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

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Francis said:
The problem we have is that there is no evidence of this species differentiation happening, nor is there any evidence that it *could *happen.

I would suggest that possibly some of the people who say that to you are just kidding around.
Click to expand...
Have you heard of molecular genetics? You change your opinion if you take a look.
 
Is this a serious claim being made, that there is no evidence of species individuation by way of genetic mutation and natural selection?
 
epan said:
Is this a serious claim being made, that there is no evidence of species individuation by way of genetic mutation and natural selection?
Click to expand...
The fact there are many species does not tell us much.
It certainly does not tell us genetic mutation or natural selection is occurring.

So please, what examples do we have?
 
vz71 said:
The fact there are many species does not tell us much.
It certainly does not tell us genetic mutation or natural selection is occurring.

So please, what examples do we have?
Click to expand...
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.
 
epan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
epan said:
Genetic mutation is observable, and well documented. Drug resistant bacteria. That is in fact how HIV overloads the immune system.
Click to expand...
I would imagine the really and pertinent question does genetic mutation produce a more fit organism? For instance, the malaria organism has undergone several mutations that make it resistant to treatment. However, in all cases the mutations did not confer an advantage over the main strain. Once the treatments are withdrawn, the main strain rises to predominance.
The most compelling evidence is to look at the DNA between various species. Humans differ by about 2% from chimps.
Click to expand...
It must be noted that the regulatory DNA of humans is completely dissimilar from that of chimpanzees. This is significant in that it reveals there is no common ancestry.
 
Soldier_Of_God said:
I would imagine the really and pertinent question does genetic mutation produce a more fit organism? For instance, the malaria organism has undergone several mutations that make it resistant to treatment. However, in all cases the mutations did not confer an advantage over the main strain. Once the treatments are withdrawn, the main strain rises to predominance.

It must be noted that the regulatory DNA of humans is totally different from that of chimps. This is significant in that it reveals there is no hint of common ancestry.
Click to expand...
True. Most mutations do not produce a more fit organism. Your opinion that “there is no hint of common ancestry” is quite unconventional. If you can provide sufficient evidence to support your theory, you might win the Nobel Prize, at least.
 
epan said:
True. Most mutations do not produce a more fit organism. Your opinion that “there is no hint of common ancestry” is quite unconventional. If you can provide sufficient evidence to support your theory, you might win the Nobel Prize, at least.
Click to expand...
Regulatory DNA is what determines what is fundamental for each kind of organism. The vast majority of a species variation is due to regulated gene expression, not simply what genes it posseses.
 
Soldier_Of_God said:
Regulatory DNA is what determines what is fundamental for each kind of organism. The vast majority of a species variation is due to regulated gene expression, not simply what genes it posseses.
Click to expand...
Yes, so what is your point? This observation in no way changes the common DNA base.
 
epan said:
Yes, so what is your point? This observation in no way changes the common DNA base.
Click to expand...
The point is that a vastly different regulatory DNA indicate that a common ancestor is not possible given within the estimated timeframe (approximately 4 million years).
 
Soldier_Of_God said:
The point is that a vastly different regulatory DNA indicate that a common ancestor is not possible given within the estimated timeframe (approximately 4 million years).
Click to expand...
If you can show sufficient evidence for that claim, then you will probably win the Nobel Prize. Seriously. You should go for it.
 
epan said:
If you can show sufficient evidence for that claim, then you will probably win the Nobel Prize. Seriously. You should go for it.
Click to expand...
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).)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top