PROOF against evolution

Ok? So? 98% similiar? how about God made it that way!
Do you have any idea how long I would have to sit here and type .000000000000000000... for it to reach the chances of even a single-celled organism to be created? Then for that organism to evolve, survive, reproduce!?!
God is SO much more likely that evolution. God, allways has, is, and always will be!
consider the following!...!When asked how he would respond to callers demanding proof that there is a creator, Bob Enyart put it far more concisely than I could have. So I decided to quote him here on the subject.
"Normally we'll start by explaining the laws of science. I'll ask them, 'Do you agree that a rock cannot make itself out of nothing?' They'll agree with that. I say that we can sort of figure that the Universe cannot make itself. Not possible. They will generally agree with that. I'll say, 'Well you just discovered the first law of Thermodynamics, conservation of energy and matter. You can not create or destroy energy. By the laws of the natural Universe that can't happen.'
Then I'll ask them, 'Can a fire burn forever? Like the sun, could it burn forever?' No, it would burn out eventually. Okay, you just discovered the second law of Thermodynamics, energy goes from order to disorder. It becomes useless. Eventually you can't use it. So is there fire burning in the Universe? Yes. All right what does that mean? It wasn't burning forever.
So we've discovered, one, the Universe can't create itself and two, it couldn't have always been here. So what does that leave us with? Only one possible option, that the Universe was created by a supernatural being. The Universe is the natural. Something supernatural, something outside of the Universe created it.
It's amazing, I'll get hardened atheists on the air and go through that step by step and they will, although they don't like it, they are forced to agree with me at each point. And they do on the air end up saying, 'Okay, I'll grant you the Universe was created by a supernatural being.' They end up agreeing with that, and I don't think that's faith. I don't think it's evidence. I think it's proof. I think we have proof that there's a God. You have to be a fool not to know there's a God. That's what God says, 'The fool says in his heart there is no God.' "

Why would he? Why would he build the same broken Vitamin C gene in both primates and humans? Just to fool us?Have you ever built anything? I ask because only people who don't make stuff tend to think that similarity is evidence of the act of the same creator.Dean Kamen is the inventor of both the Segway and a popular kidney dialysis machine. How similar do you think they are? 98%? Do you honestly think they share any major parts whatsoever? Maybe he should start with the laws of logic. Why would rules that hold true to things inside the universe apply to the universe itself?More importantly who are these idiot atheists that can't rebut this guy? It's easily done. That may be. But we also know that the only God that can exist is one that is either moral or all-powerful, but not both. If you're comfortable with that God, I guess that's fine. Me, I don't have much interest in a God that can't be bothered / isn't able to act morally in the world.

kkslick, I suggest you slow down, take a deep breath and relax a bit.Try reading over some of the threads here on topics that you think are important and then add to those. You might do well to ask more questions and make more assertions.The fact is, KK, that you don't know very much about the subjects you are trying to make assertions about. There is a good chance you have all your "information" from some creationist sources. You'll find if you try to use those to defend your postition that they have been discussed and refuted here in great detail.There are many cases where those sources can reasonably be accused of being deliberately misleading. That is, you may have been lied to.You don't have to believe what I'm telling you here but a prudent man would pause for a moment and wonder what to do until you have really determined if I'm telling you the truth or not. So slow down and read a bit first. There is a great deal to learn.

---

Common sense isn't

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.I repeat evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.Also I don't know who this guy you are referring to is but his arguments are weak at best, I pity the Atheist that couldn't refute those statements. Not to mention that anyone trying to prove or disprove the existance god is wasting their time.Once again I suggest you check out TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Let me just say that I like your avatar, and note that not all Austrian women look like that... (at least not nowadays that is).(for all who don't have an idea what I am talking about, look up "Venus von Willendorf" on google)

k.kslick, How about that the above is a logically invalid argument!Untestable.Mark

Why? Why would god do that? What predictions could we make based on the idea that god did it? Ah, Bob Enyart - convicted child abuser, hate monger, bigot, liar, enemy of democracy and tax evader - what a wonderful man to drag out in support of your position. It's a real pity that's not quite true. We know matter and energy can come into and out of existence, we can observe it occuring at the Quantum level. What you mean the sun hasn't been 'burning' forever? And the universe hasn't been there forever? What, exactly like science says it hasn't?[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 01-16-2004]

quote:

---

God is SO much more likely that evolution.

---

If it's that unlikely that a single-celled organism would form on its own, how much less likely is it that a being as complex as God would form on his own?

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

Hello k.kslick! You don’t seem to understand the significance of this, so here’s a bit of background.The vast majority of our DNA is what’s called ‘non-coding’. That is, when it is being used by cells to make proteins to make a body, hardly any of it is used, anywhere.In the lingo, a strand of DNA is made up of exons (coding bits, in effect bits of genes) and introns (non-coding bits: ‘intruders’ is my mnemonic for which is which ). If you look it up in a textbook, you’ll be surprised (I was) to see that along a given strand, the exons are tiny little bits interspersed between great long lengths of code -- stuff that doesn’t seem to do anything except be along for the ride.And we know why it is these ‘introns’ aren’t used. A lot of it is just nonsense code, that does not translate into any amino acid (the building-blocks of proteins).A lot more of it is ‘pseudogenes’: these are made up of the same sequences that form real genes, but in one way or another they are broken, lacking for example the bits of code that say ‘start’ or ‘stop’. So these don’t get used to make a body either. And there’s a load more sorts of this so-called ‘junk’ DNA.Another example is satellite DNA. This is short segments of nonsense code that are repeated many many times. In Drosophila fruitflies, for instance, there are three sattelite sequences, each just seven ‘letters’ (bases) long. One sequence is repeated eleven million times; the other two are repeated 3.6 million times each. Together they make up 40% of the fly’s entire genome. We humans have a ton of satellite DNA cluttering up our (God-made?) genomes.Now, the easy majority of our DNA is so-called junk. I can’t lay my hands on the figures right now, but if I say it’s 80% I know I’m hugely underestimating. That is, at least eight-tenths of our DNA is not used to make our bodies.And the same is true for chimpanzees.The significance of the 98% the same as chimps statement is this. Only a small fraction of our DNA makes our bodies. And only a small fraction of chimps’ DNA makes their bodies. Now, our bodies are very very similar: so similar that the father of classification, Linnaeus -- a creationist, btw -- put chimps in the genus Homo, iirc. So it’s no surprise that the DNA that makes human bodies should be so similar to that which makes chimp bodies. So okay, God made it that way, if you like.But why should the vast quantities of DNA that does not make our bodies be so similar? Sure, God could have made it that way. But there is no point to having all that non-coding stuff the same, since it doesn’t do anything! (In fact, there’s no reason for it to be there at all, so it is odd that God might put it there, wasting so much material. But that’s a different argument.)All that DNA -- that is, most of it -- could have any sequences at all in the two species, as long as it doesn’t get translated. If God had wanted to show that we are separate from chimps, having completely different non-coding DNA would be as clear a way as any. But it is, point for point, broken codon for missing codon, nearly identical.Now consider. One thing we do know about DNA is that the patterns of it are passed down generations. If we didn’t, and if it were not demonstrably true, there could be no DNA-based paternity suits! These things work by comparing the patterns in the non-coding DNA, in much the same way as one can detect copying and plagiarism.Database compilers often put in deliberately incorrect bits of information. They do this because anyone merely copying the information will copy across the errors too, and can be detected because the chances are negligible that anyone compiling their own information would include the same wrong information.So all that non-coding DNA -- a gene with a broken start codon, for instance -- can be regarded as lots of wrong information. The chances of the same mistake breaking the same gene in the same way are -- and you’ll like this, since you like probabilities -- astronomically small. So the presence of the same unused, wrong code in two places -- two individuals -- shows that they have been copied.Now, evolutionary theory suggests that DNA patterns are copied down generations (so far, so uncontroversial). But if a lineage splits -- as it does when speciation (which is an observed phenomenon, btw) occurs -- then the errors, the useless stuff will get copied down the generations in the two lineages.So if a man can be identified as a child’s father because of idiosyncracies in his non-coding DNA, then cousins can be similarly identified. And if two species are related -- as evolution proposes -- then they too should share idiosyncracies in their non-coding DNA. The same impeccable logic and evidence that shows familial relationship can also show species relationship.Guess what? Humans and chimpanzees do indeed share loads of identical sequences in our non-coding DNA. What does this show, if not that they have been carried down lineages... even into separated ones?Oh sure, you may still say ‘God made it that way’. But we have an extraordinarily good reason to think that he might have made it that way by means of copying and change, allowing his creation to become, not just be. If he did just make it that way, we can fairly ask you, who say so, why he did. So? Why?Here are a couple of examples of this non-coding DNA evidence.Firstly, as has already been mentioned, there’s vitamin C. Just about all mammals are able to make their own. So evolution predicts that human ancestors could, too. It therefore predicts that humans might have, somewhere in their genome, the remnants of the mechanism for doing so.Guess what? We do. We have the necessary genes... but one bit of the system, the gene that makes the wonderfully-named L-gulano-g-lactone oxidase, is broken by a mutation. Now, humans generally get enough vitamin C from their diets, so we don’t usually miss this gene’s benefit. But is this not an odd thing for God to have ‘made that way’? After all, it condemns those without adequate diets to scurvy!But now note: apes are also unable to make their own vitamin C. And, the reason they can’t is the same reason we cannot. The L-gulano-g-lactone oxidase gene is broken. And it is broken by exactly the same mutation!It seems that either God made us that way, with a gene for making Vitamin C but broken so that we’re susceptible to its deficiency, and also gave the same broken gene to apes... or that this mistake has been plagiarised, copied into now-separate lineages. Which seems more probable?See here for more details.And secondly. Chimpanzees have one more pair of chromosomes (the chunks that DNA is clustered into) than we humans have -- they have 48 to our 46. A problem for evolution? No, some stong evidence for it. Our chromosome 2 (they are numbered according to size; this is our second-largest) is remarkably similar to two separate chimpanzee ones. Evolution therefore suggests that, in our lineage, the two have fused to form our single chromosome 2, hence us having one fewer pairs.And so evolution predicts that there might be evidence of this fusion, tucked away in the non-coding sequences of that chromosome.Chromosomes have characteristic endy-pieces to them called telomeres, and these sequences are easily recognised. They also have characteristic middle pieces, called centromeres, that are used during cell division. What would happen, do you think, if two chromosomes fused? Is it reasonable to suspect that the single chromosome might have, in amongst all the non-coding stuff, a telomere sequence in its middle, and a couple of extra centromere sequences?That is exactly what we do find.Our chromosome 2 is unambiguously two ape chromosomes stuck together. The alternative -- that God made it that way -- would seem to mean that God deliberately put useless (ie they have no business being there at all!) telomere sequences into the middle of a chromosome. A chromosome that just happens to be pretty well identical to two separate ape ones.See here for more details.You should note that there are countless other examples of this sort of evidence in our DNA.If, as you would have it, God made it that way, then God has done a remarkable job of making it look exactly like evolution, even to the extent of giving us a broken gene that would otherwise be useful. One has to then ask: Why?Since you’ve suggested that as the answer, perhaps you can tell us? Please?TTFN, DT

quote:

---

Strictly speaking, science doesn't even need repeatability of observations, just that the observations be objective (i.e. visions and hunches do not count). Neutrinos coming from a supernova were observed in 1987, and have not been seen since (because there haven't been any supernovas close enough). Even without anyone being able to repeat those observations, they're still perfectly valid scientific data.
In general, telling scientists that they're not following the scientific method is likely to be a losing effort, since the practice of scientists is what defines the scientific method (which may only bear a loose resemblance to what's taught in ninth grade as the scientific method).

---

All very good points, sfs. Thanks for contributing them.

Well on the one hand it's a shame I didn't get to this reply sooner, but on the other hand you've already received some excellent responses from the others on the board.I'll share with you my thoughts in response to your post so that you I might hopefully offer a unique perspective. As some have already pointed out, this is fallacious thinking because it is unfalsifiable. Meaning, that no matter what we found using the scientific method, you could simply pronounce "God made it that way!" and there would be no way to prove you wrong. That's not really the point, though, because nobody's trying to show that God didn't make it that way, nor that God doesn't exist. Instead, we are simply trying to show you that IF God made it that way, he did so using common descent, mutation, natural selection, and millions and millions of years. If this idea is incompatible with your interpretation of your favorite religious text, then you've obviously misinterpreted it. Y'know, I've seen this argument probably an hundred times, and every time I ask the person arguing it to present the probability calculations that they used to arrive at their figure. Do you know how many times I've actually seen them supply it?None.Wanna be the first? Go ahead, make my day. I'm gonna need to also see your probability calculation for the existence of God so that we then might compare them. Is there any chance, according to you, that your God doesn't exist? If not, is that possibly because you've defined him such, like when you go on to say: So you say, but I think you're a little short on supporting evidence that might compel me to believe your assertion. Slight nitpick. In general, non-conservation doesn't happen. Nothing about the law says that it can't happen, in principle. We've just never been able to observe it, and every test seems to support the idea that it doesn't happen. Wrong. Incorrect. Erroneous. Hogwash. Bullsh*t.All it means is that the sun wasn't always burning, which is well accounted for in stellar evolution. We know how stars form in the universe, and we know that they can have beginnings even if the universe does not. Not at all. No observations support the idea that there was ever a time when the universe did not exist (except for, perhaps, the inexhaustible imaginations of religious zealots). Sorry, but this guy's "proof" crashed and burned harder than the Hindenburg. Actually, that's what a certain Psalmist said. There's no evidence that he was in fact speaking on behalf of any god, except for, perhaps, the say-so of more religious zealots.

Were you insulted by my message? I should apologize, I guess, but I merely replied in the same manner as your own post - read the post to which I responded. I wasn't making fun of your age - I was sarcastically referring to the way you came in here, sounding like you believe all the answers, and the rest of us must be idiots if we don't see the world as you do.As far as my crack about a "bumbling god", you should read the Bible. At any rate, those last two lines were a parody of the equally offensive last two lines of the post to which I responded.Sorry if I seem to have gone over a line, but if you want politeness, you should be polite yourself. Now I have no problem with a little sarcasm or ribbing the other person, but if you are going to do that then you'd better be prepared to get a little static in return.

quote:

---

In the lingo, a strand of DNA is made up of exons (coding bits, in effect bits of genes) and introns (non-coding bits: ‘intruders’ is my mnemonic for which is which ).

---

Another way to remember the difference is that EXons are EXpressed, and INTrons are INTervening sequences.Also, technically, introns and exons related to RNA, not DNA.

quote:

---

And we know why it is these ‘introns’ aren’t used. A lot of it is just nonsense code, that does not translate into any amino acid (the building-blocks of proteins).

---

That seems to me to be either tautological or confusing. Theoretically, any triplet of DNA nucleotides could be copied into an mRNA codon and then translated into an amino acid, or represent termination (a "stop" "punctuation symbol"). There are only 3 out of 64 codons that function as termination codons and it is just these 3 that are called nonsense codons (because they don't code for an amino acid).Your statement makes it sound as if introns aren;t used because they are composed almost entirely of repeats of the 3 specific DNA triplets that would correspond to "stop". If that is your intention, do you have support?

quote:

---

A lot more of it is ‘pseudogenes’: these are made up of the same sequences that form real genes, but in one way or another they are broken, lacking for example the bits of code that say ‘start’ or ‘stop’. So these don’t get used to make a body either.

---

Well, saying that pseudogenes "are made up of the same sequences that form the real genes" is misleading. A typical method of pseudogene creation is by duplication followed by divergence. A gene gets duplicated, resulting in there being two exact copies. Assuming this is a protein coding gene, there would be a "backup" copy should one gene get "mutated". And that's what frequently happens. In a simplified scenario, with two copies, functional constraint on both is reduced (not eliminated) - mutations can accumulate in both as long as at least one of them remains functional. Once one of them accumulates enough mutations to where it loses its former function, (in most cases) it is then a nonfunctional pseudogene (it is theoretically possible that the mutations it accumulated actually allow it to perform a related function). The other version becomes the only copy of the original gene and full functional constraint applies to it (this prevents it from deviating any further than it already has, if any: it may even stear the sequence back towards its original sequence, if the original was more fit than the present one). Now, being theoretically completely useless to the cell, there is NO functional constraint on the pseudogene so mutations can accumulate completely unchecked: in other words, natural selection plays no role in rejecting mutations in the pseudogene so they have free reign...ANYWHERE IN THE PSEUDOGENE.

quote:

---

Chimpanzees have one more pair of chromosomes (the chunks that DNA is clustered into) than we humans have -- they have 48 to our 46. A problem for evolution? No, some stong evidence for it. Our chromosome 2 (they are numbered according to size; this is our second-largest) is remarkably similar to two separate chimpanzee ones. Evolution therefore suggests that, in our lineage, the two have fused to form our single chromosome 2, hence us having one fewer pairs.

​

...

​

Our chromosome 2 is unambiguously two ape chromosomes stuck together. The alternative -- that God made it that way -- would seem to mean that God deliberately put useless (ie they have no business being there at all!) telomere sequences into the middle of a chromosome. A chromosome that just happens to be pretty well identical to two separate ape ones.

---

I feel that is the single strongest scientific evidence that humans evolved from a common ancestor of chimps. Of course, your other point, that humans and chimps share "98%" of their DNA doesn't hurt!But, I believe the actual figure is >99% (I realize that 98% is not your figure), which would make the case even stronger.However, I would like to ask a question. You seem to be claiming that the "98%" similarity between chimp and human DNA includes ALL of the DNA, including so-called junk DNA. I am not sure that is correct. For example, the value "98%" was quoted way before the HGP had completed, and I don't believe the chimp genome has been determined yet. I think the "98%" value is based primarily on protein-coding regions, and on a large number of genes, not all of them. For an explanatory example of the general method I think the number is based on...suppose scientists determined the sequences of just 1,000 protein-coding genes in humans and also the seqeuences of the same 1,000 genes in chimps, then compared them, finding that large sample of protein-coding genes to be "98%" identical in sequence. If this is the case, the junk DNA would not be involved in the calculation.Anyone know the actual method?[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 01-17-2004]

quote:

---

Also, technically, introns and exons related to RNA, not DNA.

---

I don't know how they were originally defined (since I have no formal training in genetics), but intron and exon are routinely used to describe DNA in current genetics literature.

quote:

---

However, I would like to ask a question. You seem to be claiming that the "98%" similarity between chimp and human DNA includes ALL of the DNA, including so-called junk DNA. I am not sure that is correct. For example, the value "98%" was quoted way before the HGP had completed, and I don't believe the chimp genome has been determined yet. I think the "98%" value is based primarily on protein-coding regions, and on a large number of genes, not all of them. For an explanatory example of the general method I think the number is based on...suppose scientists determined the sequences of just 1,000 protein-coding genes in humans and also the seqeuences of the same 1,000 genes in chimps, then compared them, finding that large sample of protein-coding genes to be "98%" identical in sequence. If this is the case, the junk DNA would not be involved in the calculation.

​

Anyone know the actual method?

---

The original measurement was done by hybridizing DNA from the two species and seeing how easily they annealed. More recently it has been confirmed by sequencing, first of ~1 Mb segments of genomic sequence (i.e. including everything, junk and all) and now of both entire genomes. The measured value from comparing the full human and chimp genomes is about 98.7% identity. (The chimp genome has been fully sequenced, and a draft is publicly available, but the paper hasn't been written yet, so that measurement isn't published yet.) So yes, the quoted value includes junk DNA. Identity is significantly higher in coding regions, although I don't know by how much.These numbers can be a little misleading, however, since they describe only single-base-pair differences in homologous sequence. If you include insertions and deletions, the fraction of divergent bases will be much higher (perhaps 5%, but it hasn't been well measured yet).

Hi DNAunionI agree with all of your points, and apologise if I was misleading on any of them. I was just trying to put it as simply as possible, getting the main points across to KK... but such superficiality inevitably means that a lot will be glossed over. But thanks for your input!Ref the unused introns, yeah that is a bit confusing. I wrote just that, then added the examples, but didn't tidy the first para up. Would satellite DNA be the simplest example?Ref pseudogenes, you are of course correct, and my example of start and stop codon mutations undoubtedly highlights my own superficial knowledge -- I expect most aren't like that, as you indicate. However, I did say 'for example'... and I had gathered that a simple start or stop mutation can render a perfectly good gene non-functional, ie turn it into a pseudogene....? (Please correct me if not -- this isn't really my area (haven't really got one!), and my textbooks are all at home, where I'm not.)Cheers, DT