In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

[epan]

I’m not a researcher, I am merely relating what I the research has unearthed and simply pointing out the notion that a 98.5% genetic similarily does not automatically and necessarily means humans and chimps share a recent common ancestry. Further, there are very real and major differences between to two genomes that the 98.5% figure obfuscates, which are as follows:

• When the genomes are aligned, only 2.4 billion of a human genome’s 3.17 aligned with a chimp’s
• To perfectly align the genomes, artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome are introduced
• Even while perfectedly aligned, there are fractional differences, especially on how the genomes are organized

When all told, only about 70% of the genomes align. This suggest that there is a significant amount of research still needs to be done in human genetics. This doesn’t even address the recent phylogenetic differences found that suggest more differences between the two species.

As for some support, here is an excerpt from a 2007 article in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, which states*:*
For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place.

(see* Molecular Biology and Evolution*, Vol. 24 (10): 2266-2276 (2007).)

Cutting to the chase, if anyone can present sufficient credible evidence to show that species individuation does not occur through genetic mutation and natural selection, that person (or people) will completely change how we think about biology. Cherry picking particular theories or experiments does not rise to the standard required.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Cutting to the chase, if anyone can present sufficient credible evidence to show that species individuation does not occur through genetic mutation and natural selection, that person (or people) will completely change how we think about biology. Cherry picking particular theories or experiments does not rise to the standard required.

I think you’ve missed and/or failed to understand my points.

 

[someperson555]

Evolution IS adaptation. Viruses mutate because ALL life does so (we’ll bypass the interesting but irrelevant tangent as to whether viruses are “life” and assume for discussion they meet the standard). If “IDvolution” has testable, falsifiable truth claims I’m sure your theory will be making headway in academia in no time, and perhaps you’ll be in line for a Nobel Prize. If not, then it belongs in theology and philosophy classes perhaps (not that I’m denigrating either of those disciplines, I am a philosophy major, or was, as it were) but not in the science classroom.

Accidental discoveries still need explaining, and eventually are. We don’t just go “hey this works so!” and leave it at that. We explain why something works. Evolution does this.

 

[epan]

I think you’ve missed and/or failed to understand my points.

Oh. I thought your point was that evolution and natural selection could not result in species individuation. Pardon me.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Oh. I thought your point was that evolution and natural selection could not result in species individuation. Pardon me.

No, I didn’t mean that to be the case. Pardon the confusion that I may have caused.

 

[someperson555]

Bacteria have latent anti-biotic resistance called upon when needed. Bacteria communicate and share at astounding speeds.

Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave Microbiome

Look at the genetic piano post again:

Imagine a piano player playing beautiful music. There are only 88 keys. Through the different combinations a multitude of music can be produced.Epigenetics is the software, genes are the hardware. The slight differences do not prove common descent. They prove common design.

but we are not debating wether or not there is a designer, we are debating wether or not these organisms evolved over millions of years or were created at once 6,000 years ago. there are fundamental laws of physics which govern our universe, those were set up by God, yes. but the genetic mutations which occur in organisms are random depending on the environment. this is why when people migrated to europe their skin whitened and and got thicker body hair since there was less sunlight and colder temperatures. while the people in africa remained dark skinned and hairless due to a lot of sun light and warm weather. and we even notice evolutionary trends within races, the caucasion race consists of alpines, dinarics, meds, etc. these are all the result of genetic mutations from adaptations to their respective envrionments.

genetic mutations give rise to new species, when the climate or diet of a certain group of animals change, they must adapt to survive, this is what evolution is.

 

[vz71]

Genetic mutation is observable, and well documented. Drug resistant bacteria. That is in fact how HIV overloads the immune system.

The most compelling evidence is to look at the DNA between various species. Humans differ by about 2% from chimps.

So just how far do we have to breed a dog before what comes out is no longer a dog?

We have not done it yet, even though we have been breeding dogs for centuries.

What exactly is missing here?

As I said, there is sufficient evidence for me to doubt.

 

[vz71]

Cutting to the chase, if anyone can present sufficient credible evidence to show that species individuation does not occur through genetic mutation and natural selection, that person (or people) will completely change how we think about biology. Cherry picking particular theories or experiments does not rise to the standard required.

Scientific research does not work that way.

Credible science produces a theory and then backs it with evidence and experimentation.

It does not lay claim to fact on the basis that it has not been shown false.

 

[vz71]

but we are not debating wether or not there is a designer, we are debating wether or not these organisms evolved over millions of years or were created at once 6,000 years ago. there are fundamental laws of physics which govern our universe, those were set up by God, yes. but the genetic mutations which occur in organisms are random depending on the environment. this is why when people migrated to europe their skin whitened and and got thicker body hair since there was less sunlight and colder temperatures. while the people in africa remained dark skinned and hairless due to a lot of sun light and warm weather. and we even notice evolutionary trends within races, the caucasion race consists of alpines, dinarics, meds, etc. these are all the result of genetic mutations from adaptations to their respective envrionments.

genetic mutations give rise to new species, when the climate or diet of a certain group of animals change, they must adapt to survive, this is what evolution is.

That adaption occurrs is not in dispute.
However, I am not convinced that a species changes into another species as a result of either of these factors.

Were these the only factors, we would have bred out a different species of dog, or cat, or fruit fly.

There is something else in operation that I do not believe the popular theories include.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Credible science produces a theory and then backs it with evidence and experimentation.

It does not lay claim to fact on the basis that it has not been shown false.

Further, all science is provisional. What is regarded to be “fact” today may be discarded in light of better understanding. That’s why is vital that scientific theories have falsification criteria.

 

[buffalo]

Cutting to the chase, if anyone can present sufficient credible evidence to show that species individuation does not occur through genetic mutation and natural selection, that person (or people) will completely change how we think about biology. Cherry picking particular theories or experiments does not rise to the standard required.

Start here: Ann Guager and John Sanford

 

[buffalo]

but we are not debating wether or not there is a designer, we are debating wether or not these organisms evolved over millions of years or were created at once 6,000 years ago. there are fundamental laws of physics which govern our universe, those were set up by God, yes. but the genetic mutations which occur in organisms are random depending on the environment. this is why when people migrated to europe their skin whitened and and got thicker body hair since there was less sunlight and colder temperatures. while the people in africa remained dark skinned and hairless due to a lot of sun light and warm weather. and we even notice evolutionary trends within races, the caucasion race consists of alpines, dinarics, meds, etc. these are all the result of genetic mutations from adaptations to their respective envrionments.

genetic mutations give rise to new species, when the climate or diet of a certain group of animals change, they must adapt to survive, this is what evolution is.

Hair and skin color are variation within (aka adaptation). As others have pointed out they are still humans after the adaptations.

 

[epan]

Scientific research does not work that way.

Credible science produces a theory and then backs it with evidence and experimentation.

It does not lay claim to fact on the basis that it has not been shown false.

Stop being prideful. Your opinion in the face of a mountain of evidence is not very relevant.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JimG,

Thanks for an excellent response!

Yes, a lot has to do with the way the question is formulated and then presented. Picking the best of a series of questions that one has some argument about does not seem like a very accurate way of determining what people think on a particular topic. But, it does allow for easy quantification of data that now can have various statistical tests run … and, in case anyone wondered GIGO is alive and well … just not spoken about too much!

God bless

As with most polls, the way the questions are worded leaves room for ambiguity and probably none of the 3 possible answers actually coincides with a persons actual view of the matter.

Answer 1) is that humans developed from lower forms over millions of years with God guiding the process. Answer 3) is that God created humans pretty much in their present form sometime in the past 10,000 years or so.

Now, recorded human history only goes back about 6,000 years or so. Anthropological history goes back much further. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for a person to surmise that true human beings are those evidenced in recorded history. Most Christians believe that humans are a composite of body and soul, and that the body may have evolved but not the soul. Many Christians believe that the human body is the result of an evolutionary process occurring over millions of years, but that at some point in time God selected a pair and infused into them a spiritual soul.

The poll answers don’t provide any possible answer reflecting that belief. A Christian might validly answer ‘yes’ to both 1) and 3) with some reservations, but the respondent is limited to only one possible unsatisfactory answer out of three, none of which may reflect his actual beliefs.

This is why polls tend to be misleading.

 

[vz71]

Stop being prideful. Your opinion in the face of a mountain of evidence is not very relevant.

Pride?

I am merely pointing out the obvious.

Theory does not become fact because no one proves it wrong.
It becomes fact by being proven.

The statement " if anyone can present sufficient credible evidence to show that species individuation does not occur through genetic mutation and natural selection, that person (or people) will completely change how we think about biology"
shows a remarkable lack of unsderstanding of the process.

The burden of proof in the scientific world is upon those claiming the theory.

It is not up to anyone to prove natural selection is NOT the catalyst of change.
It is up to those that claim it is to back it with research and experimentation.

Sorry if some dislike that, but it is how science works.

 

[buffalo]

It is not up to anyone to prove natural selection is NOT the catalyst of change.
.

And now we understand that NS is not the catalyst of change.

 

[epan]

Pride?

I am merely pointing out the obvious.

Theory does not become fact because no one proves it wrong.
It becomes fact by being proven.

The statement " if anyone can present sufficient credible evidence to show that species individuation does not occur through genetic mutation and natural selection, that person (or people) will completely change how we think about biology"
shows a remarkable lack of unsderstanding of the process.

The burden of proof in the scientific world is upon those claiming the theory.

It is not up to anyone to prove natural selection is NOT the catalyst of change.
It is up to those that claim it is to back it with research and experimentation.

Sorry if some dislike that, but it is how science works.

That burden has been met. Next topic, unless you have something new and significant to contribute, other than your own ideologically driven opinion.

We all have opinions. Nothing wrong with that. But don’t confuse yours with the overwhelming evidence which contradicts it. The two are not the same.

 

[vz71]

That burden has been met. Next topic, unless you have something new and significant to contribute, other than your own ideologically driven opinion.

We all have opinions. Nothing wrong with that. But don’t confuse yours with the overwhelming evidence which contradicts it. The two are not the same.

Wow. Theory is now proclaimed fact. ‘Next topic please…’

You speak of my own ideological opinion, yet fail to see that you have not considered any of the substantial evidence provided.

I think there should be a good critical look at who is really the adherent to ‘ideological opinion’.
Is it the one that accepts no critique, does not answer questions, and will not provide any evidence?
Or is it the one that continues to look at theory and ask critical questions?

Your closed minded approach in this thread betrays you.

Also, do you mind explaining to everyone here what precisely my opinion is?
Perhaps quote a post or two where I explain what I believe?
Just so we can know we are on the same page here.
After all…you haven’t had a problem labelling my opinion, you should be familiar with it.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I think there should be a good critical look at who is really the adherent to ‘ideological opinion’.

Is it the one that accepts no critique, does not answer questions, and will not provide any evidence?

You make a fair point, but to be fair to your detractors as well: the problem is that you are challenging a field with a pile of scholarship a mile long, with numerous applications, one that is accepted, understood and taught by 99%+++ of modern scientists.

So if you want us to believe you’re the next Galileo, clued into something that virtually everyone on the planet rejects, you’re going to have to do a little better. Indeed, you might as well be challenging the basics of physics, as evolutionary theory is no less accepted (in one form or another) than that. It’s tough, but that’s the way it works.

 

[oyaji]

There are many highly authoritative magisterial teachings that upholds special creation and the literal historical truth of Genesis 1-11.

So…

Catholics are obliged to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles and taught and believed by ALL the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

And don’t forget…

that all statements by Church leaders favorable to evolution have been non-authoritative or ambiguous.