Evolution is a Religious Issue

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

Until someone gets nuclear DNA from both, the question cannot be answered

​

2. Did Neanderthals interbreed with the ancestors of people today?

​

Until nuclear DNA is obtained, the question cannot be answered. In addition, only about 5 neandertal sequences have been obtained compared to several thousand humans so there is simply not enough data to say one way or the other.

---

So DNA testing cannot, as of this date, determine the relatedness of even one seeming tribe of people, Neanderthals, from another, Cro-Magnon?Correct? And yet the claim is that just as paternity tests can determine relatedness of a child to a father, that the same test can applied to show that common descent? The problem is that if you cannot even determine if modern humansare related to Neanderthals, then how in the world can you claim that you are determining that we are descended from, say, a self-replicating rock, a single organism, an ape-like creature of whatever?The bottom line, guys, is you cannot. Maybe one day you will, but as of today, by your own admission, you cannot.Now, let's look at living species, if you cannot determine the rated of mutations, etc,....you have no sure way to tell exactly why and how certain genetic similarities came to be. As an illustration, one of the claims of evolutionists is that even a species that went extinct can be transitional because it shows transitional forms, and even though it did not evolve further, the evolution of that form developing with that species indicates the likelihood of the same trait and form evolving from a different "line" of evolution.This is the famous illustration of the bush instead of the evolutionary "tree."Well, let's look at your claim a little deeper. If similarites (genetic development) can occur separately and independently, then that genetic development does not indicate that the species descended from one another.You guys claim that means they both had a common ancestor, but in claiming that you are giving up the argument that if we see genes develop that they must have developed all from the same species. You are claiming that genes (or mutations and combinations, etc,...) can develop independent of one another.2 species not in contact with one another can develop the same mutations and same new forms, according to you guys.Your claim thus consists that merely because all living things, or most, have DNA, that they must all be related, and that's a nice concept, but that's all it is.It could be that the properties of matter, energy, God, chemistry, etc,...dictate that DNA be the "information pattern" necessary for all life, whether multiple first life forms, universal single common ancestry, special creation, ID, or whatever.There is nothing but argument from similarity here, and similarities can be explained by common mechanisms, common authorship, common material (laws of physics and chemistry), etc,...and still work if universal common descent were not true, and since it works just as good if universal common descent is not true, then thus far, you guys have not presented falsifiable theory.

No, it's not a HUGE coincidence, but rather what you would expect. Why is it to hard for you guys to realize that, of course, the more similar to people an organism is, the more similar the stuff that tranfers the information pattern?Duh!That hardly shows evolution any more than claiming the fact there are mammals and reptiles indicates universal common descent, except it doesn't. All it shows is that there are similarities and differences between animals.Let me ask you the converse to prove what I am talking about. If common descent were not true, just assume that for sake of analysis, would we expect to see anything different as far as DNA?The answer is no.To claim otherwise is like claiming, well, why do we all have to live in and be part of matter. What's the difference? You could just as much say that because there are similar laws in chemistry and physics, that all animals live within these similarities, that we must have evolved from a single original life form.What do you think things "should look like" if common descent were not true? Do you think all living things would be the same, live by different physical laws, or what?Once you boil down your argument, there is no scientific argument for Darwinism here. It's an assumption. If you want to say, well, we think the assumption is true, I have no problem with that, but it is still an assumption.Similarities in design, including DNA, do not prove universal common descent.

I want to make one correction. I posted out of memory when arguing with an evolutionist how he claimed we were much more similar to an obscure plant or animal that I had realized. I cannot substantiate that, but do recall the fact the evolutionist was arguing, which he was saying "new genes" really did not have to be added so much, or they can add to themselves or some such.We were discussing where the new genes came from and where the information itself came from.But since I cannot go back and substantiate old arguments, I will withdraw the comment on something being more related than chimps, which may have been an error from remembering incorrectly anyway, and instead present an alternative idea that shows the same thing.According to various media reports, we share 50% of genes with a banana, 75% with a certain worm and mice, and something like 60% with a fruit-fly. I am not going to provide all the details on that unless someone contests it since anyone can look this up, but here is one article along these lines mentioning the worm.http://www.darwinism-watch.com/genetic_similarity.phpFirst let me say that I realize all of these claims including the chimp claims of near 97% are somewhat bogus since complete genomes have not been mapped out, but that does not stop evolutionists from using the same data so I will respond to their use in a similar manner. I could be wrong as well, but this is an impression. I googled one site with a high school science teacher and claimed there was near 100% similarity with mice so that was clearly bogus. I tend to think that it's way too early in the mapping stage to tell, myself.But one thing stikes me. Why would we share about the same genetic similarity with a worm and a mice considering mice are more similar?It appears to me that contrary to what some claim, the present data disagrees strongly with the concept of common descent, if genetic differences and similarities do show degrees of relatedness. There are too many anomalies that don't line up (but maybe that is incomplete knowledge here).Keep in mind that I would expect more genetic similarities for creatures more similar as a matter of common sense. That doesn't mean it proves common descent, but it is what you'd expect.But that doesn't seem to be what we see.Once again though, clearing up this, while helping removing very strong evidence against common descent is not much as far evidence for common descent exclusive to anything else.It's just something I have noticed, that genetic similarities and differences do not seem uniform to actual relatedness, at least across different species.Note: I edited when I realized after I posted but prior to seeing any responses that I had mixed up fruit flies and mice. Anyone is welcome to provide more detail to clear this up. I don't think it proves common descent, and I would expect genetic similarity to more or less match physical similarities.This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 06:09 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 06:22 PM

Well, randman, it is great that you retract one unsubstantiated claim. But why in the world would you replace it with a different unsubstatiated claim?So, here we go: I contest your data. There is no study that compares humans with mice and nematodes using the same methodology and comes to the conclusion that the genome of nematodes is more closely related to the human genome than the mouse genome is related to the human genome.Remember randman that 'media reports' do not really qualify as a source for scientific data. Otherwise we would have conclusive evidence that Elvis lives, Jesus appeared in Oklahoma and on the moon at the same time and that aliens are abducting every farmer in the midwest to give them an anal probe.Edit: Inserted final paragraph.This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-03-2005 06:20 PM

randman, So why doesn't the Chimpanzee use proteins in Krebs cycle (or any other metabolic process) that are most similar to a Yucca plant then? Or a jellyfish? A lion? It could be this way, given the molecules are funtionally identical, yet the molecules involved are most similar to a human. Why would this be, again, if it didn't need to be? After all, there are millions of species that allegedly share a common "authorship" with the chimp, aren't there?Why do molecules consistently return a similar relationship when cladistics are applied?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Mark, the answer is simple. Since chimps are more similar to humans, one would expect there to be greater similarities in the DNA and otherwise.But just because we are more similar to chimps than say, an oyster, does not mean that we all have a common ancestor.Take the similarities of a Ford and a Chevy, they are more similar due to competing against one another. The market dictates both variety and similarity, or they go extinct, meaning no one wants to buy them.There is a competitiveness in natural selection that probably favors genes and traits being favored over others, but that does not mean that genes and traits cannot develop independent of one another.Or, take a different example, the similarities of a Ford Expedition and Ford Explorer. They are similar due to having a common designer, not a common ancestor.There are other plausible explanations besides universal common descent. You guys just don't want to own up to that though because you are afraid to admit to any weaknesses on evolutionary theory.

I had already fixed that prior to seeing your post, but the general point remains the same, it appears there is some discrepancy between genetic similarities and actual physical relatedness and similarity.Chalk it up to incomplete data?Probably. But until that is resolved, it seems like there is a bit of overstatement going on.For example, are chimps really 97% genetically similar to humans?I had heard that chimp genomes have not been fully examined.

Uh, since you presented no rational argument, I am not sure what to say. You seem to want to divert the topic to absurdities such as suggesting reproduction could be special creation.But let's cut to the chase.You admitted that we cannot tell from DNA evidence our relatedness to Neanderthals.Now, you want to back off of that and claim we can tell relatedness.Which is it?You guys claimed just a paternity test can determine relatedness so we can determine relatedness, paternity, of species, but you cannot even tell me to what degree we are related to Neanderthals.You say, but we don't have DNA.So what! You claimed you could do it, which presumes you have the DNA to do it, and yet you cannot show it.So point in fact you cannot run a paternity test to show the path of human evolution and relatedness.End of story!This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 07:12 PM

Randman, great that you changed it. However, I still question your data. Can you actually give us a real source that claims that the genomic difference from human to mouse is the same as the genomic difference from humans to fruit flies?Btw. the Chimp genome has been sequenced and the results are available publicly. A paper discribing the results is expected in late spring/early summer. For more info click click here.Edit: Added last paragraph.This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-03-2005 07:18 PM

Randman, you are missing the point. The enzymes are functionally interachangeable, they just differ in their sequence. So, the mollusc enzymes of the Krebs Cycle would work just fine in humans and vice versa, just like the Chimp enzymes of the Krebs Cycle would work in humans. Yet, the similarities in sequence follow the relatedness of the species.

