One of the most popular evidences proclaimed for evolution in recent years is the high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The cousin genomes are about 99% similar and this has repeatedly been expounded as an obvious proof text of evolution. But these comparisons did not include the finicky Y chromosome which only recently has been decoded from the chimp genome. These new results show an entirely different picture.Scientific theories are used to make predictions. And when those predictions are confirmed they make a theory look good. Certainly evolutionists think that the 99% similarity between human and chimp genomes is a powerful confirmation of evolution. But there are two sides of the prediction coin—the more you gain on the upside, the more you can lose on the downside. If a successful prediction is compelling proof of a theory, then its failure is a strong falsifier. And we now know that the human and chimp Y chromosomes are highly dissimilar.
The new research shows significant differences particularly between the male-specific regions of the human and chimp Y chromosomes—the MSYs. Unlike the prediction of highly conserved genomes over the 6 million years since the two species split apart, the new results indicate a “wholesale renovation” and “remodeling” in the respective lineages. Little change was predicted but what has been found is that more than 30% of the chimpanzee MSY region has no human counterpart, and vice-versa.
Furthermore, the human and chimp regions are not in the same order. Contrary to what was expected, “the chimpanzee and human MSYs differ markedly in sequence structure” reflecting “extensive rearrangement.” In all, the chimp and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other,” said one evolutionist.
And how did all this occur? These human and chimp regions differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, “indicating rapid evolution” explain evolutionists. It is an example of “rapid divergence” driven by various “synergistic factors.” There was, for example, the “brisk kinetics” of ectopic recombination, genetic hitchhiking, and the competition for mates.
So when genetic similarities are found they are powerful evidence for common descent, and when surprising differences arise they are examples “rapid evolution.” No wonder evolution has been called a tautology.
Dr Hunter,
ReplyDeleteCould you be more specific about the prediction that was falsified in this case?
Who made the prediction? Do you have a reference?
Persons with a genuine interest in the science might profit from reading what David Page, the senior author of the work cited in the opening post, had to say about the significance of these findings:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hhmi.org/news/page6.html
Title: Human Y Chromosome Preserves Itself Better Than the Chimp Y
Excerpt:
Page and his colleagues wrote that their new studies suggest the human Y chromosome is able to cleanse itself of genetic errors by a process they call “purifying selection.” In fact, mathematical models have been proposed which suggest how this occurs - pointing to a slowing of the rate of gene decay for the human Y chromosome late in evolution.
I understand Dr Hunter's logic here. It's in this sentence:
ReplyDeleteSo when genetic similarities are found they are powerful evidence for common descent, and when surprising differences arise they are examples “rapid evolution."
This, in the face of having already admitted that the overall similarity between human and chimp is 99%. And now we learn that part of the dissimilar 1% is in the Y-chromosome. Seeing as how the surprising differences are such a small part of the overall picture, I submit that the biologists are justified in seeing the forest despite the existence of some grassy spots.
What did ID predict would be found in the Y-chromosome comparison, before this work was done? Can someone supply a link?
ReplyDeleteWhat's that? ID doesn't make predictions, only empty claims of credit after-the-fact? Got it.
The Y chromosome is a funny thing. So few genes, so subject to sexual pressure. No partner to recombine with. Even humans are massively polymorphic for it:
ReplyDeleteRepping, S. et al. High mutation rates have driven extensive structural polymorphism among human Y chromosomes. Nature Genet. 38, 463–467 (2006)
But a couple of questions:
1) The paper in no way falsifies common ancestry.
No one would predict identity to chimps. I'd predict similarities with some key differences. No? Guess what happened? Scientists turned up a key difference. Shocking.
But, from the paper:
"As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%). Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa"
Ok, so 98.9-99% similar, except for a weird chunk, which is 70% similar. Near-identity with key differences! The paper goes on to explain the losses and duplications, transfers to and from other chromosomes, that account for the remainder.
2) What is the design proposal? Humans were designed in a process that spanned millions of years (and is ongoing) as 99% chimp, except for one region, where we are 70% chimp, along with some 30% with odd differences. Oddities on the Y, by the way, contribute to infertility and genetic disorders* Or are we totally unique, but just made to look similar?
3) Do you accept the common ancestry of humans and chimps? The whole analysis here--that finds more-than-expected differences--relies on the ability to compare and contrast what is conserved and different! If you reject the ancestry, alignments, and phylogeny, who cares? This would neither bolster or weaken any claim.
4) "The new results indicate a “wholesale renovation” and “remodeling” in the respective lineages." Ouch. Would those renovations be observations of gain-of-information in progress? If renovation and remodeling have again been observed, this is further disproof of ID.
*:
Kuroda-Kawaguchi, T. et al. The AZFc region of the Y chromosome features massive palindromes and uniform recurrent deletions in infertile men. Nature Genet. 29, 279–286 (2001)
Repping, S. et al. Recombination between palindromes P5 and P1 on the human Y chromosome causes massive deletions and spermatogenic failure. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 71, 906–922 (2002)
Repping, S. et al. Polymorphism for a 1.6-Mb deletion of the human Y chromosome persists through balance between recurrent mutation and haploid selection. Nature Genet. 35, 247–251
Lange, J. et al. Isodicentric Y chromosomes and sex disorders as byproducts of homologous recombination that maintains palindromes. Cell 138, 855–869 (2009)
RobertC:
ReplyDelete"3) Do you accept the common ancestry of humans and chimps?"
Well, Biola's doctrinal statement explicitly states that humans cannot "share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms" and the employee handbook is quite clear that "[p]rospective and existing employees must affirm that their personal theological beliefs are in agreement with the Biola Doctrinal Statement", so unless that doesn't apply to adjunct professors for some reason, Cornelius just plain isn't allowed to accept our common ancestry with chimps or anything else.
Thomas S Howard
ReplyDeleteThat's scandalous! Surely you must have made a mistake?! That doctrinal statement sounds shockingly like a statement of religious faith. And to decree that a certain opinion will be held NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS, would be totally unscientific.
It would be as if religion drives Cornelius - not that it matters very much.
What I love is how creationists abstract little tidbits of science and -- especially -- quotes, typically overexcited, from news articles ("horrendously different"), and base their arguments on that, rather than the science considered in full context.
ReplyDeleteCreationists totally forget that many scientists who are being quoted in the news (a) think their research is the most important thing ever (like most scientists), (b) think whatever they are getting in the news for must be really exciting/weird/revolutionary, since they don't get in the news for most of their discoveries, and (c) news stories rarely have room/desire to lay out the full story.
Amongst the things that Hunter shamelessly, shockingly, incompetently ignores:
* there are a lot of standard, well-known population genetics reasons why things like the Y-chromosome should evolve rapidly
* if there are indeed fundamental reasons that the Y-chromosome evolves quickly in general, this should be observed not just between chimps and humans, but *within* both species. Which, as far as I know, is observed.
* the subjective "amount" of change is not the most important thing, especially because things like deletions can cause "a lot" of "difference" in sequence, but actually reflect a very few events. Others have already pointed out that the non-deleted sequence maintains quite high similarity
* the amount of change also isn't the most important thing because common ancestry doesn't predict that everything will evolve at exactly the same rate (which is what Hunter, stunningly and ridiculously, implies), rather it predicts that, whatever the rate of sequence change, humans and chimps will usually be closest to each other, gorillas will be a little farther (but not much), then orangs, then gibbons, then old-word monkeys, then new world monkeys, then lemurs, then other placentals, then marsupials, etc.
It doesn't say this exact pattern will happen absolutely perfectly in every single instance -- there are several well-known effects that can produce some noise -- but that this will be the overall pattern with a high degree of statistical significance. Using the theory, I predict this is true for the Y-chromosome as far back as traceable Y-chromosome signal goes (which is not that far, I think, e.g. playtypi have some other weird system). Hunter, like creationists in general, has no prediction. He just throws ignorant bombs convincing only to other ignorant people, just like the Bible-beating fundamentalists of old.
* There is a massive amount of literature just on the evolution of sex chromosomes, it's a classic example of a highly successful application of population genetics and evolutionary biology, and Hunter is embarrassing and discrediting himself and creationists in general by irresponsibly blathering about a topic like this when he clearly knows jack squat about it.
There is a massive amount of literature just on the evolution of sex chromosomes, it's a classic example of a highly successful application of population genetics and evolutionary biology,...
ReplyDeleteSooooo, 'literature' based on biased evolutionary assumptions, is alleged proof of said biased evolutionary assumptions???
If you didn't start with those biased assumptions, maybe you would realize how bereft of actual evidence your darwinian fairytale truly is.
If one is really interested in looking at actual evidence, there are 1272 open access (free) scientific papers on the topic of Sex Chromosome Evolution listed at PubMed Central:
ReplyDeletewww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
"Ok, so 98.9-99% similar, except for a weird chunk, which is 70% similar."
ReplyDeleteNow I understand womens, they are 100% chimpanzees!
I apologize to the woman all aover the world.
ReplyDeleteI just couldn´t resisit!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eyes_manish/4626257168/in/photostream/
ReplyDeleteOh the blog-o-sphere...
ReplyDeleteI shall opine again...
Last time (with the Glial Cell of the eye article) we talked about when anyone tries to discount evolution, someone always ignores the point the ID/Creationist proponent makes and goes straight to saying "you are making metaphysical claims" when none was made... This is the "metaphysic retreat" strategy.
Now, here is another strategy always used by evolutionists, as shown by "Thorton" above is when we find a claim to go against they DEMAND to know what ID explanation is. Let me say something, WHO CARES what ID's explanation is, its irrelevant to the point! The point is Evo's claims are false! Fine, let's say that ID doesn't have a claim yet, okay... that still means that the Evo claim is false or highly dubious at best. This is the "Create a Paradigm" strategy.
Glad to get that off my chest...
But to be fair NickM's reply is very good (just very rude and full of ad hominems) and one that we should think about. Someone please answer for I don't have the time or strength these days :P
"Let me say something, WHO CARES what ID's explanation is, its irrelevant to the point!"
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point? If the point is inquiring into the nature of things--doing anything that resembles science, should you not have a functional hypothesis? Something at least explanatory and predictive?
In short, you are arguing that you have no explanation for the data, no methodology, no science-and that you shouldn't have to. But, you have a religious-based feeling that evolution can't be right, so you demand ID be taught in schools.
"Fine, let's say that ID doesn't have a claim yet,"
I think we're all agreed on that.
"that still means that the Evo claim is false or highly dubious at best."
And that's where you, and the scientific community disagree. Many of us here have presented evidence of why the evolutionary claim in this case, and every other, is quite sound.
@ Robert C
ReplyDelete2 things happen in the evo/ID discourse as an ID proponent
1) Try to prove evolution false
2) Try to prove ID is true
I have just commented on one, since evo you claim it is some great monolith that cannot be touched. Every time it is you guys go crazy and talk about everything besides the one point trying to be argued. Did I say that ID "no explanation for the data, no methodology, no science-and that you shouldn't have to."
If you think I did please show me. Yes I do believe ID does those things. But that's not the point I was making and ironically you fall straight into the point I was *actually* making.
We were talking about how this data seems to point at that evo predictive power is dubious.
You then talk about how I "demand ID be taught in schools"
Thx for proving my point :)
And now I will be off point. I hope you know that the "scientific community" = Atheist Scientific Community for the most part. See NATURE|VOL 394 | 23 JULY 1998. They did a survey of the National Academy of Sciences and guess what 70 % disbelieved God 20% said they doubted and your are saying this "scientific community" rejects ID? OF COURSE.
That's like going into a church and asking who believes in God? Going to your "scientists" akin to going to a atheist conference and asking who believes in evolution.
The point of this blog is remember "How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters"
ReplyDeleteDr. Hunter is doing a fabulous job of that.
