Evolutionary Propoganda - A True Story

I don't see why all this follows. Adam and Eve could easily have been real people, even with evolution. In fact, I believe that Adam and Eve were the first modern humans, as that is the interpretaion that best fits both the evidence for evolution and the evidence in Genesis. I don't see any biblical evidence that contradicts this interpretation. There's no reason to believe that animals dying before the Fall in any way negate it.

Yes, there is. Based on the available evidence, a 6000-year old Earth, with Adam and Eve being specially created, is untenable. Where did the hominid fossils come from? Why do we have a 98% genetic similarity to apes? How can these be explained in terms of a literal, 6000-year old Earth reading of Genesis?

Riiiiiiight. Every scientist's mission is to do this, being the sadistic, God-hating group that they are. Humorously enough, though, we are a blob of cells, and we are animals. Otherwise, you'd be suggesting that we are not made of cells, and that we are either plants or fungi. These two facts don't mean life isn't sacred.

Please, share your evidence that kids being taught evolution act worse than those taught Creation.

 

Paul said that all men were without excuse simply from the observation of nature; and he said that almost 2000 years ago. He also said that the word of God is,

"quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword."

Your statement would indicate that these "creation scientists" somehow sharpened up the word of God by their research.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]How did you get that from my saying that these men were the advance guard for acceptance of intelligent design theory as the dominant view within the natural science community?

 

You have just utterred the words that have turned this into a Creation/Evolution debate. Aside from beating a dead horse, that forum is closed, and we've been reminded by the moderators not to go down that road.

 

Speciation doesn't bother you, but a new genus or higher does. Ok. How about a new class? Specifically the transition from reptile to mammal. See

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000261

A very nice series of transitions that brings about a new class, our class, the mammals.

Are you saying a guinea pig is a primate? Sorry I missed that one.

Actually, the guinea pig has a different mutation that prevents the sysnthesizing of vitamin C than primates. Interestingly enough, all primates share the exact same mutation of the exact same gene in the pathway to vitamin C. It is a simpler explanation to say that this is shared because of common descent than to say that all these animals were created with an incomplete and useless set of machinery for making the vitamin all broken in exactly the same way or that they all lost the ability after the fall by seperate but identical mutations.

The guinea pig thing was a nice attempt to divert attention from the facts, but flawed.

And yes, I know plenty of people here who deny that we are primates for the reason that it might lead to having to accept nested hierarchies instead of many parallel "kinds."

Then it is likely you already knew that the primates all share a specific mutation and that cavia porcellus does not share this mutation and you used it anyway.

 

It is a problem that science, an empirical process, changes its theories as new and better information becomes available (the valence bonding to MO theory being a terrific example of a better understanding leading to a better theory that is able to explain more than the previous theory though, IMHO, not exactly disproving or discrediting the older theory) but it is not a problem that the creationists have such a wide and mutually exclusive series of theories from YEC to day-age to gap to old earth to theistic evolution and every other possible permutation imaginable?

I don't get it.

 

What you're saying then is that Adam and Eve had human-like parents and that God basically chose Adam and Eve to be the first humans and breath into them the breath of life and declare them made in the image of God.

That means it would have been OK to kill the human-like parents of Adam and Eve because Gen 9 teaches us that the reason we cannot kill humans is that they bear the image of God (animals don't).

That means that Genesis 2 is wrong when it says that God built Eve from Adam. Eve must have had a human-like mom and dad from which she was conceived and born. Also, Adam would not have been fashioned out of the dust of the ground like it says in Gen. 2 but also came from pre-human parents.

The parade of animals, including all the humanlike beings, was also a sham since Adam didn't find anyone corresponding to him. How did he miss Eve?

Maybe you could explain how Gen. 2 fits into your theory of evolution.

Andy

 

Do you think that "in the image of God" is physical or spiritual? That is, do you anthropomorphize God, giving Him the external appearance of a man, or do you think that being in the image of God is more along the lines of man having a soul?

 

Primarily spiritual but I don’t want to totally dismiss the idea that the physical is also involved. I would not carry this too far but I think one reason we have eyes is so that we can understand something about God seeing; we have ears so that we can understand something about how God hears; etc.

