Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   DNA similarities ARE NOT proof of evolution
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 46 (36928)
04-14-2003 5:04 AM


Follow along--this is complex:
If a human is 98 % similar to some apes, that would be ONLY in terms of DNA-structure. Just look at Jennifer Lopez and Alfred Hitchcock--are they 98% similar in appearence? NO!!! God decided to use DNA as his building block for life--so it makes sense that DNA-similarities between animals indicate a common creator, not a common ancestor.
Let me elaborate in lamen's terms... many engine parts on a Pontiac Firebird will fit fine on the rims of a Camaro--but that does not prove that they both evolved from a corvette millions of years ago! It just proves that they have a common creator--well, it works the same for DNA. If you mapped out the DNA sequence in EVERY SINGLE HUMAN on earth, you'll find that no two are exactly allike, but that does not prove that we have a single ancestor for EACH person! Trust me, evolution is trying to build a brick bunker of an argument against Christianity, but the 'bricks' (evidence) the are using has no form. The use evidence that APPEARS to be tall, wide, and self-supporting, but when you hold the evidence at the right angle, evolution's arguments are as thing as a sheet of paper--it's an illusion that is posing as science to draw kids' faith away from God.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by lpetrich, posted 04-14-2003 8:07 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 15 by Karl, posted 04-24-2003 4:28 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 19 by derwood, posted 04-24-2003 10:26 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 39 by Convince-me, posted 04-29-2003 5:30 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 2 of 46 (36938)
04-14-2003 5:53 AM


The fact that there are extensive DNA similarities may not be a definitive proof of the truth of evolution, but it is certainly very suggestive evidence. If I can take a gene neccessary for eye development in humans and use it to rescue an eyeless mutant in drosophila why cant I use the windshield from my old VW bug in my new SUV?
I would trust you as far as I can comfortably take your appendix out.
[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 04-14-2003]

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 46 (36953)
04-14-2003 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 5:04 AM


Jennifer Lopez and Alfred Hitchcock look different for several reasons:
Sexual-dimorphism effects -- some body parts grow bigger in one sex than the other; sometimes much bigger. This differential growth is controlled by which sex chromosomes are present -- Ms. Lopez is XX and Mr. Hitchcock is XY -- which acts as a switch for how fast the various parts grow.
Individual variation -- another differential-growth effect, which varies as a result of variation in development-control genes.
Life-history effects -- Ms. Lopez has kept herself much slimmer than Mr. Hitchcock had, and she has let her hair grow much longer than Mr. Hitchcock has.
Age -- the best-known pictures of them have been taken when Ms. Lopez was much younger than Mr. Hitchcock.
One can factor out several of these factors by comparing some hypothetical James Lopez and Alfred Hitchcock, or Jennifer Lopez and some hypothetical Allison Hitchcock, with both of them being the same age and with the same taste in physical fitness and so forth. Even then, the two would differ as a result of individual variation.
The amount of it in our species is very small: 0.1% on average
But our species seems to have more variety because only a few genes control such prominent features as skin, hair, and eye color, height, etc.
Thus, Jennifer Lopez and Alfred Hitchcock can easily look noticeably different despite their genes being ~99.9% matching.
[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 04-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:04 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 46 (36954)
04-14-2003 8:22 AM


Having established that differences in a few development-control genes can make a big difference in overall appearance, we consider human-chimpanzee differences.
Several of them are a result of we not growing up as completely as chimps do -- an effect called "neoteny". That's why we tend to resemble baby chimps more than adult chimps.
However, some of our features are due to increased growth, like the size of our legs and of our brains.
There are additional differences; chimps are inadequatedly adapted for two-legged walking, and their mouths and throats are poorly adapted for producing speech, but they are also development-control effects.
For comparison, try looking at dog breeds. These have been developed over the last 10,000 years or so, and they have a great variety of appearance -- size, hair color, hair length, ear rigidity, head proportions, leg length, temperament, etc. If only 10 thousand years can make possible such big differences, then 6 million years can make possible the human-chimp differences.

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 46 (36955)
04-14-2003 8:24 AM


And as to a "common creator" being responsible, I wish to ask what a "common creator" would NOT be responsible for.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:51 PM lpetrich has replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 46 (37702)
04-23-2003 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by lpetrich
04-14-2003 8:24 AM


What are you getting at...
What a "common creator" would not be responsible for?
Well, the DNA similarities are just that: similarities.
By the way, if evolution is a FACT, why is there no posted evidence for it?
G. K. Chesterton said, and I quote: "The evolutionists seem to know everything there is to know about the missing links, except the fact that they're missing..." How true.
Ernst Mayr, a professor at Harvard, and an evolutionist, wrote in his book: "This chapter [2] will be a presentation of the evidence that led to the 'evolution is a fact'..."
Interesting enough, the ONLY evidence he uses were: the geologic column, bone structure, embryology, biogeography, and molecular analysis. Here is where I see his faults:
Geologic column: This was 'made up' by Charles Lyell in 1830, contains many polystrate fossils, and is inconclusive at best. (not to mention, 80% of the world's geological sites do not contain rocks in 'proper order' to be used as real evidence for the strata ages).
Bone structure: Just because a human and a whale both have appendages with bones named "radius, ulna, humerus, etc." does not prove evolutionst--it just proves that people gave the same names to the fin-bones of a whale that they gave to the arm-bones of a human. Besides, the bones of a whale's fin were developed on DIFFERENT parts of the chromosome, which actually proves that it is unsufficient evidence.
Embryology: Mayr used Haeckel's drawings of 1870, comparing the similarity in the early stages of the embryo in different animals. Haeckel was brought on trial in the 1870's and he confessed that the drawins were fraudulant. In fact, when compared to real photographs, the drawings are obvious pro-evolution propaganda.
Biogeography: That just proves that similar animals live in different parts of the world. Although interesting, I see no evidence that that proves we evolved from bacterio 3.6 billion years ago.
Molecular analysis: Actually, bacteria are quite complex. In fact, the greatest missing link of all lies between bacteria and nonliving matter--that's more like the entire chain is missing (for the "SIMPLEST" creature to come together, that would require the spontaneous combination of 20 different amino acids, ribo-nucleic acid strands, ribosomes, cytoplasm, and a cell membrane.) Do HONESTLY think that that just happened by chance. To believe in that requires MUCH MORE faith than to believe in God's hand in the deal. Actually, common sense led me to reject evolution BEFORE I BECAME A CHRISTIAN, because those odds are too enormous.
If you have hard, irrefutable evidence that the Bible is lying please let me know, (AND CITE YOUR SOURCES SO I CAN LOOK IT UP ON MY OWN).
In Christ,
Booboo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by lpetrich, posted 04-14-2003 8:24 AM lpetrich has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 04-23-2003 4:00 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 8 by zephyr, posted 04-23-2003 5:58 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 13 by lpetrich, posted 04-24-2003 1:15 AM booboocruise has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 821 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 7 of 46 (37707)
04-23-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 3:51 PM


Re: What are you getting at...
G. K. Chesterton said, and I quote: "The evolutionists seem to know everything there is to know about the missing links, except the fact that they're missing..."
You do know that Chesterton almost certainly said that before he died, back in 1936.....
Page not found | Durham University Community

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:51 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4637 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 8 of 46 (37727)
04-23-2003 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 3:51 PM


Re: What are you getting at...
I note with displeasure that you are once again avoiding actual debate and offering new arguments rather than answering your critics. This thread is supposedly about DNA similarities, yet your last post contains exactly one sentence about them, and a content-free one at that. Nobody would seriously claim that DNA similarities are proof of evolution, and none of your other arguments belong in this thread. Where does that leave you?
Anyway, since you make so much of the gap in complexity between bacteria and inorganic soup, I think you should learn a bit about viruses (which are just DNA or RNA wrapped in protein) and, even more interestingly, prions, which are glorified proteins with many characteristics of life (but not enough to be called organisms, and no nucleic acids at all). Try Googling for "prion" and spend half an hour learning about them. Hmm... simple, self-replicating organic particles that appear to spontaneously generate. So much for the gaping chasm between life and non-life. We've known for years that it's full of such ambiguous particles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:51 PM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2003 6:12 PM zephyr has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 46 (37732)
04-23-2003 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by zephyr
04-23-2003 5:58 PM


Re: What are you getting at...
Try Googling for "prion" and spend half an hour learning about them. Hmm... simple, self-replicating organic particles that appear to spontaneously generate. So much for the gaping chasm between life and non-life. We've known for years that it's full of such ambiguous particles.
Prions are fun. (unless they're rotting your brain, ala Chronic Wasting Disease) I wouldn't say they spontaneously generate - it's more that they're a degenrate shape of a specific protein that catalyzes other, non-degenrate proteins to take on that shape. (Those proteins catalyze other proteins, and so on in a chain reaction.)
Are they life? Obviously not. (At least to my thinking, they have no ability to respond to changes in the environment.) Could they bear some similarity to the first self-replicating molecules? It's possible. They're a good example of how a molecule could reproduce without the sophisticated cellular mechanisms that let DNA copy itself.
My theory (if I may be permitted a Douglas Hofstatder-type junction of logic and biology) is that in any sufficiently complex system such particles will arise spontaneously - self-perpetuating degenerate states, ala Godel's incompleteness theorem. Perhaps life itself started as such a state in some simpler system of chemical interactions.
Ok, now I'm starting to sound like Brad McFall. I better stop musing...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by zephyr, posted 04-23-2003 5:58 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Wounded King, posted 04-23-2003 6:42 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 10 of 46 (37734)
04-23-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
04-23-2003 6:12 PM


Prions aren't really much of a model for any early biotic system. As you pointed out, they don't actually have any ability to self replicate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2003 6:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2003 7:15 PM Wounded King has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 46 (37736)
04-23-2003 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Wounded King
04-23-2003 6:42 PM


As you pointed out, they don't actually have any ability to self replicate.
Not on their own, no. But I think that the first self-replicating molecules might have followed a similar process - they would have catalyzed pre-existing complex organic molecules (molequles that would have a natural origin) into more of themselves.
I'm no molecular biologist (not even close). Just an armchair thinker. Prions suggest to me that molecules could exist that could catalyze a reaction that would create more of themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Wounded King, posted 04-23-2003 6:42 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 04-23-2003 7:43 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 17 by Wounded King, posted 04-24-2003 7:54 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 46 (37739)
04-23-2003 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
04-23-2003 7:15 PM


self replication
Have a look at this. A 32 amino acid chain catalyzes it's own formation in a mix of 15 and 17 unit sub chains. Is it alive? No but some of the links that BBC wants are not missing.
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2003 7:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 46 (37763)
04-24-2003 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 3:51 PM


Re: What are you getting at...
booboocruise:
What a "common creator" would not be responsible for?
Don't you ever wonder about such things?
And I DON'T enjoy conversations with sleepwalkers.
Well, the DNA similarities are just that: similarities.
Are you maintaining that sequence similarities are pure coincidence or something?
Why is one able to construct family trees of organisms from genes? And why do they often agree very well with the family trees constructed with the help of macroscopic features?
By the way, if evolution is a FACT, why is there no posted evidence for it?
Check the literature on evolutionary biology, booboocruise. I can't do everything for you; I don't want to have to turn this posting into a whole Evolution 101 course.
G. K. Chesterton said, and I quote: "The evolutionists seem to know everything there is to know about the missing links, except the fact that they're missing..." How true.
And what makes Mr. Chesterton so smart?
Geologic column: This was 'made up' by Charles Lyell in 1830, contains many polystrate fossils, and is inconclusive at best.
It was NOT made up by Mr. Lyell -- it was the result of the researches of the likes of "Strata" Smith some years before.
And polystrate fossils are NOT a disaster for stratigraphy; they are not even very common.
(not to mention, 80% of the world's geological sites do not contain rocks in 'proper order' to be used as real evidence for the strata ages).
Evidence for that: {}
There are places with out-of-order strata, but the cause of the mis-ordering can always be found -- usually some earthquake fault.
And the inferred order is abundantly confirmed by radioisotope dating.
Bone structure: Just because a human and a whale both have appendages with bones named "radius, ulna, humerus, etc." does not prove evolutionst--it just proves that people gave the same names to the fin-bones of a whale that they gave to the arm-bones of a human. Besides, the bones of a whale's fin were developed on DIFFERENT parts of the chromosome, which actually proves that it is unsufficient evidence.
Actually, the names are assigned for a good reason, because one can do bone-to-bone matches between different species' skeletons. It's fairly obvious among the more closely-related species -- most mammals have only 7 neck vertebrae, with giraffes having 7 long ones.
Embryology: Mayr used Haeckel's drawings of 1870, comparing the similarity in the early stages of the embryo in different animals. Haeckel was brought on trial in the 1870's and he confessed that the drawins were fraudulant. In fact, when compared to real photographs, the drawings are obvious pro-evolution propaganda.
Except that Haeckel was never tried for anything, and except that the similar appearances are often VERY apparent in photographs. I had recently checked on a paper comparing Hox-gene expression in mice and chicken embryos -- and those embryos looked remarkably similar. Also, the same Hox genes marked out the various backbone zones -- neck, thoracic, lumbar, pelvic, and tail.
Biogeography: That just proves that similar animals live in different parts of the world.
Think dispersal. How could the animals and plants get there? Why do many oceanic islands have big flightless birds? And why do some oceanic islands have giant turtles, while no oceanic islands have giant rats?
Why did Australia have kangaroos but no rabbits? Why does Australia have wombats but no woodchucks? Etc.
Although interesting, I see no evidence that that proves we evolved from bacterio 3.6 billion years ago.
So what? There are other lines of evidence besides biogeography.
Molecular analysis: Actually, bacteria are quite complex. ...
So what?
Why not look at molecular phylogenies -- family trees -- some time?
Do HONESTLY think that that just happened by chance.
Not by pure chance, but from abiogenesis processes that produced an "RNA world" or something similar, which then evolved into the first bacteria.
Of course, for all we know, extraterrestrial visitors or time travelers or elves could have seeded the Earth long ago, but where's the positive evidence?
If you have hard, irrefutable evidence that the Bible is lying please let me know, (AND CITE YOUR SOURCES SO I CAN LOOK IT UP ON MY OWN).
If you care about that question, check out this Biblical Errancy page.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:51 PM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 04-24-2003 4:19 AM lpetrich has replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 46 (37787)
04-24-2003 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by lpetrich
04-24-2003 1:15 AM


Re: What are you getting at...
First off, haven't you ever heard of the ice age?
Yes, after the flood, the glaciers expanded, and the oceans receded a little, which is enough to allow a dry passage from Malaysia to Australia (just because there was a flood, there are many ways to solve the problem of "how did flightless creatures get to islands")
Also, Infidels.org (where you got your "biblical errancy" page) is full of crap!!! They're an online tabloid! I've read their articles, and I've spent hours on their website reviewing their so-called biblical errancy.
First, they wrote: "Paul said that God is not the author of confusion." But then the article began discussing how there is so much confusion in the world, even among the Christians. That is the dumbest, most illogical conclusion drawn from that Bible passage. First, it was not the "Bible of God" that caused confusion--it was people who tried to 'twist' and rewrite the Bible so many times that has caused the confusion. If you try to blame God on the problems that man has caused, you are a fool!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by lpetrich, posted 04-24-2003 1:15 AM lpetrich has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by John, posted 04-24-2003 10:08 AM booboocruise has replied
 Message 28 by lpetrich, posted 04-24-2003 2:12 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 46 (37788)
04-24-2003 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 5:04 AM


You focus on the magic 98% similarity between chimps and humans. And I know why - because this is not the most compelling aspect of the DNA similarity evidence.
Three other lines of evidence are far more interesting IMO:
Human chromosome 2 - appears to consist of the cobbling together of two ape ones. Chromosome fusion.
The same retrivirus DNA insertions are found in human and ape genomes. Bear in mind that these are non-functional DNA sequences that are the result of ancient viral infection Just a moment...
Finally, we share with the apes a faulty Vitamin C synthesis gene 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2.
I can imagine that for His own reasons God would not give us the ability to synthesise vitamin C, but why on earth do so by giving us the gene and nobbling it? And, more to the point, why give the same nobbled gene to the great apes? Anyone would think He's trying to make us think we evolved.
Your explanation of these from a "common designer" viewpoint is eagerly awaited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:04 AM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 04-24-2003 5:44 AM Karl has not replied
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 04-24-2003 2:46 PM Karl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024