Evolution is a Religious Issue

So Shraf, your argument is to attack "my author." Wow, that's persuasive.I have given you a valid explanation for how similarities in DNA can arise without universal common descent. You can think the explanation is not valid because, hey, paintings do not sexually reproduce, but in the end of the day, you are making a claim that cannot be proven. You are saying that universal common descent has to be true because of reproduction and speciation, but ultimately, you have an unprovable assertion. The same things we see could occur from multiple descent or even special creation.You pointed out:

quote:

---

Just because we do not currently understand something does not mean that it does not have a naturalistic explanation.

---

That's true, but if you don't understand it, you have to admit you do not understand it instead of insisting it had to happen in a "just-so" way.The term "naturalistic" has been eclipsed. What does naturalistic mean? If the spiritual realm is being tested and it's principles verified, is the spiritual world "naturalistic"?Is artificially manipulating natural processes "naturalistic"?Too much of the evolutionist argument against ID rests on word-games if you ask me and a lack of understanding.This message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 11:32 PM

EZ, if you have never heard of uniformatarianism, you do not belong in this debate, but need to get more of a basic education on the subject.Also, I defined religious in this context. If you do not like that, fine, but to pretend I did not give you the definition in this context is asinine. If you do not understand the concept of ideological indoctrination, and as I point out above, the term uniformatarianism, then it's not my responsibility to educate you.Try the dictionary, and then google the terms, and after you have done that and shown you have a real interest, but still have questions, I will be glad to answer them for you then.

quote:

---

So Shraf, your argument is to attack "my author." Wow, that's persuasive.

---

I said: Please explain how this is an "attack". I am merely stating fact.Do we not see copying mistakes in genes which lead to deformity and disease?Have not most of the species ever to have lived on the planet gone extinct?I find it very telling that you consider the stating of reality as an "attack" of some kind.What, do you think that the Grand Designer (painter?) is somehow not also responsible for genetic disease and extinction? You can't have things both ways, you know.

quote:

---

I have given you a valid explanation for how similarities in DNA can arise without universal common descent.

---

No, you haven't.

quote:

---

You can think the explanation is not valid because, hey, paintings do not sexually reproduce,

---

Yes, EXACTLY because paintings do not sexually reproduce all on their own.That is precisely where your analogy breaks down. Inanimate objects such as paintings do not sexually reproduce and produce offspring all on their own like living things do.

quote:

---

but in the end of the day, you are making a claim that cannot be proven.

---

No, but it can be, and is, extremely well supported by the evidence.Can you tell me where along the line of a given genetic lineage that naturalistic Evolutionary processes weren't or couldn't be responsible for the genetic pattern that is observed?

quote:

---

You are saying that universal common descent has to be true because of reproduction and speciation, but ultimately, you have an unprovable assertion.

---

No, I have lots and lots of evidence from multiple fields and lines of evidence, all pointing to the same thing.Please explain how we cannot use DNA testing to determine relatedness between all organisms.Can you tell me where along the line of a given genetic lineage that naturalistic Evolutionary processes weren't or couldn't be responsible for the genetic pattern that is observed?

quote:

---

The same things we see could occur from multiple descent or even special creation.

---

What specific evidence implies multiple descent or specific creation?I notice that you completely ignore the most detailed and specific part of my post regarding the evolution of Irreducably Complex systems.You seem to be reduced to the typical Creationist retreat; making absolute statements about "You evolutionists will never have absolute proof!" instead of actually addressing the evidence when presented to you.

Shraf, your posts contain a lot presumptions about me and what I am saying which makes discussing issues with you unfruitful, if you are going to misrepresent my views.You assume for instance that I am claiming my author made all these mistakes when I never said that, or claimed that. You also tend to assume it's all "poof" God did it via magic or something on the one hand or materialist evolution with "materialist" or "naturalism" often misdefined by you guys as a concept coorelating to classical physics when that paradigm is woefully incomplete.If you want to discuss my views, I might be willing to share them, but I am not interested in a discussion with someone that isn't even listening, and that appears to be what you are doing, but rather are arguing with a straw man of your own making.As far as the creation and the Bible, since you have brought up the term author in reference to God, the Bible is quite clear that man's fall polluted and created an internal destruction within the fabric of the universe or at least the earth and some of the heavens too, presumably a reference to space.So clearly the author, if you accept God's word on the matter, did not "make these mistakes" but rather subjected the universe to man's fall, and allowed the polluted consciousness of man and other beings, if you accept more of a literal Satan, to affect the creation.A lot of your logic is dependant on assumptions I do not accept, such as a static past, and only linear causal effects in the time-line. I think those are incorrect assumptions. They certainly have never been proven. They are assumptions.If you want to have an in-depth discussion on these issues, you are going to have examine the data and evidence in light of the possibility that certain assumptions may not be correct, and when one does that, imo, more of the evidence fits together.

If you propose "Intelligent Design", then anything we can demonstrate that would not be a very smart design undermines your position. The "common designer" argument doesn't explain the similarity of pesudogenetic sequences, which would have no effect on the organism's phenotype. Neither does it explain vestigial organs. By analogy, you might expect some mechanical similarities if you hired the designer of the Dodge Ram to design a submarine, but if your resulting submarine contained a useless, vestigial air-ride suspension and a tow hitch, it's time to find a new designer.Shared designers explain phenotypical similarity, but inteligent designers only "plagarize" what they need for the new design to work; there's no explanation for why your designer would copy over systems that have no purpose or are non-functional, like the whale's pelvis or the broken GLO pseudogene in primates.Common ancestry remains the only scientific explanation for these similarities.

They're proven every single day that they remain true. What observations do you have to the contrary? This would be the third time I've had to ask, incidentally. Any chance of you answering, any time soon? Just curious.

Please explain why we cannot use DNA testing to determine relatedness between all organisms.Can you tell me where along the line of a given genetic lineage that naturalistic Evolutionary processes weren't or couldn't be responsible for the genetic pattern that is observed?

I thought chimps were 99% similar to humans?That means, if you get a 1% difference then that's the difference between a human and a chimp with a myriad of supposed transitionals inbetween.That means that a 1% tweak in the genes makes an astronomical difference.That's not just intelligent, it's genius.

It very much depends what method one uses to measure the difference. Different methods give results over a range of values around the mid to high 90s. This doesn't neccessarily follow. A 1% discrepancy in the genome, again highly dependent on how it is measured to some extent, does not imply a 1% discrepancy in all genes. Some genes, or at least their protein products, may have almost perfect identity while some may be entirely missing from the other species.Estimates for the content of the genome which actually represents protein coding genes is often given as between 1-2% so in fact 50% of the coded proteins could be different and only produce a 1% discrepancy. If we use one of the larger discrepancy margins, say 5%, that allows for every single protein coding sequence to be completely different, with 3% of the genomes woth of changes still availabe for non-coding elements such as regulatory or chromosome structural features.So really 1% is a hell of a lot of room for change in terms of genetics. The problem only arises if you expect all of that change to be equally distributed throughout the genome. Having said that we might expect the protein coding regions to show less variation assuming that they are under selective pressure to maintain certain functions. Since the protein coding regions of many genes are considerably conserved between humans and chimps it is obvious that not all of the change is concentrated there, as in my reductio ad absurdam, but even a fractional percentage change in only a few hundred genes perhaps could cause some radical changes in an organisms phenotype.The main problem with your argument is that it only requires genius if one already has humans in mind when one begins, if you'll excuse the phrase, monkeying around with the ancestral genome.It is also worth questining your assumption of the astronomical nature of the differences between chimps and man, they are certainly considerably smaller than the differences between man and Drosophila.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-01-2005 09:34 AM

Hi.My point was that 1% would be the difference between a monkey and a human. There's a big difference, which is obvious to anyone. Arguing quantative or qualititive difference is another topic, and also a distraction from the reality that I am stating, that a monkey is a different thing from a human, as can be clearly seen in morphology and behaviour.I still think a monkey wouldn't leave it's tree/niche. So then chimps are no where near like humans? Is that what you're saying? Because I would agree with that.You see, either way, 1% = genius of a designer, 50% means chimps have no relation to humans afterall.Evolutionists have put the spin on it, in order to convince us we are related to the chimp in some way, by saying the difference is 1%. But now that I say this 1% shows a vast difference(in the product you get), then this DNA information is incredibly geniusly made. Now I've said this, it seems you are eager to say that chimps are 50% different.Either way, I think the whole percentage argument seems incredibly vague and can't favour evolution or relatedness to chimps, because quite clearly, like statistics, anyone can make them mean something wonderful when they don't mean much at all.This message has been edited by J. Davis, 06-01-2005 10:02 AM

I have never heard it applied to evolutionary theory and I think it is an irresponsible allegation.
There is nothing 'uniformitarian' about evolutionary biology or the scientisits who use its inferences. Debate and argument are the norm in the discipline (about the details and specifics of particular evolutionary scenarios, not about the principles of evolution itself). I don't think you are qualified to educate anyone - but let's try and work with what you have presented."idealogical indoctrination" is a property of some religions and reflects the goals of some religious people with respect to others. (Actually I rather like it as a definition of religion, but had expected you to come up with something broader) But it is entirely disingenuous and fraudulent to imply that any science can be classified in this manner. Science has no such goals. Science encourages critical thinking. Science welcomes analysis and re-interpretation of data, provided this is done logically and according to the rules of logic and scientific reasoning. Science is not out to 'convince' anyone of anything, only to build increasingly precise models of nature with both descriptive and predictive power. Religions only propagate immutable dogmas that neither adequately describe the workings of the world, nor provide any useful insights into mechanisms of life. They produce nothing testable, provable or verifiable. They provide no framework for understanding mechanisms, nothing that can be built on or modified to improve precision or accuracy. They survive only by indoctrating the ignorant and pleading for 'faith'. Science survives because it works. It is not powerful because it is true, per se, but it is our best model system for approaching 'the truth' - because it is powerful - far more powerful than any religion when it comes to solving tangible, real world problems. Evolutionary theory is a very powerful tool for understanding life processes. It requires no 'indoctrination', only an open mind willing to evaluate the evidence of its power.You religious fanatics would just love to be able to argue that evolutionary theory is a religion so you could use that as a shoe horn to get your phony pseudoscience taught in the high school system of this country. Just like this nitwit Richard Thompson in Pennsylvannia who is legal defense for the Dover School board. You can read about him here An excerpt:"If the courts say the government must be religiously neutral, then they have to take out Darwin's theory of evolution because it posits an atheist or secular humanist religion," says Richard Thompson.
No U.S. court has ever said that evolution is a religion, but Thompson suggests this is because no one has tried it yet. He does not view the case as eroding the separation of church and state.But of course any scientist worth his/her salt would view it exactly that way. We can't allow evolutionary theroy to be unjustly tarred with the brush of religious dogma by those who are motivated precisely by religious dogma. It will be the beginning of the end for real science education in this country. Not that we haven't already slid a long way down that slippery slope.From the same article:A recent CBS News poll found nearly 65 percent of Americans are in favor of teaching creationism along with evolution in schools. Thirty-seven percent favor banning evolution entirely.Great. Apparently a very real ignorance about what constitutes 'science' prevails in this country already and seeks to propagate itself further by appealing to peoples 'religious indoctrination'.

You are laboring under false assumptions if you think any of this relates to evolutionary theory. It is definitively NOT thought of as 'linear'.

Do you actually have any familiarity with any of the evidence. You seem to be basing your argument solely on numbers rather than any actual knowledge of genetics? Surely it is precisely the point since you are basing your argument on a quantative value for genetic difference in comparison to the phenotypic differences? Certainly, but to call the differences 'astronomical' smacks of hyperbole and make me wonder how you would describe much more divergent differences. No, that wasn't what I was saying, I was saying that your argument was based on dubious premises such as there having been a specific outcome to the changes seen. It only requires genius if you think that a human was the desired outcome.Certainly the processes of development are highly complex, but that doesn't imply a genius level of intelligence is needed to intercede in order for them to come about. Only if you don't actually understand the data and the arguments based upon them. Similarly statistics can only be made to mean anything if the people who are being shown them are unable to evaluate their validity for themselves due to unfamiliarity with the techniques used or the source data.There are very specific methods used to determine identity at different levels and these are used for specific, frequently distinct, purposes. What I'm saying is that simply having a 1% discrepancy in the whole genome tells us nothing about how significant the effects on morphology and behavior are neccessarily going to be. We have to actually look at the specific genes involved if we wish to determine the basis for developmental differences, since very small genetic changes (certainly in terms of the whole genome) can significantly alter phenotype. What I was saying was that a 1% genomic difference could in theory account for half of the estimated protein coding sequences in the genome, as I pointed out this is a reductio ad absurdum but it illustrates the point that 1% of several billion bases gives you a whole lot of genetic diversity to play with. You are welcome to believe so, but you haven't provided any evidence which might suggest so to me.TTFN,WK

It requires genius because if you made a 1% difference to a morris minor car, and got a train, then you'd be bloody intelligent. Exactly. Every wildlife program I see tells me that chimps are 1% different from us. What can that mean to the layman? It forces him to think we are related when that doesn't have to be the conclusion at all.You seem to know your stuff, can you tell me some other percentages possibly? Like the comparison of a banana and a human, or a tiger and a human? If not, just how can a layman search this data and find out what it means for himself rather than being brainwashed by those favouring an evolutionistic answer. Then why exactly is this 1% difference broadcast by evolutionists everytime they get a chance, if it means nothing? Though the burden of proof is on me, the claimant. The true positive is that a monkey would leave it's niche. Has this been shown in nature? Has a monkey ever taken to the plains?

Ummm, sorry? I'm not quite sure if you are quite up to speed here. In what way are a morris minor and a train equivalent in terms of difference to a human and a chimp. This is the sort of problem that crops up if you refuse to try quantitating things, you come up with ridiculous comparisons which are totally meaningless. This is more a question of the medias presentation of science, an issue I have a number of problems with. It is arguably in part due to the absolutists and novelty driven nature of the media that the public gets such strange perspectives on scientific issues. It depends on your approach as I previously suggested. I know that values around 50% are frequently quoted for some form of conservation between human and banana but the exact details are unknown to me. It would certainly be quite possible for a layman to do a large number of genetic comparisons between different animal species, or even bananas, for a particular gene or a wide panel of genes. The genetic data in published works is normally required by the publishers to be submitted to the genbank database at NCBI.There is no reason why a large proportion of our genes should not be common to man and bananas. They are both made of living cells and many of the proteins neccessary for those cells to function are likely to be conserved. Many genes which are common to both may well not be identical in sequence in both cases though, and that is where you need to have a clearly defined question in order to get a meaningful answer.If you are really interested in doing your own genetic comparisons then genbank and a program like Bioedit are all you really need. Well, that and a bit of time spent familiarising yourself with the subject in order to know what to do.Unforunately there aren't all that many sequences for Bananas but if you wanted to look at animals then you could easily find ten or twelve sequences for a number of genes.Doing a whole genome comparison is not really something which is feasible for a single person at home, not with todays computers anyway. Well it obviously means something. Technically I think it is a reflection of the temperature at which homologous human and chimp DNA strands anneal/dissociate in comparison to human/human hybridisation. It is a very crude measure of the similarity between DNA strands. And when one actually looks at the specific differences in genes between chimps and human in the context of their development then we can ascribe importance to some of that variation in terms of the final differences in phenotype. Taken in concert with numerous other strands of data it fits in with commonly held theories of the phylogeny of the primates and our place within that phylogeny.So it is not meaningless, but just given as a number without context it is not useful. That isn't really a strong argument. In fact as evidence goes it is non existent. Certainly there are chimpanzees that live in different habitats such as savanna, grasslands and rainforests. In monkeys too there are many species which are almost exclusively arboreal and some which live at least semi-terrestrial lives.TTFN,WKP.S. We seem to be wildly off topic. If you want to continue discussing homology and genetic comparisons then there may be some other relevant threads we could bump, or we could start a new one.This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-01-2005 12:10 PM