DNA and Man's origin

by D wiltshire 126 Replies latest jw friends

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    Heres a good link for an alternative Genesis explanation

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Held.html

    Jack,

    How do you reconcile any of those beliefs with evolution?

    • Jesus - what was he needed for?
    • Was there Adamic sin?
    • Is there a Judgement day?
    • Is there immortality?

    Jack I cant harmonize everything with evolution, not yet anyway. Your first one about Jesus I think he died for us and not to cancel Adams sin although I have to admit I dont have a clear understanding of why the ransom was needed, at least not to my satisfaction.

    #2 I believed Adam sinned but that he was not the first man, and he didnt pass on sin to the human race for they were sinner long before Adam came to be. Perhaps he was the first man God communed with and he was being used by God in some good way even though he sinned. I believe that the future, past and present are all the same before God and that he fore knows everything if you can call it that. So to say the least this account is very puzzling to me.

    #3 I believe there will be a Judgment Day but that it will be very individualized not based on what religion you joined but more about what you did and why you did it.

    #4 Yes I believe in immortality, but not of our space/time.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Here is a book review from CRS on the newer Denton Book mentioned by Alan F.

    Book Review

    Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe
    (New York: The Free Press, 1998) by Michael J. Denton. 448 pages, $27.50 (hardcover)
    Reviewed by Peter Line, Ph.D.

    T he major thesis of the book is “that the cosmos is uniquely fit for human existence” (p. xii), and evidence of such unique fitness is presented. Denton builds his case by accumulating arguments to such an extent that it almost becomes repetitive, which is acknowledged by the author. He argues that it is precisely because so many arguments can be made that he can draw his conclusion. Whilst facts concerning the unique conditions necessary for biological life are not new, Denton's book does an excellent job in presenting them.

    Denton appears to accept the whole evolution scenario, from the Big Bang to the Big Brain; that is, that all phenomena in the cosmos can be explained in terms of a natural evolutionary process (p. xviii). Where his views differ from the standard orthodoxy is in the method of evolution. Instead of random mutations as the raw material on which natural selection works, Denton proposes that evolution has been a directed process from the beginning. Denton suggests that the direction of evolution was preprogrammed or preordained when the universe came into existence, but appears to accept that since then evolution has run its course without added assistance. Hence, biological evolution occurs naturalistically, in a sense, but it can only follow genetic paths already mapped out for it ahead of time. According to this idea the pathways available to each organism, as the evolutionary tree of life branches out over time, are severely restricted by the options available to it in DNA space.

    In the beginning of the book Denton makes it clear that the teleological argument presented is incompatible with a belief in special creation, to the extent that evidence for one is evidence against the other (p. xviii). I found this reasoning a bit strange as Denton's main evidence, as presented in the book, is the unique fitness of life on earth — that is, that organisms are optimally designed for their role. A creationist would, quite reasonably, cite this as evidence for a designer. Denton adds that evidence for his case would be consistent with or supported if “life on earth approximates to the plenitude of all possible biological forms” (p. 299). Such a notion is impossible to prove, but even if it could be shown to be true I also fail to see how this could be used as evidence against special creation.

    Denton toys with the possibility that junk DNA may have coded for some of the direction that biological evolution has taken over time. In fact, he states that “Junk DNA and directed evolution are in the end incompatible concepts. Only if the junk DNA contained information specifying for future evolutionary events, when it would not in a strict sense be junk in any case, could the finding be reconciled with a teleological model of evolution” (p. 289-291). Many creationists would also support the idea that what is currently labeled as junk DNA may yet be shown to have a purpose, although not an evolutionary one.

    The main argument Denton puts forth to support the notion of directed evolution is that the universe and earth, with their laws of physics, chemistry, etc., are uniquely fit to support life, and that any slight variation to one of many constants would make life almost impossible. Included in his argument is that life, if it exists elsewhere in the universe, must of necessity be similar to that on earth. This is because there is not, according to his theory, the flexibility for life to evolve in any other major way. In fact, Denton states that his hypothesis, based on the anthropocentric presumption, would be disproved if it were demonstrated that life systems based on different designs are possible, or if examples were shown where “the laws of nature are not specifically fit for life as it exists on earth” (p. 380).

    The book is full of illustrations of how finely tuned are the conditions for life, and how tinkering with any part of the system would have catastrophic results. Some examples discussed include “the fitness of water for carbon-based life, the mutual fitness of sunlight and life, the fitness of oxygen and oxidations as a source of energy for carbon-based life, the fitness of carbon dioxide for the excretion of the products of carbon oxidation, the fitness of bicarbonate as a buffer for biological systems” (p. 391), etc.

    Denton also discusses “complex and unusual adaptations whose evolution is very difficult to account for in terms of a gradual accumulation of successively advantageous changes” (p. 354). Among the complex systems discussed are the eye of the lobster, the eye of the scallop, the marsupial frog, and the avian lung. Here Denton should be commended for pointing out one of the main difficulties with undirected evolution; i.e., how the complex structures seen in some organisms could have come about without pre-planned design.

    In conclusion, Denton’s notion of directed evolution, through a process akin to a type of ‘naturalistic predestination,’ is based on evidence for the unique fitness of complex life forms on earth. The real difficulty with his theory is in explaining how the information coding the path of evolution (both biological and non-biological) was built into the laws of nature at the creation of the universe. For example, since he accepts the Big Bang theory, how can the information to direct evolution to eventually produce the human brain be stored in atoms of hydrogen, of which the matter in the universe was once supposedly comprised.

    This may not be what Denton is saying, but if the whole evolution scenario has been contrived ahead of time then what are the alternatives? There must be some information, either restricting evolution to only follow the pre-planned paths leading to viable alternatives, or directing evolution over hurdles that it can only overcome by assisted jumps. If not, then his theory differs little, if any, from undirected evolution. Hence, the question needs to be asked concerning the whereabouts of the information needed to direct the path of evolution. On this point Denton is vague, leaving the reader with the impression that he is himself very much struggling for answers.

    Peter Line is a research neuroscientist living in Carrum Downs, Victoria, Australia.

  • Gerard
    Gerard

    Favorable mutations within a population are preserved, promoting evolution of a species. The rate of mutation on genomic and mitochondrial DNA can be measured and compared against a close or "primitive" species. Interpretation is another matter involving some well educated extrapolation. Evolution is a molecular fact. I know, molecular biology puts bread on my table - every day.

    For all I know, God created evolution. And I sleep good at night.

    Gerry

  • Gerard
    Gerard

    For those who believe God used evolution to "create"/form man - have you considered the issue of consistency you have now set? For instance:

    • Jesus - what was he needed for?
    • Was there Adamic sin?
    • Is there a Judgement day?
    • Is there immortality?

    How do you reconcile any of those beliefs with evolution?

    Oil and water do not mix, just as beliefs and science.

    The marvelous universe within a live cell, is the most complex set of molecules (proteins) known, and under normal circumstances, they work with precision on an atomic clock. I have no doubt life was created as "coincidences" can not overpower the entropy (normal physical forces that destabilize matter) of our universe.

    Once life was created, living organisms can only pass life along by reproduction and continue to adapt to their environment - to evolve.

    The Bible is not the word of God. It is an attempt of Men to explain in writing our existence and self awareness. Possibly 95% of the Bible are parables, metaphors and figurations. Good tools to explain abstract concepts to the uneducated people in Israel 2000 years ago. The truth is in your heart and faith. There is nothing to reconcile with science.

    Respectfully,

    Gerard

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Good deal posting that review of Denton's latest book, hooberus. Now, why not admit to the board that Denton's first book does not provide any comfort for YEC ideas, given that his 2nd book pretty much gives up on what he argued in his 1st?

    While you're at it, why not admit that real science provides no comfort to YECs?

    AlanF

  • Jerry Bergman
    Jerry Bergman

    I think as time goes on and DNA gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental Christians to defend thier position against Evolution. Kind of like the Catholic church going against Galileio saying the "Earth is not the center of the Universe".

    My responce:

    I have work with DNA for over a decade now and teach Molecular biology at a college and from my experience strongly conclude the opposite. I predict that DNA will be lethal to Darwinism (as evidence look at the growth of the intelligent design movement). Also Galileo's problems were his fellow scientists, not the Catholic Church (your showing the influence of the Watchtower myths). Read the article on this in the current Christianity Today (an interview with a leading historian of science). Jerry Bergman

  • Jerry Bergman
    Jerry Bergman

    "junk sequences" and "junk genes" that have no apparent function, but are extremely similar in apparently dissimilar species. This indicates a common origin via evolution, but is extremely difficult to understand as the product of an efficient Creator. This whole field has grown and we are finding dozens of uses for the once termed junk DNA. The genome is turning out to be far more complex than we have ever dreamed!!

    Some of these "junk genes" are expressed from time to time. When whaling was common, from time to time a whale would be landed that had hind legs in various states of development. Some were complete with bones, muscles and so forth. This shows that genes for legs are still in the whale's DNA. This is an extremely strong indication that whale ancestors had legs -- otherwise why would the genes for legs still be there? The reason is because these bones do have a function! Biologists did some experiments with growth hormones on chicken embryos some years ago. The result was that the chicken embryos developed tooth buds, which indicates that genes for teeth are still resident in bird DNA, even though the last toothsome birds seem to have disappeared 60-70 million years ago. The reason was evidently because of gene sets common to all families of animals can be switched on or off to produce variations (Hox genes are often involved). Humans have about 98% of their DNA common with chimpanzee DNA, complete with the "junk genes". This is extremely strong circumstantial evidence for a common ancestor. The current estimate is 95% similarity which means a huge difference exists (the total DNA base pairs is 3 billion, this means 150,000,000 base pairs are different!!)

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    Jerry,

    From what I have read about Galileio, and his troubles with the Catholic church, i think your take on it may be misleading.

    DNA as mentioned previously has shown our links to the chimpanzee since it has 98% the same DNA as humans. Even before they could map DNA certain complicated protiens manufactured by us and the chimps showed them to be close relatives on the evolutionary tree.

    Why is impossible to believe that God invented evolution, as his way to make life with all its diversity. Since the material universe has been evolving to its present form by means of laws that govern matter and energy balanced just right to cause this evolution to take place in an orderly way, why is is concidered not God's way when it comes to creature life. Clearly there is a similar patern here. The way I see it intelligent design is manifest in this gradualistic way of creating.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Humans have about 98% of their DNA common with chimpanzee DNA, complete with the "junk genes". This is extremely strong circumstantial evidence for a common ancestor. The current estimate is 95% similarity which means a huge difference exists (the total DNA base pairs is 3 billion, this means 150,000,000 base pairs are different!!) Jerry do you believe that we share a common ancestor with the chimps as your fist statement quoted here would seem to indicate, or do you believe that we do not share a common ancestor because of the "huge difference" mentioned in your second statement? Was your second statement meant to imply common acestry but with greater differences?

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    I believe that DNA comparison data is arranged into charts for comparison. For example a hypothetical chart may read for a comparison of a specific gene a percentile difference such as:

    Humans/Chimp 95.2%

    Humans/Gorilla 94.1%

    Humans/Old World Monkey 93.2%

    Humans/Snake 73.2%

    Since creatures with more similar morphology are closer related genetically than to creatures with different morphology, this is thought to be a confirmation of decent from common ancestors. However this same evidence can also be interpreted as evidence of common design. We would expect a creator to use similar gene sequences on creatures with a simialar basic morphology. So the fact that humans and chimps are closer genetically than humans/snakes is what one would reasonably expect based on creation.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit