The Red Ape

_{Cornelius Hunter

August 14, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

This month a new study reports that orangutans are particularly resourceful tool makers as they have been found to use a tool for communicating. Orangutans not only are sophisticated but, interestingly, share many similarities with humans. These “people of the forest,” as they have been called, have more in common with humans than do the other great apes. This includes features of anatomy, reproductive biology and behavior. This is interesting because it conflicts with evolutionary expectations. The conflict arises because there is one feature in which orangutans are not the closest species to humans: DNA.

Continue reading here.

Comments

hdx (5):

Nonetheless, within evolution DNA is still king, and humans share about 98.4 per cent of their DNA with chimps, 97.5 per cent with gorillas and 96.5 per cent with orangutans. Therefore, according to evolution, chimps rather than orangutans are our closest relatives.
This is such an ignorant and untrue statement. You can not take numbers like that and necessarily make a correctly rooted evolutionary tree.
This is, unfortunately, typical of how evolutionists respond. To an uncontroversial point the evolutionist makes an uncharitable response. It is not controversial that the consensus amongst evolutionists is that the DNA comparisons trump the morphological comparisons. Of course the percentages given are merely aggregate metrics. And of course they reflect the many alignments that are slightly closer for the chimp-human as compared to the orangutan-human. Does one really need to elaborate on those details? Only for evolutionists who seem to want to obscure the point being made and avoid the obvious.Cornelius Hunter_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

"Many of us IDers, such as Behe, have concluded that common ancestry between chimp and human is certainly valid" That is interesting. Could one not presuppose common design rather than common decent? Why should one say that we have a common ancestor rather than a common Creator? Is there good science that shows that because there are similarities in species it must follow that we are somehow related? Or is it really down to personal preference?IRQ Conflict_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

hdx, you make a valid point that some, even much, of this article is rhetoric. However, you also said, "Just because scientists debate the specifics, doesn’t mean that humans and other primates didn’t have a common ancestor." Many of us IDers, such as Behe, have concluded that common ancestry between chimp and human is certainly valid, and that universal common ancestry is most likely valid. However, please feel free to quote me on this, "just because humans and chimps have a common ancestor, that doesn't mean that random mutations + natural selection accounts for their differences." Let me make my case in point. The article points to the HAR gene set as being particularly different between humans and chimps. The HAR1F, for instance, is all but identicle in all vertibrates. (There are three nucleotides that wander a bit). However, in the human, the HAR1F gene, believed to play a role in brain development is different by 18 non-contiguous nucleotides. The fact that this gene is so stable in all of the other animals makes a strong case that it cannot be beneficially mutated by a single nucleotide (except the three nucleotides that are known to wander). Behe's studies, reported in "The Edge of Evolution" about clinch the conclusion that if two point mutations are required before benefit is imparted, the barrier will not be passed. In this case, however, it takes 18 such mutations. Did the HAR1F evolve through natural means as described by the neo-Darwinian model. Highly unlikely.bFast_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

In evolution-dom, DNA is king. Long ago evolutionists settled on DNA as the explanation of how the information for macro evolution could be stored and passed on
There are decades of evidence that shows that DNA stores genetic material. There was no 'settling'.
Evolutionists needed DNA to fulfill this role because they needed unguided change to be heritable. Such change was viewed as created by DNA mutations, which could then be passed on to offspring. Scientific problems with this dogma are mounting, but evolutionists have been slow to adjust and reconcile such a fundamental failure.
There are both environmental and genetic factors that affect development. Numerous genetic defects are caused by mutations in DNA. Various phenotypes are cause by genetic difference in DNA. There has been no fundamental failure.
Until recently the DNA dogma was even more narrow, as evolutionists viewed only the genes within the DNA as important. The remainder of the DNA (the vast majority) was often thought of as useless junk. Now that science, no thanks to evolution, is discovering that most of the "junk" is actually important, evolutionists changed their view to include more of the DNA.
Biologists have known about non-coding regions of the genome for a long time. There is still junk DNA. Please site the study that says most of the junk DNA is actually important.
Now science is taking the next step, again no thanks to evolution, in finding that the nature of an organism may be influenced by players outside the exalted DNA.
Yet evolution affect epigenitic inheritance since that can be controlled by parental DNA.
The silliness of evolution reaches yet new heights.
I can say the same thing about this article.
In other words, similarities indicate evolution--except when they don't. If I didn't know better, I would think that Darwinism might not make sense. But of course, Darwinists will clear all this up. They've already determined that macro evolution is a fact. Next they'll explain the evidence.
Just because scientists debate the specifics, doesn't mean that humans and other primates didn't have a common ancestor.hdx_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Nonetheless, within evolution DNA is still king, and humans share about 98.4 per cent of their DNA with chimps, 97.5 per cent with gorillas and 96.5 per cent with orangutans. Therefore, according to evolution, chimps rather than orangutans are our closest relatives.
This is such an ignorant and untrue statement. You can not take numbers like that and necessarily make a correctly rooted evolutionary tree. So how does the ID model explain the similarity of DNA between chimps and humans, and the similarity of other factors between orangutans and humans? Is that a good design principle?hdx_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Lenoxus, ID doesn't say one way or another about universal common descent. I say I can take the evidence for UCD and use it as evidence for common design and/ or convergence. Then there is the fact we still don't have any evidence that the transformations required are even possible. Where are the "human genes"? How about the orangutan genes?Joseph_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

I admit: This does appear to answer the frequent pro-common-descent claim that you guys need to find a situation where morphology and genetics tell completely* different stories. Still, I have to wonder… is this the best answer available? And what about how ID is supposed to be all-totally-OK with common descent? Which is it? Stay tuned to find out! * Word's definition may be malleable; all rights reserved.Lenoxus_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

"The conflict arises because there is one feature in which orangutans are not the closest species to humans: DNA" No kidding eh? We need to have a ROFL tag. Cause that's what I did when I read that! Nice find Dr. Hunter.IRQ Conflict_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

"But of course, Darwinists will clear all this up. They've already determined that macro evolution is a fact. Next they'll explain the evidence." Shouldn't it rather be "next they'll produce the evidence?"CannuckianYankee_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply