Science and Freethinking

_{Gil Dodgen

September 23, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Everyone has a religion, a raison d’être, and mine was once Dawkins’. I had the same disdain for people of faith that he does, only I could have put him to shame with the power and passion of my argumentation.

But something happened. As a result of my equally passionate love of science, logic, and reason, I realized that I had been conned. The creation story of my atheistic, materialistic religion suddenly made no sense.

This sent a shock wave through both my mind and my soul. Could it be that I’m not just the result of random errors filtered by natural selection? Am I just the product of the mindless, materialistic processes that “only legitimate scientists” all agree produced me? Does my life have any ultimate purpose or meaning? Am I just a meat-machine with no other purpose than to propagate my “selfish genes”?

Ever since I was a child I thought about such things, but I put my blind faith in the “scientists” who taught me that all my concerns were irrelevant, that science had explained, or would eventually explain, everything in purely materialistic terms.

But I’m a freethinker, a legitimate scientist. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. And the evidence suggests that the universe and living systems are the product of an astronomically powerful creative intelligence.

Comments

ID's candidate for design is an actual Designer or Designers. All of the greatest scientists who ever lived believed in the same, solitary Designer: God. But science only gives us the tools to Study the Book of Nature so we can learn about Creation, and confirm that everything has indeed been designed for a purpose. But the Book of Nature doesn't tell us much about what that purpose is. Evolution, on the other hand, specifically atheistic evolution, does not offer any such knowledge. It merely says everything made itself by accident. Atheistic evolutionists take all of the overwhelming evidence for design and try to re-invent it as an illusion brought about by natural selection acting upon random mutations. That's not science, that's just wishful thinking. That indisputable fact has been confirmed here, and elsewhere, over and over again by the continued failure of evolutionists to provide any detailed evidence to support their belief that humans evolved from a single-celled eukaryotic organism through purely naturalistic processes. Ultimately, your big problem lies in the fact that you have put your faith in science, and science alone. Consequently, you are searching for answers to the wrong questions and, like the chemist trying to turn lead into gold, finding comfort and validity, in the process of searching; no matter how elusive the answers are proving to be and how much of the devil is in the "pathetic detail". The Book of Nature was not written to provide all the answers we need. There are other Books, other fields of knowledge beyond science that serve that purpose. A good starting point would be to ask the right questions in the first place and not allow yourself to be restricted by institutionalised thinking and a priori commitments to materialism.Chris Doyle_{September 25, 2011
September
09
Sep
25
25
2011
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, perhaps you would care to show the 'pathetic detail' of just one novel, functional, protein/gene, that actually does something other than 'stick' to ATP every 1 in 10^12 tries, originating by purely neo-Darwinian processes??? As well, perhaps you would care to learn of Kepler's view of a 'tinkering' God, and the sheer poverty of the 'chaos' that underlies the basis of the materialistic/atheistic philosophy to explain such mathematical perfection which has been found to govern this universe????
Kepler saw the world as the material embodiment of mathematical forms present within God before the act of creation. 'Why waste words?' he wrote, 'Geometry existed before the Creation, is co-eternal with the mind of God, is God himself ... geometry provided God with a model for the Creation.' Thus, 'where matter is, there is geometry.' Because he believed that the world was a reflection of God, who was a perfect being, according to Kepler it must necessarily be a perfect world, and therefore the manifestation of sublime geometric principles. 'It is absolutely necessary that the work of such a perfect creator should be of the greatest beauty.' (Kepler) (Wertheim, Pythagoras' Trousers, 1997) http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Johannes-Kepler.htm
here is another interesting quote from the site on 'consensus science':
I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. (Galileo Galilei)
bornagain77_{September 25, 2011
September
09
Sep
25
25
2011
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

But don’t you think it is sufficient to identify design in nature?
Absolutely not. As Elizabeth has taken some pains to point out, evolution has a candidate for the designer. ID does not. Evolution cannot cite every mutation in "pathetic detail." but it can cite instances of every mechanism required to explain current life in terms of common descent. OOL is still in the rough, but it is very young. We do not have the history of the solar system in pathetic detail, but we no know -- as was suspected all along -- that solar system formation is common, possibly universal. The mechanism that result in more or less stable orbits for multiple planets do not require intervention, as Newton proposed. It took astronomy 400 years from the first assertion there was a solar system to reach its current state of knowledge, and it still lacks many historical details and explanatory details. Hard problems are hard. That is why they take a long time. Of course we are not asking the right questions. That is always the case when you can't find an answer in science. But when was the last time in astronomy or chemistry that the right question involved intentional design by a volitional agent? I suppose my chief objection to ID is not that it is wrong -- something that cannot be demonstrated -- but that it doesn't ask any interesting questions that can be answered through research. At least not so far.Petrushka_{September 25, 2011
September
09
Sep
25
25
2011
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Morning Petrushka, Intelligent Design is to theism, what evolution is to atheism: not an absolutely necessary connection but often a supportive one. But don't you think it is sufficient to identify design in nature? I mean, if that fact became widely accepted it would certainly shake things up, particularly in the Western world. I don't know who made Stonehenge, or how they made it, but that doesn't prevent us from studying Stonehenge and marvelling at it. The only thing evolution has brought to science is a somewhat dismissive explanatory commentary: "The eagle's hunting abilities are thanks to evolution" "Termites have evolved the ability to create an air-conditioned termite's nest" "Men are unfaithful because they have evolved the instinct to sleep around" When neo-darwinism falls, we will be able to revisit this commentary and in most cases simply replace expressions such as "over time, x somehow evolved the ability to y" with an expression like "x was designed to have the ability to y". We do not need to know anything about the designer(s) if we simply want to do what science does now: study nature and learn from it through observations and experiments. As for OOL research, once we've established that abiogenesis is an atheistic fairy-tale, would you not agree that many will be appalled by the waste of time, money and, indeed, careers that an erroneous belief in abiogenesis resulted in? Or do you think that the alchemists who wasted their lives trying to convert lead into gold were actually making the best use of their time? Really challenging ideas are the most interesting and some problems have no solution (usually because you're asking the wrong questions or relying on false assumptions).Chris Doyle_{September 25, 2011
September
09
Sep
25
25
2011
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

I think people understand what the "official" definition is, but I think they get confused by how that translates into typical posts on ID supporting forums. Posts which are frequently religious, and which frequently denounce atheism. If ID is agnostic about the designer and the mechanism of design, and the times and places where design intervention took place, it is also a-theistic -- without a theistic position. The other thing that confuses some of us is the question of why ID is relevant in the world of science if it has no entailments -- no propositions that suggest research into mechanisms, times, places, etc. It would seem that ID proponents want to walk mainstream science into a box in which it lacks answers to many questions and in which it is not allowed to seek answers. the rather long OOL thread is an example of an argument that mainstream research is having rather limited success, and as a result of the difficulty, should be abandoned. this line of argument is incomprehensible to most scientists, because really difficult problems are the most interesting.Petrushka_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Daniel, That's a very good question, but it has nothing to do with ID. Read the FAQ and understand what ID is. Pick it apart if you wish to. But in order to do so you must correctly understand it. Sort of like if someone said, "Evolution is stupid - fish don't turn into frogs!" Even if one disagrees with something they must understand it in order to coherently argue against it.ScottAndrews_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

Daniel King, it seems to me that you are riding a bunch of your confidence on the human-ape genetic similarity horse,,, Venema comments on the supposed genetic similarity here:
Genesis and the Genome: Genomics Evidence for Human-Ape Common Ancestry and Ancestral Hominid Population Sizes - Dennis R. Venema Excerpt: The human genome has approximately 3.0 x 10^9 nucleotides; of this number, 2.7 x 10^9 nucleotides match the chimpanzee genome with only a 1.23% difference between the species.(6) In short, the vast majority of the human genome matches the chimpanzee genome with only rare differences. The inclusion of sequence alignment gaps between the two genomes that are thought to have arisen through either insertions or deletions (so-called “indel” mutations) drives the identity of the two genomes down to about 95%.(7) Restricting the comparison to the sequences responsible for coding for proteins raises the value to 99.4%.(8) By any measure, humans and chimpanzees have genomes that are highly homologous and readily interpreted as modified copies of an original ancestral genome. http://twu.ca/academics/science/biology/faculty/venema/pscf9-10venema.pdf
Yet Daniel, the genetic similarity, between man and apes, contrary to what you may have been told, repeatedly, by Venema and others, turns out to be not nearly as strong as neo-Darwinists have led the general public to believe. In fact, as hard as it may be for you to believe, there is a severe bias in genetic similarity studies to strip genetic dissimilarities because of neo-Darwinian philosophical bias, and not because of any warrant from the evidence! If you don't believe that scientists could be so prejudiced as to let a philosophical bias interfere with their results, This following article, which has a direct bearing on the 98.8% genetic similarity myth, shows that over 1000 'ORFan' genes, that are completely unique to humans and not found in any other species, were stripped from the 20,500 gene count of humans simply because the (neo-Darwinian) scientists could not find corresponding genes in primates. In other words the evolution of humans from primates was assumed to be true in the first place and then the genetic evidence was directly molded to fit in accord with their unproven assumption. It would be hard to find a more biased and unfair example of practicing science!
Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes. Although this was strong evidence that the sequences were not true protein-coding genes, it was not quite convincing enough to justify their removal from the human gene catalogs. Two other scenarios could, in fact, explain their absence from other mammalian genomes. For instance, the genes could be unique among primates, new inventions that appeared after the divergence of mouse and dog ancestors from primate ancestors. Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm
The sheer, and blatant, shoddiness of the science of the preceding study should give everyone who reads it severe pause whenever, in the future, someone tells them that genetic studies have proven evolution to be true. If the authors of the preceding study were to have actually tried to see if the over 1000 unique ORFan genes of humans may actually encode for proteins, instead of just written them off because of their preconceived neo-Darwinian bias, they would have found that there is ample reason to believe that the 'ORFans' may very well encode for biologically important proteins:
A survey of orphan enzyme activities Abstract: We demonstrate that for ~80% of sampled orphans, the absence of sequence data is bona fide. Our analyses further substantiate the notion that many of these (orfan) enzyme activities play biologically important roles. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/244 Dr. Howard Ochman - Dept. of Biochemistry at the University of Arizona Excerpt of Proposal: The aims of this proposal are to investigate this enigmatic class of genes by elucidating the source and functions of “ORFans”, i.e., sequences within a genome that encode proteins having no homology (and often no structural similarity) to proteins in any other genome. Moreover, the uniqueness of ORFan genes prohibits use of any of homology-based methods that have traditionally been employed to establish gene function.,,, Although it has been hypothesized that ORFans might represent non-coding regions rather than actual genes, we have recently established that the vast majority that ORFans present in the E. coli genome are under selective constraints and encode functional proteins. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/comment-page-5/#comment-358868
In fact it turns out that the authors of the 'kick the ORFans out in the street' paper actually did know that there was unbiased evidence strongly indicating the ORFan genes encoded for important proteins but chose to ignore it in favor of their preconceived evolutionary bias: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/comment-page-4/#comment-358547 Moreover the 'anomaly' of unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome sequenced:
Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166
As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life:
Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010 Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract
Daniel, hopefully you can clearly see, from just this one study, how severely biased neo-Darwinists can be with genetic similarity studies. You can ride your confidence on such studies if you want, but this clearly is not solid science and thus that exactly why it is more than fair for IDists to demand actual evidence from neo-Darwinists for their claims that these changes can happen instead of just biased genetic similarity studies, as Casey Luskin is currently asking Dennis Venema for on ENV, as I referenced earlier. Also of note, if you are really impressed with genetic similarities, exactly what do you make of this following study Daniel??
Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118
As for myself Daniel, I'm just left wondering exactly where evolutionists should place the kangaroos on their cartoon drawings that show man evolving from apes. :)bornagain77_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews:
Why is it so difficult to understand that intelligence or the lack thereof has nothing to do with mechanisms?
I was just wondering how a postulated "intelligence" might be a scientific explanation for the diversity and history of life on Earth. Without a mechanism, where's the science?Daniel King_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

The onus is on people like you, Daniel, and Nick, to support your position with evidence. Because, if your position is indeed true, then you should be able to identify an important piece of evidence that it rests upon. If human-chimp similarity is the best that you can do, then that says it all really.
Thanks, Chris. As I originally proposed, human-chimp genetic similarity is a recent piece of evidence in a long and complicated story. I think it is of signal importance. But you don't think it is important and you reject its relevance (or the relevance of any other genetic comparisons among organisms) to the history of life on earth. Fair enough. I'm satisfied that I've made the effort, however feeble. If you haven't read the Venema article I linked to, you might enjoy it anyway.Daniel King_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

No Problem Chris, that is a cool video!bornagain77_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Daniel King, I noticed you cited a Dennis Venema paper. Perhaps you could help us locate Dennis Venema for he seems to be missing in action, for he is currently wanted for questioning, by Casey Luskin, for making completely unsubstantiated claims of the power of purely neo-Darwinian processes to produce 'meaningful information' sufficient to give rise to the origination of novel genes and proteins!!
Richard Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html
As well, in the paper you cited I noticed that Venema had used the 'junk DNA argument', yet Jonathan Wells recently wrote a book, The Myth Of Junk DNA, that blew gaping holes in that argument!!! Did you miss that book? notes:
The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells http://www.mythofjunkdna.com/ The Myth of Junk DNA Grows With the Telling - July 2011 Since the publication of Jonathan Wells' The Myth of Junk DNA, many articles have come out documenting more functions for non-protein-coding DNA. It looks like Dr. Wells sampled the water just as the tide was starting to come in, and it's still rising. Richard Dawkins, Larry Moran, and other proponents of junk DNA should move to higher ground. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/the_myth_of_junk_dna_grows_wit048311.html Jonathan Wells: On Francis Collins and Junk DNA - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hksGZcqJ5h4 Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html "Pseudogenes Shrink Gaps for Theistic Darwinian Evolutionists Collins & Giberson"- audio podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-08-08T16_20_25-07_00 Vitamin C pseudogene refutation By Jonathan Wells - from appendix of 'The Myth Of Junk DNA' pages 109-114 by Jonathan Wells https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18LV9Xp1RJv4k2KRQDOpN3_cjSCwBC_XXb8WGVNP4L8M Reference Notes For Jonathan Wells' Book - The Myth Of Junk DNA - Hundreds of Studies Outlining Function for 'Junk' DNA http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zGp3gRRDmA0J:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fcommand%3Ddownload%26id%3D7651+Sequence-dependent+and+sequence-independent+functions+of+%E2%80%9Cjunk%E2%80%9D+DNA:+do+we+need+an+expanded+concept+of+biological+information%3F+Jonathan+Wells&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiCq0TQUSKYlr0KNNIDgaGKMM7b3z0iEGiKe_faSd0646SzaYSoCCcNavm523X5TgaGbdQPtDFmN6Yw8IexI44RokfsMKs6q-EEeM_vyYw-zaMB-h_7wKu8JjGREn_JF-CPlkSq&sig=AHIEtbRfG8rv_5eur2oifBsWxHdM_e731g etc.. etc.. etc..
bornagain77_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Good reference, once again, thanks bornagain77!Chris Doyle_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the further response, Daniel. There's a very important distinction to be made between people like you and me: there are those, like you and Nick, who believe that human beings evolved from a single-celled eukaryotic ancestor mainly through a process of natural selection acting upon random mutations. Everyone else, like me and most of the participants here at UD, reject that claim. Now, I perfectly understand that there are all sorts of reasons that people find to choose which side of the divide they want to position themselves in. I would even go so far as to suggest that in most cases, those reasons are very subjective and emotional regardless of which side of the divide you find yourself in. Uncommon Descent is not a forum to explore such reasons (such topics of discussions bear more fruit when held one-to-one, preferably face-to-face). Uncommon Descent is a forum to present objective reasoning, observational evidence and experimental results to support or reject Intelligent Design (or, conversely, atheistic evolution). I've asked Nick to "put up" some evidence for his evolutionist beliefs. He has not yet answered (maybe timezone differences, maybe indifference to me, possibly inability to respond to my request). You answered on his behalf with an appeal to evidence for common ancestry. I explained why an appeal to common ancestry is barely relevant and certainly unimportant. Now, I have no idea what mechanisms were involved in creating Stonehenge, or indeed many of the other amazing artifacts bequeathed to us by antiquity. I also find things like "Out of place artifacts" (OOPARTS) absolutely fascinating and mysterious. I wouldn't even assert that any of these things have definite human origins. What I do know, without a shadow of a doubt, is that they were Intelligently Designed. Furthermore, I now know that a mere cell is perhaps the most stunningly sophisticated and complicated thing in existence. I don't know what mechanism was involved in creating the first cell, but I do know, without a shadow of a doubt, that it was Intelligently Designed. That said, I remain open to the (albeit, vastly diminished) possibility