Bryan College prof defends 98% chimp-human DNA identity

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 30, 2011

Epigenetics, Genetics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Bryan College prof defends 98% chimp-human DNA identity

Here, at Bryan College of all places, evolutionary biologist Todd C. Wood argues that “The Chimpanzee Genome is Nearly Identical to the Human Genome” (CBS Annual Conference Abstracts 2011). (In the famous Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee (1925), Bryan defended the law he’d recommended, to make it illegal to teach that.) It’s also widely known to be wrong and may not even matter if it were true.

Here’s a rabbi’s take on the folly: The genes you share with a banana.

See also: Born again evolutionary biologist critiques Gauger-Axe paper

Comments

Breivik claims he is a Christian, therefore he is a Christian. Todd C. Wood says describing him as an "evolutionary biologist" is a pretty lousy descriptor of him, therefore Todd Wood is not an evolutionary biologist. I get it.Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

The only person being illogical is you, Mung.
ok, I get it. You all are not being logical, therefore you cannot be illogical. I, who am being logical, must be the illogical one. I see now how it works.Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

http://biologos.org/blog/a-tale-of-three-creationists-part-1Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Todd C. Wood: Evolutionary Biologist?
As a faculty member at an evangelical Christian university, I have the privilege of interacting with colleagues from all over North America. Shortly after becoming acquainted with one colleague, I realized that we have a lot in common. For starters, we’re both believers, and we both teach at Christian institutions. We also have very similar research backgrounds in biology: genetics, cell biology, genomics, that sort of thing, although my colleague has done more work directly relevant to evolutionary biology. We have both written articles on human/chimpanzee comparative genomics intended to inform believers of the challenge this new field of study presents for traditional interpretations of Genesis, and both of us have been criticized by other believers for doing so. Both of us feel that evolution is a robust scientific theory with a huge body of supporting evidence. Both of us have written critiques of folks in the Intelligent Design movement, as well as organizations like Reasons to Believe. In fact, I can think of only one major difference between us: my colleague is a Young Earth Creationist, whereas I am an Evolutionary Creationist. His name is Todd Wood, and he is a faculty member at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee.
Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

You could actually admit that Todd Wood not only acknowledges the fact, but embraces the term and notes it isn’t an insult.
Calling someone a YEC cannot be an insult if they are in fact a YEC. That’s what you’re arguing?
I didn't say that, Dr. Wood didn't say that, and Lizzie didn't say that. In fact, no one on this thread has implied anything of the sort, so I don't know where your question even comes from. Perhaps it's an evasion tactic? The funny thing is, even if you thought that was Lizzie's intent originally, her explanation coupled with Dr. Wood's agreement makes that notion erroneous in the context of Lizzie's use above. So why persist with it after the fact? Just post that you misunderstood and move on. What's the big deal?
Todd Wood admits he’s a YEC and doesn’t think being called YEC is an insult, therefore calling someone a YEC cannot be an insult if they are in fact a YEC. That’s what you’re arguing?
See above, Mung. The context in this thread concerning the use of the term "YEC" is only Lizzie's use of the term referencing Dr. Wood. Most of us can understand your affront to the use of the term before the context was explained (and embraced by the target of the term no less) and thus could be misunderstood. Holding on to that affront at this point is just inane since all parties within the context of its use have agreed it's fine.
So if you pile the illogical claims high enough they start to make sense?
The only person being illogical is you, Mung.Doveton_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

The problem is with you WilliamRoache. It's entirely with you. You asked for a worked example of the EF applied to biology. I pointed your to Signature in the Cell. You responded that the website didn't give a worked example of the EF applied to biology. Which is true, since it's a website for the book rather than the book itself. But a 5 year old should have been able to figure out what I meant. So yeah, problem, you. And then you complain that the book doesn't give a worked example for the eye, which wasn't what you originally asked for. So yes, the problem is you. I give you what you ask for and then you can't be bothered to see if it really gives what you asked for. Your problem, and I'm not going to make it mine.Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Doveton:
You could actually admit that Todd Wood not only acknowledges the fact, but embraces the term and notes it isn’t an insult.
Calling someone a YEC cannot be an insult if they are in fact a YEC. That's what you're arguing? Todd Wood admits he's a YEC and doesn't think being called YEC is an insult, therefore calling someone a YEC cannot be an insult if they are in fact a YEC. That's what you're arguing? So if you pile the illogical claims high enough they start to make sense?Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Mung,
I can’t make you read Signature in the Cell
Who said I had not read it? And if reading it allowed you to generate examples of the EF against, say, eyes then I'd have done so myself. But you can't just say it can't be used like that can you? The problem must be with me, that I've not read the book. Or with the examples I'm asking you to use. Anything but the EF itself. So are you telling me that anybody who reads that book can use the EF to show how, say, the eye was designed? You've read it, right? So go ahead, be my guest. Demonstrate the EF against the eye. Any eye, any eye at all. There are lots of types to choose from.
By which I mean, of course, that it is far younger than 6,000 years.
There are several here would would agree with you. So, Mung, how old do you think the earth is?WilliamRoache_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

WilliamRoache:
If I did not want to admit what I really thought, I’d say something funny too to try and deflect peoples attention.
I can't make you read Signature in the Cell and I can't make you read my posts, but here it is again, for your benefit: I think they [Young Earth Creationists] are wrong about the age of the earth. By which I mean, of course, that it is far younger than 6,000 years.Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Mung,
It will be one day old next Wednesday.
If I did not want to admit what I really thought, I'd say something funny too to try and deflect peoples attention.
“The Designer” is the ground of existence for all that exists. I don’t really consider that intervening.
No pretense the "designer" is anything but God then. At least you are honest about that. However it does mean that "everything is designed" so I don't really see what you can add to the conversation about "detecting design".
Even evolutionists don’t believe evolution created all life.
Really? Last time I checked nobody thought it was designed. So perhaps you can give me an example of something alive that did not evolve.
Or you create your own journals
Are you familiar with the half dozen or so ID journals that already exist? How many papers do you expect are published every year?
So you think Elizabeth was trying to smear Todd Wood by calling him a YEC bariminologist?
Nice try.
You sure don’t seem to think it’s a term of respect.
Usually it is not due to the fact that there are so many dishonest YECs out there who repeat claims that have been disproved over and over. And I think that it's an absurd position to hold, contradicted by all available evidence. Don't you think YEC is absurd Mung? Or do you think there is something in it after all? How old is the earth Mung?WilliamRoache_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Mung,
The absurd logic that someone may make a factual statement, and because that statement is factual it is not an insult, well… What can I say?
You could actually admit that Todd Wood not only acknowledges the fact, but embraces the term and notes it isn't an insult. You could also admit that Dr. Wood doesn't describe himself as an evolutionary biologist. What is there to even argue at this point, Mung? Dr. Wood has fully supported what Lizzie noted, so there was actually never any issue to begin with. Why are you trying to make one up?Doveton_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, you lay out this great, wonderful case why Todd has a vested interest in proving his position to be correct, and then say he has no vested interest in being right or wrong. He's just after the truth, and that you're just like that. Seriously?Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

He is doing this because he has faith – faith that the bible is inerrant, and says the earth is young. If the earth is young, evolutionary theory cannot be true. And if the bible is true, common descent cannot be true.
And yet we're suppose to believe your statement that he has no vested interest.Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Todd is a YEC. That’s not an insult, it’s a fact. He is also a baraminologist. That’s not an insult either, it’s a fact.
The absurd logic that someone may make a factual statement, and because that statement is factual it is not an insult, well... What can I say?Mung_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Todd gives his answer :)Elizabeth Liddle_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Mung, why don't you write to Wood and ask him if he would describe himself as an "evolutionary biologist"? It was certainly a misleading description in the context of the OP, as Todd does not believe that Chimps are related to humans by common descent. He would put them in separate baramins.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

I'm not a YEC, but I don't see a huge issue with diversity since the flood. For one thing, we've seen enormous diversity in individual species from breeding alone. And we can't ignore that the function of most DNA is unknown. From an ID perspective it seems likely that it's there for something. Who knows, maybe there's the DNA in one animal for multiple species just like in one kind of cell there's DNA for the whole organism.ScottAndrews_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

