1. Standard memberDaemon Sin
    I'm A Mighty Pirateโ„ข
    PaTROLLING the forum
    Joined
    01 Dec '04
    Moves
    36332
    30 May '05 09:08
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Nickybutt: "Why can't humans produce Vitamin C? ..... The Theory of Evolution explain why this is, but what is the Creationist's answer to this?"


    God was planning to create oranges.
    After what the G-man did with apples in the garden of Eden, I'm not sure him branching out into oranges would be such a good idea ๐Ÿ˜‰
  2. Copenhagen
    Joined
    31 May '04
    Moves
    7001
    30 May '05 11:22
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I'd be very interested to hear how evolution explains this.
    Humans and chimpanzees share a lot of genes and pseudogenes, even down to nucleic acid sequence level. This in a strong indication that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. If you take a look at human's and chimpanzees' steroid 21-hydroxylase gene, you'll see that we have an untranslated and a functional pseudogene, and chimpanzees have the exact same one. And they have the exact same deletion, the same eight base pairs have been taken out of that gene in chimpanzees and humans. We also share the same endogenous retroviruses. You can deceive yourself into believing that God was able to dupe us into thinking that he made these similar sequences, but there’s no reason why we would have the same endogenous retroviruses as chimps.

    For further reading please follow the link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

    Now please state how Creatinism explains how we share the same gene sequence.
  3. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    30 May '05 12:02
    Originally posted by nickybutt
    Humans and chimpanzees share a lot of genes and pseudogenes, even down to nucleic acid sequence level. This in a strong indication that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. If you take a look at human's and chimpanzees' steroid 21-hydroxylase gene, you'll see that we have an untranslated and a functional pseudogene, and chimpanzees have the e ...[text shortened]... c/section4.html

    Now please state how Creatinism explains how we share the same gene sequence.
    The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

    Similarity ('homology'๐Ÿ˜‰ is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen 'beetle' car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'๐Ÿ˜‰. Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

    If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:20).

    If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!

    We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

    Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.

    What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced..
    Where did the "97% similarity" come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the 'melting' curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

    Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data 'on faith'. Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

    What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size [6]. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].

    7. Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

    There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
    There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

    These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.

    The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

    For further reading please read:
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html
  4. Joined
    31 Dec '02
    Moves
    41956
    30 May '05 12:04
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The ...[text shortened]... claim!

    For further reading please read:
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html
    ....and if you were to summerise the above in one word.. what would it be?
  5. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    30 May '05 12:091 edit
    Originally posted by Peachy
    ....and if you were to summerise the above in one word.. what would it be?
    ...gene similarities between humans and chimps point towards a common designer...

    EDIT: ooops, that was as close to one word as I could get๐Ÿ˜‰
  6. Copenhagen
    Joined
    31 May '04
    Moves
    7001
    30 May '05 12:17
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The ...[text shortened]... claim!

    For further reading please read:
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html
    You are not anwering my question. I'm not talking about a general 97% similarity but of an EXACT similarity between human and chimpanzee steroid 21-hydroxylase gene. The likelihood of something like this appearing randomly is 10 in the minus 97th degree. That means that it is would be completely unrealistic unless both types of animals shared the same ancestor. This ancestor evolved this kind of gene sequence and afterwards humans and chimpanzees evolved from that kind.
    Now, are you saying that God simply copied a lot of the human genome fra Chompanzees?
  7. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    30 May '05 12:27
    Originally posted by nickybutt
    You are not anwering my question. I'm not talking about a general 97% similarity but of an EXACT similarity between human and chimpanzee steroid 21-hydroxylase gene. The likelihood of something like this appearing randomly is 10 in the minus 97th degree. That means that it is would be completely unrealistic unless both types of animals shared the same anc ...[text shortened]... at kind.
    Now, are you saying that God simply copied a lot of the human genome fra Chompanzees?
    Would it suprise you if a Porsche and a Volkswagen used exactly the same spark plugs?
  8. Copenhagen
    Joined
    31 May '04
    Moves
    7001
    30 May '05 12:33
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Would it suprise you if a Porsche and a Volkswagen used exactly the same spark plugs?
    Just answer the question, did God copy humans from chimpanzees?
  9. Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    12095
    30 May '05 13:25
    Originally posted by nickybutt
    Just answer the question, did God copy humans from chimpanzees?
    My answer would be the same if I were to be asked, "Do Volkswagen and Porsche have a common designer?" You know the answer...
  10. Copenhagen
    Joined
    31 May '04
    Moves
    7001
    30 May '05 13:391 edit
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    My answer would be the same if I were to be asked, "Do Volkswagen and Porsche have a common designer?" You know the answer...
    OK, I take this as you believing that God copied humans from chimps.

