Evolution or Creation?

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I was actually referencing to said statement. And no I don't think you're an idiot. Don't know what that makes me.

Edit:
How we get from here:

"that is the way God set it up."

to here:

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

is my issue. Clearly I'm having trouble explaining. I'll take fault.

[Brewtus]

Originally Posted by t_BuckeyeScott

I'm not sure you understand the position. It's not like Creationists deny that DNA is primarily responsible for physical traits because that's what it seems like your implying.

Follow me. If God designed DNA to drive physical characteristics wouldn't it make sense that creatures with similar characteristics have similar DNA? We look more like chimps than rabbits so it would make sense that we are closer genetically to chimps.

It almost seems like you believe that because one denies evolution one denies genetics.

Good question and on the surface it seems hard to dispute. But recent advances in DNA sequencing have discovered that humans share noncoding DNA with many distantly related animals such as birds, reptiles and fish. About 98% of the human genome consists of noncoding or "junk" DNA. This is DNA that does not code for a specific characteristic in a certain species and consequently is subject to more frequent mutations since it remains silent in determining physical traits.

One remarkable thing about noncoding DNA is that more mutations occur in a sequence the more distant species are related. For instance, to illustrate here's a made up example of a sequence of noncoding DNA comparing different species (it's based on how the actual concept works, I just didn't have the actual order of bases handy):

ATGCCTA Humans
ATACCTA Chimps
ATATGTA Birds
ATAGGAA Reptiles
ATTGGAC Fish

By looking at these noncoding regions you can see that humans are more closely related to chimps and also more closely related to birds than fish. You can't explain this because humans look more like chimps and birds than fish because this DNA doesn't code for anything. The only way to explain it is because all of these animals had a common ancestor, with the fish ancestor being the most ancient of these animals and each species between them having fewer and fewer DNA differences from humans. This is why evolution is so useful because it explains things like this we see in nature.

[fourteenandoh]

anyone read the piece in the economist last week?

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by t_BuckeyeScott

Clearly I'm having trouble explaining. I'll take fault.

Somehow my post explaining this got lost, so I'll try again.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

I thought you were aware of this deal. His response to the kansas school board about carbon-14 dating is his sarcastic response to the "that is the way God set it up" question. IOW, if you just say because he can do anything He wants, it sort of eliminates the question from the realm of science completely.

Not being a mind reader, you should not have figured out my ramblings.

[kinch]

Originally Posted by t_BuckeyeScott

Entropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure why Max would say that.

entropy definition | Dictionary.com

en?tro?py (ěn'trə-pē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. en?tro?pies

1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

The trend to disorder is universe wide, not Earth wide. Also, this argument has been among the most positively and widely debunked of the new age creationist arguments. The argument was developed to prey on those without an understanding of the entropy and science and therefore sound scientific (though from physics-- odd). Google it. I participate in debates on this and nobody even brings it up any more. . .

Originally Posted by t_BuckeyeScott

Don't need to get into a debate, but I believe the 99.9 stat is exaggerated and anyway I'm confused what is wrong with the answer creationist provide.

IIRC, chimps are about 98% similar to us. For reference, and to put things in perspective, I think almost all mammals are close to 80% similar to us (off the top of my head, but again, I've read on this quite a bit). So we are all quite similar, genetically, and often too much is indeed made of this. At the same time, and tangentially, we are more genetically similar to chimps than lions are to tigers, and they can breed. Makes you wonder, right? I have a sick curiosity on that (and one totally unrelated to this discussion).

---

Not responding to anyone in this thread, but I went around with Gobucks on this before, and frankly, to argue some of the areas of this topic is just not meaningful unless a basic understanding of science is had by those in the discussion. The last comment I remember getting was that "there I went" with gravity just being a theory again. . . when it IS. Arguing with someone without their understanding of the very words that are used in science is like arguing calculus with someone who doesn't know what numbers are. It's fruitless and thankless work, in my experience. But carry on chaps, and I would adore being disproved in my negativity.

