Some of the Genetic Evidence for the Evolution of Man

[UTEOTW]

"Mutation is NOT evolution ..."

It is one of the processes that leads to evolution. You said that the processes are "FATAL to LIFE." Mutation is not.

"Evolution is not supportable."

Yes it is. Through the list I provided you on the other thread. THings link the twin nested heirarchy. The agrement between phylogenies from different sources. Shared pseudogenes. Shareed retroviral inserts. Shared transposons. Atavisms. Past biogeography. Present biogeography. Genetic vestiges. Etc.

"If evolution is real then Abiogenesis must be able to occur continually."

Nope.

First, evolution is how life changes with time. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution though there may be some overlap.

Second, there is no reason to propose continuing abiogenesis. The known processes of evolution are sufficient to explain thediversity of life we see today.

"Unfortunately, the atmosphere of our planet is corrosive to the processes necessary for evolution ..."

What about our current atmosphere is "corrosive" to mutation, gene flow, recombination, genetic drift, natural selection, or any of the other processes of evolution?

"I am reading 5 major scientific works about the beginning and evolution."

Cool. Could you name them for me? I would like to get a sense of what you have read and what you know or should know.

"I am amazed at how many scientists state that evolution is a LONG way from being proven ..."

Then you are not reading closely enough. There is no doubt in biology that evolution has and does happen. What is debated are the mechanisms, processes and paths of evolution.

"Instead, you deny the basic tenets of science to support your theology ... "

What tenets?

You have asserted much and offered little.

"When you find those martians you are looking for ... let us know ..."

Why would I be searching for martians? Though I think it will be cool if life is found on Mars or Europa or anywhere else off earth?

 

[UTEOTW]

I'd really be interested in that reading list of yours...

 

[El_Guero]

Uteotw,

I had taken time to check some of the "examples" you had cited. It looked like you had cut and pasted non related citations (maybe from a paper?).

As I have read your comments, I noticed a tendency to use words within the same semantic domain as if they were synonyms.

When you start writing professional papers, I would hope your references would appropriately reflect the subject being cited. And I hope that your use of the English language would become more standard.

For example, "natural selection" and "mutation" do not denote the same meaning as evolution does. While they might connote similar meaning, use of connotation when you are stating denotation is misleading.

I sought the exchange of ideas with some evolutionists that use scientific method, and standard English.

Your method of throwing nonsence at a serious subject used a significant amount of my time.

I am doing independent research* on the subjects: evolution; evolutionary biology; cosmology; genetics; Genesis; and creation myth [very short list].

While I wish you the best. I find that I can teach myself the subject better than you seem to know it. I hope that evolution is your passion and not your profession.

regards

* I am performing independent, self-directed, graduate level research for my personal growth in these areas. Having a background in math and languages, I keep a high bar for my studies and method of communication. Scientific method is expected - my BA is in Mathematics.

** The first Annotated Bib was 2 pages. Suggested Bib added 2 more pages. None of these were googled or cut and pasted. 4 pages of writing to warm up ... I have already read over 1,000 pages of material - NOT COUNTING GENESIS

 

[El_Guero]

BTW - Darwin, Leakey, de Grasse Tyson, Hawking et al, have been refreshing. While I do not agree with some of what they write, at least they know how to write what they mean and mean what they write.

 

[UTEOTW]

"As I have read your comments, I noticed a tendency to use words within the same semantic domain as if they were synonyms.

When you start writing professional papers, I would hope your references would appropriately reflect the subject being cited. And I hope that your use of the English language would become more standard.

For example, "natural selection" and "mutation" do not denote the same meaning as evolution does. While they might connote similar meaning, use of connotation when you are stating denotation is misleading."

I have written several professional papers. All published in conference procedings in my field and not in professional journals. Last one was the Western Fuels Symposium in Billings in October.

http://www.undeerc.org/aboutus/pastevents/conferences/wfs19th/index.asp

I disagree about your charge of equivocation. You said that the processes of evolution were fatal to life. I mentioned several mechanisms, including natural selection and mutation, that are key to how evolution proceeds and showed that they are not actually fatal to all life. Evolution itself is the change in allele frequenct in a population with time. The mechanisms are how these changes come about. I never said that they were the same thing only that they are the means through which it acts. I find it hardto believe that you really missed that not so subtle detail.

"I sought the exchange of ideas with some evolutionists that use scientific method, and standard English."

I believe I outlined for you how evolution follows the scientific method.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/16.html#000228

You did not raise any objections. I assume that that means that you accept now that evolution really does follow the scientific method.

Now, what are the titles and authors of those five books you are reading?

 

[UTEOTW]

"I have written several professional papers. All published in conference procedings in my field and not in professional journals."

I thought I should complete this thought for accuracy. I am only speaking of papers where I am the lead author. There are additional papers in both conference proceedings and peer reviewed journals where I am not the lead author. One example of the latter would be

"Characterization of Chromite and Forsterite Surfaces Using Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectroscopy" Murphy et al, Fluid/Particle Separation Journal, 12, 60 (1999).

I hate to be incomplete on such things.

 

[UTEOTW]

Bumping this thread due to a request not to let another thread go off track. The issues here came up in that thread. This way that thread can continue and those issues can be discussed here.

In the other thread, Helen made the claim

"2. There is NO evidence for human evolution. There is only the declarations with each fossil that is found. Take out the hot spots and Neandertals were identical to us, for instance. Fully human. It just doesn't sit too well with evolutionists to admit that."

Two responses were given.

#1

Neanderthals were identical? I do not know anyone with brow ridges, do you? What about that low Neanderthal forehead? What about the occipital bun? Their bones were heavier and the long bones were curved. And according to this

Matthias Krings, Anne Stone,t Ralf W. Schmitz, Heike Krainitzki, Mark Stoneking, and Svante Pääbo, "Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans" Cell, Vol.90, 19-30, July 11, 1997

Neandethal mDNA falls completely outside of that of modern humans. Are these hotspots?

#2

To take this a little further, we do not even need the fossil record to show that man is related to the other apes. The fossil record of this is convincing, however.

But through genetics, it can be shown that the phylogeny of the apes matches closely whether you are looking at coding DNA of different origins or any of many types of non-coding DNA such as Y-linked noncoding regions, pseudogenes, autosomal intergenic regions, X-linked noncoding regions, synonymous sites, introns, endogenous retroviral inserts, paralogs and nonsynonymous sites.

For examples see some of the following posts.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000000
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000001
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000002
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000003
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000004
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html#000005
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/2.html#000019
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/2.html#000020
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/2.html#000023
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/2.html#000027
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/2.html#000028
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/3.html#000031
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/3.html#000033
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/3.html#000035

Just why would all of this diverse data match up together with each other and with the fossil record?

The list of links in the second response are some of the more relevant posts on this thread. This thread was taken way off topic at some point, so it may be easier to find the main claims using the links instead of wading through.

In addition to the general claims of the support for human evolution provided by all of the independent lines of evidence, there is buried in there a challenge unique to YE to be explained.

There is another complication that arises when looking at these examples. Let me use the retroviral DNA insertions as an example.

As shown above, humans and the other apes and primates share insertions that demonstrate their common ancestry. (The quote is "Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place.") In a young earth hypothesis, this is a major problem. You would have to assume that the humans and all the "kinds" (whatever that may be) of primates and apes were infected by the same combination of virii, that they all inserted the exact same sequence in the same place, and that all these insertions were fixed into the various species.

Furthermore, since these insertions are common between essentially all humans, in a young earth they all must have taken place in the (about) ten generations between the creation and the last common ancestor (Noah) and none have taken place since. Unlikely.

 

[UTEOTW]

Does anyone want to tackle just why all these separate lines of evidence point to human evolution without being arbitrary and capricious about it? Including the retroviral insert dilemma for YEers?

Please tell us what "kind" the various ape species fall into when you give your answer. If you do not, that will be the first question directed towards you so please answer so we can save a round of back and forth. One kind? Multiple kinds divided how? Including extant apes such as chimps and gorillas and also fossil apes.

 

[Gup20]

It's a farce -

The new dates for Hahnöfersand Man (7,500 years old (yo)), Paderborn (Sande) Man (255 yo) and Binshof (Speyer) Woman (3,300 yo) put pre-human species contemporary with modern humans and as part of the gene pool.

One must begin to wonder and examine the very weak phylogenic case for human evolution from apes.

