Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: 7 years after the chimpanzee genome was completed

Expand Messages
  • Dan Carlton
    ... [image: Intelligent design]
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 26, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM, HumanCarol <humancarol@...> wrote:
       

       just exactly what is the theory of scientific creationism? The theory of intelligent design? 

      How have they been tested?

      Who has tested them?

      What resulted?


       Intelligent design
      Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When atheist andevolutionist Richard Dawkins was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.

      Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable[1] theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.[2] As Jonathan Wells wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." [3] Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the Darwinian assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of creation" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.[4]

      The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that design is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: design detection). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of intelligent design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of evolution such as chemical and Darwinian evolution [5] that the design exhibited in our universe is merely apparent design, i.e., unintelligentdesign caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.[6]

      In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).[7] An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.[8]

      Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to subjective historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

      Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature

      See also: Irreducible complexity

      Phillip E. Johnson, Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus

      Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,[27] observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the existence of design in nature, but the cause of design in nature.

      Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: unintelligentcauses and intelligent causesUnintelligent causes include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the "appearance" of design.

      Intelligent design proponent Phillip E. Johnson illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:

      Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA
      "One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are."[28]

      Intelligent causes include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.

      The question is not, therefore, "is there evidence of design in nature?" Rather, the scientific question is, "Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?" Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism). The question simply asks, "in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?"

      With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. Cosmological evidence for design is described at Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology section. Biological evidence for intelligent design includes general evidence and special evidence, and both are discussed at General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology. For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the Evidence Filter.

      Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science

      Forensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime.

      Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only unintelligentcauses can be considered.

      Forensic sciencesForensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

      Archeology: Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection. Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).

      Cryptanalysis: Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking. Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

      Arson investigation: Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).

      Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: The name says it all. These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

      Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification. No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

      http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design#Intelligent_Design.2C_Evolution.2C_and_the_Nature_of_Origins_Science

    • SH
      ... Tin: How does creationism explain the shared genetic genetic scars between human and other primates like Chimpanzees ? Specificaly why do share the same
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 27, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        > > We have now read the genomes of our two closest relatives. The bonobo
        > > genome is published today, seven years after the chimpanzee genome was
        > > completed.
        > >
        > > By comparing the human genome with that of chimps and bonobos, we can find
        > > out about the last common ancestor of the three species, says lead author
        > > Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in
        > > Leipzig, Germany.
        > >
        > > That's a crucial question, because bonobos and chimps live in strikingly
        > > different societies. Bonobo society is female-dominated and remarkably
        > > peaceful, whereas chimpanzee society is male-dominated and far more
        > > aggressive. Which of these is the ancestral state?
        > >
        > > Humans split from chimps and bonobos around 4.5 million years ago, and
        > > chimps and bonobos then separated around a million years ago.
        > >
        > > We don't yet know what the common ancestor of humans, chimps and bonobos
        > > looked like, but we do now have an idea of how many of them there were. By
        > > comparing the levels of genetic diversity in the three species, Pääbo
        > > estimates that the ancestral population numbered about 45,000 individuals.
        > >
        > > The bonobo genome shows no sign that genes were passed between bonobos and
        > > chimps after they separated, suggesting that the two species split
        > > completely and did not carry on interbreeding. It may be that they were cut
        > > off from each other when the Congo River formed, allowing them to evolve
        > > separately.
        > >
        > > That's not what happened at the earlier split, when humans broke away from
        > > chimps and bonobos. Pääbo's analysis shows that more than 3 per cent of the
        > > human genome is more closely related to chimps and bonobos than chimps and
        > > bonobos are to each other - suggesting that our ancestors carried out
        > > interbreeding with apes for a while.
        > >
        > > ---end of excerpt---


        > *Science


        Tin: How does creationism explain the shared genetic
        genetic scars between human and other primates
        like Chimpanzees ?


        Specificaly why do share the same ERV insertions
        and a broken GULO gene that is broken GULO gene
        that is mutation or broken in the same way ?


        ANSWER IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
      • SH
        ... Tin: Can you name, describe then defend even one scientific principle or mechanism of intelligent design ? If you can t answer that we can t get to the
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 27, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          > >
          > > just exactly what is the theory of scientific creationism? The theory of
          > > intelligent design?
          > >
          >
          > > How have they been tested?
          > >
          > > Who has tested them?
          > >
          > > What resulted?
          > >
          >
          >
          > [image: Intelligent


          Tin: Can you name, describe then defend
          even one scientific principle or mechanism
          of intelligent design ?


          If you can't answer that we can't
          get to the interesting questions about
          how core principles of theories are
          used to explain facts.


          ANSWER IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
        • SH
          ... Tin: Good question. ... Tin: Good question. The answer from real science is that ID is not a real scientific theory. It has no core scientific
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 27, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            > > just exactly what is the theory of scientific creationism?

            Tin: Good question.


            > > The theory of
            > > intelligent design?
            > >
            >
            > > How have they been tested?
            > >
            > > Who has tested them?
            > >
            > > What resulted?


            Tin: Good question. The answer from real
            science is that ID is not a real scientific
            theory. It has no core scientific principles
            on which to base either prediction or an
            explanation of scientific facts.


            It is almost entirley a combination
            of God of the Gaps, Omniscience Fallacy,
            & God's whim.


            None of which are science.

            > >
            >
            >
            > [image: Intelligent


            Tin: NONanswer. Hiding behind paste jobs
            is the same as no answer.


            Better luck next time Dan.


            Reminder for Propaganda-Dan Carlton:

            1. ANSWER IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

            2. STAY ON TOPIC.

            3. DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND COPYnPASTES.

            4. DON'T BE A WEASEL.

            5. DEAL WITH THE CONTENT.

            6. DON'T TELL ANY LIES.



            ---Propaganda Dan Caught Lying: Gould
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creation_evolution_debate/message/329792


            ---Propaganda-Dan Caught Lying: Mayr
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creation_evolution_debate/message/329743
          • HumanCarol
            ... http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/06/bonobo-genome-hints-at-common.html ...
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 27, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              > > We have now read the genomes of our two closest relatives. The bonobo genome is published today, seven years after the chimpanzee genome was completed.
              > > By comparing the human genome with that of chimps and bonobos, we can find out about the last common ancestor of the three species, says lead author Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.
              > > That's a crucial question, because bonobos and chimps live in strikingly different societies. Bonobo society is female-dominated and remarkably peaceful, whereas chimpanzee society is male-dominated and far more aggressive. Which of these is the ancestral state?
              > > Humans split from chimps and bonobos around 4.5 million years ago, and chimps and bonobos then separated around a million years ago.
              > > We don't yet know what the common ancestor of humans, chimps and bonobos looked like, but we do now have an idea of how many of them there were. By comparing the levels of genetic diversity in the three species, Pääbo estimates that the ancestral population numbered about 45,000 individuals.
              > > The bonobo genome shows no sign that genes were passed between bonobos and chimps after they separated, suggesting that the two species split completely and did not carry on interbreeding. It may be that they were cut off from each other when the Congo River formed, allowing them to evolve separately.
              > > That's not what happened at the earlier split, when humans broke away from chimps and bonobos. Pääbo's analysis shows that more than 3 per cent of the human genome is more closely related to chimps and bonobos than chimps and bonobos are to each other - suggesting that our ancestors carried out interbreeding with apes for a while.
              > > ---end of excerpt---
              http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/06/bonobo-genome-hints-at-common.html


              --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, Dan Carlton <pahu78@...> posted
              > *Science Disproves Evolution:*
              > *Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity?*
              > Not any more.
              > *A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists
              > themselves.*
              > by David DeWitt
              <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_dewitt.asp> >>

              Yup. That's what science does. It re-evaluates and throws out positions which do not hold up in light of new information, such as the bonobo DNA genome.

              PS:
              David DeWitt is a Liberty University creationist hack.
            • Dan Carlton
              ... David DeWitt, Ph.D.Director, Center for Creation Studies Chair, Department of Biology & Chemistry Professor of Biology Office: Science Hall 111 Phone:
              Message 6 of 12 , Feb 28, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:30 PM, HumanCarol <humancarol@...> wrote:
                 


                Yup. That's what science does. It re-evaluates and throws out positions which do not hold up in light of new information, such as the bonobo DNA genome.

                PS:
                David DeWitt is a Liberty University creationist hack.


                David DeWitt, Ph.D.

                Director, Center for Creation Studies
                Chair, Department of Biology & Chemistry
                Professor of Biology

                Office: Science Hall 111
                Phone: (434) 582-2228
                 
                dadewitt@... Email dadewitt@...

                Education
                B.S. Michigan State University
                Ph.D. Case Western Reserve University
                 

                Courses taught 
                CRST 290 Creation Studies
                CRST 390 Creation Studies
                BIOL 400 Biology Seminar
                BIOL 415 Cell Biology

                Professional Memberships
                 
                Creation Research Society
                Society for Neuroscience
                Virginia Academy of Sciences

                Biography
                Dr. DeWitt is a biochemist and neuroscientist whose passion is to defend creation using The Word of God. When not pointing out the flaws in Darwin's theory, Dr. DeWitt is investigating the inner workings of the brain. He recently received a large NIH grant to support his research on the causes of Alzheimer's disease. He and his wife Marci have three children.

                Publications
                 (books)
                Unraveling the Origins Controversy (2007), Creation Curriculum

                Publications (Research articles)
                DeWitt, D.A, Hurd, J.A., Fox, N., Townsend, B.E., Griffioen, K.J., Ghribi, O. and J. Savory.J.Alzheimer's Dis 9(2):195-205, 2006 abstract

                Griffioen, K.J.S., Ghribi, O., Fox, N., Savory, J. and DeWitt, D.A. Neurotoxicol 25:859-867, 2004
                abstract

                Ghribi, O., Herman, M.M., DeWitt, D.A., Forbes, M.S. and J. Savory Mol. Brain Res. 96:30-38, 2001 abstract

                Ghribi, O., Herman, M.M., Forbes, M.S., DeWitt, D.A. and J. Savory. Neurobiology of Disease8:764-773, 2001 abstract

                Ghribi, O., DeWitt, D.A., Forbes, M.S., Arad, A., Herman, M.M., and J. Savory J.Alz.Disease3(4):387-391, 2001

                Ghribi, O., DeWitt, D.A., Forbes, M.S., Herman, M.M., and J. Savory Brain Res. 903: 66-73, 2001

                DeWitt, D.A., Perry, G., Cohen, M., Doller, C., and J. Silver Exp. Neurol. 149:329-340, 1998

                DeWitt, D.A. and J. Silver Exp. Neurol. 142(1):103-110, 1996

                Smith, M.A., DeWitt, D.A., Proprotnik, D., and G. Perry Neurobiol. Aging 16:343-344, 1995

                DeWitt, D.A., Richey, P., Proprotnik, D., Silver, J. and G. Perry Brain Res. 656(1):205-209, 1994

                Perry, G., Richey, P., Siedlak, S.L., Smith, M.A., Mulvihill, P., DeWitt, D.A., Barnett, J., Greenberg, B.D. and R. Kalaria Am. J. Pathol. 143:1586-1593, 1993

                Canning, D.R., McKeon, R.J., DeWitt, D.A., Perry, G., Wujek, J., Fredrickson, R. and J. Silver Exp. Neurol. 124:289-298, 1993

                DeWitt, D.A., Silver, J., Canning, D.R. and G. Perry Exp. Neurol. 121(2):149-152, 1993

                 

                http://www.liberty.edu/academics/healthsciences/biology-chemistry/index.cfm?PID=6627

              • SH
                ... Tin: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
                Message 7 of 12 , Feb 28, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  > > Yup. That's what science does. It re-evaluates and throws out positions
                  > > which do not hold up in light of new information, such as the bonobo DNA
                  > > genome.
                  > >
                  > > PS:
                  > > David DeWitt is a Liberty University creationist hack.
                  > >
                  >
                  > David DeWitt,
                  >
                  > Courses taught
                  > CRST 290 Creation Studies

                  Tin: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
                • Michael Tong
                  Michael: Note this from the below link: That s not what happened at the earlier split, when humans broke away from chimps and bonobos. Pääbo s analysis shows
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 1, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Michael: Note this from the below link:

                     

                    That's not what happened at the earlier split, when humans broke away from chimps and bonobos. Pääbo's analysis shows that more than 3 per cent of the human genome is more closely related to chimps and bonobos than chimps and bonobos are to each other - suggesting that our ancestors carried out interbreeding with apes for a while.

                    A similar result emerged from the gorilla genome, released earlier this year. The ancestors of gorillas split from the other great apes around 10 million years ago, but interbred with the ancestors of humans and chimps.

                     

                    More detail on the similarity between humans and gorillas.  From

                    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/gorilla_genome_057391.html

                     

                    The standard evolutionary phylogeny of primates holds that humans and chimps are more closely related to one-another than to other great apes like gorillas. In practice, all that really means is that when we sequence human, chimp, and gorilla genes, human and chimp genes have a DNA sequence that is more similar to one-another's genes than to the gorilla's genes. But huge portions of the gorilla genome contradict that nice, neat tidy phylogeny. That's because these gorilla genes are more similar to the human or chimp version than the human or chimp versions are to one-another. In fact, it seems that some 30% of the gorilla genome contradicts the standard primate phylogeny in this manner. New Scientist explains:

                    But despite the ancient split, the remaining 30 percent of [the gorilla's] genome turned out to be more closely related to humans or chimp than those species are to one another...

                    (Sara Reardon, "DNA from the last of the great apes decoded," New Scientist, March 10-16, 2012, p. 12)

                    Now, explain how humans continued to breed with gorillas and bonobos?  Is there anything similar happening today? 

                     

                    Here’s another problem.  From

                    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/open_mouth_inse061211.html

                     

                    Evolutionists always take for granted that the mechanism works just fine and then proceed directly to the fun part, drawing the Darwinian tree of life. Dr. Axe and his colleague Ann Gauger, a co-author of Science and Human Origins, put the Darwinian assumption to the test by giving it a chance to alter a bacterial gene coding for a particular protein and turn it into a gene coding for a distinct but similar protein. It failed.

                    The purpose was to observe the development of a new protein function. The evolutionary transition between ape and man, if it happened as Darwinists imagine, must have been accomplished by such minute steps, one after the other. They are all that neo-Darwinian theory has to work with, after all. Unguided evolution, however, was not up to this most basic of imaginable tasks.

                    Axe writes:

                    It's one thing to say that chimps and humans are similar enough that their likeness calls for careful explanation (few would argue with that), but as we've now seen it's quite another to say that they are similar enough for Darwin's engine to have traversed the gap between them. To insist on that is to ignore the evidence. A comparison of the complete human and chimp genomes has identified twenty distinct gene families, each with multiple genes, that are present in humans but absent from chimps and other mammals. That's a huge gap when you compare it to the single in-family gene transition that we examined.

                      

                     

                    From: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of HumanCarol
                    Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:45 PM
                    To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] 7 years after the chimpanzee genome was completed

                     

                     

                    We have now read the genomes of our two closest relatives. The bonobo genome is published today, seven years after the chimpanzee genome was completed.

                    By comparing the human genome with that of chimps and bonobos, we can find out about the last common ancestor of the three species, says lead author Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

                    That's a crucial question, because bonobos and chimps live in strikingly different societies. Bonobo society is female-dominated and remarkably peaceful, whereas chimpanzee society is male-dominated and far more aggressive. Which of these is the ancestral state?

                    Humans split from chimps and bonobos around 4.5 million years ago, and chimps and bonobos then separated around a million years ago.

                    We don't yet know what the common ancestor of humans, chimps and bonobos looked like, but we do now have an idea of how many of them there were. By comparing the levels of genetic diversity in the three species, Pääbo estimates that the ancestral population numbered about 45,000 individuals.

                    The bonobo genome shows no sign that genes were passed between bonobos and chimps after they separated, suggesting that the two species split completely and did not carry on interbreeding. It may be that they were cut off from each other when the Congo River formed, allowing them to evolve separately.

                    That's not what happened at the earlier split, when humans broke away from chimps and bonobos. Pääbo's analysis shows that more than 3 per cent of the human genome is more closely related to chimps and bonobos than chimps and bonobos are to each other - suggesting that our ancestors carried out interbreeding with apes for a while.

                    ---end of excerpt---

                    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/06/bonobo-genome-hints-at-common.html

                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.