The "common creator" myth

quote:

---

So the problem for your theory is that when you look at the differences every kind (actually not every as this is still being researched) of organism appears to have had a single common set of parents a few millinea ago.

---

Of course, your first problem is that creationists have yet to define what the kinds are, so it is a little tough to claim that this occurs "in the kinds". Second, a lot of species are much more genetically diverse than man, and some are less genetically diverse. If your theory were true, then genetic diversity should be the same among all organisms. For instance, chimps within one community have more genetic diversity than mankind as a whole. Cheetahs have such low genetic diversity that they can almost be called clones. If chimps, humans, and cheetahs were all whittled down as you suggest, then their genetic diversity should be equal, not wildly divergent. This speaks to separate development of these species through time, not a single, cataclysmic event for all three at the same time.

quote:

---

For now it seems like mine is the bigger problem to overcome.

---

You are coming to the same conclusion that a lot of us went through years ago. Just remember, none of us are asking you to give up your faith. I hope we have always made that obvious.

Hangdawg,Thanks for replying, I appreciate you are in much demand over quite a threads at the moment.I'm sure you've heard this before from other people on this forum, but don't put too much stock in creationist websites. The one you presented is an example of why.For a start, take a look at the date at the top: 1998 - 6 years ago. Science has moved on, so you should look at current data rather than old results (Pubmed is always a good place to start). For example, the unexpectactly low age of 'eve' was due, in part, to the relatively low sample size used in the cited paper. Pooling the data from several studies showed that the mutation rate in the control region (or D-loop as it is also known) of mtDNA was not 20X the previous value, but only 5X. Although still fairly significant, it would not produce the convenient 6,500 year figure.On top of this, the D-loop is now not thought to be a very effective way of setting molecular clocks. There is a lot of variation in rates of mutation in this region between species ie it produces a different rate in chimps than in humans. Other parts of the mtDNA do seem to mutate at the same rate from species to species (and therefore are more reliable), and these give a date between 120,000 and around 200,000 years.Finally, and I think most importantly, the convergance of bottlenecks is not as clear as the author makes out - in fact it is downright wrong. Loudmouth put this better than I can, but I'll reiterate it because it is such an important point. In order for creation to be supported by the molecular clock data every single animal has to have a bottleneck at the same time and this simply isn't the case. For example I think the orangutan maternal linneage can be traced back to a small population roughly 1 million years ago, way before the human one is thought to have occurred. This isn't just due to a different interpretation of the molecular clock timing either because the same technique has been used to compare the two poulation expansions. The dates may vary as more sequence data is found, but they will not change their positions relative to each other.So I suppose what I'm trying to say (after many paragraphs of babbling) is that nothing in the DNA data can be used to support creation as a scientific theory, whereas common ancestry for all species (and therefore the theory of evolution) is strongly supported. Please take your time to consider what this means, together with all of the other evidence which supports evolution (the fossil record etc)

Yes, I keep trying to cut back, but I have an irresistable urge to reply to just about every post even if I don't know what the heck I'm talking about! This little hobby of debating has gotten out of hand...Anyways, I see your point and its a good one. I've been reduced to neutrality. I know less than ever before... The more I read, the more I find contradicting statements. I read good creo arguments and good evo rebuttals, which only arouse more questions in my mind about both. But don't raise the evo flag on my fort! As I said, I'm now **scientifically** neutral on evolution due to my ignorance (I'm out of bullets). I guess I'll have to ask God what he thinks.

And that is what those scientists who are believers ( about 40% ) think they are doing. They read directly from God's handiwork. God is not a simple old man. He has done things in a complex way and He hasn't left a trail that is easy for us. He expects us to work honestly and hard to read what has been left.All the evidence that is being discussed (and let's guess what percentage has been touched on in ALL these fora over years --- .001 % ?? No , less than that.) is what God left (if you believe He is responsible for everything)

Hey, what's this: That's not as much fun. But maybe it is actually a valuable position to have if you are really there. (That can't be in such a short time there must be conflicts left). I'm not aware that we have ANYONE here who is actualy neutral. That would be cool. So let's continue to discuss the "good creo arguments". And any more questions will only be interesting to look at in more detail.