Admit it - apes simply happen be the most human-like of the animal kind. There is no physical evidence of ancestry, and the Bible rules out the possibility entirely.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

 

[Gup20]

The major obstacle to evolutionary theories as to origins is that information cannot be defined in terms of physics and chemistry. The ideas of a book are not the same as the paper and ink which constitute the book. Indeed, those same words and thoughts can be transmitted through an entirely different media (such as a computer CD-ROM, floppy disk or a tape recorder). The chemicals do not define the message they carry. Meaning cannot spontaneously arise, since meaning presupposes intelligence and understanding.

One of the greatest discoveries was that of DNA by Francis H. Crick (UK) and James D. Watson (USA) in 1953. This molecule was found to be the universal storage medium of natural systems. A length of DNA is formed in such a way that two deoxyribose sugar-phosphate strands together form a double helix 2nm (10­9m) in diameter with a pitch of 3.4nm. Between these two strands are hydrogen bridges, across which four types of nucleotides are placed: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C) and Guanine (G). Effectively these four nucleotides are the chemical alphabet for writing “words” on the chemical “paper,” which is the two sugar-phosphate strands. The helix enables a 3-dimensional storage of information formed by the patterns of the chemical letters used. The DNA string is like a sequence of dots and dashes in a coded message. The coded information using the letters (ACG, GUC, CAU, etc.) rides on the complicated chemical molecules, but is not defined by it. Information does not equal energy or matter.

In radio signals there is a carrier wave of lower frequency than the information signal which rides on the back of the carrier wave. Once received, the carrier wave is not important and the message is converted to sound and speech. In exactly the same way, the information concerning one cell could have been written using entirely different coding, that is, a different ordering of the nucleotides. As long as the rules stay the same, it is unimportant. Alternatively, completely different chemistry could be involved, that is, a different “alphabet” leading to a completely new language structure. What is paramount in this discussion is that information (that is the setting of the rules, the language, code, etc.) has been there from the beginning. To argue that this came by chance is scientifically preposterous. As Professor Werner Gitt has stated, “No information can exist without an initial mental source. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.”

Though Dawkins has argued for a seemingly endless series of small advantageous mutations singled out by natural selection operating at the micro level there are formidable arguments against his position. Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, discusses the problem of pleiotropy, that is, one gene affecting a number of seemingly totally unrelated functions in living organisms. For example, changes in the coat color genes in mice also affect body size. The microbiologist Behe has also ably rebutted Dawkins in his book Darwin’s Black Box, where he has shown that behind the many words of this arch-defender of Darwin, there is no mechanism in Darwinian evolution to add new information to a species at the macro level by a meaningful set of changes to the DNA letters, because “forward information” as to what the changes are aimed at is needed. Otherwise the intervening mutations have no advantage. Indeed, to form the code to begin with, it is vital that the sender and the receiver part of the cell both have prior agreement as to the meaning of the code, else there can be no communication. But Darwinian evolution only has chance mutations at its disposal. Because no “advance thinking” can possibly be allowed, there is no way that the nucleotides can arrange themselves in a “pre-defined code,” since this assumes prior knowledge. Thus, the very existence of the DNA-coded language stalls evolution at the first hurdle.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/mcintosh.asp
By Dr. Andrew McIntosh
Dr. McIntosh is Reader in Combustion Theory, Department of Fuel and Energy, University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. He holds a B.S. with first class honors in applied mathematics from the University of Wales, a Ph.D. in the theory of combustion from the Cranfield Institute of Technology, and a D.Sc. in mathematics from the University of Wales. He has contributed chapters to 10 textbooks dealing with combustion theory and published over 80 research papers. Dr. McIntosh is the author of Genesis for Today: Showing the Relevance of the Creation/Evolution Debate to Today’s Society.

 

[UTEOTW]

So when you do not have an answer, you attempt to just post off topic material and hope no one notices. (If copy and pasting can really be considered "posting.")

Come on, Gup. Tell us how a few percent of our genome was filled in with retroviral inserts in only ten generations from Adam to Noah yet there have been essentially no new inserts since Noah. What happened? And why do the other apes share almost the exact same set of retroviral inserts?

Tell us why you get the same pattern over and over when studying the phylogeny of the apes from genetics? It does not seem to matter if you use coding genes, psuedogenes, paralogs, ERVs, LINEs, SINEs, ALUs, chimeric genes or waht. Always the same pattern. Why is this? How are the extant and fossil apes divided into "kinds" and how did you determine this?

 

[UTEOTW]

"The new dates for Hahnöfersand Man (7,500 years old (yo)), Paderborn (Sande) Man (255 yo) and Binshof (Speyer) Woman (3,300 yo) put pre-human species contemporary with modern humans and as part of the gene pool. "

Let's go to the archives, shall we.

Henke W, Protsch RR, "The Paderborn calvaria--a diluvial Homo sapiens," Anthropol Anz. 1978 Feb;36(2):85-108.

Our little fraudulent scientists says "The morphological comparison shows strong affinities to comparative material from the Upper Pleistocene like Cro-Magnon." Cromagnon man is fully modern man. You assertions are incorrect about this being some supposedly primitive man. He claimed fully modern, just lied about the date.

This just means that the fully modern humans he found were not as old as he had claimed these fully modern humans were.

And, again, science exposed the mistake. It is self correcting and anyone trying to pass off bad science will eventually be exposed. That is one reason that it is such a trustworthy source.

"Admit it - apes simply happen be the most human-like of the animal kind. "

That is a strange statement from a YEer. They usually claim that the image of God is physical and that those who accept on old earth are such bad people for suggesting the God is just an ape or some other similar misstatement. Now here you are claiming apes ARE human like. Do you disagree with your other YEers on this point.

"There is no physical evidence of ancestry..."

THen you should have no problem actually addressing the issues on this htread.

"...and the Bible rules out the possibility entirely."

Well, your view does. But the creation confirms that your view is incorrect.

"As Professor Werner Gitt has stated, “No information can exist without an initial mental source. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.”"

And then you hop back on your information horse again. Too bad it is a dead horse.

Remember way back the first time you brought up Gitt? If you remember, this quote come from one of his theorems. Except that he never derives his theorems, he merely asserts them. Which makes hiw whole argument circular and therefore useless. Let's see what all I had to say that time.

I was really hoping that you could give us the Gup20 summary to show us what you think "information" is but I guess this will have to do.

We'll look at your first link. Gitt is trying to make it look as if he is using Shannon information, yet his third theorem distances himself from Shannon.

"Theorem 3: Since Shannon’s definition of information relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning."

So we are no longer talking about Shannon information. This is key since he is trying to build upon Shannon to make his case. Above, he had stated that "On the basis of Shannon’s information theory, which can now be regarded as being mathematically complete." What good is a mathematically complete theory if you are going to later say that it does not apply? He wants to use the acceptance of Shannon to support his theory while later telling us why Shannon's theory does not apply.

Of course he has to get away from Shannon because Shannon allows for random sequences to be information while Gitt's second sufficient condition says "A sequence of symbols does not represent information if it is based on randomness." His next sentence then contridicts himself by saying "According to G. J. Chaitin, an American informatics expert, randomness cannot, in principle, be proven."

SO he his basing his work on Shannon exept when he is not basing his work on Shannon. And random sequences, which are information in Shannon, are not information for Gitt though he admits that there is not any way to determine if something is truely random or not.

So now we are left with nothing but Gitt's theorems and his necessary and sufficient conditions. He offers no mathematical basis for these theoems. If you will go to http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf in contrast you will see how Shannon DOES support his position with the mathematics. The whole point of Gitt finally boils down to his tenth theorem "Theorem 10: Each item of information needs, if it is traced back to the beginning of the transmission chain, a mental source (transmitter)." Which by this point, since he has abandoned the mathematical underpinnings when he abandoned Shannon, is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. And a circular one at that since his assertion and his conclusion are the same.

We also have empirical evidence that contradicts this assertion. As I have shown, we can get new "information" through duplication and mutation. I have shown much empirical evidence of cases where this has happened to show that it is not just a theoretical construct. I have also given you plenty of examples of mutations that led to new traits.

Besides, you have never committed to a definition of "information" nor have you given a concrete and logical reason why process such as exon shuffling or duplication and mutation that lead to new genes with new functions without destroying existing genes should not count as new information.

Please try to address the actual issues on the thread with your next post. Please.

 

[UTEOTW]

Are you going to adress these issues, Gup?

 

[Gup20]

Come on, Gup. Tell us how a few percent of our genome was filled in with retroviral inserts in only ten generations from Adam to Noah yet there have been essentially no new inserts since Noah. What happened? And why do the other apes share almost the exact same set of retroviral inserts?

So you assert that you have found Noah and have done a DNA test on his remains? Wow.

I would say this is just the latest attempt by evolutionists to explain what the Bible clearly states by grasping at straws.

This is no different from 5 years ago assuming that there was all this Junk DNA in the human genome. Tons and Tons of junk. Ooopsy! The junk wasn't junk after all. In fact the "junk" is just beginnig to be discovered as extremely important. In fact, this 'junk' is so important that it vastly differentiates humans from apes.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes_genomes.asp

This article has quite a bit of information on that... here is a snippett:

It has been asserted6 that evolutionary trees constructed on the basis of DNA similarities ‘agree remarkably well with the evolutionary trees derived earlier from anatomic similarities’. This statement is egregiously untrue. If anything, primate phylogenies are in a mess as a result of major contradictions between molecular and morphological data.57,107,108 Consider some recent craniodental data, which is very robust, statistically speaking. In a virtual mockery of pseudogene-based phylogenies (Fig. 2, Table 2), humans branch off first, followed by chimps, and finally a gorilla-orang clade*.108 (Gibbon was not considered in this study.)

Pseudogene-derived phylogenies are not even consistent with each other (Table 2). A common rationalization6 would have us believe that any difficulties in resolving the human-chimp-gorilla trichotomy have no impact on the validity of evolutionary theory itself. But consider the original prediction:

‘High expectations were placed on molecular methods, when these were first introduced, as to their power to resolve the trichotomy problem.’107

The article is called "Are pseudogenes ‘shared mistakes’ between primate genomes?"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes_genomes.asp

 

[UTEOTW]

"So you assert that you have found Noah and have done a DNA test on his remains? Wow."

So, then tell us who the last common ancestor of man was in your world if not Noah. These inserts are shared. That means they must have been inserted by the time of our last common ancestor. I would have thought that you would have ascribed this to Noah, no? A few percent of our DNA gets filled with ERVs and NONE since. Wow indeed!

"This is no different from 5 years ago assuming that there was all this Junk DNA in the human genome."

Most junk is still junk. Where are you going?

 

[UTEOTW]

And then we get to the coup de grace. You finally after all this time, attempt to respond. Of course it is a link to AIG, but luckily this time you give just a snippet instead of spamming the whole article on us.

This reminded me once again of what a pathetic and disgusting organization I think AIG is.

Reading through the article, I must admit it sounds good. I'll even admit that it had me doubting there for a while.

But then I remembered that I am dealing with young earth leaders, a group who seems to think that the commandment against bearing false witness does not apply to them. So I start investigating the article by looking up the references.

Let's just stick to the part you pasted.

AIG says that "primate phylogenies are in a mess as a result of major contradictions between molecular and morphological data." Wow that sounds strong. Let's follow there references for this.

The first one is reference 57. They list it as

Revolo, Molecular phylogeny of the hominoids, Molecular Biology and Evolution 14(3):248–265, 1997.

Unfortunately, they cannot even spell Ruvolo's name correctly.

But let's look at her paper and see what she has to say. Right in the abstract she says

The implication of the multiple-locus test is that existing DNA sequence data sets provide overwhelming and sufficient support for a human-chimpanzee clade: no additional DNA data sets need to be generated for the purpose of estimating hominoid phylogeny. Because DNA hybridization evidence (Caccone and Powell 1989) also supports a Homo-Pun clade, the problem of hominoid phylogeny can be confidently considered solved.

Do you see the problem? AIG claims that the phylogenies are in a huge "mess" and then cites an article that says that the phylogenies "can be confidently considered solved" and that there is no need for "additional DNA data sets need to be generated for the purpose of estimating hominoid phylogeny" because the data are "overwhelming."

They did not even attempt to accurately portray what was listed in the article.

The next reference is

Satta, Y. et al., DNA archives and our nearest relative, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 14(2):259–275, 2000.

Thet say that "In the present study most of these difficulties are overcome by identifying evolutionary causes that might potentially provide misleading information. Altogether, 45 loci consisting of 46, 855 bp are analyzed. About 60% of the loci and approximately the same proportion of phylogenetically informative sites support the human-chimpanzee clade. The remaining 40% of loci and sites support the two alternatives equally. It is demonstrated that, while incompatibility between loci can be explained by random sorting of allelic lineages, incompatibility within loci must be attributed largely to the joint effect of recombination and genetic drift. The trichotomy problem can be properly addressed only within this framework."

Do you read that? They find that 80% (60 + 20) of the sequences support the theory while the other 20% can be explained by recombination and drift. Where is the big problem AIG is screaming about.

Then AIG says "Consider some recent craniodental data, which is very robust, statistically speaking. In a virtual mockery of pseudogene-based phylogenies (Fig. 2, Table 2), humans branch off first, followed by chimps, and finally a gorilla-orang clade."

Again, let's go to the reference. It is the third of the three listed in this snippet.

Collard, M. and Wood, B., How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses? Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 97:5003–5006, 2000.

They say "We found that the phylogenetic hypotheses based on the craniodental data were incompatible with the molecular phylogenies for the groups. Given the robustness of the molecular phylogenies, these results indicate that little confidence can be placed in phylogenies generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence."

So what the authors say they have "little confidence" in is claimed by AIG to be "very robust."

So in typical YE fashion, AIG is unable to accurately portray what the scientists in their refeences are saying. They must twist and distort in order to attempt to make a point. But this is so typical for YE work that it should not be surprising. They have been doing this for so long it has become second nature and they may not even realize what they are doing at this point. You do evil long enough and you eventually harden your heart to it.

The hard part to believe is that someone like you, who seems to be an intelligent and reasonable person, still accepts what these guys have to say afterso many time getting their material being shown to not just be wrong, but to be deliberate and purposefully twisted and misrepresented. How many times must their lies be exposed before you start to doubt them?

 

[UTEOTW]

And I almost forgot. COuld you please tell us how to divide the extant and fossil apes into knids and the basis for this division?

 

[Gup20]

So, then tell us who the last common ancestor of man was in your world if not Noah. These inserts are shared.

This is simply another example of assumptions without a shred of empirical evidence. The whole of evolution is based upon assumptions without empirical evidence.

Most junk is still junk. Where are you going?

Actually most "junk" is ignored .... not junk. Some geneticists are now stating that this was perhaps one of the biggest blunders in genetics. It is another example of evolutionary dogma setting back the progress of science.

Evolutionists have often claimed that 98% of human DNA has no function, being left-over evolutionary ‘junk’. However, as Science journal reports:

‘scientists have discovered many riches hidden in the junk, and … several researchers predict that some of the most intriguing discoveries may come from areas once written off as genetic wastelands.’

For example, researchers have already found that among the ‘non-coding’ DNA there are crucial promoter sequences which control when a gene is turned on or off.

It also appears that areas of DNA previously dismissed as ‘barren’ actually contain sequences that play a crucial role in the process that inactivates one of the two X chromosomes in a female’s early development. These regions apparently contain hundreds of genes, says one researcher, who concedes that “The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance.”

Reading through the article, I must admit it sounds good. I'll even admit that it had me doubting there for a while.

Wow... I am astounded. I thought all hope was probably lost for you.

But then I remembered that I am dealing with young earth leaders, a group who seems to think that the commandment against bearing false witness does not apply to them. So I start investigating the article by looking up the references.

So abscent your look at the evidence you attacked YE ad hominem to discredit it in your mind? Yikes!

But let's look at her paper and see what she has to say. Right in the abstract she says

Is it so hard to accept that AiG (aka YEC) disagree with Ruvolo's interpretation of the evidence? Ruvolo is an evolutionist... steeped in evolutionary lies and dogma. Instead, AiG looked at the data and made a different interpretaton. You are always asking for alternate interpretations based on Biblical presuppositions - well here is an example of precisely what we are talking about. You take the evidence or data... apply a different set of assumptions to it (aka YE instead of OE) and you get different results - a different interpretation of the evidence that fits with YE and the Bible. This is why the 'evidence' for evolution is so weak. It can so easily be explained another way - a way that agrees with Scripture.

The hard part to believe is that someone like you, who seems to be an intelligent and reasonable person, still accepts what these guys have to say afterso many time getting their material being shown to not just be wrong, but to be deliberate and purposefully twisted and misrepresented. How many times must their lies be exposed before you start to doubt them?

Well thank you. However in response I would note that while AiG doesn't have everything exactly right, they are much closer to the truth than evolutionists. Why? Because their work agrees with scripture. You know, UTE, I would have no problem believing in evolution except that it doesn't agree with scripture. In fact it totally contradicts scripture. As I am not a scientist myself, I would probably agree with any theory that can adequately explain our world in unity with scripture. My measure of truth is defined by scirpture. If a theory agrees with, or fits with the Word, then I am open to it. If an idea contradicts the word, it doesn't matter how much evidence you present I will never agree to it until you can convince me that my interpretation of scripture is wrong. This is the distinct difference between old earth and young earth views. Old earth views start with man and his view of the earth. Young earth views start with God's Word and that influences his view of the earth.

I watched a Science Channel special on Albert Einstein yesterday. The host went on to describe how Einstein's faith in God and his belief that God created everything lead him to be such a failure (referring to his 'theory of everything'). I would argue that the contribution of Einstein in light of Bible and his belief in God in General and Special relativity contradict that notion. I would say that a persuit of God and His design has always advanced science. It worked for Isaac Newton. It worked for Albert Einstien. It worked for Gregor Mendel.

 

[UTEOTW]

"This is simply another example of assumptions without a shred of empirical evidence. The whole of evolution is based upon assumptions without empirical evidence."

Let's see. We can observe that at least a few percent of our DNA is made up of ERVs. We can observe that all humans share the same set of these inserts. That is fairly empirical in my eyes. It does not even require any assumptions.

The assumption is that since ERV insertion is a very random process, that for everyone to share the same ERVs, they must have been present in out last common ancestor. Can you spell out a problem with this assumption?

Now, in a YE paradigm, everyone is an ancestor of Noah. His sons and their descendants dispersed and populated the world. Do you have a problem with this? Maybe you think that this part of the Bible should not be taken literally and the last common ancestor was much later. If you have an objection, spell it out.

Now, in a YE paradigm, there were ten generations between Adam and Noah.

The conclusion is that the few percent of our DNA that is made of ERVs must have been inserted in those ten generations and NONE since.

Please spell out your objections if you find a fatal flaw. If you do not find a fatal flaw in the logic, then tell us the answer to the riddle.

Hint: The answer is that you are making a mistake by taking the creation as a literal, recent creation. The few percent of ERVs were inserted through the course of evolution of all our ancestors.

"Actually most "junk" is ignored .... not junk."

Most junk IS junk, though there have been uses found for a good bit of it. But leftovers like paralogs, pseudogenes, ERVs, various long repeats and such are junk.

"So abscent your look at the evidence you attacked YE ad hominem to discredit it in your mind? "

No, I start checking their references to see if they really say what tehy claim they say. They do not.

"Instead, AiG looked at the data and made a different interpretaton. You are always asking for alternate interpretations based on Biblical presuppositions - well here is an example of precisely what we are talking about. "

Absolutely 100% not true.

They said that the state of the science was a "mess" and gafe this as a reference. That means that they claimed that the reference supported the assertion. It clearly did not.

To have done what you said was done, they would have needed to have taken the data and analysis section of her paper and drawn new conclusions and explained why these conclusions fit the data better. They did not such thing. They claimed that she supported their assertion when the opposite was true. They lied.

"This is why the 'evidence' for evolution is so weak. It can so easily be explained another way."

Then get to it.

 

[UTEOTW]

Have you yet come up with a plausible set of facts and logic to explain the ERV dilemma above?

Or have you yet come up with how your AIG claim above? You know, the one where they cite a reference as supporting a certain claim of theirs. THen when you check the reference, the authors made the opposite claim. Then you say that they were just drawing a differnt conclusion. This dispite there not being any indication in the text that they were drawing a different conclusion or any sort of re-analysis of the data section of the paper. Every indication is that they claimed that the paper supported a conclusion that it does not support. Have you got that worked out yet? Can you point us to where they examine the data set and explain what their alterante conclusion is and how they arrived at it. Or maybe they just lied about the claims of the paper.