Predestined:
ReplyDeleteI) "2 things happen in the evo/ID discourse as an ID proponent:
1) Try to prove evolution false
2) Try to prove ID is true"
Attempts to do either never routinely happen. Instead, you do an end run, and start blathering about the evil of atheism and sob stories about how we're unfair, and metaphysical, and so darn mean. Look at the comments on this blog. Who is discussing science except the evolutionists? Who is completely ignorant of the data, and making arguments that it shouldn't matter that ID is wholly un-explanatory? What hypothesis presented by an evolutionist here depends on religion?
II) "Did I say that ID "no explanation for the data, no methodology, no science-and that you shouldn't have to."
If you think I did please show me"
You earlier:
"Let me say something, WHO CARES what ID's explanation is, its irrelevant to the point!"
Close enough.
III) "We were talking about how this data seems to point at that evo predictive power is dubious."
"We" haven't debated a single point about the data or the science. My reply above stands, as do the references to the literature on this subject.
IV) "But that's not the point I was making and ironically you fall straight into the point I was *actually* making."
Nice flourish, but maybe you should re-state the actual point you are making. In fact, you've invalidated your own argument by distancing yourself from discussion of science, failing to defend the merits of ID, and diving straight to the heat of the matter-the scientists are naughty atheists issue. Its all you have.
V) The survey was just of academy members, not all scientists. Even so, their beliefs don't falsify evolution. We don't have a doctrinal statement to practice science. Francis Collins, head of the NIH is proof positive of that. That many mainstream religious groups accept evolution is also.
The Predestined Blog wrote:
ReplyDeleteWe were talking about how this data seems to point at that evo predictive power is dubious.
As I asked in the opening post,
Could you be more specific about the prediction that was falsified in this case?
Who made the prediction? Do you have a reference?
Thank you.
NickM,
ReplyDeleteI hear what you say, but credit should be given to Dr. Hunter for highlighting the erroneous popular belief that has been sold to the masses as proof of evolution.
Your crystal clear explanation that biological theorists have "predicted" these expected state of affairs regarding sex chromosomes, does very little to lighten the load for the main argument for design. It actually brings the question to mind; Why has popular science not been trying to explain to the masses that the evolution of the sex chromosomes is dependent on such involved prerequisites? Is it maybe because the masses has to think evolution is a gradual minutely incremental process that can scale "mount improbable" by chance mutations and selection?
P.S. Your religion bashing makes the display of your knowledge of the subject seems vulgar. But maybe that's the source of your power...
Dr. Hunter certainly carry his views with class and should be commended by any rational person, regardless of their world view.
@ RobertC
ReplyDeleteC'mon you know when I said "WHO CARES what ID's explanation is, its irrelevant to the point!" I was NOT conceding the fact that ID has no explanatory power, rather pointing out the fact that ID's explanatory power was not even the subject yet you brought it up.
Can u not even give me that?
And when I brought up the NAS article I wrote "And now I will be off point." Thats when I stopped talking about science, hence "off the ponit."
So when u said "heat [sic] of the matter-the scientists are naughty atheists issue. Its all you have. " I didn't say anything of the sort. I was making the point that atheistic presuppositions affect how one views the data.
Its obvious you don't want any meaningful conversation that is the real shame...
@ David
ReplyDeleteThe prediction is that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and that the Y chrom studies will support that claim.
Dr. Hunter says the study does not support that prediction.
David,
ReplyDeleteAre you actually going to keep up with this "Who made the prediction?" line, if you could walk into any shopping mall and ask the first evo-believer why he belief in common descent?
99% Chimp DNA has been a deal clincher since it was first published in popular science media.
Fine predestined, I think my points stand, but lets talk real science.
ReplyDelete"The prediction is that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and that the Y chrom studies will support that claim.
Dr. Hunter says the study does not support that prediction"
Ok, I think the questions we've asked are:
1) David-"Could you be more specific about the prediction that was falsified in this case?
Who made the prediction? Do you have a reference?"
2) How can this work be interpreted as a falsification of common ancestry? See below.
3) What was the ID hypothesis this verified? Please provide a reference pre-dating the work. How does ID explain the Y-chromosome, the pattern of inheritance, and Y chromosome function and mis-function? (see my post above) Lets see some of that explanatory power.
Re point 2, as posted above:
The paper in no way falsifies common ancestry.
No one would predict identity to chimps. I'd predict similarities with some key differences. No? Guess what happened? Scientists turned up a key difference. Shocking.
But, from the paper:
"As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%). Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa"
Ok, so 98.9-99% similar, except for a weird chunk, which is 70% similar. Near-identity with key differences! The paper goes on to explain the losses and duplications, transfers to and from other chromosomes, that account for the remainder.
Michael,
ReplyDelete"99% Chimp DNA has been a deal clincher since it was first published in popular science media."
and now 98.9% similarity is a really strong argument against common descent?
nanobot74'
ReplyDeleteWhat ever is clouding your mind it surely cannot be helpful to scientific discovery.
This blog post is just bringing new empirical data up for discussion. Anyone who claim to be a scientist should be able to handle any possible hypothesis when trying to explain natural phenomenon.
But I suppose this is your place to fight and win, science can stand back.
David:
ReplyDelete===
Could you be more specific about the prediction that was falsified in this case?
Who made the prediction? Do you have a reference?
===
The point of the blog is that evidence that has been acclaimed as supporting evolution has another side to it.
Nick:
ReplyDelete====
What I love is how creationists abstract little tidbits of science and ... Creationists totally forget
====
So its back to creationist again.
More later ...
Well, Cornelius, you adhere to the Biola doctrinal statement don't you? It's explicitly creationist, therefore you're a creationist if you do.
ReplyDeleteI suspect, however, that you're looking to argue over the definition of the word, so let's just avoid that: do you adhere to the doctrinal statement or not? We can discuss what exactly the answer to that makes you later.
I understand that it is only in the portions of DNA that code for proteins that the similarity is 99%. In the noncoding sections, the differences are much greater.
ReplyDeleteDr Hunter:
ReplyDeleteThe point of the blog is that evidence that has been acclaimed as supporting evolution has another side to it.
Thank you for your courteous response. I appreciate your willingness to answer questions.
However, the evidence on the "other side" doesn't seem to contradict the acclaimed evidence that supports evolution (namely, the congruence between human and chimpanzee genomes). So, if your aim was to call evolutionary theory into question, this particular shot has missed, by my reckoning.
Yeah, old-earth creationist is still creationist...
ReplyDeleteRe:
==========
NickM,
I hear what you say, but credit should be given to Dr. Hunter for highlighting the erroneous popular belief that has been sold to the masses as proof of evolution.
Your crystal clear explanation that biological theorists have "predicted" these expected state of affairs regarding sex chromosomes, does very little to lighten the load for the main argument for design. It actually brings the question to mind; Why has popular science not been trying to explain to the masses that the evolution of the sex chromosomes is dependent on such involved prerequisites? Is it maybe because the masses has to think evolution is a gradual minutely incremental process that can scale "mount improbable" by chance mutations and selection?
==========
What? You really expect scientists to put time into explaining the technical population genetics of sex chromosomes? And if they did, you think newspapers, TV shows, and the public would care? No, what would happen would be loss of ratings/sales for the media involved. And rightly so, probably, it's basically one of the million-and-one areas of science that are hard and technical and not hugely relevant to everyone's day-to-day lives, unless you work in the field.
The only media there's been on this topic that I can recall is the stuff about how the male Y-chromosome is disappearing, leading to sillyness from the media about this means men will disappear, when in fact all it means is that eventually the male-determining bits eventually get attached to some other chromosome, which eventually itself becomes reduced, with the other genes "fleeing" to other chromosomes, etc.
=======
P.S. Your religion bashing makes the display of your knowledge of the subject seems vulgar. But maybe that's the source of your power...
=======
I didn't bash religion, I bashed creationism specifically for supporting the kinds of proud displays of outright, brazen ignorance and carelessness that we saw in Hunter's post and some of the comments. Sorry if it seemed rude, but a lot of scientists would be even more rude. Hunter's post, and many of the reactions, are about on the same level as someone claiming that scientists are misleading the public about the earth being round, because it has mountains on it, and some of them are really big. Shocking and scandalous development for mainstream round-earth-anary science!
The only difference between this and evolution is that you already knew about mountains, and you didn't know about the common patterns in sex chromosomes.
==========
Dr. Hunter certainly carry his views with class and should be commended by any rational person, regardless of their world view."
==========
Why? His views on this topic are about the equivalent of some college freshman who wrote an essay on a biological topic without doing the responsible thing and doing the basic background research first. In a student, it would excusable, kind of, but for a Ph.D. presenting himself as an expert, holding forth on a blog, and posting his stuff on other blogs, and generally on a mission to "inform" the public about evolution, it's incredible.
The Predestined Blog -
ReplyDeleteAnd now I will be off point. I hope you know that the "scientific community" = Atheist Scientific Community for the most part. See NATURE|VOL 394 | 23 JULY 1998. They did a survey of the National Academy of Sciences and guess what 70 % disbelieved God 20% said they doubted and your are saying this "scientific community" rejects ID? OF COURSE.
Allow me to invite you to consider the implications that such a high percentage of acadmeic scientists doubt God.
It apparently hasn't dawned on you yet. But doesn't that just scream out that the best evidence we have does NOT point to there being a God?
It is the job - the LIFE - of a scientist to understand the world (or at least, their particular field of it). These are the people in the know. And apparently they don't find the evidence for ID very convincing, do they?
Oh dear lord,
ReplyDeleteDid you actually read the paper? The homologous sequences still have more than 98% identity to the human counterparts. It's just that the Y has been making new genes at the same time.
If anyone is interested in the reasons for that I wrote about it at the time it was published:
http://theatavism.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-of-y-chromosomes-amazing.html
Thomas S. Howard:
ReplyDelete==========
Well, Cornelius, you adhere to the Biola doctrinal statement don't you? It's explicitly creationist, therefore you're a creationist if you do. I suspect, however, that you're looking to argue over the definition of the word, so let's just avoid that: do you adhere to the doctrinal statement or not? We can discuss what exactly the answer to that makes you later.
==========
Let's have a look. First, it says you are a sinner:
-------------
Man was created in the image of God, after His likeness, but the whole human race fell in the fall of the first Adam. All men, until they accept the Lord Jesus as their personal Savior, are lost, darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, hardened in heart, morally and spiritually dead through their trespasses and sins. They cannot see, nor enter the Kingdom of God until they are born again of the Holy Spirit.
-------------
Yes, I believe that. Next, it says Jesus saves sinners:
-------------
By His death on the cross, the Lord Jesus made a perfect atonement for sin, by which the wrath of God against sinners is appeased and a ground furnished upon which God can deal in mercy with sinners. He redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse in our place. He who Himself was absolutely without sin was made to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
-------------
Yes, I believe that. Next, it says those who receive Jesus are saved:
-------------
All those who receive Jesus Christ as their Savior and their Lord, and who confess Him as such before their fellow men, become children of God and receive eternal life. They become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. At death their spirits depart to be with Christ in conscious blessedness, and at the Second Coming of Christ their bodies shall be raised and transformed into the likeness of the body of His glory.
-------------
Yes, I believe that. Next, it says those who reject Jesus are condemned:
-------------
All those who persistently reject Jesus Christ in the present life shall be raised from the dead and throughout eternity exist in the state of conscious, unutterable, endless torment of anguish.
-------------
Yes, I believe that. So yes, I adhere to the Biola doctrinal statement.
==========
It's explicitly creationist ...
==========
I didn't know that (but I'm not a creationist).
Nick:
ReplyDelete=======
Yeah, old-earth creationist is still creationist...
=======
I'm not an old-earth creationist.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteThe doctrinal statement includes an explanatory note where we find the following paragraph:
Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.
That's creationism, plain and simple. You do accept that part of the doctrinal statement, don't you?
Oleg:
ReplyDeleteThat is not the doctrinal statement. Did you read the document? It states:
"In addition, the following explanatory notes indicate the organization’s understanding and teaching position on certain points which could be subject to various interpretations:"
I do not agree with all of the explanatory notes. (I don't even agree with every jot and tittle of the doctrinal statement for that matter).
What is relevant here is that I am pretty much in the middle of the historical spectrum of Christian thought on creation. Going back to Basil, Christian thought has always included a wide spectrum of thought on the basic question of law versus miracle. At the edges there are those who mandate a creation narrative that is exclusively or mostly one or the other (evolutionists vs creationists, for instance).
I think the problem is somewhat underdetermined at this point. I think reasonable arguments can be made for the different points in the spectrum, but I don't think reasonable arguments can be made to *mandate* a specific position, which of course evolutionists (and many creationists) do.
Since evolution is of course, from a scientific perspective, a low probability theory, I see good support for the miracle side of the spectrum. On the other hand, the law-like operation of biology and nature in general (eg, adaptation) is incredible and certainly is good evidence for the law side of the spectrum.
Unfortunately there seems to be a tremendous amount of personal baggage people carry around with them in this debate. So often people seem to define themselves by what they are *not*. They're in their trenches, sniping at anything and everything "out there." Look at how Matzke and the evolutionists use the "creationist" label.
I do agree there are plenty of writings to disagree with. Evolutionists say this world would never have been designed or created intentionally, therefore mandate a naturalistic creation, and then say there is a conflict between science and scripture. Creationists mandate scriptural interpretations that are merely one of several that are acceptable.
But evolutionists and creationists also make some good points. So I prefer not to choose between 19th c. positions--what I see as a false dichotomy.
What is disappointing to me is that evolution is metaphysically-laden, mandates a low probability theory, and insists it is science, good science, and the only way to do science. And then people like you join in, apparently thinking you are adding your voice to the cause of science when in fact you are adding to the problem.
Since evolution is of course, from a scientific perspective, a low probability theory, I see good support for the miracle side of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteOne more argument from personal incredulity. The simple fact is, neither you nor anyone else has sufficient knowledge to calculate an actual probability for evolution accurately enough to make such a claim. You don't know all possible evolutionary pathways, and you don't know if the genetic sequences we see now are the only possible ones to support life. The few feeble attempts at claiming calculated low probabilities of biological structures as 'evidence' for ID (Behe, Dembski) have all relied on the lottery fallacy, assuming the observed result is the only possible one. They also have all made the beginner's mistake of assuming all the constituent parts had to spontaneously arise and assemble all at once instead being added gradually through an iterative feedback process.
If you walk in on a card game and see me holding a poker hand with a royal straight flush, you have no way of calculating the probability of that hand without knowing the rules and previous history of the game. If I was playing draw poker and the rules were I could have a million discards and redraws, the odds of me getting that hand are virtually 1.0
Cornelius,
ReplyDelete"I do not agree with all of the explanatory notes."
well do you agree with this one?
"God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God)."
Is there any evidence- any evidence whatsoever- that changes in the genome can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans?
ReplyDeleteHow can we test such a premise- that chimps and humans not only shared a common ancestor but that the physiological and anatomical differences can be explained by accumulating genetic accidents?
Evolutionists harp on ID when in reality it is their failure to substantiate their claims that has us at this point.
Is there any evidence- any evidence whatsoever- that changes in the genome can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans?
ReplyDeleteYes. A good example is the FOXP2 transcription factor that has been shown to regulate the genes responsible for speech. The human version is slightly different than the chimp version.
human speech gene
How can we test such a premise- that chimps and humans not only shared a common ancestor but that the physiological and anatomical differences can be explained by accumulating genetic accidents?
Bayesian statistical analysis like the type done by Douglas Theobald in his recent work on the UCA
A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry
Evolutionists harp on ID when in reality it is their failure to substantiate their claims that has us at this point.
Your complete ignorance of the evidence does not indicate a lack of evidence.