DNA similarities ARE NOT proof of evolution

I'd mentioned this in another thread here, but there was a debate recently on the intended topic of this thread: The Thomas-ReMine Debate.I challenge booboocruise to read that debate and evaluate the participants' arguments.I myself believe that Dave Thomas was the winner; his arguments were very cogent and to-the-point. Walter ReMine, however, wandered endlessly and never really bothered to explain what his "Message Theory" was -- he seemed to be making it up as he goes.[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 04-24-2003]

However, ReMine used lots of font changes, bold, underlining, and plenty of exclamation points.Therefore, he must have been right when he said that deforestation would have been the result is pandas could efficiently digest cellulose...

I thought this topic was about DNA, not destruction of pandas habitat...

I was just making a comment on creationist hero ReMine.Keep your pants on.

One side said genetic simularities don't prove evolution, and the other agreed that however compelling its not the outright proof of evolution. Where is the arguement? Evolution is supported by so much evidence that saying that any one thing doesn't prove it is a failed enterprise.Furthermore, can evolution really be proven? I think we can prove it to the limits of inductive thought, enough to show that it would be silly to believe otherwise.I guess I'm just destined to travel the middle of the road on this one, being an evolutionary creationist and all.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

The molecular evidence is far more sophisticated and compelling than mere similarity between genomes of related species.Go here for evidence for how the human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, still separate in other great apes:
Chromosome fusionGo here for a detailed explanation of how the comparisons between the mouse and the human genomes point inexorably to common descent:
Mouse genome homeFor example: 'The rate of substitutions in ancestral repeat sequences in non-coding DNA is the same as the rate of substitution at four fold degenerate sites in functional regions - very strong evidence for mutation and selection over a long time.' There is much more evidence posted at the above URL and other pages at the same site that it links to.

Wow! I might really learn some of that there biology stuff after all! Those links are quite a resource for us amateurs! Thanks for posting them, and thanks even more if you wrote them, Speckle! And Welcome to C vs E![This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-26-2003]

Thanks for the welcome. The molecular evidence for common dscent is overwhelming and it goes far beyond mere similarity. I am more than happy to expand on or explain in more detail any of the pieces of evidence on the links, some of which are, admittedly, quite technical. With the publication of other mammalian genomes (including chimpanzee quite soon) to supplement man and mouse, the evidence for common descent in the mammalian lineage is set to become even more compelling.The website I linked to has other articles and arguments for evolution (and not just in molecular biology). It includes a thorough rebuttal of recent creationist claims that Mitochondrial Eve is only 6500 years old, examples of several recently discovered transitional fossils and rebuttals of challenges to U-Pb dating and the constancy of the speed of light. Alec's Evolution Pages with scientific evidence for evolution and refutations of creationist arguments

This message is a refreshed respond to the author of this topic.The DNA-similarities that exist is not of the type that one would expect from separately created organisms. In comparing big orthologous sequences one sees that it looks like a gradual change.Ex. Cats differ from dogs less than they do with elephants. A SUDDEN creation case could have made the sequences so that penguins sequences was more similar to some mammals orthologous sequences and some insects orthologous sequences than with some other birds.Ok that all organisms have cytb, COI, COII, alpha-globin and beta-globin. But the PATTERN lokks like evolution. If these genes all looked the same in all organisms or if the case was as mentioned above I would believe in a sudden creation.

There are more than just one evidence to support evolution. One of the most compelling evidence is the universiality of the genetic code that shows of a common ancestry for all biological organisms.Whether evolution has occurred is generally not debated in the realm of real science, and certainly creationist's non-sense has no place in any scientific discussion. Those people are just wasting our time.[This message has been edited by Sepiraph, 05-02-2003]

Well, that's why you're reading these discussion on the internet, not on the pages of Nature. No offense to the admins (Percy especially) who clearly devote a lot of their time to running this whole thing.My point is, creationists have to be debated somewhere or else their claims of being victim of a conspiracy to silence them begin to ring true. This way we're able to show them the error of their ways before they launch on a crusade to destroy science education in this country and others.

Right, I agree with you theoretically but then if they outrightly reject science or alter the facts/experiment data to their own likings, then they would reject whatever "evidences" we provide. Remember that a religion works on faith, and that's blind faith, mind you.I guess I should say that it is a good thing that we are having this type of discussions as opposed to no discussions at all. However, maybe they should do some research before engaging in this type of discussions so at least they have some clues on what they are talking about.

True enough. Some of them think, however, that their faith isn't blind - they can justify their beliefs with reason and science too. Once they've made that gamble, we're able to put the choice in front of them - there's no scientific evidence for creationist models, so either they must admit their faith cannot be justified by science or accept the findings of science and adapt their beliefs to match. Either way we've made our point - young earth models can't be held up by the evidence.Even if a really hard-core creationist says "Gosh, I thought I had this killer proof but it totally failed to convince anybody, why might that be?" the seed is there. They must at least entertain the idea that their faith might not be the best place to get ideas about the nature of reality. That's enough for me, I guess.

There is new evidence on-line here about the process that triggered the divergence, from the common ancestor, of the two lineages that led to modern humans and modern chimpanzees. It uses the similarity (homology is the technical term) between the genomes of humans and chimps but is far more sophisticated than that. The conclusions are based on comparing the rate of divergent evolution in chromosomes that have major inversions compared with those that do not. Go here:Human/chimpanzee divergence

quote:

---

If you mapped out the DNA sequence in EVERY SINGLE HUMAN on earth, you'll find that no two are exactly allike

---

Aren't you forgetting identical twins? They have exactly the same DNA sequence.Well, you could say that twins aren't exactly identical because their DNA sequence will have some mutations as they age. But that would mean you admit mutations happen, which is a strong part of the "theory" of evolution.Looks like you backed yourself into a corner buddy, but that wouldn't be the first time would it