Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Challenge to Wordswordman
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 16 of 33 (20000)
10-16-2002 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
10-15-2002 11:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Mammuthus writes:
Rather than addressing Andya's challenge...
How was WS to address the challenge? Andya offered a premise, but no evidence supporting the premise. This left WS free to take whatever avenue he chose. WS may be wrong, but he's winning this discussion. Sometimes it seems that evolutionists think, "Hey, we're right, we've got the theory, we've got the evidence, everything's on our side, so we can argue in any old sloppy way we feel like."
Just my two cents...
--Percy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have to disagree with you on this Percy. Andya's challenge could have easiliy been met for example by providing evidence that different species, genera etc. show no genetic change or that hox gene mutations do not lead to disease or that they have no role in development. Or that the data for the morphological and genetic changes in all studied groups is fraudulent etc etc. Rather than meet Andya's challenge WS immediately put forth a challenge that he claimed had to be met prior to his entering a debate. So this has ended up being the focus of the discussion to this point....
If you feel that WS should be allowed to avoid responding to Andya's challenge while we (or I more specifically ) have to answer any question, insult, comment WS posts then let me know....I am reluctant to enter a debate where questions from one side are disallowed, no supporting evidence is required of one side ie. WS, and one must simply defend against someone who claims a priori that nothing you say is acceptable. I'll do it but I am not fully convinced of the utility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 11:43 PM Percy has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 17 of 33 (20005)
10-16-2002 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by w_fortenberry
10-15-2002 1:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
I already debunked your entire argument in post 5..and met your challange...so yes debate over..evolution is the truth and creationism is the dilusion of those unable to understand science and feel like they have to compensate by being offensive.
I must admit to some confusion. Wordswordsman posted a question by de Beer as his argument against the theory of evolution and cited an article by Wells as helpfull background material. In post five, you answered with an opposing article that supposedly "debunked" Wells. There was no mention in that article of de Beer. How then can you say that you have debunked the whole argument when you have only made reference to the paranthetical?
I am very interested in hearing an answer to de Beer's question. Can you provide one?

******************************************
Here are a few references addressing this question (keep in mind, this is a small subset of primary articles in this field). To be fair to de Beer's, none of this was known in 1971.
The John Wells article attacked the concept of homology and identity by descent and what I posted addressed these issues.
Further note, not all of these articles will be available for free online as they are subscription service specialist journals.
Development 1995 Feb;121(2):333-46 Related Articles, Links
Hox genes and the evolution of vertebrate axial morphology.
Burke AC, Nelson CE, Morgan BA, Tabin C.
Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
A common form of evolutionary variation between vertebrate taxa is the different numbers of segments that contribute to various regions of the anterior-posterior axis; cervical vertebrae, thoracic vertebrae, etc. The term 'transposition' is used to describe this phenomenon. Genetic experiments with homeotic genes in mice have demonstrated that Hox genes are in part responsible for the specification of segmental identity along the anterior-posterior axis, and it has been proposed that an axial Hox code determines the morphology of individual vertebrae (Kessel, M. and Gruss, P. (1990) Science 249, 347-379). This paper presents a comparative study of the developmental patterns of homeobox gene expression and developmental morphology between animals that have homologous regulatory genes but different morphologies. The axial expression boundaries of 23 Hox genes were examined in the paraxial mesoderm of chick, and 16 in mouse embryos by in situ hybridization and immunolocalization techniques. Hox gene anterior expression boundaries were found to be transposed in concert with morphological boundaries. This data contributes a mechanistic level to the assumed homology of these regions in vertebrates. The recognition of mechanistic homology supports the historical homology of basic patterning mechanisms between all organisms that share these genes.
: Evol Dev 2001 Sep-Oct;3(5):355-63 Related Articles, Links
Nature 2000 Dec 14;408(6814):854-7 Related Articles, Links
Comment in:
Nature. 2000 Dec 14;408(6814):778-9, 781.
Conservation and elaboration of Hox gene regulation during evolution of the vertebrate head.
Manzanares M, Wada H, Itasaki N, Trainor PA, Krumlauf R, Holland PW.
Division of Developmental Neurobiology, MRC National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London, UK.
The comparison of Hox genes between vertebrates and their closest invertebrate relatives (amphioxus and ascidia) highlights two derived features of Hox genes in vertebrates: duplication of the Hox gene cluster, and an elaboration of Hox expression patterns and roles compared with non-vertebrate chordates. We have investigated how new expression domains and their associated developmental functions evolved, by testing the cis-regulatory activity of genomic DNA fragments from the cephalochordate amphioxus Hox cluster in transgenic mouse and chick embryos. Here we present evidence for the conservation of cis-regulatory mechanisms controlling gene expression in the neural tube for half a billion years of evolution, including a dependence on retinoic acid signalling. We also identify amphioxus Hox gene regulatory elements that drive spatially localized expression in vertebrate neural crest cells, in derivatives of neurogenic placodes and in branchial arches, despite the fact that cephalochordates lack both neural crest and neurogenic placodes. This implies an elaboration of cis-regulatory elements in the Hox gene cluster of vertebrate ancestors during the evolution of craniofacial patterning.
Development and evolution of the mammalian limb: adaptive diversification of nails, hooves, and claws.
Hamrick MW.
Department of Anthropology & School of Biomedical Sciences, Kent State University, OH 44242, USA. mhamrick@kent.edu
Paleontological evidence indicates that the evolutionary diversification of mammals early in the Cenozoic era was characterized by an adaptive radiation of distal limb structures. Likewise, neontological data show that morphological variation in distal limb integumentary appendages (e.g., nails, hooves, and claws) can be observed not only among distantly related mammalian taxa but also among closely related species within the same clade. Comparative analysis of nail, claw, and hoof morphogenesis reveals relatively subtle differences in mesenchymal and epithelial patterning underlying these adult differences in distal limb appendage morphology. Furthermore, studies of regulatory gene expression during vertebrate claw development demonstrate that many of the signaling molecules involved in patterning ectodermal derivatives such as teeth, hair, and feathers are also involved in organizing mammalian distal limb appendages. For example, Bmp4 signaling plays an important role during the recruitment of mesenchymal cells into the condensations forming the terminal phalanges, whereas Msx2 affects the length of nails and claws by suppressing proliferation of germinal epidermal cells. Evolutionary changes in the form of distal integumentary appendages may therefore result from changes in gene expression during formation of mesenchymal condensations (Bmp4, posterior Hox genes), induction of the claw fold and germinal matrix (shh), and/or proliferation of epidermal cells in the claw matrix (Msx1, Msx2). The prevalence of convergences and parallelisms in nail and claw structure among mammals underscores the existence of multiple morphogenetic pathways for evolutionary change in distal limb appendages.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2001 Oct 29;356(1414):1599-613 Related Articles, Links
Origins of anteroposterior patterning and Hox gene regulation during chordate evolution.
Schilling TF, Knight RD.
Department of Developmental and Cell Biology, 5210 Bio Sci II, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2300, USA. tschilli@uci.edu
All chordates share a basic body plan and many common features of early development. Anteroposterior (AP) regions of the vertebrate neural tube are specified by a combinatorial pattern of Hox gene expression that is conserved in urochordates and cephalochordates. Another primitive feature of Hox gene regulation in all chordates is a sensitivity to retinoic acid during embryogenesis, and recent developmental genetic studies have demonstrated the essential role for retinoid signalling in vertebrates. Two AP regions develop within the chordate neural tube during gastrulation: an anterior 'forebrain-midbrain' region specified by Otx genes and a posterior 'hindbrain-spinal cord' region specified by Hox genes. A third, intermediate region corresponding to the midbrain or midbrain-hindbrain boundary develops at around the same time in vertebrates, and comparative data suggest that this was also present in the chordate ancestor. Within the anterior part of the Hox-expressing domain, however, vertebrates appear to have evolved unique roles for segmentation genes, such as Krox-20, in patterning the hindbrain. Genetic approaches in mammals and zebrafish, coupled with molecular phylogenetic studies in ascidians, amphioxus and lampreys, promise to reveal how the complex mechanisms that specify the vertebrate body plan may have arisen from a relatively simple set of ancestral developmental components.
: Brain Behav Evol 1998;52(4-5):177-85 Related Articles, Links
Molecular evolution of the brain of chordates.
Williams NA, Holland PW.
School of Animal and Microbial Sciences, The University of Reading, UK.
The molecular basis of regionalisation and patterning of the developing brain is an area of current intense interest. Members of the Otx, Pax-2/5/8 and Hox gene families appear to play important roles in these processes in vertebrates, but functional divergence and genetic redundancy arising from gene duplication events obscures our view of the roles played by these genes during the evolution of vertebrate brains. Determination of the ancestral gene copy number in chordates through molecular phylogenetics, accompanied by gene expression analysis in all three chordate subphyla (vertebrates, cephalochordates and urochordates) may distinguish between ancestral and derived expression domains and give clues to the roles played by these genes in chordate ancestors. Application of this comparative approach indicates evolutionary homologous brain regions (fore-/midbrain, isthmus/cerebellum and hindbrain) in chordates and supports homology of the frontal eye of cephalochordates to the paired eyes of vertebrates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-15-2002 1:31 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 10-16-2002 11:59 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 33 (20010)
10-16-2002 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
10-15-2002 5:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Wordswordman, if you really believe what you believe and you want to proselytize your beliefs to this board, then I challenge you. The first of Darwin's five theories (sensu Mayr) is that evolution (change) happens. 'Show us your proof, if you are right.' (Q 2:111). Show us that the first Darwin theory is false. Can you?
It appears necessary to repost post #1 above for the benefit of a few who fail to scroll up and change pages. Let me point out that the challenge is NOT for evolutionists to support the first Darwin theory, but for me to SHOW it is false. I chose my initial shot across the bow, the problem with homologous genes as related to production of homologous organs bearing the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes. Wells wrote "Diverse organisms possess homologous features. Homology may or may not be due to inheritance from a common ancestor, but it is definitely not due to similarity of genes or similarity of developmental pathways."
Nobody has attempted an answer to that here or anywhere else. I doubt there is even a good guess in the making. I highly doubt there will ever be an answer that fits the scientific method evolutionists are so jealous over. I asked for data, scientific data, supporting an answer to the above problem, also in all fairness asking for a demonstration, an actual observation in nature, of a mechanism that shows the scientific answer to be accurate, quite natural.
I've posted this same question on evolution boards before for years. It is never answered except with wild guesses, without a shred of evidence. Until then I consider biological evolution a pointless debate issue. The "heart" of evolution is violated. If you can't explain this homology/same gene problem, just admit it is a major objection to biological evolution. If so, it remains in the background, making further discussion of little value except to rehearse biology over and over.
From Page not found – Creation In The Crossfire
concerning a problem admitted by an EVOLUTIONIST:
"At level two de Beer studied homologous relations by inducing embryonic tissues to differentiate by diffusing substances from a master structure called an organizer. One study showed that the dorsal lip of a newt embryo can be grafted anywhere into the body of another embryo and will induce the surrounding tissues to differentiate into all the structures characteristic of a vertebrate embryo. If these tissues had been left undisturbed, they would have differentiated into entirely different structures (notochord, segmental muscle plates, kidney tubules spinal cord, brain with eyes, etc.), proving that the nature of a structure does not depend on the place of origin. This should be very disturbing to those who wish to apply homology to the battery of evidences for evolution. Homologous structures should originate at the same places in all descendants of a common ancestor, otherwise the homology has nothing to do with descent.
In another example, de Beer says that if the optic cup is removed in one species of frog the eye lens will not develop, while in another closely related species the lens does develop. He says it cannot be doubted that the lenses of these two species are homologous, yet they differ completely in their mechanism of determination and differentiation. The genes involved are not homologous.
In summary, he says:
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."
He understands the logical absurdities, quoting S.C. Harland who said that the genes coding for the homologous structures must have become wholly altered during the evolutionary process! This should alarm geneticists, computer scientists, and linguists. It simply doesn't make sense, and de Beer says so:
"But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts of their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns' in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.""
BTW, Well's article has NOT been refuted. Only contrary opinions are offered in various places by evolutionists insisting their interpretation is the right one. Nobody has PROVEN Wells wrong. His critique stands.
I ask once more before ignoring this thread, what mechanism? I attempt to show the first theory is false because the mechanism of development of homologous organs apart from homologous genes isn't known. The first theory is but a guess around an unknown mechanism that must not exist.
You asked for me to show falsehood, and I think I have. I think this is akin to the debunked evolution theory of recapitulation ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"- still found in modern school textbooks).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-15-2002 5:47 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 10-16-2002 8:36 AM Wordswordsman has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 19 of 33 (20015)
10-16-2002 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Wordswordsman
10-16-2002 8:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Wordswordman, if you really believe what you believe and you want to proselytize your beliefs to this board, then I challenge you. The first of Darwin's five theories (sensu Mayr) is that evolution (change) happens. 'Show us your proof, if you are right.' (Q 2:111). Show us that the first Darwin theory is false. Can you?
WS:
It appears necessary to repost post #1 above for the benefit of a few who fail to scroll up and change pages. Let me point out that the challenge is NOT for evolutionists to support the first Darwin theory, but for me to SHOW it is false. I chose my initial shot across the bow, the problem with homologous genes as related to production of homologous organs bearing the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes. Wells wrote "Diverse organisms possess homologous features. Homology may or may not be due to inheritance from a common ancestor, but it is definitely not due to similarity of genes or similarity of developmental pathways."
Nobody has attempted an answer to that here or anywhere else. I doubt there is even a good guess in the making. I highly doubt there will ever be an answer that fits the scientific method evolutionists are so jealous over. I asked for data, scientific data, supporting an answer to the above problem, also in all fairness asking for a demonstration, an actual observation in nature, of a mechanism that shows the scientific answer to be accurate, quite natural.
M: I posted the references and a series of abstracts exactly pertaining to this subject all from scientific journals.
WS:
I've posted this same question on evolution boards before for years. It is never answered except with wild guesses, without a shred of evidence. Until then I consider biological evolution a pointless debate issue. The "heart" of evolution is violated. If you can't explain this homology/same gene problem, just admit it is a major objection to biological evolution. If so, it remains in the background, making further discussion of little value except to rehearse biology over and over.
In summary, he says:
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."
"But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts of their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns' in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.""
M: And if you read the articles above it should be clear why placing an you can induce limb development. Most genes (not all) code for proteins. Where, when, and at how high a level specific genes i.e. hox genes are expressed determine limb structure, body plan, etc. The proteins are expressed in gradients. Alteration of gene expression by mutation leads to changes in the gradient that either leads to lethal mutation or changed or novel structure. For example in humans, a deletion in the promoter of Hoxd13 leads to digital reduction i.e. instead of a hand you get a single digit. The exact same mutant occurs in mice in the same gene leading to the same phenotype. If you transplant a portion of the gradient (ectopic expression) to another part of the organism you recapitulate the developmental process of the original organ as it already has the established protein gradient in place i.e. de Beers experiment that you refer to. In 1971 this was all unknown. In 2002 this is old hat. The papers I posted earlier demonstrate that the same genes (mostly hox genes) do the same or similar things in most organisms that have them (amphioxus on up through all vertebrates). Changes in gene expression timing, level, etc account for morphological change thus homologous organs are controlled by homologous genes.
A further reference on the subjects of gradients and hox genes
Nature 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):914-7 Related Articles, Links
Comment in:
Nature. 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):848-9.
Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan.
Ronshaugen M, McGinnis N, McGinnis W.
Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, Universith of California--San Diego, Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
A fascinating question in biology is how molecular changes in developmental pathways lead to macroevolutionary changes in morphology. Mutations in homeotic (Hox) genes have long been suggested as potential causes of morphological evolution, and there is abundant evidence that some changes in Hox expression patterns correlate with transitions in animal axial pattern. A major morphological transition in metazoans occurred about 400 million years ago, when six-legged insects diverged from crustacean-like arthropod ancestors with multiple limbs. In Drosophila melanogaster and other insects, the Ultrabithorax (Ubx) and abdominal A (AbdA, also abd-A) Hox proteins are expressed largely in the abdominal segments, where they can suppress thoracic leg development during embryogenesis. In a branchiopod crustacean, Ubx/AbdA proteins are expressed in both thorax and abdomen, including the limb primordia, but do not repress limbs. Previous studies led us to propose that gain and loss of transcriptional activation and repression functions in Hox proteins was a plausible mechanism to diversify morphology during animal evolution. Here we show that naturally selected alteration of the Ubx protein is linked to the evolutionary transition to hexapod limb pattern.
WS:
BTW, Well's article has NOT been refuted. Only contrary opinions are offered in various places by evolutionists insisting their interpretation is the right one. Nobody has PROVEN Wells wrong. His critique stands.
M: Science does not prove. Hypothesis are formed based on observations and supporting data sought and gathered. If data accumulated supporting a hypothesis and evidence against is not found it becomes a theory. Both hypothesis and theories are subject to constant revision as more data is accumulated and are thus not static. Wells arguments are not supported by the evidence and are misundertandings and misrepresentations of biological principles and thus it is not merely a "my opinion versus Wells opinion" argument.
WS:
I ask once more before ignoring this thread, what mechanism? I attempt to show the first theory is false because the mechanism of development of homologous organs apart from homologous genes isn't known. The first theory is but a guess around an unknown mechanism that must not exist.
M: I have addressed this above.
WS:
You asked for me to show falsehood, and I think I have.
M:I think I have supplied current information that should be taken into consideration.
WS:
I think this is akin to the debunked evolution theory of recapitulation ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"- still found in modern school textbooks).
M: That is not the only error found in modern textbooks nor are errors restricted to scientific books. But this is a different subject.
Edit notes: I have removed the outer unclosed UBB quote code, and have set Mammuthus's text to being non-bold (too much bold text makes my head throb) - Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-16-2002 8:08 AM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-16-2002 11:17 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 33 (20022)
10-16-2002 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mammuthus
10-16-2002 8:36 AM


There is always greener grass over a fence somewhere. My comments are in 'bold'.
Hox (homeobox) GenesEvolution’s Saviour?
Don Batten
Some evolutionists hailed homeobox or hox genes as the saviour of evolution soon after they were discovered. They seemed to fit into the Gouldian mode of evolution (punctuated equilibrium) because a small mutation in a hox gene could have profound effects on an organism.
WS: How long did that one (PE) last? Most actual mutations have detrimental effects. Once again evolution hangs on mutations rather than natural processes designed into genes. By far the greatest effect of genetics is to continue a species with slight NECESSARY environmental adaptation through normal, natural genetic recombinations without adding genetic information. None of that is necessarily a permanent, irreversible change, given long term gradual changes in environment. Quick changes don't allow the supposed evolution processes to have beneficial effect, resulting in extinction, not improvement. Keep in mind the first priinciple of the first Darwin law which a priori excludes intelligent design/creation. It is not evidenced to be inapplicable.
However, further research has not born out the evolutionists’ hopes. Dr Christian Schwabe, the non-creationist sceptic of Darwinian evolution from the Medical University of South Carolina (Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), wrote:
‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’ (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167—177).
WS: On a side note the presence of EXCESS retinoic acid causes deformation of hox genes in humans, not benefits. Birth defects are not enhancements to the population. There is no evidence mutations of hox genes meets the question posed by de Beer.
Research in the six years since Schwabe wrote this has only born out his statement. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities (two heads, a leg where an eye should be, etc.); they do not change an amphibian into a reptile, for example. And the mutations do not add any information, they just cause existing information to be mis-directed to produce a fruit-fly leg on the fruit-fly head instead of on the correct body segment, for example.
WS: So where is the evidence of ADDED information?
Evolutionists, of course, use the ubiquity of hox genes in their argument for common ancestry (‘Look, all these creatures share these genes, so all creatures must have had a common ancestor’). However, commonality of such features is to be expected with their origin from the same (supremely) intelligent Creator. All such homology arguments are only arguments for evolution when one excludes, a priori, origins by design. Indeed many of the patterns we see do not fit common ancestry. For example, the discontinuity of distribution of hemoglobin-like proteins, which are found in a few bacteria, molluscs, insects, and vertebrates. One could also note features such as vivipary, thermoregulation (some fish and mammals), eye designs, etc.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4205.asp
WS: There is no definitive evidence against ID/creation. Hence, the evolution model is not testable in a way that overwhelms creationist theories. The notion of evolution is not a purely scientific subject until all of its tenets are explained with actual science methods and actual data collected scientifically, not just guesses based on some observations. It is often said by evolutionists that science doesn't prove anything. That is because science for the evolutionist is yet a "proto science", much like a philosophy, evidenced by a disparity of beliefs among the constituents of the TofE.
For similar articles: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Search/default.asp?qu=hox...
Another one adding clarity to this issue is:
Human/chimp DNA similarity
Evidence for evolutionary relationship?
by Don Batten
First published in:
Creation 19(1):21—22
December 1996—February 1997
The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:
Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:18—23).
If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!
We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.
What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are ‘read’ by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do itimagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!).
WS: Any breaking news on the chimp genome?
Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re—form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.
WS:Remaining today in at least one modern biology textbook presented as FACT. When such precise percentages are presented like that, they 'stick' indelibly in the mind. I don't accept the number, but will probably never rid my mind of it, having repeated that figure aloud for too long. No doubt it had a calculated effect. Every time I referred to the shelf of assorted high school and college textbooks for that 'just right' explanation for a lesson, I revisited the many now debunked statements that shaped my own continuing education. If I had my way I would dump all of those books, but they are contributions from personal libraries of many present and former science teachers, and there is little more to refer to in the school library, even less in other local libraries. What they covered in my college years is far less than what is available. What is a modern teacher to do? Relying on atheist explanations is no substitute for me. There is no time for going back and catching up through continuing ed. courses. It takes every spare moment just to prepare for three classes tomorrow and conclude today's business. So naturally my guidance will be from among the creationist scientists, and that is my suggestion for any Christian science teacher. There are few that I know of. I am aware of only a dozen of about 60 local teachers that admit any religious affiliation, and none among the science teachers. Almost all the teachers gather every year at every public school in protest of "See You at the Pole Day" (student-led prayer around the flag pole), often making conversation that drowns out whatever is said by students. No Christian would prohibit prayer, regardless their feelings about separation of church and state.
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical erroraveraging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size [6]. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].
WS: Keep in mind the necessity of those mutations being BENEFICIAL ones, which are the rare exception rather than the rule. Beneficial mutations are not shown to be a natural, normal process of reproduction resulting in continuation of any species or creation of new ones.
Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!
[Ed. note: the point of this article was to refute one widely parroted ‘proof’ that humans evolved from apes, as should be clear from the title. It was simply beyond the scope of a single Creation magazine article to deal with all other ‘proofs’ of human evolution, although, amazingly, some atheistic sceptics have attacked this article for this alleged failing! But see Q&A: Anthropology (human ancestry, alleged ape-men) for addressing issues like alleged fossil ‘ape—men’.]
Summmary
The methods used to generate the figures so often quoted (and misquoted!) are very clumsy. They do not lend legitimacy to the claims that people and chimps are related in an evolutionary sense. The more we learn of the complexities of the biochemical systems in our cells, the more marvellous they become. Furthermore, even if we accept the data as legitimate there is no way that mutations could bridge the gap between chimps and humans. Chimps are just animals. We are made in the image of God (no chimps will be reading this).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 10-16-2002 8:36 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 10-16-2002 11:49 AM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 24 by Mammuthus, posted 10-16-2002 12:37 PM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 25 by Mammuthus, posted 10-17-2002 4:24 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 33 (20023)
10-16-2002 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
10-15-2002 5:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Wordswordman, if you really believe what you believe and you want to proselytize your beliefs to this board, then I challenge you. The first of Darwin's five theories (sensu Mayr) is that evolution (change) happens. 'Show us your proof, if you are right.' (Q 2:111). Show us that the first Darwin theory is false. Can you?
Mayr's first module:
1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
Provide empirical data that tests part a. Part b is simply the antithetical concept. Evolutionists prefer that one, spending their time supporting it alone. What evidence do you have against part a?
The fact is that scientists can't disprove the creationist concept, claiming that to be outside the realm of science. But do you REALLY know what science is? Do you blindly accept the scientist's definition of 'science' that now better supports their theory? Their definition doesn't fit all fields of science. I find it interesting they must redefine science to better fit the various disciplines. Do you have one definition that supports ALL fields of science without offending evolutionists? Do you have one definition of 'species' that satisfies all sytematists (including Linneans, i.e. cladists/non-cladists- phylogenetic/neo-linnean/Linnean taxonomists) as well as non-biology pro-evolutionists in general? Must you, too, use switch and bait tactics to present evolution coherently?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-15-2002 5:47 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Mammuthus, posted 10-17-2002 4:45 AM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 27 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-17-2002 6:59 AM Wordswordsman has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 22 of 33 (20025)
10-16-2002 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Wordswordsman
10-16-2002 11:17 AM


What I remember is that that the stragelrs were discarded and this does not exclude me from a number of reptile species or amphbians yet now we know even beyond Gould's "bully bronto" that the whole thing about BEING a monkey's uncle was nothing more or less than the brain-washing out a few people in AI or substitute your own opinion in the threaded discussion that fails to even a Lillyput whle loop for the fiction but not non-fiction it is able to narrate. But we would need a soule if only to make a plant with species name FONTANA out of it and yet this being bacteria... the illusion..
So if a HOX hoax is this notion for some smooth model of GOULD's idea then the network that would show it's existence I still do not see IN ENGLISH were we can say that THE ENTIRE FRENCH SYSTEM OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY has not been replaced for this on the web...FOR ANY OTHER DISCONTIUNITY that I S not a catastrophe set; which the French also probably have the best science on...
I tend to read the reason Wright and Warmer America has not had the NW US steep postion on the total speed of internation science that GOuld could write if not right writ wit etc is that IDEAS generated bioloigcal in US were simply thought of as statements that DID NOT GET a MATH beyond CALCULUS despite the availabilty and intelligence at least to read beyond this kind of story about how biology is not a national thing as phyics internationally is and gave biology the hyperlink to use etc. Biology (as classification (taxonomy, baraminiology, phlogeny)) has not found a teaching insitution able to overcome thebioloigcally based anthropologcal different psychologies to make some economists happy yet after this war let us hope that PUGWASH was that cleaning fluid that keeps all sticks and lips in? Sorry for the last word on the subject.
The BODY of an insect IS NOT THE same even in my most rigourus ANALOGICAL thought to that of vertebrate but the sentences in this thread seem to make this virus/bacteria distinction which I do not yet know to be a part of this kingdom etc/.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-16-2002 11:17 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 23 of 33 (20027)
10-16-2002 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mammuthus
10-16-2002 5:15 AM


I am starting to get this-- I neural tube in a vetebrate indeed does give, even potentially, THE Topography of a common geography to vertebrates and invertebrates that could share a common protein expressivity, but unless one KNEW the discontinuity (BEYOND catastastrphe theory (that WOlfram is after) for any topology common to a clade big enough to hold fast to both sister groups, one still would NOT have a handle (even artifactually) on which parameters to relax in the model. THIS is not to say that discoveries in molecular biology CAN NOT (they can) be made to show more similarity in the empricial metrics tangentailly to this time involved but as to the symmetery between space and time;; etc etc we no not enough to say molecularly for the change from use of 3-D Euclidian thinking BACK to any any NON-eucldiean INTO wolfram relatively nodal thought THAT STILL Can be in line with mole bio evidence but aganist some readings of history of bio yet still in the future and hence not fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mammuthus, posted 10-16-2002 5:15 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 24 of 33 (20031)
10-16-2002 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Wordswordsman
10-16-2002 11:17 AM


WS: How long did that one (PE) last? Most actual mutations have detrimental effects. Once again evolution hangs on mutations rather than natural processes designed into genes. By far the greatest effect of genetics is to continue a species with slight NECESSARY environmental adaptation through normal, natural genetic recombinations without adding genetic information. None of that is necessarily a permanent, irreversible change, given long term gradual changes in environment. Quick changes don't allow the supposed evolution processes to have beneficial effect, resulting in extinction, not improvement. Keep in mind the first priinciple of the first Darwin law which a priori excludes intelligent design/creation. It is not evidenced to be inapplicable.
M: This paragraph falsified..PE is still alive and kicking (see below)
And as to no addition of genetic information...syncytin is the envelope gene of an endogenous retrovirus. It is critical to the fusion of syncytiotrophoblasts. If this process does not occur, there is no placental development and hence, no babies. This endogenous retrovirus transposed into the genome only after the split of New World from Old world monkeys. Thus humans and all old world monkeys have it but all other mammals do not. Another gene has to determine syncitiotrophoblast formation..thus new information was gained and replaced identically an old function with a completely novel sequence...not a small reversible change.
As to PE....
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999 Mar 30;96(7):3807-12 Related Articles, Links
Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria.
Papadopoulos D, Schneider D, Meier-Eiss J, Arber W, Lenski RE, Blot M.
Abteilung Mikrobiologie, Biozentrum, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland.
Molecular methods are used widely to measure genetic diversity within populations and determine relationships among species. However, it is difficult to observe genomic evolution in action because these dynamics are too slow in most organisms. To overcome this limitation, we sampled genomes from populations of Escherichia coli evolving in the laboratory for 10,000 generations. We analyzed the genomes for restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) using seven insertion sequences (IS) as probes; most polymorphisms detected by this approach reflect rearrangements (including transpositions) rather than point mutations. The evolving genomes became increasingly different from their ancestor over time. Moreover, tremendous diversity accumulated within each population, such that almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint after 10,000 generations. As has been often suggested, but not previously shown by experiment, the rates of phenotypic and genomic change were discordant, both across replicate populations and over time within a population. Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find. More generally, these data show that the genome is highly dynamic even over a time scale that is, from an evolutionary perspective, very brief.
: Science 1996 Jun 21;272(5269):1802-4 Related Articles, Links
Comment in:
Science. 1996 Dec 6;274(5293):1748-50.
Science. 1996 Jun 21;272(5269):1741.
Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations.
Elena SF, Cooper VS, Lenski RE.
Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 48824, USA. selena@ant.css.msu.edu
For more than two decades there has been intense debate over the hypothesis that most morphological evolution occurs during relatively brief episodes of rapid change that punctuate much longer periods of stasis. A clear and unambiguous case of punctuated evolution is presented for cell size in a population of Escherichia coli evolving for 3000 generations in a constant environment. The punctuation is caused by natural selection as rare, beneficial mutations sweep successively through the population. This experiment shows that the most elementary processes in population genetics can give rise to punctuated evolution dynamics.
WS:
‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’ (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167—177).
WS: On a side note the presence of EXCESS retinoic acid causes deformation of hox genes in humans, not benefits. Birth defects are not enhancements to the population. There is no evidence mutations of hox genes meets the question posed by de Beer.
M: This is the hopeful monster argument. What you present is a strawman argument. Nobody proposes that a mutation drastically altering hox gene expression would lead from a whale to a tuna. What IS seen is that related species with slightly different morphology or completely different species with radically different morphology show corresponding differences in hox gene expression. The smaller changes over time and speciation lead to the larger differences seen long after the fact.
WS:
Research in the six years since Schwabe wrote this has only born out his statement. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities (two heads, a leg where an eye should be, etc.); they do not change an amphibian into a reptile, for example. And the mutations do not add any information, they just cause existing information to be mis-directed to produce a fruit-fly leg on the fruit-fly head instead of on the correct body segment, for example.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
M: Again, a mistatement...you don't change from amphibian to reptile..they shared a common ancestor...you do undertand the difference don't you? If you read the articles I presented in the last post you will see that the last sentence has been falsified...mutations in hox gene control regions lead to differences in hox protein gradients and change morphology....not just makeing an antennae into a leg.
WS: So where is the evidence of ADDED information?
M: Syncytin is one, hox cluster duplications another, and there are examples of gene loss contributing to differences in cell morphology i.e. humans lack a gene function present in all other mammals...
WS:
Evolutionists, of course, use the ubiquity of hox genes in their argument for common ancestry (‘Look, all these creatures share these genes, so all creatures must have had a common ancestor’). However, commonality of such features is to be expected with their origin from the same (supremely) intelligent Creator. All such homology arguments are only arguments for evolution when one excludes, a priori, origins by design.
M: Please demonstrate 1) how a supremely intelligent creator is a falsifiable hypothesis and then 2) provide evidence for this creator. If step 1 is impossible it is not science and should be excluded when considering the origin of species.
WS:
Indeed many of the patterns we see do not fit common ancestry. For example, the discontinuity of distribution of hemoglobin-like proteins, which are found in a few bacteria, molluscs, insects, and vertebrates. One could also note features such as vivipary, thermoregulation (some fish and mammals), eye designs, etc.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4205.asp
M: How does any of this not fit with common ancestry? Why should a plant have hemoglobin? What is the selective advantage?
WS: There is no definitive evidence against ID/creation. Hence, the evolution model is not testable in a way that overwhelms creationist theories.
M: There is no testable ID/creation hypothesis so there is nothing one can do with it.
WS:
The notion of evolution is not a purely scientific subject until all of its tenets are explained with actual science methods and actual data collected scientifically, not just guesses based on some observations. It is often said by evolutionists that science doesn't prove anything. That is because science for the evolutionist is yet a "proto science", much like a philosophy, evidenced by a disparity of beliefs among the constituents of the TofE.
M: All tenets of the theory of gravity are not explained. There is more accumulated evidence for the theory of evolution than for the theory of gravity. So is gravity just a non scientific guess? Care to test it by jumping out a window and seeing if you stay in place? If you did you would disprove gravity As to science not "proving" anything...like with gravity, all science is tentative always.
WS:
Another one adding clarity to this issue is:
Human/chimp DNA similarity
Evidence for evolutionary relationship?
by Don Batten
First published in:
Creation 19(1):21—22
December 1996—February 1997
...edited out first paragraph...
Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
M: This argument presents the same logical fallacy as your Seiko watch example. Neither the VW or Porsche is subject to heritable mutation as neither can reproduce and thus evolution cannot occur. Thus in that respect homology is not the proper definition.
If your mitochondrial DNA shares the identical mutations with your mothers mtDNA and is different from everyone elses (except your maternal grandmothers) that is identity by descent...or do you deny that genetic information is passed on from parent to offspring? This is evolution by the way...
WS:
If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:18—23).
M: bacteria are completely different from humans...which creator made them?
WS:
If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!
M: On what basis is this established? You can get sustenance from water, minerals, and amino acids and sugars as components...none of which are in themselves similar to living animals.
Ever eat an archea i.e. Thermophilus aquaticus? This argument supposes we regularly eat everything living.
WS:
We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism.
M: However, the above statement conflicts with John Wells (and your) belief that hox genes have nothing to do with embryonic development. How do you know that you are not created instantly and made to appear similar to your parents?
WS:
In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
M: The above paragraph is in complete conflict with what you stated and attempted to support in your arguments against hox genes guiding development. Why is this a likely prediction if there is creation? The only way to be similar to something biologically is to be related to it..you are more similar to your parents than anyone else because you inherited your DNA from them....if you accept the above paragraph then you accept evolution. If each organism was created there would be no reason to suppose morphological or molecular similarities. And the above also conflicts with the observation of convergent evolution whereby molecular evidence provides completely different results from that of morphology like the marsupial wolf and eutherian wolves.
WS:
Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.
M: This again goes against your argument (and de Beers) that genes in different organisms do the same thing. He claims they do not yet here you quote someone who draws the opposite conclusion yet claim both polar opposite view support your agenda.
WS:
----edited out paragraph....
WS: Any breaking news on the chimp genome?
Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re—form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.
M: This was the estimate from the time that those admittedly crude experiments were performed...as to what is new since then..check out what just came out today using more refined methods....
Published online before print October 4, 2002, 10.1073/pnas.172510699;
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99, Issue 21, 13633-13635, October 15, 2002
Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels
Roy J. Britten*
California Institute of Technology, 101 Dahlia Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Contributed by Roy J. Britten, August 22, 2002
Five chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) sequences (described in GenBank) have been compared with the best matching regions of the human genome sequence to assay the amount and kind of DNA divergence. The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. In this sample of 779 kb, the divergence due to base substitution is 1.4%, and there is an additional 3.4% difference due to the presence of indels. The gaps in alignment are present in about equal amounts in the chimp and human sequences. They occur equally in repeated and nonrepeated sequences, as detected by REPEATMASKER (http://ftp.genome.washington.edu/RM/RepeatMasker.html).
WS:Remaining today in at least one modern biology textbook presented as FACT. When such precise percentages are presented like that, they 'stick' indelibly in the mind. I don't accept the number, but will probably never rid my mind of it, having repeated that figure aloud for too long. No doubt it had a calculated effect. Every time I referred to the shelf of assorted high school and college textbooks for that 'just right' explanation for a lesson, I revisited the many now debunked statements that shaped my own continuing education. If I had my way I would dump all of those books, but they are contributions from personal libraries of many present and former science teachers, and there is little more to refer to in the school library, even less in other local libraries.
M: Actually, I remember that scientists going through textbooks found tons of factual errors...sue the publishers.
WS:
What they covered in my college years is far less than what is available. What is a modern teacher to do? Relying on atheist explanations is no substitute for me.
M: Which atheist explanations would those be?
wS:
There is no time for going back and catching up through continuing ed. courses. It takes every spare moment just to prepare for three classes tomorrow and conclude today's business. So naturally my guidance will be from among the creationist scientists, and that is my suggestion for any Christian science teacher. There are few that I know of. I am aware of only a dozen of about 60 local teachers that admit any religious affiliation, and none among the science teachers.
M: Because such people cannot do science as they cannot separate their wished for truths from the actual truth...thus you will find no guidance on these issues that has any value. And it is a cop out to say you have no time to catch up on the subject if you really seem to find it so important personally.
WS:
Almost all the teachers gather every year at every public school in protest of "See You at the Pole Day" (student-led prayer around the flag pole), often making conversation that drowns out whatever is said by students. No Christian would prohibit prayer, regardless their feelings about separation of church and state.
M: I am not sure what this has to do with the current thread.
WS:
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical erroraveraging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
M: Most peer reviewed journals require access to the raw data either by placing it on a website or by request.
....more later..gotta go

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-16-2002 11:17 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 25 of 33 (20079)
10-17-2002 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Wordswordsman
10-16-2002 11:17 AM


continued....
WS:
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’.
M: You interpret on faith...scientists get access to the raw data either by journals publishing it online as additional resources or by request from the authors. All journals that I have published in explicitly state I am required to provide my data to other researchers upon request as a condition of publication.
WS:
Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis.
M: Hmmm imagine that, a scientist corrects another scientist...at least they don't cling to the misinterpretation like a religious person would be forced to.
WS:
Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical erroraveraging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
M: No confidence could be attached anyway from a melting curve...but I provided fresh data on this subject yesterday which I presume you have ignored.
M:
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size [6]. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].
M: This is arguing from incredulity. Because you cannot understand it or the author you are quoting cannot is hardly evidence against it. That chimps are gentetically, morphologically, and biochemically more similar to us than any other mammals is clearly indicative of common ancestry and not poof bang sudden creation...the same way that you are more similar to your parents than any other humans.
WS: Keep in mind the necessity of those mutations being BENEFICIAL ones, which are the rare exception rather than the rule. Beneficial mutations are not shown to be a natural, normal process of reproduction resulting in continuation of any species or creation of new ones.
M: This is your unsupported statement. Most mutations are mildly deleterious. There are lots of examples of beneficial mutations spread via normal process..even in humans.
WS:
Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!
M: What analogy? There are no control sequences in these sentences and nothing was turned on or off...and yet again, this is a strawman as your sentences are not cabaple of reproduction i.e. heritable mutaion.
WS:
[Ed. note: the point of this article was to refute one widely parroted ‘proof’ that humans evolved from apes, as should be clear from the title.
M: Which shows that you don't understand the basic concepts...we did not evolve "from" apes but shared a common ancestor...if you are unable to show a grasp of the absolute basics then you are in no position to criticize the merits of any theory.
WS:
It was simply beyond the scope of a single Creation magazine article to deal with all other ‘proofs’ of human evolution, although, amazingly, some atheistic sceptics have attacked this article for this alleged failing! But see Q&A: Anthropology (human ancestry, alleged ape-men) for addressing issues like alleged fossil ‘ape—men’.]
M: Interesting, you came in attacking anyone who did not "prove" evolution to you personally completely but are suddenly the apologist for this Creation article. It was not beyond the scope of the article..the various suppostions of the article have been debunked and if there were any more "proofs" merely saying there was not enough space so I will keep it to myself is hardly compelling.
WS:
Summmary
The methods used to generate the figures so often quoted (and misquoted!) are very clumsy. They do not lend legitimacy to the claims that people and chimps are related in an evolutionary sense.
M: That is what you get when you live by web sites and textbooks instead of primary literature and doing experiments yourself.
WS:
The more we learn of the complexities of the biochemical systems in our cells, the more marvellous they become.
M: Could you explain and give citations for some of the what "we" have learned regarding biochemical complexity? Remember, it is those self same scientists you distrust so much doing the work so why the about face on their credibility?
WS:
Furthermore, even if we accept the data as legitimate there is no way that mutations could bridge the gap between chimps and humans. Chimps are just animals.
M: Just because you cannot understand others cannot.
WS: We are made in the image of God (no chimps will be reading this).
M: There is no god and I think the chimps may understand the basics of science before a lot of creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-16-2002 11:17 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 26 of 33 (20081)
10-17-2002 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Wordswordsman
10-16-2002 11:40 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Wordswordman, if you really believe what you believe and you want to proselytize your beliefs to this board, then I challenge you. The first of Darwin's five theories (sensu Mayr) is that evolution (change) happens. 'Show us your proof, if you are right.' (Q 2:111). Show us that the first Darwin theory is false. Can you?
Mayr's first module:
1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
The fact is that scientists can't disprove the creationist concept, claiming that to be outside the realm of science. But do you REALLY know what science is?
M: How do you disprove creationist concepts as there is no testable hypothesis? Can you provide a testable hypothesis of creation, the experiments needed to support it, and predictions that can be made based on it that can be tested? Thus far no creationist has ever been able to do this and thus creationism is not science.
WS:
Do you blindly accept the scientist's definition of 'science' that now better supports their theory? Their definition doesn't fit all fields of science. I find it interesting they must redefine science to better fit the various disciplines.
M: Support this statement with fact..how have we evil scientists redefined science to better fit our theories?
WS:
Do you have one definition that supports ALL fields of science without offending evolutionists?
M: Definitions are to provide accurate descriptions of observations..they are neutral..not offensive or inoffensive.
WS:
Do you have one definition of 'species' that satisfies all sytematists (including Linneans, i.e. cladists/non-cladists- phylogenetic/neo-linnean/Linnean taxonomists) as well as non-biology pro-evolutionists in general? Must you, too, use switch and bait tactics to present evolution coherently?
M: What bait and switch tactics are being employed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-16-2002 11:40 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 33 (20090)
10-17-2002 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Wordswordsman
10-16-2002 11:40 AM


First, I want to clear a misunderstanding. Sword, I thought you were a YEC. However, it seems that you are not, given that you acknowledge that life through the ages are not always the same. Therefore, I seem to be attacking a strawman.
If I want to refute the first theory, evolution as such, then the evidence I need would be a fossil record that shows no change at all since the beginning of life. The evidence is not like that; therefore I still cannot refute it. The fossil record showed that once there were trilobites, dinosaurs, and australopiths on the Earth (also, they were never contemporaneous) but they no loger exist. I think you agree with me on that. You seem to be more into the position of ID/IC/PC.
I agree that science cannot prove or disprove creation. It's a matter of supernatural beliefs.
'Species'? Mayr's biological species concept. (A species is an isolated reproductive community). I think Linneans, cladists, and phylogenetic taxonomists accept the BSC as a good definition of species. It has problems though with organisms without sex such as bacteria and some fungi.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-16-2002 11:40 AM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-17-2002 10:20 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 33 (20114)
10-17-2002 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Andya Primanda
10-17-2002 6:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
First, I want to clear a misunderstanding. Sword, I thought you were a YEC. However, it seems that you are not, given that you acknowledge that life through the ages are not always the same. Therefore, I seem to be attacking a strawman.
