For Creationists: What about DNA evidence?

[nonbeliever_92]

Are you trying to say that god doesn't have a Phd in Intelligent Design!

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm not sure which of us doesn't undertand the other here, but I think we're at a stalemate. I don't see how your "good design" argument is the same at all. I can't look at two tires and tell you wich from wich oil field their rubber was extracted, so it's nothing at all like determining relation from DNA similarity.

MoF's argument was that a similar structure doesn't necessarily involve a similar ancestry. It might involve creation according to a similar design plan. So we don't assume cars have evolved over time simply because they share a certain fundamental structure. Thus perhaps we should assume that similarity of structure between humans and chimps (even DNA structure) implies genetic relationship. Perhaps the relationship consists in something else. Creationists typically say that chimps and humans have similar DNA (and hence, similar features) because there's a great similarity in how the creatures are to live. Both have hands to grasp, have eyes in front of their heads for predatory purposes, and so on. All of these features are coded for in the DNA, so we shouldn't be surprised to find, in creatures as physically similar as humans and chimps are, that they have similar DNA.

Indeed, what the creationist is bemused by is the speculative nature of what passes for science these days, and the imaginative and hard-to-believe stories about what turned into what and when and what creatures are descended from what and when and (what's worse) speculations about how those creatures might have survived in the imaginative environment they may have lived in (and so it goes on). From a creationist point of view, wouldn't it be better to leave off all this speculation and pay attention to the critters right in front of us? Why all this airy-fairy hocus-pocus about possible ancestors going back to primeval soup?

And, 120 million base pairs in difference may seem like a "huge" obstacle, but that's entirely a subjective statement. I think it's fully expected. Chimps are different, and they have been for a VERY long time, which is exactly how evolution works. Very small changes taking place over very long periods of time result in very different species.

I think what motivates the skepticism about evolution, even if we take the religion out of it, is the fact that we don't seem to have enough time given that the mechanism for change -- mutation -- provides so few examples of beneficial change. Most mutations are decidedly counteradaptive. But even if we could be shown a hundred thousand examples of adaptive changes, I'm not sure how that gives aid and comfort to a theory that says all life's diversity is a result of random genetic mutation together with natural selection (possibly genetic drift and other things that come in and out of fashion) over the last, say 5 billion years. 5 billion just doesn't seem to be enough time.

 

[Madhuri]

That's cool, I understand that. I don't agree, but it's not a logical fallacy, the way it would be to accept DNA testing as valid, yet to simultaneously try to refute evolution (assuming of course that I understand it all correctly).

I think you understand. I'm basically saying that as of today, science neither reinforces nor negate the eastern concept of Divinity.

 

[Dunemeister]

I think you understand. I'm basically saying that as of today, science neither reinforces nor negate the eastern concept of Divinity.

Nor the western.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Those that believe in evolution point to DNA as being evidence for their position. Those that believe in creation point to DNA as being evidence for their positon. Same evidence, different conclusions.

Besides evolutionists have to answer how the DNA is interpreted in order to work. For example the letters "See Spot run" can possibly arrange themselves over eons of time but is only understood by someone that reads English. Same with DNA, it can jumble itself together by random chance but it has to be understood in order to function.

Except it's not just random chance, but chance and the laws of physics.

Read up on montmorillonite, then get back to me.

 

[Autodidact]

Those that believe in evolution point to DNA as being evidence for their position. Those that believe in creation point to DNA as being evidence for their positon. Same evidence, different conclusions.

Your dichotomy is fundamentally incorrect. Evolution is not something you believe in, like a religion. It is a scientific theory. You either accept science and its theories, or you reject them. Those who reject science assert that for some reason the existence of DNA (one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for the Theory of Evolution [ToE]) shows that ToE is incorrect. They are mistaken.

Besides evolutionists have to answer how the DNA is interpreted in order to work. For example the letters "See Spot run" can possibly arrange themselves over eons of time but is only understood by someone that reads English. Same with DNA, it can jumble itself together by random chance but it has to be understood in order to function.

I'm sorry, this paragraph makes no sense. Perhaps you should learn how DNA actually works and come back and we'll talk then.

 

[Autodidact]

The opposing argument would be that the percentage of DNA patterns shared does not imply relationship but only that God designed the creatures according to a similar design plan. So again, this is a matter of perspective and first assumptions. If one is not initially inclined to accept evolution, he would attribute what the evolutionary scientist calls "relationship" to "similar design plan."

But of course, had God wanted to, He could have used entirely different "design plans." Whether everything on earth reproduces through DNA, or some through DNA and some through ABC, it would all equally point to God, would it not?

Again and again you present the case that if evolution is true, God is not. This is false. Evolution is either true or it isn't. Either way does not tend to show there is no God, only that, if there is one, that he creates species through evolution.

The "God did it magically" hypothesis cannot be falsified. So to find out how God did it, you need to use science. For that you need a falsifiable prediction. Got one?

 

[Autodidact]

If I understand your argument, you are saying that because animals and humans are similar that proves they came from each other. Humans, apes, dogs, cats, deer, bears and other animals all drink the same water, breathe the same air, eat similar foods and move over the same terrain so they must have a common ancestor. Well a creationist can say they were designed to live in the same universe.

But how did that happen? By magic poofing, or by evolution?

It's not that they're similar, but that they're similar in very specific patterns, those patterns reflected precisely through their reproductive mechanism, just as ToE predicts. This is just one of thousands of correct predictions ToE makes. Can you make a prediction with your magic poofing hypothesis?

 

[Autodidact]

So what if you're right. God could have used silicon rather than carbon (I suppose -- don't actually know enough about real physics, let alone hypothetical physics) to create life. He could have created matter with different universal constants (see previous parenthetical comment). How does that prove that he didn't in fact use carbon as the basis of life? How does it prove that he didn't use chains of four amino acids to produce all the different forms of life? How does it even so much as slyly hint that he didn't do so?

It doesn't. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other about God's involvement. It doesn't tell who, only how. And what it tells us is that, if there is a God, He created all the different species via evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

To me insulting God is to not believe in Him, not to say he should have created the world the way I see it. Should I say to God "You should have used more than A T C G to create all that we see"? I don't know of any reason I should say that. I find it impressive that all that all of creation was made by only a combination of four pairs of DNA.

Science doesn't, never, can't say there is no God. Science only tells us that ToE is correct, not whether God is responsible for it.

*can't count the number of times she's said this on the internet, and is beginning to lose patience with people arguing about science who don't know the most elementary thing about it*

 

[Autodidact]

Without further detailed scientific information, we are back to the same argument, similiarities in DNA do not prove ancestry, it could be common design. Most cars have four wheels but that is because it's a good design not because they evolved from each other. If humans were 100% different than apes, then where could we live? We breathe the same air, eat the same or similar foods, walk on the same ground, hence it would make sense that we have similar design and DNA.

Let's say as an example that humans DNA is 96% similar to a chimps. That amounts to about 120 million base pairs of DNA difference which looks like a huge obstical for mutations to cross.

You're not following his argument. What he's saying is, when you take a paternity test, you agree that DNA is evidence of ancestry. You would probably accept this for a grandchild as well. But when the same evidence is used to show evidence of ancestry further apart, suddenly you reject it.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Science doesn't, never, can't say there is no God. Science only tells us that ToE is correct, not whether God is responsible for it.

*can't count the number of times she's said this on the internet, and is beginning to lose patience with people arguing about science who don't know the most elementary thing about it*

There aren't enough frubals for you in this world

 

[Autodidact]

MoF's argument was that a similar structure doesn't necessarily involve a similar ancestry. It might involve creation according to a similar design plan. So we don't assume cars have evolved over time simply because they share a certain fundamental structure.

But cars have evolved over time, as have almost every human invention.

 

[Autodidact]

I think what motivates the skepticism about evolution, even if we take the religion out of it, is the fact that we don't seem to have enough time given that the mechanism for change -- mutation -- provides so few examples of beneficial change. Most mutations are decidedly counteradaptive. But even if we could be shown a hundred thousand examples of adaptive changes, I'm not sure how that gives aid and comfort to a theory that says all life's diversity is a result of random genetic mutation together with natural selection (possibly genetic drift and other things that come in and out of fashion) over the last, say 5 billion years. 5 billion just doesn't seem to be enough time.

And those evolutionary biologists are just too dumb to realize it, because they're so bad at math!

I think people who think 4.6 billion years isn't long enough don't grasp how long that is.

 

[Man of Faith]

You're not following his argument. What he's saying is, when you take a paternity test, you agree that DNA is evidence of ancestry. You would probably accept this for a grandchild as well. But when the same evidence is used to show evidence of ancestry further apart, suddenly you reject it.

It should be rejected because it's not science but assumption. Please provide the peer reviewed scientific document that traces human DNA back through the evolutionary process of all of our ancestry.

 

[Man of Faith]

But cars have evolved over time, as have almost every human invention.

I hate to tell you but cars were designed and every year new designs come out.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I hate to tell you but cars were designed and every year new designs come out.

Based on the previous designs. That's how evolution works. A small set of gradual changes to each generation.

Each year, the car isn't redesigned. They still use wheels, the same basic engine with a few modifications (like fuel economy or more power), they use windshield and seats and monitors, and airbags, and lights....

For the car to have a completely new design every year, it would have to be completely different.

What you're essentially arguing is this.

Say if I paint a picture of a vase of flowers. You come along and add one more flower to the vase. You're claiming you have re-painted the entire picture. Evolution is all about small gradual changes (like adding the flower to the vase). It would be utterly fallacious to argue that each gradual change to something constitutes an entirely new design.

 

[Nepenthe]

quote=Dunemeister]I think what motivates the skepticism about evolution, even if we take the religion out of it, is the fact that we don't seem to have enough time given that the mechanism for change -- mutation -- provides so few examples of beneficial change. Most mutations are decidedly counteradaptive. But even if we could be shown a hundred thousand examples of adaptive changes, I'm not sure how that gives aid and comfort to a theory that says all life's diversity is a result of random genetic mutation together with natural selection (possibly genetic drift and other things that come in and out of fashion) over the last, say 5 billion years. 5 billion just doesn't seem to be enough time.[/quote]

And those evolutionary biologists are just too dumb to realize it, because they're so bad at math!

I think people who think 4.6 billion years isn't long enough don't grasp how long that is.

Exactly Auto'.
4-5 billion years is a huge timescale; deep time gives plenty of wiggle room. Also, Dunemeister is incorrect: most mutations are not counteradaptive but neutral, and neutral mutations may be selected when environmental niches change. And drift is not something that "comes in and out of fashion", but is well supported alongside natural selection as a guiding mechanism.
Random genetic mutation is simply not random the way creationists claim; it is the "determinate result of sorting processes according to relative fitness. It is stochastic, in the sense that better engineered features can fail for reasons of probability (they may meet accidents unrelated to their fitness), but that poses no greater threat to the scientific nature of evolution than it does for, say, subatomic physics or information theory."

 

[Man of Faith]

Based on the previous designs. That's how evolution works. A small set of gradual changes to each generation.

Each year, the car isn't redesigned. They still use wheels, the same basic engine with a few modifications (like fuel economy or more power), they use windshield and seats and monitors, and airbags, and lights....

For the car to have a completely new design every year, it would have to be completely different.

What you're essentially arguing is this.

Say if I paint a picture of a vase of flowers. You come along and add one more flower to the vase. You're claiming you have re-painted the entire picture. Evolution is all about small gradual changes (like adding the flower to the vase). It would be utterly fallacious to argue that each gradual change to something constitutes an entirely new design.

No my argument is for intelligent design not naturally selection without a designer. It's pretty easy to prove that cars were intelligently designed each year.

 

[Vile Atheist]

No my argument is for intelligent design not naturally selection without a designer. It's pretty easy to prove that cars were intelligently designed each year.

Exactly but that's because cars cannot reproduce and thus the process of evolution cannot apply to them. Cars do not have genetics.

But evolution can and does apply to life.