[Muck]

[quote=kinch;1412802;] I have a sick curiosity on that (and one totally unrelated to this discussion)./quote]

That didn't work out so well for Dr. Ivanov.

[redbenn]

[lvbuckeye]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

I guess my point is that humans are not closest to frogs, or dogs, or birds, or camels, or fish, etc. - no matter what percentage of similar material we share with those creatures. We are closest to chimps. That certainly supports the theory of a common ancestor far more than if our DNA was more divergent than - say - humans and rabbits. If we were genetically closer to a bunny then that would discount the primate common ancestor theory. But we are closest to chimps, as Darwin's theory predicted.

BTW, here is a link to some recent articles and studies.

DNA Chunks, Chimps And Humans: Marks Of Differences Between Human And Chimp Genomes

humans and mice share 99%.

[Buckeye Maniac]

Originally Posted by lvbuckeye

humans and mice share 99%.

No, they share 85%

Among the findings are that mice and human beings both carry about 30,000 genes. Differences within these individual genes -- the precise sequences of the four-letter DNA code -- spell out the obvious differences between the two mammalian species. On a letter-by-letter basis, the genes are 85 percent the same.

OF MICE AND MEN / Striking similarities at the DNA level could aid research

[Brewtus]

Originally Posted by lvbuckeye

humans and mice share 99%.

There are several different ways to compare DNA from one species to another. A 99% similarity is correct if you include gene duplication and just try to match similar genes between the two genomes. But a more telling statistic is to compare which and how many proteins each gene can produce and then compare the variation from gene to gene between species (humans and mice are about 85% similar with this method).

Here's a good explanation from the Human Genome Project:

Functional and Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet

Gene duplication occurs frequently in complex genomes; sometimes the duplicated copies degenerate to the point where they no longer are capable of encoding a protein. However, many duplicated genes remain active and over time may change enough to perform a new function. Since gene duplication is an ongoing process, mice may have active duplicates that humans do not possess, and vice versa. These appear to make up a small percentage of the total genes. I believe the number of human genes without a clear mouse counterpart, and vice versa, won't be significantly larger than 1% of the total. Nevertheless, these novel genes may play an important role in determining species-specific traits and functions.

However, the most significant differences between mice and humans are not in the number of genes each carries but in the structure of genes and the activities of their protein products. Gene for gene, we are very similar to mice. What really matters is that subtle changes accumulated in each of the approximately 25,000 genes add together to make quite different organisms. Further, genes and proteins interact in complex ways that multiply the functions of each. In addition, a gene can produce more than one protein product through alternative splicing or post-translational modification; these events do not always occur in an identical way in the two species. A gene can produce more or less protein in different cells at various times in response to developmental or environmental cues, and many proteins can express disparate functions in various biological contexts. Thus, subtle distinctions are multiplied by the more than 30,000 estimated genes.

The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.) Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are ?neutral? and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does.

[kinch]

Actually, in a way, now that the facade of Intelligent Design has been totally blown up, this may be the perfect time to have a real conversation on evolution and faith (or creationism) without deceit. Let's have at it.

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by kinch

Actually, in a way, now that the facade of Intelligent Design has been totally blown up, this may be the perfect time to have a real conversation on evolution and faith (or creationism) without deceit. Let's have at it.

What would Gumby and Robot Rumpus have to say about all this?

[kinch]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

What would Gumby and Robot Rumpus have to say about all this?

I have no idea what your are talking about, but I have to admit, I am intrigued.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by kinch

Actually, in a way, now that the facade of Intelligent Design has been totally blown up, this may be the perfect time to have a real conversation on evolution and faith (or creationism) without deceit. Let's have at it.

I'm game as I do not see a lack of compatibility (on faith and evolution). I'm not so concerned on the creationism point. Although, I will state openly that at this point I view the Big Bang as ex nihilo. I don't know if that makes an impact.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by redbenn