that the cell made itself and, even, that a eukaryotic cell evolved into a human being. But, without evidence, that door closes. The fact that humans and chimpanzees share similarities does not remotely constitute that evidence. My Samsung Galaxy S shares similarities with an iPhone. Big deal. The onus is on people like you, Daniel, and Nick, to support your position with evidence. Because, if your position is indeed true, then you should be able to identify an important piece of evidence that it rests upon. If human-chimp similarity is the best that you can do, then that says it all really.Chris Doyle_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Daniel, See these peer-reviewed papers which detail how an intelligent designer might have created first life. They are still largely hypothetical, but as you examine them you'll see that they are far ahead of any support for undirected chemical abiogenesis. But this has nothing to do with ID. Why is it so difficult to understand that intelligence or the lack thereof has nothing to do with mechanisms? I don't know whether you're typing on a keyboard, dictating, or paralyzed from the neck down and blinking morse code, or whether you're using a computer, phone, or Wii remote. Should I question whether these posts come from a person because I don't know the mechanisms? Do you need to know how a computer chip was manufactured to believe that it was? This is simple.ScottAndrews_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Hi, Chris, You are the best judge of whether a reference in the way of a response is irrelevant or important to you. And you are entitled to pick whichever cherries from the data that you like. Have you read this particular basket of cherries: http://twu.ca/academics/science/biology/faculty/venema/pscf9-10venema.pdf It's not peer-reviewed scholarly literature, but it covers the ground well, I think.
If it turned out to be an Intelligently Designed mechanism (not natural selection acting upon random mutations) then the likes of you and Nick will look like proper chumps!
Actually, I'd be thrilled to see a better explanation! But it has to be an explanation. Are there any ID mechanisms in the running that a molecular biologist could evaluate? I ask because I think that molecules have to be in there somewhere. Don't you agree?Daniel King_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Programming of Life: Warning; this video contains graphic images of extreme complexity in cells that should not be viewed by atheists of any age or gender. http://www.vimeo.com/27798192bornagain77_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Hi Daniel, Please re-read my original request to Nick in full. Your reference is almost irrelevant and certainly not "important". Similarity is as much an indication of common design as it is common ancestry. Then, of course, if you look at the large differences in the 'y' chromosome and all the extra DNA that chimps have generally then the conclusion you would draw from that reference is based on cherry picked evidence. IOW, bad science. But the main problem you have is that, even if I (like you) also just assumed the truth of common ancestry between humans and chimps, this sheds no light whatsoever on the mechanism behind the divergence. If it turned out to be an Intelligently Designed mechanism (not natural selection acting upon random mutations) then the likes of you and Nick will look like proper chumps! Please try again. And try harder.Chris Doyle_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Here are a few notes that don't take so much time or patience to digest, nor do the notes make misleading arguments based on 'non-established assumptions' about the ability of neo-Darwinian processes to traverse universe wide chasms between functional sequences in sequence space:
Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: 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. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: - Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." http://www.mendeley.com/research/estimating-the-prevalence-of-protein-sequences-adopting-functional-enzyme-folds/ Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 New level of genetic diversity in human RNA sequences uncovered Excerpt: A detailed comparison of DNA and RNA in human cells has uncovered a surprising number of cases where the corresponding sequences are not, as has long been assumed, identical. The RNA-DNA differences generate proteins that do not precisely match the genes that encode them.,,, Nearly half of the RDDs uncovered in the new study cannot be explained by the activity of deaminase enzymes, however, indicating that unknown processes must be modifying the RNA sequence, either during or after transcription. ,,, Although all of the individuals analyzed in the study had a large number of RDDs, there was a great deal of variability in the specific RDDs found in each person's genetic material." http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-genetic-diversity-human-rna-sequences.html Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
bornagain77_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Chris Doyle, You asked for "a single piece" of literature on the genealogy of humans. It's a long story, going back billions of years, but a good place to start is the divergence of chimpanzees and humans about 10 million years ago. Here is an overview of the comparative genetics of the two species: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full.pdf When you've digested that, you can explore the literature further for earlier genealogical relationships. Warning: that literature is vast and it will take some time and patience.Daniel King_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

"The creation story of my atheistic, materialistic religion suddenly made no sense."
So do now you believe the six day creation story in Genesis?mike1962_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Hi Nick, Would you be so kind as to select a single piece of "scientific literature on some specific biological topic" that provides important evidence for your belief that human beings evolved from a single-celled eukaryotic ancestor mainly through a process of natural selection acting upon random mutations, and describe in your own terms how it manages to do that? Many Thanks.Chris Doyle_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Isn't it about time you said something new in there posts of yours, Gil? I'm partial to intelligent design, but it does you no favours repeating the same old "I used to be an atheist, you know!", time after time. One would almost be lead to think you are proud of your atheist history.ThoughtSpark_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

In the following videos, Fazale (Fuz) Rana PhD. Biochemisty, relates his journey from being a practicing 'scientific atheist' to being a practicing 'scientific Christian'. Much like Gil's testimony, far from science being a hinderance to his faith in God, Fuz relates how science has dramatically enhanced and solidified his faith that God personally cares for each of us. In the last two videos, it is pleasant to watch Fuz's joy explaining recent discoveries in science, as well as science in general, as he relates some of the new stunning molecular complexities of life to a novice; Dr. Fuz Rana discusses the beauty and elegance of biochemistry http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonsToBelieve1#p/u/16/_zxYPO62Ygc Fazale (Fuz) Rana – The Cell’s Design – part 1 of 2 http://www.mynewday.tv/tv-show/2011/09/12/fazale-rana—the-cells-design-part-1-of-2/ Fazale (Fuz) Rana - The Cell's Design - Part 2 of 2 http://www.mynewday.tv/tv-show/2011/09/13/fazale-rana---the-cells-design-part-2-of-2/bornagain77_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

Looks to me like you've kept the same high-certainty, low-level-of-relevant-scholarship attitude, you just switched sides while doing so. Actually coming to grips with the scientific literature on some specific biological topic would be worth a thousand defiant testimonials.NickMatzke_UD_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

Hang it, Gil! I think you should write a book with your testimony, exactly how and why you changed your course. There's a lot of technical books out there, but a dearth of convincing testimonies backed up by facts and evidences.WatchmanX_{September 24, 2011
September
09
Sep
24
24
2011
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

You've been quite prolific lately with these testimonials. What gives?paragwinn_{September 23, 2011
September
09
Sep
23
23
2011
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 21 22 23

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply