1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    23 Jun '15 14:081 edit
    Originally posted by josephw
    You may find them, but how would you know that those patterns would mean "common ancestry"?

    How do you know those patterns wouldn't also show up in the DNA of fish or worms or any other creature?
    It is the commonality of the genes that say how close we are related. If we look at the genes for a yeast cell, there will still be a number of identical genes but not like Chimp V Man, like 96% identical, more like maybe 10% similar. So if you go up the totem pole of life and look at say a lizard DNA V Man, you might find 50% same (just picking #'s out of a hat)

    A bit of gargling shows yeast having about 20% of the genes of humans and chickens having about 65% of human genes and Bonobos and Chimps clock in at about 95 odd% of human genes. They talk about life forms like onions having 5 times as many genes as humans but the coding portion being only twice as large so it is difficult to compare the two.
  2. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    23 Jun '15 15:01
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I am not saying (at this stage of the thread) that the pattern would definitively prove common ancestry. I am merely saying that there is a very specific pattern we would expect to find if we are related and would not expect to find if we are not related. You do not need to understand the details to answer the question. Can you give a straight answer?
    " I am merely saying that there is a very specific pattern we would expect to find if we are related and would not expect to find if we are not related."

    As you say, pattern similarities do not prove common ancestry. But then what do you mean by "related"? Usually it does mean at least one common ancestor. Is "related" just shorthand for meeting some % threshold of similarity in specific patterns? Or does it become a matter of degree of relatedness with no implications for common ancestry? So God made us and chimps directly and separately from dust (and in our case half from a rib), to have more similar DNA than he made us and turnips to have. Does the Bible deny this?
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    23 Jun '15 15:161 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It is the commonality of the genes that say how close we are related. If we look at the genes for a yeast cell, there will still be a number of identical genes but not like Chimp V Man, like 96% identical, more like maybe 10% similar. So if you go up the totem pole of life and look at say a lizard DNA V Man, you might find 50% same (just picking #'s out of ...[text shortened]... s humans but the coding portion being only twice as large so it is difficult to compare the two.
    Googling on

    calculation of genetic relatedness

    will yield links to several scholarly articles and abstracts.

    Edit: Note that some calculations of relatedness depend on examination of ancestry relationships, and thus instead of examination of DNA, do not only assume, but depend on information on common ancestry, which TW specifically excludes at this point in the discussion.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    24 Jun '15 04:39
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It is the commonality of the genes that say how close we are related. If we look at the genes for a yeast cell, there will still be a number of identical genes but not like Chimp V Man, like 96% identical, more like maybe 10% similar. So if you go up the totem pole of life and look at say a lizard DNA V Man, you might find 50% same (just picking #'s out of ...[text shortened]... s humans but the coding portion being only twice as large so it is difficult to compare the two.
    DNA can show how closely people are related. However, it does not show that one person evolved from another person. DNA may show one person is an ancestor of another person, but that is far different from claiming one person evolved from another person. How can you not see that?

    It is clear from the Holy Bible that God made man and the different kinds of animals. One kind did not evolve from another, because each kind reproduces after their own kind. None of them evolve into another kind. No scientist has ever been able to disprove this.
    Therefore, the theory of evolution is not science, because it has never been observed to happen.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Jun '15 07:07
    Originally posted by JS357
    As you say, pattern similarities do not prove common ancestry. But then what do you mean by "related"?
    By 'related' I do mean 'common ancestry'. I am saying that although certain patterns do not prove common ancestry, they would only be expected if we have common ancestry. So my question to those who do not believe in common ancestry, is what do they expect to find?
  6. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    24 Jun '15 17:55
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    By 'related' I do mean 'common ancestry'. I am saying that although certain patterns do not prove common ancestry, they would only be expected if we have common ancestry. So my question to those who do not believe in common ancestry, is what do they expect to find?
    " I am saying that although certain patterns do not prove common ancestry, they would only be expected if we have common ancestry."

    I have to play devil's advocate.

    I suggest they would expect to find monkeys and man having certain patterns in common and yeast and man not having those certain patterns in common if God intended and made it to be so when creating life of all kinds. And finding it to be so, they'd see that as evidence that God did intend it to be so. They might agree that genes are why monkeys beget monkeys and man begets man, but that is how God preserves kinds, at least the ones not yet extinct due to the Flood etc..

    And no, not all Christians think this way. Only True Christians. 🙂
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    24 Jun '15 19:462 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    By 'related' I do mean 'common ancestry'. I am saying that although certain patterns do not prove common ancestry, they would only be expected if we have common ancestry. So my question to those who do not believe in common ancestry, is what do they expect to find?
    Since we believe God made all kinds of animals and plants, we would expect to find similar DNA patterns in all kinds of plants and animals. However, we would also expect DNA patterns that show some major differences in all kinds, so one can not identify one kind as being the ancestor of another kind. By "kind" I don't mean "species" as in scientifice nomenclature, but more like the "family" classification. However, I don't accept that apes are in the same family as man.
  8. The Ghost Chamber
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    28595
    24 Jun '15 19:50
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Since we believe God made all kinds of animals and plants, we would expect to find similar DNA patterns in all kinds of plants and animals. However, we would also expect DNA patterns that show some major differences in all kinds, so one can not identify one kind as being the ancestor of another kind. By "kind" I don't mean "species" as in scientifice nomenclature, but the "family" classification.
    That said, we evolved from apes right?
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    24 Jun '15 19:54
    Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
    That said, we evolved from apes right?
    No. I had just edited my previous post because I figured someone would claim that. I was right again. 😏
  10. The Ghost Chamber
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    28595
    24 Jun '15 19:56
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No. I had just edited my previous post because I figured someone would claim that. I was right again. 😏
    You mean you've been right before?

    😲
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Jun '15 20:001 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    I have to play devil's advocate.

    I suggest they would expect to find monkeys and man having certain patterns in common
    I am not talking about having just any patterns in common. That, I can understand. I am talking about certain patterns that we would only expect if we had common ancestry.

    I am also not saying such patterns exist. I am just asking whether we should expect to find them or not.
    I am guessing that creationists are too scared of traps to give an honest answer.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    24 Jun '15 20:18
    Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
    You mean you've been right before?

    😲
    Of course, many times. 😏
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    25 Jun '15 23:45
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    DNA can show how closely people are related. However, it does not show that one person evolved from another person. DNA may show one person is an ancestor of another person, but that is far different from claiming one person evolved from another person. How can you not see that?

    It is clear from the Holy Bible that God made man and the different kinds ...[text shortened]... Therefore, the theory of evolution is not science, because it has never been observed to happen.
    It has been shown to happen but you just move the goalpost and call it 'adaptation', as if that was supposed to win an argument.
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    26 Jun '15 06:311 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It has been shown to happen but you just move the goalpost and call it 'adaptation', as if that was supposed to win an argument.
    Woodpecker Defies Evolution

    Woodpeckers are so uniquely designed for their specific tasks that their amazing features defy evolutionary thinking! Learn about their one-of-a-kind tongue and shock absorbent skulls!

    YouTube

    How could a woodpecker evolve?
    It must have been created.


    Timelapse of a Pileated Woodpecker creating a cavity

    YouTube
  15. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    26 Jun '15 15:101 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Woodpecker Defies Evolution

    Woodpeckers are so uniquely designed for their specific tasks that their amazing features defy evolutionary thinking! Learn about their one-of-a-kind tongue and shock absorbent skulls!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KqxqGERH5g

    How could a woodpecker evolve?
    It must have been created.


    Timelapse of a Pileated Woodpecker creating a cavity

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPiCAPibtr4
    "The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience."

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree