Evolution in pieces.

Hello John Paul, mind if I butt in?I know that this has already been pointed out to you, but I thought I'd add my twopenneth in as well.Have you actually had a really good look at the evidence provided by DNA? If it is evidence for a creator it seems to be one who started out simple, added bits, slowly changed others, kept retroviruses in swapped bits of DNA around and duplicated genes like crazy. It is not simply that the DNA is similar, it is that (for example) we are VERY similar in our genetic make-up to Chimps (and Bonobos), slightly more different than Gorillas, then Orangutans ... Old world apes/monkeys... new world monkeys.....prosimians etc etc etcIt seems to me that this creator is doing a very good impression of descent by modification that matches the progression suggested by the fossil record.

John Paul,If I seem to be repeating what you have heard from evolutionists before it is only because creationists are adept at making statements like "it can be equally used as evidence for a common creator..." and then leaving it there as if that was enough. I've seen it a couple of times on these forums and I thought I'd take you up on it. If it is purely due to misinterpretations from evil scientists trying to bring down established religion then it should be easy to look at the data an reinterpret. So why don't you do this?Don't come back with meaningless (your lastest 'two sentences" attempt was completely detached from the facts) , use the real data. For example: when you compare the ribosome (a protein/RNA complex that ALL life has) from a vast number of organisms by looking at its' sequence you construct a 'tree-of-life' that spookily mirrors those produced by fossils/comparitive anatomy. The sequence changes bit by bit as you go along each of the branches, so if a creator was involved in this process he/she is tinkering with things a bit at a time - rather like the way evolution is meant to work. How else would you read these facts?Incidentally can you also back up your claim that The chimp genome has recently been sequenced and from what I've read it seems to back up how remarkably similar we are![This message has been edited by Ooook!, 12-17-2003]

Hello there Elder,Welcome to the debate. Let me start by asking you two questions that creationists tend to avoid answering:When we look at the sequences of genes (like those for ribosomal RNA for example) and create phylogenys etc from that raw data we get results that mirror the conclusions drawn from comparitive anatomy and the fossil record. Pseudogenes, rearrangements and the positions of retroviruses are all shared by organisms predicted to have shared a common ancestry. How can you reinterpret this data to imply the hand of a creator?Don't just assert that it can be interpretted, show us how it can! So far I have had been given tortured analagies and quotes from famous people. You seem like you want to talk about the cell and molecular biology of evolution so please can you explain the creationist standpoint by dealing with the biological facts.As for my second question, you mentioned that you were with John Paul asking for how evolution can provide large changes with simple mutation:So can you give a specific example of an evoltionary step that is too far to be caused by mutation? Define a real (ie one suggested by the theory of evolution not one imagined by creationists) 'macroevoltionary' step and explain why simple changes in DNA could not have caused it.I feel that if these two questions are directly answered the debate *might* just develop from the normal yes it is, no it isn't format.ThanksOoook!Edit: a plague of typos[This message has been edited by Ooook!, 12-19-2003]

Blimey! Who urinated in your soup?Before I reply let me make one thing clear: I am not trying to play word games or score points, I am honestly trying to determine your position by asking questions and I don't appreciate the hostile nature of your reply.That said, you did raise a few questions in your post (in between avoiding my first question and calling my second one lame!) so I'll start with one.DNA similarities :The DNA evidence relies on the cast iron fact that the enzymes involved in replicating it are imperfect; they make mistakes. You mention your family tree in your post so let's start there. If you compared one of your genes to the same gene in your father's genome they'd be pretty similar. Any mistakes that are in his are going to be in your gene, and you may even have added one or two mistakes yourself.Apart from the other evidence that you are father and son your genes would show you are related. If you had a look at the bloke down the road you would share a common ancestor and you could find out where your lineages diverged. How would you know? There would be common mistakes and mistakes unique to each of the family lines. As you point out, if you left it there it might just be due to chance similarity, it may just be coincidence. So you can do the same with many many genes until the odds start to stack up.This is how DNA evidence for evolution works (also using common rearrangements, gene duplication and retroviruses.), it does not rely on what the DNA actually codes for. So just saying similarity is all there is not really a fair representation of the facts. You've gotta come up with an explanation that fits these facts. Evolution has got one, so far creationism doesn't seem to be able to provide.If you want to discuss this or any of the other points you want to raise (like the limits of our knowledge in molecular developmental biology for example) then I will be happy to continue.I look forward to your reply.