What gave you that idea? My note on extinction of organisms? That would be an acceptable fact for YEC, and supporting entrophy. I can't accept the evolutionist's extreme age of life on earth, but admittedly can't dogmatically declare from the Bible that the earth itself is not greatly older than life which began in 'creation week'. There is just enough mystery in Genesis 1:1 to allow the possibility that "in the beginning" the earth itself, water, and air was made. It is possible that later God moved upon the earth as it was, void, with 'creation week' making it not-void, but full of features that define what earth is.
quote:
If I want to refute the first theory, evolution as such, then the evidence I need would be a fossil record that shows no change at all since the beginning of life. The evidence is not like that; therefore I still cannot refute it. The fossil record showed that once there were trilobites, dinosaurs, and australopiths on the Earth (also, they were never contemporaneous) but they no loger exist. I think you agree with me on that. You seem to be more into the position of ID/IC/PC.
I won't discard the higher spiritual knowledge from God's Word that there was a world-wide flood. That flood is responsible for the great majority of sedimentary rock-bearing fossils of organisims that were contemporary. There are many suitable explanations, all theory, opposed by evolutionary theories that simply refute the Flood because of a suppposed lack of evidence of such a flood. I subscribe to the possibility ALL the fossil record is of that one event. One reason is that the conditions necessary for lithification of tender organisms is not a common, natural scenario. It isn't a repeatable condition over large aras such as the fossil record shows existed at some point. If it were normal and common, the process would be easily demonstrated today all over earth. Evolutionists disagree, citing the fossil sorting mechanisms, but never proving the creationist theories wrong. It is simply theory v. theory, neither satisfactorily testable or provable. A person has only to believe one way or another, both requiring some faith. My belief should not contradict my spiritual knowledge, which is absolute. Scientific data isn't absolute, subject to constant change, correction, re-correction over and over, being too metaphysical (exemplified in the advent of quantum mechanics and its smashing of reality for many scientists). It isn't the sort of quality knowledge I'm willing to substitute for matters of eternity.
quote:
I agree that science cannot prove or disprove creation. It's a matter of supernatural beliefs.
How could nature, created by God, be "supernatural"? I don't accept that a creationist view of creation is in the supernatural class. A God-directed view of nature might be supernaturally endowed, but the knowledge itself isn't necessarily supernatural. What is labelled as supernatural by evolutionists is simply their way of dealing with knowledge imparted by a God whom they often say does not exist. They hide behind the skirts of science, even though it changes style frequently. At least one fool exists on this forum thread who declares openly the non-existence of God. The Bible identifies him as a fool, and commands me to avoid him and his obviously suspect, distorted rantings. He would have us believe it is now essential to understand and keep up with modern genetics in order to comprehend the evolutionist view, ignoring creationist observations that their findings often support the creationist view, though the applications of that knowledge differ. They fail to reach the world with their message, couched in dubious experiments and endless streams of terminology, adding newly coined terms often not yet found in the genetics glossaries. That is the same agenda of the Gnostics and sorcerers of old. Smoke and mirrors through what is currently called science. It is now far beyond the reach of any high school class, and probably any four year college curriculum, requiring a masters in a narrow science field to adopt particular slices of the evolutionist argument. It isn't worth it. WHY is it necessary that all people accept such an ever-increasingly complex string of explanations as an obvious attempt to prove there is no God? I don't call that education. It's propaganda. I distrust any person who subscribes to the evolutionist view while claiming they are Christian. In order to be a Christian one must obviously be a follower of Christ, who verified the holy scriptures. If such a person accepts the Bible is contrarily mostly myth, then he has no real foundation for being a believer, siding with atheists who share the evolutionary views in their claims there is no God based on the alleged faults of the Bible.
He remains on very shaky sand ready to sink at any moment. There is no middle ground. One either believes or doesn't believe.
My point is that part a of Darwin's first law is not provable (as you admit here), being a blindly proposed antithesis of an equally unprovable part b that can't be proven. Science can't prove anything, as claimed in this thread. It is all circumstantial evidence and supposition, often revised when advances in science demonstrate former interpretations of data were faulty. I propose science is ever moving closer to the real science already suspected by creationists. But science will never come to the point of proving or disproving what the Bible says, else the requirement of spiritual faith itself is faulty. Well, that isn't an optiion for me, having accepted the faith requirement long ago, that buttressed by experiential confirmations. That, too, can't be proven as in a case of law in the courts, but is sufficient for me to hold firmly to the report of the Bible, which then requires I take a perspective of reality that agrees with the higher truth of the Bible.
I came here to deal with the idiotic direct assaults on the Bible, not to debate never-ending arguments around evolution. I am already firmly convinced evolutions is a myth, regardless what scientists have to say about it. I must regard them as sorcerers, those who say there is no God, who claim the Bible is faulty, who plunge into the unknown proposing concepts that are often (too late) later retracted in a child-like level of acountability, never making effort to undo the harm done by their past antics, making excuses "that is the nature of science- self correcting". I subscribe to the perspective of the Bible, never needing correction.
quote:
'Species'? Mayr's biological species concept. (A species is an isolated reproductive community). I think Linneans, cladists, and phylogenetic taxonomists accept the BSC as a good definition of species. It has problems though with organisms without sex such as bacteria and some fungi.
Linneans can't accept that definition (BSC). Reproduction is subject to variables outside the internal heredity of organisms. Environmental variables have nothing to do with describing a species.
I wouldn't wish to understate all the beliefs out there with such a simplified statement, willing to refer you to http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/papers/metataxo.htm
which puts the problem in an interesting light.
Also interesting, from
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
ON THE CHANGING DEFINITION OF THE TERM "SPECIES"
- IMPACT No. 211 January 1991
by Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D.*
And this about BSC from
Observed Instances of Speciation
Observed Instances of Speciation
Joseph Boxhorn
[Last Update: September 1, 1995]
2.2 The Biological Species Concept Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.
2.2.1 History of the Biological Species Concept The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years. The earliest precursor that I could find was in Du Rietz 1930. Du Rietz defined a species as
"... the smallest natural populations permanently separated from each other by a distinct discontinuity in the series of biotypes."
Barriers to interbreeding are implicit in this definition and explicit in Du Rietz's dicussion of it.
A few years later, Dobzhansky defined a species as
"... that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." (Dobzhansky 1937)
It is important to note that this is a highly restrictive definition of species. It emphasizes experimental approaches and ignores what goes on in nature. By the publication of the third edition of the book this appeared in, Dobzhansky (1951) had relaxed this definition to the point that is substantially agreed with Mayr's.
The definition of a species that is accepted as the BSC was promulgated by Mayr (1942). He defined species as
"... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
Note that the emphasis in this definition is on what happens in nature. Mayr later amended this definition to include an ecological component. In this form of the definition a species is
"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature."
The BSC is most strongly accepted among vertebrate zoologists and entomologists. Two facts account for this. First, these are the groups that the authors of the BSC worked with :-). (Note: Mayr is an ornithologist and Dobzhansky worked extensively with Drosophila). More importantly, obligate sexuality is the predominant form of reproduction in these groups. It is not coincidental that the BSC is less widely accepted among botanists. Terrestrial plants exhibit much greater diversity in their "mode of reproduction" than do vertebrates and insects.
2.2.2 Criticisms of the Biological Species Concept There has been considerable criticism of the theoretical validity and practical utility of the BSC. (Cracraft 1989, Donoghue 1985, Levin 1979, Mishler and Donoghue 1985, Sokal and Crovello 1970).
The application of the BSC to a number of groups, including land plants, is problematical because of interspecific hybridization between clearly delimited species (McCourt and Hoshaw 1990, Mishler 1985).
There is an abundance of asexual populations that this definition just doesn't apply to (Budd and Mishler 1990). Examples of taxa which are obligately asexual include bdelloid rotifers, euglenoid flagellates, some members of the Oocystaceae (coccoid green algae), chloromonad flagellates and some araphid pennate diatoms. Asexual forms of normally sexual organisms are known. Obligately asexual populations of Daphnia are found in some arctic lakes. The BSD can be of no help in delimiting species in these groups. A similar situation is found in the prokaryotes. Though genes can be exchanged among bacteria by a number of mechanisms, sexuality, as defined in eukaryotes, in unknown in the prokaryotes. One popular microbiology text doesn't even mention the BSC (Brock and Madigan 1988).
The applicability of the BSC is also questionable in those land plants that primarily self-pollinate (Cronquist 1988).
A more serious criticism is that the BSC is inapplicable in practice. This charge asserts that, in most cases, the BSC cannot be practically applied to delimit species. The BSC suggests breeding experiments as the test of species membership. But this is a test that is rarely made. The number of crosses needed to delimit membership in a species can be astronomical. The following example will illustrate the problem.
Here in Wisconsin we have about 16,000 lakes and ponds. A common (and tasty ;-)) inhabitant of many of these bodies of water is the bluegill sunfish. Let's ask a question -- do all these bluegill populations constitute one species or several morphologically similar species? Assume that only 1,000 of these lakes and ponds contain bluegills. Assuming that each lake constitutes a population, an investigator would have to perform 499,500 separate crosses to determine whether the populations could interbreed. But to do this right we should really do reciprocal crosses (i.e. cross a male from population A with a female from population B and a male from population B with a female from population A). This brings the total crosses we need to make up to 999,000. But don't we also need to make replicates? Having three replicates brings the total to 2,997,000 crosses. In addition, you just can't put a pair of bluegills into a bucket and expect them to mate. In nature, male bluegills excavate and defend nests in large mating colonies. After the nests are excavated the females come in to the colony to spawn. Here the females choose among potential mates. This means that we would need to simulate a colony in our test. Assume that 20 fish would be sufficient for a single test. We find that we would need about 60,000,000 fish to test whether all these populations are members of the same species! (We would also need a large number of large aquaria to run these crosses in). But bluegills are not restricted to Wisconsin...
I could go on, but I think the point is now obvious. The fact of the matter is that the time, effort and money needed to delimit species using the BSC is, to say the least, prohibitive.
Another reason why using the BSC to delimit species is impractical is that breeding experiments can often be inconclusive. Interbreeding in nature can be heavily influenced by variable and unstable environmental factors. (Any angler who has waited for the bluegills to get on to the beds can confirm this one). If we can't duplicate natural conditions of breeding, a failure to breed doesn't mean that the critters can't (or don't) interbreed in the wild. The difficulties that were encountered in breeding pandas in captivity illustrate this. In addition, experimentally showing that A doesn't interbreed with B doesn't preclude both interbreeding with C. This gets even more complicated in groups that don't have nice, straightforward sexes. An example of this occurs in a number of protozoan species. These critters have numerous mating types. There can be very complicated compatability of mating types. Finally, breeding experiments can be inconclusive because actual interbreeding and gene flow among phenetically similar, genetically compatible local populations is often more restricted than the BSC would suggest (Cronquist 1988).
In practice, even strong adherents of the BSC use phenetic similarities and discontinuities for delimiting species. If the organisms are phenotypically similar, they are considered conspecific until a reproductive barrier is demonstrated.
Another criticism of the BSC comes from the cladistic school of taxonomy (e.g. Donoghue 1985). The cladists argue that sexual compatibility is a primitive trait. Organisms that are no longer closely related may have retained the ability for genetic recombination with each other through sex. This is not a derived characteristic. Because of this it is invalid for defining monophyletic taxa.
A final problem with the BSC is that groups that do not occur together in time cannot be evaluated. We simply cannot know whether two such groups would interbreed freely if they came together under natural conditions. This makes it impossible to delimit the boundaries of extinct groups using the BSC. One question will illustrate the problem. Do Homo erectus and Homo sapiens represent the same or different species? This question is unresolvable using the biological definition.
Several alternatives to the biological species concept have been suggested. I will discuss two."
Boxhorn goes on to list favorite instances of speciation that are not events of new species, most of which violate the various definitions of species and fail to rule out other causes of reproductive failure and other genetic causes of change.
see http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp for a good expose' of Boxhorn's list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-17-2002 6:59 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Mammuthus, posted 10-17-2002 11:06 AM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 10-17-2002 11:51 AM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 10-17-2002 2:15 PM Wordswordsman has not replied
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 10-17-2002 2:15 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 29 of 33 (20117)
10-17-2002 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Wordswordsman
10-17-2002 10:20 AM


WS:
Scientific data isn't absolute, subject to constant change, correction, re-correction over and over, being too metaphysical (exemplified in the advent of quantum mechanics and its smashing of reality for many scientists). It isn't the sort of quality knowledge I'm willing to substitute for matters of eternity.
M: Religious interpretation is not absolute and varies enormously among groups...at least science is testable and when valid, reproducible which cannot be said of relgion.
WS:
How could nature, created by God, be "supernatural"? I don't accept that a creationist view of creation is in the supernatural class. A God-directed view of nature might be supernaturally endowed, but the knowledge itself isn't necessarily supernatural. What is labelled as supernatural by evolutionists is simply their way of dealing with knowledge imparted by a God whom they often say does not exist. They hide behind the skirts of science, even though it changes style frequently. At least one fool exists on this forum thread who declares openly the non-existence of God. The Bible identifies him as a fool, and commands me to avoid him and his obviously suspect, distorted rantings.
M: Since I am the "fool" you are referring to I can see that you will be avoiding answering my posts or reading what I post but the others here will do so and can judge for themselves which of us is the fool. At least I read the links you posted.
Again, your above statement fails to show how creationism is a testable hypothesis or how you go about gathering supporting reproducilbe evidence for god....I have posted this before in another thread but this is an analogy that shows why creationism is not science that I found on the web:
Ovulation versus cretinism
Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory
of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in
the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory
at school.
In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour
of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught
in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth.
Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.
Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:
1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This
can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the
theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately
nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a
newborn child is newborn.
4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of
sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where
sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive
correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are
decreasing.
6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific
methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the
stork.
WS:
He would have us believe it is now essential to understand and keep up with modern genetics in order to comprehend the evolutionist view, ignoring creationist observations that their findings often support the creationist view, though the applications of that knowledge differ. They fail to reach the world with their message, couched in dubious experiments and endless streams of terminology, adding newly coined terms often not yet found in the genetics glossaries.
M: To paraphrase your above paragraph, ignorance is bliss. You are stating that it is better to have no understanding of the science that you criticize and make pronouncements on it based on your ignorance. It must be comfortable to dismiss the science I posted from various disciplines that refute the arguments against evolution and genetics you posted. However, it does nothing to support your argument.
WS:
That is the same agenda of the Gnostics and sorcerers of old. Smoke and mirrors through what is currently called science. It is now far beyond the reach of any high school class, and probably any four year college curriculum, requiring a masters in a narrow science field to adopt particular slices of the evolutionist argument. It isn't worth it. WHY is it necessary that all people accept such an ever-increasingly complex string of explanations as an obvious attempt to prove there is no God? I don't call that education. It's propaganda.
M: Cool, never thought of myself as a sorcerer...there should be a stipend with that title If you believe that all scientists goal in life is to prove there is no god, you are being very inconsistent in your belief by using a computer which was after all designed by computer scientists based on physical SCIENCE principles. Again, you used the same argument that it is better not to understand the science and just "feel" like you are right in your uninformed opinion about evolutionary biology. Again, this gives your arguments absolutely no credibility. As to scientists out to prove there is no god...I don't believe there is a god so why would I give a crap about trying to disprove the concept?
WS:
I distrust any person who subscribes to the evolutionist view while claiming they are Christian. In order to be a Christian one must obviously be a follower of Christ, who verified the holy scriptures. If such a person accepts the Bible is contrarily mostly myth, then he has no real foundation for being a believer, siding with atheists who share the evolutionary views in their claims there is no God based on the alleged faults of the Bible.
M: Evolutionary biologists do not base the theory on inaccuracies in the bible...they base it on experimental evidence. I distrust anyone who claims they are a better christian than any other since it is pure hypocrisy...how can you objectively tell?
WS:
He remains on very shaky sand ready to sink at any moment. There is no middle ground. One either believes or doesn't believe.
M: Unless he believes but not the same way as you. Neither of you can make any claims to being on firmer ground. Prove for example that you are a better christian than say the pope.
WS:
My point is that part a of Darwin's first law is not provable (as you admit here), being a blindly proposed antithesis of an equally unprovable part b that can't be proven. Science can't prove anything, as claimed in this thread. It is all circumstantial evidence and supposition, often revised when advances in science demonstrate former interpretations of data were faulty.
M: Too bad that you don't like the way science works but it is infintiely better than the "I believe it is so" non testable, non verifiable, non analyzable infinitely shifting and inconsistency of religion.
WS:
I propose science is ever moving closer to the real science already suspected by creationists.
M: Pseudoscience has always been this way...it is easier than actually doing science.
WS:
But science will never come to the point of proving or disproving what the Bible says, else the requirement of spiritual faith itself is faulty. Well, that isn't an optiion for me, having accepted the faith requirement long ago, that buttressed by experiential confirmations. That, too, can't be proven as in a case of law in the courts, but is sufficient for me to hold firmly to the report of the Bible, which then requires I take a perspective of reality that agrees with the higher truth of the Bible.
M: Sounds like you believe in the bible and not in god..interesting.
WS:
I came here to deal with the idiotic direct assaults on the Bible, not to debate never-ending arguments around evolution. I am already firmly convinced evolutions is a myth, regardless what scientists have to say about it.
