WinAce

Let's put this another way: we've directly observed chromosome fusions producing the exact same type of result. Now, our own chromosome consists of what appears, for all intents and purposes, to be a fused chimp chromosome. Other species we know for a fact to be related, such as wild horses and domestic ones, also have these types of fusions.

So, in other words, you walk into a room. A dead body is there, with a knife shoved into its back. You conclude that it isn't 'definite proof' for murder and walk away, just because 'proof' is only possible in mathematics.

You made no attempt to propose why 'god made it that way to look entirely like a natural fusion event' is a better explanation than 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, especially when massive amounts of other, totally unrelated data says it is'.

pz

What are you talking about?

Chromosomal similarities are evidence for common ancestry, so a lack of differences between frog and human would be evidence on the side of evolution.

However, it's quite clear that, as you admit, you don't know much about genetics. There are deep similarities in gene sequences between animals that are best explained by common descent. There are analyses of synteny (the larger scale structure of gene organization on chromosomes) that show rearrangements on a grander scale than the simple and obvious one scigirl is describing here.

There will never be "100% proof" for anything, so it is ridiculous to hold out for it. What we do have is overwhelming evidence for common descent, evidence that far outweighs that for any other theory, so it is ludicrous to pretend that one's standards are too high to accept it -- as you are a confessed creationist, we can see that the converse is true.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Hi GTX,

But evolution does make a lot of really cool specific predictions and confirmations of what we'd expect to find from the data that are superior to any vague predictions of a "common designer." There's just too many strange coincidences in the evidence for the "common designer" view to be credible. The chimp/human chromosome apparent fusion is only one example.

In science, nothing can be proven to 100% certainty. But we can know something to a high degree of confidence, such as in statistics. If you're looking for an interesting mathematical/statistical argument for evolution to a high degree of confidence, check <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy" target="_blank">this site</a> out regarding nested heirarchical classification and convergence of independent phylogenies.

Exactly, tis common ancestry.

That's a good question. I could be mistaken, but I don't see a lot of selection pressures for humans to change for the moment. Perhaps in future generations we'll lose stuff that we don't need for survival, like wisdom teeth or body hair or something.

Of course, there's always #4: the universe "just is." As a YEC, I doubt you accept Big Bang cosmology, but I can see the appeal of your argument from progressive creationists and prominent Christian apologists like William Craig. They would argue that the Big Bang implies a creation event and that the universe is not eternal. But I'm not convinced that the Big Bang was a supernatural event and one can easily come up with naturalistic alternative explanations.

And these "evidences" crumble under scrutiny, especially the moon-dust argument. See ex-creationist's link to the AIG page. Most YEC writers won't use the moon-dust argument anymore except for people like "Dr." Kent Hovind, a true snake oil salesmen for Jesus, whose arguments often have the same quality as those you'd read from the Weekly World News. See also Dave Matson's piece on moon dust in his <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/space_dust.html" target="_blank">How Good are Those Young Earth Arguments?</a>

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I have to disagree that there are "good evidences for a young Earth." The evidences for an old earth are overwhelming. Young earth creationism was dead in the scientific community even before Darwin arrived at the scene. Many creationists today would agree with me, such as Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe" along with prominent Christian apologists like J.P. Moreland and William Craig.

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

excreationist

Well due to our hospitals, more and more people with severe health problems are surviving and reproducing. Some aren't even capable of reproducing naturally - they need help using IV technology, etc. But in the wild, only the fittest humans would have survived to puberty. So in the modern era, we're accumulating more and more health problems and things like bad teeth, bad eyesight, etc.
But there are technologies for people to detect defects during pregnancy and abort the pregnancy. I think there are also "gene therapy" technologies being used. I'm not sure if those changed genes are passed on to that person's children though.
And people sometimes choose which sperm donor they want and sometimes the egg donor they want. That way the parents can have babies that are more athletic, etc, than they are.
In the future people would probably be able to choose exactly what they want the baby to be like, and also be able to eliminate most/all recessive defects.
Maybe genetics would make new traits for humans - like anime-style blue hair or something. But if they want to keep them genetically compatible with homo sapiens there'd probably be limits to what they can do. Or maybe there wouldn't be.... I mean weird traits like having extra fingers can be passed on...

scigirl

Hey GTX, thanks for your reply.
Right, of course not. The only way you will believe it is if your Bible changes, because for you it isn't about evidence.
But GTX. . . why do the genetic similarities happen to correlate with evolutionary trees?

Consider this: Humans discovered evolution, mainly from the fossil record and anatomy, they make "evolutionary trees" based on this data. Then humans discover and sequence DNA, and an overwhelming majority of the sequences match the trees. That means: there are independent lines of evidence supporting evolution.

So, you admit you don't understand genetics, but you know enough to discount the evidence? Very interesting.
But why are there specific similarities and differences, as predicted by evolution?

Many patterns we see in the genome have no apparent function. So if we see the same pattern in a chimp and a human, but not in a mouse, consistent with evolution, than we can conclude it's evidence for evolution.

1) Genes do not appear to need a particular location in order to function. This is true with gp91 that I study in my lab--one of the 5 genes in NADPH oxidase (you can introduce it as a plasmid and it still works).
2) Genes do not have a particular order if you analyze them according to what they do in a given organism (again, the NADPH oxidase genes--there's 5--are all on different chromosomes).
3) These same exact genes are in that same weird haphazard order in related organisms. For example, gp91 is on the X in humans, and lo and behold, it's also on the X in all the animals that evolution says are our relatives.

If #1 is true, than why do we see #3, if not for evolution? If each animal were separately created, this to me seems like a pretty amazing coincidence that gp91 is always on the X, even though we can show it doesn't need to be on the X.
There is less proof for gravity than there is evolution - I believe we know a lot more about the mechanisms behind evolution than gravity (infidels - please let me know if this is not true)!

However, both theories work very well to explain the evidence. That's how science works. Kind of like a courtroom, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

GTX, imagine if we conducted murder trials in the fashion you are asking scientists to conduct science. "Well we weren't there, and we don't have video camera to prove that Joe killed Fred, even though we have DNA evidence, he has no alibi, and there's a motive." That would be a scary world indeed.

Incidentally, where's your 100% proof of <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/criticism.shtml" target="_blank">your Bible</a>? Don't you have to take it on faith because there is no proof?

But when there is some proof of a theory (evolution) you discount it because they aren't 100% sure? I'm very confused by your logic.

Interesting question - there are several books on the subject I believe - check em out and read em!

Exactly, I think you believe in creation despite the evidence.
Excuse me, a physics professor? Are you going to MSU? I know there is a physics prof there who is a creationist (he uses all the same stupid arguments like from AiG).

Why don't you call up <a href="http://plantsciences.montana.edu/Faculty/lavin.htm" target="_blank">Dr. Matt Lavin</a> or <a href="http://vmb.montana.edu/schmidt.htm" target="_blank">Dr. Ed Schmidt</a>, who are actually biologists, and are actually qualified to teach about evolution?
Exactly.
This argument is so lame that even <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1372.asp" target="_blank">Answers in Genesis</a> knows not to use it!
Um, no. There is ZERO evidence for a young earth. Sorry. There is not. Why don't you re-take that physics class of yours, paying special attention to the radioactive decay chapter?
LOL! So even though you agree that ToE holds more evidence, you still won't accept it.

Why don't you just admit right now that you are a YEC because of your faith and your religion, and it has absolutely nothing to do with genetics, fossils, dinosaurs, or anything else?

scigirl

(edited to add - ahh I see you are in idaho, not bozeman, but well those professors are really cool, and do neat research with evolution!)

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

scigirl

Anaconda, huh. Poor thing! For everone else: Butte and Anaconda are the "black sheep" children of montana - they are all ruined by excessive mining. Actually they aren't so bad - at least they've got the Deerlodge Nat'l forest close by!

Yep, grew up in Helena, obtained my bachelors at <a href="http://www.montana.edu" target="_blank">MSU</a> in cellular and molecular biology, master's in immunology. Now I'm off to more schooling in <a href="http://www.uchsc.edu/sm/sm/" target="_blank">Denver</a> for my MD.

What part of Idaho are you from? My father lives in Boise - very nice town I think. Northern Idaho is just gorgeous too.

Well first you have to have children (people don't evolve, populations do!) and second, being good at bowling has to become a survival advantage. (I suppose that could happen!)

scigirl

KnightWhoSaysNi

Or perhaps bowling can become a sexual advantage. (i.e. sexual selection).

"Wow, does he ever have nice balls..."

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

Bubba

By the way, "welcome to the Sec Web" GTX. If your ever in Ohio I'll take you to Mid Ohio or national trails, lots of good auto racing action here. Seriously, I'd advise you to check out the serious evidence for evolution. One can believe in forms of evolution and still believe in God, for one thing. Plus. the book of Genesis was written in a pre-scientifc age. I don't think it's commiting any moral wrong to say that our understanding of the universe has improved since then.

Be interested in reading any other posts you have on the creation/evolution issue. Most of the creationists here seem to run after they get flooded with evidence, so I'm hoping you'll stick around.

Bubba

Badfish

Thanks a lot everyone! I realize evolution has great case.

The bible could date the earth up to 15,000 years maybe? Depending on the severity of Gods wraths, could not these fossils and underground fossils be a result of a great catastrophe rather than millions of years of changes?

Yes a theist could believe that the severity of Gods destructive wraths could have changed the Earth, this is just speculation but what if God had some different ideas he didn't like, and just chose not to reveal?

So why didn't all species evolve at the same time? Why are some supposedly still evolving? Environment? If we all evolved from one celled organisms why are we still evolving at different stages? Because the one celled organisms are still coming?


And yes my bowling could evolve to a higher level.

Your less than 80 miles and close enough to the sunlight mine in Whitehall to be one of those "Black sheep". Oh I get it, you spend lots of time at the dinosaur museum in Bozo j/k.

Badfish

Oh yeah scigrl, I am in Northern Idaho.