Creation vs. Evolution

[ledhed]

Why you may not look like your parents.

An individual's test results have little meaning on their own. You cannot take these numbers, plug them into some formula and find out who your ancestors are. The value of the test results depends on how your results compare to other test results. And even when you match someone else, it will only indicate that you and the person you match share a common ancestor. Depending on the number of markers tested and the number of matches it will indicate with a certain degree of probability how long ago this common ancestor existed. It will not show exactly who this ancestor is.

As discussed above, the Y-Chromosome is passed from father to son. The vast majority of the time the father passes an exact copy of his Y-Chromosome to his son. This means that the markers of the son are identical to those of his father. However on rare occasion there is a mutation or change in one of the markers. The change is either an insertion or a deletion. An insertion is when an additional repeat is added to a marker. A deletion is when one of the repeats is deleted.

Mutations occur at random. This means it is possible for two distant cousins to match exactly on all markers while two brothers might not match exactly. Because of the random nature of mutations we must use statistics and probability to estimate the Time to the Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA). The actual calculations of TMRCA are mathematically complex and depend on knowing the rate of mutation and the true number of mutations. At this time there is not enough data to accurately determine either of these factors so certain assumptions have to be made. The discussion of these assumptions and the actual calculations are beyond the scope of this webpage. For those wishing to read more about the various models used, I recommend Time to Most Recent Common Ancestry Calculator by Bruce Walsh. The simplest and one of the most commonly used models makes the following assumptions:

Rate of Mutation = .002. This assumes that any given marker has a .002 chance of mutating with each generation. In other words, we could expect any marker to mutate once in 500 generations. The rate of .002 is considered conservative and is the average of a number of studies. It will result in a TMRCA that is longer than higher mutation rates.

Number of mutations: This model counts any change in a marker as a single mutation. Each marker is scored as either a match or a non-match. If a marker does not match it is assumed to be a single mutation. This method a counting mutations may result in underestimating the TMRCA.


Based on the above assumptions we derive the cumulative probability table below. This table simply list the number of generations corresponding to the 50%, 90% and 95% probability levels for various numbers of matches.

http://blairgenealogy.com/dna/dna101.html

Thanks to my wife who was discussing this subject on the " All my Chidren " forums And got me into the debate... ( AMC ????daytime soap opera ??? ).

Some crazy stuff .....

 

[LewyMan]

Wow, I just happened to stumble across this thread, and it's great! I'm working on an assignment due tomorrow in Biology about Evolution! This thread could be of great help!

 

[Pako]

Just be sure to read ALL 4231 posts.

 

[Azuremen]

I'm gonna just toss in a few coins here on this.

Micro evolution over a short period of time has been proven. Its been observed and documented and so on and so forth. Everyone knows the finches deal. However, macro evolution of species has not been proven, it just works with the evidence at the time.

Which is all science does, matches theory with current evidence. This proves something, but only within our understanding of it. About 400 years ago most Europeans still thought the world flat. Of course, Egyptians, those in the middle east, and elsewhere had concluded differently. Still, scienve in Europe did not explain otherwise. Same with the setup of the solar system and universe.

Einstein stated the universe wasn't expanding until Hubble found the Andromeda galaxy and they had to explain red shift and things outside of the Milky Way galaxy. And now we have dark matter, super string theory, and so on. All are amazingly fantastic ideas and theories, each will be further supported as time goes along.

But will they be proven? Only to the best of our knowledge.

Before you accuse me of not believing in science though, I am studying Mechanical Engineering and Physics, and I have always found science interesting. Its just recently I came to realize it doesn't prove anything, just provides the best answer at the time.

On the other side, religion and faith work on a different idea. They do not require explanations to fit current evidence. There is a belief in something beyond our current understanding. So pitting science against religion can't really work out, as they have completely different approaches to the world.