OK, so your are saying that if there was special creation, that they would not have the same parents?But that sort of misses the point. Assuming that via special creation, 2 people that are exactly alike or as much as twins are created, they would have very similar if not the same genes, no?So point one is that similarity, even genetic similarity, does not equate common descent.The common example is of something designed like a Ford Expedition and a Ford Explorer looking similar due to the same designer, not common ancestry. But I've got a twist on that, which I am sure someone has thought of before, and may have an answer whether right or wrong.For sake of illustration, consider the similarities a Ford and a Chevy SUVs have, or a BMW and higher-end Japanese sedan, etc,...,Both differences and similarities are driven by the marketplace, which rests in part on human nature (a development presumed within a biological system). Car makers adopt similarities with their competitors in order to continue to keep up (natural selection?), and also must introduce changes to try to gain a selective advantage (sort of like mutations), but if the changes don't work, or they fall behind, a model may, in fact, go extinct.The changes though do not occur as a result of linear evolution, descent with modification, but the environment puts similar pressure and demands upon the 2 species (models), which results in some changes being accepted and some being abandoned.Why cannot similar genes and genetic combinations "evolve" indedepently within 2 species groups since similar aspects of environment pressure all species, namely similarity in physical laws, properties, etc,...There are differences in environmental pressure as well, but it seems you guys see a mutation in one species and a similar species and assume they shared a common ancestor that developed that mutation when it could well be that they both indepedently developed that mutation or trait or whatever via a shared environment applying similar pressures which gave certain traits a selective advantage for both species.The idea that traits and genetic combinations could only occur via a common ancestor for the 2 species would be an incorrect assumption in this example.Similarities thus suggest some sort of commonality, but not necessarily common ancestry. Similar traits can develop in species independently of each other.This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 07:31 PM

Thanks for letting me know that. Note their comment: Have they published the details of those findings yet?

The funny thing is, Randman, something like you describe happens all the time. It is called convergent evolution. Organisms that end up leading similar lives end up developing similar physical characteristics.Oddly enough, though, even though their morphology is simlar (driven by the environment) they do not share genetic similarity. For example, a dolphin is genetically more closely related to other mammals than to fish, even though dolphins and fish live in similar environments and share a number of physical traits. Just type in 'convergent evolution' into your search engine of choice and read up on the multitude of examples you will find.

I am familiar with convergent evolution, which is why I described this process, but am not as much up to speed on genetic comparisons.You make an interesting point, but I would qualify it to a degree. One would not expect dolphins to be closer to fish. You have mentioned only one trait, but there a bunch of others so you would expect dolphins not to be similar overall to fish, but that does not change the possibility of genetic sequencing or new genes, presumably mind you, being acquired of both independently and that reflect somehow in their genomes.What would be more telling is to determine exactly what genes or genetic sequences program the dolpin stem cells or whatever to develop fins and morphology suitable for water and swimming, and then to compare that to the same stuff in fish.In other words, you would need to remove the factors that are not related and try to isolate the genes responsible for, or the combinations responsible, for enabling those traits. We are probably not there in being able to do that, but convergent evolution, imo, seems fairly strong evidence against using similarities as evidence for common descent.But maybe fish and dolphins are not the best species to use since they are so different in many ways.Maybe it would be helpful to substantiate your view a little more. Can you show me where they have isolated the genetic areas that cause a similar trait in proposed convergent evolution occuring?For example, maybe someone has studied an example of convergent species where there is existing DNA from their theorized ancestor species some time back. That way, one could examine the changes required in both species from some point prior, and see if with convergency (if that's OK to use the term that way here), that they are also now genetically more similar.If that's been done, that could either support your contention in the quote above, or show that's not the case, and support the idea that convergent evolution creates more genetic similarity than existed before.Now, that would be, imo, something interesting, and real science.Can you show some studies that support your idea here?This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 07:55 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 08:01 PM

This is true as far as gross adult morphologies go, but in terms of the developmental genetics involved and the molecular basis there is considerable evidence for homology of the sytems beyond that accountable for by convergence of their morphology.TTFN,WK