Posted on 11/16/2008 8:38:56 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
An international team of geneticists recently set out to explore in more detail the evolutionary relationship between humans and chimpanzees. Despite their assumption that man and chimp share a common ancestor, their findings are actually more consistent with the creation model...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ping :o)
but one that uses a path that took 4.5 billion years and used evolution as its method.
Just like I was taught by my Catholic high school biology teacher who was a Catholic Marist Brother.
no need to mix religion with science. like Bio Bill (as we affectionately called him) my biology teacher would say. The lord works in mysterious ways.
Explain congenital defects, in that case.
We talking W-chimp or O-chimp?
Science has become a religion.
This is supposed to pass for science? Has anyone interviewed God to verify this harebrained idea?
While we are on the topic of science, has anyone from the ICR come up with an alternative verifiable method to test the Biblical time line? I know they detest the carbon dating method. So what do they use other than blind faith?
True. In many cases. especially when it comes to rich grants for things like the global warming fraud, you can just about see the $ signs in the eyes of PhD's
Read about the forbidden fruit/vector in the Garden of Eden.
Read the report! They came to no such conclusion!
Hurly
Oh, how convenient!
So, why exactly is it that only a minority is afflicted with congental diseases, whereas the vast majority isn’t?
Oh, and these diseases can be induced by artificial, chemical/ radiational methods too. What does that say about the apple?
==This is supposed to pass for science?
It is a much more rational conclusion than assuming that these mind-boggling molecular machines merely give the “appearance” of super-sophisticated design.
Bullsh#t.
Give’em a break. They are desperately trying to save their mother! Who could ever find fault with that...hmmmm?
The fact that chimps genome is only 6% different than ours? Design.
The fact that chimps genes are 2% different than ours? Design.
The fact that chimps and humans share ERV’s in a nested hierarchy of similarity and divergence with other apes and mammals? They were designed that way (by common ancestry).
The fact that humans and chimps share the same disabling mutation on the pseudo-gene for vitamin C synthase? Designed! Yep, designed with useless nonfunctional genes with the same mutation that disabled them!
Design! Design! It's all design!
Apparently God designed life as imperfect replicators that would give rise to genetic variation that would lead to differential reproductive success leading to some traits being selected for and other traits being selected against depending upon the environment. Apparently this tendency to give rise to genetic variation that can be selected for and against can give rise to speciation. Apparently we and chimps share a common ancestor.
So it never occurs to you while reading the following description of a cell that it might be designed by God?:
“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?”
—Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Everyone dies of something. Last I checked the mortality rate is still one per person.
But... But....ANY useful trait is evidence for evolution. Anything and everything is evidence for evolution.
The fact that chimps genome is only 6% different than ours? Evolution.
The fact that chimps genes are 2% different than ours? Evolution.
Going to take your science teacher's word over God's eh??? God says everything was made after 'it's kind'...No evolution...But hey, who cares what God says...
Well played!
Evolution IS the design. Living systems are not static in a changing world, they are mutable, and this variation is subject to selection. Obviously the “perfect design” of a living organism in a changing world is not a static design, but one that is able to change in response to the environment.
Just look at the evolution within human populations in response to different environmental pressures. Dark skin in equatorial climates, light skin in northern latitudes, malaria resistance where malaria is endemic, lactose persistence in populations that had milk from herd animals readily available.
What explanation is there for these human genetic variations other than ‘the design’ being evolution through natural selection?
I wonder why we all, barring a premature death from something else, inevitably die of cellular aging subject to the Hayflick limit?
If one believes in Evolution™, why would dying be favored over surviving?
It will be a miracle if Coyoteman does not show up at least once on this thread.
just because someone wrote the bible doesn’t mean he sat there and was dictated to by a supreme being who gave him all the gory details.
It would appear that by "natural" you mean anything that happens. Perhaps you could define your term.
The environment of northern latitudes favors the selection for light skin to aid vitamin D synthesis.
What explanation do you have for human variation between populations? How did it happen that dark skinned people are from populations of people that lived near the equator?
A theory in science stands or falls on the evidence and its utility. Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation would indicate that a person from an equatorial population would have more genetic variations that are favored in a hot environment, and a person from a northern population would have more genetic variations that are favored in a cold environment.
This is what we find in nature. Populations in colder environments have variations that help them deal with the cold, and populations in warmer environments have variations that help them deal with the heat.
What explanation is there besides natural selection for genetic variation?
You didn’t include an an answer in your answer. Please define your term.
There’s a significant difference between dying of wear and tear, and dying of a congenital disease.
The Steve Jones book "Darwin's Ghost," a modern-day rewrite of Darwin's 1859 seminal work, contains (on pages 69 to 71) an explanation as to what "natural selcction" means.
In simple terms, Jones defines natural selection as "the factory for the almost impossible" using "the idea that molds life itself: descent with modification."
Q.E.D
Poetic.
Thus evolution is sometimes described as a change in allele (gene variation) frequency of a population.
Is that "environment" God free?
No it's not. It's a vital component of evolution, in that the death of the predecessor prevents genetic competition for the progeny. If life-forms didn't die, the equilibrium would shift to progenitors destroying its own progeny- there wouldn't be as much implicit requirement to ensure the safety and survivability of the progeny if the predecessor didn't have finite life.
The vital "fire in the belly" to ensure the survivability of the offspring, is diminished.
Congenital defects are often fatal before reproductive age is attained.
Do you believe “random” is synonymous with “out of control of God”? As if what transpires beyond a Casino door escapes God's purview?
If God has control over “random” functions then why do people assume that because genetic variation is created by probabilistic occurrences that it somehow means that it is not under the control of God?
It's counter to evolution, in that the premature death of the parent results in fewer progeny and thus fewer surviving progeny, making that genetic material less competive with the genetic material of others.
If life-forms didn't die
Aging is not the only cause of death.
For the vast majority, the parents do not die before the offspring attains sufficient development to sustain itself.
If the parent survives forever, the implicit interest in seeing its genetics survive time is less dependent on its offspring, and more dependent on itself. Thus the interest of the parent to see for the welfare of its offpring, is significantly diminished if the parent can do as good a job, keeping its genes relevant forever by living forever, as it can, with a line of descendents.
One more thing, the natural environment is highly dynamic... unless life evolves to introduce mechanisms where genetics is altered within one individual, through its lifetime to keep up with the changes, then having one life-form with fixed genetics living forever is a bad bet.
So, what's the next step? Humans and genetic engineering. That's nature's answer.
Because dying stops them from having more kids. Aging is counter to the evolution's supposed survival of the fittest.
If the parent survives forever
Again, aging is not the only cause of death.
I didn't use the term "random."
If God has control over “random” functions
I didn't use the term "random."
In the equilibrium of the present generation balancing itself in terms of numbers through future offspring, the elimination of numbers is chiefly through aging, wherein age-related deficiencies are the prime motivators for predation to destroy the present generation of lifeforms, allowing for their place to be taken over by the present generation's offspring.
If living things died in their prime, before reproduction, more than they did through aging, then all life forms would tend towards extinction. That is not the case.
False. Cite please.
No it is not. If the parent generation was to be as viable as the future generation, mutual competition would ensure a stalemate that would be weighted against the more vulnerable offspring.
Survival of the fittest is not a perfect defining statement for evolution. Nature does not always favor the fittest. In conditions of famine, the typical "fittest" creatures would be the earliest ones to die of shock resulting from the sudden lack of resources. Survivability is case-by-case. That which is most capable of adapting to the circumstances, will have the most probability of surviving into the future.
And again, aging is the dominant mode of elimination of the present generation. Now that does not mean that most living things die of old-age. It means that age-related causes are the prime factor that allows for easy predation by other modes of death.
Read next comment.
Naturally!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.