Hey Ned, are you a theist or an atheist, if you don't mind me asking?

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Well, I'm not neutral in my beliefs about evolution, but I'm scientifically neutralized due to my ignorance. In other words I have no more ammunition. I'm completely open to everything and settled on nothing. I guess I'm a scientific agnostic right now. I am asking God what the truth is about all this, and if and when he let's me know I'll let you know. And yes, I know you are completely convinced in the veracity of your beliefs that we are here by evolution so this probably raises a big smirk on your face as you think I'm only delaying the inevitable... Thats ok. Oh, I won't quit with the questioning, but I AM trying to cut back as I MUST begin doing something else this summer with my free time besides debate! ...It's just addictive to me for some reason.And here I go again getting off topic... You need not reply to this so that the diversion from the OP stops.I'll post another question just to get back on topic...Has anyone tried to think of any other ways besides common ancestroy that two separate organisms could share the same mutations?This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-27-2004 11:24 PM

quote:

---

I am asking God what the truth is about all this, and if and when he let's me know I'll let you know.

---

Many believe that God has supplied the truth, and the truth lies in his creation. If man is the creation of God, then our logic and ability to use the scientific method to explain our surroundings is also from God. Using this assumption, I would conclude that God laid out the evidence of his creation in a logical and consistent manner. As soon as you abandon logic and make the creation squeeze into what you want it to be you are abandoning what God gave you and turning your back. Within christian theology, I see it as a very impious act to put man's translation of the man written, but God inspired, Bible above God's very creation. Evolution is not a test that Satan has put before you, but a logical extraction of the knowledge that God put in the universe for us to figure out. At least this is my opinion.

quote:

---

It's just addictive to me for some reason.

---

And it is for us as well. I have learned quite a bit reviewing material for the posts I write, so it isn't a total waste. Hopefully you have found a product side effect as well. That, and you can't learn in a vacuum, human interaction is the best learning tool. Happy posting.

My monies on agnostic.

Well, one that gets mentioned in passing all the time is just chance. It is not impossible that a particular mutation (say breaking the vit-C gene could happen twice in the same spot ). It just isn't all that likely. I don't know what the odds are or if they are calcuable.Let's say they are "only" 1 in a million. It coulda happened since there are lots of animals around to have the mutation.It's just a bit odd that the two with it are us and those that, for other reasons, seem close to us as well. It is also not the only mutation we share. Once you look at more than one chance starts to become a much less convincing explanation.What else could there be? I'll see if I can make something up.Here's one:
Viri carry genetic information into our cells and, as noted elsewhere, sometimes end up "stuck in there". Could they have carried the common code in? And struck twice? Maybe that mechanism is more "directed" and the odds are less.As far as I know the viral inserts are not directed like this so their involvment becomes a random "mutation" too. Also I'm not aware that we have seen such a thing happening anywhere else. The genes involved would not be "helpful" of a virus. They don't just pick things up like that as far as I know.Again there are too many commonalities for this to be very satisfying.One difficulty that creationists seem to have is that they want to take each individual case as if it stands alone. That seems to be their worldview. There are magic and miracles and they are not part of any discernable pattern. They carry this over into attacking the scientific consensus.What is forgotten is that there are over-arching patterns that have to be looked at. The pattern of genetic differences must be viewed as a whole and considered in the framework of phenotype differences, fossil record and the dating of the fossils.When there is a large, intergrated pattern with very, very ,very few exceptions then that pattern becomes a framework within which an explanation must fit. "Chance" doesn't fit well within that. Nor has anyone come up with another mechanism.Of course, after decades of research you'd have to be pretty silly to go digging for another explanation now. You might well be rich and famous if you find it but your chances are better if you buy a lottery ticket so why would you waste your life digging for something not likely to be there?The creation "scientists" are the ones who have some good reason for both thinking there is an alternate explanation for the genetic patterns and would be interested in finding it.Unfortunately, they only want to construct "explanations" that will be able to satisfy those who want to be convinced and have no knowledge of the subject. They haven't been able to construct something that can stand up to really critical scutiny. It seems to come down to: "God did it that way for reasons we can't possibly understand." End of story. Not very interesting. Not very scientific. Not suitable for a classroom.Meanwhile: No, it doesn't at all. I hope I have a little empathy for someone who is feeling a bit frustrated. As you understand (a rare thing) you don't know enough to critize the scientific explanations. What you might want to think about is why don't the "creos" do a better job? They have the time or at least more than you do. Yea, I know. I keep telling myself to get away from the PC and get something done!

quote:

---

What is forgotten is that there are over-arching patterns that have to be looked at.

---

Exactly, Ned. Creationist think that if they can explain away one pseudogene, they have explained away all 8,000 of them in the human genome. This just isn't the case. What flabbergasts me is that somehow the pseudogenes were caused by the fall, ignoring the fact that this would require humans to lose 20% of their functional genes (40,000 to 32,000 currently). Try to eliminate 20% of the functional genes from any organism and see how they function in the same environment. I think the results would be pretty obvious, and would go beyond limiting one's lifetime to a century instead of a thousand years.

quote:

---

It seems to come down to: "God did it that way for reasons we can't possibly understand." End of story. Not very interesting. Not very scientific. Not suitable for a classroom.

---

Yep, that sounds about right. Not only that, but they ignore a theory that is able to accurately explain and predict those very relationships. It is like ignoring the theory of gravity because you want the earth to be tied to the sun with a rubber band. Reality does not conform to our wishes.

OOOK look i'll get into this a little later but Georgi Gladyshev's classical case in my guess remands that copy errors are due to rejuvination in the DNA (which can stay stable longer than other macromolecules on his hypothesis of full differentials). I KNOW that both c-g is more stable macrothermodynamically & is empirically suggested to account for certain temperature properties of heat shock proteins BUT creationist completion in the process which would have to be ordered by this information (which Georgi rather chooses than debates (for good reasons i but theorize (in the hypothetical on..))is yet still BEYOND this point so the mistakes seems still to be about nonequilibrium and nonlinear approaches instead of the actual c/e nexus. Perhaps next I can specify this to any island in the Pacific.

I'm not satisfied with such a statement either. I want to know HOW He did it. And I will always be looking.With that said, here's a few other unscientific suggestions: Gen. 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days -- and also afterward -- when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." IMO the Nephilim are where the greek mythologies came from.
Nephilim were also said to have lived in the land of Cannan where there were giants.Now I don't know what exactly this would do to the gene pool by having ET's producing half-breeds. Many people who claim to have been abducted by aliens describe a sexual encounter or operation of some sort. Some ranchers have claimed aliens castrated their bulls or other animals. There are other places in Genesis where biological changes seem to occur immediately, but this is irrelevant if you believe it is a mythology. Geneologies in Genesis also show a rapid decline in lifespan after the flood. This is apparently when men became omnivorous as well. Anyways... No scientific explanations, but it's something to think about. The same reason the crusaders went to Palestine several hundred years ago. Arrogance is a powerful thing. It infects everyone: evolutionists and creationists alike. It's foolish for scientists believe so completely in the veracity of their brand spanking new theories (by historical standards) that they do not consider alternatives and foolish for creation scientists to believe all evolutionists are stupid pawns of Satan and so refuse to learn about the theories. While the power of arrogance may be more obvious in the creationists, I think it is just as powerful but less subtle in the evolutionists since they have a lot of mutual support and more accumulated reserach. I am now completely scientifically neutral, and it may take quite a powerful piece of evidence to persuade me completely one way or the other. However, I am a person who believes in absolutes truths that can be found. Anyways.. Debating in this forum has been a very good and humbling experience for me.

A few things you might want to read.Check out the "Story of Adam and Eve" and the "Book of Enoch" for information on the Sons of Man.Also, the lineage in Genesis closely parallels the similar lineage in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the major difference beeing that the Judaic Patriarch were much shorter lived than the Sumerian ones. It's likely that the Sumerian claims were too much for even the authors of the various Genesis tales and so they toned the lifespans down considerably to make the stories more believable.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Several hundred years ago? Don't you mean many hundred years ago?

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!