Evidence for evolution - nested hierarchies

[Kem P]

Just a few thoughts. Do theists here accept the basic premise that one doesn't invoke supernatural causation where a natural explanation already exists? Also, re common design vs common descent, is there anyway you could imagine that we could tell the difference between the two? Is there any discovery which would make one more likely than the other, or even a discovery that would rule one of them out?

On this topic, have any creationists read this by Todd Wodd - http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents...lyArVOo%2FgM%3D - he is a trained biochemist giving his view on the data from a creationist point of view.

"Since the Bible clearly teaches the special creation of human beings (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7, 21-22), what does the similarity of humans and chimpanzees mean for creationists? Creationists have responded to these studies in a variety of ways. A very popular argument is that similarity does not necessarily indicate common

ancestry but could also imply common design (e.g. Batten 1996; Thompson and Harrub 2005; DeWitt 2005). While this is true, the mere fact of similarity is only a small part of the evolutionary argument. Far more important than the mere occurrence of similarity is the kind of similarity observed. Similarity is not random. Rather, it forms a detectable pattern with some groups of species more similar than others. As an example consider a 200,000 nucleotide region from human chromosome 1 (Figure 2). When compared to the chimpanzee, the two species differ by as little as 1-2%, but when compared to the mouse, the differences are much greater. Comparison to chicken reveals even greater differences. This is exactly the expected pattern of similarity that would result if humans and chimpanzees shared a recent common ancestor and mice and chickens were more distantly related. The question is not how similarity arose but why this particular pattern of similarity arose. To say that God could have created the pattern is merely ad hoc. The specific similarity we observe between humans and chimpanzees is not therefore evidence merely of their common ancestry but of their close relationship.

Evolutionary biologists also appeal to specific similarities that would be predicted by evolutionary descent. Max’s (1986) argument for shared errors in the human and chimpanzee genomes would be an example of a specific similarity expected if evolution were true. This argument could be significantly amplified from recent findings of genomic studies.

For example, Gilad et al. (2003) surveyed 50 olfactory receptor genes in humans and apes. They found that the open reading frame of 33 of the human genes were interrupted by nonsense codons or deletions, rendering them pseudogenes. Sixteen of these human pseudogenes were also pseudogenes in chimpanzee, and they all shared the exact same substitution or deletion as the human sequence. Eleven of the human pseudogenes were shared by chimpanzee, gorilla, and human and had the exact same substitution or deletion. While common design could be a reasonable first step to explain similarity of functional genes, it is difficult to explain why pseudogenes with the exact same substitutions or deletions would be shared between species that did not share a common ancestor.

Creationists have addressed these more specific arguments in a variety of ways. Batten (1996) makes three arguments: (1) similarity is necessary to reveal a single Creator, since dissimilarity implies multiple creators (also in ReMine 1993, p. 23), (2) biochemical similarity is functionally necessary in order for humans (and other organisms) to obtain food (also in Wise 1992), (3) the anatomical similarity of humans and chimpanzees should imply a molecular similarity as well (also in Wise 1992; Rana 2001; Wieland 2002).

The first two arguments are good reasons to create some degree of biological or biochemical similarity but they do not explain degrees of similarity. If there were no nonhuman primates, humans would still be recognizably mammalian and therefore revealed as part of the design of a single Creator, but humans would also stand out as special mammals not closely similar to any other particular group of mammals. The necessity for a common biochemistry for nutrient cycles does not explain why chimpanzees exist. They neither form a major source of dietary nutrients for most humans nor share a significant fraction of the diet of most humans. Further, common biochemistry would not explain shared pseudogenes. The third argument merely shifts the problem to the anatomical level. The question remains as to why God created an animal that is so similar to humans.

More recently, creationists have begun to argue that the similarity between chimpanzees and humans is less – sometimes much less – than claimed by evolutionary biologists (DeWitt 2003, 2005; Criswell 2005; Thompson and Harrub 2005). These arguments are inspired in part by a study by Britten (2002) that concluded that the overall similarity of human and chimpanzee genomes is 95%. Britten arrived at this greater dissimilarity by including in his calculations not only nucleotide mismatches but also alignment gaps. Creationists also tend to emphasize other important differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes, including the differing chromosome numbers (DeWitt 2003, 2005) and the differences in gene expression in the humans and chimpanzees (Rana 2001).

Differences are certainly important, and there are many differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes, as detailed above. However, emphasizing these differences does not resolve the problem of similarity. Even if the chimpanzee genome were more than 5% or 10% different from the human genome, the differences are still vastly outnumbered by the similarities (at least 9 to 1). The major pattern that requires explanation is the surprising degree of genomic similarity, as King and Wilson (1975) noted thirty years ago. Listing differences between the genomes does not alter the overall pattern. If anything, the differences are more striking because of the overwhelming similarity.

Having found most popular arguments about the human/chimpanzee genome similarity insufficent, I find myself in the unenviable position of devising my own explanation. Since I have none, I will attempt instead to develop some principles that could guide research into this problem."

Is Wood wrong in his assessment of the data? If so, why?

Anyway, it is definitely worth reading what he has to say, whatever you think about this subject.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Kem P

[Kem P]

Is Wood wrong in his assessment of the data? If so, why?

Anyway, it is definitely worth reading what he has to say, whatever you think about this subject

Good read, Kem. Whether Wood is “wrong in his assessment of the data” is unknown but the question that begs – is Batten, Thompson, DeWitt and Criswell wrong in their assessment of the data? They all have the same data. I suspect the interpretation of the data is determined by one’s preconceived worldview. The point remains - nested hierarchies do not constitute scientific proof of common ancestry. Do you make a distinction between historical science (biological evolution) and operations science? What about you Kem - do you believe man and chimp share a common ancestor?

Yes I would say that they are wrong in their assessment of the data. When essentially every trained scientist in the world who has looked at the DNA record has concluded that it overwhelmingly supports common ancestry and the few people who disagree all happen to be theologically committed to a particular reading of a religious text with which common ancestry is apparently incompatible (and have in fact signed statements stating that no amount of evidence can ever be accepted if it contradicts that religious text) then I think it is reasonable to assume that those people have ceased doing science, taking an unbiased, objective look at the evidence and are instead involved in paradigm defence.

You asked for my opinion, and it is that yes all life on earth shares a common ancestry. I do not make a distinction between 'historical science' and 'operations science' as both are based on the requirement that all positive claims be based on testable evidence, and that all models and theories must make predictions upon which they can either be rejected, if the predictions do not fit the data, or they can be confirmed, increasing our confidence that the model or theory reflects some aspect of physical reality. Common ancestry is this case is a theory that makes many predictions and that has been tested by the world's scientific community for 150 years; it is their essentially unanimous verdict that there is now insurmountable support for it and that no competing scientific explanation for biodiversity on the planet exists. Such levels of scientific support simply do not build up around ideas that do not have commensurate evidence.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Kem P

[Kem P]

It is not simply a case of majority opinion, we are talking about essentially every single research scientist working in a relevant field. As I said there are millions of scientists who work with (and continue to build upon) the actual evidence for evolution on a daily basis, and such consensus doesn't build up unless something has support. The difference in comparing now to medieval times, and arguing that all the scientists used to think the world was flat or didn't rotate around the sun, is that in those days there was no real scientific community or scientific enterprise and the few people who were around that might have been considered scientists simply had no real evidence for anything at all. It wasn't that there were a load of scientists all misinterpreting the data, it was simply that there was no data to interpret. Now we do have data for lots and lots of these things, and based on all this data that has been pouring in (and continues to do so on a daily basis) the scientists have concluded some pretty basic points about the natural world; namely that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and all life on earth is related.

[MorningGlory]

It is not simply a case of majority opinion, we are talking about essentially every single research scientist working in a relevant field. As I said there are millions of scientists who work with (and continue to build upon) the actual evidence for evolution on a daily basis, and such consensus doesn't build up unless something has support. The difference in comparing now to medieval times, and arguing that all the scientists used to think the world was flat or didn't rotate around the sun, is that in those days there was no real scientific community or scientific enterprise and the few people who were around that might have been considered scientists simply had no real evidence for anything at all. It wasn't that there were a load of scientists all misinterpreting the data, it was simply that there was no data to interpret. Now we do have data for lots and lots of these things, and based on all this data that has been pouring in (and continues to do so on a daily basis) the scientists have concluded some pretty basic points about the natural world; namely that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and all life on earth is related.

Nope. All life on earth shares a common Creator. Read the Language of DNA.

[Guest]

.... It is not simply a case of majority opinion, we are talking about essentially every single research scientist working in a relevant field. As I said there are millions of scientists who work with (and continue to build upon) the actual evidence for evolution on a daily basis, and such consensus doesn't build up unless something has support....

Look Into Any Lab Or Field And You Will Not See Evolution Or Evolutionary Mathematics Used Where Science Is Done

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Ecclesiastes 3:11

But Many Real Scientists Must Still Cling To Evolution As Their Basic World View

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 44:24

Even Though Evolution Was Never Scientifically See-Able Or Provable

The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

Matthew 11:5-6

The Truth Was Never A Perquisite For Their Beliefs

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 14:9

And Evolution Will Not Stand As An Excuse

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

John 5:28-29

For Their Rejection Of The LORD

And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

I receive not honour from men.

But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

John 5:40-42

>>>>>()<<<<<

....Now we do have data for lots and lots of these things, and based on all this data that has been pouring in (and continues to do so on a daily basis) the scientists have concluded some pretty basic points about the natural world; namely that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion years old....

What Utter Unscientific Speculative Nonsense From Sinner's Who Can't Even Measure The Universe

Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

Psalms 82:4-5

Nor Will They Ever See The New Creation

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Isaiah 65:17

Unless They See Jesus

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 6:47

And Believe

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

Jeremiah 15:16

The Basic

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

John 3:36(a)

Point

and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:36(b)

>>>>>()<<<<<

....and all life on earth is related....

Yes! There Is But One Master Designer. And, His Name Is The LORD Jesus Christ

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Revelation 4:11

And All Life Is Related But Not All Life Has Relationships

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Genesis 1:9-13

These Are Story Tellers Lurking In School Halls

Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Titus 1:15

Why Must You Believe This Fiction

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4

And Preach These Fables

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Romans 1:9

>>>>>()<<<<<

Believe

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

John 11:25

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:17-18

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

John 3:19-20

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

John 3:21

[Kem P]

Nope. All life on earth shares a common Creator. Read the Language of DNA.

Common design is not a scientific explanation for the very simple reason that it (at least in the way it is used on here) is completely unfalsifiable. If you can provide me with some potential falsifications of common design I would be very interested to see them. If however you want potential falsifications of common descent I would be only to happy to provide them. We simply have no idea at all of what common design might look like.

I recently came across this online discussion about the Bible and science - http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009...olution-debate/ . A little way into the discussion a Christian biologist joined in to make the case for evolution. He used the following analogy

"Have you ever read Prince Caspian by C.S. Lewis? If you recall, the Pevensie children have come back to Narnia some thousands of years since their last visit, and unbeknownst to them, they are in the ruins of Cair Paravel. Slowly, it begins to dawn on them where they are, despite the obvious differences (most obviously, the castle is in ruins and they are on an island). Once they hit on the hypothesis, though, there are many ways to test the idea. The test, of course, is seeing if everything they recall is present, even if modified; and more to the point, they realize everything is not only present, but in the same spatial orientation as they recall (the most striking example being their discovery of the royal treasure chamber).

This analogy is useful, because we see very similar themes when we compare genome sequences to each other (for example, human and chimpanzee genomes). Not only are the same sequences present, but they are present with the same genes in the same order (for thousands upon thousands of genes). Now, there are some differences, but they are slight and well within the reach of normal processes that shuffle chromosomal material into different orders over time.

The human and chimpanzee genomes are very similar one to another: there are about 3 billion DNA letters

Edited September 7, 2009 by Kem P

[Kem P]

Horizoneast, every scientist on the planet could sign that statement. Of course all scientists should be skeptical about every claim, and we should certainly analyze the evidence for everything. But no scientist is actually saying that natural selection and random mutation account for everything we observe in the biological world, modern evolutionary theory incorporates all kinds of other processes, so that statement is a strawman. In fact an awful lot of the people who signed it had no idea what they were signing and wouldn't have signed it if they had known how it was going to be misused - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...29_danny24.html .

The important point is that when the scientists who signed that statement are actually asked whether they accept common descent essentially all of them do (there is a video on youtube where someone did this, it is called 'List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?'). People have actually contacted them and the general response is something like "oh I have no problem with evolution per se, I am just not certain about the role played by natural selection in the process."

It's also worth noting that an awful lot of signees to that list are not scientists, they might have PhDs but simply having a PhD does not make a person a scientist. They are not conducting scientific research anywhere and presenting it to the rest of the community.

When you actually look at research scientists (people who are paid to get the science right and are not just concerned about apologetics) the percentage of people who reject common descent is far lower than the number of historians who deny the Holocaust ever happened.

Check out Project Steve - http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve - 1106 signees and counting.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Kem P

[MorningGlory]

Nope. All life on earth shares a common Creator. Read the Language of DNA.

Common design is not a scientific explanation for the very simple reason that it (at least in the way it is used on here) is completely unfalsifiable. If you can provide me with some potential falsifications of common design I would be very interested to see them. If however you want potential falsifications of common descent I would be only to happy to provide them. We simply have no idea at all of what common design might look like.

I'm not a biologist, I'm an engineer; I deal with making parts work together as a whole. I have, however, read a lot about the requirements for the spontaneous origin of life on planet earth and find that to be impossible. I realize that it's important for nonbelievers to explain everything living today by assigning the origins of life to chance. This is to remove God from the equation and has it's own origin in the plan of the original deceiver. The probability of life arising from nothing is statistically zero. DNA is a basic 'language' that can be used to write an infinite number of differing combinations depending on the requirements of the designer. God, in His infinite wisdom, designed a pattern that can be used to create any life form so, int that respect, everything living shares a common base. Here's a very good article that explains this simple concept.

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/origin.html

[Kem P]

Kem P

Nope. All life on earth shares a common Creator. Read the Language of DNA.

Common design is not a scientific explanation for the very simple reason that it (at least in the way it is used on here) is completely unfalsifiable. If you can provide me with some potential falsifications of common design I would be very interested to see them. If however you want potential falsifications of common descent I would be only to happy to provide them. We simply have no idea at all of what common design might look like.

And the hypothesis of evolution is falsifiable? Oh please do tell me what test I might conduct that could falsify common descent and please do it without using assumptions and predictions inferred from the hypothesis.

Further, I hate to be redundant but, are you any of you evolutionists ever going to answer my questions? Here are just three of them.

1. Can the hypothesis of evolution be verified, proven true?

2. Can the hypothesis of evolution be verified by positive induction?

3. Can the hypothesis of evolution be verified by falsifying the only alternative?

No theory in science is ever 'proven true'; cell theory, atomic theory, the theory of evolution are all scientific explanations for natural phenomena but none of them is proven and none ever will be. Proof does not exist in science.

However if you want potential falsifications of common descent try these;

- Find an apparent transitional fossil that contradicts the established phylogeny; mammal-bird, fish-reptile, amphibian-mammal, any of those would do

- Similarly find a true chimera; i.e. Kirk Cameron's crocoduck or bullfrog

- Some out of place fossils; pre Cambrian amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird etc

- Find an organism that has an entirely different genetic code

- Find a non-bird that has the genes for producing feathers

- Find a non-mammal that has nipples, develops nipples during its embryological development, or has the genes for making nipples

- A fossil record that shows everything that has ever lived together in the same rock layers all over the earth

- A mechanism for preventing accumulation of genetic mutations

- Discover that the genome of a reptile/amphibian/fish/plant etc that is closer to that of a human than the chimp's is

- Find a mechanism that prevents speciation

- Find a gene in an organism that doesn't display evidence of an evolutionary history, one it is unambiguously designed (see youtube video 'Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover' by C0nc0rdance)

- Find a highly conserved gene, such as cytochrome c, that is identical between supposedly between distantly related organisms

- Find, for something such as cytochrome c, that all organisms either all have exactly the same sequence, or their own unique one.

There are some to be getting on with.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Kem P

[Kem P]

Can the hypothesis of evolution be verified, proven true?

Theories can be verified in the sense that they can make predictions which are borne out by physical data. However, no theory, no matter how many times it is confirmed through testing will ever be 'proven true'. The simple reason for this is that scientific theories are always looking to be improved as more becomes known, and any that appear to be correct at a certain time could require future alteration or could ultimately be shown to be wrong by contradictory data.

Can the hypothesis of evolution be verified by positive induction?

No, scientific theories stand or fall by the data that they attempt to explain and nothing else.

Can the hypothesis of evolution be verified by falsifying the only alternative?

No, this is simply a false dichotomy. Each individual theory must be measured against the evidence, falsifying an alternative explanation only means that explanation is wrong, it does not mean something else gets to win by default. With regard to evolution, it is logically possible that there might be some alternative explanation for nested hierarchies, pseudogenes, ERVs, biogeographical distribution, independent convergent phylogenies, comparative anatomy, atavisms, embryological and development pathways for organisms, transitional fossils, observed speciation events, and other things, but so far the scientific community thinks that universal common descent is the best explanation. Until someone provides a better explanation which explains all this and some potential new discoveries that evolution doesn't it is 'the only game in town'. Likewise for atomic theory, perhaps there is some unknown phenomena that is causing us to mistakenly attribute certain aspects of the natural world to the existence of atoms, but so far it's the best we have.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Kem P