Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

DNA and evolution


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
3 replies to this topic

#1
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 869 posts

In the radiometric dating thread  i pointed out that logically radiometric dates are not reliable. The debate went elsewhere but the original points I made were not successfully challenged.

 

In the fossil thread I pointed out that the lack of modern fauna/flora fossils in the Paleozoic has an easier explanation than evolution's lack of transitionary fossils among millions of species.

 

Now turning to DNA, according to DNA analysis most modern species have shown a recent radiation of breeds race groups and even species in the last 100 000 years from a few source breeds.  (I'm using a loose version of the definition of species, meaning a changed morphology combined with the inability to breed successfully).  Given that the timeframes are doubtful as per the radiometric dating thread, this observation fits well with the Ark story.

 

In addition I believe evolutionary processes show a tendency towards decreased complexity rather than increased complexity. The instances of observed coding genes successfully increasing in number and adding fitness (for natural environments)are rarely if ever observed. Yet the instances of coding genes successfully decreasing in number and adding fitness are common. Although increased complexity is not the only evolutionary process, evolutionary theory requires complexity to justify the appearance of most life-forms in earth, yet it is rare/never observed.

 

 

My question to evolutionists: Is there any aspect of microbiology/DNA analysis that would favor evolution over recent intelligent design, because actual observations appear to favor minor devolution and recent speciation from existing species.


Edited by ARGOSY, 01 February 2014 - 04:13 AM.


#2
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 869 posts

24 hours later and not one reply :)  

 

It's a simple question, as research continues DNA observations seem to favor creationism.  Are there any modern observations that favor evolution over recent intelligent design?



#3
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,309 posts

In the radiometric dating thread  i pointed out that logically radiometric dates are not reliable. The debate went elsewhere but the original points I made were not successfully challenged.

 

I disagree. I could import what I wrote about this in your thread if need be.

 

 


In addition I believe evolutionary processes show a tendency towards decreased complexity rather than increased complexity. The instances of observed coding genes successfully increasing in number and adding fitness (for natural environments)are rarely if ever observed. Yet the instances of coding genes successfully decreasing in number and adding fitness are common. Although increased complexity is not the only evolutionary process, evolutionary theory requires complexity to justify the appearance of most life-forms in earth, yet it is rare/never observed.

'Rarely observed' is all that evolution needs to explain the diversity of life on the earth today.

 

 


My question to evolutionists: Is there any aspect of microbiology/DNA analysis that would favor evolution over recent intelligent design, because actual observations appear to favor minor devolution and recent speciation from existing species.

Yes, phylogenetic tree construction and as far as genetic stuff goes, ERVs.



#4
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 869 posts

 

In the radiometric dating thread  i pointed out that logically radiometric dates are not reliable. The debate went elsewhere but the original points I made were not successfully challenged.

 

I disagree. I could import what I wrote about this in your thread if need be.

 

 


In addition I believe evolutionary processes show a tendency towards decreased complexity rather than increased complexity. The instances of observed coding genes successfully increasing in number and adding fitness (for natural environments)are rarely if ever observed. Yet the instances of coding genes successfully decreasing in number and adding fitness are common. Although increased complexity is not the only evolutionary process, evolutionary theory requires complexity to justify the appearance of most life-forms in earth, yet it is rare/never observed.

'Rarely observed' is all that evolution needs to explain the diversity of life on the earth today.

 

 


My question to evolutionists: Is there any aspect of microbiology/DNA analysis that would favor evolution over recent intelligent design, because actual observations appear to favor minor devolution and recent speciation from existing species.

Yes, phylogenetic tree construction and as far as genetic stuff goes, ERVs.

 

 

I did reply to all posts addressed to me in that radiometric thread, unfortunately I haven't the patience to scroll through other people's discussions, especially long posts. If you could bring up any issues in that thread related to my opening post, I felt I dealt with the consilience issue, and most of the other points related to standard creationist views, not the solar flare angle.

 

1) Could you give examples of your "rarely observed" instances of additional coding genes that add to the genome that add fitness in natural environments. I said rare/never, I would assume that if no-one can give examples in this thread  then "never" is the more appropriate answer until otherwise shown..

 

But even if these processes are observed this makes evolution an evidence based possibility/hypothesis, not necessarily the real explanation of the reality of existing life-forms.

 

2) As for phylogenetic trees, my point was that the actual reality of DNA based phylogenetic trees points to short term radiation of breeds/species, not long-term. The long-term phylogenetic trees are reliant on assumed transitionary fossils and studying their morphology, non of which is conclusive. If you could give me a sequence that you feel is obvious then please present it.

 

3) Please present your ERV argument. My logic is that when similar sequences are found in two diverse species the probability of Intelligent design is higher than the probability of convergent evolution. In addition kindly present your evidence that these beneficial areas of the genome are externally inherited viruses.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....1489/#id2960616

"We demonstrate that both the human and rodent neuronal apoptosis inhibitory protein (NAIP) genes, involved in preventing cell death, use different ERV sequences to drive gene expression. Moreover, in each of the primate and rodent lineages, two separate ERVs contribute to NAIP gene expression. This repeated ERV recruitment by NAIP genes throughout evolution is very unlikely to have occurred by chance. We offer a number of potential explanations, including the intriguing possibility that it may be advantageous for anti-cell death genes like NAIP to use ERVs to control their expression. These results support the view that not all retroviral remnants in our genome are simply junk DNA."


Edited by ARGOSY, 02 February 2014 - 04:19 PM.





Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network