Evolution is a Religious Issue

That's the thing, though. You have contested it. If you contest common descent then you contest these things.I'm sure that seems ridiculous to you. Your opposition of common descent is ridiculous if you accept the premises that logically necessitate common descent. Unassailable ignorance. Clearly the only way for you to preserve your irrational suspicion of common descent is to set the standard of "proof" so high that it cannot possibly be met. Well, bully for you, but I question the judgement of anyone that would mistake you for an open-minded seeker of truth.

Your comment above is another example of why I think of evolutionary theory as ideological indoctrination.You flat our claim that just because people reproduce after their kind, producing offspring that share traits and DNA, that this is proof of common descent of all living things from a single original life form.Sorry, but I am not setting the bar that high. You have just set it so low that one could deduce from the mere fact of reproduction that universal common descent must be true.Hogwash!

quote:

---

To even be more specific, DNA testing in a court of law assumes that individual parentage can be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The threashold of accuracy Shraf invokes by the use of DNA testing for the immediate parent of an individual offspring is one of certain proof, specificity in a highly specific situation where error is not considered possible.

​

If phylogenetics can be shown to have recently even made one single error, in any way concerning descent and ancestry, then Shraf's threashold has not been met, and the point is proven demonstrably wrong.

---

Oh really? You do know that not everyone agrees with the standards of DNA testing i.e. how large a population you must sample before excluding the posibility of a false positive? Look up Virginia forensics with google to find out how even DNA forensices can be in error. So does this invalidate the method and mean that you are not related to your parents genetically?Do you know what causes forensics and phylogenetics to be in error? If not you should probably learn some molecular evolution and genetics before continuing in this thread.

quote:

---

Please prove that. Show someone, any individual, you have so tested, and show whom all of their ancestors were, as much as possible, and exactly which species their human ancestors evolved from, etc, etc,....and remember this has to be certain, not that humans probably evolved from this or that, but certain identification of specific species "parentage."

​

If you cannot, you are guilty of wild overstatement.

---

Ok, this is a silly argument. Then please prove that 20 generations ago, your ancestors were human. You do not have genetic evidence, you may not know where they came from and there may be no record of their existence. Since you seem to state that genetics is suspended at whim, you cannot deduce that you have human ancestors even in the recent past....as before, what evidence do you have that genetics was not the mode of transmission in the past and what evidence do you have for its suspension as a mode of inheritance given that it is demonstrably used by every living organism on earth.

quote:

---

1. Were Neanderthals capable of interbreeding with Cro-Magnon people or the ancestors of the individual detailed in your response to requests for DNA "proof" as in a court of law above?

---

Until someone gets nuclear DNA from both, the question cannot be answered2. Did Neanderthals interbreed with the ancestors of people today?Until nuclear DNA is obtained, the question cannot be answered. In addition, only about 5 neandertal sequences have been obtained compared to several thousand humans so there is simply not enough data to say one way or the other.3. Is there virtually 100% concensus to questions 1 and 2 in the scientific community, as one would expect virtually 100% concensus in the legal community for a paternity test?What difference does this make? The work on the first neandertal mtDNA sequence was published in 1997..if they don't have all the answers for you yet you think we should just accept your wild imagination as the preferable alternative?4. Did modern humans evolve from multiple regions, or from one regional tribe? This should be easy to answer since ancestry can, according to you guys, be traced with the same precision as in paternity tests.Nope, we did not say with the same precision...only with the same methods and the same underlying assumptions. You are alsot misrepresenting the multiregional hypothesis...it is not mutually exclusive with the out of Africa hypothesis...though the majority of studies point to an origin in Africa with a great deal of subsequent migration back and forth from different regions.5. If a shared genetic mutation is assumed to have descended from an original source, why could not the same mutation have occurred in multiple sources and thus created an appearance of common ancestry when that was not the case?This is hardly a parsimonious conclusion. One can follow mutations for thousands of generations in bacteria and hundreds in multicellular organisms and while parallel mutations can occur, they are usually those that confer a benefit not a defect. Besides, you would have to assume millions of identical mutations occurred in mulitple lineages and that they corresponded with morphology, the fossil record etc etc just by chance. this would also fly in the face of all experiments that show the generation and spread of mutations in populations in real time including paternity testing and disease mutation mapping.6. How do we know the rate of mutations have remained constant, and if we do not, what does that say about the accuracy of your models?The rates may or may not have been constant...it affects the accuracy of the models in that it is easier to get a precise measurement on more recent events and a less precise measurement on those that happened long ago...and?7. Since we know from quantum physics that physical things are essentially energy patterns which at their root are information, not their physicality, and that this information forming the root of physical existence underlies all chemistry which in itself underlies all biology, then within the claim to observe evidence for mutations being able to add to these energy patterns and create new patterns (species), where does the information come from? In other words, if information is what really exists, then does not the potential for new information patterns have to already exist prior to that potential being actualized via a mechanical (natural) process? Where does the information, the potential for design, come from?Mutation and natural selection and drift..or do you mean abiogenesis?

