DNA and Man's origin

by D wiltshire 126 Replies latest jw friends

hooberus

Jerry, please disregard my earlier post questions for you. I now see that you were quoting others and then making your observations.
AlanF

Jerry Bergman said:
:: "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!!
Interesting. It's been awhile since I read the latest substantive reports on this, but I've read a number of statements in popular literature to this effect recently. Can you give me some references?
:: 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!
That's not possible in the case of whales, according to information I've understood from the sources I read some years ago. The reason is that the hind legs can be functional only if they develop the same way every time. In this case they don't. They're in any state from virtually non-existent to nearly functional (as legs, albeit useless ones). I don't believe that they've ever been fully functional in the sense that the whale could move them in the usual way that mammals do. In other words, the legs have been [i]structurally[/i] in various stages of development, but not functionally. If you can refer me to literature that discusses an actual function, please do.

:: 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).
But that's exactly my point. Why would an [i]efficient[/i] Creator not strip out unused genes? As an electronic circuits engineer, it's a mark of sloppiness against me if I reuse part of an older circuit to design a new one and leave in anything that doesn't directly contribute to the functioning of the new one.

:: 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!!)
Can you give me references on this 95% figure? Sure, a lot of base pairs are different, but again it's the [i]commonality[/i] -- and 95% still means a lot of commonality -- that provides strong circumstantial evidence. It's also circumstantial evidence for an efficient Creator in terms of reuse of parts, but the existence of "junk genes" seems to me evidence [i]against[/i] an efficient Creator. And until I see solid documentation that shows that "junk genes" don't exist, I can't change my opinion. I've read that that the [i]majority[/i] of genetic material appears to be "junk". Whether that's true I don't know.
AlanF
Earnest

Jerry Bergman is only partly correct in saying that "Galileo's problems were his fellow scientists, not the Catholic Church". The article he referred to can be found at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/105/21.0.html. Galileo's primary problem was that the Pope (Urban VIII), a long-time acquaintance and admirer, a fellow Tuscan and alumnus of the University of Pisa, thought that Galileo had betrayed him.
The cosmology of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries which made the earth the immobile centre of the universe was not based on the Bible, but on the fourth-century-BC teachings of Aristotle and refined by the second-century Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemy. Galileo's various works both challenged Aristotelian physics and defaced the perfect body of the Sun by the identification of sunspots. Further, Galileo flouted academic tradition by writing in Italian rather than Latin which meant that everyone, not only the scientists, could read it. This enraged and insulted his fellow philosophers who were eventually the ones who brought a complaint against him.
On 5 March 1616 the Holy Office of the Inquisition ruled that Copernican astronomy was "false and contrary to Holy Scripture". It was not to be considered as fact but could be considered hypothetically. Urban, who only became Pope in 1623, had been instrumental in his role as Cardinal Barberini in keeping "heresy" out of the final wording of the edict. When Galileo met with him in 1624 he gave him his blessing and written protection as long as he labelled the system an hypothesis. Before printing his Dialogue he had gone to Rome and submitted it for approval and in 1631 he finally received it.
When Galileo's enemies complained about the book Urban demanded a re-examination as it was implied he was not defending the faith (at a time when Protestantism was rampant). An old note in Galileo's Inquisition dossier from 1616 showed that Galileo had been officially warned not to discuss Copernicus, ever, in any way at all. Urban considered he had been treated as a fool in order to gain his approval and the rest is history. It had nothing to do with the suppression of truth by religion, but everything to do with envy, jealousy, treachery and anger.
Earnest
hooberus

Another somewhat related issue: The origin of DNA and RNA. This can be a profitable issue to examine in the creation/evolution controversy.
Earnest

Realist:
analysis of mitochondrial DNA suggests that all europeans come from i believe 5 (maybe it was 7) different females.

You are probably thinking of the ideas of Bryan Sykes, professor of genetics at the Institute of Molecular Medicine at Oxford University who wrote the book "The Seven Daughters of Eve". If you are interested a company, Oxford Ancestors (http://www.oxfordancestors.com), will trace your maternal ancestory for a mere $190. However, professor Sykes also found that the seven ancestral mothers seem to be descended from one of three clans that exist today in Africa.
AlanF:
There is an interesting article on "mitochondrial Eve" at talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html) which explains that although the "daughters of Eve" are probably not the original descendants of the first woman, that if we go back far enough there was one woman, which is what I suggested. The article says, in part:
The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve is NOT a theory; it is a mathematical fact (unless something like a multiple-origins theory of human evolution i.e. the human species arose independently in different geographically separated populations, and that the present-day ease of interbreeding is the result of a remarkable convergent evolution, is true. Few people subscribe to the multiple-origins theory, and the Mitochondrial Eve observation is a refutation of multiple-origins).
Not being a scientist myself I wasn't too sure of my facts but it has always seemed to me that the ease with which humans breed with other humans regardless of different culture or race was evidence of a common ancestry of two human parents. I am pleased to see that mitochondrial DNA now seems to confirm that. If I reason on this a little further and suppose that the first woman evolved from a common ancestor to other homo- species (as well as chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.), it seems a remarkably fortunate event that the first man evolved within her lifetime. In fact, considering the amount of time it takes for a new species to evolve I suggest that the chance of these two individuals meeting and procreating within their lifetime is nothing short of miraculous.
There is very good evidence that humans suffered an extreme bottleneck in population about 75,000 years ago, after the huge explosion of the volcano Tambora in Indonesia produced a sort of "nuclear winter" that precipitated another ice age cold spell and seems to have wiped out all but a thousand or so modern humans.
You are probably referring to the volcanoe Toba in Sumatra. Tambora erupted in 1815. An abstract of the hypothesis that the eruption of Toba created a "bottleneck in population" can be read at http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Ambrose_98.html. It is not quite clear to me why this hypothesis should be inconsistent with the "mother Eve" theory. The larger a population gets the more diverse the mitochondrial DNA. Subsequent bottlenecks, however they are caused, reduce the variation of mitochondrial DNA. There is no contradiction between the two theories as far as I can see.
The main indication we have that humans evolved -- whether by standard evolutionary mechanisms or something else is still not solidly determined -- is the fossil record.
To what extent the fossil record shows that humans evolved is not relevant to establishing what DNA demonstrates. The evidence presented thus far shows that all living matter has DNA, much of which is held in common. As you said in another post :
[Commonality's] also circumstantial evidence for an efficient Creator in terms of reuse of parts, but the existence of "junk genes" seems to me evidence against an efficient Creator.
So my conclusion is that DNA doesn't actually prove anything. Those who want to believe in creation will believe it demonstrates an efficient Creator. Those who want to reject creation will be able to justify their conclusions. However, as is true of so much we believe to be fact, believers and unbelievers alike will be acting on faith alone.
Earnest
funkyderek

Not being a scientist myself I wasn't too sure of my facts but it has always seemed to me that the ease with which humans breed with other humans regardless of different culture or race was evidence of a common ancestry of two human parents. I am pleased to see that mitochondrial DNA now seems to confirm that. If I reason on this a little further and suppose that the first woman evolved from a common ancestor to other homo- species (as well as chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.), it seems a remarkably fortunate event that the first man evolved within her lifetime. In fact, considering the amount of time it takes for a new species to evolve I suggest that the chance of these two individuals meeting and procreating within their lifetime is nothing short of miraculous.

OK, you've got the idea of mitochondrial Eve completely wrong and you seem to have a very shaky idea of evolution. There was nothing special about "Eve" within her own lifetime. She was one of many females living at her time, and there were a similar number of males. She is only important in that she happens to have becom the most recent common ancestor in the purely maternal line. Mathematically, of course, there had to be such a person. The question is one of when and where she lived.
Mitochondria contains DNA which is passed only from mother to child without the mixing that normally takes place. This enables us to trace our ancestry with reasonable accuracy (although there is some debate on the level of accuracy.) Based on the known level of mutation, it is believed she lived between 150,000 and 250,000 years ago. Interestingly, for her to have lived 6,000 years ago or less, the rate of mutation would have to be 25 to 40 times greater than that which is observed.
There must also have been a "Y-chromosome" Adam, although it's unlikely he lived at the same time as "Eve".
It was never the case that some apelike creature gave birth to a mutation that was fully human and she happened to be lucky enough to meet someone with the exact same mutation in her lifetime. Evolution doesn't work like that. It works through tiny tiny changes over long periods of time. There was never an Adam and Eve as described in the bible.
Abaddon

dubiousarse

Actually DNA studies are very compatible with creationism. If you'd like more info, e-mail me.
Oh please, if what you have is so stunning, you needn’t hide it. The fact you try to restrict your audience to people who already believe and want support for those beliefs is an act of stunning intellectual dishonesty, more based upon your consistent failure to ever really deal with topics raised in threads like this other than on a rather puerile copy and paste basis, and even then to end up running away from the debate as you cannot answer the questions.
Jerry Bergman

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.
For a college teacher your grammar and writing are appalling. Whilst this is ad hom., in my experience, most Creationists (et. al.) I’ve encountered on boards like this have had bad writing skills. It’s a funny coincidence, as obviously one can argue a linkage between poor general education and poor writing skills. But that's just an observation.

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
Present the information in a condensed form. Provide us with an abstract. If you are unable to provide a précis, then you probably don’t understand the subject, but feel free to copy and paste or give a URL’s if you want. This is a very common technique for many Creationists (et. al.). Assertions are just not good enough; Alan's given you some fine questions, and d itto the point already made about Whale hind-legs; if they were aids to mating (as is argued by some), they’d all have them.
Also, the argument of the ‘transformer’ gene set made by literal creation apologists is illogical. It would only come in useful in situations like trees having snake DNA, so that you could change your staff into a snake and back, or having ‘transformer’ atoms that go from H2O (plus trace) to Chateau La Tour at weddings. In all other situations it makes as much sense as a female Hyenas clitoris.
What you say?
A female Hyena clitoris. Not so much a smack in the face for ‘design’ chappies, as decapitation.
The female spotted hyena pees, copulates and (get ready to wince ladies) gives birth through her clitoris. 60% of first-born baby hyenas die as a result.
In terms of design, this is in the area of the bloody stupid. The only explanation is that the high levels of testosterone that female Hyenas have, in order to compete with males for resources in violent and aggressive Hyena society, is a better trait for survival and passing on genes (despite the masculinisation (sp?) of their bodies actually killing more than half their first-borns) than giving birth normally and having low levels of testosterone.
In other words, the Hyena provides pretty good proof against design and for natural selection. Look at your shins for another example. Bone under skin. Silly, no padding, and a decent designer would have put some there, for sure.
Another fave of mine is human sexual biology conclusively proving the Bible, whatever it is, is not the word of god, unless god is really mean.
And I would love to see a proponent of design explain sickle cell anemia to me. A disease created by mutation lethal if you get two copies of a gene, but is beneficial to people carrying one copy as it makes them more resistant to malaria. Yeah, real design there - whereas, in terms of natural selection, it's easily understandable.
hooberus
Abbadon, perhaps you should aquaint yourself with the Posting Guidelines
Posting Guidelines
To ensure all users feel safe and keen to participate, please avoid:
Insulting, threatening or provoking language
Inciting hatred on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality or sexuality or other personal characteristic.
Swearing, using hate-speech or making obscene or vulgar comments.
Breaking the law
This includes libel, condoning illegal activity and contempt of court (comments which might affect the outcome of an approaching court case). You may post a small amount of third party material, but please help us to avoid breaching copyright by naming its author and publication. We are unable to investigate all third party material, so where possible, please provide a link instead.
Spamming
Please don't add the same comment to more than one forum.
Advertising
You can mention relevant, non-commercial websites as long as they support your comment.
Impersonating or falsely claiming to represent a person or organisation.
Please don't mislead other users by abusing our registration procedure.
Posting in a language other than English.
Invading people's privacy
Please don't post private addresses or phone numbers, including your own. You may post email addresses so long as you make it clear who they belong to.
Posting an off-topic comment.
Forums are moderated to make sure they stay friendly and welcoming, legal and relevant. We reserve the right to edit or delete posts at own discretion and without notice, which we consider to be unacceptable. If you repeatedly break these rules, you may be prevented from posting.
hooberus

I mean "Abaddon"
hooberus

funkyderrik said:
Mitochondria contains DNA which is passed only from mother to child without the mixing that normally takes place. This enables us to trace our ancestry with reasonable accuracy (although there is some debate on the level of accuracy.) Based on the known level of mutation, it is believed she lived between 150,000 and 250,000 years ago. Interestingly, for her to have lived 6,000 years ago or less, the rate of mutation would have to be 25 to 40 times greater than that which is observed.
funkyderrik, was the 150,000 to 250,000 date based on observed mutation rates or on evolutionary assumptions? I think it might have been the later. I read this in the Encyclopedia of Human Evolution.

DNA and Man's origin

Share this