Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
95 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 94 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,622 Year: 3,268/14,102 Month: 209/724 Week: 58/93 Day: 15/3 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?
Convince-me
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 89 (35211)
03-25-2003 11:52 AM


I stopped believing in a very young earth because of the differences in DNA between different animals. Dogs and wolves are horribly similar in their DNA. When they differ about 0,5% the coyote differ from both of them with 7% in the same DNA-region. And it was a long time ago since dogs split from wolves. Other wild canines differ even more. It´s hard to believe in created kinds because cats are more similar to dogs and bears than they are with elephant in their DNA.

Could any created kind-believing creationist explain this to me. Otherwise I will continue to believe that God controlled an evolution and copied a chimp cell to make man. If a creation moment have caused the differences we see and if morphology is correlated to DNA-sequence, why is the gorilla further from the chimpanzee than chimps are to us. And why is the orangutang further from the gorilla and chimp than these are to us.


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Convince-me, posted 03-28-2003 6:13 AM Convince-me has not yet responded
 Message 24 by peter borger, posted 03-29-2003 9:47 PM Convince-me has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 89 (35255)
03-25-2003 7:54 PM


IMO, you're focusing in on variations of DNA, when you should be focusing on the wonderful complexity of DNA. As we are learning about cells and DNA, we are finding out how wonderfully complex these, once thought quite simple, really are. They are designed in such a complex manner that the odds are impossible that they could assemble themselves into what they are by evolutionary chance senarios.

Consider this: Hydrogen and oxygen are volatile agents of combustion, but the same are the only ingredients of water which douses combustion. The designer/creator of these must've had a chuckle, thinking about folks like you when he designed it all so mindbogglingly inexplicable.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 03-25-2003 8:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-26-2003 2:13 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Convince-me, posted 03-26-2003 11:49 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5551
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 89 (35258)
03-25-2003 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Buzsaw
03-25-2003 7:54 PM


Hydrogen and oxygen are volatile agents of combustion, but the same are the only ingredients of water which douses combustion. The designer/creator of these must've had a chuckle, thinking about folks like you when he designed it all so mindbogglingly inexplicable.

That's not very "inexplicable" if you've read a little chemistry - water is merely the "ash" of burning hydrogen. You don't expect wood ashes to burn, do you?
And when it comes to complexity, DNA isn't all that snazzy. The individual nucleotides are middling-fancy molecules, all right, but there are only four of them in long, monotonous chains. Not even remotely as complex as the proteins they code for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2003 7:54 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Zephan, posted 03-28-2003 3:25 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 89 (35281)
03-26-2003 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Buzsaw
03-25-2003 7:54 PM


variations & complexity
Convince-me had a point there. DNA is complex; nobody disputed that. Therefore most creationists feel safe to say that DNA is a proof of creation. But what he is asking [IMO] is whether DNA differences actually provide clues to separate creation. Personally I am comfortable with people saying that we are created, but I don't believe that we were separately created--given so many similarities btween us and other life-forms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2003 7:54 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Convince-me
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 89 (35338)
03-26-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Buzsaw
03-25-2003 7:54 PM


There is no doubt that DNA is far to complex to have arisen by itself!

But if there was a sudden creation of different kinds, humans could have some genes most similar to the elephants corresponding genes and some of the genes most similar to a perch than to other mammals. And God would have created a very small DNA-variation in humans and there would have been a wolf-dog kind and a coyote kind with slightly another variation. If chimps and gorillas started from the same point, then almost all of the human-like alleles went to chimps and non-human-like alleles went to the gorilla just by chance.

The differences does not show that there was a big allelic variation in certain created kinds. It looks like an evolution of the genes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2003 7:54 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 03-30-2003 1:36 AM Convince-me has responded

  
Convince-me
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 89 (35549)
03-28-2003 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Convince-me
03-25-2003 11:52 AM


Still silent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Convince-me, posted 03-25-2003 11:52 AM Convince-me has not yet responded

  
PhospholipidGen
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 89 (35637)
03-28-2003 2:44 PM


"Convince-me" asked a question concerning the differences in DNA between similar animals.

My reply is that you are looking at the scenario with the assumption that evolution is a reality, which to date, we cannot. Evolutionary theory has not yet been codified as a reality in nature, simply because every so-called proof, or evidence, has the built in assumption that evolutionary thoery is a reality, and with that built in assumption, none of those proofs can legitimately be used as evidence without peripheral reasons.

At any rate, when you take away the unverified, and some say unverifiable, assumption that evolution is a reality, this argument loses any explanatory power that it may have had, and that wasn't a whole lot. Similarity in evolutionary circles means the same as relatedness - only because of that all-encompassing assumption. With similarity remaining only that, similarity, all evolutionary scenarios vanish in a puff of smoke. Convergance has shown that similarity doesn't cut the cake with, or without, the assumption that the naturalistic paradigm is a reality.

Have a nice day!


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-28-2003 3:47 PM PhospholipidGen has not yet responded

  
Zephan
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 89 (35642)
03-28-2003 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
03-25-2003 8:43 PM


quote:
And when it comes to complexity, DNA isn't all that snazzy. The individual nucleotides are middling-fancy molecules, all right, but there are only four of them in long, monotonous chains. Not even remotely as complex as the proteins they code for.

The operative word here is "code", which the largest supercomputers in the world have not been able to decipher.

But then again, those supercomputers aren't all that snazzy either since they rely on a mere binary code occurring in long monotonous chains of zeros and ones.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 03-25-2003 8:43 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 9 of 89 (35644)
03-28-2003 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PhospholipidGen
03-28-2003 2:44 PM


quote:
My reply is that you are looking at the scenario with the assumption that evolution is a reality, which to date, we cannot.
Of course you can - it is called hypothesizing or theorizing. And, like any good scientific practice, it is tentative. If what we think we know is true then x, y, z follow, or may follow from that, and so on.
quote:
Evolutionary theory has not yet been codified as a reality in nature,
I have no idea what this means. Codified? How? By whom? Why "as a reality in nature"?
quote:
simply because every so-called proof, or evidence, has the built in assumption that evolutionary thoery is a reality, and with that built in assumption, none of those proofs can legitimately be used as evidence without peripheral reasons.
Still not sure what you're getting at, but it sounds like you badly need to read up on the 18th century debate about evolution - read people like Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, de Buffon. They did not assume evolution was a reality - they had to work towards that conclusion.

Can you expand on what you mean by every so-called proof, or evidence, has the built in assumption that evolutionary thoery is a reality, and with that built in assumption, none of those proofs can legitimately be used as evidence without peripheral reasons? Can you give an example? Thanks.

quote:
Similarity in evolutionary circles means the same as relatedness - only because of that all-encompassing assumption.
Sounds to me like you are confusing similarity, analogy and homology. In evolutionary circles the terms used most are analogy and homology - analogy does not imply an evolutionary relationship, homology does. Any basic biology textbook will clarify this for you if you are still confused. "Similarity" is increasingly used in bioinformatics as a measure of the correspondence between two sequences and can be expressed in the form SequenceA is x% similar to SequenceB. No homology or evolutionary relationship is inferred.

You seem somewhat confused by all this. Perhaps you just explained it badly - the terms "similarity", "relatedness", "convergance" (sic) being, as you might say, not quite sharply defined enough to cut the cake. Go and sharpen up - let's see if your next slice is any better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PhospholipidGen, posted 03-28-2003 2:44 PM PhospholipidGen has not yet responded

  
PhospholipidGen
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 89 (35655)
03-28-2003 5:44 PM


I do not yet know how to quote on this board, so I am going by memory. BAsically, when I talk about the assumption of evolutionary thoery, I am talking about how every so-called evidence for the theory rests solely upon that assumption.

For example, it is my understanding that the fossil record can only be interpreted as evidence for evolutionary doctrine when the assumption of evolution is involved. Without that assumption, the fossil record does not give credence to TOE. The evolutionary geological construct is based upon hypothetical evolutionary fossil standings...the strata is "aged" by the fossils found within it, based upon the assumption that evolution is a fact of nature.

Similarity within comparative anatomy does not demonstrate evolutionary ancestor - descendant relationships, except by the assumption that evolutionary theory is a fact of nature. Similarity is only similarity, and nothing more. Since similarity alone does not demonstrate conclusively evolutionary relationships as far as phylogeny is concerned, it gives no help to homology. Especially since homology is used to classify organisms based uupon similarity and not based upon supposed evolutionary relationships.

Those relationships are imposed upon the data, via the assumption that evolution is a reality, it is not recieved in straight forward observation of the facts. I have only touched a few of the so-called evidences for TOE, but they all run the same, based upon the assumption that evolution is a reality. Since every single one of these evidences are thus based, none of them can be used as supporting evidence for one another.

For example, one cannot legitimately call upon the fossil record (with its assumption that TOE is a reality) and then call upon homology as far as it bears on fossils with its assumption that TOE is a reality.

Basically, what I am getting at is this. In times past, creationists have argued that all of the evidence for TOE is circumstantial. This is not the case, for circumstantial evidence is based upon solidly based peripheral evidence, and is utilized as "clean-up" evidence to solidify the case even further just in case there is any "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury. Evolutionary theory has no solid evidence, nor even circumstantial evidence, because all of that given as evidence rests on the single assumption that TOE is a reality.

Since none of the evidence can stand on its own merit without the assumption (for assumptions are only utilized until the factual story has been codified as "the way it really happened"), nor with any peripheral evidence solidly laid down for that assumption to be solidly infered from, TOE has no legitimate evidence.

Evolutionary theorists can keep on inferring all they want to, and they can expect that the public will keep on believing them if they want to. But sooner or later, and I believe that the time has far passed, they are going to have to stop using inferrence based upon the assumption of the reality of TOE and find some solid evidence that would give the theory some kind of hold in fact.

To date, I have seen none that can stand up against scientific scrutiny by unbiased minds.

I will hit your other comment in the next post, I am having problems with my modem cutting me off for staying in one place too long...drat!


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2003 6:01 PM PhospholipidGen has responded
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 03-28-2003 6:53 PM PhospholipidGen has responded

  
PhospholipidGen
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 89 (35656)
03-28-2003 6:00 PM


What I meant by similarity I hope was already cleared up in my last post, but just in case that it was not, this is what I meant.

Similarity is the basis for comparitiv anatomy, which is the basis for homology, taxonomic classification and cladistic analysis for finding evolutionary ancestor-descendant relationships among living and extinct species. All of these fields of science have in their "attitudes" or modes of research the assumption (from here on out referred to as "the grand assumption") that TOE is a reality.

Phylogeny, from what I have understood, has been proclaimed by some to be the only real evidence that evolutionary theory has on its side, because all of the other so-called evidences have slowly slipped the way of the do-do. If what I have read is true, then TOE is in even worse trouble than it was when genetics was discovered.

For, if this is true, since phylogenetic dendrograms are based upon cladistic analysis, which is based upon homology, which is based upon comparative anatomy - and all of them assume the grand assumption in order to reach their intended goals - then the whole infrastructure collapses when the assumption is taken out of the equation. And why would we do that? Because if we are honest people, we see that there is no peripheral evidence legitimizing the assumption which all of these things are based upon and flow from.

ANY THEORY THAT ONLY STANDS BY THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT IT MAKES IS NOT A FACTUAL ENTITY EXCEPT FOR WITHIN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO HOLD TO IT.

This is why, the next time TOE comes into a court room, it will be a long and drawn out case, because TOE cannot stand in a court of law. And if TOE cannot stand in a court of law by objectivity, then it does not stand outside of a court of law by objectivity to those who have no emotional attatchment to it.

I sincerely hope that I did not offend anyone.

Have a nice day!


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Zephan, posted 03-29-2003 3:17 AM PhospholipidGen has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16859
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 12 of 89 (35657)
03-28-2003 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PhospholipidGen
03-28-2003 5:44 PM


Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you mean. It is a fact independant of any assumption of evolution that archaeopteryx has avian features and reptilian features. There are a lot of other examples, too. And there is the genetic evidence mentioned at the start of this thread. For whales over the last decade or so we have gathered a number of species showin the transition from land to water, and recently the genetic evidence of a link to a group called the artiodactyls was confirmed by the discovery of a feature unique to that group in a fossil of one of these transitionals.

So it seems to me that what you mean by the "assumption of evolution" can be no more than assuming that evolution is possible. If your mind is clsoed to that possiblitiy then naturally you will reject that evidence. But that does not undermine the existence of the evidence, or of any argument for evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PhospholipidGen, posted 03-28-2003 5:44 PM PhospholipidGen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PhospholipidGen, posted 03-30-2003 3:58 PM PaulK has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4090 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 13 of 89 (35659)
03-28-2003 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PhospholipidGen
03-28-2003 5:44 PM


Phospho,

quote:
The evolutionary geological construct is based upon hypothetical evolutionary fossil standings...the strata is "aged" by the fossils found within it, based upon the assumption that evolution is a fact of nature.

No. Certain fossils are found so reliably in strata of an age that has been independently dated, that it can be reliably inferred that any rock that they are discovered in is of the same age. It is not circular. In fact it has nothing to do with assuming evolution at all. As Gould pointed out, if only bolts were found in Cretaceous rocks, then you find a strata with a bolt in it, you know the approximate age.

quote:
Similarity within comparative anatomy does not demonstrate evolutionary ancestor - descendant relationships, except by the assumption that evolutionary theory is a fact of nature. Similarity is only similarity, and nothing more. Since similarity alone does not demonstrate conclusively evolutionary relationships as far as phylogeny is concerned, it gives no help to homology. Especially since homology is used to classify organisms based uupon similarity and not based upon supposed evolutionary relationships.

Well, it needn’t be equivocal evidence, but when you start making cladograms of multiple characters, & they are consistent with phylogenies derived from other data, then you have strong evidence suggesting evolution happened. Nor do you need to assume evolution, either. It is a test of the theory. See below.

quote:
Those relationships are imposed upon the data, via the assumption that evolution is a reality, it is not recieved in straight forward observation of the facts.

Data is not self evident. It requires interpretation. See below.

quote:
For example, one cannot legitimately call upon the fossil record (with its assumption that TOE is a reality) and then call upon homology as far as it bears on fossils with its assumption that TOE is a reality.

Yes you can. New fossil discoveries that are consistent with evolutionary theory are tests of the theory. Nothing need be assumed. See below.

quote:
Basically, what I am getting at is this. In times past, creationists have argued that all of the evidence for TOE is circumstantial. This is not the case, for circumstantial evidence is based upon solidly based peripheral evidence, and is utilized as "clean-up" evidence to solidify the case even further just in case there is any "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury. Evolutionary theory has no solid evidence, nor even circumstantial evidence, because all of that given as evidence rests on the single assumption that TOE is a reality.

According to your reasoning, there is no such thing as an electron. Any test or observation you could make to conclude that there is a discrete negative charge carrying particle, would have to rest on the assumption that such a thing exists before you can assert it. Nothing is self-evident. Data supports a hypothesis or it doesn’t.

In fact, you’ve just written off ALL of scientific enquiry. No data can be presented in support of any theory because you are assuming that theory to be true in order to do so!

Science works like this: An observation is made that makes someone inductively derive a hypothesis. They basically go “hmmm, I wonder if this larger idea I have explains the observation X?” They then go on to make predictions, data that should be discovered if the hypothesis is indeed true. This is how a hypothesis is tested, by means of the predictions it makes. So, any data, like the existence of transitional forms, possessing characters between later taxa in the fossil record is perfectly valid, logical, evidence of evolution. Once you start racking up all the predictions that have been realised, then you can place much more confidence that your hypothesis is indeed indicative of reality. Such evidence may very well be equivocal or not, but it is still valid evidence. This is the process by which electrons were “discovered”, & is the same process by which evolution is supported evidentially.

quote:
Evolutionary theorists can keep on inferring all they want to, and they can expect that the public will keep on believing them if they want to. But sooner or later, and I believe that the time has far passed, they are going to have to stop using inferrence based upon the assumption of the reality of TOE and find some solid evidence that would give the theory some kind of hold in fact.

Again, you have written off not only electrons, but ALL of science. Science is based on inference from data. All of it.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PhospholipidGen, posted 03-28-2003 5:44 PM PhospholipidGen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 03-28-2003 9:37 PM mark24 has responded
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 03-30-2003 12:00 AM mark24 has responded
 Message 48 by PhospholipidGen, posted 03-30-2003 5:10 PM mark24 has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 89 (35668)
03-28-2003 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mark24
03-28-2003 6:53 PM


quote:
Science works like this: An observation is made that makes someone inductively derive a hypothesis. They basically go ?hmmm, I wonder if this larger idea I have explains the observation X?? They then go on to make predictions, data that should be discovered if the hypothesis is indeed true. This is how a hypothesis is tested, by means of the predictions it makes. So, any data, like the existence of transitional forms, possessing characters between later taxa in the fossil record is perfectly valid, logical, evidence of evolution.

IMO, much better to do the geometry thing rather than to begin theorizing up ideas with the unknown. Better to assemble the known and work to determine the unknown from that. IMO, there ought to be billions of observable transitionary fossils to warrant a move toward TOE.

BTW, I listened to a study on the odds of DNA existing without intelligent design and it is impossible. I don't remember the details, but the this's n that's of the formation of DNA all must be timed by exact senarios with odds beyond anything possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 03-28-2003 6:53 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-28-2003 11:14 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 03-29-2003 3:24 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 03-29-2003 3:42 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 15 of 89 (35671)
03-28-2003 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
03-28-2003 9:37 PM


quote:
Better to assemble the known and work to determine the unknown from that.
This is exactly what Mark is describing. An observation is made (the known) - someone inductively derives a hypothesis (the unknown.) They then work to make further observations which confirm or falsify the hypothesis.
quote:
IMO, there ought to be billions of observable transitionary fossils to warrant a move toward TOE.
Why?

Also, I do wish you had listened to the DNA study more carefully. You might have had something more substantial to add.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 03-28-2003 9:37 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2003 11:37 PM Mister Pamboli has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021