Creationists acknowledge evolution makes sense

Creationists recently came to a concensus that the kind level is approximately equal to the family level (ie the Linnean family). I think our word 'baramin' is simply the word used for a proposed kind as determined by some cladistic process. In the end genomics will no doubt have a lot to say about it.The basic idea that there were a few thousand created kinds that diverged by genetics and natural selection is very sound and is consistent with the genome projects.------------------
You are go for TLI

I'll be honest and agree that we leave some wriggle room. I'm actually a genomics researcher (but still a physicist at heart) and so I know a bit about the nature of comparative genomics. The best way for anyone (creationist or evoltuionist) to work out what has occured will be by comparing the complete genomes of many organisms. Just reconstructing phylogenies from limited protein/DNA data will always be a poor substitute. We don't have enough eukaryotes yet.However it is already clear that there is a core subset of all genomes which is either evidence for macroevoltuion or a common creator. As we go from genome to genome we then see entire extra sub-systems (eg the immune system) and also extension of existing repetoirs. Evoluitoists get so excited when they see that the ribosome of a cow is so similar to that of man or that the Hox genes of an insect are a simpler version of our Hox genes. Of course this is also evidence of a common creator and what the evolutionists especially forget to tell people is that in addition to these expansions of repetoirs is the entirely new sub-systems and organs - often involving proteins that bear no sequence similarity to other proteins in the genome. It is here that a miracle has truly occurred for either evolutionists or creationists. There is no systematic mechanism for generating such new genes (let alone integrating them to do something useful) in the entire life sciences. The only ypothetical mechanism is duplication, drift and natural selection. It's not impossible but it has not been systematically shown that this could generate new genes in the time available. I have no probelm with this but don't try and tell us it is anything but evoltuonary expectation.At the end of the day, as a genomics researcher, I can tell you that there will still be some difficult in retracing biological prehistory. It will be difficult to work out which systems were added/evolved vs which are due to loss. In some cases it will be easy to see that funcitons have been lost (rather than gained in the other) due the existnece of psuedo genes but in other s it will be difficult to decide. In any case it will certainly be possible to decide whether there are basic 'kinds' in most cases. The genomic data (we have almost 100 organisms I think) are consistent with the creationist kind conept at present.With the man/ape issue it is becoming clear that the genomes will be very similar. But again the mainstream expectaiton is that there will be many new brain genes in man. A recent New Scientist article explains that while the liver and heart show similar protein expression levels in man and ape the brain expression patterens are very different.In any case, I am trying to say that it will be comaprative genomics that will almost certainly revolutionize taxonomy for both evoltuionists and creationists.------------------
You are go for TLI

Hi Gene90. You raise some very good points. At the very least creationists have to admit that we subscibe to a very constrained creationism - it is a God who did build in a step by step fasion so in a sense we can agree that there is a relatedness in all life. I don't subscibe to macroevoltuion because I believe God created man in his triune image (in spirit, soul and body). I don't believe the gneders, sex or emotions evolved only for purposes of survival (man and woman are pictures of Christ and his church for example). So that's the philosophic la reason. Scientifically I believe the creaiton/flood scenario is more plausible than a God seeded the world with bacteria and then watched while 'programmed' (or unprogrammed) intelligent life evovlved. Besides, the sciptures tell us that Father and Son created as 'craftsmen' together (Prov 8).OK, from an engineering point of view I think it makes sense for God to have reused the ribosome for every creature on earth. It does not matter that the code is degenerate, why couldn't he use the same DNA? I can't prove it but as a scientist I do not have a big problem with it. You can't deny that it would be rather odd to use something other than a ribosme in each creature. The DNA coding - why bother change it - just to deter evolutionists? Tell me more about the retroviruses. How do we know that they didn't infect both man and ape separately?------------------
You are go for TLI

OK Joe, why is that a false dichotomy? Is there seriously an alternative to creation/macroevoltuion? I do know of the recent book by that chemist who presents a case for the independent genomic evolutiuon of each creature. I haven't read it but have read critical mainstream reviews of it. Tell me about it if you know how he can possibly get hemoglobin for man and cows to be independently similar. Does he propose horizontal transfer? If he's arguing physi-chemical determinism he is wrong. I work in protein design and artificial evoltuion (of all things ) and I can tell you that there would be millions of differnet seqeunces that could do what hemoglobin does (and hundreds of protein folds). Any other alternatives? Seeding?I'm quite happy for you to believe that gene duplication/drift/natural selection can lead to proteins with new protein folds in the time available. Didn't I say that already? Please don't tell me stories of moon trips and such. What I said was that it is no more than evolutionary expectation. The public has the impression you guys know how it all happened - they really do. You don't have any evidence for the actual macroevoltuionary steps. That's my point.------------------
You are go for TLI

Come on Joe - do you really think I'm that silly? Of course I acknowledge that there may be other possibilities but given the ones that we have, I, as a sceintist, find macroevoltuion and creation to be the most plausible. You haven't even suggested any others!I know that you think that the possibility of God is silly, sentimental and non-scientific but I, as a fellow human being, and a scientist, do not have a problem logically with the idea of a creator. I agree with the the book of Romans (1:20) that the creator is strongly suggested by the creation no matter how sophisticated we think we are. You obviously disagree, that's fine.

^ Fair enough.I agree theistic evoltuion is a possoble scenario. But that viewpoint of scipture suffers from the problem of not knowing where to stop allegorizing. It trivialises Solomon's writings where Father and Son are described as craftsmen together (Prov 8), some of Jesus' references to Genesis and certainly the writer of Hebrew's references to Noah's role in 'condeming the earth'.It's a liberal possibility but I find it implausible that God either directed or watched evolution and still got man in his image. I put it in the same boat as macroevolution and am aware that mny Christians subscibe to this point of view. You still haven't provided any mechanistially different alternatives.------------------
You are go for TLI

^ Nice to talk with you Gene90.I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Did it have to be this way (core genomes etc)? No it didn't but it certainly could have. You say God killed diversity. Maybe - although maybe God always allowed for horizontal transfer. Horizonal transfer wouldn't be possible without conserved sequences and mechanisms. Even as a creationist I'm prepared to allow for positive adaptation via horizontal transfer (eg taking on of defensins etc). Cone shell venoms attack human calcium channels just as well as fish calcium channels. If it wasn't for core genomes cone shells would need a toxin for every fish family! Anyway, there is potentially a reason for it from God's POV. It could have been this way and obviously I believe it is.On the retroviruses: we (you and I) obviously don't know enough about it. It is possible that they insert themselves preferentially at certain DNA motifs. We'll see . . .------------------
You are go for TLI

^^And where does 'in his image stop' Gene90 - biochemistry? Funny you mention that becasue I do see an amazing picture of the trinity in the central dogma of molecular biology: DNA/RNA/proteins. I see DNA as the source (Father), RNA as the messenger, 'editing' away for the individual situation (Son) and Proteins as the manifestation in multiplicity (Holy Spirit in us). c.f. Sun/Moon/Stars as well (Son as the Moon reflecting - messenger again). Anyway, that's how I see it. Complete hooey for you guys of course.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-15-2002]

Isn't a matter of extents? If the Bible talks about a global flood is it silly to go look for that evidence if that same book tells us about salvation?------------------
You are go for TLI

You tell me. (I feel an OT/NT law/grace discussion coming on).------------------
You are go for TLI

I never said I could prove anything schrafinator. I believe the Bible for non-scientific reasons that made me then go and see how good the Bible was scientifically. The global flood distinguishes the Judea-Christian faith from some others (although not all).------------------
You are go for TLI

^I'm glad you found it helpful/interesting in some sort of way.

I agree about the flood myths schrafinator. We believe they all originated from the same historical event (which for us was a global flood). I agree the flood does not distinguish all faiths although the Bible's description is amongst the less fanciful and is certainly the most detailed.The Bible is good scientifically and historically if one can accept the global flood. On the supposed bloopers it often comes out that a little more study shows that the Bible as right. People tried to show me that the Bible had the wrong value for pi but it turned out the Bible paassage gave the inner diameter and the outer circumference of a fairly thick vessel!------------------
You are go for TLI

^ I never said that study solved things by allegorizing did I? In the example I gave it was pretty clear that an apparent contradicition was easily solved by assuming that the circumference given was external (a more natual measurment to give) and the diameter was internal (more relevant to the volume it could contain). Nothing allegorical there.To discuss the rabbits we need to find out all about the translation issues of 'chewing cud' and the bats as fowl is fine if fowl are defined as 'flying animals'. Not everyone is only interested in classifications that distinguish whether the animal has a placenta or not!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

Joe, I don't have a problem with there being incorrect translations portions of scripture. But I can tell you categorically that this does not grossly affect ony major doctrine including creaiton/flood that I can think of.Name a doctrine of any bible believing chiurch - eg the Baptists (I'm not a Baptist BTW) - that you think hinges on only one verse that may (or may not) be mistranslated or ambiguous.My point was that the phrase/word transalted as 'chewing the cud' may simply mean grass eating in Hebrew.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]