M: You can claim it is idiotic but you are the one who said you refuse to actually learn or read what the actual science is and rather remain opinionated but ignorant about a field you feel so strongly about...I would think you would actually want to know your enemy to better fight it but obviously you find that to difficult.
WS:
I must regard them as sorcerers, those who say there is no God, who claim the Bible is faulty, who plunge into the unknown proposing concepts that are often (too late) later retracted in a child-like level of acountability, never making effort to undo the harm done by their past antics, making excuses "that is the nature of science- self correcting". I subscribe to the perspective of the Bible, never needing correction.
M: Considering how many different sects have sprung up around worshipping the bible it seems like lots of people felt it needed correcting...or more likely everybody just interprets it any way they see fit which makes it totally useless.
This last post of yours was fascinating WS,
1. You claim that creation is not science because science refuses to change its definition to include non testable hypothesis.
2. You claim that bible belief is absolute yet there are lots of christians that do not share your views...your only counter claim is to say they are not real christians which you also fail to support with evidence.
3. After presenting articles (from scientists no less) claiming to support your case, you claim that you have no need or intention to acutally read or learn anything about evolution because it must be wrong because that is what you believe. On the one hand you go to scientists publications to attempt to substantiate your claim but at the same time deny science is in any way valid.
4. You clearly believe in a global scientific conspiracy that is attacking you personally
5. You claim that anyone who opposes your views is a fool
6. You are clearly uncomfortable with the idea that science incorporates new data as it is accumulated rather than remaining a static entity. This seems to be troubling for the Amish as well. You seem to require a world of absolutes which must be very hard for you since beyond science..daily life does not work that way.
7. You have previously claimed to have been (or still are) an educator yet you show an almost violent hatred of study and the quest for knowledge for example refusing to read anything I posted and claiming scientists of all stripes are evil sorcerers.
There is so much personal conflict in your posts you must be very upset most of the time. It is a pity to see someone so consumed by hatred and intolerance of others as you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-17-2002 10:20 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 33 (20121)
10-17-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Wordswordsman
10-17-2002 10:20 AM


quote:
How could nature, created by God, be "supernatural"? I don't accept that a creationist view of creation is in the supernatural class. A God-directed view of nature might be supernaturally endowed, but the knowledge itself isn't necessarily supernatural. What is labelled as supernatural by evolutionists is simply their way of dealing with knowledge imparted by a God whom they often say does not exist. They hide behind the skirts of science, even though it changes style frequently. At least one fool exists on this forum thread who declares openly the non-existence of God. The Bible identifies him as a fool, and commands me to avoid him and his obviously suspect, distorted rantings. He would have us believe it is now essential to understand and keep up with modern genetics in order to comprehend the evolutionist view, ignoring creationist observations that their findings often support the creationist view, though the applications of that knowledge differ. They fail to reach the world with their message, couched in dubious experiments and endless streams of terminology, adding newly coined terms often not yet found in the genetics glossaries. That is the same agenda of the Gnostics and sorcerers of old. Smoke and mirrors through what is currently called science. It is now far beyond the reach of any high school class, and probably any four year college curriculum, requiring a masters in a narrow science field to adopt particular slices of the evolutionist argument. It isn't worth it. WHY is it necessary that all people accept such an ever-increasingly complex string of explanations as an obvious attempt to prove there is no God? I don't call that education. It's propaganda. I distrust any person who subscribes to the evolutionist view while claiming they are Christian. In order to be a Christian one must obviously be a follower of Christ, who verified the holy scriptures. If such a person accepts the Bible is contrarily mostly myth, then he has no real foundation for being a believer, siding with atheists who share the evolutionary views in their claims there is no God based on the alleged faults of the Bible.
He remains on very shaky sand ready to sink at any moment. There is no middle ground. One either believes or doesn't believe.
My point is that part a of Darwin's first law is not provable (as you admit here), being a blindly proposed antithesis of an equally unprovable part b that can't be proven. Science can't prove anything, as claimed in this thread. It is all circumstantial evidence and supposition, often revised when advances in science demonstrate former interpretations of data were faulty. I propose science is ever moving closer to the real science already suspected by creationists. But science will never come to the point of proving or disproving what the Bible says, else the requirement of spiritual faith itself is faulty. Well, that isn't an optiion for me, having accepted the faith requirement long ago, that buttressed by experiential confirmations. That, too, can't be proven as in a case of law in the courts, but is sufficient for me to hold firmly to the report of the Bible, which then requires I take a perspective of reality that agrees with the higher truth of the Bible.
I came here to deal with the idiotic direct assaults on the Bible, not to debate never-ending arguments around evolution. I am already firmly convinced evolutions is a myth, regardless what scientists have to say about it. I must regard them as sorcerers, those who say there is no God, who claim the Bible is faulty, who plunge into the unknown proposing concepts that are often (too late) later retracted in a child-like level of acountability, never making effort to undo the harm done by their past antics, making excuses "that is the nature of science- self correcting". I subscribe to the perspective of the Bible, never needing correction.

Well, since we're all fools and eternally damned, I guess that ends this conversation. I do like the bit about sorcerers, though. I suppose there's no point in responding substantively to any more of your posts. Thanks to Mammuthus, however, for providing an excellent answer and numerous supporting articles. Your work doesn't go unnappreciated.
However, in the interests of "closing the loop" on wordswordsman's initial broadside, I'd like to clarify the Gavin de Beer quotation. And yes, it's irrelevant - however, it appears wordswordsman has decided there's no possible answer, so for the "lurkers" who might feel that de Beer's challenge is unmet...
Who (no peeking allowed) said, "There is no doubt whatever that the forelimb in the newt and the lizard and the arm of man are strictly homologous, inherited with modification from the pectoral fin of fishes 500 million years ago."
*drumroll* Gavin de Beer, from the same reference (page 8). Hmm, sounds like typical creationist quote mining in action. They're twisting and misrepresenting de Beer's work to make it seem he was stating something other than what he really meant. I've been able to trace some of the quote: it IS in fact from de Beer's 1971 book. However, the book is devoted to an argument against then-current thinking in phylogeny and evolutionary development (especially embryology). He was basically arguing in the book that:
1) embryology is not a reliable guide to true homology
2) genetic control is not a reliable guide to true homology.
In essence, he's arguing that homologs can owe their origin to different processes and need not be controlled by identical genes. However, he NOWHERE precludes the idea that those developmental processes taken as a whole which produce homologous structures aren't in fact homologs! Just not every gene relevant for a developmental process must be homologous to a gene involved in a homologous developmental process. So he WAS stating the observation that then-current thinking on evo-devo was missing something - not that common descent didn't happen. This misinterpretation is a creationist quote mine originally published by Denton (it's unclear where he got it), then quoted again by Johnson (quoting Denton!), and finally seized upon by Wells, Gish, etc. It's become a standard in the creationist repertoire.
That aside, was de Beer right? In one sense, he was. At the time (1971) he wrote the book, there were a plethora of different (and occasionally mutually contradictory) definitions of and means of identifying homology, a few of which were mentioned in the Wells article. Each definition was quite useful for the research and efforts of individual disciplines. For example, phylogenetic homology centers on synapomorphy, and is rooted in comparative taxonomy. It uses "homology" to explain similarities and correspondence between extinct and living organisms. Biological homology, on the other hand, generally refers to embryology, with a special examination of developmental constraints. Both of these definitions are closely allied, but not synonymous. In the first case, the feature is different but the process is homologous. In the second, the feature is homologous but the process is different. Hmm, sounds like what de Beer was all bothered about, doesn't it? No single definition worked universally. ...At that time...
Today, great strides have been made. Evolutionary developmental biology is a brand new science, of which one of its goals is to seek the reconciliation between phylogeny and ontogeny in an evolutionary context. In addition, the concept of "developmental constraint" has become widely accepted. In 1985, Maynard Smith described developmental constraints as "a bias on the production of variant phenotypes or a limitation on phenotypic variability caused by the structure, character, composition, or dynamics of the developmental system. (Maynard Smith, J., R. Burian, S. Kaufman, P. Alberch, J. Campbell, B. Goodwin, R. Lande, D. Raup, and L. Wolpert: 1985, "Developmental Constraints and Evolution", Quarterly Review of Biology 60:265-287). IOW, a change due to mutation in the left hindlimb of tetrapods are impossible (or highly improbable) without similar changes in the right hindlimb. Random mutations can effect any part of the genome with more or less the same probability, but this doesn't mean that any change of the phenotype is equally probable. And finally, advances in genomics have shown how Hox genes (and other homeotic determinants) determine body plan and provide the "missing linkage" between morphology and genetics. Mammuthus provided a number of references for the latter, but I'd like to add one on line for those of you who are "university challenged": Analysis of a complete homeobox gene repertoire: Implications for the evolution of diversity.
What it boils down to is that de Beer's question, first posed in the late 1930's and re-capitulated () in 1971, has finally been answered by a brand new science. The research supporting the answer is large, and growing. The research supporting creationist quote-mining on the other hand, is small and diminishing.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 10-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-17-2002 10:20 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024