Evolution is a Religious Issue

Ok, some have suggested it is improper to edit so much so I am making the same point more concisely to clarify. Can you substantiate what you mean by that, and some studies indicating what you mean?Certainly, there is "some" genetic similarity?Have there been studies of examples of convergent evolution where one attempts to determine if with the acquired similar traits there has been an increase in genetic similarity?

Randman, you ask too much. If I was able to determine exactly the genetic program responsible for growing a dolphins fin (or a human arm) then I would certainly not waste my time on this board. I'd be giving talks everywhere and think about my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.It appears to me that we are jumping around all over the place. Maybe we should finish up some aspects of the discussion before we get to a new topic, right? Otherwise I might get the feeling that you just keep on pulling new ideas out of the limitless hat for me to answer, without you actually reflecting on the answers that I am giving.

No, they have not published their findings, yet. However, there are other ways to compare genomes without having a complete genome sequence. In fact, the earliest comparisons were made before we were even able to sequence genomes.

Well, let's just finish up the convergent evolution principle first before moving on. First of all, we don't know yet if it creates more genetic similarity or less, right? The science is not that far along is what I am hearing you say. That's OK, btw. No evidence in that regard for or against.I suspect though acquiring more similar traits creates more genetic similarity than existed prior. Maybe I ought to write that down as an hypothesis, but since I am not about to get a degree in the field of genetics, it wouldn't mean much.But there is some general evidence that it could create more similarities since, as has been stated, living species that are more similar are also more similar genetically, right?So once we establish that similarities can emerge without mutual ancestry passing on those similarities, then that undercuts the idea that genetic similarity equates common ancestry, does it not?You can have similarity developing without common ancestry.That to me is a powerful idea that goes against the grain of universal common descent.This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 08:26 PM

randman, You have entirely missed the point.Chimps, & other apes, are morphologically similar to us. It does not therefore follow that we would be as similar at the molecular level that has no bearing on morphology. Given all life has a common authorship, there is no reason why proteins involved in human metabolic pathways shouldn't be more similar to a jellyfishes (or any other organism out of the millions available) proteins involved in the same pathways than a chimp.What a colossal coincidence that like morphology, the molecules tell the same story of similarity, don't you think?Evidence is data that is consistent with a theory. Consistent morphological & molecular data showing similar systematic patterns between species is therefore evidence of common decent.Mark

---

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

Mark, I don't think I am following you because I would have expected chimps to be more similar at the molecular level. Maybe I am not getting you here?Btw, isn't the following statement true in light of convergent evolution?You can have similarity developing without common ancestry.

Well, let's just finish up first if closer related species actually have more similar genomes. For example something along the lines of humans-chimps-mice-flies-yeast-bacteria. So that way we can put to rest the objections you found on this weird anti-Darwinism site that seemed to be full of mis-information.

Keep going on with your discussion after my post, but I'm relatively "new" here and did not get the chance to reply to the first post on this thread before hundreds of others did so... I just wanted to add my 2 cents to the original topic of discussion:

quote:

---

This is the real crux of the debate. It is a God issue. Evolution requires a staggering amount of faith, moreso than creationism in my opinion, and since God alone, or nobody if you are an atheist, was present "in the beginning," neither side will be able to "scientifically" prove their assertion. It is from this viewpoint that I am contemplating the practicality of participating in these discussions. It really is a God issue.

---

The science of evolution and the religious are entirely different subject matter. Scientific studies are constructs of the mind. One naturally questions an occurrence in the environment, forms an educated guess, or hypothesis, and assesses the problem with tedious experiments and tests. Gravity is a great example. Though we may not see it, we have proven it is there and requires no faith-based reasoning that it exists.In a religion, humanity accepts a revelation and/or teaching(s) that we do not expect to be regarded with suspicion. For this reason, a faithful individual does not necessitate science for proof. We substantiate them [our religion] or acknowledge them in terms of their implications or underlying meaning, the effects or outcome they may have for our own personal life or the lives of others.Thanks, please continue.This message has been edited by The PaleoGuy, 06-03-2005 07:41 PM

I dunno. I think people "test" out religious ideas in their own lives to see if they are "real" and correct. It's actually a similar process to a degree, except that the lab so to speak is one's life.People experiment in their own lives, set up criteria for evaluating experiences and ideas, etc,....

Ok, let's hear the evidence.But remember the conundrum here. If convergent evolution occurs, that means a certain level of similarities are the result not of a common ancestor passing traits along.So if we verify that similar species are correspondingly genetically similar, as I would expect by the way, then that is evidence against using genetic similarities for exclusive evidence of common ancestry, not evidence for it, because some of these similarities did not develop due to a common ancestor passing along shared traits, correct?

Alright, so first we have to establish a way to actually get at true closest relations without the use of DNA sequencing and without convergent evolution getting in the way.Fortunately, the cladistic system was established before the advent of DNA sequencing, so we actually have such a system. Classic cladistics looks for similarities and differences in organisms in order to determine how closely they are related. They might not always get things completely right, but they certainly can get close.And the idea is to not only look for general morphological markers: i.e. has wings, does not have wings or lives in water vs. does not live in water, since these physical attributes can easily be the cause of thhe animal living in water or in the air.So, we examine as many external and internal markers as possible. With this data, independent of any DNA analysis we come to the conclusion that humans and chimps are very similar. And even though we are different from a mouse, we do share a number of characteristics: we give birth to live young, we nurse them, we have four limbs, we have a jaw, a cranium, skeleton, ... Using these methods we also find that dolphins, even though they live in the water are more closely related to other mammals than to fish. For example dolphins have flippers (bones covered with skin) while fish do not, dolphins have lungs like mammals, not gills like fish, dolphins give birth to live young and nurse, fish do not, and the list is endless. So, using this system we can find that all mammals seem to be closely related. Interestingly, there is a group of animals that has a placenta like mammals, but differs in a number of other ways: the marsupials. Using similar characteristics, we can determine that marsupials are related to mammals, but it appears that marsupials are more closely related in their group while mammals are more closely related within their group. I.e. a kangoroo is more closely related to a wombat than to a cow or a mouse is more closely related to a cow than to an wallaby.Can we agree on this so far?Edit: Alright, I gotta run. Please, give this a good read and think about it. If you have questions, you can check out cladistics on the web and see if it makes sense to you. Also, if you don't agree, be specific, does the dolphin vs fish/mammals make no sense or does the mammals/marsupials make no sense, ... and if it does not make sense, exactly what causes it to make no sense. I will get back to you on this. But if it does make sense, then I will take it from there a little later tonight or tomorrow. Cheers.This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-03-2005 09:17 PM

I had to go, but I will say I agree thus far, except I would substitute "similar" for "closely related" to show at this point we are just identifying which animals are more similar and which less.What's the next step?I would suppose we would compare genetic studies of different creatures, and set of creatures, to verify genetic similarity corresponds with physical similarity, correct?This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 09:49 PM

Exactly! This is underway and has been done for rather a lot of animals (but only partial genome sequences). The physical similarities fit well AND the degree of difference in some parts match up to the fossil determined dates that were determined well before the DNA was examined.In addtion, some discrepancies (whales for example) had the DNA saying one thing and bones suggesting something else. Then additional fossils were found which fit the DNA.

That's interesting, but how about a few links, not so much an avalanche to "prove" your case, but just to get at some specifics to get a handle on this.A few years ago, mind you, I remember reading some DNA stuff that was problematic for other data.

Since you may not be around tomorrow or later tonight, I'd like to throw some ideas ahead of time so to speak for evaluating the data, and once again, I would have thought this was a well studied area.First, if a species is shown to be genetically more similar to say, a theorized cousin for lack of a better term, than to it's theorized ancestor, or the immediate descendant of it's ancestor, then the whole thing falls apart, right? You cannot have something that is presumably closely related show a wider difference genetically with something presumably farther related. By presumably, I mean assuming common descent when viewing the evidence and working within evolutionist theories of ancestry.One solution could be people are wrong on how closely they are related, of course, but examples where we see something like this should be very instructive.Next, we should consider the possibilities of any examples where 2 species are highly similar, but genetically are farther apart. Take the concept of 2 people that look-alike, who would appear to be a sibling, but they are not. If it can be shown that greater similarity can be produced without greater similarity genetically, then that undercuts the claim that similarity corresponds to genetic relatedness. So if you do not have the DNA, for example, maybe the appearance of similar traits in species in the fossil record does not indicate genetic similarity or common ancestry.And really, the more I think about this, genetics and DNA are going to be problematic for arguing for common descent regardless of the findings because if we see that species can be similar but with a wider difference genetically than species that are not as similar, that undercuts the guiding principle entirely since what that will have shown is that similarity can be produced without common ancestry.But on the other hand, if we find that species that are more similar are indeed more similar genetically, then that undercuts common descent even more since convergent evolution posits similarities can be produced without common ancestry.Basically, either way, convergent evolution makes the use of DNA and even the arguments based on similarities highly suspect, and that's because convergent evolution is put forth to explain the data indicating similarities can emerge independently of direct common ancestry.It seems a major condundrum for evolutionary theory, and I am not sure any genetic evidence can shed but so much light on it.If we find that marsupials are more closely related genetically to their placental couterparts than say other species considered closer via the theorized evolutionary "tree, then that definitely is a strong argument against the use of DNA as supportive of universal common descent.But if we find otherwise, it is problematic since it still shows that similarities can arise without common descent.Btw, the following article is a little old (7 years), but it raises some interesting questions on the data.http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i10f.htmPerhaps someone here can post some links that address the early discrepancies in the DNA data with established ideas of evolutionary patterns.This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 10:44 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 10:50 PM