And realize that you yourself do not know all this. You heard it from someone who observed it, kinda like looking through at telescope. You see the stars and stuff, but you can't really understand everything there - so you go off what others have said. So how do you truly know whats, well, true?

I'll probably pop in from time to time, but think about what I am saying, point out the spelling errors, grammer, and what ever is poorly worded so I can attempt to clarify. And with that, my two cents is now in the cup.

 

[Swift]

Wow, I just happened to stumble across this thread, and it's great! I'm working on an assignment due tomorrow in Biology about Evolution! This thread could be of great help!

There is a scary amount of information in this thread. I would check all of Famine's and Danoff's posts in this thread. Very insightful into the science of evolution.

Not that that's where humans came from though

 

[LewyMan]

There is a scary amount of information in this thread. I would check all of Famine's and Danoff's posts in this thread. Very insightful into the science of evolution.

Not that that's where humans came from though

Righteo, will do. Thanks 👍

 

[UnoMOTO]

How does that rebut anything at all? That's just a basic statement of what mutations are.

More simply put...when something mutates it gets watered down. You all are trying to say with mutation something will increase its standing in nature. Another simple example is the common cold. Its constantly mutating, but to counter that the human body will eventually catch up with that mutation. The common cold will never mutate into a virus that ends the human race.

 

[Famine]

More simply put...when something mutates it gets watered down.

Nothing in your post says that.

You all are trying to say with mutation something will increase its standing in nature.

Nope. Almost all mutations are not beneficial - be it harmful or non-harmful - to the cell it affects.

What you seem to think we think happens in evolution is:
Mutation -> *pow* -> BettaH! -> Breed -> BettaH!

This isn't the case. If you are genuinely interested, I'll go into a more in-depth (though I'll steer clear of the tech-speak) explanation.

Another simple example is the common cold. Its constantly mutating, but to counter that the human body will eventually catch up with that mutation.

Interesting example. It looks to me like the mutation in the cold virus allows it to infect more hosts. That seems like "with mutation [the cold virus] will increase its standing in nature", does it not? The mutation has allowed it to overcome an obstacle - resistant hosts - and propogate itself better...

The common cold will never mutate into a virus that ends the human race.

Why not? Cold viruses can, and do, kill.

 

[Duke]

Time to try something different.

Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes — \ it does not produce new information.

So, you're saying cancer doesn't exist, then?

Cancer is NEW INFORMATION produced from the genetic material that is contained in a cell's existing genetic information. It is selected negatively; true, but it is selected based on new information arising spontaneously from the existing genetic information of a cell.

More simply put...when something mutates it gets watered down. You all are trying to say with mutation something will increase its standing in nature. Another simple example is the common cold. Its constantly mutating, but to counter that the human body will eventually catch up with that mutation. The common cold will never mutate into a virus that ends the human race.

Then why are new, stronger, antibiotic-resistant bacteria appearing and infecting humans every year? In fact, our fleet of effective, broad-band antibiotics is dwindling because the infectious bacteria can come up with new, improved derivatives of their own - through evolution - more quickly than we can generate new drug formulae.

 

[UnoMOTO]

My mutation post was to express how I believe a fish could not mutate into growing legs. It was a response to that and that only. It was to explain the definition. We seem to be getting posts intermingled.

As for the cold issue...sure it has killed, but only in the people that have the weak genes. Even before our modern medicine we could servive the cold. I don't think the cold was stable for millions of years up until we invented the flu shot.

 

[UnoMOTO]

So, you're saying cancer doesn't exist, then?

Cancer is NEW INFORMATION produced from the genetic material that is contained in a cell's existing genetic information. It is selected negatively; true, but it is selected based on new information arising spontaneously from the existing genetic information of a cell.

No its not new...Its been with us since adam ate that damn apple. You just now are figuring out how it works?

 

[Danoff]

No its not new...Its been with us since adam ate that damn apple. You just now are figuring out how it works?

He's not saying cancer is new, he's saying cancer creates new genetic information. It's an example that refutes your claim that new information cannot be created by mutation.

 

[Famine]

As for the cold issue...sure it has killed, but only in the people that have the weak genes.

Weak genes, you say?

Please explain these "weak genes" to me...

(and I'm not being condescending, but hopefully you'll see where I'm going when you answer)

Even before our modern medicine we could servive the cold. I don't think the cold was stable for millions of years up until we invented the flu shot.

Cold != Flu.

They're two different families of viruses. Colds are caused by rhinoviruses and coronaviruses. Influenza is caused by a subfamily of the orthomyxovirus - called influenzavirus (naturally).

A 'flu shot will not protect you against the common cold.

Nevertheless, your cold virus example breaks your earlier notion that a mutation cannot be beneficial to an organism and only results in a "watered down" version. A single mutation in a single base in one of the coat protein genes results in a virus which can infect a previously protected host, allowing the virus to reproduce itself at the expense of the host. This is an advantage caused by a single DNA mutation.

And I'll ask again - since the common cold is caused by a virus, and people have been known to die from a cold, why will the common cold never turn into something which can kill the whole of humanity? Throw in the fact that there is no vaccination against the common cold and you've got quite a recipe there.

 

[UnoMOTO]

He's not saying cancer is new, he's saying cancer creates new genetic information. It's an example that refutes your claim that new information cannot be created by mutation.

Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information.

Something has to happen with in the cell even before the cancer information shows its self. Its not new! It was always there, but it just needed some actuator to start the growth process

 

[Famine]

Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information.

This Dr. Werner Gitt, the renowned Young Earth Creationist?

Just checking.

Something has to happen with in the cell even before the cancer information shows its self. Its not new! It was always there, but it just needed some actuator to start the growth process

Careful now. You're straying into my particular area of, and I don't use this word lightly, expertise.

What you've written in that paragraph is wholly nonsense.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Weak genes, you say?

Please explain these "weak genes" to me...

(and I'm not being condescending, but hopefully you'll see where I'm going when you answer)



Cold != Flu.

They're two different families of viruses. Colds are caused by rhinoviruses and coronaviruses. Influenza is caused by a subfamily of the orthomyxovirus - called influenzavirus (naturally).

A 'flu shot will not protect you against the common cold.

Nevertheless, your cold virus example breaks your earlier notion that a mutation cannot be beneficial to an organism and only results in a "watered down" version. A single mutation in a single base in one of the coat protein genes results in a virus which can infect a previously protected host, allowing the virus to reproduce itself at the expense of the host. This is an advantage caused by a single DNA mutation.

And I'll ask again - since the common cold is caused by a virus, and people have been known to die from a cold, why will the common cold never turn into something which can kill the whole of humanity? Throw in the fact that there is no vaccination against the common cold and you've got quite a recipe there.

Why do you make it so complicated. For this simple question I already answered it. The PROOF is all around you. We have survived all this time without a vaccination and the virus has never mutated beyond the point of the human genes ability to fight it. I'll even drift on your side of the fence for a moment or two. If it weren't for modern medicine the common cold might be nearly wiped out. All that we have done with medicine is prolong the weaker genes. If it were up to natural selection the all the weaker people would have died from the flu. And before you go AH HAH, yes natural selection would make a stronger man but it will never mutate me into wings so I could fly.

 

[Famine]

Why do you make it so complicated.

Here's a thought: Because it is.

For this simple question I already answered it. The PROOF is all around you. We have survived all this time without a vaccination and the virus has never mutated beyond the point of the human genes ability to fight it.

How interesting. I'm guessing you've never heard of Ebola or HIV then?

The human population has survived all this time without a vaccination but, like the cold virus, both can kill. The only real difference is virulence - Ebola has a 100% hit rate, HIV used to be 100% but is now down to just over 95%, and the common cold is down near 0.001%.