    Edit: mispelled God
  11. Joined
    09 Mar '05
    Moves
    333
    30 May '05 14:43
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story.

    The different values depend on what is being compared. Some studies compare every single base, others compare whole genes. Yet more studies could compare other things such as mitochondrial DNA. There is no single way of comparing two species DNA.

    Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen 'beetle' car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'๐Ÿ˜‰.

    Shared similarity between two species is not the main reason for suspecting they share a common ancestor. A better basis is shared errors between two species. If a book in China and a book in Europe have the same spelling mistakes on pages 24, 37 and 62 then we would predict they were copied from the same original copy which had those mistakes in. The chances of those mistakes occuring in the same places independantly is beyond reasonable chance.

    The same is true of DNA. When we find viral fragments in the same places in both humans and chimpanzee DNA then we conclude both humans and chimpanzees have inherited these fragments from an original ancestor. The chances of both chimpanzees and humans independantly recieving the same viral fragments in the same locations is beyond reasonable chance.

    If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:20).

    Why not suspect more than one designer as it is? Two designers using the same tools? For example the existance of marcupial wolves and placental wolves strongly suggests more than one designer. Why would a single designer design the same wolf creature in two very different ways?

    Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced..
    Where did the "97% similarity" come from then?


    Chimp DNA has been fully sequenced. The rest of the piece is irrelevant, if not for the comedy that they want to quibble over the difference between 97 and 96.2 (when scientists know the difference is somewhere between 95% and 98% anyway)

    What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all!

    If it doesn't matter then why do they spend 2 paragraphs arguing for 96% over 97%?

    This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].

    And surely that new fangled gravity idea can't be true or people in australia would be falling off the Earth.

    Yet another article of ignorance, misdirection and hands over eyes and ears.
  12. Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    29935
    30 May '05 15:41
    Originally posted by nickybutt
    Humans and chimpanzees share a lot of genes and pseudogenes, even down to nucleic acid sequence level. This in a strong indication that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. If you take a look at human's and chimpanzees' steroid 21-hydroxylase gene, you'll see that we have an untranslated and a functional pseudogene, and chimpanzees have the e ...[text shortened]... c/section4.html

    Now please state how Creatinism explains how we share the same gene sequence.
    I'm reminded of a geology professor I had who enjoyed pushing evolutionary bias on our classes. One of his ideas was to use the overhead projector (Who knows what that is?) to compare various skeletons of hands. They all had 5 fingers, knuckles etc. He never said so, but all of the critters represented there also had circulatory, repiratory, excretory, reproductive, muscular, and nervous systems (did I leave any out?).

    His claim was the same one nickybutt is making: Similarity in form indicates common evolutionary ancestry. My creationist answer was the same as dj's: similar design is more likely explained by a common designer.

    I know that NB is trying to be more explicit; referring to the exact same retrovirus, but this does not break the common designer argument at all. A practical designer does not use different basic elements for each of his 'projects'. Obviously He had it in mind to make chimps similar to man, but even when two forms are miles apart, they have basic elements in common. He used calcium in clam shells and in bones for example.

    First He created all of the elements, gathering His supplies, if you will; and then used them, along with His own ingenius blueprints, to build an incredible variety of creatures!
  13. Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    29935
    30 May '05 15:51
    Originally posted by PotatoError
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    [b]The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story.


    The different values depend on what is being compared. Some studies compare every single base, others co ...[text shortened]... g off the Earth.

    Yet another article of ignorance, misdirection and hands over eyes and ears.[/b]
    The chances of both chimpanzees and humans independantly recieving the same viral fragments in the same locations is beyond reasonable chance

    Ooops. (A good evolutionist never refers to probability. Doing so reminds the fundies of one of our greatest weaknesses. The idea that something is improbable, even to the point of being as close to impossible as you can get, must be ignored at all costs!)
  14. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    30 May '05 15:54
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    ...gene similarities between humans and chimps point towards a common designer...

    EDIT: ooops, that was as close to one word as I could get๐Ÿ˜‰
    And if they were 0% similar then the response would be "Only an intelligent designer could have created so much diversity. Evolution cannot be true because of these differences."

    They'd be right about the second statement. Which once again shows that evolution can be falsified, and creationism cannot.
  15. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    30 May '05 15:562 edits
    Originally posted by chinking58
    [b]The chances of both chimpanzees and humans independantly recieving the same viral fragments in the same locations is beyond reasonable chance

    Ooops. (A good evolutionist never refers to probability. Doing so reminds the fundies ...[text shortened]... close to impossible as you can get, must be ignored at all costs!)[/b]
    Next post is what I wanted to say.
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