Has evolution been proven ?

quote:

---

you are assuming that humans and chimps are related

---

No, you're assuming that they're unrelated, despite the fact that you've interpreted other genetic similarities as pointing to common ancestry. This is creationism, as I said: interpreting some evidence, but ignoring what doesn't support the hypothesis.

quote:

---

MrHambre: A much more plausible explanation is that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, from whom both species inherited the pseudogene.

​

Creationman: That's your interpretation.

---

Strange that your interpretation of genetic similarity changes at will. Two genomes are nearly identical, you can tell they're father and son. Two genomes are very similar, you can tell they're from two members of the same species. Two genomes have telltale similarities that can't be explained by anything except common ancestry, you choose to deny the conclusion of common ancestry. How convenient. But the jury is in, and it doesn't look like they agree with you.regards,
Esteban Hambre[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 04-01-2004]

quote:

---

Simple. The reason why there are differing degrees of correlation is because they are not identically the same. If you have a Labrador and a Collie, they have variation in their genome because of the speciation that has occurred over time. Both those DOGS had a "common ancestor," but that "common ancestor"was a DOG.

---

The same goes to, say, humans and chimps. Both those APES had a "common ancestor," but that "common ancestor was an APE."So, are you ready to state clearly the limits of variation/kind/act of creation?

quote:

---

Agreed, but you are assuming that humans and chimps are related and were created with those mistakes. But they weren't created with those mistakes, they were created perfectly and seperately and accumulated those mistakes over time.

---

Funny thing is, the mistakes are similar.

Now hold on a second, you are the one ignoring things here. My acceptance of common ancestry for somethings, is based on the FACT that dogs come from dogs, so therefore ALL dogs share a common ancestor that was a dog (scientifically observable and testable). But you want me to swallow the idea that a reptile and a bird share a common ancestor (not scientifically observable or testable) all you have is similairties in DNA to point to. Well here's a biological shocker, if the DNA of organisms of life on earth were not similar we wouldn't be able to survive. If plant DNA were not similar to Human DNA we could not eat and properly digest plants. A nice creative touch by the designer. Yet I would like for you to show what common ancestor plants and Humans supposedly "evolved" from. Did I miss something? What and which I choose to deny??? Did you provide an example?The Jury is in...their hung.If the evidence is so obvious and so overpowering that it totally destroys Creationism, why are you and everyone else on forums such as these wasting your time arguing with ignorant and stubborn morans like me, as others have labeled us?http://http://Best regards

---

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"Creation Man-->

​

Creation Man">http://

---

This message is a reply to:
	Message 76 by MrHambre, posted 03-31-2004 7:07 PM		MrHambre has replied

---

Replies to this message:
	Message 79 by MrHambre, posted 04-01-2004 1:15 PM		CreationMan has not replied
	Message 84 by MrHambre, posted 04-02-2004 3:22 PM		CreationMan has replied
	Message 85 by mark24, posted 04-02-2004 4:44 PM		CreationMan has replied
	Message 92 by coffee_addict, posted 04-04-2004 3:40 PM		CreationMan has not replied
	Message 97 by 1.61803, posted 04-05-2004 5:05 PM		CreationMan has not replied
	Message 98 by coffee_addict, posted 04-05-2004 6:09 PM		CreationMan has not replied

---

Peek

CreationMan,The evidence is there, but as I started out saying, creationists don't look at all of it. Your evidence for a young Earth is that strata in the Grand Canyon are sedimentary. JonF made it clear that you are choosing to ignore the strata that are metamorphic, etc., and the features that can't be explained by speedy processes. If you only interpret some of the evidence, or interpret the same evidence different ways depending on your prejudices, you can't construct a very useful or consistent scientific framework.You're agreeing that the similarities in various genomes suggest and are explained by common ancestry, as long as you've already agreed that these organisms are scripturally allowed to share ancestors. Since humans and chimps aren't allowed, you dismiss the same exact evidence that would strongly suggest common ancestry if you didn't know from which organisms the genomes were taken.You "choose to deny," all right, but you have no scientific basis for doing so. Expecting others to deny the same conclusion assumes that they have the same religious agenda as you. You'd better hope the jury chooses to deny, otherwise your client is in big trouble.regards,
Esteban Hambre

If I may,While I don't agree or think that the earth is only 6 thousand years old I also have a couple problem's with this chimp thing.Here's the problemo's:First: When the research of chimp DNA and human DNA is found to be "SIMILAR" what does that mean? Of course, a common ancestor.Second: When the research of chimp DNA and human DNA is showing "DIFFERENCES" what does that mean? Of course, this is Evolution. Because it shows the "Changes" that occurred between chimp and man.You see the problem I have with this is that, YOU CAN'T LOSE "EITHER WAY". How does that show a useful consistent scientific framework?We can just as easily say:Similar DNA means , common DESIGNER and
Differences of DNA shows, the designer "CONSCIOUSLY" created variety.I understand what CreationMan is showing that the common ancestor for dogs are "dogs". The variety we see in dogs shows a common ancestor of the "SAME" species. You can still interbreed dogs. You can't do that with a Chimp and Human, and if you could would you...euw

You are oversimplifying, so far that the meaning is lost.When the DNA research shows a consistent pattern of less or more similariites that mathches the pattern of common descent and the phylogenetic tree inferred from the fossil recordm which matches the pattern of common descent and the phylogenetic tree derived from zoology, then we conclude that the DNA evidence supports common descent. If there was a significant mismatch, we'd have a problem.When the pattern of DNA differences clearly shows mutations, dupications, etc ... that match the above, then we conclude that the differences are evidence for evolution. If the differences didn't have such a pattern, we'd have a problem.So you are wrong ... we can lose, we just haven't lost. Yes, you can say that ... but when it comes to backing it up and explaining why the alleged designer chose to design in such a wacky way, that looks just like something cobbled together over and over again from existing parts, that is so differnt from any other designs we know in that it has the characteristics of an evolutionarily-produced system, that has the patterns that match the other phylogenetic trees so well, that clearly indicate changes over time from common ancestors whether or not that really happened ... well ... the IDists abandon science and say "we can't know the mind of the designer" or they just abandon the discussion.

Yes, I see the problem you have. You don't like the conclusion that hunmans and chimps share a common ancestor.What you are neglecting is the *degree* of similarity and the nature of the similarities. We would expect closely related creatures to have very similar DNA - and human and chimpanzee DNA is indeed very similar (how similar depends on how you measure it). Moreover the nature of the similarities points to common ancestry. Why else would hamans and chimpanzees ahve the same cripplign mutation to the remains of a gene that would have been involved in the synthesis of vitamin C ?On the other hand if creationism is true then there is no reason why there have to be ANY animals that are or even seem to be closely related to humans. So your argument doesn't work at all - the only reason to assume that there is a species that appears to be closely related is to accept that evolution is true.

Before I dig into your post, a little pat on the back for asking probing questions instead of jumping in like you know everything. This is how science should be approached, so thanks for breaking away from the normal creationist MO. Now to the post.

quote:

---

First: When the research of chimp DNA and human DNA is found to be "SIMILAR" what does that mean? Of course, a common ancestor.

---

Not "of course". The similarities have to match with what we would expect if common ancestory was true. This means not only is their similarity, but the gene sequences are the same as well. Here and elsewhere we have used the plagarism analogy. It goes as follows. Imagine a book containing 3 billion letters (average 5 letters a word, this would be a 600 million word book). Someone else comes out with a book of almost the exact same length. This book matches the other book to a degree of 98%. Not only are they similar, but they have some of the same spelling and grammatic mistakes in the same places. We can conclude two things, that one author plagarised the other author or they both plagarised the same source material, keeping the mistakes of the original and adding some of their own. The least likely conclusion is that both works are original, one HAS to be a copy given the sheer size of the book.In addition to the plagarist analogy, there are also other supporting evidences. As others have mentioned, the genetic data also matches what we see in the fossil record. There is no reason, other than evolution, why these two should match up. So, it is not just similarity but HOW the similarities match up.

quote:

---

Second: When the research of chimp DNA and human DNA is showing "DIFFERENCES" what does that mean? Of course, this is Evolution. Because it shows the "Changes" that occurred between chimp and man.

---

It means that mutations have accumalated, which is a prediction of the theory of evolution. Lack of differences would refute evolution. The more distant the common ancestor, the more differences there should be between the genomes. Again, this matches with what we see in the fossil record. The theory of evolution made this prediction, and it is very reliable in this department. Can you show us what you would predict using a creationist theory with respecet to correlation of genetic data with the fossil record? I would say that creationist theories predict no such correlation, and its presence speaks against creationism.

quote:

---

You see the problem I have with this is that, YOU CAN'T LOSE "EITHER WAY". How does that show a useful consistent scientific framework?

---

Yes we can lose, and like mark24 said, we haven't lost. The predictions made by the theory of evolution are borne out in test after test. If our assumptions were wrong, then the data would not fit. It is much more complicated than similarities and differences both support evolution. It is the pattern of similarity and difference that matter, and is unreconcilable with creationism.

quote:

---

Similar DNA means , common DESIGNER and
Differences of DNA shows, the designer "CONSCIOUSLY" created variety.

---

Show me repeatable and reliable data that evidences a designer. Show us scientifically testable hypotheses that can test for a concious designer. There is a designer that can be tested for, the blind algorithm of evolutionary mechanisms, and its presence can be detected. Why should we move to a designer that can not be detected when we have already detected one?

quote:

---

I understand what CreationMan is showing that the common ancestor for dogs are "dogs". The variety we see in dogs shows a common ancestor of the "SAME" species. You can still interbreed dogs. You can't do that with a Chimp and Human, and if you could would you...euw

---

Dogs are dogs because we call them dogs. If a new breed of dog was created and we called it a doggeral, would that make a separate species because we call it a different name? However, interbreeding is an important distinction. So, if we were able to show speciation that resulted in two populations that were no longer able to interbreed, would this be the evidence you seek? This has been observed. Example of speciation into noninterbreeding populations.

CreationMan,Evidently you're all done with this debate?I'm interested to know, since you mentioned you're a biologist, about your education and work. What sort of research do you do?regards,
Esteban Hambre

CreationMan, What scientifically accepted facts do you base your acceptance of common ancestry on?Mark

MrHambre,
For the time being I am finished with this and the other of my discussions. I didn't know this forum could take so much time! I am leaving for vacation tomorrow so won't be able to keep up with evrything. I wish, though, that they would stop sending me emails everytime somone replies!!As to me being a biologist. I am finishing up on another degree the end of this summer at the school where I work. My current research involves mitochondria and chloroplast, more specifically the function of their outer membrane. I find it interesting that there exists porins in both the plasma membrane and the outer membrane of M&C and are trying to determine the link between the two (if any exists). At first the SET would be assumed to explain this, but we are searching for something different, my research involves the nucleic DNA. I am also trying to discover more about the function of porins.As a matter of fact, I am just putting the finishing touches on my paper about the research and will be submitting it for review (hopefully) within the next 3 months.It was good talking to you guys, I hope we have this pleasure again.Best regards,*Edited for accuracy[This message has been edited by CreationMan, 04-03-2004]

---

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"Creation Man

Mark, The FACT that when you breed two dogs and continue to breed two dogs and let them breed with two more dogs etc. and then you stand back and take a look...you see that you started with dogs and ended with dogs. You can actually SEE the common ancestor of the dogs you bred!!

---

"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"Creation Man

How exactly has evolution been proven?

In reply to my own post, I have come up with a way to prove which of the two is the truth. Ok, here's the plan, we all just believe what we want, live our lives, and die. If evolution is correct, nobody will know b/c we'll be dead and no longer exist. However, if Creationism is true, then everyone will know b/c we'll be face to face with the Creator and He'll be asking us why we should be allowed into Heaven.This is just my idea though, you don't actually have to do it willingly, b/c its going to happen anyways.And one more thing, is anyone out there familiar with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

This is known as Pascal's Wager. There are plenty of problems with it not the least of which is ...Which God are are you betting that you will face in Heaven, and why? Yes, I got A's in both graduate and undergraduate thermodynamics at MIT. Please don't bring up the old "evolution breaks the scond (or first) law of thermodyamics" canard without learning something about thermodynamics yourself ... only those who don't understand thermo try that one.Some good resources on thermodynamics, especaily as it relates to evolution, are Entropy is SimpleEntropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Life on Earth - Flow of Energy and Entropy, and The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith.