For Creationists: What about DNA evidence?

[MSizer]

OK, so to those who deny the possibility of evolution, I'm wondering whether you believe that DNA evidence is useful in solving crimes or determining parent/child relationships? If you do, then how do you deny the DNA evidence of our relationship with all other creatures?

M.

 

[Man of Faith]

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.

 

[MSizer]

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about. How does DNA point to creationism? I can tell you exactly how DNA points to evolution. We know exactly how close two individuals are related by the percentage of DNA patterns they have in common.

What's the opposing argument?

 

[Dunemeister]

I have no idea what you're talking about. How does DNA point to creationism? I can tell you exactly how DNA points to evolution. We know exactly how close two individuals are related by the percentage of DNA patterns they have in common.

What's the opposing argument?

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."

 

[Man of Faith]

I have no idea what you're talking about. How does DNA point to creationism? I can tell you exactly how DNA points to evolution. We know exactly how close two individuals are related by the percentage of DNA patterns they have in common.

What's the opposing argument?

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.

 

[Dunemeister]

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.

That's more or less what I was trying to say.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Well a creationist can say they were designed to live in the same universe.

If it were so then you would not need such similar DNA, neither JunkDNA, neither would God have to limit himseld to A,T,G and C as the organic basis for DNA.
The fact that we all breathe oxygen (note beings that some don't) doesn't mean that the DNA has to be so simiar amongst us all.
The fact that we all need to procreate doesn't suggest that the creator had no other choice but to equip certain animals (which by chance happen to be on a nearby branch of what others call evolution) with the same kind of reproductive organs. Strange but it doesn't seem to astonish creationist people why apes and humans have penises....
For an evolutionist thats not really a difficult question.
A creationist actually must be very blasphemous when asserting that his creator had such limited imagination as to reuse the same part over an over again yet alone from a species that all creationists would hate being decendents of ("my grandmom was not the daughter of an ape....how dare you...")

The point is that evolutionists do have explanation models that incorporate real physical and chemical reactions while creationists only have a void abstract box called God that is used whenever an "explanation" is requested by others.

No details however are ever given.
What explanation is that? How can you call something a valid interpretation when it lacks even the most basic evidence.

God created a fly and a human and had to do that using 70% of the same Genes (and differences in overall amount of Genes)?
Don't you find that somewhat insulting to God?

 

[MSizer]

Thanks ThereIsNoSpoon, I agree with what you say, but I'd also like to point out that, ManOfFaith, you seem to have missed my point completely. No, I'm not saying that since both animals and humans eat, drink, sleep, sex.... that we must be related. I'm saying that we can give two DNA samples to a DNA technician, and s/he can tell whether they're siblings, parent/child, grandparent/child... Why do creationists trust the DNA techs with this info, yet all of a sudden, when the DNA proves that we had a common relative a long time ago with apes (and every other living thing actually), creationists suddenly don't believe in DNA evidence anymore? Apparently DNA is reliable sometimes (in court), but not others (like determining our origins). How can they explain their selective accpetance? I guess what I'm really wondering is whether they accept DNA testing as useful at all? If they don't, or if they do but only in certain cases, then they obviously don't understand how it works.

 

[Dunemeister]

If it were so then you would not need such similar DNA, neither JunkDNA, neither would God have to limit himseld to A,T,G and C as the organic basis for DNA.

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?

The fact that we all breathe oxygen (note beings that some don't) doesn't mean that the DNA has to be so simiar amongst us all.

Don't get too caught up in the specific proposal about the use of oxygen. The point is that DNA is a wonderfully flexible little replicant, apparently just what the doctor ordered. Using it and manipulating it, one can establish the myriad forms we see. Looks to me like a stroke of genius.

The fact that we all need to procreate doesn't suggest that the creator had no other choice but to equip certain animals (which by chance happen to be on a nearby branch of what others call evolution) with the same kind of reproductive organs. Strange but it doesn't seem to astonish creationist people why apes and humans have penises....

Why should it astonish anyone that mammals reproduce through coitus and that to do so, we have remarkably similar features? To a creationist, this means only that God has designed certain creatures to reproduce heterosexually. And of course, God could have designed umpteen different ways to reproduce heterosexually. But why couldn't he have designed animals to do so (by and large) one way (getting back to your previous point)? A similar function/purpose leads to the need for a similar form. God used DNA to code for that.

(It should be pointed out here, just for clarity, that what's at issue here isn't really evolution per se but naturalistic metaphysics. It could be that God created each type of creature as a seperate act; it's also possible that God used evolution -- or what we are interpreting as evolution -- to generate the diversity of life we see. But if that's so, I suggest that evolution does not use "random" or "blind" forces. There's more intentionality involved, although the level of intentionality would be hard to specify, only that it's greater than zero.)

For an evolutionist thats not really a difficult question.

The emergence of different kinds of sexuality is not a difficult question for evolution? Give me a break! There is little to no consensus how we got from bacteria who reproduce through simple mitosis to the development of other forms of reproduction. Indeed, since bacteria are and always have been so successful, it's very hard to pin down what natural forces might have induced serious changes. Hence the blooming, buzzing confusion over what changed into what and when and why. And part of the reason for this surely must be that we really don't know what went on from an evolutionary perspective apart from the general story that we started from simple life forms and gradually saw more complex forms emerge.

A creationist actually must be very blasphemous when asserting that his creator had such limited imagination as to reuse the same part over an over again yet alone from a species that all creationists would hate being decendents of ("my grandmom was not the daughter of an ape....how dare you...")

Or we might admire God's genius. Again, it's not clear to me that designing such a flexible, replicable tool as DNA is a mark of stupidity.

The point is that evolutionists do have explanation models that incorporate real physical and chemical reactions while creationists only have a void abstract box called God that is used whenever an "explanation" is requested by others.

Well no, actually. As scientists, creationists can annex just about anything discovered by genetics and other sciences. What they can't/won't do is insist on a naturalistic metaphysics. Thus the variety of life will ultimately be attributed to the Creator. It's still an open question what methods the Creator used to generate that variety, and scientific methods can reveal that. Thus a Christian might regard the laws of physics as God's typical way of dealing with his creation. Such a perspective is entirely compatible with discovering that life forms have changed over time. If there are (what we call) mechanical processes involved, those are open to the creationist to discover.

No details however are ever given.
What explanation is that? How can you call something a valid interpretation when it lacks even the most basic evidence.

Lots of scientific theories have been accepted without evidence. For instance, take the case of special relativity. It won almost immediate acceptance by all scientists who first heard the theory well before there was any confirmation it was right. Scientists were simply struck by its beauty, harmony, and cohesiveness. Solid evidence for the theory took several decades to appear, but that didn't seem to stop scientists from saying the theory was true. So it appears that possessing evidence isn't necessary (for a scientist) to accept a theory. A theory might have other virtues the possession of which might make the theory winsome. Perhaps creationism has such virtues for other people.

Another way to look at it is that creationists view the world through different assumptions (duh!), and those assumptions might affect what the creationist finds puzzling or interesting or worthy of a scientist's attention. A creationist might shrug her shoulders upon discovering that many animals reproduce in a way similar to human beings, noting simply that the method seems to get the job done. She might be more interested in how animals function within their environment right now rather than speculating about how it might be related to hypothetical ancestors or even so-called living relatives.

God created a fly and a human and had to do that using 70% of the same Genes (and differences in overall amount of Genes)?
Don't you find that somewhat insulting to God?

Not at all. As i said before, it looks to me like a stroke of genius to create a chemical that can do so many things. Do we not (rightly) marvel at the invention of the binary computer, whose basic workings have been manipulated and modified to do so many crazily different things? Or is it insulting to those inventors to note that their invention has more applications than they could have ever imagined? I can't see how.

 

[Man of Faith]

That's more or less what I was trying to say.

Yes I know, but I went ahead and repeated it, sometimes that is what it takes.

 

[Man of Faith]

If it were so then you would not need such similar DNA, neither JunkDNA, neither would God have to limit himseld to A,T,G and C as the organic basis for DNA.
The fact that we all breathe oxygen (note beings that some don't) doesn't mean that the DNA has to be so simiar amongst us all.
The fact that we all need to procreate doesn't suggest that the creator had no other choice but to equip certain animals (which by chance happen to be on a nearby branch of what others call evolution) with the same kind of reproductive organs. Strange but it doesn't seem to astonish creationist people why apes and humans have penises....
For an evolutionist thats not really a difficult question.
A creationist actually must be very blasphemous when asserting that his creator had such limited imagination as to reuse the same part over an over again yet alone from a species that all creationists would hate being decendents of ("my grandmom was not the daughter of an ape....how dare you...")

The point is that evolutionists do have explanation models that incorporate real physical and chemical reactions while creationists only have a void abstract box called God that is used whenever an "explanation" is requested by others.

No details however are ever given.
What explanation is that? How can you call something a valid interpretation when it lacks even the most basic evidence.

God created a fly and a human and had to do that using 70% of the same Genes (and differences in overall amount of Genes)?
Don't you find that somewhat insulting to God?

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.

 

[Man of Faith]

Thanks ThereIsNoSpoon, I agree with what you say, but I'd also like to point out that, ManOfFaith, you seem to have missed my point completely. No, I'm not saying that since both animals and humans eat, drink, sleep, sex.... that we must be related. I'm saying that we can give two DNA samples to a DNA technician, and s/he can tell whether they're siblings, parent/child, grandparent/child... Why do creationists trust the DNA techs with this info, yet all of a sudden, when the DNA proves that we had a common relative a long time ago with apes (and every other living thing actually), creationists suddenly don't believe in DNA evidence anymore? Apparently DNA is reliable sometimes (in court), but not others (like determining our origins). How can they explain their selective accpetance? I guess what I'm really wondering is whether they accept DNA testing as useful at all? If they don't, or if they do but only in certain cases, then they obviously don't understand how it works.

Maybe it would help if you showed an example or link to what you are talking about. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. I don't know of any case where science has traced our DNA from man all the way back through the different species to fish.

 

[Madhuri]

I agree with aspects of both arguments though I have come to lean toward the concept of physical evolution. It in no way diminishes the possibility of my concept of God, however, and so I am not afraid to embrace the theory of evolution.

 

[MSizer]

Maybe it would help if you showed an example or link to what you are talking about. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. I don't know of any case where science has traced our DNA from man all the way back through the different species to fish.

OK, I don't have a link handy, but I'll try to explain.

In a nutshell, the greater the DNA similarity between two individuals (whether they're of the same speicies or not) the more closely they are related. This means that if I have a brother, he and I will have an extremely high degree of genetic pattern similarity. If I have a grand-daugther, she and I will still be genetically nearly identical, though not as nearly as my brother and I, because she shares fewer chromosomes than my brother and I do. So, based on the "amount" of genetic similarity, we can tell how closely two individuals are related. And, because DNA is the universal code for the development of living organisms, it remains applicable across all species (human, chimp, butterfly or buttercup). That's how we know what the relationship (heriditary) is between either humans and chimps, or humans and fern plants. It's right there in the blueprint.

Does this clarify? If not, I'll find a link that may explain it better than I can.

I think that many people who have never learned about DNA mistake it for a substance, and aren't aware that it's the fact that it's the "blueprint", not so much as the "material" of a living organism. To argue that DNA is evidence for evolution is not the same as saying we're all made of carbon. Carbon is the substance, but DNA is the actual driving force behind the development, which is significantly different in that we can trace it back by generation.

 

[MSizer]

I agree with aspects of both arguments though I have come to lean toward the concept of physical evolution. It in no way diminishes the possibility of my concept of God, however, and so I am not afraid to embrace the theory of evolution.

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).

 

[Man of Faith]

OK, I don't have a link handy, but I'll try to explain.

In a nutshell, the greater the DNA similarity between two individuals (whether they're of the same speicies or not) the more closely they are related. This means that if I have a brother, he and I will have an extremely high degree of genetic pattern similarity. If I have a grand-daugther, she and I will still be genetically nearly identical, though not as nearly as my brother and I, because she shares fewer chromosomes than my brother and I do. So, based on the "amount" of genetic similarity, we can tell how closely two individuals are related. And, because DNA is the universal code for the development of living organisms, it remains applicable across all species (human, chimp, butterfly or buttercup). That's how we know what the relationship (heriditary) is between either humans and chimps, or humans and fern plants. It's right there in the blueprint.

Does this clarify? If not, I'll find a link that may explain it better than I can.

I think that many people who have never learned about DNA mistake it for a substance, and aren't aware that it's the fact that it's the "blueprint", not so much as the "material" of a living organism. To argue that DNA is evidence for evolution is not the same as saying we're all made of carbon. Carbon is the substance, but DNA is the actual driving force behind the development, which is significantly different in that we can trace it back by generation.

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.

 

[MSizer]

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.

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.

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 don't know how to explain myself any other way. Thanks for the input.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

why bother poor Creationists with science or logic ... It has nothing to do with Faith.
Nor has Creationism much to do with Christianity.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Stop using evoltuionists, biologists would be better! Even better would be to use evolutionary biologists!!!

 

[painted wolf]

Essentially the creationist argument is that God is lazy... or simply lacks a high degree of creativity. (IMHO)

wa:do