WR:
How old is the Earth Mung?
It will be one day old next Wednesday.
When did the designer intervene Mung?
"The Designer" is the ground of existence for all that exists. I don't really consider that intervening.
Do you think that the baraminologists have it right?
About what? I think they are wrong about the age of the earth. And they would have to propose a very high rate of evolution to explain diversity since the flood, yet Haldane's Dilemma seems to pose a problem for that scenario.
If you don’t believe that evolution created all life then you *can* be an evolutionary biologist.
Even evolutionists don't believe evolution created all life.
You’ll just be a very bad one who never gets published.
Or you create your own journals.
Unless of course you don’t mention your actual irrational beliefs and do some real science. Then you can believe whatever you like and nobody will care, if the work is sound and supported empirically.
So you think Elizabeth was trying to smear Todd Wood by calling him a YEC bariminologist? You sure don't seem to think it's a term of respect.Mung_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Mung,
YEC evolutionary biologists disagree. They think evolution occurs rapidly and does not require long long ages.
What do you think Mung? How old is the Earth Mung? When did the designer intervene Mung? Once to create Adam and Eve or many times to create each "bodyplan" as it's required? Do you think that the baraminologists have it right? If not, why are you so willing to defend their "not even wrong" tripe?
So you make up your own definition of evolutionary biologist that excludes Wood and then use that to post a “correction.”
If you don't believe that evolution created all life then you *can* be an evolutionary biologist. You'll just be a very bad one who never gets published. Unless of course you don't mention your actual irrational beliefs and do some real science. Then you can believe whatever you like and nobody will care, if the work is sound and supported empirically.WilliamRoache_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Evolutionary biology is a subfield of biology which studies the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time. Someone who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist.
We are trained in evolutionary theory and utilize standard concepts and methods in systematics, such as cladistics, multivariate statistics, the taxonomic hierarchy, founder effect, etc. where such concepts are appropriate. However, we find overwhelming evidence for phylogenetic discontinuity among major groups and, thus, discard the prevailing assumption that all living things are related in a great "Tree of Life". As a result of this departure from conventional science, we have developed additional concepts and methods to meet our needs in studying discontinuity and describing the history of created kinds. About the CBS
Concepts So you make up your own definition of evolutionary biologist that excludes Wood and then use that to post a "correction."Mung_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, what would prevent a young earth creationist from being an evolutionary biologist? Even YEC's and "baraminologists" accept evolution within "kinds." So one could study evolution within kinds and be an evolutionary biologist. The two are not mutually exclusive. So in one sense Todd Wood is an evolutionary biologist. But I didn't care to argue the point. You're implying that he denies evolution, which he does not. You're arguing that one cannot be an evolutionary biologist unless one accepts that the earth is very old and that evolution takes long long periods of time. YEC evolutionary biologists disagree. They think evolution occurs rapidly and does not require long long ages. There was no need to "correct" News.Mung_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Thank you, Mung. However, just to nail this one thoroughly to the perch, recall (or check) that the post in question was post 2 in the thread, and it was a response to this, in the OP:
Here, at Bryan College of all places, evolutionary biologist Todd C. Wood argues....
My post was a correction. Both "YEC" and "baraminologist" were important parts of that correction because together they describe the paradigm within which Todd works, which is not the old-earth evolutionary paradigm of evolutionary biologists. And whether "YEC" conveys disdain here or not (we hardly have any, actually) is irrelevant - it's what Todd's position is, just as mine is evolutionist and atheist. If people use the descriptions pejoratively, that's their problem IMO, not mine. Or Todd's. But that's just for the record. I appreciate your retraction. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

All the science he learned during his BS in biology and his PhD in biochemistry, Mung.
Precisely. So if he writes an article, the reason his article should be taken seriously is because of his scientific credentials, not because he is a YEC baraminologist. If you did want to impugn his credebility, get people thinking he's a quack, calling him a YEC bariminologist would be a good way to go about it, don't you think? It literally screams, "not to be taken seriously!" Perhaps "creationist" doesn't have the same connotation over there on your side of the pond and perhaps YEC doesn't convey the same disdain it does over here, but I would think after the Cudworth thread you'd have some clue, lol. But now that you've explained nothing derogatory was to be implied and that you meant it to convey that he should be taken seriously (though as I say in a rather odd way from my perspective) I therefore retract my insinuation that you intentionally chose to not state relevant facts in order to effect a slur.Mung_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Oh wait, that's hilarious! I get it! Mung, you thought that when I said that Todd was a YEC baraminologist I was being insulting, didn't you! After all, how could I, an Old Earth evolutionist mean anything other than an insult by calling someone a YEC baraminologist?!!! And so you thought the reason I was being "selective with the truth" was that I was hiding the fact that he was actually a good qualified scientist, right? heh. It all makes sense. In a weird way. OK, let me explain. Todd is a YEC. That's not an insult, it's a fact. He is also a baraminologist. That's not an insult either, it's a fact. So to call him an "evolutionary biologist" would not only be quite wrong, it would be rather demeaning. Todd is doing something rather remarkable - he is taking the scientific evidence for evolution, and for which he agrees evolution is a powerful explanation, and attempting to devise an alternative hypothesis that will account as well, if not better, for the data. He is doing this because he has faith - faith that the bible is inerrant, and says the earth is young. If the earth is young, evolutionary theory cannot be true. And if the bible is true, common descent cannot be true. And so, because he trusts God, he trusts that there must be an alternate explanation that has as much explanatory power as evolutionary theory, but which is consistent with what he believes to be the truth, which is that the bible is literally true, and that the first living things were "created kinds" not a simple cell. And he is determined to find that explanation. He is one of the most honest scientists I have ever come across. So if Todd says he's found 99% similarity between chimps and humans, take him seriously. He has no evolutionary axe to grind. He just wants to know what the facts are. Now he might have got it wrong - I wouldn't know, I'm not a geneticist. But I suggest that people take his work seriously, even if you are not a YEC and think that common descent is well-supported. Because if anyone is going to find evidence of design in genetics, it's going to be Todd. IMO.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

All the science he learned during his BS in biology and his PhD in biochemistry, Mung. He's a good scientist. I'm still waiting for your retraction.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Now, does anyone want to critique Todd’s methodology?
He's just a YEC bariminologist. What can he possibly know about science?Mung_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

junkdnaforlife:
For those that think Mung’s claims against Liz are baseless, and for those others who think Liz is a psuedo-liar, I refer you to to this thread: https://uncommondescent.com.....omplexity/ Follow the conversation from post 1-9, and act as juror, and judge for yourselves. Is this an act of unwarranted Liz trolling? Or does Mung have basis to infer that Liz may be less-than-honest?
My response here: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/last-eukaryotic-common-ancestor-facilitates-multi-cell-complexity/#comment-393188 Now, does anyone want to critique Todd's methodology?Elizabeth Liddle_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

There is something sort of comical, however, about me, an atheist evolutionist, defending a YEC baraminologist for some excellent science he did that somehow defies the expectations of both his fellow creationists and a bunch of non-creationist IDists. I think, Mung, you got confused where the vested interests lay. Not surprising in the circs! But open your eyes to the possibility that some of us - including many here - have absolutely no vested in proving our positions right or wrong, but simply in finding out the truth. Todd is one of those people. So am I. So if our posts puzzle you, either by omissions or commissions, it may be that, far from being selective or manipulative with the truth, it is that we have nothing to hide.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Mung,
Don’t hold your breath waiting for that retraction. It could happen, but right now it’s not looking very likely.
Indeed. As we can watch before us you twist "facts" to suit yourself and as such there is never any need to retract what has now become true. It's obvious to all that your interactions are not intended to expand anybody's understanding but rather to score points in some pointless game you are playing. A game that will sooner rather then later end up with just one player. I expect you are used to solo activities however.WilliamRoache_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

OK, so for some reason you think I should have mentioned that Todd had a BS in biology and a PhD in biochemistry, but dishonestly withheld the information. Why? You thought, did you, that somehow it would damage some point I was making if I let it be known that Todd was a trained scientist? And that I withheld that pertinent information to serve some nefarious and dishonest end? Oh boy. So, Mung, can you tell me what point you thought I was making that would have been ill-served by the information that Todd is an highly trained biological scientist? Because he is, and I'm delighted that you have provided that information for the benefit of those who did not already know it.
So far, what reasons have I been given to think that what I said is false?
You have given no reason whatever for implying that I had dishonest motives in not providing what is readily available information.
You found it offensive because it impugned your integrity?
Yes, Mung, I found it offensive because it impugned my integrity. hth.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply