Darwinism at AEI

American Spectator (via Discovery Institute) ^ | July 1, 2007 | Tom Bethal

[GodGunsGuts]

According to polls, about 5% of all scientist in the US claim to be Young Earth Creationists, and about 40% claim to be theistic evolutionists. These two categories represent almost half of all scientists in the United States.

Here’s a question for you, what’s the total number of scientists in the United States?

[dennisw]

I’ll get to both... have been at website already

[AndyTheBear]

What kind of research does she do?

She got her B.S. in Genetics and Cell Biology, and a Masters in plant pathology. She started her career in crop protection, but ended up doing pharmaceutical research (following the money). Much of her work with transplant rejection drugs, and influenza vaccination. Later she got promoted from biologist to mother.

I find it extremely difficult to believe anyone with even an elementary understanding of genetics would "soundly reject evolution".

Specifically I believe she rejects the evolution of one species to another.

For example, wouldn't the striking similarity between genomes and cell physiology between say mammals and yeast at least give a skeptic pause for thought?

Well, I will have to ask her to field this question. As I understand it the similarity in DNA between species is one of the best evidences for evolution between species.

And you are calling us dogmatic?

Well you just said "I find it extremely difficult to believe..." something that is reasonably plausible, and happens to be true. I hardly need to accuse you of what you so aptly demonstrate .

[AndyTheBear]

My husband asked me to respond to the question of how a person educated in the biological sciences could possibly reject the evolutionary theory. Frankly, I used to be completely of the same opinion as I grew up and attended college. After all, the only thing we were ever taught was evolution. The alternative was pretty much snickered at because there wasn't any supporting evidence - because none was presented. For those that have never dealt with scientists, I can say that you pretty much look for evidence that supports your theories, and gloss over those that don't . Why open a can of worms when you're looking to get a name, or just publish the next paper?

The probability of life developing on its own or "evolving" is very slight. Genetic manipulation only changes existing species; it doesn't create. I am more likely to believe the intelligent design theory - but I know the designer is my God, Jesus. Any Christ-follower that is born again, baptized in the Holy Spirit, and regularly sees a demonstration of His blessings, power, and authority comes to know this.

[AndyTheBear]

Disclaimer. That last post was my wife, and doesn't quite reflect my opinions.

I just asked her about the similarity between DNA question, she is scoffing at me like I'm an idiot.

Now I asked her about the chimp vs human DNA being 92% or some such similar. And she then asked me to define what kind of DNA strands that statistic is comparing. She seems to be suggesting that the this statistic was calculated in a way that more resembles counting individual words or letters between different books, rather then comparing whole sentences or paragraphs (she is using words I don't know, and I have to live with her, I'm bailing).

FYI. We both believe in Creation, with me leaning to long term (including the big bang and evolution) and her convinced of short term like in the literal story of Genesis.

[RightWingNilla]

Genetic manipulation only changes existing species; it doesn't create.

I would very much like to hear what you think of the data in this paper...

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf

I can provide many more examples, however lets just start with this.

If evolution cannot occur "between species", how can you account for this finding?

[RightWingNilla]

She seems to be suggesting that the this statistic was calculated in a way that more resembles counting individual words or letters between different books, rather then comparing whole sentences or paragraphs

Her explanation is totally false.

For example, if you choose a DNA sequence from the human genome, you will have no trouble whatsoever pairing this up with the homologous sequence in chimps (and for some highly conserved genes such as those encoding for histones, you can match them to yeast and plants.).

Using your analogy above it would be like comparing two books with the following sentences:

Human: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

Chimp: It was the beet of times, it was the worst of times

This sentence is roughly 50 characters in length, and the "homology" between them is 98%.

[ahayes]

I have to live with her, I'm bailing

Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

I'm not going to debate your wife through you. I will say it was the evidence that convinced me that young earth creationism was not accurate.

[AndyTheBear]

My knowledge of biology is not very vast, however I'm good at math (B.S. in math, professional software engineer). Perhaps you can save me a little trouble by clarifying the basics of this similarity, before I delve into highly technical stuff.

1) Do we have the same number of chromosomes as chimps?

2) Is is there an apparent isomorphism between the chimp chromosomes and the set of human ones. (In other words can they be matched on a one-to-one basis both ways)?

3) What is seen as the basic element of a chromosome sequence in this analysis?

4) About how many of these elements are in a typical chromosome (yes I do know they are different sizes)? And how does the number compare within the species as opposed to between the two species?

5) How many of these elements are there -- and if some are more common then the other, about how likely is it for two chosen at random (with respect to probability distribution among species in general) are they to match?

6) Now if I were to traverse both sequences in parallel, skipping over parts that don't match until I get to parts that do -- in a way to maximize the number of matching elements, what would be the percentage of elements matching between the species, and what would be the percentage with in it?

Honestly, if I don't even know these basics, I really have no way to know how significant the finding is.