Really, though, the essence of being made in the image of God is spiritual in nature. There are lots of ways to express this – we have a soul, an inner man, a personality, a spirit. Mankind has the ability to exercise his mind, will, and emotions in the development of relationships and therefore has the ability to relate to God in ways that animals cannot. We can pray, compose poems, create music and sing hymns, paint, express joy, write theologies, sacrifice, love, preach, exhort, encourage, and comfort. The Bible says that all creation glorifies God but man, because he was made in the image of God, has the ability and responsibility to glorify God in unique and more substantial ways.


Andy

 

Then please do so with the presented subject of the inability of humans and other primates to make vitamin C. Why is it that humans share the exact same mutation (right down to the individual base pairs) with the other primates that disables the metabolic pathway to make vitamin C? There is a very simple explanation with common descent. What is your better explanation? If we do not share a common ancestor with primates, why do we happen to share that very same mutation with the other members of the order to which we belong?

Just a few quick links of the role of evolutionary knowledge in modern medicine.

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/darwmed.html
http://www.sma.org/smj/96oct23.htm
http://www.fastol.com/~renkwitz/evolutionary_medicine.htm

 

I'm not a scientist, and I'm not really that smart either; but could someone please explain to me how the inability to make vitamin C is a "mutation"?

In order for it to be a mutation, wouldn't we have to have had the ability to process it at one time? And then the mutation occurred? And for it to be a shared mutation, we would have to have proof that the shared ancestor once had the ability to produce vitamin C?

And isn't this just another example of how mutations are harmful, not helpful? I believe we all agree that the lack of vitamin C in our diet is not healthy, correct?

So, unlearned one that I am, someone please educate me, because what I'm reading is that:
1) We know there was a shared ancestor;
2) We know that the shared ancestor once had the ability to produce vitamin C;
3) that a mutation occurred for some reason; and
4) that that mutation was passed down to the different species of descendents.

Is that a correct summary?

 

Don

That is a pretty good summary.

Essentially all animals have the ability to manufacture vitamin C. They all do so by the same pathway. Glucose is converted through a series of intermediate chemicals until you get vitamin C. This chemistry is directed by four different enzymes. In humans and primates (and guinea pigs), the pathway is incomplete because the gene to code one of the enzymes has become corrupted.

Now the interesting part is this. In humans and primates, a single nucleotide (out of 230 nucleotides required to make the enzyme, I think) has been deleted. This means that one of the necessary enzymes is not made and therefore all primates cannot make vitamin C. This isn't a problem since the diet for most of these primates includes enough of it to get by. (Guinea pigs have a different mutation.) But not only do humans and primates have the same enzyme deactivated, not only do they have it deactivated by the same type of mutation, but the deleted nucleotide is exactly the same for both humans and nonhuman primates. Out of hundreds, probably thousands of nucleotides responsible for making vitamin C, humans share the exact same mutation right down to the individual nucleotide with all other members of its order, the primates. And this mutation is not shared with any non-primates.

Such shared genetic information can be used to find relationships between different species. There are other known, very specific shared mutations between humans and primates. Even in functional genes, sometimes there can be mutations that cause variations without affecting the effectiveness (or sometimes increasing the effectiveness or decreasing the effectiveness) of the protein coded for by the DNA. How different these genes are can also be used to find relationships. And, in general, the relationships from genetics follow the relationships from morphology, even in genes that have nothing to do with morphology.

That sentence only makes sense if you can propose a function for the disabled gene and I think you are avoiding the issue by making such a statement.

Now if someone were to have equiped their Mack truck and their shopping cart with square wheels, you might have something going. But you have given no reason to give humans and other primates a shared metabolic pathway disabled by a single deletion mutation.

 

Great post UTEOTW. I myself didn't know the specifics of how the vitamin C synthesis mechanism was broken. Your post contains such strikingly clear evidence of common ancestry. But rest assured, those more concerned with preserving their archaic interpretations of Genesis than findind the truth will no doubt come up with some lame way to dance around it, as Mark already did.

 

Several words keep popping out at me: "corrupted" and "mutation" to name a couple.

Again, in order for it to be a mutation, or to say that it's been corrupted, we must state that it was there and/or it was perfect in the first place.

So what/where is the evidence that it's not supposed to be the way it is?

The only thing I see so far is the comparison to other animals who have it. Is there anything else?

 

Don

Again, you are asking good, reasonable questions.

Mutations are not by definition a negative thing. Some are good, some are bad, and many are neutral. Of course, in real life there are shades of all three categories and it may be hard to classify a particular mutation. In the case of the mutation that prevents primates from making vitamin C, the word corrupted is a good word because one of the essential enzymes can no longer be produced because of a copying error. But it would be hard to classify this as much other than neutral because primates generally get adequate vitamin C from their diets.

In saying that it was corrupted, we are saying that something that was working before is no longer working. That is not to say that it was perfect. There are plenty of examples of things in living systems that work but that are not exactly optimized.

You ask So what/where is the evidence that it's not supposed to be the way it is? The main evidence is the simple fact that this is an ability that essentially all animals have. But for primates, this elaborate set of chemical machinery has been broken in one little spot. They have all the little parts needed but one of the parts has a very slight problem. But that problem is enough to disable the whole system. If they were designed perfectly to begin with, why do they have this useless set of machinery? It is key that all of the animals grouped together because of their morphology as primates are later found to share the exact same genetic characteristic. It is a small but important piece of evidence that all primates are related through a common ancestor.

It is when you start comparing more and more pieces of genetic information with morphology that the real importance begins to become apparent. That is why I put in the part about other mutations in my last post. By itself, the vitamin C thing could just be an amazing coincidence that the dozens or hundreds of primate "kinds" all developed the same mutation right down to the exact nucleotide. Long odds, but someone would make the argument just the same. (Math. For two animals the odds would be 1 / 230 = 0.0043. For 5 animals the odds would be 1 / (230*230*230*230) = 0.00000000036 or 1 in 2,798,410,000. Even for just 10 animals it is 1 chance in 180,11,52,661,463,000,000,000. Now think of the math for dozens or hundreds of times for the same mutation to be repeated in all the different primate "kinds.")

But then you start putting the other genetic data on top of just this one piece. I have already given you the example of how some genes can mutate and still remain effective. Looking at how much these genes vary from one animal to another can tell you something about how closely the animals are related. Looking at several is even better. Another example I neglected before for simplicity is what are known as psuedogenes. Let me give you an example of how you might get a psuedogene. One type of mutation is when two copies of a gene instead of one are made during the copying process. Now the genome has two copies of the same gene. One can continue to produce the needed protein even if the other mutates. The mutated, non-functioning gene is called a pseudogene. (I am not a biologist, so forgive me if the exact details are off a bit, the general idea is here.) You can also look at these pseudogenes the same way we have discussed above to check for relationships. Sticking with humans, we again find pseudogenes that we only share with other apes or other primates. The same animals that we share our morphological or physical, characterastics with. The little pieces of evidence just pile up until the string of coincidences necessary to explain them becomes rediculous without using common descent. That is if you do not think that even in the one case of the vitamin C sythesis that the odds became comical after a bit of the possibility of the same mutation happening that many times in so many different "kinds" and the mutations being passed on and becoming part of the gene pool of all members of that "kind" and that the mutation did not strike any "kind" outside of the primates. And time after time, the genetic data agrees with the morphology data.

As a side not, the duplication type of mutation is very important to evolution. Once you have the two copies of a gene, one copy can mutate without effecting the capabilities of the organism because there is still a good copy of the gene. The other gene may then mutate into something that does the original job better and replaces the old gene. Or it can develope a whole new function that helps the organism survive. When you look at the details of how systems in cells work, you often find new machinery evolving from a related bit of machinery that continues to do its same job while the new bit does something new. It is a great way to evolve those "irreducibly complex" systems that some like to say cannot evolve.

I hope I have helped somehow. I am trying to stay general and not go into to many details. I think that would just confuse you. It essentially boils down to saying that common descent explains much of what we observe. It is up to YECs to show that it does not, if they disagree, and how instantaneous creation of the various "kinds" better reflects the data we have.

 

Just picking at parts and pieces here:

1) I believe we both would agree that it's poor logic to say that since all other animals have this gene, and one particular animal doesn't, then therefore there's something wrong with that particular animal.

2) I understand why sharing the same exact genetic "corruptions" helps group kinds together. However, please consider that it doesn't further the suggestion that this is a "corrupted" gene, because primates also share something that few or no other animals exhibit: The ability to use tools. Because there's a difference in genetic makeup there that allows primates to do something that no other animals can do, does that now mean there's another "mutation"? Or simply a difference in genetic makeup?

3) You use the odds of all primates having the same genetic "corruption" as an example; what are the odds that random chance occurred in such a perfect way that the earth formed, cells formed, and life came into being?

4) I'm familiar with pseudogenes and mutations. I have a condition called Barrett's Esophagus; I allowed my acid reflux to continue long enough without medical attention that my esophagus started mutating it's lining into stomach tissue (to protect itself).

5) Common descent can explain much of what you're describing, yes; but the Young Earth people can always point back to the question: Where's the proof? Where's the common ancestor who had the uncorrupted gene? Where's the common ancestor who had the corrupted gene?

As it stands, without the proof, all that exists is a theory (a good one, based on observation; but a theory nonetheless). One might say that we have all the proof we need; to which a reasonable person would have to ask, what happens if we never find any evidence whatsoever of the common ancestor?

 

Is the origin of life testable and repeatable, like a chemical reaction? If so, has this been done in a lab?

Has it been demonstrated in a lab that a living cell can gradually evolve one part, but not another? Wouldn’t by evolutionary theory, evolving one part of a cell and not another, put a transitional form at a disadvantage? Isn’t it true that in order for a cell to exist all components that make up a cell must exist simultaneously?

How could something like DNA be created randomly? Have evolutionary science been able to adequately explain the design and purpose shown in the living cells and in structures that make-up these living cells, as DNA?

Is there a sustainable model for chemicals coming together and creating life? If so has the scientific community agreed upon this model? If not why?


I’ve taken a hiatus since the evolutionary/creation thread was closed to concentrate on finishing my disciple class and to look a little more into evolution. The above questions, I have yet been able to find a answer for. ---Thanks..

 

Don - you've never heard of scurvy?

Primates share lots of things, like eyes facing frontwards with stereoscopic vision, grasping hands, and so forth. This has nothing to do with the point being made about the gene for vitamin c . . .

Again, a completely unrelated subject. Perhaps God started all life by a miracle, perhaps God created the universe with the ability to start life by means of natural law; either way, evolution occurred following the origin of life.

Stomach tissue genes were, of course, available to your throat cells, but they did start abnormally expressing those genes, so the normal regulatory genes were overcome somehow . . perhaps by mutation as you speculate.

(groan) in the absence of any other explanation than common descent for a defective genetic structure that is sorely missed among humans who put out to sea it is disengeneous to say we have no proof.

A map maker took another map maker to court, saying the other guy plagerized from the data he had personally painstakingly gathered. Prove it, said the second mapmaker. The first mapmaker showed that on his own map he had inserted a false street that did not exist. That false street also existed on the other guys map. That was proof enough he had copied; no need to go find the original map he copied back in the shop; the existance of that little false street was enough to convict him.

It is the same with that common ancestor. For all we know the fossilized bones of the common ancestor of all primates even now gathers dust in some museum bin; but we can't conduct genetic analysis on fossilized bone. But the little false gene, with that little mutation in the exact same spot for all the primates, is enough to show common ancestry.

 

The origin of life remains an unsolved puzzle for science.

The theory of evolution would have it that every little step of evolution confers a benefit immediately, it does not put a whole bunch of steps in place in the hope that down the road they will work together to be beneficial. So a limb goes from being an arm to being a wing over gradual steps getting better and better at winging and worse and worse at being an arm, because the animal's life style is improved by better and better leaping, then eventually flying.

The present fine tuning of the chemistry of life including DNA is considered to be the result of evolving from earlier, cruder methods of sustaining life. It is not a random process to keep that which is good and throw out that which is not good.

Back to the origin of life. Why no scientific answer yet? Because it is a very hard question!
Maybe your kids will make some progress towards the answer.

Hope this has been some help. May the Lord use your preparations in a lifetime of service to Him!