The theories of Creation & Evolution compared

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Let some of those claimed scientific gentlemen support some of their genetic claims -
... REAL SCIENCE CAN QUOTE ... If the claims are true ...

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyAction=showAbstract&doi=10.1034/j.1399-0039.1999.530605.x&area=production&prevSearch=%2Ballfield%3ADonner

OK. There is an abstract that supports the claims I make about retroviral inserts. Any comments on how they came about in a young earth and without common descent?

 

[El_Guero]

I fail to see how this is connected with evolution ... unless you are claiming that lava has or is evolving ...

 

[UTEOTW]

Responding to Gup' claims here
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2807/3.html#000032

I think the retroviral DNA LTRs have a strong bearing directly on evolution.

 

[Gup20]

Fact is, what one thinks of evolution has nothing whatever to do with salvation.

In about the same degree that the fuse in a stick of dynamite has nothing to do with the destruction caused when the dynamite explodes. While evolution is NOT a salvation issue, it does open the door to the very thing that WILL cause you to loose your salvation - that being dismissal of Jesus as Christ. If one can dismiss any portion of scripture, then one can dismiss any other portion for the same reasoning. It is not your soul Galation that we are arguing for - it is those who turn away from the Gospel because they see how evolution and Genesis disagree - and what reason do they have to believe in Jesus - isn't he that guy in that book of fairy tales that science has disproven?

You may think that you are doing the same thing from the other side... protecting the scripture by allowing evolutionary thought to co-exist with Biblical doctrine - But Jesus said it best - you cannot serve two masters. YOu will hate the one and love the other. The two are indeed opposites, and you cannot serve both interests at once. We see this has happened over and over again in Europe. France and England are glaring examples of how letting evolutionary thought destroy the life of the church there. The churches in those countries is all but dead - and the people who do attend are, for the most part, just doing 'the religous thing' out of tradition. Why? Because they watered down the Word - they said it was OK to believe the world instead of the Word, and they let humanism influence people's perception of scripture until it was just as easy to dismiss Christ as it was to dismiss a 6000 year old earth.

But that does not change the fact that science alone still suggests an old earth.

Even at best, the 'science' of evolution is shaky. It is based on unprovable assumption, and theories such as uniformitarianism that are impossible to prove or disprove. If it were simply a matter of evolutionists trying to provide a purely naturalistic alternative to the Biblical view that would be one thing... but so many evolutionists, humanists, atheists try to DISPROVE christianity and the Bible using evolution. As christians, what is our response to be? The Bible is very clear on our response:

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

 

[UTEOTW]

"Even at best, the 'science' of evolution is shaky. It is based on unprovable assumption, and theories such as uniformitarianism that are impossible to prove or disprove."

I think you would find that to be a hard assertion to demonstrate. I believe that most biological scientists (read those who have actually looked at the data and have a far better idea of how "shaky" it is) would strongly disagree. And you have quite an assertion to show that things such as geological, physical, and chemical processes operated under a different set of laws in the past such that results today are not the results of the past. That is an assertion you must find a way to demonstrate convincingly. And none of this about catastrophies because we both know that scientists are well aware of catastropies and other rapid processes.

 

[A_Christian]

They (evolutionists) just will not accept the biggest and most obvious catastrophy of all history to date. It WILL be topped though, as sure as I know the Flood happened, it will be topped... The Bible says so (you cannot top something that never happened).

 

[El_Guero]

UTEOTW,

An abstract is not a scientific reference.

I also notice that what little you do reference is full of scientific doublespeak ... I asked for intelligent dialogue about scientific theory and got a smoke screen ...

El Guero

 

[UTEOTW]

An abstract is not a scientific reference? You have got to be pulling my leg.

I could have just given you the title, it lets you know everything I am trying to get across. "Intronic sequence motifs of HLA-DQB1 are shared between humans, apes and old world monkeys, but a retroviral LTR element (DQLTR3) is human specific." A specifc retroviral snip of DNA is shared across primates, apes and humans.

THis actually is not the abstract I meant to post but it is good enoguh. I was going for one that was deriving phylogenic relationships among the apes, humans included, by looking at some LTRs specific to the apes.

The point of the abstract however was to give one piece of support for my assertion that humans and apes share some very specifc retroviral DNA insertions that can only be satisfactorily explained through the use of common descent. I agve you an abstract as a reference to one specific insertion but there are many more along the very same lines.

I am curious why you do not consider this to be a reference? It gives a good summary of the information presented in a published (peer reviewed I assume) paper and gives you enough data that you can contiue to search for the full paper or for more information if you wish. I don't think that I need to go down to my local university library, photocopy the full article and fax it to you to make a valid point along with a citation index of who else has referenced the same paper. If you are faulting me for posting an abstract then you need to go back through the rest of the post and criticize those who are posting links to material that does not even approach the rigor of what I provided.

Now that we are through with that, I have made an assertion that the shared sequences of specific LTRs between the humans and apes show our common ancestry. With the abstract you can add the primates to that along with quite a few more LTRs. Do you have any reasonable proposition on how all those different "kinds" could have coincidentally been infected wit hte same series of virii, has every single one of them insert the exact same sequence of DNA, have that DNA be in a grem line cell that actually gets used for reproduction, and have all the different sequences be spread through all the different populations?

You first problem is merely to get teh same virus to infect such a wide variety of species. You second is to have it insert the exact same DNA sequence into every single one. Boy those odds are getting long now that we are considering all primates instead of just apes.

You also have an additioanl problem. SOmething like 5% of the genome is made of such LTRs. If you wish to say that they have all been inserted within the last few thousand years, then a logical conclusion is that there should be quote a wide variety in which humans populations contain which sequences. That is a lot of LTRs and your odds get longer if you want to condense their introduction into a very short period at the very beginning such that all humans would share almost the exact same set. This would mean a very high rate of insertion for a time followed by a period with no new insertions. Quite unlikely. And that is looking solely at just the humans without invlving the primate insertions.

 

[A_Christian]

And yet humans are human and throw-backs to primative apes never happen. Unless YOU believe mentally retarded people and blacks are closer to apes then say whites... That is the mentally that encouraged lynchings in the South and the rise of social Nazism. Who LOOKS more ape-like, who acts more ape-like. IF EVERYTHING you are saying is true, THEN actually.... Well, I don't believe it.
I've NEVER seen a human give birth to a primative and I've never heard of an ape giving birth to an
almost human creature. Your opinions are not supported by reality only evolutionary appraisal of limited data.

 

[UTEOTW]

And you are making a fallacious argument. Nothing in the theory of evolution predicts that a creature should give nirth to something unlike itself. Saltation may be a popular target for YEers but it is not a popular method of evolution in actual scientific circles. There is no reason for a human to give birth to a monkey and no reason for a non-human ape to suddenly give birth to something much more human like. Evolution takes place within populations not individuals and through deep time not individual generations.

Anyone who ever tried to use science to justify their evil practices are just as wrong as those who use religious reasons to justify flying planes into buildings or blowing up a policeman outside an abortion clinic.

Now, since we have turned to retroviral inserts, do you have any comments on how they came to be? With evidence?

 

[A_Christian]

Sir, that is EXACTLY what evolution says. Evolution says that there "may" have been abrupt jumps within species. How, pray-tell does that HAPPEN, if the children are just like the parents. The fact is that evolutionist have to believe or accept that generally speaking, the great-great-great-great-great-great-great....etc grandchildren have the capacity to be either smarter or dumber then their ancestors. And that the rule of thumb sides errors on smarter. Actually, I feel kids today are stupid. They know more but lack the motivation. We have grown LAZY.
Does that prove evolution. NO, it proves that permissive societies grounded in luxury and self-centered appeasement get sloppy and lose sight of the CREATOR. Sodom and Gomorrah are prime examples. They really were no different then us.

Perhaps you should become a vegetatian, as eating ones relations is wrong no matter how far removed.
Oh, but do watch those Butter Beans...

 

[UTEOTW]

Give me a reference. THe REAL theory does not expect large jumps. Small changes are selected for over long periods of time. Between generations the changes are very small indeed. For instance you statistically have about 6 mutations that your parents did not have. But you are all humans. You are not genetically identical but you are not a "hopeful monster" either.

I do not have to become a vegatarian. God tells me in the NT to kill and eat what I wish. He does not include humans in that.

And you better check on the butter bean thing if you are referencing that old, false addage about one particular blood sugar being closest to butter beans. Butter beans do not have blood! And human blood chemistry is either exactly the same or nearly the same as chimps across the board.

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Gup20,

You mentioned that the humanists exclude supernatural evidence and thus come to a biased conclusion. Recall that scientific examination of something involves appraisal of objective evidence. In approaching the age of the earth a natural scientist looks at geologic, astronomic, biologic, archeologic etc evidence. He or she may STILL choose to believe the earth is young based on biblical eye-witness accounts or just plain faith. But he did not come to this conclusion based solely on natural science.

Cerainly in matters of such a spiritual context it is NOT reasonable to rely only on science but rather on faith and the biblical accounts. Arguably these things even outweigh scientific evidence! But that does not change the fact that science alone still suggests an old earth.

Charles;
And THAT is precisely my point. Science ALONE suggests evolution. SUGGESTS. Not PROVES.
Conversely, since we have no way of knowing, naturally, what happened "In the beginning", God revealed it to us in Scripture.
"The natural man receiveth not the things of God neither can he KNOW them". Creation IS a thing of God. Therefore in order to know what happened we must rely on the One who was there. No man alive, if honest with himself, will say he can KNOW what happened "In the beginning". This is because he was not here then. This is all elementary stuff. Why is there such a problem with believing what God has plainly and clearly SAID?
I submit the answer for the question is in your post.
Because men rely on "science alone".
That is a bad place to stand. "Science" has shown ITSELF to be wrong many times. Has God?
In His service;
Jim

 

[A_Christian]

Actually, the Bible NEVER indicates that animals are related in ANY way to man. If they are, then you are eating your relatives (albeit distant). UTEOTW-----fella, I doubt that any evolutionist believes that starting at day one living things all had blood (there's your Butter Bean connection).
I'm going to use some math logic. If I would recognize a person living 6000 years ago as equal to myself in thought, intelligence (perhaps even smarter) and behavior patterns; and that person (for the sake of argument) felt the very same way about an individual 6000 years his senior; then I would feel the very same towards the person born 12000 years ago.
Now as we move bakward in time, if we are going to assume (for the sake of an argument) there would be found a smaller and smaller gene pool. Variations would become less and less likely. More amd more time would be need to meet evolutionist's goals and yet change would fast become more and more unlikely. So a cousin that you would date as 100,000 years old would have to be no different then the man born 6000 years ago.

UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO ACCEPT JUMPS IN THE GENE POOL, YOU'VE NOTHING TO STAND ON.

I, on the otherhand, believe that I could have married the daughter of an aborigines and have no concern that my descendants would be anywhere on any scale other then where they'd be anyway, because the aborigine is no different then myself.

And yet neither the aborigine nor myself are chimps....

 

[UTEOTW]

I did not say that there are not changes in the gene pool. Did you not notice where I said that, on average, you should expect that you have about 6 mutations that your parents do not have. Those are changes but not jumps.

Evolution does not say that the aborigines are any different than you or I either. We are all modern humans and have been so for at least 100 - 200,000 years. The differences over a given 6,000 year period will be tiny indeed. TO the point where you could consider it to be no changes at all. But there are changes over longer periods of time. We have the human fossils going back in time to show this. Neanderthals, Ergaster, Erectus. These guys were not THAT much different than you either and now you are back over 1 million years. But they also were not the same as you and I by any means either.

There is no reason to suppose that variation would have been any less in the past, either. Why do you suppose this?

 

[Debby in Philly]

Consider - we are not evolved from "lower species" - perhaps God created us and the animals similar so that we could relate and learn from animals how to take better care of them and ourselves.

 

[UTEOTW]

WHy would that simularity extend to scattering the genomes of both humans and the other apes with the same snippets of viral DNA? Why would that simularity extend to placing the same genetic mistakes into species that appear to be related based on the physiology? WHy would that extend into giving us series of animals in the fossil record that connect modern (and extinct too) species to common ancestors and providing genetic suuport for those connnections.

 

[A_Christian]

I throught that DNA could only be studied if you had "modern" bone, blood, and hair samples. I think you'd be skating on thin ice where prehistoric is concerned. Also, why are drug experiments done on rats, mice and pigs. I think you will find that our bodies have a lot in common with other bodies-----that doesn't mean that we are all relatives.

 

[UTEOTW]

You test the modern descendants. What I said was that there is a series of intermediates that trace from modern horses and rhinos back to a common ancestor. When you test the modern animals DNA, you come up with the same relationship. Go look up the following reference. There is no thin ice involved.

Use of mitochondrial DNA sequences to test the Ceratomorpha (Perissodactyla:Mammalia) hypothesis, C. Pitra and J. Veits, Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, Volume 38 Issue 2 Page 65 - June 2000.

The evidence from genetics and from the fossil record is that those similarities with the other mammals in your list are because of the common ancestry. Again, you would not normally look at a rhino and a horse and say that they are closely related. But the fossil record shows the they are and genetic testing proves it.

You can do the same thing with even more apparently seperated animals. Who would ever guess that cows and whales are closely related? THis is not a prediction that YE would predict. You generally try and explain away genetic similarities because animals look the same and you think they should therefore have similar genes. But you cannot honestly say this about a whale and a cow. But, for scientists, whales can be traced back to the even toed ungulates just like a cow of a hippo. Genetic testing then proves the relationship. See the following reference.

Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates, Shimamura et al, Nature 388,666 (14 August 1997)

They compared the DNA from Hippopotamus, Cow, Sperm Whale, Humpback Whale, Red Kangaroo, Human, Mouse, Cat, Asiatic Elephant, Domestic Horse, Pig, and Bactrian Camel. Just as the fossil record predicts, the whales were most closely related to the cow and the hippo. This also used retroviral DNA and not gene coding DNA so you cannot try the "common designer" for this even if you want to do so. Why would a common designer put the same snippet of viral DNA into a cow, a hippo and a whale?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
John
Merely because Satan comes in in sheep's clothing is no reason for me to fear him.
Galation
Evolution has a lot to do with salvation - if it keeps a lost soul from the Blood ...

Perhaps not. If one insists that the earth was created in 4004 bc in six literal 24 hour days, yet is cmpletely oblivious to what Genesis is trying to say about who God is, what He is, and why he made us, the objective of the account is lost. If one insists that Noah's ark is on Mt Ararat, but are oblivious as to what God was telling Noah, the objective of the account is lost. If one insists that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish instead of a whale, yet is completely oblivious to why Jonah was swallowed in teh first place, the objective of the account is lost. If one insists that the color of Jesus' robe was purple, but are oblivious as to why the robe was the color it was, the objective of the account is lost. If one insists that the stone was rolled away after Jesus rose, but are oblivious to why Jesus rose, the objective of the account is lost.