Posted on 08/01/2009 7:57:05 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
With the advent of modern biotechnology, researchers have been able to determine the actual sequence of the roughly three billion bases of DNA (A,T,C,G) that make up the human genome. They have sequenced the genomes of many other types of creatures as well. Scientists have tried to use this new DNA data to find similarities in the DNA sequences of creatures that are supposedly related through evolutionary descent, but do genetic similarities provide evidence for evolution?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
In principle, I have no problem with the notion that life as we know it today came about through a biological process that took place over millions of years. Even so, I think Neo-Darwinists have made rather lame attempts to explain the mounting evidence against evolutionary theory. Gould's proposed Punctuated Equilibrium in response to a fossil record that didn't reveal the incremental change Darwin said should be there struck me as being rather desperate, as do the more recent attempts to explain the origin of the information embedded in DNA by chance and/or necessity.
Even if one were to set up the conditions for it to be theoretically possible, one shouldn't expect to arrive at functional information like that embedded in the executable that launches Microsoft Word by any mindless, purposeless process; it just isn't going to happen. Yes, in theory, given an infinite amount of time to work with, it would eventually happen, as would mindlessly arriving at the information embedded in DNA. The problem is we don't have an infinite amount of time to work with. We only have, at most, not more than fifteen billion years to work with. That just isn't enough time.
And, if we did have an infinite amount of time to work with, we would get Microsoft Word mindlessly and accidentally long before we got complex biological systems that way. We know how to build Microsoft Word, we don't know how to build complex biological systems from lifeless matter -- they are just too complicated. Functionality which is so complicated and intricate that we don't even know one way to put together ourselves, is unlikely to have happened by accident.
What would you expect to find if you were told a helicopter had flown over an empty parking lot dumping out boxes and boxes of scrabble pieces? Mostly gibberish? Maybe a few small words spelled correctly? Maybe, just maybe, a correctly spelled, grammatically correct short sentence? What if you found an encyclopedia consisting of thousands of articles that correctly described their respective topics? Would you still believe the story about the helicopter?
There is no combination of properties in scrabble pieces or concrete or the gravity that placed them on the parking lot from which can be derived an encyclopedia of information. Likewise, the nucleotide bases on the DNA molecule are no more likely to end up arranged in any meaningful arrangement than are the scrabble pieces. Yet we have found not just an encyclopedia, but an entire library of life forms written there.
So, we are left with asking ourselves, what is the only known source of information? The answer is, of course, an intellect. It is beyond the realm of empirical science to determine the identity and nature of that intellect. Even so, an intellect is the best explanation by far of the origin of the information embedded in DNA.
Again. I appreciate your civility.
==Alright then, go ahead on fill us in on the good doctor’s qualifications and degree...Tomkins has no publications I can find
Please!
“Dr. Jeff Tomkins joins ICR as Research Associate in life sciences. Dr. Tomkins is a geneticist, recently on staff at Clemson University, where he managed a large gene sequencing laboratory. He will assist ICR in genetics research at its Dallas laboratories.”
http://www.icr.org/article/a-2008-laying-groundwork-for-growth/
What did Dr. Tomkins do when he was at Clemson University? Among other things...
“The Clemson Environmental Genomics Laboratory (CEGL) is a research group affiliated with the Clemson University Genomics Institute (CUGI). The CEGL research effort, under the Directorship of Dr. Jeff Tomkins, is currently funded by four NSF awards, all with a focus on environmental genomics. These projects involve the development of integrated genomic frameworks and the discovery and characterization of genes and genomic regions associated with environmental adaptation.”
http://people.clemson.edu/~jtmkns/index.html
You can’t find any of his publications?...LOL!
Jeff Tomkins - Full Publication List
Research Publications
Wu, Y., D.C. Henry, K. Heim, J.P. Tomkins, and C.Y. Kuan. 2008. Straw blood cell count, growth, inhibition and comparison to apoptotic bodies. BMC Cell Biology. 9:26 doi: 10.1186/1471-2121-9-26.
Xu, Z., R. J. Kohel1, S. G. Song, J. Cho, J. Yu, S. Yu, J.P. Tomkins, and J. Z. Yu. 2008. An integrated genetic and physical map of homeologous chromosomes 12 and 26 in Upland cotton (G. hirsutum L.). BMC Genomics. 9:108. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-108.
Lewers, K.S., C.A. Saski, B.J. Cuthbertson, D.C. Henry, M.E. Staton, D.S. Main, A.L. Dhanaraj, L.J. Rowland and J.P. Tomkins. 2008. A blackberry (Rubus L.) expressed sequence tag library for the development of simple sequence repeat markers. BMC Plant Biology. 8:69 doi:10.1186/1471-2229-8-69
Zhebentyayeva, T.N., G.Swire-Clark, L.L. Georgi, L. Garay, S. Jung, S. Forrest, D. Main, B. Blackmon, J. Tomkins, W.V. Baird, G.L. Reighard, AG Abbott. 2008. A framework physical map for peach a model Rosaceae species. Tree Genetics and Genomes. http://www.springerlink.com doi:10.1007/s11295-008-0147-z.
Shoemaker, R., D. Grant, T. Olson, W. Warren, R. Wing, Y. Yu, H. Kim, P. Cregan, B. Joseph, M. Futrell-Griggs, W. Nelson, J. Davito, J. Walker, J. Wallis, C. Kremitski, D. Scheer, S. Clifton, T. Graves, H. Nguyen, X. Wu, M. Luo, J. Dvorak, R. Nelson, S. Cannon, J. Tomkins, J. Schmutz, G. Stacey, and S. Jackson. 2008. Microsatellite Discovery from BAC End Sequences and Genetic Mapping to Anchor the Soybean Physical and Genetic Maps. Genome 51:294-302.
Saski, C., S. Lee, S. Fjellheim, C. Guda, R. Jansen, H. Luo, J. Tomkins, O. Rognli, H. Daniell, Jihong Liu Clarke. 2007. Complete chloroplast genome sequence of Hordeum vulgare, Sorghum bicolor and Agrostis stolonifera, and comparative analyses with other grass genomes. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 115:1432-2242.
Wu, Y., R.C. Laughlin, D.C. Henry, D.E. Krueger, J.S. Hudson, C.Y. Kuan, J. He, J. Reppert, J.P. Tomkins. 2007. Naturally occurring and stress induced tubular structures from mammalian cells, a survival mechanism. BMC Cell Biology 16:8-36.
Dunning Hotopp, J., M. Clark, D. Oliveira, J. Foster, P. Fischer, M. Torres, J. Giebel, S. Wang, J. Ingram, R. Nene, J. Shepard, N. Ishmael, N. Kumar, J. Tomkins, S. Richards, D. Spiro, E. Ghedin, B. Slatko, H. Tettelin, J. Werren. 2007. Widespread Lateral Gene Transfer from Bacteria to Eukaryotes. Science 317:1753-1756.
Adelberg, J., M.P. Delgado, and J.P. Tomkins. 2007. In vitro sugar and water use in diploid and tetraploid genotypes of daylily (Hemerocallis spp.) in liquid medium as affected by density and plant growth regulators. HortScience 42:325-328.
Normand, P., P. Lapierre, L. Tisa, J. Gogarten, N. Alloisio1, E. Bagnarol1, C. Bassi, A. Berry, D. Bickhart, N. Choisne, A. Couloux, B. Cournoyer, S. Cruveiller, V. Daubin, N. Demange, M. Francino, E. Goltsman, Y. Huang, O. Kopp, L. Labarre, A. Lapidus, C. Lavire1, J. Marechal1, M. Martinez, J. Mastronunzio, B. Mullin, J. Niemann, P. Pujic, T. Rawnsley, Z. Rouy, C. Schenowitz6, A. Sellstedt, F. Tavares, J.P. Tomkins, D. Vallenet, C. Valverde, L. Wall, Y. Wang, C. Medigue, and D. R. Benson. 2007. Genome characteristics of facultatively symbiotic Frankia sp. strains reflect host range and host plant biogeography. Genome Research 17:7-15.
