Search This Blog

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Humans and chimps linked by what?! Not evolution but rather a common Designer!

"First present a piece of evidence that supports it! Not suppositions and fairy tales but some solid piece of evidence. "   This was me challenging readers.  The following was the answer to my request:

OK.

1: The human chromosome designated "human chromosome #2" has embedded telomeres and an inactivated second centromere, demonstrating that it was probably formed by the fusion of two smaller chromosomes.

2) Chromosomes always come in pairs, so this fusion event must have reduced the ancestor's n number by 1, and its 2n number by 2.

3) Humans have one fewer chromosome-pair (2n=46) than our nearest relative, the chimpanzee (2n=48).

4) Genetic analysis shows that human chromosome #2 contains the same genes, in the same sequences, as two of the chimpanzee's chromosomes.

For more information:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

That's evidence for common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees -- evolution.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati pointed out to me that this was already answered on the Creation.com website and so here is the answer:

Heads I win, tails you lose

The power of the paradigm

Published: 11 November 2010 (GMT+10)
Photo iStockphoto
human and chimpanzee

Kenneth Miller is Professor of Biology at Brown University, Rhode Island, and a prominent critic of creationism and the intelligent design movement. He has supported court actions against schools that seek to protect children from evolutionary indoctrination, even appearing as a witness for the plaintiffs,1 and regularly speaks in defence of the teaching of evolution as a scientifically proven fact. A Roman Catholic, he is a theistic evolutionist.

A few years ago, Miller gave a lecture at Case Western Reserve University entitled, “The Collapse of Intelligent Design. Will the next Monkey Trial be in Ohio?”2 In this, he freely lambasted all who would question the Darwinian paradigm. Most of the lecture was about politics, but some time was also given to scientific issues. Particularly, he made much of recent studies of human and chimp DNA and argued that this provided irrefutable evidence of evolution. As I listened to this, I became open-mouthed, almost in disbelief, at the incredibly unscientific nature of his claim. Two pairs of human chromosomes had been found to be fused, he said, providing clear evidence of our shared ancestry with apes.3
 
[Kenneth Miller] made much of recent studies of human and chimp DNA and argued that this provided irrefutable evidence of evolution.

Chromosomes are packages of DNA, wound around proteins called histones. Humans have 23 chromosome pairs, as we inherit 23 chromosomes from our father and 23 from our mother. Chimps inherit 24 chromosomes from each parent and have 24 chromosome pairs. Although far from being beyond doubt, a good case can be made that humans did, indeed, have 24 chromosome pairs originally, and that chromosome fusion has occurred, resulting in our now having only 23. For the sake of the argument, let us concede that this is true.4
Photo iStockphoto
human and chimpanzee

According to Miller, there are only two possible explanations for this. The first is that we share a common ancestor with chimps and that, during the course of evolution, chromosome fusion has taken place. The second is that the creator/designer made humans with chromosomes which had the appearance of having been fused at some time in the past, when in fact this never happened. The second explanation, he argued, is ridiculous, thus showing the first to be correct.

For someone who prides himself as a scientist and critical thinker, Miller’s argument beggars belief. Even a child could see the fallacy of it. If, in Miller’s view, it is reasonable to believe that the chromosomes became fused in a small population of half-ape/half-humans a few million years ago, why is it not reasonable to believe that this occurred in a small population of actual humans a few thousand years ago? This could have happened very early on in human history, soon after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, or in a small, isolated group from which Noah and his family were drawn prior to the Flood.

If it is accepted that ‘evolution is a fact’ then data will always be interpreted according to this belief—irrespective of whether there is a valid alternative interpretation.

Professor Miller, of course, is a very capable and knowledgeable scientist. How, then, could he make such a basic error? The answer, surely, lies in the ‘Power of the paradigm.’ If it is accepted that ‘evolution is a fact’ then data will always be interpreted according to this belief—irrespective of whether there is a valid alternative interpretation. If humans had been found to have 24 chromosome pairs, this would have been understood as evidence for common ancestry with apes because apes also have 24. Since humans actually have 23, it is understood that this provides evidence that evolution resulted in ape chromosomes being fused. For the evolutionists, then, it’s ‘heads I win, tails you lose’.

