Evidence for Evolution

[HumbleThinker]

Ok let's get the party started. Since I am assuming you will disagree with this, I would first like to know what, if any, part of the presentation you do not understand. Then, if you understand it all, I would like to know why you think it is not evidence for evolution. Note that I am not asking you accept common descent, but simply interact with what the scientific community puts forward as evidence of common descent. Whether you accept it or not, it is your responsibility as a Christian to accurately represent all things at all times. So if you think the broken GULOP psuedogene is not evidence for common descent, then it is up to you to demonstrate why. If you accept that it is evidence (even if not convincing evidence), or if you cannot demonstrate that it is not evidence for common descent, then you are obligated to state that common descent has evidence for itself even if you do not accept the idea of common descent ala a Todd Wood. So here is the repost:

It would help if you were more specific about what doesn't make sense like you are below. Just declaring that the whole thing doesn't make sense without being able to point out what lends one to think that you are not qualified to hold an opinion on the matter and/or it not making sense is an emotional response instead of an intellectual one.

I will give a brief explanation below, but would very much appreciate it if you watched at least a few minutes of this video starting at 3:20, for it gives a much better answer to your second question than I will below.

<<< removed youtube link please submit all videos for approval in the appropriate forum.  Videos >>>

Essentially, scientists have compared many sections, base for base, of the broken gene between many primate species, including human, and a species of rat that has a fully functional GULOP gene, which most species of rat do have. When compared, the shared and unique mutations perfectly create a nested hierarchy that is consistent with evolutionary predictions. In other words, the closest related species (ie. humans and chimps) have the most shared mutations and the least unique mutations, while the more distant species (ie. humans and macaque) share fewer mutations and have more unique mutations between them. And the entire primate lineage shares 19 individual mutations.

That each primate would independently get these 19 mutations when given the myriad number of unique mutations that could have occurred is statistically impossible (aka astronomically unlikely). Hopefully between this and the video, some of your confusion will be cleared up. Please keep seeking understanding.

Edited December 16, 2013 by GoldenEagle
<<< removed youtube link please submit all videos for approval in the appropriate forum. >>>

[KC02]

Ok let's get the party started. Since I am assuming you will disagree with this, I would first like to know what, if any, part of the presentation you do not understand. Then, if you understand it all, I would like to know why you think it is not evidence for evolution. Note that I am not asking you accept common descent, but simply interact with what the scientific community puts forward as evidence of common descent. Whether you accept it or not, it is your responsibility as a Christian to accurately represent all things at all times. So if you think the broken GULOP psuedogene is not evidence for common descent, then it is up to you to demonstrate why. If you accept that it is evidence (even if not convincing evidence), or if you cannot demonstrate that it is not evidence for common descent, then you are obligated to state that common descent has evidence for itself even if you do not accept the idea of common descent ala a Todd Wood. So here is the repost:

It would help if you were more specific about what doesn't make sense like you are below. Just declaring that the whole thing doesn't make sense without being able to point out what lends one to think that you are not qualified to hold an opinion on the matter and/or it not making sense is an emotional response instead of an intellectual one.

I will give a brief explanation below, but would very much appreciate it if you watched at least a few minutes of this video starting at 3:20, for it gives a much better answer to your second question than I will below.

 

Doesn't seem like you can embed videos in this site, so here is the link to the video: http://youtu.be/IosyEXMz6d8?t=3m20s

Essentially, scientists have compared many sections, base for base, of the broken gene between many primate species, including human, and a species of rat that has a fully functional GULOP gene, which most species of rat do have. When compared, the shared and unique mutations perfectly create a nested hierarchy that is consistent with evolutionary predictions. In other words, the closest related species (ie. humans and chimps) have the most shared mutations and the least unique mutations, while the more distant species (ie. humans and macaque) share fewer mutations and have more unique mutations between them. And the entire primate lineage shares 19 individual mutations.

That each primate would independently get these 19 mutations when given the myriad number of unique mutations that could have occurred is statistically impossible (aka astronomically unlikely). Hopefully between this and the video, some of your confusion will be cleared up. Please keep seeking understanding.

 

 

The Genesis account, on its face, completely contradicts the theory of evolution. A Christian can't believe both without compromising one or the other.

You are asking us to refute some “statically significant” pattern in the genome that you claim disproves the existence of an intelligent designer. Your thesis is predicated upon the existence of junk DNA. We are finding all the time uses for the “junk.” I’m certain this trend will continue as we learn more about the genome.

 

Cut to the chase. Tell us this, which of those skulls were Lucy’s and which is the Piltdown man’s? Sometimes I can’t tell them apart. If evolution was correct, we would expect many clear transitionary fossils. I’ve never seen one which wasn’t dubious.

 

As a Christian I have a lot of faith, but not nearly enough to buy into evolution.

[Guest man]

The Genesis account, on its face, completely contradicts the theory of evolution. A Christian can't believe both without compromising one or the other.

You are asking us to refute some “statically significant” pattern in the genome that you claim disproves the existence of an intelligent designer. Your thesis is predicated upon the existence of junk DNA. We are finding all the time uses for the “junk.” I’m certain this trend will continue as we learn more about the genome.

 

Cut to the chase. Tell us this, which of those skulls were Lucy’s and which is the Piltdown man’s? Sometimes I can’t tell them apart. If evolution was correct, we would expect many clear transitionary fossils. I’ve never seen one which wasn’t dubious.

 

As a Christian I have a lot of faith, but not nearly enough to buy into evolution.

 

 

 

That's the point I always make when discussing evolution. No one's ever been able to answer that question. I've gotten a lot of excuses, but never an answer.

 

 

Good post. 

[Guest man]

That each primate would independently get these 19 mutations when given the myriad number of unique mutations that could have occurred is statistically impossible (aka astronomically unlikely). Hopefully between this and the video, some of your confusion will be cleared up. Please keep seeking understanding.

 

 

How astronomically likely is it that all life as we know it, started out as a single cell entity? What are the odds of that happening?

[Guest Butero]

 

The Genesis account, on its face, completely contradicts the theory of evolution. A Christian can't believe both without compromising one or the other.

You are asking us to refute some “statically significant” pattern in the genome that you claim disproves the existence of an intelligent designer. Your thesis is predicated upon the existence of junk DNA. We are finding all the time uses for the “junk.” I’m certain this trend will continue as we learn more about the genome.

 

Cut to the chase. Tell us this, which of those skulls were Lucy’s and which is the Piltdown man’s? Sometimes I can’t tell them apart. If evolution was correct, we would expect many clear transitionary fossils. I’ve never seen one which wasn’t dubious.

 

As a Christian I have a lot of faith, but not nearly enough to buy into evolution.

 

 

 

That's the point I always make when discussing evolution. No one's ever been able to answer that question. I've gotten a lot of excuses, but never an answer.

 

 

Good post. 

 

I agree with both of you.  I am not saying there is no evidence being presented for evolution or that I can't understand the evidence.  I am saying that the evidence is extremely weak.  Showing similiarities in DNA is hardly convincing evidence for evolution.  I would say that even if I completely leave the Bible out of it.  I would find it more likely that when the "big bang" occured, it randomly led to everything coming about as is.  Since everything came from the same original source, there would be similarities in DNA.  Since I do believe the Bible, I believe God created everything as is, and since it all came from the same original source, there are similiarities in DNA. 

[HumbleThinker]

Ok let's get the party started. Since I am assuming you will disagree with this, I would first like to know what, if any, part of the presentation you do not understand. Then, if you understand it all, I would like to know why you think it is not evidence for evolution. Note that I am not asking you accept common descent, but simply interact with what the scientific community puts forward as evidence of common descent. Whether you accept it or not, it is your responsibility as a Christian to accurately represent all things at all times. So if you think the broken GULOP psuedogene is not evidence for common descent, then it is up to you to demonstrate why. If you accept that it is evidence (even if not convincing evidence), or if you cannot demonstrate that it is not evidence for common descent, then you are obligated to state that common descent has evidence for itself even if you do not accept the idea of common descent ala a Todd Wood. So here is the repost:

It would help if you were more specific about what doesn't make sense like you are below. Just declaring that the whole thing doesn't make sense without being able to point out what lends one to think that you are not qualified to hold an opinion on the matter and/or it not making sense is an emotional response instead of an intellectual one.

I will give a brief explanation below, but would very much appreciate it if you watched at least a few minutes of this video starting at 3:20, for it gives a much better answer to your second question than I will below.

 

Doesn't seem like you can embed videos in this site, so here is the link to the video: http://youtu.be/IosyEXMz6d8?t=3m20s

Essentially, scientists have compared many sections, base for base, of the broken gene between many primate species, including human, and a species of rat that has a fully functional GULOP gene, which most species of rat do have. When compared, the shared and unique mutations perfectly create a nested hierarchy that is consistent with evolutionary predictions. In other words, the closest related species (ie. humans and chimps) have the most shared mutations and the least unique mutations, while the more distant species (ie. humans and macaque) share fewer mutations and have more unique mutations between them. And the entire primate lineage shares 19 individual mutations.

That each primate would independently get these 19 mutations when given the myriad number of unique mutations that could have occurred is statistically impossible (aka astronomically unlikely). Hopefully between this and the video, some of your confusion will be cleared up. Please keep seeking understanding.

 

 You are asking us to refute some “statically significant” pattern in the genome that you claim disproves the existence of an intelligent designer.

Neither what I'm claiming or asking actually. What I'm asking is for people to be accurate about the evidence for evolution whether they accept it or not. There are Christians who both accept Genesis as a literal historical account, and are thus creationists, that still correctly point out the strong scientific validity of and evidence for evolution. What I am claiming in my specific example is that the nested hierarchical pattern of mutations in the broken GULOP genes strongly support the idea of common descent. If you wish to take that to the next step and compare how well this phenomenon supports common descent vs. common design, common descent is the more evidenced and parsimonious of the two and is the only of the two that is a natural claim. Intelligent design (we all know who the Intelligent Designer is) is a supernatural claim that falls outside the bounds of science and thus science cannot comment on it one way or the other. That phenomenon X can be explained entirely through natural processes does not rule out a supernatural being whose non-miraculous actions are indistinguishable from a natural process by human senses, which is all science can actually address.

Your thesis is predicated upon the existence of junk DNA. We are finding all the time uses for the “junk.” I’m certain this trend will continue as we learn more about the genome.

 

Cut to the chase. Tell us this, which of those skulls were Lucy’s and which is the Piltdown man’s? Sometimes I can’t tell them apart. If evolution was correct, we would expect many clear transitionary fossils. I’ve never seen one which wasn’t dubious.

 

As a Christian I have a lot of faith, but not nearly enough to buy into evolution.

Junk DNA actually is not necessary in this discussion. We know what a functional GULOP gene looks like; we know that our GULOP gene and the GULOP gene in other species is non-functional; we can see mutations in large parts of the GULOP gene compared to rats and can narrow down which mutations likely caused the break; we can see a pattern of similarities and differences in the mutations in our GULOP gene and that of other species with broken GULOP genes that, and this is the important part, aligns with predictions made by the ToE about our genetic relatedness to the various species. The patterns exist and thus must be explained, and evolution not only explains but predicts these patterns whereas intelligent design does neither. Or if you wish to think it explains these with a vague notions of common design principles or whatever, evolution explains it more parsimoniously and actually predicts it whereas intelligent design makes no specific predictions whatsoever. This is what is under discussion, so addressing these aspects is how to move the discussion forward.

[KC02]

 

Junk DNA actually is not necessary in this discussion. We know what a functional GULOP gene looks like; we know that our GULOP gene and the GULOP gene in other species is non-functional; we can see mutations in large parts of the GULOP gene compared to rats and can narrow down which mutations likely caused the break; we can see a pattern of similarities and differences in the mutations in our GULOP gene and that of other species with broken GULOP genes that, and this is the important part, aligns with predictions made by the ToE about our genetic relatedness to the various species. The patterns exist and thus must be explained, and evolution not only explains but predicts these patterns whereas intelligent design does neither. Or if you wish to think it explains these with a vague notions of common design principles or whatever, evolution explains it more parsimoniously and actually predicts it whereas intelligent design makes no specific predictions whatsoever. This is what is under discussion, so addressing these aspects is how to move the discussion forward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your theory is still predicated upon impossible scenarios. For example we know that enough time has not passed for an ape to evolve into a human. See http://www.uncommondescent.com/news/is-there-enough-time-for-humans-to-have-evolved-from-apes-dr-ann-gauger-answers/

 

Therefore, your thesis appears moot.

 

Evolutionists have a lot to explain. I have nothing to explain except that God made everything in 6 days. Overall, it explains our origins better than your religion, evolution. It’s very interesting that you are asking us to be “truthful.” We have given you the truth and you reject it. And you are very wrong to say that a Christian can believe in a literal Genesis and hold that evolution is also correct or compatible.

 

I’m not an expert in DNA; however, I am sure you can find all sorts of common similarities in the genome of humans and plants/animals. I am surprised at how similar we are to bananas. Even so, I don’t believe that I am a descendant of a piece of fruit. It’s like the “Bible code.” You can find whatever you want with enough data and the right algorithm. As for me, I am going to believe in the Bible. If Genesis 1 isn’t correct, then why should I believe anything else about the Bible?

[HumbleThinker]

Your theory is still predicated upon impossible scenarios. For example we know that enough time has not passed for an ape to evolve into a human. See http://www.uncommondescent.com/news/is-there-enough-time-for-humans-to-have-evolved-from-apes-dr-ann-gauger-answers/

 

Therefore, your thesis appears moot.

 

Evolutionists have a lot to explain. I have nothing to explain except that God made everything in 6 days. Overall, it explains our origins better than your religion, evolution. It’s very interesting that you are asking us to be “truthful.” We have given you the truth and you reject it. And you are very wrong to say that a Christian can believe in a literal Genesis and hold that evolution is also correct or compatible.

 

I’m not an expert in DNA; however, I am sure you can find all sorts of common similarities in the genome of humans and plants/animals. I am surprised at how similar we are to bananas. Even so, I don’t believe that I am a descendant of a piece of fruit. It’s like the “Bible code.” You can find whatever you want with enough data and the right algorithm. As for me, I am going to believe in the Bible. If Genesis 1 isn’t correct, then why should I believe anything else about the Bible?

We don't know any such thing. Have a credible scientific paper to back this up instead of just a creationist site's opinion? Since we are talking about science, personal opinions of others, particularly non-scientists or scientists in irrelevant fields to evolution who thus have no expertise to make such a proclamation is not relevant. Also, we should actually speak of the subject at hand before trying to address other topics, for your reference still does not address the phenomenon of the nested hierarchy in the mutations in the GULOP gene. Vague notions of "common similarities" drastically oversimplifies the phenomenon, so just addressing this vaguery does not actually address the nested hierarchy in the mutations of the GULOP gene.

So what about this issue would you like explained in more detail because it seems that you have nothing but an oversimplified understanding of it.

[KC02]

If we take all opinion out of the discussion then all we are left with is the Bible, which claims that God created all things in 6 days.

 

You discount the Bible. You discount real scientists who can clearly show that humans could not have possibly have evolved from apes. Tell me again why you would like MY opinion on the GULOP gene?

 

You ignore simple math (ie given a gene mutation rate we can easily calculate how long it would take for an ape to evolve into a human) and concentrate on some obscure gulop gene to prove evolution to be correct. My conclusion is that evolutionists are getting pretty desperate to further their religion.

[HumbleThinker]

If we take all opinion out of the discussion then all we are left with is the Bible, which claims that God created all things in 6 days.

No, we are left with the Bible AND Creation. Why do you disqualify a work of God? You also seem to be implying that your opinion of the Bible is magically more authoritative than than another's opinion of Creation. Why is this so?

 

You discount the Bible. You discount real scientists who can clearly show that humans could not have possibly have evolved from apes. Tell me again why you would like MY opinion on the GULOP gene?

I cannot disappoint paper and ink. I cannot disappoint people I've never met. And the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields accept evolution, so even if I was going to care, I would certainly care about the larger group. I would like your opinion because I seek discussion and I want fellow Christians to be accurate whether they deny evolution or not. If they are going to deny evolution, they should at least be as honest as Todd Wood:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)"

 

You ignore simple math (ie given a gene mutation rate we can easily calculate how long it would take for an ape to evolve into a human) and concentrate on some obscure gulop gene to prove evolution to be correct. My conclusion is that evolutionists are getting pretty desperate to further their religion.

And you've ignored addressing the phenomenon at hand. Again, which parts would you like explained so that you are equipped to actually discuss it and rebuke it if you can instead of using false and/or oversimplified arguments against it that don't reflect the reality of evolution? If all you can present is strawmen, your argument has failed before it has even begun. If you are not arguing against the thing you claim to be arguing against, but instead are arguing against strawmen of it, then you are just boxing the air and look foolish. As Proverbs 18:2 says, "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." So take pleasure in understanding that which you wish to destroy, instead of just giving your uninformed opinion on it that you are just borrowing from someone else's uninformed opinion. Actually know what scientists say about evolution so that if you still wish to argue against them, you will actually be doing so.