Liang, H., E.G. Fang, J.P. Tomkins, M. Luo, D. Kudrna, K. Arumuganathan, S. Zhao, S.E. Schlarbaum, , J.A. Banks, C.W. dePamphilis, D.F. Mandoli, R.A. Wing, and J.E. Carlson, 2007. Development of a BAC library resource for yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and the identification of genomic regions associated with flower development and lignin biosynthesis. Tree Genetics and Genomes http://www.springerlink.com doi:10.1007 s11295-006-0057-x.
Cunningham, C, J. Hikima, M.J. Jenny, R.W. Chapman, G.C. Fang, C. Saski, M.L. Lundqvist, R.A. Wing, P.M. Cupit, P.S. Gross, G.W. Warr, J.P. Tomkins. 2006. New Resources for Marine Genomics: Bacterial Artificial Chromosome Libraries for the Eastern and Pacific Oysters (Crassostrea virginica and C. gigas). Marine Biotechnology 8:521-533.
Blenda, A., J. Scheffler, B. Scheffler, M. Palmer, J. Lacape, C, Jesudurai, Sook Jung, S, Muthukumar, P. Yellambalase, S. Ficklin, M. Staton, R. Eschelman, M. Ulloa, S. Saha, B. Burr, S. Lui, T. Zhang, D. Fang, J. Yu, A. Pepper, S. Kumpatla, J. Jacobs, J. Tomkins, R. Cantrell, and D. Main. 2006. CMD: A Cotton Microsatellite Database Resource for Gossypium Genomics. BMC Bioinformatics (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/6/32).
Jansen R.K., C. Kaittanis, S.B. Lee, C. Saski, J. Tomkins, A.J. Alverson, H. Daniell. 2006. Phylogenetic analyses of Vitis (Vitaceae) based on complete chloroplast genome sequences: effects of taxon sampling and phylogenetic methods on resolving relationships among rosids. BMC Evolutionary Biology. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/7/132.
Daniell, H., S. Lee, J. Grevich, C. Saski, Quesada-Vargas T. Guda, J. Tomkins, and R. Jansen. 2006. Complete chloroplast genome sequences of Solanum bulbocastanum, Solanum lycopersicum and comparative analyses with other Solanaceae genomes. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 112:1503-1518.
Frelichowski, J.E., Jr, M. Palmer, D. Main, J.P. Tomkins, R.G. Cantrell, D. Stelly, J. Yu, R.J. Kohel, M. Ulloa. 2006. Cotton genome mapping with new microsatellites from Acala ‘Maxxa’ BAC-ends. Molecular Genetics and Genomics 275:479-491.
Danko, A.S., C.A. Saski, J.P. Tomkins, and D. L. Freedman. 2006. Involvement of Coenzyme M During Aerobic Biodegradation of Vinyl Chloride and Ethene by Pseudomonas strain AJ and Ochrobactrum strain TD. J. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72:3756-3758.
Saski C., S. Lee, H. Daniell, T. Wood, J. Tomkins, H. Kim, and R. Jansen. 2005. Complete chloroplast genome sequence of Glycine max and comparative analyses with other legume genomes. Plant Molecular Biology 59:309-322.
Ammiraju, J.S., M. Luo, J.L. Goicoechea, W. Wang, D. Kudrna, C. Mueller, J. Talag, H. Kim, N.B. Sisneros, B. Blackmon, E. Fang, J.P. Tomkins, D. Brar, David MacKill, S. McCouch, N. Kurata, G. Lambert, D.W. Galbraith, K. Arumuganathan, K. Rao, J.G. Walling, N. Gill, Y. Yu, P. SanMiguel, C. Soderlund, S. Jackson and R.A. Wing. 2005. The Oryza bacterial artificial chromosome library resource: Construction and analysis of 12 deep-coverage large-insert BAC libraries that represent the 10 genomes types of the genus Oryza. Genome Research 16:140-147.
Adelberg, J.W., M.P. Delgado and J.P. Tomkins. 2005. Ancymidol and liquid media improve micropropagation of Hemerocallis hybrid cv. ‘Todd Monroe’ on a thin film bioreactor. J. Horticultural Science and Biotechnology. 80:774-778.
Margulies, E.H. NISC Comparative Sequencing Program, V.V. Maduro, P. J. Thomas, J.P. Tomkins, C.T. Amemiya, M. Luo, and E.D. Green. 2005. Comparative sequencing provides insights about the structure and conservation of marsupial and monotreme genomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (PNAS). 102:3354-3359.
Horn, R., A. Lecouls, A. Callahan, A. Dandekar, L. Garay, P. McCord, W. Howad, H. Chan, I. Verde, D. Main, S. Jung, L. Georgi, S. Forrest, J. Mook, T. Zhebentyayeva, Y. Yu, H. Kim, C. Jesudurai, B. Sosinski, P. Arus, V. Baird, D. Parfitt, G. Reighard, R. Scorza, J. Tomkins, R. Wing, and A. Abbott. 2005. Candidate gene database and transcript map for peach, a model species for fruit trees. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 110:1419-1428.
Wang, W., M. Tanurdzic, M. Luo, N. Sisneros, H. Kim, J. Weng, D. Kudrna, C. Mueller, K. Arumuganathan, J. Carlson, C. Chapple, C. dePamphilis, D. Mandoli, J. Tomkins, R. Wing, and J. Banks. 2005. Construction of a bacterial artificial chromosome library from the spikemoss Selaginella moellendorffii: A resource for plant comparative genomics. BMC Plant Biology, 5:10 doi:1186/1471-2229-5-10 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/5/10.
Jung, S, A. Abbott, C. Jesudurai, J. Tomkins and D. Main. 2005. Frequency, type, localization and annotation of simple sequence repeats in Rosaceae ESTs. Functional and Integrative Genomics 5:136-143.
Tomkins, J., M. Fregene, D. Main, H. Kim, R. Wing, and J. Tohme. 2004. Bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library resource for positional cloning of pest and disease resistance genes in Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Plant Molecular Biology 56:555-561.
Jung, S., C. Jesudurai, M. Staton, Z. Du, I. Cho, A. Abbott, J. Tomkins, and D. Main. 2004. GDR: Genome Database for Rosaceae: integrated web resources for Rosaceae genomics and genetics research. BMC Bioinformatics 5:130 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/5/130).
Sajjaphan, K, N. Shapir, L. Wackett, M. Palmer, B. Blackmon, J. Tomkins, and M. Sadowsky. 2004. Arthrobacter aurescens TC1 atrazine catabolism genes trzN, atzB, and atzC are linked on a 160-kilobase region and are functional in Escherichia coli.. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 70:4402-4407.
Tomkins, J.P., M. Luo, G.C. Fang, D. Main, J.L. Goicoechea, M. Atkins, D.A. Frisch, R.E. Page, E. Guzmán-Novoa, G. Hunt, and R.A. Wing. 2002. New Genomic Resources for Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.); Development of a deep-coverage BAC library and a preliminary STC database. Genetics and Molecular Research 4:306-316.
Chen, M, G. Presting, W. Barbazuk, J. Goicoechea, B. Blackmon, G. Fang, H. Kim, D. Frisch, Y. Yu, S. Sun, S. Higingbottom, J. Phimphilai, D. Phimphilai, S. Thurmond, B. Gaudette, P. Li, J. Liu, J. Hatfield, D. Main, K. Farrar, C. Henderson, L. Barnett, R. Costa, B. Williams, S. Walser, M. Atkins, C. Hall, M. Budiman, J. Tomkins, M. Luo, I. Bancroft, J. Salse, F. Regad, T. Mohapatra, N. Singh, A. Tyagi, C. Soderlund, R. Dean, and R.Wing. 2002. An Integrated Physical and Genetic Map of the Rice Genome. The Plant Cell 14: 537-545.
Tomkins, J.P., G. Davis, D. Main, N. Duru, T. Musket, J.L. Goicoechea, D.A. Frisch, E.H. Coe Jr.,and R.A. Wing. 2002. Construction and characterization of a deep-coverage bacterial artificial chromosome library for maize. Crop Science 42:928-933.
Tomkins, J.P., D.G. Peterson, T.J. Yang, D. Main, E.F. Ablett, R.J. Henry, L.S. Lee, T.A. Holton, D. Waters and R.A. Wing 2001. Grape (Vitis vinifera L.) BAC Library Construction, Preliminary STC analysis, and Identification of Clones Associated with Flavonoid and Stilbene Biosynthesis. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 52:287-291.
