Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Excellent! So we can conclude from the above information that humans and chimp similarity is somewhere in the range of 95-99%, which is higher than the percentage shared by humans and mice. Would you agree to that?

Nope..... You were already shown that the figure is now considered to be 95-96% by evolutionists. Why do you still use exaggerated numbers you know are wrong?

But also Greg..... Not sure if you recall but I told you that its difficult to compare exact percentages because there are complete sequences missing from one type of animal to another.
Also geneticists don't yet fully understand how the DNA information is being read. It seems some DNA can be read backwards.....and with overlaying layers of complexity. Comparing percentages is not just as simple as comparing two pages of a book together and comparing how many times each letter appears.

The 'correct' figure may be 96%... It may be much lower. "The initial chimpanzee genome publication was drawn from sequences produced early on in the chimpanzee genome project. These sequences were considerably more similar to human than those that were produced later in the project, by an average difference of about 5%. In fact, many datasets exhibited over a 10% difference in similarity. It may be that greater precautions against human DNA contamination were taken later in the project and thus produced less contamination. If the data from these seemingly less-contaminated sets are considered, the chimpanzee genome is no more than 86% identical to the human genome Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.Genetics

 

[Lon]

Excellent! So we can conclude from the above information that humans and chimp similarity is somewhere in the range of 95-99%, which is higher than the percentage shared by humans and mice. Would you agree to that?

I take a wait and see approach when percentages change from year to year. The reason is because they are only comparing DNA that they are aware of what it does. I think 'junk DNA' a careless bin word. Wouldn't 'unknown' DNA be a more precise and better scientific term?

I'm not a fan of abortion, but why do you have a problem with already dead human fetuses being used in order to develop medical techniques that can end up saving millions?

They can't do any good in the ground. But if we can learn valuable info from them in a lab and apply that to help other people, why not?

In this case, because we are the ones responsible. It would be like buying the victims of war. All other bodies we get are people that volunteered their own bodies for science. So in a nutshell, it is the poor ethics both by the monsters who took the lives, the in-between salesman, and the one who buys what we do not rightfully own and have no business owning.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope..... You were already shown that the figure is now considered to be 95-96% by evolutionists. Why do you still use exaggerated numbers you know are wrong?

But also Greg..... Not sure if you recall but I told you that its difficult to compare exact percentages because there are complete sequences missing from one type of animal to another.
Also geneticists don't yet fully understand how the DNA information is being read. It seems some DNA can be read backwards.....and with overlaying layers of complexity. Comparing percentages is not just as simple as comparing two pages of a book together and comparing how many times each letter appears.

The 'correct' figure may be 96%... It may be much lower. "The initial chimpanzee genome publication was drawn from sequences produced early on in the chimpanzee genome project. These sequences were considerably more similar to human than those that were produced later in the project, by an average difference of about 5%. In fact, many datasets exhibited over a 10% difference in similarity. It may be that greater precautions against human DNA contamination were taken later in the project and thus produced less contamination. If the data from these seemingly less-contaminated sets are considered, the chimpanzee genome is no more than 86% identical to the human genome Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.Genetics

Do you read ANYTHING before you post? At all?


Do you understand the concept of range? It's a set of values within which the correct value lies, but if there is only one correct value we may not be sure which it is. Lon said that his sites listed similarity to chimps anywhere between 95-99% similarity. Only one site said 95-96%, 6! That's not a conclusion by any stretch! There is conflicting (partially) data, and therefore a range of values is needed.


If you had ever taken a science course beyond high school, as you have now admitted to not doing (and you could do at your local community college for next to nothing if you were actually interested in the reality) perhaps you would understand why I represented the data as I did. As it stands, however, you've simply stood up another strawman to knock down by claiming I'm using false information.


And on top of that, this is coming from the guy that thinks AiG is credible? That's hilarious

 

[Greg Jennings]

I take a wait and see approach when percentages change from year to year. The reason is because they are only comparing DNA that they are aware of what it does. I think 'junk DNA' a careless bin word. Wouldn't 'unknown' DNA be a more precise and better scientific term?

Because I've seen how 6days and others try to twist the word "junk" into something it clearly doesn't mean in this context, I couldn't agree more

In this case, because we are the ones responsible. It would be like buying the victims of war. All other bodies we get are people that volunteered their own bodies for science. So in a nutshell, it is the poor ethics both by the monsters who took the lives, the in-between salesman, and the one who buys what we do not rightfully own and have no business owning.

Except in your scenario no good can come out of the dead bodies. With dead fetal tissue, scientific advancements that could (and have) saved lives can be found using the tissue. It has properties that post-fetal tissue simply doesn't

 

[Greg Jennings]

Ok... thanks. I missed you admitting that you were wrong. Apologies. I'm sorry.

:up: I appreciate the apology

Greg..... you would not have to swallow humble pills so often if you could seperate / understand the huge difference between your belief system and science. Reminder that when you first used the incorrect figure, I asked you to do research. It would have been simple to find out your numbers were outdated and wrong. Instead you just insisted you were correct with a "nope" and asked me to find the info for you.

I just answered this in the post above

Nope! The science shows we are genetically more similar to chimps than mice. It does not show we are related... that is simply your belief. It is not surprising to anyone that chimps have a greater genetic similarity to us than frogs, finches, flowers and fruit.

Reminder... you agreed with my conclusion, that 'probably a designer would use similar blueprints to create similar structures. And, that a manufacturer would use the same or similar information system, to perform same function in different models'

We aren't related to chimps really, no. We're related to a common primate ancestor that chimps are also related to. Thought I'd correct on on that for what must be the 100th time, quickly.

But anyway, as you've stated above I don't think that genetic similarity can be used to prove or disprove God designing life. You're trying to set up this strawman to no avail. What does disprove your particular version of how He did it is the entire geologic and paleontologic record. And that is why only organizations that make you swear to ignore any evidence that contradicts Genesis, like AiG and ICR, support young-Earth creationism.


Or can you find just one single scientific group that says YEC is the right way?

Greg... I answered your question several times previously. Meanwhile, it does not matter how little, or how much education you have. (Unless you use your education to promote yourself as an authority to help sell your beliefs). I can continue to help you and correct you when neccesary. But, also....please do some research before posting 15 year old info found on atheist web sites, and in outdated Dawkins books. Science has moved forward. (And..... I promise not to be so condescending in my next reply to you.)

Thank you for answering.

But if you refuse to examine what I consider to be credible information (as you've done time and again), and you consider AiG to be credible information, then it's obvious that you've never seriously studied the topic. THAT is why I ask that question, 6. You don't have to have a college education to know about something, of course. But, like you, if you have never even taken a daily, immersive, months-long look at geology and/or biology that is taught by someone knowledgable, then you've never really studied it. You just think that clicking a few links is legitimate research. And that is one of the many reasons why YECs are laughed at by science

 

[6days]

There is conflicting (partially) data, and therefore a range of values is needed.

Do you find it funny how only 3 days ago you were insisting that there was no range?You were determined to go with 98%. Greg...a range of values is not "needed". What is helpful though is an understanding of how similar genes, may be responsible for performing similar functions.

If you had ever taken a science course beyond high school, as you have now admitted to not doing

Well, I didn't say that Greg. You might have mis-understood as I offered to continue helping you no matter if you have higher education or not.

perhaps you would understand why I represented the data as I did.

Its clear why you represent the 'data' as you do. You are trying to sell your belief system.

And on top of that, this is coming from the guy that thinks AiG is credible? That's hilarious

Yes... hilarious!!

Greg, what sources have I used in this discussion? PNAS....a secular journal. And, J. Tompkins who was geneticist prof at Clemson.

Attacking a source rather than attacking the argument is ad hominem fallacy. This fallacy is generally used by someone unable to counter the actual argument using logic and knowlege

 

[Jose Fly]

Er, no. In this case
few can carry the conversation without quite a bit of background reading.

Agreed. This thread and the latest attempt by some creationists here to discuss genetics is a good example.

As far as a quick look goes, it 'looks' to me as if all published findings are a bit too soon to actually bank on a particular percentage or whether I'm related to a cow (one of the links).

Then the question becomes, are you interested in the subject enough to do more "background reading" and come to a better understanding?

When it comes to reliable and trusted sources, we all follow our discipline where it leads.

Not in science. In science you follow the data wherever it leads, regardless of what your discipline says. That's why organizations like AiG and ICR are completely anti-science...they make it clear they will not follow the evidence wherever it leads.

You and I talked that Evolution could be used for something designed and guided by intelligence so I'm not too caught up after that point.

IOW, you're open to the possibility of theistic evolution?

We can pick up the debate between creation and evolution, I'm just trying to place it in perspective.

But before we do that, you have to decide whether it's a scientific or a theological issue for you. That decision will play a role in how you approach the data. If it's mostly a scientific issue, you should be willing to follow the data wherever it leads. If it's mostly a theological issue, then you should make that clear so we don't waste time talking about scientific data.

The AiG site may bother you, but that's one of several places a Christian will go, especially when it is second on the list after a Google search of "shared DNA" or "shared ERV's.

That's not the search results I get, but no matter.

It only made sense to look at what was there and at the top of the list.

Then I would suggest you take some time to learn better discernment when it comes to sources gleaned from Google searches.

I'm not sure how you look up areas not in your field of study or how you'd use Google but even if against, perhaps say "just don't Google, do this instead...." :idunno:

We utilize the scientific journals, typically through their individual search functions, or through larger search engines like PubMed.

 

[Jose Fly]

The science shows we are genetically more similar to chimps than mice. It does not show we are related.

Sure it does.

The same methods that are used in some paternity and forensic analyses to establish relatedness can be used as evidence of human-chimpanzee relatedness.

A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness. They are reliable identifiers, because the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence insertion is if they share a common ancestor.

About 2,000 Alu insertions are specific to humans, and an even larger number are shared with other primates. But more specifically, in the human alpha-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3003370?dopt=Abstract

So, the same methodology that allows us to determine paternity and relatedness in courts of law also allows us to show that humans, chimpanzees, and other primates share a common ancestry.

If the data from these seemingly less-contaminated sets are considered, the chimpanzee genome is no more than 86% identical to the human genome Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.Genetics

Why do you continue to cite people who have agreed to operate under a framework that you agreed is anti-scientific?

 

[Lon]

Because I've seen how 6days and others try to twist the word "junk" into something it clearly doesn't mean in this context, I couldn't agree more

:up:

Except in your scenario no good can come out of the dead bodies. With dead fetal tissue, scientific advancements that could (and have) saved lives can be found using the tissue. It has properties that post-fetal tissue simply doesn't

It doesn't matter how much we learn from something if it is wrong for us to have it in the first place. In this case, wait for natural miscarriages, don't buy what is destroyed purposefully (or some other moral avenue).

 

[Lon]

Agreed.
Then the question becomes, are you interested in the subject enough to do more "background reading" and come to a better understanding?

Yes, but sometimes I wait for the National Geographic or Discovery Channel episode. It isn't that I'm lazy, I don't even spend a lot of time here on TOL, and it doesn't come up in conversation often except this particular thread.

Not in science. In science you follow the data wherever it leads, regardless of what your discipline says. That's why organizations like AiG and ICR are completely anti-science...they make it clear they will not follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Three points: 1) I think you are correct, it is political and religious as an institution, but is science interested and focused
2) Those folks all have science degrees, but it is important to realize they aren't working in that particular affiliation to do science BUT to examine science that is already done 3) A few of them still work in science outside of their affiliations.

I'm not sure how your objections or calling for a Creationist contribution plays in the overall. I 'think' they are scientists, but that their affiliation with AiG is more about how they see science fitting with their religious views and expectation. Or, in a nutshell, it is a bit like this thread: Only those interested in it and what it serves will post here (or go there). I guess I'm acquiescing that the main purpose of AiG is not to 'do' science, but examine it. It may help lessen angst to think of them that way, I don't know.

IOW, you're open to the possibility of theistic evolution?

Sure, but even that would be a difficult concept to teach in public schools. I think, however the way you describe it with man involved, it would be a good way to stroke the faith of a theist/deist and include him as well as allow for at least man-ward focused 'intelligent design.'
BUT we are back to just you and I starting with grass-roots sentiments.

But before we do that, you have to decide whether it's a scientific or a theological issue for you. That decision will play a role in how you approach the data. If it's mostly a scientific issue, you should be willing to follow the data wherever it leads. If it's mostly a theological issue, then you should make that clear so we don't waste time talking about scientific data.

It explains our American dilemma, alright. Each will follow the issue that his values lead. I think you describe a dilemma that is harder for the scientist than the stock-broker, for instance. My daughter is going for her marine biology degree. She asked me about evolution. I simply told her what I already told you: "Try to embrace the description more than getting hung up on terms. You'll integrate what is true that you can verify in your life between the values of that in which you will work, and that in which you follow in your faith."

That's not the search results I get, but no matter.

Really? :think: Here are mine. Probably just how we asked the question?

Then I would suggest you take some time to learn better discernment when it comes to sources gleaned from Google searches.

I think you miss my meaning: I start at the top and work my way down and often go to the second page.

We utilize the scientific journals, typically through their individual search functions, or through larger search engines like PubMed.

No doubt especially when it is your area of study and work. I too have the same in the field of education and theology as well.

Forums will likely ever/only be pop(topic/study). They are great for getting us to look at another's field of study or interest though.
TOL is more about honing one's debate skills. I'd have almost have thought Trump learned his from here. Every once in awhile, however, we have a meeting of minds that I think is meaningful, and pleasantly surprising. I'm actually enjoying this part of our conversation, for instance :up: and thanks. -Lon

 

[Greg Jennings]

:up:



It doesn't matter how much we learn from something if it is wrong for us to have it in the first place. In this case, wait for natural miscarriages, don't buy what is destroyed purposefully (or some other moral avenue).

We're on the same page

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, but sometimes I wait for the National Geographic or Discovery Channel episode. It isn't that I'm lazy, I don't even spend a lot of time here on TOL, and it doesn't come up in conversation often except this particular thread.

Fair enough.

Three points: 1) I think you are correct, it is political and religious as an institution, but is science interested and focused
2) Those folks all have science degrees, but it is important to realize they aren't working in that particular affiliation to do science BUT to examine science that is already done 3) A few of them still work in science outside of their affiliations.

I generally agree, except to point out that their "interest" in science is basically "do whatever we can to force science to fit our religious beliefs".

I'm not sure how your objections or calling for a Creationist contribution plays in the overall.

I do that in response to those who claim that the data best fits creationism and creationism is scientifically useful.

I 'think' they are scientists

Having a degree does not make one a scientist. In order to be one, you generally have to be employed by someone who's paying you to do actual science. And as we've seen, AiG does not pay its employees to do science, instead it pays them to "examine science" in light of their religious beliefs.

but that their affiliation with AiG is more about how they see science fitting with their religious views and expectation.

We agree again.

Or, in a nutshell, it is a bit like this thread: Only those interested in it and what it serves will post here (or go there). I guess I'm acquiescing that the main purpose of AiG is not to 'do' science, but examine it. It may help lessen angst to think of them that way, I don't know.

Agreed.

Sure, but even that would be a difficult concept to teach in public schools.

It would, since it takes a position on the existence of God.

I think, however the way you describe it with man involved, it would be a good way to stroke the faith of a theist/deist and include him as well as allow for at least man-ward focused 'intelligent design.'
BUT we are back to just you and I starting with grass-roots sentiments.

IMO, we teach evolution the same as we teach chemistry. We explain how populations/atoms behave and leave the religious and philosophical questions for a different class.

Really? :think: Here are mine. Probably just how we asked the question?

Definitely.

Forums will likely ever/only be pop(topic/study). They are great for getting us to look at another's field of study or interest though.
TOL is more about honing one's debate skills. I'd have almost have thought Trump learned his from here. Every once in awhile, however, we have a meeting of minds that I think is meaningful, and pleasantly surprising. I'm actually enjoying this part of our conversation, for instance :up: and thanks. -Lon

Again we agree.

 

[6days]

The science shows we are genetically more similar to chimps than mice. It does not show we are related.

Sure it does.

mtDNA might show all humanity is a descendant of Mitochondrial Eve. Genetic research (mtDNA) helps confirm the Biblical definition of 'kinds'. (Eg. It is used to show dogs are descendants of wolves). But, research certainly will not and can not show any relatedness between mice, monkeys and men.

A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness. They are reliable identifiers, because the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence insertion is if they share a common ancestor.

Evolutionists continue to be proven wrong by science. They start with their conclusion and try shoehorn exxplanations to fit data. Its not a surprise evolutionists were wrong about junk DNA....psuedogenes...vestigial organs, etc. Likewise with ALU sequence 'insertions', there are better explanations to fit the data than the common ancestry false belief system.

You know the evolutionist perspective. Here is a perspective from Linda Walkup, PhD molecular genetics. http://creation.mobi/are-pseudogenes-shared-mistakes-between-primate-genomes ;

Why do you continue to cite people who have agreed to operate under a framework that you agreed is anti-scientific

"One would have thought you would learn. Logical fallacies do not work, no matter how much effort you put into them." Stripe

Ad hominem fallacy...
An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.Urban Dictionary

 

[6days]

Because I've seen how 6days and others try to twist the word "junk" into something it clearly doesn't mean in this context

haha...Oh my dear Greg. Perhaps you should criticize fellow evolutionists...and yourself for trying to whitewash some of the history of "JUNK" DNA.

As recently as 2006, the head of the human genome project, Francis Collins basically called non coding DNA garbage...His words "that “roughly 45 percent of the human genome is made up of…genetic flotsam and jetsam….This kind of recent genome data thus presents an overwhelming challenge to [creationism]….Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by a Creator for good reason, and our discounting them as ‘junk DNA’ just betrays our current level of ignorance. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation.”

Sad, this brilliant man was so wrong. Science continues to research and find non coding DNA serves important regulatory functions. Junk DNA may exist only in the head of evolutionists.

 

[Cross Reference]

haha...Oh my dear Greg. Perhaps you should criticize fellow evolutionists...and yourself for trying to whitewash some of the history of "JUNK" DNA.

As recently as 2006, the head of the human genome project, Francis Collins basically called non coding DNA garbage...His words "that “roughly 45 percent of the human genome is made up of…genetic flotsam and jetsam….This kind of recent genome data thus presents an overwhelming challenge to [creationism]….Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by a Creator for good reason, and our discounting them as ‘junk DNA’ just betrays our current level of ignorance. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation.”

Sad, this brilliant man was so wrong. Science continues to research and find non coding DNA serves important regulatory functions. Junk DNA may exist only in the head of evolutionists.

LOL!!!!!

 

[Greg Jennings]

Do you find it funny how only 3 days ago you were insisting that there was no range?You were determined to go with 98%. Greg...a range of values is not "needed". What is helpful though is an understanding of how similar genes, may be responsible for performing similar functions.
Well, I didn't say that Greg. You might have mis-understood as I offered to continue helping you no matter if you have higher education or not.

I didn't see this one yesterday. I'll get to it now


Again, you demonstrate how you are oblivious to the concepts of uncertainty and range. Consider me shocked.

Your unwillingness to answer the question about receiving just one single class past the high school level in the natural sciences, combined with your obvious lack of familiarity with the science of evolutionary theory, make it pretty obvious that you've never taken a collegiate level science course. And that means you've never been properly taught the material by someone that is undeniably qualified to be teaching others in the subject. You just go to AiG and say, "That makes sense because I also like the Bible."

But you can set me straight by admitting to taking collegiate science courses, if you wish

Its clear why you represent the 'data' as you do. You are trying to sell your belief system.

Or it's because there are conflicting results, as I told you. Once more I'm not exactly shocked you don't understand

Yes... hilarious!!

Greg, what sources have I used in this discussion? PNAS....a secular journal. And, J. Tompkins who was geneticist prof at Clemson.

PNAS was solid. Keep using sources like that one.

But the other professor was in the AiG article, correct? Tell me 6days, why would any person of science take an organization seriously that requires its contributors to reject anything that points away from a literal Genesis? Does that seem like good science to you?

Attacking a source rather than attacking the argument is ad hominem fallacy. This fallacy is generally used by someone unable to counter the actual argument using logic and knowlege

Pointing out that AiG isn't a scientific body isn't a fallacy. They advertise that fact by stating they reject all evidence that doesn't fit with a literal Genesis, which just so happens to be all of it

 

[Greg Jennings]

haha...Oh my dear Greg. Perhaps you should criticize fellow evolutionists...and yourself for trying to whitewash some of the history of "JUNK" DNA.

As recently as 2006, the head of the human genome project, Francis Collins basically called non coding DNA garbage...His words "that “roughly 45 percent of the human genome is made up of…genetic flotsam and jetsam….This kind of recent genome data thus presents an overwhelming challenge to [creationism]….Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by a Creator for good reason, and our discounting them as ‘junk DNA’ just betrays our current level of ignorance. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation.”

Sad, this brilliant man was so wrong. Science continues to research and find non coding DNA serves important regulatory functions. Junk DNA may exist only in the head of evolutionists.

Did you know that 2006 was ten years ago and studies done since have corrected those statements?


You seem to think that science is static and stable, much like the bible and how you want the world to be. Well science, and the earth in general, is the opposite of static. New findings and discoveries that add to our understanding are being made every day. And despite your claims to the contrary, these new discoveries only further our understanding of evolution and the natural world. You'll find no scientific body that says otherwise, only AiG and the like. Go ahead and try

 

[Greg Jennings]

LOL!!!!!

Would there be a point in explaining something to you? Or are you just going to say, "Ok I'm finished here," and leave when you are asked a question that makes you think (you know, like you've done before)?

 

[6days]

Did you know that 2006 was ten years ago and studies done since have corrected those statements?

Exactly!! Isn't that what I said?! Science is dispelling evolutionaty myths, such as that of "junk" DNA. As God's Word says, we were fearfully and wonderfully created. Sin has corrupted that creation, but we still see evidence of Him.

You seem to think that science is static and stable

Not at all. It is an exciting time to be a Christian as science helps reveal the majesty of our Creator...the same one who went to Calvary for me

Although not a christian, Einstein said "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts; the rest are details.”

Or, you may be familiar with former Graham Purdue professor, Henry “Fritz” Schaefer, (and several times a Nobel Prize nominee) "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”

 

[Cross Reference]

Would there be a point in explaining something to you? Or are you just going to say, "Ok I'm finished here," and leave when you are asked a question that makes you think (you know, like you've done before)?

Yeah, I probably will. I just need a laugh every now and then.