recognition between sperm and egg to manage fusion. And that is an entirely different thing than the survival of the fertilize egg to birth.

Your not following me, you artificially implant the DNA of one gamete species into the egg of another gamete species bypassing the protein blocks of recognition. If the species are of the same kind (all things be equal) the zygote combination should develop and grow. Outside a kind, they should not grow and develop. That's an easy test to do by science, simply allow the zygote to grow and develop for say 10 days to confirm the creature is viable as a genetic match for compatibility.
But here I am assuming the compatibility of a species to grow is inside the DNA where such kind boundaries exist, not externally wired with protein recognition and other factors...I suspect the DNA code itself should block DNA code from species not related to its kind. So here is a simple test for science to verify is kind exists within the DNA code or not at a genetics level.

R: Such a union should grow.
B: Show us your evidence for that.

I am not a scientist, just a teacher without a lab.

R: Has anybody tried a ape gamete artificially joined into a zygote with a human gamete? This should NOT grow at all.
B: Almost certainly would grow, since the recognition in primates seems to be pretty much the same. Scientists have, for example, done this with a rhesus monkey and a baboon, which are much more different genetically than humans and chimpanzees. But with different numbers of chromosomes, it probably wouldn't be viable, or if it was, it would be sterile.

More details in your answer please. I would suspect monkey and baboon to be within a kind, so zygote development should be possible. A human and an ape should not be possible.

R: You say I cannot define kinds,
B: No one else can, either. It's a religious idea, and all attempts for a testable definition have failed

I have given science above in this post a method to test the idea of kinds. Simply artificially join the gametes of dozens of species together and incubate them for 10 days to see if some grow.

Find two species known to be a Bible kinds but with the same number of chromosomes, in this case 38 for cats and 38 for pigs, Biblically these animals are different kinds.

Take 10 species of cats and join them to 10 other species of cats, making 100 zygote combinations.
All of them should grow zygotes after 10 days.

Take 10 species of pigs join them to 10 other species of pigs making 100 zygote combinations.
All of them should grow zygotes after 10 days.

Now take combinations of cat gametes and of pig gametes and incubate them as zygotes for 10 days. Such combinations should all die.

R:Evolutionists scoff they experiment with DNA code and claim to know some things.
B: Doesn't sound like scoffing. All these things came about because scientists investigated the matter. For example, what creationists assumed was "junk" DNA, turns out to have some functions in many cases. And this was first realized in the 1960s, long before creationists suspected anything.

Pardon ?? Show me a paper where creationists call non-protein DNA code "junk DNA" wasn't this term first develop by Evolutionists ?

B: Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements.

Are you saying 35 million single-nucleotide changes, makes a chimp similar to a human? Why just a few dozen DNA code lines of code could unleash a whole array of differences between creatures....it not the amount of DNA code we need to look at but what the DNA code does when its running inside an animal. I would say chimp and man have similar design for the first level of DNA code, but that's about it....you have to run the DNA program and see what each code does before assessing how similar each creature really is, and I suspect we are no where near similar at all.

R: This statement suggest we have read the entire DNA between humans and chimps and they compare almost the same ? Is this true ?
B: Yep. Depending on what you mean by "almost." Because there are so many bases in our DNA, there are millions of differences, but they only differ by a few percent.


Are you saying science has mapped the non-coding protein DNA and the protein coding DNA for both chimps and humans 100% fully ? And they are 98% similar ? Got to read this, show me a link where all 3 billion nuclei DNA codons are listed please, so I can look and read what they say . At least reading the complete code of a chimp and a human side by side would be a start for real evidence of how similar we are or aren't. Could you also supply a paper that groups the ACTG into codons with spaces between each of the letters so one can read with some intelligence. We learn that AUG is the start codon for proteins, but I would love to read what science has found for regulation codes of the DNA code too...how much do we know so far about the DNA as a program?

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
We have seen speciation directly, and although common descent is known, many times the new species cannot reproduce at all with the old one.

Can you supply some science papers on this please?

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2467513?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.genetics.org/content/20/4/377.full.pdf

You were supposed to show me an example of a Panther not genetically capable of growing a successful zygote with a domestic cat.....

No. I restored the context you deleted. It's in red. C'mon.

I was interested to seeing if any species of cat could not successfully make a zygote grow. If the gamete of any cat species could not grow with the gamete of any other cat species , than we would falsify kinds.

See above. That's not what you asked. The part in red is what I wrote, and then you asked for some papers on it.

Now I am not asking they mate, or grow to make viable offspring or fertile offspring....we know mutations spoil things so any distant species may not grow fully successfully, but at least the zygote should develop and grow for a while...that would prove kinds exist between distance species of a kind.

You can make a human/hamster gamete fusion grow for a while. Are you claiming hamsters and humans are the same "kind?"

How animal embryo research led to the first documented human IVF.
Abstract
Research studies using animal gametes led to the first documented human IVF in 1969. A key contribution was the development of a reliable culture medium for IVF of hamster oocytes, which was then used successfully with human gametes in the laboratory. This article describes how this was accomplished. Hamster IVF was obtained using a bicarbonate-buffered culture medium based on Tyrode's solution. A dose-response experiment showed that IVF in this species was highly dependent on the pH of the culture medium. At pH 7.2 or less, very few oocytes were penetrated and spermatozoa did not undergo acrosome reactions. Over the pH range 7.3-7.5, 40% of oocytes were fertilized in vitro, while at pH 7.6 or higher, more than 75% of oocytes were fertilized and most spermatozoa exhibited acrosome reactions. There was no apparent effect of pH on sperm motility. These experiments showed that in the hamster, fertilization in vitro is highly pH dependent, most likely through pH effects on the sperm acrosome reaction and sperm:zona binding. The data led to formulation of a culture medium, Tyrode-B, that consistently supported high levels of IVF of hamster oocytes. When this medium was used for human gametes, IVF was observed and documented for the first time. Spermatozoa penetrating through the zona pellucida and sperm components within the ooplasm were detected, and some oocytes exhibited two pronuclei. These observations suggested that human IVF might be useful for alleviation of infertility.
Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;4 Suppl 1:24-9.

Your not following me, you artificially implant the DNA of one gamete species into the egg of another gamete species bypassing the protein blocks of recognition.

Oh, thats' been done. Human/Hamster, for example.

Such a union should grow.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us your evidence for that.

I am not a scientist, just a teacher without a lab.

Perhaps it would be useful to convince creationists to fund that research. Don't hold your breath though; they generally run from testable claims.

Has anybody tried a ape gamete artificially joined into a zygote with a human gamete? This should NOT grow at all.

Barbarian observes:
Almost certainly would grow, since the recognition in primates seems to be pretty much the same. Scientists have, for example, done this with a rhesus monkey and a baboon, which are much more different genetically than humans and chimpanzees. But with different numbers of chromosomes, it probably wouldn't be viable, or if it was, it would be sterile.

More details in your answer please.

Abstract
Historically, two different numbering systems have been used to describe the baboon and macaque karyotypes. However, G-banding studies and, more recently, fluorescence in situ hybridization results have shown that the two karyotypes are virtually identical. To confirm this hypothesis, cytogenetic analysis of an unusual animal, a rheboon, was undertaken. The rheboon reported here, an 18-year-old male, is the only long-term survivor of 26 pregnancies resulting from matings between female baboons (Papio hamadryas) and male rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). A G-banded karyotype was prepared from the rheboon and compared with the karyotypes of the two parental species. Spectral karyotyping (SKY) was carried out on the rheboon chromosomes, and the results were compared with SKY studies reported for the baboon and with CISS (chromosome in situ suppression) studies in the rhesus macaque. No differences were detected in any of the rheboon's pairs of autosomes, reinforcing the apparent identity of the two parental karyotypes. Based on these results, we argue that a single karyotyping system should be adopted for the two species. Fertility studies were initiated to determine if the rheboon is sterile, as are most hybrid animals. Two semen ejaculates were devoid of sperm. A testicular biopsy revealed hypoplasia of the seminiferous tubules with few Leydig cells and large lumena. Meiotic arrest occurred during meiosis I, resulting in absence of mature spermatozoa. Thus, the testicular and meiotic findings in the rheboon were similar to those observed in other hybrids, even though the parental karyotypes appear identical.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10502238

 

[Barbarian]

I would suspect monkey and baboon to be within a kind, so zygote development should be possible.

