KnightWhoSaysNi

GeoTheo,

Here's another biological question that might interest you. This is in regard to pseudogenes.

It is predicted in evolutionary theory that we should have vestigial molecular evidence of our past evolutionary ancestry. This was confirmed when molecular biologists found precisely these things (and we'll probably find more in the future). Here's one example:

Most animals are capable of synthesizing vitamin C (ascorbic acid), but humans and other primates cannot (we have to eat fruit and vegetables to get vit. C or else we'll get scurvy). It was predicted and confirmed that humans do in fact have the gene that allows the synthesis of vitamin C (but it is non-functional). This same non-functional pseudogene is also found in other primate species.

Biologists believe that at some point in our evolutionary history, a common ancestor of all primates developed a mutation that made the gene non-functional. This had no effect on survivability because their diets were likely rich in vit. C anyway.

As a creationist, how do you explain vestigial molecular evidence? Why do we have a non-functional gene in our DNA that allows us to synthesize vit. C? Is it merely an amazing coincidence that other primate species share this same non-functional gene?

Source: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#molecular_vestiges" target="_blank">Molecular vestigial characters</a>

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

scigirl

Ok - so my interpretation of your explanation is this: God made us from chimp spare parts.

Sure, except your theory fails to compare to ToE for a couple of reasons. The main one: the evolutionary explanation (that the chromosomes fused themselves together) provides a mechanism that we can test.

1. We know that chromosomes do indeed fuse together, without the (apparent) help of a Creator. Pieces of chromosomes will occasionally break off and fuse to another chromosome. Sometimes this can cause cancer:
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=120633 89&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Molecular cytogenetic analysis consistently identifies translocations involving chromosomes 1, 2 and 15 in five embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma cell lines and a PAX-FOXO1A fusion gene negative alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma cell line.</a>

2. The evidence in our chromosome 2 suggests that a naturalistic fusion did indeed occur - it has a non-functioning centromere (chromosomes need only 1 centromere, not 2), and non-functioning telomeres.

Therefore, according to ToE, the chimp/chromosome fusion event did occur without any outside help. We will never be able to prove this, of course, but the evidence suggests that it certainly could have happened (we know that chromosomes can fuse in the germline, and there is evidence of a fusion in our chromosome #2}. So there is no need to invoke the chromosome fairy to explain the fusion. There still could be a chromosome fairy, but it is useless to include her in the Science paper, because you don't need her to do anything for the fusion to work.

Again, how is this different from evolutionary theory?

Still not happy with your explanation. You see, your mechanism (God) does not apparently leave evidence of how He did all this fusion, mixing, blending, etc. However, the theory of evolution gives us the mechanism (mutations/alterations in the genome).

If we see evidence of those mechanisms, than evolution has scored more points. So not only do animals look like they evolved (which you admit they do), but also there in our DNA, staring us in the face, is evidence of the means in which evolution gave us its creation. The telomeres and centromeres in our chromosomes, pseudogenes, the patterns of introns and exons preserved through evolutionary trees, etc, etc etc.

The thing is, there is no way to prove to you that evolution happened, if your answer is to say, "well all that evidence just means that God wanted it that way." Why is it that all this data just happens to align with our evolutionary trees that we made just from fossil records and other types of data? Is that just an amazing coincidence too? The ordering of the genes (even though they don't need to be in that order), the ordering of the "junk," the extra centromeres and telomeres, the transposition data in the Y chromsomes. This data is piling up higher and higher, and nearly every time, the data supports our trees that we made before genetic experiments. Coincidence, God wanted it that way, or evolution?

I wonder, if evolutionary theory is such a good predictor of where genes are going to be in an organism, even if it didn't really happen, why does it matter to you? You might as well accept the predictions/conclusions of evolution anyway, since so far, here's the score as I see it:

* Specific predictions about genes made by evolutionary theory that just happened to come true: thousands
* Specific predictions about genes made by the 1st chapter of Genesis that just happened to come true: zero

So why not just accept evolution, and say, "God set it into motion" or whatever, since you are forced to accept the conclusions anyway (instead of saying 'humans have very similar chromosome patterns as a chimp that in fact look like evolution but are not at all from evolution')??

scigirl

scigirl

Oh incidentally, if you want to see another creationist's answer to these questions, look <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000920" target="_blank">here</a>. And yes I just cut and pasted from my last post (arguing evolutionary principles starts to sound like a broken record doesn't it!)

scigirl

P.S. Nice post about vitamin C, nightshade. That's another good piece of evidence to file away, since again, it's about humans, and I understand it!

MOJO-JOJO

scigirl....you are truly phenomenal, I mean that sincerely. How are you able to make time for such a website?


This simple statement of yours is one for the memory banks;

The mission of the schools is to teach science in science classes, not religion. Creationism has no more place in the biology classroom than astrology has in the astronomy classroom.

(of course....most christians probably think astrology and astronomy are related sciences <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> )

MOJO-JOJO

Hold on Geo....this is exactly what creationism says. God waves his magic wand, or blinks like I Dream of Jeannie and *poof*....there it is.

Religionists are poofers, realists are rational examiners.

MOJO-JOJO

That has been the intention of organized religion for several thousand years....you finally got it!

Now send your tithe to your Pastor, and try coming up with a real argument. You're making stuff up out of thin air (only god can do that )

Tabula_rasa

I have yet to see any proof for the above assertion. Nobody on the ID/SciCre side has offered evidence, much less proof, that DNA is designed. Proof by analogy won't work. Paley's analogy was wrong for the body and it's still wrong for DNA.

Of course, if actual evidence has been provided, please accept my sincerest apologies. I must admit that I don't keep up with minute to minute coverage of the scientific advances in the field. Please step forward and claim your Nobel prize, post haste.

Tabula_rasa

scigirl

To clarify. . . the web sites I linked to above--I had no part in writing or creating them. The site titled "The Evolution Evidence Page" I believe was created by Robert Williams.

scigirl

scigirl

In GeoTheo's defense, here is the whole quote:
Italics mine. Scientists frequently use the word "designed" - you might read in Nature that "DNA was designed to replicate itself" or something like that. For lack of a better word, it is used unfortunately. This does not mean that DNA was purposefully created, it was simply "made" that way through natural selection.

scigirl

KnightWhoSaysNi

Hey, thanks Scigirl! Remember, when battling creationists, always take your vitamins.