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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

​

---

Then why do they use genetic information to derive baramins, but throw that evidence away when multiple phylogenies place man in the ape clade?Personally, I think creationists will rue the day they coined the term "baramin", because they will be required to give their criteria to apply to organisms in order to place them in baramins. Their "science" is going to be shown to be blinkered & biased. How can you use genetically derived phylogenies, but then throw that same evidence away when it clearly & repeatedly shows common descent BEYOND family level?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Personally, I think creationists will rue the day they coined the term "baramin", because they will be required to give their criteria to apply to organisms in order to place them in baramins. Their "science" is going to be shown to be blinkered & biased. How can you use genetically derived phylogenies, but then throw that same evidence away when it clearly & repeatedly shows common descent BEYOND family level?

---

JM: Well, actually if you go to the first post on this page you will see their wriggle room. Nevertheless, I agree completely. Creationists thrive on vagaries because specificity will cause them problems. In geology, no creationist is willing to tell us what strata marks the onset and end of the flood yet. Baramins will no doubt contain the same wriggle room.CheersJoe Meert

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

[QUOTE][b]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[/QUOTE][/b]Why is it that we have such similarities despite the fact that the genetic code is degenerate? While we're at it, why is the Creator using the same sequences over and over again? It seems that you are arguing that humans are made out of the same sequences that insects and primates are. How is that perspective *philosophically* or *theologically* different from saying that we are *descended* from primates and share a common ancestor with insects -- either way our biochemistry originates within other living things. I would suspect that a Creator of infinite capability who makes everything from scratch would use a nearly infinite variety of genetic sequences and we would share *no* genes with other living things. Why did this YE Creator you presuppose simply recycle bits and pieces of genetic material from earlier living things and arrange them into humans (see Question #2 and Comment #1 above) instead of investing everything into His masterpiece? It sounds almost as if He was short of Creative juices.Also, how do you account for human endogenous retroviral elements conserved from primates?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

---

JM: Thanks for being honest, your bias shines through in the next statement.

quote:

---

However it is already clear that there is a core subset of all genomes which is either evidence for macroevoltuion or a common creator.

---

JM: This is a false dichotomy. It could be that neither of these are correct. This bias is quite common in creationist literature. Basically, the assumption is that if evolution is wrong, then a common creator is the default answer. It's a great emotional argument, but it is a very poor scientific argument.

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: Again, this is a false dichotomy since similar structures and similarties do not mean a common creator. Do the spring-wound watch and the quartz watch have a common creator (singular)? You might say 'the common creator was man', but in this case it is not singular. Indeed, another option is that each of these life forms were created by different intelligent sources over time. One creator says "Hey that looks good", uses it, and adds something else. It flies off and a new intelligent being arrives, kills all the things he/she/it does not like and uses some of the old in creating the new.

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: There is no way man can fly! The moon is unreachable. The computer has reached its limit in terms of speed and power. If a man sails to far, he will fall off the edge of the earth. Your argument is one of personal incredulity. Science does not have an answer for many things, but a non-answer does not equate to a miraculous explanation!

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: See above. There are many unsolved mysteries of science. Lack of an answer does not mean that a miracle has occurred.

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: No kidding! It will be very difficult due to the nature of the fossil record. I agree 100%.

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: Well, we can use the fossil record in terms of morphologic new addition/evolution. Eyes are one example, but I am sure others more familiar with the biologic side of things can explain more.

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: I saw that, very interesting. In my opinion, this is a good case of evolution in action. Obviously, you would disagree; however why would a common creator add this advantage to man? I have an idea of the typical creationist answer, but you seem to be approaching the subject a bit more cautiously.

quote:

---

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.

---

JM: Given that creationists had none, anything would revolutionize their taxonomy! However, as with all science new data are always welcome.CheersJoe Meert[/B][/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]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. [/QUOTE]JM: My point is simple. You take a lack of knowledge as an immediate need for an intelligent creator. You further assert that this creator is a singular being. There are many scenarios beside the single creator! Therefore, you have created a false dichotomy by saying it is either/or. It most certainly is not. I am sorry that you are unable to comprehend that a single intelligent creator is part of a larger subset of alternatives to evolution.CheersJoe Meert

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

---

JM: No, I don't think that the possibility of God is silly. Please show me where I have made such a claim. I have said that there are many other possibilities which you have not explored. While it is satisfying to rely on the bible for evidence, you must first show, that the bible is a scientific text. It is not. Your creator could have created via macroevolution. That is also an alternative possibility that many find plausible and supported by BOTH science and their Faith. In fact, that is also different from your either/or proposition.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]

^ 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

[QUOTE][b]I don't subscibe to macroevoltuion because I believe God created man in his triune image (in spirit, soul and body).[/QUOTE][/b]How far do you go with that? If we are like God in anatomy then are we like Him in biochemistry? [QUOTE][b]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).[/QUOTE][/b]This is where my question above is headed. If we are pictures of God, and animals are much like us, does that make them somewhat pictures of God as well? Surely then if we feel we are better than animals because we are so near to God then the animals must be very different from us. Why then do they share DNA with us? [QUOTE][b]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[/QUOTE][/b]Re-using the same coding is like deliberately reducing the diversity of the final product. Can you start with an abstract painting and turn it into a copy of the Mona Lisa and it still have parts that are definitively an abstract painting? Not in any form I can think of. When you use modified parts of the genome of one organism to produce a new type of organism out of that genome it limits the outcome somewhat. All the animals we see around us are variations on a theme, same basic genetic code, with quite a few sequences conserved, and same basic metabolic pathways. Did it have to be that way? Or could an infinite Creator have produced nearly infinite diversity were it not so? [QUOTE][b]Tell me more about the retroviruses. How do we know that they didn't infect both man and ape separately?[/QUOTE][/b]That viral DNA lodges into a host germ line cell permanently is unusual, and that the germ cell "prophage" lives to give rise to offspring is even more unlikely. If other primates get the same retrovirii lodged in their genomes because of the same mutations at the same sites without inheriting the DNA from a common seems highly unlikely. If the HERV is on the same site, then it really stretches plausibility that they arose in parallel.One quick overview of HERVs. (And if other people have information please share it.)
http://www.nature.com/nsu/000907/000907-12.html

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-15-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-15-2002]

^ 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]