In fact, it turns out that humans, rhesus monkeys, and baboons have very similar karyotypes:

Abstract
Results from a comparison of SKY analyses using probes derived from human chromosomes on baboon metaphases were consistent with the majority of comparative gene mapping data between the two species. These data were also compatible with earlier studies comparing macaque and human chromosomes. Human (HSA) chromosome 2 was homologous to baboon (PHA) chromosomes 12 (HSA 2q) and 13 (HSA 2p), whereas three baboon chromosomes corresponded to two different human chromosomes: PHA 3 to HSA 7 and HSA 21, PHA 7 to HSA 14 and HSA 15, and PHA 10 to HSA 20 and HSA 22. These results support the retained synteny between the Hominidae and Cercopithecidae genomes.
Cytogenet Cell Genet. 1998;82(1-2):83-7.

A human and an ape should not be possible.

See above. Rhesus monkeys and baboons are genetically farther apart than humans and chimps. The fusion event, reducing the number of human chromosomes, would be make it difficult, but such hybrids are often viable, if sterile.

You say I cannot define kinds,

Barbarian observes:
No one else can, either. It's a religious idea, and all attempts for a testable definition have failed

Find two species known to be a Bible kinds but with the same number of chromosomes, in this case 38 for cats and 38 for pigs, Biblically these animals are different kinds.

That's merely a claim that two organisms are not a kind. Write us a testable definition of "kind."

Evolutionists scoff they experiment with DNA code and claim to know some things.

Doesn't sound like scoffing. All these things came about because scientists investigated the matter. For example, what creationists assumed was "junk" DNA, turns out to have some functions in many cases. And this was first realized in the 1960s, long before creationists suspected anything.

Pardon ?? Show me a paper where creationists call non-protein DNA code "junk DNA"

I don't think creationists write scientific papers about DNA. The scientific term is "non-coding DNA."

wasn't this term first develop by Evolutionists ?

Don't think so, but it shows up in the literature first as "non-coding." Some papers use the term "junk", just as some astronomy papers refer to the "big bang", even though that's a misnomer too.

Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements.

Are you saying 35 million single-nucleotide changes, makes a chimp similar to a human?

A chimp is similar to a human. When europeans first encountered chimps and gorillas, they assumed them to be humans.

I would say chimp and man have similar design for the first level of DNA code, but that's about it....you have to run the DNA program and see what each code does before assessing how similar each creature really is, and I suspect we are no where near similar at all.

That's wrong. Many proteins in chimps and humans are identical.

Yep. Depending on what you mean by "almost." Because there are so many bases in our DNA, there are millions of differences, but they only differ by a few percent.

The finished human genome (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium 2004) provides such a catalog of genomic features that ultimately interact with the environment to determine our biology, physiology, and disease susceptibility. Completion of the draft chimpanzee genome sequence (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005) provides a genome-wide comparative catalog that can be used to identify genes or genomic regions underlying the many features that distinguish humans and chimpanzees.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full

The 98 percent figure was by DNA hybridization, including all DNA, not just the coding sequences.

The 96 percent figure is based on actual genes, not the non-coding sequences, I think. I'll have to check to make sure...

Ah...
Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. "Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."...

Eichler and his colleagues found that the human and chimp sequences differ by only 1.2 percent in terms of single-nucleotide changes to the genetic code.

But 2.7 percent of the genetic difference between humans and chimps are duplications, in which segments of genetic code are copied many times in the genome.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

 

[Sinthesis]

It's not the "Bible" model. That's just another add-on from the creationists. It is, as you note, the scientific model, with some of the data cut away to a level creationists find tolerable.

I should have used the term 'creationist model', but condescended to use their language in an attempt to illustrate to creationists the arbitrary level of blindness inherent in their 'bible' view of evolution.

 

[turnorburn]

Next thing you know somebody will take this too far and say that young earth creation beliefs are nearly tantamount to blasphemy..

tob

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian

Some of your cites were interesting indeed.

R: For example a tiger and lion, even the domestic cat should be able to make offspring.

B: Nope. Panthera and Felis are generally not interfertile


B: Nope. Panthera and Felis are generally not interfertile. But interfertility is not a requirement for common descent. We have seen speciation directly, and although common descent is known, many times the new species cannot reproduce at all with the old one.

R: Can you supply some science papers on this please?

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2467513?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.genetics.org/content/20/4/377.full.pdf

B: We have seen speciation directly, and although common descent is known, many times the new species cannot reproduce at all with the old one.

R: Can you supply some science papers on this please?


R: You were supposed to show me an example of a Panther not genetically capable of growing a successful zygote with a domestic cat.....

B: No. I restored the context you deleted. It's in red. C'mon.
Your first sentence related to Panther not making a union with the Felis. So I wanted a paper for this. You have mistaken my intent, reading the reading second sentence of your quote. Sorry.


----------------------------------------
http://www.pdn.cam.ac.uk/40yearsivf/commemorative_programme.pdf

Bob knew that the eggs he and I had been working with had no chance

of developing into embryos because of the way they were obtained – in vitro maturation of eggs did not become a successful clinical practice until more than 20 years later.

This is an interesting paper (4Mb download) on the history of IVF, and they only had the ovum alive for some hours (22hrs) not 10 days, so it was interesting, that they figured out IVF....

--------------------------------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209209/IVF-procedure-using-DNA-THREE-parents-eradicate-incurable-diseases.html

It has provoked an ethical storm, however. Critics say it is a step towards an era of hybrid children and warn that it erodes the sanctity of life.

The technique is intended to help women who carry genetic diseases. It involves transferring healthy DNA from the mother's egg cell into an egg donated by another woman.

Children conceived by the technique would inherit DNA from three sources - their mother, the donor and their father.

The American team who produced the macaque monkeys - named Mito, Tracker, Spindler and Spindy - say the technique could be used to eradicate potentially fatal forms of inherited epilepsy, blindness and heart disease

This article shows IVF using many donors, so one day we may see hybrid humans avoiding genes that lead to disease.
---------------------------------------

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes_2.html

Humans and chimps originate from a common ancestor, and scientists believe they diverged some six million years ago.

Do people really believe God created monkeys to evolve in man over millions of years? This in not found in the Genesis account at all ? This alone should make Christians avoid evolution .

-----------------------
Barbarian, can you supply a valid link showing human and chimp union of gametes leading to a successful zygote development? I couldn't find one, and the number of chromosomes do not match, telling us it would be impossible.
Hamsters have 44 chromosomes and humans 46, so I would not expect a successful growing zygote. The paper cites 22 hours, not real evidence of a developing match .

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Humans and chimps originate from a common ancestor, and scientists believe they diverged some six million years ago.

So the evidence indicates. We are genetically closer to chimps and they to us, then either species is to any other ape species.

Do people really believe God created monkeys to evolve in man over millions of years?

If God chose to use nature to make the diversity of life on Earth, as He says in Genesis, why would you find that offensive?

This in not found in the Genesis account at all ?

Semiconductors aren't found in Genesis either. Some things, He left for us to find out on our own. The Bible isn't about nature. It's about God and man and our relationship. It's wrong to try to make it something else.

Barbarian, can you supply a valid link showing human and chimp union of gametes leading to a successful zygote development?

I doubt if it's been tried. For religious and ethical reasons, it would be prohibited any place I can think of. However, given that we have almost identical genes, but they are on different chromosomes in some cases, the likelihood is that the zygote would develop, but fail to survive at some point.

But given that rhesus monkeys and baboons have greater genetic distances, it looks as though fertilization and embryogenesis would take place.

Any definition of "kinds" that would put rhesus monkeys and baboons in the same kind, would put humans and chimps in another "kind."