Here they come…”President Bush has cut short his vacation, and urged Americans to pray for the people hurt by Hurricane Katrina. “” In the meantime, America will pray — pray for the health and safety of all our citizens,”I’m not praying, Mr. President. Not to your god, not to any god.He also urges donations to the evangelical Salvation Army and Catholic Charities.It seems like any time there is a disaster of any kind, certain politicians use it as a “free ride” to break the law. They seem to think “Nobody would criticize me for telling Americans to pray if they were praying for a good reason, and if I encourage donations to organizations that evangelize religion and openly discriminate, well, I can do that too”Apparently he’s right. Few are pointing out that he is breaking the law (and obviously pandering). I do. Pushing religion or donation to religious orgs is not the President’s responsibility, and slipping it in when there is suffering is, well, insufferable.Stop it, Mr. President. This is a great time to push community service, national (military) service, and donations to all-encompassing charities like the Red Cross — but remember the Big Easy is also a Big Melting Pot.
Here’s a more managable bit sized comment on the possibility of evolutions beginings
Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability.”
–Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255, 257
You wrote:
“your assumption: because humans have similar genes to chimps, humans must have evolved from them. That’s not proof of evolution. The only thing you have proven is that humans have some similar genes to chimps. “
Maybe I missed it, but where did DNA say anything about us evolving from chimps? Now I’m not that smart, but as far as I can tell, he provided an immense amount of data regarding a common ancestor to chimps and humans – not that we evolved from chimps.
Please point out where he says we evolved from chimps.
Well, guys and gals, haven’t the last two days been interesting? The wheel went round and round, and when the dust settled, what flotsam we found on our shores! It seems to have drifted away again downstream somewhere…
makes me wonder…
What if the Hokey Pokey really IS what it’s all about?
O yea, I almost forgot…Where did the first cell come from? The first molecule? The first atom? what happended 1 sec before the big bang?
Only after disaster can we be resurrected
Finch seems to be one of those people who are blinkered. They are not interested in learning anything outside their own world view and will redefine or ignore anything that might challenge it. I find it hard to empathize with such a restricted intellect.
I think Ostrich would be a more appropriate name than Finch.
Contrary to popular belief, I would indeed change my world view if compeling evidence is given. Some how I’ve given the impression that I’m unteachable which is not the case.
Here’s where we differ: we see the exact same evidence but come up with two different conclusions.
I would… change my view, I just have not seen solid evidence.
What you say is evidence just doesn’t cut it. It’s not solid enough.
Are you interested in learning anything outside your world view of materialist humanism?
finch77dash:
I assure you, Madam, that I am neither high strung nor fragile. Please refrain from armchair psychology.
As per my earlier gaffe, I gladly bow out out of the discussion. I am not so well-informed as others on this thread, & will leave it 2 then.
Cheers.
Cheers mate. I use “armchair psychology” to liven things up a little. You know, add a little spice in the mix.
Some here have resorted to name calling, (ok I addmit I’m guilty of it myself… a little) rather than addressing the actual argument themselves.
How about we take one argument, just one, and discuss that.
What the heck are you guys doing? Trying to ruin my life, make me look like a friggin’ idiot? Gosh!
DNAunion are we cross?
Granted, in all your rambling you’ve proven that humans have similar genes to chimps. Humans have many genes similar to other organisms.
your assumption: because humans have similar genes to chimps, humans must have evolved from them. That’s not proof of evolution. The only thing you have proven is that humans have some similar genes to chimps.
And oh yea, I can cut and past as well as you.
Here’s an excerpt for thought.
Because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their “proof” that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution, since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.
Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.
The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee “similarity,” noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn’t they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?
Similarities?whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else?are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?
The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.
Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Commenting on a few of the numerous anomalous results in the genetic story, Dr. Roger Lewin summarizes the situation thus, as noted in Part I of this series:
The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.1
Lewin mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian “proofs.”
The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.2
There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.
The abundance of so-called “junk DNA” in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called “pseudogenes.”3 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.
Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.4
It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled “pseudogenes,” have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled “vestigial organs” in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseu-dogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.
At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.
The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.
A good question to face is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.
Evolution Is Impossible
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy?also known as the second law of thermodynamics?stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go “downhill,” as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems?in fact all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found?not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the `first law’), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.5
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is “independent of details of models.” Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists?that is, they insist that there are no “vitalist” forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an “open system,” with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski’s impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is “natural processes’ ability to increase complexity” by noting what he calls a “flaw” in “the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics.” And what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.6
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermo-dynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not “organizing” mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only “sieve out” the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution never occurred in the past, is not occurring at present, and could never happen at all.
References
Roger Lewin, “Family Feud,” New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39.
Ibid., p. 36.
Rachel Nowak, “Mining Treasures from `Junk DNA’,” Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608.
bid.
E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, “A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” Physics Today (vol. 53. April 2000), p. 32.
Norman A. Johnson, “Design Flaw,” American Scientist (vol. 88. May/ June 2000), p. 274.
There MUST be a limit to the mistakes one person can make, and when I get to the end of them, then I’ll be through with them. That’s a very comforting thought.
Indeed. He’s using an underhanded trick of stuffing ridiculous claims into the other person’s mouth and then pointing out the error, pretending to refute his opponent in the process. Strawman ? stuffing words into the opponent?s mouth. That’s pretty low.
Now, as far as an example that I would offer for transitional fossils, read the pages associated with these statements.
and
No, they don?t.
1) Your actual claim that I?ve been challenging all along has been your retarded statement that humans are more closely related, genetically, to cows than to chimps. You keep trying to divert attention away from your ludicrous claim. Gee, why is that? I guess it’s because you now know for a fact that it?s wrong and stupid: that?s why you avoid trying to defend it.
2) Your claim about mtDNA was along the lines of, cow mtDNA is more compatible with human mtDNA than chimp mtDNA is. You haven?t shown one shred of evidence to support that position. Therefore, you lose. Why? Let me explain it to you again.
You are making a claim that goes against the status quo .. against the accepted, mainstream view. Thus, you have the burden of proof. What that means is that if neither side provides any evidence at all, you lose and the other side prevails. So until you supply enough evidence to overcome your burden of proof, you lose this one too.
Yes, because when I got my first BS, in CIS, I minored in biology (I have since gone back and am now only 3 courses away from a second BS, this time in biology).
Years ago when I came up with my handle, DNA ? which stands for Distributed interNet Architecture in the computer world ? was kind of a hot topic in the (Microsoft) computer world. Since DNA was common to both CIS and biology, the two areas I had formal education in, my area of study in college was the union of those two fields. Hence, DNAunion.
I demand equal debate time for my new theory “Stupid Design”.
Hey finch, speaking of birds, can you tell me why birds still have genes for making teeth? Have you ever seen a bird with teeth? Did anyone in the Bible mention birds having teeth? (Oh, and bats aren’t birds, no matter what the stupid Bible says!)
Hey finch (by the way, love your mother … finch’s mom is definitely MILF!), can you explain how the following fact is better explained by special creation than by evolution?
Although chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans only 23 pairs, one of the human chromosomes is the result of a fusion of two separate chromosomes our common ancestor with chimps possessed. Is this just an ad hoc explanation for why we humans have one less pair of chromosomes? No. That fusion did occur can be seen by the presence of head-to-head telomere sequences in the [i]middle[/i] of the human chromosome, and also by comparing the banding pattern of the human chromosome with the banding patterns on the two chimp chromosomes of interest.
Here’s a nice long quote for you on this matter.
Hey finch, can you tell me why your God would create humans with defective genes? Not only that, but the same defective genes that chimps have? That would be really stupid design, now wouldn’t it!
Evolution has a perfectly reasonable explanation. Once again, evolution is the best explanation for the origin of humans.
Now for the goods.
Unlike nearly all other animals, humans cannot synthesize vitamin C because the needed gene has at some point in the past become nonfunctional: it?s a pseudogene. Chimps and other primates too cannot manufacture vitamin C because their genes also are nonfunctional (pseudogenes).
Also, both humans and great apes have nonfunctional Uox (urate oxidase) genes. Further, the nucleotide substitution that causes the human and great ape genes to be nonfunctional is identical.
Hey finchypoo, here’s another evidence that is best explained by common ancestry.
The beta-globin genes in humans and chimps (and gorillas) are organized in the same manner, and pseudogene versions of one those genes share multiple, identical substitutions in the three species.
Hello again finch, it’s me … your worst nightmare!
Yet another example of your God creating humans and chimps both with the same defective genes. What a fricking retard your God is!!!
Well, we could elminate all of the problems by simply accepting that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. You know, like all the scientific evidence points to!
Both humans and chimps have a CYP21P pseudogene, and both are pseudogenes because they share the same 8-basepair deletion.
Hey finchy, what do you know … ANOTHER example of your God being an awful designer, creating things broken!
Of course, if we simply accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor – the only rational conclusion to reach – all of these huge problems you face with God being an incompetent moron go away.
The ZNF75B gene (which codes for a zinc finger protein; zinc finger proteins are one type of DNA-binding protein, and their binding to DNA can influence the expression of other genes) is a pseudogene in both humans and chimps (as well as gorillas and orangutans), and the ZNF75 gene in humans and its homolog in chimps are both located on Xq26 (a particular region of the queen ? that is, longer ? arm of the X chromosome).
DNA you da man!!! at science daily .com today there is an article on simian chromosomes and human chromosomes. Why analyze the two together if they are not in some type of relation?? It had to do with Y chromosome. I need to reread to understand. Just thought I’d let you know.
Funny that evolution and all the facts surrounding it are insufficient for finch but faith is OK And totally baseless in reality.
I’ll remember you said that.
Hey finch, besides the many genetic evidences that humans and chimps share a common ancestor (and no, I didn’t post all of those I had … I figured what I did post was more than sufficient to make the point), there are also the expected – and several possibly unexpected – anatomical similarities between chimp and human brains.
1) The pictures at the following site show (if you are already familiar with the anatomy of the human brain) that the chimpanzee brain is a near twin of ours (the biggest anatomical giveaway that this is a chimp?s brain is that the brain stem projects backwards, instead of downwards as it does in humans because of our upright posture). http://brainmuseum.org/Specimens/primates/chimp/brain/chimp6sect6.jpg
2) There is an asymmetry in the planum temporale in both human and chimp brains.
3) A further brain asymmetry is shared between humans and chimps: that of the hippocampus. Yet the nearby amygdala is symmetrical in both.
4) Because of their neuroanatomy, most chimps, like humans, are right handed.
5) Can an animal seeing its reflection in a mirror recognize the reflection as being of itself? No. Unless it is one of an extremely few exceptional species, such as humans, chimpanzees, or orangutans.
Hey finchypoo, how about some genetic and embryological evidence that goes back even farther in time for a human ancestor … FISH.
The information for the following comes from ?The origin of the parathyroid gland?, Masataka Okabe and Anthony Graham, PNAS, December 21, 2004, Vol. 101, No. 51, p177716-177719.
It has long been known that developing vertebrates pass through a stage in which their embryos all resemble one another. One of the anatomical homologies at this stage is the presence of pharyngeal arches, which are sometimes loosely called ?gill slits?. Are ?gill slits? in human embryos truly ?remnants? left over from our fish ancestors of long ago? Yes, they are. That is, several lines of evidence indicate that pharyngeal arches in vertebrate embryos ? which includes fish and humans ? are truly homologous structures. One of the latest evidences concerns the parathyroid gland in humans (and other tetrapods) and the analogous internal gill buds in fish.
Life started in the seas. Long before the first terrestrial tetrapod existed, fish needed to maintain homeostasis and one of the requirements was to maintain steady levels of calcium ions, Ca2+. As with other homeostatic regulation, one of the components needed is a sensor to monitor the system. The authors investigated and found that fish have calcium-sensing receptors in their internal gill buds, which themselves are derived from the embryonic pharyngeal arches.
During the long transition from a wholly aquatic life of fish to the fully terrestrial existence of tetrapods such as most reptiles and mammals, organisms gradually lost their gills. Yet throughout the transition, they still needed to maintain homeostatic control over calcium-ion levels. Because of the known function of the parathyroid gland ? which is responsible for the maintenance of Ca2+ levels in tetrapods ? theory held that it, along with PTH (parathyroid hormone), evolved during this time to meet the need. The authors? research helps bolster this theory while also adding clarification to it.
It was long known that the tetrapod parathyroid gland has calcium-sensing receptors, which are coded for by a gene called CasR. The authors? detection of the expression of CasR in fish gill buds establishes a strong functional and structural link between the gill buds and the parathyroid gland. Further, like fish gills, the tetrapod parathyroid glands are derived from the pharyngeal arches. In addition, a gene called Gcm-2 (which encodes a transcription factor) was known to be expressed only in the pharyngeal arches and then in the parathyroid in mice: the researchers found that Gcm-2 was also present in both the zebrafish and the dogfish, and further, that its expression in those animals was restricted to just the pharyngeal arches and the internal gill buds. As if all of those evidences were not convincing enough, they also discovered that the Gcm-2 gene is found to be linked to the gene ELOVL2 in zebrafish, chickens, and humans. Thus there are strong similarities in function (maintenance of Ca2+ levels), genetics (Gcm-2 gene, which is also consistently linked to the ELOVL2 gene), structure (calcium-sensing receptors), and embryonic origin (pharyngeal arches as the progenitor) between the internal gill buds of fish and the parathyroid gland of humans and other tetrapods.
The authors went further still. Recent experiments had shown that fish, even though they do not have parathyroid glands, do possess two genes for parathyroid hormone (PTH). The researchers examined the sequences for the fish genes and found that they contain key amino acids needed for function, which served to confirm other recent work by another group that suggested fish possess fully active PTH. The authors then attempted to ascertain where in fish these PTH genes were expressed and detected parathyroid hormone in the gills. Yet another confirmation of the evolutionary relatedness between gills and the parathyroid gland. The authors? clarification on the original theory is that PTH was present in fish before the origin of the parathyroid gland and terrestrial tetrapods.
The overall evolutionary picture is that fish possessed functional Gcm-2, CasR, and PTH, and over the course of evolution of the fully terrestrial life style of tetrapods, these were retained during the process of the internal gill buds slowly transforming into the tetrapod parathyroid gland.
Finch said
Moron. At least try to get the theory right. Noone is suggesting that humans evolved from chimps. Try reading a book.
finch77dash,
One last thing…One thing science doesn’t do is insert “GOD” when they do not have a testable answer to questions such as the ones you just posted..
Why do you?
I assume that is what you’re saying when you ask the following:
“O yea, I almost forgot…Where did the first cell come from? The first molecule? The first atom? what happended 1 sec before the big bang?”
I assume you mean you have the explanation, i.e. your GOD, and all science has to do is insert it in the blanks.
You can’t be serious. Not after all this effort.
DVanWechel, you got me.
How does DNAunions arguments prove evolution?
DVanWechel,
I don’t assume anything, but for evolution to be plausable, one must explain how the first cell with DNA to be mutated came about. I’m not saying I have all the answeres, just that evolution doesn’t either.
HeatheNZ,
forgive me if we don’t shake hands.
I don’t want diamond sunbursts or marble halls. I just want… you.
Finch,
In case you didn’t know, the field of study surrounding the beginning of life is called abiogenesis . It is outside of the scope of evolution. Therefore irrelevant to the plausability of evolution.
Finch, why did you change your name from Spooky?
As others have said in other threads, proof that a theory is strong, is when a prediction can be made based on the theory, a prediction that plays out to be true.
As far as I’m aware, much of pharmaceutical medicine uses the theories involved in evolution to create such things as anti-viral medications. In short, a prediction made from the theory that works.
I would like to see you use the theories (and I use the term “theories” very loosely) of ID or Creationism to make a prediction, see if the prediction proves true, and then develop life-saving medications from it.
I don’t believe DNA needs to prove evolution to be true. But he has proven it to be, by far, the best answer – and modern medicine has as well. Not to mention several other industries that exploit the theories in evolution to create products for our benefit.