Readers’ comments:

Ralph T., Australia, 12 November 2010
“Although far from being beyond doubt, a good case can be made that humans did, indeed, have 24 chromosome pairs originally, and that chromosome fusion has occurred, resulting in our now having only 23.”
Although I have a degree in biology, it is my experience in computer programing that makes me skeptical that there is really a “good case” here.

Computer programs I did were modular. If I finished one program, and then had to do another which had differences in purpose but used many similar modules, I would simply transfer many of the modules from the old program to the new.

However I might need to adjust them somewhat to fit the new overall purpose exactly. One type of adjustment I could possibly do is to combine two modules from the old program inro a new larger module, add some new information, and delete some now irrelevant information.

I have no trouble believing that God could use a similar process when He designed the “software” for apes and humans.

To claim there must have been a fusion is as silly as claiming there must have been a fusion of “V” and “U” since “W” looks like the two letters fused together.
Dumb and dumber IMHO.


Peter B., Switzerland, 18 November 2010

The fusion site revisited.

The chimpanzee and human genome projects demonstrated that the fusion did not result in loss of protein coding genes. Instead, the human locus contains approximately 150 thousand additional base pairs not found in chimpanzee chromosome 12 and 13 (now also known as 2A and 2B). This is remarkable because why would a fusion result in more DNA? We would rather have expected the opposite: the fusion would have left the fused product with less DNA, since loss of DNA sequences is easily explained. The fact that humans have a unique 150 kb intervening sequence indicates it may have been deliberately planned (or: designed) into the human genome. It could also be proposed that the 150 kb DNA sequence demarcating the fusion site may have served as an adaptor sequence for bringing the chromosomes together and facilitate the fusion in human. Another remarkable observation is that in the fusion region we find an inactivated cobalamin synthetase (CBWD) gene1. Cobalamin synthetase is a protein that, in its active form, has the ability to synthesize vitamin B12, a crucial cofactor in the biosynthesis of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA and RNA molecules. Deficiency during pregnancy and/or early childhood results in severe neurological defects, because of an impaired development of the brain. The Darwinian assumption is that the cobalamin synthetase gene was donated by bacteria a long time ago and afterwards it was inactivated. Nowadays, humans must rely on microorganisms in the colon and dietary intake (a substantial part come from meat and milk products) for their vitamin B12 supply. It is remarkable also of note that humans have several copies of inactivated cobalamin-synthetase-like genes on several locations in the genome, whereas chimpanzees only have inactivated cobalamin synthetase gene. That the fusion must have occurred after man and chimp split is evident from the fact that the fusion is unique to humans:

“Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred after the human-chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 and 1 million years ago.”1

The molecular analyses show we are more unique than we ever thought we were and this is in complete accordance with creation. We propose the fusion, if it really was a fusion after all, may have resulted from an intricate rearrangement or activation of repetitive genetic elements after the fall (as part of or executors of the curse following the fall) and inactivated the cobalamin synthetase gene (after the fall we had to eat meat!). The inactivation of the gene may have reduced people’s longevity in a similar way as the inactivation of the GULO gene which is crucial to vitamin C synthesis2

[published previously in Dutch, in TndO, 2009]

References:

  1. Fan Y, et al. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research 2002, volume 12, pages 1651-1662.
  2. Truman R, Borger P. Why the shared mutations in the hominidae exon X GULO pseudogene are not evidence for common descent. J Creation 2007, volume 21 (3), pages 118–127.

Logie U., United Kingdom, 18 November 2010

The whole idea that two chromosomes from a primate ancestor fused together to form the single human chromosome; falls down when looking at the following.

1) Humans cannot breed with primates. Although there are examples of two species with different number of chromosomes breeding, it is the usual case where two species with a different number of chromosomes, cannot successfully breed. This raises the question, what would the offspring with the fused chromosome breed with?
2) It is assumed that entire chromosomal fusion is quite rare, otherwise there would be examples. So in this case, it is possible to assume that a single offspring would have the fused chromosomes. How does this mutation give the offspring a competitive advantage over its peers?
3) If the fused chromosome lead to a significant change in expressed phenotype, would the offspring with the fused chromosome, even be able to breed with it’s peers, as most species reject members who have genetic abnormalities from the group. We see this in human behavior, as people who have been disabled, or suffer genetic issues are often viewed as ‘different’ as they don’t conform to our internal image of what other human looks/acts like. This is a survival technique. We also see this kind of behavior with ants who have been infected with fungus. The other non-infected ants, force the infected individual out of the colony.
Sounds like Kenneth Miller is suffering from conformation bias.

Editor comments:

We agree that Miller’s argument, for common ancestry of humans with primates based on a putative chromosome fusion, falls down. Many of the issues you raise here are dealt with in the book by Dr Vij Sodera mentioned in reference 4 of the article. Chapter 12 of this book runs to 40 pages of discussion about chromosomes as this relates to supposed human and ape common ancestry.


Anthony S., United States, 18 November 2010

Concerning Ralph T, Australia, comment. Funny, I am a Computer Programmer also, and also have a degree in Biology. I totally agree with your comment! It was a nice way of presenting your view. Makes sense.

Editor comments: The author of this short article did not get into details because his main point was to demonstrate the fallacy of the evolutionist argument—hence the article’s title. However, we advise you to read the material in reference 4 and also refer to Peter B.’s feedback to discover more about the molecular biological argument for a possible chromosome fusion event in human history.


Ernest L., United States, 18 November 2010

I’m appreciative of this forum for continuing to demonstrate the weaknesses of the macro-evolutionary claims. I’ve always thought it helpful to understand the beliefs of individuals making any proclamation [in this case Prof. Miller and Mr. Statham] so when Mr. Statham references that Prof. Miller is a Roman Catholic it was informative as I’m Roman Catholic.

If Mr. Statham felt it beneficial to reference Prof. Miller’s particular faith it would have been helpful if Mr. Statham pointed out, assuming he is knowledgeable on the topic, that despite much confusion one cannot hold to Roman Catholicism and macroevolution simultaneously. It would have been a double blow to Prof. Miller.

Roman Catholics accept that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth [1 Tim. Ch.3 v.15], we believe she cannot error. In the last 2,000 years the Church has affirmed through the writings of its orthodox adherents, councils, and other authoritative pronouncements; the necessity of all Christians to hold to the absolute inerrancy of scripture, that God created the world in six days, as well as Eve being made from Adam. Obviously none of these can be squared with macroevolution and essentially puts Prof. Miller’s adherence to his professed faith in question.

I cannot attest to Mr. Statham’s purpose for referencing Prof. Miller’s professed RC faith “A Roman Catholic, he is a theistic evolutionist.” I struggle to understand the purpose in the way he phrases this. Does Mr. Statham mean to imply the two topics [Roman Catholicism and theistic evolution] are automatically equated? No one likes his or her views to be impugned or misrepresented so I felt compelled to write this note. I realize most of the people involved with the site are probably not Roman Catholic, may even be hostile to Catholicism and clearly this forum is generally meant to address erroneous scientific claims. However, shouldn’t everyone who wishes to claim the mantel of Christian seek to be completely truthful in all things?

Dominic Statham replies:

I included the statement that Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic simply for general information. Miller himself makes much of his faith, so I think this is reasonable. I wasn’t intending to make any particular point from this, but to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions (if any).

I have met many people who would describe themselves as Roman Catholic and believe that people evolved from ape-like creatures. Moreover, Pope John Paul II declared the theory of evolution to be “more than a hypothesis” and argued, “It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm


Doug L., United States, 19 November 2010

This contention (that the “fused” DNA proves evolution) shows more about Mr. Miller than it does about evolution and reminds me of the “junk DNA” issue. When, in their ignorance, researchers found stretches of DNA for which they saw no purpose these researchers quickly proclaimed it as “junk” left over from the evolutionary process. Now, many years later, most of the so-called junk has been found to have a real purpose. So now we have the “fused” chromosome. In their ignorance they can conceive of no purpose in having one long chromosome instead of two shorter ones. So of course this must prove evolution. Not! Our ignorance of the genome vastly exceeds our meager knowledge. I won’t be a bit surprised if someone in the not too distant future finds a very distinct purpose for God having combined the information into one chromosome. The point here is that for someone to bombastically proclaim a lack of purpose for something in the genome which he does not understand is the height of ignorance and arrogance.


M. J., United States, 19 November 2010

I find when posting on the internet that evolutionists use this type of reasoning all the time. If it doesn’t prove evolution then why did God make it look like evolution happened. Is He trying to trick us.

But I did get one evolutionist to admit that difference doesn’t prove change but it might have been that way from the beginning. He didn’t become an instant creationist but maybe it made him think.
Keep up the good work.


A. J., United Kingdom, 19 November 2010

Ralph, it’s true that many things attributed to evolution could also be due to design, but probably not this, as it seems a little arbitrary. Why stitch 2 modules together if they are ok on their own?
Besides, it is claimed that there is evidence of former telomeres (chromosome end-matter) at the point where the chromosomes are fused.

This is a relatively simple mutation that could happen by a single `crossover’ mutation (which are very common-and probably deliberately so) gone wrong. Once that had been fixed in the population (few people still having two separate chromosomes), one of the two centromeres would be redundant, and could then be deleted by random mutations without causing any trouble. It’s very plausible. That’s the case. But it doesn’t prove common ancestry.

Related articles

Further reading

References

  1. Selman v. Cobb County, 2005 and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005. Return to text.
  2. This was given on 3 January 2006 and can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg. Return to text.
  3. Ref. 2, beginning at 0:35:10. Return to text.
  4. Sodera, V., One small speck to man—the evolution myth, 2nd edn, ch. 12, Vij Sodera Productions, 2009. Return to text.

26 comments:

AmericanVet said...

Chimps and Humans are so different genetically that it would take 40 million positive mutations, thousands of modifications to transposable elements and many other complex modifications to the DNA string to accomlish the differences. All that assuming that positive mutations take place in the organism, a claim often used by Darwinists but never observed.

Jon Woolf said...

I'm sorry, was there an actual counter-argument in that mass of doubletalk and non sequiturs?

Anonymous said...

I spotted a few points being made in all of this:

1. If humans had 24 chromosomes, scientists would have an explanation that ties in with the theory of evolution for that as well.

Kind of a juvenile argument, really. Well yes, scientists probably would have an explanation for that as well. But the fact is that humans have 23 chromosomes, and that there are signs of chromosomal fusion, which confirms a mutation having taken place.

2. The fusion could have taken place in a small human population a few thousand years ago.

An interesting claim, albeit freely made up and with no scientific support whatsoever. It also features an implicit acceptance of the principle of evolution.

3. God can create anything for whatever reason, and can create something that indicates evolution if it so pleases him.

Kind of a one-size-fits-all answer, since once you propose an entity that can accomplish anything at all and is not subject to any rhyme or reason, then all bets are off. Which is why the inclusion of such an entity in scientific explanations has always been colossally useless.

None of these addresses the point made by Woolf.

And then people like Radar (or Ben Stein or whatever) complain that creationism isn't taken seriously in the scientific arena...

"Chimps and Humans are so different genetically that it would take 40 million positive mutations, thousands of modifications to transposable elements and many other complex modifications to the DNA string to accomlish the differences."

And?

Did you have an actual argument, other than the argument from incredulity (which happens to be a logical fallacy)?

"All that assuming that positive mutations take place in the organism, a claim often used by Darwinists but never observed."

Are you claiming that mutations can only be negative? On what basis?

Re. "never observed". Wrong. See nylon-eating bacteria.

Chaos Engineer said...

If humans had been found to have 24 chromosome pairs, this would have been understood as evidence for common ancestry with apes because apes also have 24. Since humans actually have 23, it is understood that this provides evidence that evolution resulted in ape chromosomes being fused. For the evolutionists, then, it’s ‘heads I win, tails you lose’.

That's a pretty basic misunderstanding of the argument, don't you think?

The argument isn't just that humans have 23 chromosomes and apes have 24. The point is that the genes match pretty closely between chromosomes, except for the one human chromosome that matches two ape chromosomes placed end-to-end. Since humans and apes are similar it's not surprising that they have the same genes, but why should they have the same genes
on the same chromosomes in the same order?

Now, if the genes didn't match across chromosomes very well between apes and humans, but they did match between humans and zebras, then that would be a problem for evolution. In fact, it would support a creationist model, where the animals were created in alphabetical order and then humans were created a day later. (And each new animal was created by modifying the chromosomes from the previous one.) So I don't think it's fair to call it a "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" situation.

It's ironic that a creationist would accuse anyone else of that, because they're masters of playing "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose". Has any creationist anywhere ever come up with a potential experiment that could falsify creationism?

AmericanVet said...

I recently posted the answer to nylon-eating bacteria, which is not an addition of information at all but was actually a surprisingly fast speciation that was built in to the organism. You can do a search for "nylon-eating" on this website and see for yourself. Darwinists will go for awhile and bring it up again but you will notice that the primary Darwinists have quit using it as it is not a good example for them.

Jon Woolf, if you cannot read technical journals don't blame the rest of us. But since you have told us how credentialed you are I figured you would be used to the verbiage common to technical papers?

You want to falsify creationism? Easy. I can give you a list:

1. Demonstrate information being produced by natural means. Don't give me a story like "mutation plus natural selection" because mutation is broken information, not new, and natural selection is a description of the designed system that allows organisms to adjust to changing conditions by selecting from pre-existing information in the genome. And that applies to "nylon-eating" bacteria as well.

2. Show a new substance being created from nothing. Since creationism posits that only God can create, you just have to find an example of creation by a natural means. In other words, a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. If you can do it, you take away the necessity for a creator.

3. Find life creating itself from non-life. In the Darwinist worldview this had to happen for life to exist. In order to do so you will have to find an organism that breaks the Law of Biogenesis. But you would need that to eliminate the need for a Creator of life.

You do those three things, the Darwinist world would acclaim you as their champion, the entire world of science would be astonished and you would have finally given Darwinism some kind of evidence for the first time in the history of that hypothesis.

AmericanVet said...

Jon can say what he wishes, but he has no authority. The concept of the sequential fossil record is as ridiculous as the sequential geological column and the Haeckel embroyo chart and the horse evolution chart. He can tell you that there is a sequence of fossils and you must be sketical.

Jon Woolf said...

"The concept of the sequential fossil record is"

... quite correct, and proved to be so by more than two hundred years of hands-on, in-the-field geology. You know, the kind of actual science that creationists never do.

Take a deep breath, Radar. Several would be better. And a week or so off. You're so worked up that you're posting these manic attacks in the wrong comment-threads. My multipart comment about the sequential nature of the fossil record is on the Sarfati post, not this one.

Anonymous said...

"Jon can say what he wishes, but he has no authority."

??

So now it's not about the argument itself, but about "authority"? Wow.

Well in that case you can hang up your hat, because you've lost already.

Anonymous said...

"You want to falsify creationism?"

That's already happened, you're just denying it.

A young Earth has already been falsified in numerous ways, as discussed elsewhere, and macroevolution having occurred is demonstrated in the sequential fossil record, thus falsifying all notions of creatures being created all at the same time and not substantially changing since then.

Anonymous said...

Creationists have not yet come up with any falsifiable statements about their claims that aren't already falsified. That's why you have to pull these ill-considered points out of the air:

"1. Demonstrate information being produced by natural means. Don't give me a story like "mutation plus natural selection" because mutation is broken information, not new,"

What happens if the "broken" information results in a function? One that is useful and benefits survival and/or reproduction?

In what way would that not be "new information"?

"2. Show a new substance being created from nothing. Since creationism posits that only God can create, you just have to find an example of creation by a natural means. In other words, a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. If you can do it, you take away the necessity for a creator."

It's entirely possible for creationism not to be true without substances being created from nothing, i.e. without the laws of thermodynamics being violated.

Actually, since it is the Bible that posits violations of the LOTs (God magicking things that did not exist before into existence), a substance being created from nothing would favor Biblical creationism, not current scientific understanding.