Tomkins, J.P., D.G. Peterson, T.J. Yang, D. Main, T.A. Wilkins, A.H. Paterson, R.A. Wing. 2001. Development of genomic resources for cotton (Gosypium hirsutum): BAC library development, preliminary STC analysis, and identification of clones associated with fiber development. Molecular Breeding 8:255-261.
Martinez, B., J.P. Tomkins, L. P. Wackett, R. Wing, and M. J. Sadowsky. 2001. Complete Nucleotide Sequence and Organization of Catabolic Plasmid pADP-1 from Pseudomonas sp. Strain ADP. Journal of Bacteriology 183:5684-5697.
Tomkins, J.P., T.C. Wood, M.G. Stacey, J.T. Loh, A. Judd, J. L. Goicoechea, G. Stacey, M.J. Sadowsky, and R.A. Wing. 2001. A Marker-Dense Physical Map of the Bradyrhizobium japonicum Genome. Genome Research. 11:1434-1440.
Tomkins, J.P., T. Wood, A. Westman, L.S. Barnes, and R.A. Wing. 2001. Evaluation of genetic variation in the daylily (Hemerocallis spp.) using AFLP markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 102:489-496.
Yu, Y., J.P. Tomkins, R. Waugh, D. A. Frisch, D. Kudrna, A. Kleinhofs, R. S. Brueggeman, G. J. Muehlbauer, R. P. Wise, R. A. Wing. 2000. A bacterial artificial chromosome library for barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and the identification of clones containing putative resistance genes. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 101:1093-1099.
Lin, Y., X. Draye, X. Qian, S. Ren, L. Zhu, J.P. Tomkins, R. Wing, Z. Li, and A. H. Paterson. 2000. Locus-specific contig assembly in highly-duplicated genomes using the BAC-RF method. Nucleic Acids Research Vol 28, article e23.
Druka, A., D. Kudrna, F. Han, A. Kilian, B. Steffenson, D. Frisch; J. Tomkins, R. Wing, A. Kleinhofs. 2000. Physical mapping of the barley stem rust resistance gene rpg4. Molecular and General Genetics 264:283-290.
Shipe, E.R., J.D. Mueller, S.A Lewis, P.F. Williams, and J.P. Tomkins. 2000. Registration of ‘Musen’ soybean. Crop Science 40:1496-1497.
Shipe, E.R., J.D. Mueller, S.A Lewis, P.F. Williams, and J.P. Tomkins. 2000. Registration of ‘Motte’ soybean. Crop Science 40:1497-1498.
Mao, L., T.C. Wood, Y. Yu, M.A. Budiman, J.P. Tomkins, S. Woo, M. Sasinowski, G. Presting, D. Frisch, S. Goff, R.A. Dean, and R.A. Wing. 2000. Rice transposable elements: A survey of 73,000 Sequence-Tagged Connectors. Genome Research 10:982-990.
Peterson, D., J.P.Tomkins, D.A. Frisch, R.A. Wing, and A.P. Paterson. 2000. Construction of plant bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) libraries: an illustrated guide. Journal of Agricultural Genomics Vol 5 (http://www.ncgr.org/research/jag/index.html).
Tomkins, J.P., H. Miller-Smith, M. Sasinowski, S. Choi, H. Sasinowska, M. Verce, D.L. Freedman, R.A. Dean, and R.A. Wing. 1999. Physical map and gene survey of the Ochrobactrum anthropi genome using bacterial artificial chromosome contigs. Microbial and Comparative Genomics 4:203-217.
Tomkins, J.P., R. Mahalingham, H. Miller-Smith, J.L. Goicoechea, H.T. Knapp, and R.A. Wing. 1999. A soybean bacterial artificial chromosome library for PI 437654 and the identification of clones associated with cyst nematode resistance. Plant Molecular Biology 41:25-32.
Tomkins, J.P., Y. Yu, H. Miller-Smith, D.A. Frisch, S. Woo, and R.A. Wing. 1999. A bacterial artificial chromosome library for sugarcane. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 99:419-424.
Shipe, E.R., J.D. Mueller, S.A Lewis, P.F. Williams, and J.P. Tomkins. 1997. Registration of ‘Dillon’ soybean. Crop Science 37:1983.
Tomkins, J.P., and E.R. Shipe. 1997. Environmental adaptation of long-juvenile soybean cultivars and elite strains. Agronomy Journal 89:257-262.
Tomkins, J.P., and E.R. Shipe. 1996. Soybean growth and agronomic performance in response to the long-juvenile trait. Crop Science 36:1144-1149.
Tomkins, J.P., and M.H. Hall. 1991. Stimulation of alfalfa bud and shoot development with cytokinins. Agronomy Journal 83:577-581.
Refereed Book Chapter Publications
Cuthbertson, B., J. Rickey, Y. Wu, G. Powell, and J. Tomkins. 2006. Exploitation of the daylily petal senescence model as a source for novel proteins that regulate programmed cell death in plants. Y. Blume, D.J. Durzan, and P. Smertenko (editors). In Volume 371 NATO Science Series: Life and Behavioural Sciences. Cell Biology and Instrumentation: UV Radiation, Nitric Oxide and Cell Death in Plants. Pages 297-306. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tomkins, J.P., T.C. Wood, and D. Main. 2005. DNA Sequencing for Genome Analysis. In Analytical Techniques in DNA Sequencing. B.K. Nunnally (editor). Pp. 157-176. Taylor & Francis Books Inc, Boca Raton, FL.
Wood, T.C. and J.P. Tomkins. 2004. Genomic Sequencing. In Encyclopedia of Molecular Cell Biology and Molecular Medicine. R.A. Meyers (editor). Vol. 5. Pages 513-536. Wiley-VCH Verlag Publishing. Weinheim, Germany.
Tomkins, J.P. 2003. Plant Bacterial Artificial Chromosome Libraries: Advances in Their Development and Application. In Recent Research Developments in Plant Molecular Biology. Pp. 139 to 156. Research Signpost Publishers, Kerala, India.
Gemmill, R., R. Bolin, H. Albertson, J.P. Tomkins, and R.A. Wing. 2001. Pulsed-field electrophoresis for long-range restriction mapping. In Current Protocols in Human Genetics. Pp. 5.1.1 to 5.1.28. John Wiley and Sons Inc., N.Y., N.Y.
I’ll bet that took all of thirty seconds to find.
Makes it even more striking, however, that creationists merely wave their arms, asserting only in the vaguest generalities about how design can explain genetic similarities, but never demonstrate in detail how design interpretations of sequence data succeed in crucial tests against common descent interpretations.
Tomkins clearly knows how to analyze DNA sequence data. Why doesn't he take this on?
I think we all know why.
There simply isn't a design interpretation which explains, for instance, why crocodiles are genetically more similar to birds than to other reptiles.
Genetic similarities do tend to conform in a general way with typological and functional similarities, but ONLY when these ALSO conform with degrees of evolutionary relatedness. When typology does not conform with common ancestry, for instance when you have a highly derived lineage like birds, the DNA conforms to common ancestry against typology. Tomkin probably knows this, and thus knows when to keep his mouth shut.
I see now that this article turns up on the search page, but as the last of 11 results. Most of those results were articles written by Tomkins. I looked at several of those, and all were the same, merely stating that, "Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research."
I failed to notice that final article was written by another author, and therefore might contain something different about Tomkins. So I switched to looking a search results other than articles, where I found nothing.
This wasn't exactly easy to find. If Tomkins has been there for a year and half, why is he not listed on on the ICR's staff and faculty page?
And, btw, I just noticed that, despite everything GGG provided, it STILL doesn't say what Tomkin's degree is in!
Ph.D. - Genetics, Clemson University, Clemson, SC (1996)
M.S. - Plant Science, University of Idaho, Moscow (1990)
B.S. - Agriculture Educ, Washington State University, Pullman (1985)
==And, btw, I just noticed that, despite everything GGG provided, it STILL doesn’t say what Tomkin’s degree is in!
Geez Louise. Will be gone for a couple of days. If you want to know more about Dr. Tomkins, you’re on your own—GGG
“Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Assistant Professor; PhD (genetics), Clemson, 1996.”
http://www.grad.clemson.edu/programs/brochures/genbioc/genbioc.php
lol I see peopel are STILL avoiding the article while %$^^ing about the Dr.- Simply amazing! Arguing with evos is like arguing with 6 year olds most of hte time
But as in the case of chimps who have 48 chromosomes versus 46 in humans one might well question just how similar the chimp and human genomes really are and how much it really says about their supposed “relatedness”.
Design would better explain why a sea urchin has a gene similar to humans yet the gene is expressed differently.
Well, there's not much to discuss about the article itself. It's pretty superficial. Although we now know, given his credentials, that Dr. Tomkins should, in principle, be capable of more, he merely asserts that common design explains genetic similarities better than evolution, but doesn't explain how.
Despite this I did try to engage the topic of the article, here. But you'll notice that message has no replies as yet.
Maybe you'd like to take as stab at responding? Anything wrong with my argument that the case of reptiles, crocodiles and birds provides a crucial test between common descent and common design in accounting for genetic similarities?
Would you like to suggest an alternative test?
Can you explain why professional creationists with adequate credentials have (so far as I can tell) not even visibly attempted to conduct such tests? For instance, after a year and a half, why has Tomkins not done any technical articles for the ICR? Why only fluff like the current article?
I don't believe this is true. Geneticist have often had to argue extensively with paleontologists and anatomists about the data. (For instance GGG recently posted an article about the latter still disputing the genetic evidence regarding humans and chimps, using cladistic analysis of morphological characters to claim instead that humans and orangutans are more closely related.)
In any case, I chose the example of reptiles, crocodiles and birds, in part because it bypasses this objection, since their evolutionary relationships were worked out long before the genetic evidence was even available.
Still, no one wants to discuss it. Oh well.
Darnit. I meant to say there that birds are a highly divergent, not derived, lineage. IOW, they arose from within reptiles -- so that they share a more recent common ancestor with some reptiles, i.e. crocodiles, than those reptiles share with other reptiles -- but they took a path in their evolution that took them on an adaptive path that was very different and distinct from any other reptile. Yet the genetic evidence reflects ancestry rather than the typological divergence, and rather than functional difference. This is inexplicable on a common design explanation.
... Literally the only "argument" is a general, arm-waving assertion that design can account for genetic similarities.OK. Common descent and design can both account for genetic similarities. Yet only design accounts for genetic similarities and the source of the information embedded in DNA.Sure it could, but so can common descent.
... no one wants to discuss it. Oh well.
--Stultis
How? In analyzing the DNA of living creatures, "the source of the information embedded in DNA" is always the same, whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist. That information is copied from previous copies.
That information is copied from previous copies.What was the source of the information in the original? Design answers that question. Common descent does not.
--Stultis
I’ll discuss it....but right now I’m going to bed.
Insults noted.
I don't think most here would call me lazy. I try to take the time to produce something substantive when I post. And I did thank GGG for providing the info on Tomkin I was unable to find.
Well, then, since descent only deals with copying, how does this distinction serve as a crucial test between the two?
So, let's say that "the original" DNA was created. (A better word than "design," which strictly speaking only concerns form, and not origin.)
So, now, how do we decide between specific DNA similarities and differences being the result of common ancestry or common design?
Well, then, since descent only deals with copying, how does this distinction serve as a crucial test between the two?Correct. Descent only deals with copying.
--Stultis
The best hypothesis is the one that explains the most facts. Common descent explains genetic similarities. The activity of an intelligent agent explains genetic similarities and the information in the DNA of first reproducing life form.
Have you ever seen that cartoon where one professor is explaining to another his huge and complex equation written out on a chalk board, and in the middle of the equation is the notation, "And then a miracle occurs"?
Well, move the "And then a miracle occurs" over to the left of the equation. It needs to be determined how the genetic information got there in the first place before it can be determined whether similarities in later versions of the information are hierarchically dependent or not. If there is an intelligent agent involved, similarities may or may not be dependent on the hierarchical relationship. If mindless chance and as yet undiscovered natural laws are the source of the information in the original, then common descent would be the best explanation of the similarities.
Considering the facts at our disposal regarding the only known source of information, assuming the original information in DNA to be the product of mindless chance and/or the necessary result of yet to be discovered natural laws is the same as same as beginning the explanation of genetic similarities with, "And then a miracle occurs."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.