Yet you are precluding the possibility of a common-cold-type-virus ever being a threat to humanity.

I'll even drift on your side of the fence for a moment or two. If it weren't for modern medicine the common cold might be nearly wiped out. All that we have done with medicine is prolong the weaker genes. If it were up to natural selection the all the weaker people would have died from the flu.

Maybe true (though again I note you're mixing 'flu and the common cold again - they are not the same thing). But 'flu still throws us a curveball from time to time, like H5N1.

H5N1 is just 'flu. But it kills 59% of the time... Without modern medicine, that'd be so, so much higher. So much for a harmless little cough never making it as a species killer.

And before you go AH HAH, yes natural selection would make a stronger man but it will never mutate me into wings so I could fly.

Evolution does not affect the individual - though it is affected by the individual - but the whole species. You will never grow wings and fly, short of a comic book "ooze"-type leap of imagination. Humanity might though (though it's not very likely).

 

[Duke]

Why do you make it so complicated.

We make it complicated because it is complicated. No one but those seeking a pat, easy, supernatural/mystic answer thinks it is simple. As witnessed by your closing sentence below:

And before you go AH HAH, yes natural selection would make a stronger man but it will never mutate me into wings so I could fly.

 

[Swift]

This has been said before. But nobody on either side is refuting micro evolution, it's macro evolution that's the thing to prove.

And of course that's what science has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Science has done a lot and God himself has said that we can do anything we put our minds to. So we may just break God's code. It'll be a scary day if/when that happens though. As man will consider himself the most supreme being in all of creation and we'll probably have a Matrix/Terminator like world.

 

[Danoff]

Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information.

Interesting. Yes this would appear on the face of it to be correct (though you're sliding all over this topic - from one area to another). One thinks about their own life experiences and considers what we've seen and comes to the conclusion that order does not come from chaos.

Then you think about it a little more and realize that notion is nonsense.

Consider the falling star that you see at night. It's a meteor entering the earth's atmosphere. It does that because the Earth exerts a gravitational pull on the meteor as it nears the Earth and sucks it in. That gravitational attraction just tidied up the solar system just a bit. Before, there were two objects. Now there is only one.

Consider the comets that slammed into Jupiter recently, and how that tidies up the solar system as well. Lots of debris becomes less debris as a result of gravitational attraction. These balls of mass that form from debris (chaos if you will) happen naturally, and the only thing you have to believe is gravity.

Now, I'm sure you think that our solar system is 6000 years old, but science has determined (through reproducible observation) that our solar system formed in this way initially. We observe nebulae (just by looking at the sky) and see that early star systems have lots of gasses and clumps of matter. This debris (if you will) clumps together over time due to graviational attraction and becomes the ordered system that we have in our solar system.

That's order from chaos, and it's just one example.

Another is the example you gave earlier. Natural selection, which you have admitted happens on a micro scale (not much of a jump to the macro scale btw... just add time to the micro scenario), where was I? Natural selection is order from chaos. Take millions of chaotic genes, and put them in a system with a selector (like natural selection), and you get ordered genes from the chaos.

Basically, any time you introduce a natural process - like the laws of physics in the solar system, or like the forces of pure logic in the case of biology, you get order from chaos.

The same can be said about the US market. Capitalism is order from chaos. I used to play a video game called Diablo II. The folks that played that game developed an entire market system for trading - one that the game did not provide. It was a beautiful example of thousands of individual chaotic elements with conflicting interests ordering themselves under the framework they existed in. No one organized it, it just happened as a result of the environment. Information, order, a system came into being without an organizer, without a designer.

Yes, evolution is order from chaos. But natural selection is the explanation for why that order comes about. When you think about it, that's the only way it could be. Just like gravity, it's an obvious force for order.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Interesting. Yes this would appear on the face of it to be correct (though you're sliding all over this topic - from one area to another). One thinks about their own life experiences and considers what we've seen and comes to the conclusion that order does not come from chaos.

Then you think about it a little more and realize that notion is nonsense.

Consider the falling star that you see at night. It's a meteor entering the earth's atmosphere. It does that because the Earth exerts a gravitational pull on the meteor as it nears the Earth and sucks it in. That gravitational attraction just tidied up the solar system just a bit. Before, there were two objects. Now there is only one.

This one is way to easy to blow a hole through.The two objects are still cemically seperate. They just occupy the same space. I do not change the composition of my dinner table just because I put a plate on it.

 

[UnoMOTO]

This has been said before. But nobody on either side is refuting micro evolution, it's macro evolution that's the thing to prove.

DING....WE HAVE A WINNA!

 

[Danoff]

This one is way to easy to blow a hole through.The two objects are still cemically seperate. They just occupy the same space. I do not change the composition of my dinner table just because I put a plate on it.

The earth's crust recycles over time. The part of the meteor that hits the ground will melt in the mantle, mix, and cool later when it reaches the surface (in Hawaii or the mid-ocean ridge in the atlantic for example). The part of the meteor that burned in the atmosphere is gaseous and mixes with the atmosphere. You might have just breathed it in. Bottom line? The objects chemically mix. Not that retaining distinct chemical makeup refutes my earlier claim that the accumulation of matter into a ball from a bunch of orbiting debris is order from chaos.

Edit: BTW, don't be lazy. I gave you several examples, you tried (unsuccessfully) to pick at only one of them. Just admit that order can come from chaos in the presence of a force function and we'll move on.

 

[Famine]

This one is way to easy to blow a hole through.The two objects are still cemically seperate. They just occupy the same space. I do not change the composition of my dinner table just because I put a plate on it.

Stunning. Simply stunning.

In all the finest definitions of both words.

 

[Sage]

03R1 – I should forewarn (is it too late for that?) you that you’re arguing about meteors with an orbital engineer and about cancerous genetic mutations with a cancer biologist.

 

[Danoff]

03R1 – I should forewarn (is it too late for that?) you that you’re arguing about meteors with an orbital engineer and about cancerous genetic mutations with a cancer biologist.

That's not an accident either. We both took turns steering the conversation toward our various areas of expertise. Still, somehow I hadn't noticed this. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

03R1 – I should forewarn (is it too late for that?) you that you’re arguing about meteors with an orbital engineer and about cancerous genetic mutations with a cancer biologist.

Shhhh! Just pop some popcorn, open a soda, and enjoy.

Want some Reese's Pieces?

 

[Swift]

03R1 – I should forewarn (is it too late for that?) you that you’re arguing about meteors with an orbital engineer and about cancerous genetic mutations with a cancer biologist.

This is why when I was active in this debate, I did my best to keep it on scriptural analysis and the like.

But as Boundary layer has said before, arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig, after a while you figure out that the pig is enjoying it.

 

[UnoMOTO]

03R1 – I should forewarn (is it too late for that?) you that you’re arguing about meteors with an orbital engineer and about cancerous genetic mutations with a cancer biologist.

No I didn't, but I can't find a thread anywhere in here about Precast Concrete. So my Expertise will never get its shining moment. At any rate I will stick it out as long as I can in here. Most of you have had a two year head start and most likely are regurgitating the same responses to all the others before me. You all could spew all the facts you like in your studies per the profession that you have chosen but none of them will change my faith. As per the obivious we will still go on having fun trying to blow each other up.

 

[ledhed]

No I didn't, but I can't find a thread anywhere in here about Precast Concrete. So my Expertise will never get its shining moment. At any rate I will stick it out as long as I can in here. Most of you have had a two year head start and most likely are regurgitating the same responses to all the others before me. You all could spew all the facts you like in your studies per the profession that you have chosen but none of them will change my faith. As per the obivious we will still go on having fun trying to blow each other up.

You can always argue with me . I'm just a normal idiot .