quote:

---

Also, before I respond any further to your posts, you need to subsantiate your existing claims, specifically please post "thousands of experiments and observations" that you claimed to have in the above quote. 3000 examples should do.

​

I will look first for the opening question to be fully answered along with a DNA test of an individual used for paternity and thus using that to go all the way back in their human ancestry all the way back to the presumed common ancestor of all of life, with virtually no disagreement in the scientific community.

---

I expect you to show absolutely no disagreement among IDists in their interpretations of ID and its basic components and to show that all religions are identical or else there is no ID and no god/gods/pink unicorns....what kind of logic is this?
You truly do not understand science at all do you? Of course there is disagreement in the scientific community at every level. Sciene tries to find the best possible explanation for natural phenomenon and test it and tries to falsify it. Hyptheses are modified, refined, or dumped based on the constant questioning of the underlying assumptions and the accumulation of new data. Thus, there are disagreements in the scientific community on what causes AIDS, and how prions work etc all issues accepted as settled by uninformed people such as yourself. It is not the dogmatic bullshit of religion where no change to fit reality is allowed. Science is the search for the best approximation of the truth and religion/ID is the attempt to hide from it and deny it.

quote:

---

And lastly, you should present a list of 3000 experiments and observations just to substantiate your point. After all that, I will respond

---

Crashfrog linked you to 44,000 pubmed references..these link to scientific studies and the data contained therein (so that you dont have to take the word of the scientists, you can redo the analyses yourself). You have 40 hours to read all of them and come back and explain why they are wrong and why your ex nihilo intelligence is a better explanation for all of their observations and how you would falsify your hypothesis.

First off, you ignored my opening question. Assuming that 2 identical twins were created by special creation, would they not share the same, or close to the same, DNA?Next, you show why reasoned discussion is generally not possible with you guys on this subject.

quote:

---

So does this invalidate the method and mean that you are not related to your parents genetically?

---

What are you saying? It appears you are saying the fact that children are related to their parents somehow dependent on scientific knowledge.Were children prior to the discovery of DNA related to their parents?Don't be absurd.

quote:

---

Ok, this is a silly argument. Then please prove that 20 generations ago, your ancestors were human. You do not have genetic evidence, you may not know where they came from and there may be no record of their existence.

---

So it is a silly argument to ask you guys to prove your assertations?
I am not the one touting paternity testing can be used to go back further in time to show common descent. You guys are the ones making that argument, and I agree that it is a silly argument on your part.As far as some of the questions, I note that you cite a lack of data, but somehow stil argue that this lack of data indicates common descent, some have even said beyond all reasonable doubt.I will just accept that genetic science has not progressed enough to do what you have claimed. We could have saved a lot of time had you just admitted this early on.

quote:

---

First off, you ignored my opening question. Assuming that 2 identical twins were created by special creation, would they not share the same, or close to the same, DNA?
Next, you show why reasoned discussion is generally not possible with you guys on this subject.

---

Why would you assume that special creation would have any constraints? What reason would there be for a genetic mechanism of heredity (or any mechanism of heredity) if every birth is a result of special creation? If you cannot provide a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of special creation, how can you then put constraints on what it would produce genetically? I would only have an expectation that identical twins share very similar DNA under a model of identity by descent...I have no expectation of "special creation".

quote:

---

What are you saying? It appears you are saying the fact that children are related to their parents somehow dependent on scientific knowledge.

​

Were children prior to the discovery of DNA related to their parents?

​

Don't be absurd.

---

Why absurd? 100 years ago people had no idea what the mechanism of heredity was. The fact that children come from their mothers is not ultimate proof of identity by descent..if it were so easy, why are there genetic paternity tests?And what is more absurd? Claiming that the observation that all species transmit their genes from one generation to the next must have been suspended at some time, multiple times, or every time by an unobservable, untestable supernatural intelligence or actually basing the conclusion of identity by descent on the evidence?

quote:

---

So it is a silly argument to ask you guys to prove your assertations?
I am not the one touting paternity testing can be used to go back further in time to show common descent. You guys are the ones making that argument, and I agree that it is a silly argument on your part.

---

If you had an even passing familiarity with molecular biology you would know why this assertion is supported. And if you want to go into silly arguements, how about yours that without any recourse to supporting evidence or "proving" your assertions you claim that at some or many distinct points in time, heredity was suspended...you have links to 44,000 papers that contradict your musings...where is your data? Where is your testable and falsifiable hypothesis of "special creation"? Still waiting.

quote:

---

As far as some of the questions, I note that you cite a lack of data, but somehow stil argue that this lack of data indicates common descent, some have even said beyond all reasonable doubt.

---

Some have said that Kid Rock has talent..and? If you actually read the debates on the neandertal studies it has more to do with statistical arguments and contaminatin problems unique to the field of ancient DNA and not about common descent. Also, even the Out of Africa camp does not argue that humans and neandertals are not related..only that neandertals were not a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens.

quote:

---

I will just accept that genetic science has not progressed enough to do what you have claimed. We could have saved a lot of time had you just admitted this early on.

---

I admit no such thing. I will accept that you are completely ignorant of the relevant studies which you claim do not exist. Your gaps in knowledge are not equivalent to a gap in the science. You may wish to claim that we as scientists do not know what we are talking about, but until you actually show that you have based this on extensive study of the data (much less even an awareness of it) then I will assume that you are just another run of the mill religious zealot that is afraid that he will stop believing in god/gods/pink unicorns or whatever flavor of mythology you cling to because your faith cannot withstand science or reality.This message has been edited by Admin, 06-03-2005 07:31 AM

If you'll recall, the actual claim was that the convergence between phylogenies derived from stratiography and phylogenies derived from genetics is too great, by far, to have any explanation but common ancestry.But I understand that claim is too well-established for you to have a hope of contesting it, so naturally you've resorted to this strawman.

I know Mammuthus has replied already, but maybe a different perspective would help. In sexual reproduction, offspring receive half their genes from one parent, and the other half from the other parent. In special creation this process must somehow be interrupted or interfered with, raising questions as to whether the offspring is still genetically related to the parents. Mammuthus was only asking you to consider this particular implication of your ideas about special creation. I have to concur with Mammuthus on this one. Your argument seems based more upon personal skepticism and a lack of familiarity with the techniques associated with the derivation of descent through genetic analysis than upon knowledge of the underlying science.--Percy

Well, its been replied to twice now, but I don't think anyone answered your question. Let me try. The answer is: not necessarily. For a start of, we would not need to have the broken Vitamin C gene broken in the same manner. We could replace that whole gene with another load of random noise and still get an identical twin. Repeat and rinse for any other broken genes or 'junk DNA' (the kind of junk that isn't used for anything. There might be no code that is useless, but I believe there is redundancy in the genome. This could theoretically be tinkered with).Lets say, for example, that 50% of the genome serves no purpose when it comes making a human being (that is 50% of the DNA does not code or is not regulatory. The number is arbitrary). In that case the full DNA would be 50% different. Significant I would suggest.Let us also consider the possibility that the same job can be done in different ways (TIMTOWTDI as the Perl community would say). That is to say, one can create the same protiens using different amino acids. Why would the proteins in one twin be created in the same way as in the other?Amusingly this latter piece of information can be used to show evolutionary relationshipsThis message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 03-June-2005 05:24 PM

So "kinds" share DNA and traits. Since all life examined so far shares DNA patterns and the traits that go with them the conclusion is that these are all one "kind". One kind that may have been specially created or not, but one kind none-the-less. This is, of course, not at all true. In fact, it is a ridiculous expression of the actual situation. I suggest that you currently know too little to make any progress in understanding the situation and are demonstrating an unwillingness to consider anything which you might have trouble explaning.

quote:

---

No, the ridiculous point was the manner in which "thousands" of experiments have shown blah, blah, blah, but when you boil it down, the claim is merely that DNA is passed down to offspring.

---

Yes.And can you point to any point along any lineage and tell me where evolutionary processes weren't or couldn't be responsible?

I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate the paternity tests that show exactly how everyone evolved. That was the claim, that the accuracy in paternity tests can be used with similar accuracy to show the degrees of relatedness, which by defition includes ancestry.I did not set the bar. You guys did.But let's look at something else while we are waiting for the evidence I asked for. The folllowing shows the fallacy of evolutionist dogma.Just a few years ago, evolutionists claimed DNA showed we had closer DNA to other things rather than chimps, right?What were the arguments used back then? How was this data used?If I said, hey, the DNA shows that we are not as related to chimps as say a banana, you guys would have and every evolutionist did, deny that this did not fit in with common descent theories.Now, you say that you have discovered the amazing fact that chimps have similar DNA, to a degree, to us, that we are more closely related than say, a banana.Well golly gee. Think of that. Chimps who look a whole lot more like us are more similar in other ways (DNA) as well. Let's give someone a Nobel Prize.But here is the crux of the matter, how many of you claimed the disparities in DNA evidence was problematic and definite evidence against common ancestry?If similarities are now considered evidence for common ancestry, even as strong evidence as a paternity suit, then why were differences not considered evidence against common ancestry?

Please support that assertion.

---

I think the claim was that since paternity tests can determine our ancestory, we can apply DNA testing methods to go further and further back along our ancestory until we start reaching common ancestors with other species. If we had DNA samples from every individual that ever lived, and a computer the size of a planet, we could, with stunning accuracy show relatedness.As it stands we can't do this, however we can sample DNA from existing species and calculate just how different we are to one another. Lots of clever stuff goes on here, but suffice to say it is possible to calculate common ancestory. I'm a bit confused by your double negative. If you said "The DNA shows that we are closer related to a banana than a chimp", you'd probably find evolutionists say "This doesn't fit in with our concepts of common descent" But why would the be more similar in other ways as well? Why would they need to, for example, use the same sequence of amino acids to construct "cytochrome c" (essential protien composed of 104 amino acids) as we do? No other creatures do. In fact, the further away you go from things that 'look' like us the more different the cytochrome c protien encoding becomes. Rhesus monkeys have one amino acid difference in their encoding, whales: 10 turtles: 15 and tunafish: 21So there you have it, the difference are more pronounced in reptiles than in mammals and more pronounced still in fish. That just happens to be the order in which evolution happened. I'm fairly sure that there will be exceptions to this pattern, but the general trend is strong and undeniable. Also, as more and more genes are compared in this manner, the trend is strengthened.An excellent diagram which shows the DNA sequence very planely can be seen here. It shows the full DNA sequence of cytochrome c in humans and mice, and allows you to compare them. The conclusion is interesting...there are 78 codons which are are identical between the two of them. The number of DNA combinations that would produce exactly the same amino acids is 1.3x10³³. That's a heck of a lot of different ways they could have combined. For some reason, of all the different ways the same result could have been acheived, this way was used. And the closer you get to humans evolutionarily, the more similar, the further away, the more different the coding is.Why on earth is that? Is it just a HUGE coincidence? Here is a study, courtesy of PubMed, which looks at 100s of genes and compares them to come up with results which very closely match what we already knew based on the fossil evidence. More details hereHere is a simple graph which gives you an visual idea on what I am talking about, but of course, you'll need to study the methodology to understand the diagram better.This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 03-June-2005 09:35 PM

As AdminJar's post has hinted, I don't think this is going to sound familiar to anyone here, and the entire rest of your post is based upon it. It doesn't sound like anything I ever heard about.I'm racking my brain to come up with what you might be thinking of, and maybe I've got it. Before DNA analysis revealed that chimpanzees were closer relatives to us than gorillas, it was widely believed that gorillas were our closest living relative. But this was suspected only for reasons having more to do with morphology than anything else, and certainly had nothing to do with DNA analysis which didn't exist at the time. Uh, not sure why you're skeptical about this, but it shouldn't be hard to answer any questions you have. Descent occurs with modest genetic modification that accumulates, and the greater the number of descendent generations the greater the number of differences accumulate between two lines that originally formed a single population but have since gone their separate ways. The locations of similarities and differences in the genome are also important indicators.--Percy

quote:

---

And can you point to any point along any lineage and tell me where evolutionary processes weren't or couldn't be responsible?

---

So this is what it boils down to disproving a negative. Why couldn't this happen instead of you offering evidence that it did happen! Evidence it could have happened just means you can create an imaginary scenario where it could be possible, but I thought science was suppossed to show something did happen for it be backed up, not merely that there is a possibility it could have happened.Consider the following question.

quote:

---

If similarities are now considered evidence for common ancestry, even as strong evidence as a paternity suit, then why were differences not considered evidence against common ancestry?

---