Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists

The Chicage Tribune ^ | Published February 13, 2006 | By Jeremy Manier Tribune staff reporter

[narby]

wouldn't creatures designed by God have close DNA if they are comparatively similar?

I don't know where this thread has been, but similarity of DNA is the least of the evidence demonstrating common ancestry of humans and primates.

One of the more important evidences is tracking "errors" in the genome (such as the "vitamin C" gene problem), and noting that species that are "farther removed" from common ancestors have error patterns that match.

Science understands pretty well how genomes change, and the specific base pair changes between species match what we would expect between species related via evolution.

Just as we can demonstrate with a huge degree of certainty the paternity of a child based on DNA comparisons, we can also track relationships between species. There are many more differences, but genome comparisons are much more detailed than mere pattern matching of dyed DNA strands as is done with human paternity testing.

Rejecting evolution at this point is like rejecting the fact that OJ did it, because you don't believe in DNA tests.

[narby]

I promise I didn't copy your post #160. Great minds....

[thomaswest]

Unless, of course, one takes the view that each egg and sperm were individually directed by God. Nobody in biology would accept this, but as a matter of faith, it is unprovable.

Why would nobody in science accept that idea? Is there some reason not to? I agree that it is unprovable but it shows that scientists are starting from some basic presumptions that are not neutral.

You may chose to believe that every raindrop and snowflake is individually directed by a god of rain, but I don't think you will find many supporters in either Christian belief or in science. Your argument leads to "every molecule of the air we breathe is individually determined by a god; every molecule of water we drink being directed. By your argument, there would never be such a thing as chance or randomness. Sorry, you cannot escape by defining randomness out of existence.

Perhaps you are a Calvinist who believes everything is pre-determined by a Great Sky God, and every sperm and raindrop is pre-determined? I think many Popes and Martin Luther would dispute you.

My objection to random chance is that there is no way of supporting the statement. It is just the opinion of scientists that it is true and that things are unguided. What is the evo objection to the idea that it's guided?

Because there is no science that can show such a "supernatural involvement". How would you know if a god changed the experinment or students made a mistake? "God told me so" is not a good explanation in medicine or in criminal courts.

How would you show that a psychic did not change the results? How would you show that pixies and demons did not determine the outcome? There is no limit, once you choose gods and "supernatural" interventions.

[King Prout]

s'ok :)

[King Prout]

I feel the urge for Diner food. back in a while.
or, not... if I do something smart like gotobed instead of returning to late-night FReeping

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[thomaswest]

Far be it from me to dispute storks.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/evohumor/storkism.html

Surely we believe in storks bringing babies. Every patriotic American and Christian must accept the obvious evidence.

[csense]

What we are made of is quite clear--water, carbon-compounds, some nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfer, and a sprinkling of iron and other metals.

These combine wonderfully to make life everywhere, from bacteria to fish to mammals via natural processes. There does not seem to be a need to invoke a "supernatural force" to explain what we observe.

It depends what one is observing Thomas.

You look at the world and see -water, carbon-compounds, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfer, and a sprinkling of iron and other metals.

I look at the world and see these things trying to explain their own existence, absurd as it sounds in this context, but, an absurdity nonetheless that is true.

The dilemna for evolution is explaining something it fails to recognize in principle, and which we all know intuitively to be true: that our condition is profoundly unique, as opposed to any other organism on this planet.

[thomaswest]

Quoting: "But I think that as long as there are alternative explanations we shouldn't be so dogmatic. After all, wouldn't creatures designed by God have close DNA if they are comparatively similar? "

This raises important questions about "alternative explanations".

Are faeries, psychics, pixies, various demons, jinis, Hindu gods, spirits from numerous Native American traditions, wiccam beliefs, pagan gods, pantheism, denial of material existence in favor of spiritual existence, Nostrodamus, ... are these also "alternative explanations"??

I ask you, where do "alternative explanations" stop?

Teaching every "alternative explanation controversy" that comes along would seem to me to throw children into a whirlpool. There are 630 different creation myths alone. Is every one equal, as you suggest?

[thomaswest]

The dilemna for evolution is explaining something it fails to recognize in principle, and which we all know intuitively to be true: that our condition is profoundly unique, as opposed to any other organism on this planet. I think there are two aspects to this. 1. Yes, we seem to be unique in having a consciousness of our existence, and from this we worked out numerous ethical rules that serve to protect us. We are social beings. 2. We are not unique as regards our being vertebrate, mammal, animals. In this respect, we are surely like many other primates, in terms of blood types, genetic similarity, similar development in fetal stages in the womb, very numerous body similarities. This suggests to me that we did not arise via {poof} but via a long history of evolution.

[thomaswest]

an absurdity nonetheless that is true. Hmm: Officer: My radar showed you going 63 mph in a 35 mph zone. Believer: That can't be. My guru-god says I was only going 30 mph. Officeer: I do not know about your god, but I believe my radar. Believer: There is an alternative explanation; let's address the controversy. Radar is based on materialistic science, isn't it? Officer: Would you mind giving me your license? Believer: I have a spiritual existence. Laws of biology or gravity or man do not pertain; my faith is in a higher law. Officer: Have you been drinking? Please try to answer some simple questions...

[csense]

... there are two aspects to this. 1. Yes, we seem to be unique in having a consciousness of our existence, and from this we worked out numerous ethical rules that serve to protect us. We are social beings. 2. We are not unique as regards our being vertebrate, mammal, animals. In this respect, we are surely like many other primates, in terms of blood types, genetic similarity, similar development in fetal stages in the womb, very numerous body similarities. This suggests to me that we did not arise via {poof} but via a long history of evolution. [emphasis mine]

I think it's self evident that our condition is unique. What better evidence is there, especially to one who values scientific principles, than direct observation.

That said, I wonder if you would make a similar conclusion, albeit suggestive, if you omitted the word 'seem.'

[csense]

Well, look it...if you're not interested in discussing things with me, then just be an adult and say so.

That said, I'll extend to you the same courtesy. I'm not interested in nonsense, so, I'll be be on my way.

[aNYCguy]

it is matematically impossible for [abiogenesis] to have happened, and so evolution is so much BS

Perhaps you don't understand that abiogenesis is not in the theory of evolution's scope. Evolution does not rest upon any given scenario for the introduction of life to Earth. By your logic, the supposed impossibility of abiogenesis makes the theory of electromagnetism "so much BS." Ditto for the theory of gravity.

[aNYCguy]

either God had something to do with it, or He didn't. I wouldn't ban either suggestion from the public schools.

Establishment clause. Incorporation. It's illegal to teach religious views in public school science classes.

[dread78645]

"Neutral truth seekers" placemark

[aNYCguy]

Life seems to thumb its nose at the 2nd law of thermodynamics... Why would the suns activation energy create molecules that replicate?

Before I respond, please level with me:

Are you claiming that basic life processes violate the second law of thermodynamics? That every day, the second law of thermodynamics is broken consistently and on a vast scale simply by the continued existence of certain organic molecules?

It really seems like you're suggesting this. Please correct me.

[aNYCguy]

Creation does not state that living things are produced by other than living things. Everything was created by a living being.

Which living being created God in your particular flavor of creationism?

[Havoc]

Oh boy.. I been running circles around a bunch trying to insist that corn turning into corn is evidence of speciation.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1577107/posts

I've laughed so hard a few times I thought I'd pee. They live in a bubble and when they come out of it to spew the nonsense, it's a target rich environment. Laughs and absurdity.. God has a sense of humor.

[PatrickHenry]

Festival of endless lunacy placemarker.