"3. Find life creating itself from non-life. In the Darwinist worldview this had to happen for life to exist. In order to do so you will have to find an organism that breaks the Law of Biogenesis. But you would need that to eliminate the need for a Creator of life."

As you well know, this isn't necessary for the theory of evolution to be true.

But let's go with your claim that this would falsify creationism. Current research on abiogenesis is making interesting progress. Let's say that in a few years (or decades), the research shows a viable path from inanimate matter to living, reproducing organisms.

How do you think someone like yourself would react? Would you throw up your hands and stop believing in God? Would you stop believing in the YEC scenario?

Or would you claim that this is part of the beauty of God's plan/design? Or perhaps claim that yes, it's possible to show this in a lab right now, but that doesn't mean that that's what happened back then? Or would you protest that since the lab experiment didn't result in a fully-blown human walking out of the petri-dish, that this doesn't prove anything?

The latter three options are far more likely, given creationists' behavior in this debate so far.

The point being that, with that in mind, this isn't really a "falsification" that you would accept, is it?

Anonymous said...

"What happens if the "broken" information results in a function? One that is useful and benefits survival and/or reproduction?

In what way would that not be "new information"?"

Just to illustrate this point, imagine that directions are being transmitted to someone who is trying to find their way home. The message is useful for the most part, but a crucial part of it is garbled, causing the person to turn left instead of right. Now, most of the time, this would result in the person either not finding their way home or taking much longer to do so. But in a rare case, it may lead to the person finding a shortcut that was not provided in the message. Or to finding something else that is otherwise extremely useful in some way.

In such a case, that information (turn left instead of right) would represent new information that would be superior to the old information, and would become part of the instructions from then on.

AmericanVet said...

What kind of logic is there in the idea that broken information is new information? That is ridiculous! Face up to the fact that organisms are not only remarkably complex but the complexity is interactive and interdependent. One mutation may break a system but it certainly doesn't build a new one. Not only are we made of of trillions of cells, the cells themselves are made up of billions of components. Each human cell contains 3 gigs of information in the DNA alone.

What you say is like expecting to smash an old tube black and white TV and expecting a new flat-screen color TV to emerge. All of you continually fail to identify a source of information for organisms. Not surprising, but true.

The typical Darwinist line is "new steps or new ideas concerning abiogenesis" but that is a canard. Years of testing have simply shown that you cannot get proteins and sugars making themselves because there are chemical barriers along the way that prohibit their natural formation. Furthermore in the case of DNA the problem of chirality would stop you even if you could identify a process to make the coding letters. On top of all that, someone has to put the letters in the exact order for the code to mean anything. On top of that you need a cell to provide the platform for DNA to issue instructions and you need DNA for the cell to exist and every action of the cell requires ATP for power but ATP is produced by a tiny motor that is designed by the information within the DNA, which cannot unpack and share the information without ATP. It just goes on and on. Scientists who are trying to produce life from non-life are hitting their heads against a brick wall and denying the findings of previous scientists who established the Law of Biogenesis for good reason. Now that we know more about the cell it is anti-science to think it made itself.

No, there are lots of differences in the DNA of humans and chimps. Why in the world you want to be related to a chimp is beyond me but it isn't supportable via what the DNA string reveals.

My three falsifications remain unchallenged. You cannot find a source for information (except repeat the same old falsified canards) nor can you find a source for life nor source for matter/time/energy.

It is funny that you ask me what I would think if you could provide a natural source for these things because I am quite sure you cannot but go ahead and surprise me.

Woolf, the authority comment just means that you tend to speak with authority but you have no reason for us to simply take what you say as authoritative. I have backed up my three canards in numerous webposts and no one has provided an answer. You have never found an answer for information, life and existence.

Anonymous said...

"What kind of logic is there in the idea that broken information is new information?"

It was explained pretty clearly in the preceding comment, Radar. If the "broken" (i.e. mutated) information happens to have other uses, then it is "new" information.

Why evade and misdirect?

Anonymous said...

"The typical Darwinist line is "new steps or new ideas concerning abiogenesis" but that is a canard."

How would you know, since you clearly don't like to keep up with developments in this area?

Anonymous said...

On reading your post, though, I am beginning to understand your confusion. You think that "Darwinists" claim that life started with a complete cell. Strange, because information about this has actually been provided to you multiple times.

Why would you argue against something without having found out what the actual arguments are?

Anonymous said...

"Why in the world you want to be related to a chimp is beyond me but it isn't supportable via what the DNA string reveals."

What we "want to be related to" is simply irrelevant. It does explain your thinking though, since of course it is desirable to have an eternal afterlife to look forward to, etc.

But what we want to be true isn't always true.

As for what the DNA string reveals, it does indicate relationships between different organisms etc.

BTW, are you sticking by your claim that the chimp and human genome are 23% different? You keep avoiding this question.

Anonymous said...

"Woolf, the authority comment just means that you tend to speak with authority but you have no reason for us to simply take what you say as authoritative."

Woolf tends to back up his statements with facts and details. Unlike you, he does this in his own words, indicating his own understanding. He can easily elaborate on his statements, and one can easily verify what he says by examining other sources.

"I have backed up my three canards in numerous webposts and no one has provided an answer."

Only if you avoid the respective comment sections.

"You have never found an answer for information, life and existence."

Information has been discussed ad nauseam, and during this discussion you (a) blocked an open discussion on an important aspect of this topic, (b) presented unsupportable definitions that you couldn't back up when questioned, and (c) presented a bunch of untested claims as scientific laws. You keep dodging the main discussion on this subject with evasions and misrepresentations, namely the question of whether mutations plus natural selection can generate new information.

Regarding the origin of life, research is ongoing, but only on the scientist side, not the creationist side.

Regarding the origin of existence, we don't know if there even is such an origin. At some point, the further back we go, the more difficult it is for us to conceptualize what happened back then. We can't comprehend eternity, for example.

Religion has invented an answer to this, a personalized father figure that almost by definition has the answers to everything. We think that time "started" at some point? Well then God must have made it so! We think that God made the Universe, but that violates natural laws? Well then God most have made those too! And so on.

All this shows, however, is that the human mind can conceive of a powerful magic father figure.

You don't have much ground to stand on when you claim that this is a superior answer even though it is not testable in any way and the narrative as a whole is falsified by plenty of scientific observations.

AmericanVet said...

Various anonymous commenters reveal their prejudice and ignorance when they say there is a "creationist side" and a "scientist side." That is a very ignorant and prejudiced comment. For instance, Newton was a creationist and there can be no question he has done more to advance the cause of science than me and all the commenters put together. Same with Von Braun and a long list of scientists of the past on into the present. You are a prejudiced person if you say something like that and it is no more acceptable than being prejudiced against people with different shades of skin color.

The truth is that there are the following scientists:

1 - Adherents to naturalistic materialism no matter what.
2 - Adherents to accepting what the evidence shows no matter what.
3 - Adherents to creation by God no matter what.

Some scientists are a mix of these worldviews but they are all a matter of metaphysics. Science doesn't take religion into the electron microscope or the telescope or the laboratory. The worldview is held within the brain. The evidence doesn't come with a worldview attached.

In the world of medicine, for instance, Darwinism is irrelevant on the operational side. If anything, it has been a hindrance by suggesting that there are unnecessary organs or structures within the human body when in fact we know better than that now.

If you do not know that the Universe had a start then go ahead and explain thermodynamics to me.

Finally, many commenters and especially Woolf have failed to show a source of new information coming into the genome. Woolf wants to break parts of the genome to produce information, which is silly, but beyond that where did the genome come from in the first place? And the argument for GA falls apart at the start, since GA is a program written by intelligence run on equipement designed by intelligence and is therefore completely formal.

So, no, no one has answered those three questions from a Darwinist point of view. Pretty pitiful when you claim that the evidence for Darwinism is everywhere but no one can come up with any when asked.

AmericanVet said...

Also, I write long articles and post scientific articles and parts of technical journals and abstracts and present the results of tests, so I have made it a habit to present posts that cover subjects in detail. There is no truth to the idea that I do not back up what I say with evidence because I present mountains of evidence, so much so that some of my commenters are dismayed at the length of some posts. But I believe in being thorough.

AmericanVet said...

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Humans and chimps linked by what?! Not evolution ...":

"What kind of logic is there in the idea that broken information is new information?"

It was explained pretty clearly in the preceding comment, Radar. If the "broken" (i.e. mutated) information happens to have other uses, then it is "new" information.

Why evade and misdirect?"


Kindly ask yourself that question. If cells are full of processes that are interdependent and systems that are often irreducibly complex and cannot run without partnership with other systems, and they are, what kind of mind thinks that breaking a well-designed molecular machine is anything "new"? This is the kind of thinking typical of someone who is not familiar with the cell. Every time a mutation occurs it has consequences. Now and then it will cause a function to change but not for the better. Four-winged fruit flies couldn't fly. Citrase-eating bacteria would be eliminated in the wild.

Think of it this way - the information is there in the form of a language and DNA is the expression of that language. If something is missing or duplicated it is not new, it is simply wrong. CATG is the DNA alphabet and the order of "letters" transmits a message to the cell to build properly. We do not see a "J" appear on the DNA string. Never anything new. Only the occasional copying error or break that can and often will be fatal to the organism.

DNA is a language and it is expressed with "stops" and therefore starts to definitively express the message contained within it.

Man has made a digital language for computers which is binary code - either on or off - far less sophisticated than DNA. When a computer program is written wrong or becomes corrupt we try to correct it or reinstall it because broken information is bad. Yes, having a mistake in the printer software may cause my network to have a "new" functionality in that I cannot any longer get the printer to print out print jobs. So if a terrorist put a bomb in the printer then maybe my life is saved by the mistake in the software. That is a ridiculously unlikely scenario. In the real world, when software is corrupted the program doesn't work as well or doesn't work at all. The same is true of the software of the molecular machine. Broken information is not new information.

Anonymous said...

1. "systems that are often irreducibly complex"

"Irreducibly complex" means that something can theoretically not be broken down into smaller parts. You casually mention "systems that are often irreducibly complex", but no such systems have actually been identified yet, despite the best efforts of ID adherents. That doesn't mean they never will be found, but so far they haven't.

2. You're still almost entirely engaging in arguments from complexity and incredulity, i.e. "something is complex, and because I find it difficult to believe that this occurred naturally, it didn't occur naturally". Just because you can't conceive of it doesn't mean it is false.

3. Symbioses can also evolve. You tend to claim that any interdependency is a refutation of evolution and proof of a designer, but that is not the case.

4. "Never anything new. Only the occasional copying error or break that can and often will be fatal to the organism."

That's really all it takes. An occasional copying error that is beneficial to the organism. And that would indeed represent something "new".

Anonymous said...

BTW, are you sticking to your claim that the human and chimp genomes are 23% different?

Jon Woolf said...

"There is no truth to the idea that I do not back up what I say with evidence because I present mountains of evidence, "

What you present is, by and large, propaganda written with the intent to deceive.

Regarding the question of information: consider the phenomenon of polydactyly (extra toes) known in cats, dogs, humans, and assorted other mammals. (It may also be known in herps; I'm not sure.) How much additional genetic information do you suppose is required to generate an entire extra digit? How about two?

radar said...

Quoting Geneticist Richard Buggs, "To compare the two [human and chimpanzee] genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million 'letters' align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless "junk DNA". However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single 'letter' is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This "copy number variation" causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%."

Junk DNA is yet another failed Darwinist hypothesis, like ERVs which are not ERVs at all. An estimate of 23% difference between man and chimp might have been too conservative. But somewhere between 20 and 30 per cent is about right.

Jon Woolf said...

"Quoting Geneticist Richard Buggs,"

You meant fanatic young-earth Creationist Richard Buggs, didn't you?

You can find any number of different figures for "the genetic difference between humans and chimps." Each is correct for a given set of assumptions and conditions. Buggs's analysis appears to use a very broad definition of 'different,' claiming that two genes are 'different' if they differ in even a single base -- even if they code for the exact same protein which performs the exact same function with the exact same efficiency.

Sounds like rather a buggy approach, if you ask me.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Sounds like rather a buggy approach, if you ask me."

Indeed. If you applied this method to the New Testament, you would conclude that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had nothing in common at all.