Brain Gene

[rocketman]

The Genesis story has “God” forming man from the dust of the ground. So when presented with the evidence some people simply twist this story to make it say “chimp DNA”.

Everything else being equal I could accept this as a way of telling people from 6000[?] years ago that they were made from some of the very smallest stuff known, which for them was the dust of the ground. And the 'common-architecture' argument suits both evolution and creationism.

(btw – which “standard creationist model” are you referring to? There are so many.)

I guess I was referring to the young-earth type. Anyway, I noticed they have mentioned the finding here [only up for a week].

 

[painted wolf]

what is a "major animal type"?
I'm afraid I don't understand... genus, kingdom, order?
Many "kinds" as most people see them are highly subjective, a 'possum looks like a kind of rat... but it isn't.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

what is a "major animal type"?
I'm afraid I don't understand... genus, kingdom, order?
Many "kinds" as most people see them are highly subjective, a 'possum looks like a kind of rat... but it isn't.

wa:do

Exactly my point. The creationist model is stuck knowing what they mean but with no real way of being able to say it, at least not in a way that science can debate.

 

[fantome profane]

Everything else being equal I could accept this as a way of telling people from 6000[?] years ago that they were made from some of the very smallest stuff known, which for them was the dust of the ground.

Well that is fine, if you can accept that then good for you. Personally one of the things that I love about the Genesis story of creation is how it is open to such a wide variety of interpretations. And your equating the dust of this story with DNA is definitely an interesting interpretation. And I have to say I have heard sillier interpretations. But I can see no reason to believe that the people who created this story meant DNA when they said dust. If you have any evidence for that interpretation I would be fascinated.

You can take just about any myth you can think of and reconstruct it in a way to make it fit with the facts as we understand them. But saying that dust meant DNA has no more validity than saying Thor’s Hammer created the big bang.

And the 'common-architecture' argument suits both evolution and creationism.

This may be true, but one explanation uses a scientific theory, and the other makes use of supernatural suppositions.


Still I am rather confused as to which explanation you believe. The site you linked to supports the idea that similarities can be explained by “design economy”. You seemed to imply that they could be explained if we assume that “God” used pre-existing DNA to create humans. Which is it?

I guess I was referring to the young-earth type. Anyway, I noticed they have mentioned the finding here [only up for a week].

It is amusing that you would suggest that an article about a gene that evolved 300 million years ago could be used to support a “young-earth type” model of creationism. I guess it works if you believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years “young”. But I don’t think the good people over at AIG would appreciate that idea. And I don’t know what they would think of your idea that dust means DNA.

One thing that caught my attention about the page you linked to. They say this:

Evolutionists must increasingly accommodate their theories to the contrary evidence, which is what originally led to Darwinism replacements, such as punctuated equilibria and neo-Darwinism.

This is what the creationist mindset considers to be a major criticism of evolution. To them the changing a theory based on the evidence is a weakness. Their idea of the proper way to do things is to twist the evidence to match their interpretation of the bible.

 

[UofM08]

hopefully this clears things up a little bit. Intelligence does generally positively correspond to EQ, but it is the individuals ability to create and retain new synapses that is thought to be the best indicator of "intelligence"

 

[rocketman]

And your equating the dust of this story with DNA is definitely an interesting interpretation. And I have to say I have heard sillier interpretations.

Like I said, all else being equal...

This may be true, but one explanation uses a scientific theory, and the other makes use of supernatural suppositions.

No argument there.

The site you linked to supports the idea that similarities can be explained by “design economy”. You seemed to imply that they could be explained if we assume that “God” used pre-existing DNA to create humans. Which is it?

I don't understand your confusion. I was trying to show why this find not only won't worry evolutionists but also that it won't worry creationists. If you follow that link on so-called 'design economy' [and the one after that] you'll find that they don't deny that there are common structures. In fact, they don't deny that humans share 96% of their dna with chimps. See here. They believe that there is common dna but not common ancestors. So 'design economy' means using pre-existing dna which is then modified, or at the very least a pre-existing blueprint, which is then modified. If they accept the common dna percentage and the dust of the ground line, then in the context of their 'design economy' dust of the ground could very well mean dna. It may just mean what it says literally, but there is the fact that the narrative bothers to mention that humans are made out of the tiniest little bits, the expression for which, back then, was undoubtedly something like 'dust of the ground'. I've heard this said in creationist circles before but I can't find where. Maybe I read it in a book.

It is amusing that you would suggest that an article about a gene that evolved 300 million years ago could be used to support a young-earth type model of creationism.

I earlier said to you: "In the heavily compressed young-earth creationist timescale..." Remember, to them the whole dating thing is in error, so they'd see this new find as being correct in sequential terms according to their model.

And I don’t know what they would think of your idea that dust means DNA.

I'm not sure. I didn't get it from there. I wish I could remember where I saw it. Anyway, I don't think they'd have too much of a problem with it judging by what they say about 2/3's of the way down this page.

This is what the creationist mindset considers to be a major criticism of evolution. To them the changing a theory based on the evidence is a weakness.

With all due respect you've interpreted that last paragraph very liberally. It seems to me that they are saying that evolutionists can make mistakes, nothing more. Actually, that last paragraph could easily have come from a review of a Stephen Gould book. Maybe I've missed your point. I don't see what's wrong with this paragraph:

"Finally, this is yet another find that upsets the traditional view of evolution—that slow, gradual changes produced all of life’s diversity. Evolutionists must increasingly accommodate their theories to the contrary evidence, which is what originally led to Darwinism replacements, such as punctuated equilibria and neo-Darwinism."

 

[fantome profane]

With all due respect you've interpreted that last paragraph very liberally. It seems to me that they are saying that evolutionists can make mistakes, nothing more.

I don’t believe that I am being to liberal when I interpret this as an attack. And I can actually provide evidence to support that interpretation. 1. This is an anti-evolutionist web site. 2. They have made many attacks like this in the past. 3. The general tone of the words used. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not complaining about them attacking evolution. They should attack evolution and I welcome such attacks. I am just saying that this is a very bad attack. It does so much more to show the weakness in their own position than it does their opponents.

If I am being liberal with my interpretation in some other way I don’t see it.

Maybe I've missed your point. I don't see what's wrong with this paragraph:

So what is wrong with this statement? It is hard to know where to begin.

Finally, this is yet another find that upsets the traditional view of evolution—that slow, gradual changes produced all of life’s diversity.

First of all this is a classic straw-man argument. Richard Dawkins used this analogy to the Israelites. According to Exodus they took 40 years to cross the desert. Now if you do the math that means that they moved at a rate of 1 yard per hour. But that is just nonsense. Not event the most literal biblicist would say that they moved at a constant rate of one yard per hour. So finding evidence that they moved at different rates of speed does not disprove the theory that they took 40 years to cross the desert. (This is just an analogy; I don’t mean to suggest that there is any evidence that the Israelites actually crossed the desert.)

Just like no one ever believed that the Israelites moved at a constant rate, no one ever believed that evolution proceeded at a constant rate. That doesn’t even make sense. What people do believe is that small changes can accumulate over time to produce diverse life forms.

Also as I tried to point out in my first post in this thread, this is not a new idea; this is not an upset. Evolutionists have long believed that the development of the human brain took place over a reasonably short period of time. Finding genetic evidence to support what is the most widely accepted time frame for human evolution can hardly be considered to be an “upset”. This is what sites like this tend to do. When they can’t attack the science of today, they attack a caricature of what they think the science was 200 years ago.

I realize that they also dispute the time frame. But this new genetic discovery also points to millions of years. That is plenty of time for reasonably small changes in the genetic code to accumulate through a process of natural selection and produce the change we are talking about. And it is funny how that seems to coincide with other evidence from other methods of dating. And they can continue to protest it, but they cannot reasonably call such conformation an “upset”.

Evolutionists must increasingly accommodate their theories to the contrary evidence, which is what originally led to Darwinism replacements, such as punctuated equilibria and neo-Darwinism.

Accommodating the theory to the evidence is a good thing. That is what people should be doing; that is the way that science works. To suggest that we should stick with an idea in the form that it was first presented 200 years ago in nonsense. You are absolutely right when you say that evolutionists make mistakes. Scientists make mistakes. Humans make mistakes. That is precisely why we must be willing to keep searching, testing, and adjusting our understanding of nature. This does not invalidate evolution. This is the beauty of science.

AiG on the other hand takes a different approach. According to them the facts do not speak for themselves, they must be interpreted in such a way as to make them fit with the biblical accounts. They say it quite clearly here.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

They start with the conclusion, and then twist the evidence to fit it.

Now of course they are going to accuse the evolutionists of doing the same thing. And in some cases they may be right. Evolutionists are human, and they make mistakes. But if anything the fact that they are willing to accommodate their theories to the contrary evidence demonstrates that evolutions do not start with the presupposition and twist the evidence to support it. They consider the evidence and base their conclusions on that.

 

[rocketman]

I don’t believe that I am being to liberal when I interpret this as an attack. And I can actually provide evidence to support that interpretation. 1. This is an anti-evolutionist web site. 2. They have made many attacks like this in the past. 3. The general tone of the words used.

I guess it was the tone I missed. My rule of thumb is that if a statement is truthful and not personally insulting to anyone then I accept it. It seems you have a very strong opinion of anything they say, even if it is true. And that's fair enough, I respect that.

Finding genetic evidence to support what is the most widely accepted time frame for human evolution can hardly be considered to be an “upset”. This is what sites like this tend to do. When they can’t attack the science of today, they attack a caricature of what they think the science was 200 years ago.

Again your interpretation puzzles me. On the use of the word 'upset' it looks for all the world to me that they were referring to the change in the theory [which was an upset in it's day] as opposed to the impact of the new finding, of which they even agreed would be exciting for science. Anyway, I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, I just can't see it, that's all.

To suggest that we should stick with an idea in the form that it was first presented 200 years ago in nonsense.

Who suggested that? Now you've really lost me.

AiG on the other hand takes a different approach. According to them the facts do not speak for themselves, they must be interpreted in such a way as to make them fit with the biblical accounts. They say it quite clearly here.

Facts speak only to themselves, not to anything beyond themselves. It's up to theory to interpret those facts. Everybody proceeds from an axiom, not that there's anything wrong with that. I'd be interested if you can show me where any of the larger creationist groups are currently denying a proven fact [as opposed to denying theory].

Now of course they are going to accuse the evolutionists of doing the same thing. And in some cases they may be right. Evolutionists are human, and they make mistakes. But if anything the fact that they are willing to accommodate their theories to the contrary evidence demonstrates that evolutions do not start with the presupposition and twist the evidence to support it. They consider the evidence and base their conclusions on that.

Actually, they consider the evidence within the existing framework. Nobody that I know of makes a new discovery in paleontology or whatever and says 'hey, let's check first if this goes against the theory'. And there's nothing wrong with that, we all proceed from some kind of original axiom. You do realise that the flip-side of what you're saying is that it would be wrong for us to claim that creationism is capable of making mistakes because they made a scientific error and then later on corrected it, right? Fair's fair.

I had another look at their last paragraph after reading your post and I still can't see that they were attacking science for doing the right thing. I guess we have a difference of opinion.

 

[fantome profane]

Again your interpretation puzzles me. On the use of the word 'upset' it looks for all the world to me that they were referring to the change in the theory [which was an upset in it's day] as opposed to the impact of the new finding, of which they even agreed would be exciting for science. Anyway, I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, I just can't see it, that's all.

I cannot see how you can possibly come to that conclusion. Look at the sentence in question. It says “this is yet another find that upsets the traditional view”. The word “upset” is clearly being used to describe “this find”. There is no wild interpretation here on my part, that is simple sentence gramer. “this find upsets”. It can’t possibly be any clearer.

Who suggested that? Now you've really lost me.

Because the only way to interpret this as an upset is if the “traditionally view” they are referring to is the theory in the state it was 200 years ago.

I'd be interested if you can show me where any of the larger creationist groups are currently denying a proven fact [as opposed to denying theory].

Creationists deny facts all the time, that is what makes them creationists. One example is denying the incredible amount of data from disparate fields of study that indicates the age of the universe. They are not just reinterpreting facts, they are denying them. They also make good use of flat out lies and deceptions to support their beliefs.

Nobody that I know of makes a new discovery in paleontology or whatever and says 'hey, let's check first if this goes against the theory'.

That is exactly what they do. Yes they consider the facts within an existing framework, but they also consider whether the facts contradict the existing framework. And if an individual scientist doesn’t consider that, another certainly will. And if the facts contradict the theory (the framework) then the theory will have to change.

I had another look at their last paragraph after reading your post and I still can't see that they were attacking science for doing the right thing. I guess we have a difference of opinion.

Fine, you have convinced me. AiG only intended to point out the good work that has been done by scientists in the development of evolutionary theory. But if AiG believes that science is doing the right thing in accommodating they theories to the contrary evidence, then perhaps you can explain why they don’t seem to feel that this would be a good thing for them to do?



Also I am interested in what you think the scientific community is doing in regards to evolution. Are they accommodating their theories according to the evidence as AiG suggests? Or are they rigidly sticking to presuppositions as AiG also suggests? I hope you can see that you can’t have it both ways.

 

[rocketman]

I cannot see how you can possibly come to that conclusion. Look at the sentence in question. It says “this is yet another find that upsets the traditional view”. The word “upset” is clearly being used to describe “this find”. There is no wild interpretation here on my part, that is simple sentence gramer. “this find upsets”. It can’t possibly be any clearer.

I don't want to get into a debate over words with you fantôme profane. I've already said I respect your opinion but I just can't see your interpretations. I mean no disrespect to you at all. On this particular sentence are they not saying the find itself is yet another nail in the coffin for an earlier form of the theory? They don't say that the find upsets the current version of the theory. Did they not say the new find will be exciting for science? Indeed they did. Important distinction there between old and new versions of the theory which I think you are missing. Yes, using this discovery as an excuse for dragging the old theory up from the grave to make a point about fallible evolutionists for the umpteenth time is a more than a little stale of them, but that declares nothing about how the new find affects the modern version of the theory, which is why I think they left that point to last.

Creationists deny facts all the time, that is what makes them creationists. One example is denying the incredible amount of data from disparate fields of study that indicates the age of the universe. They are not just reinterpreting facts, they are denying them. They also make good use of flat out lies and deceptions to support their beliefs.

I hear people say that all the time but apart from a few weird and whacky small players with dodgy looking websites I must admit I've had a very hard time finding where any of the larger creationist groups are currently denying a proven fact. I'm not saying that their interpretations are necessarily right [some of them are strange to say the least, and their defense of applications of things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics is pretty thin] but honestly, where are they denying facts as you say? I had a quick look at five of their articles [1,2,3,4,5] on the age of things and while I admit their interpretations are unique I don't see falsification or fact-denial at work. I'm sure it won't take someone long to throw a specific example up, and I'd expect a few, but you make it sound as if they don't accept any facts at all. I disagree that denying facts is what 'makes' somebody a creationist.

That is exactly what they do. Yes they consider the facts within an existing framework, but they also consider whether the facts contradict the existing framework. And if an individual scientist doesn’t consider that, another certainly will. And if the facts contradict the theory (the framework) then the theory will have to change.

This is a part of the scientific method that really interests me. Sometimes things happen that make me wonder. I just know I'm going to cause people to start a reply with "*sigh* you don't understand, yada yada" etc when they read this next sentence, but it's how I truly feel so here goes. Remember that soft-tissue T-rex discovery a year or two ago? Remember how quick people were to say that it 'must have been preserved' somehow? The last I heard was that they think some unknown form of geochemical replacement or some unknown iron induced polymerization might have done it, which must be nifty process to preserve flexible tissue and blood cells so that they still look fresh after 65million years. I know the creationists at the time said their bit and all, but where were the scientists saying that hey, maybe this thing is possibly younger than 65million years old? I would hold this up as an example of how sometimes the framework can have equal standing with the scientific method. When you look at these pictures can you blame me for sometimes wondering if science can get a little too sure of itself?

Anyway, to get back on topic, I think the brain gene thing is a good example of how important it is going to be in the future for both sides to be very careful how they respond to new finds that suit both arguments. The creationists were quick to point out that one scientist said it was 'hard to believe' and I'm sure you're not the only one who is unhappy with the creationist response. Actually I wish there were more finds that were either extremely one way or the other, that would be interesting. What do you think, fantôme profane?

 

[BarryPrays]

Hi all, heres my view:
In recent history (the last few thousands of years), brain size has become more and more important for humans, and this resulted in the rapid evolution of brain related genes. To a monkey though, a bigger brain offers less survival benefits as it would not have much to use the brain power for. Therefore for monkeys, evolution favoured changes in genes governing physical characteristics such as strength and agility.
Do you agree?
Let me know,
Barryprays

For homework help, visit http://homeworkhelp.madpage.com/

 

[fantome profane]

I disagree that denying facts is what 'makes' somebody a creationist.

Actually I was being a little harsh when I said that. I apologize:sorry1: . I must have been in a mood.

You and I have debated in another thread over what the term “creationist” can mean. In its broadest sense I think it can be applied to anyone who believes that the universe was created. Whether they believe it was created 6000 years ago in 6 days according to a literal biblical account, or they believe that it was created 15 billion years ago by a “God” that used the forces of nature. And I don’t really believe that all creationists deny facts or deliberately misrepresent the truth.

However I will say that I have never seen or heard of a creationist website or organization that did not knowingly omit relevant information, misrepresent facts, and repeatedly tell flat out lies. And that includes the current example of AiG.

I haven’t had a chance yet to look through the specific articles that you point to, but when I do perhaps I will start a new thread to discuss them. In the meantime I might suggest that you take a look at this site: No Answers in Genesis. You may see some examples of the kind of lies I am referring to.

This is a part of the scientific method that really interests me. Sometimes things happen that make me wonder. I just know I'm going to cause people to start a reply with "*sigh* you don't understand, yada yada" etc when they read this next sentence, but it's how I truly feel so here goes. Remember that soft-tissue T-rex discovery a year or two ago? Remember how quick people were to say that it 'must have been preserved' somehow? The last I heard was that they think some unknown form of geochemical replacement or some unknown iron induced polymerization might have done it, which must be nifty process to preserve flexible tissue and blood cells so that they still look fresh after 65million years. I know the creationists at the time said their bit and all, but where were the scientists saying that hey, maybe this thing is possibly younger than 65million years old? I would hold this up as an example of how sometimes the framework can have equal standing with the scientific method. When you look at these pictures can you blame me for sometimes wondering if science can get a little too sure of itself?

Of course I won’t blame you for wondering. I would blame you for jumping to conclusions. I would blame you for concluding that a few pictures can disprove volumes of scientific data from biology, genetics, geology, astronomy etc. And I certainly would blame you if you accepted the views of websites like AiG as being authoritative over real scientists who are actually working with and studying this material.

Actually it wouldn’t surprise me if there were a thread on this very thing here when it first came out. The only comment I have to make about this at this time is that it kind of looks like Kentucky Fried Chicken.


One of the things that I have been trying to say in this thread is that science should be willing to reconsider their positions when presented with new evidence. Creationists like those at AiG on the other hand are not willing to reconsider anything.

Summary of the AiG Statement of Faith

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

(scroll to the bottom)

And of course this is perfectly fine for a religious organizations, but it is unacceptable in science. Personally I don’t think that it is science that is being too sure of itself.

Anyway, to get back on topic, I think the brain gene thing is a good example of how important it is going to be in the future for both sides to be very careful how they respond to new finds that suit both arguments. The creationists were quick to point out that one scientist said it was 'hard to believe' and I'm sure you're not the only one who is unhappy with the creationist response. Actually I wish there were more finds that were either extremely one way or the other, that would be interesting. What do you think, fantôme profane?

I can only say it one more time. From the fossil evidence we have evolutionary scientists have long believed that hominid encephalization took place over a relatively short period of time (a few million years). And obviously the evolution of the brain would have been the result of the evolution of certain genes. So the discovery of a gene that may have been responsible can only support our current scientific understanding. I do not see how this could in anyway support creationism. I don’t believe that this find is in anyway ambiguous.

I am wondering what kind of possible evidence you could imagine (just imagine) that would be “extreme” enough to not be ambiguous in your mind?

For my own part I have to admit that I cannot imagine any evidence that could possibly support creationism. Even if you could show that the universe was a mere 6000 years old, that would not be evidence to me for a creator “God”. Even if you could show that humans sprang up from the earth fully formed, I would respond by saying “I wonder how that happened”. It would disprove evolution, but it would not prove creationism. (Well maybe if you could show me the talking snake and the magic fruit I would have to think about it)

And conversely I can’t imagine any evidence that could possibly disprove creation. We have evidence that indicates that it was not done in the way some people believe that it was. But nothing can prove that “God” didn’t have something to do with it. I do not expect evidence to disprove “God”, and I am not looking for it.

 

[rocketman]

Actually I was being a little harsh when I said that. I apologize. I must have been in a mood.

No need to apologize. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be debating with someone like myself who has an unorthodox curiosity.

In the meantime I might suggest that you take a look at this site: No Answers in Genesis. You may see some examples of the kind of lies I am referring to.

That site has always struck me as more of an emotional attack than anything. Many of the claimed lies on that site strangely require pretty detailed explanations as to why they are lies. It seems that even genuine mistakes are to be classed as lies. If a creationist had this approach they'd be shot. It's good to know that there are watchdog sites out there to keep people on their toes, but I wouldn't say that site in particular is all it claims to be. I won't go on and on about it, but frankly, so many of it's complaints are subjective and so much of it's refutation consists of simply putting forth the standard interpretation of facts, which, like the more scientific TalkOrigins, doesn't actually disprove all of the radical creationist interpretations of existing facts. They do show lots of creationist errors and they do go to town with the silly stuff though, and that's a good thing.

Of course I won’t blame you for wondering. I would blame you for jumping to conclusions. I would blame you for concluding that a few pictures can disprove volumes of scientific data from biology, genetics, geology, astronomy etc. And I certainly would blame you if you accepted the views of websites like AiG as being authoritative over real scientists who are actually working with and studying this material... Actually it wouldn’t surprise me if there were a thread on this very thing here when it first came out. The only comment I have to make about this at this time is that it kind of looks like Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Mmmm KFC. You're making me hungry! Anyways, back to the story. So, yeah, a picture is worth a thousand words. I look at KFC-Rex and I ask myself if maybe we are missing something. I ask if any other scientists also asked the same question? That's my point, really. I think it's all academic now. Any new find is automatically fitted into the theory, no matter how far-fetched it seems, because the theory itself is nowadays built on the presupposition that all evidence will fit somewhere. That's how it looks to me. I prefer to allow some of my thoughts to take place outside of that box. Anyway, it'll be interesting to watch and see if they can prove what kind of naturally occuring secret herbs and spices could preserve KFC-Rex for 65million years.:eat:

One of the things that I have been trying to say in this thread is that science should be willing to reconsider their positions when presented with new evidence. Creationists like those at AiG on the other hand are not willing to reconsider anything.

Something tells me that I have consumed a lot more creation literature than yourself [ok everybody, stop laughing at me!] I really don't find them to be quite as negative as you make out. Well, most of them anyway. I offer a quote [from the #3 link in my last post actually] to counter your claim that they are not willing to reconsider anything:

"While this is exciting news, all theories of fallible men, no matter how well they seem to fit the data, are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries. What we can say is that at this point a plausible mechanism has been demonstrated, with considerable observational and theoretical support."

So the discovery of a gene that may have been responsible can only support our current scientific understanding. I do not see how this could in anyway support creationism.

This is where you and I have a difference of opinion. I can see that the find supports both the evolutionary model and the creation model.
I have a very open mind about the whole creation/evolution issue, to the point where I have painfully waded through mountains of creationist weirdness to find plenty of serious food for thought. I cannot absolutely rule out that some or most of the creationist interpretation of the facts may turn out to be the real deal. What I hate is that in trying to debate points with evolutionists there seems to be very little way around sounding as if one is crazy, or worse, ignorant. The fact that I study and understand the standard theory doesn't seem to help my cause.

I am wondering what kind of possible evidence you could imagine (just imagine) that would be “extreme” enough to not be ambiguous in your mind?

That's just it, I'm not sure there ever will be any. I think both sides will draw each new fact into their own all-encompassing paradigm and the debates will continue ad-infinitum [*groan*]. The fact that both paradigms are all-encompassing guarantees this. Imho.