Gregoire
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 525
Originally Posted by Iamme
<<Listening to show on Public Radio today about evolution and the similarity of genes and chromasomes. They think they are so smart. Soooo? What does similarity prove that it evolved? You have to witness evolution to know that one thing actually changed into the next. Otherwise you are overlooking the possibility that two separate things could have been created by aliens or Gods saying, "Hmmm.....THAT creature worked out, so let's add this one gene or chromosome or move it here and walla...now we have this creature that looks like and can do THIS." How do scientists know that this is not why many creatures resemble one another rather than they 'evolllllved'? >>
(The above quote is just the most recent example on this site where creationists appear to misunderstand what "Shared DNA" really means. I have tried to answer this quote and others in a new thread.)
The two main arguments of creationists seem to boil down to: 1)Evolutionary biologists can't see alternative explanations for the evidence right in front of them. 2)There is a vast atheist conspiracy in the field of Evolutionary Biology.
This first argument appears frequently when discussing "shared DNA". "Of course, we share DNA," creationists say," we have similar parts which perform the similar functions. Just because a Honda looks a little like a Buick doesn't mean they share a common ancestor." This argument assumes that evolutionary biologists didn't have the brains or imagination to think of this alternative hypothesis.
You see, shared DNA means so much more. It also means we share DNA that has no function and yet can still be traced to a common ancestor. Consider pseudogenes as one such example. Pseudogenes are broken genes which have suffered a mutation in the distant past so that they no longer code for the protein they used to code for. By looking for this pseudogene in different species, you can infer when this mutation took place and how the different species are related. Talkorigins.org gives one such example as follows:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#molecular_vestiges
<<Recently, the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994). It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning (see prediction 4.4 for more about pseudogenes). In fact, since this was originally written the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999).>>
Many more examples can be found at this site. And the molecular biological evidence is found in many more places than just pseudogenes. When we look at endogenous retroviruses, transposons or even protein and DNA redundancy, we get the same result. In each case, evolution was tested and was found to be correct. In essence, to deny evolution, you pretty much have to deny the validity of a vast amount of forensic evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
For those who prefer podcasts, I would refer you to the easy to understand Evolution 101 podcast by Dr. Zachary Moore.
I'll have to leave the discussion of the second argument for another thread.
So for now, I'll see everyone at the next conspiracy meeting.
<<Listening to show on Public Radio today about evolution and the similarity of genes and chromasomes. They think they are so smart. Soooo? What does similarity prove that it evolved? You have to witness evolution to know that one thing actually changed into the next. Otherwise you are overlooking the possibility that two separate things could have been created by aliens or Gods saying, "Hmmm.....THAT creature worked out, so let's add this one gene or chromosome or move it here and walla...now we have this creature that looks like and can do THIS." How do scientists know that this is not why many creatures resemble one another rather than they 'evolllllved'? >>
(The above quote is just the most recent example on this site where creationists appear to misunderstand what "Shared DNA" really means. I have tried to answer this quote and others in a new thread.)
The two main arguments of creationists seem to boil down to: 1)Evolutionary biologists can't see alternative explanations for the evidence right in front of them. 2)There is a vast atheist conspiracy in the field of Evolutionary Biology.
This first argument appears frequently when discussing "shared DNA". "Of course, we share DNA," creationists say," we have similar parts which perform the similar functions. Just because a Honda looks a little like a Buick doesn't mean they share a common ancestor." This argument assumes that evolutionary biologists didn't have the brains or imagination to think of this alternative hypothesis.
You see, shared DNA means so much more. It also means we share DNA that has no function and yet can still be traced to a common ancestor. Consider pseudogenes as one such example. Pseudogenes are broken genes which have suffered a mutation in the distant past so that they no longer code for the protein they used to code for. By looking for this pseudogene in different species, you can infer when this mutation took place and how the different species are related. Talkorigins.org gives one such example as follows:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#molecular_vestiges
<<Recently, the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994). It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning (see prediction 4.4 for more about pseudogenes). In fact, since this was originally written the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999).>>
Many more examples can be found at this site. And the molecular biological evidence is found in many more places than just pseudogenes. When we look at endogenous retroviruses, transposons or even protein and DNA redundancy, we get the same result. In each case, evolution was tested and was found to be correct. In essence, to deny evolution, you pretty much have to deny the validity of a vast amount of forensic evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
For those who prefer podcasts, I would refer you to the easy to understand Evolution 101 podcast by Dr. Zachary Moore.
I'll have to leave the discussion of the second argument for another thread.
So for now, I'll see everyone at the next conspiracy meeting.
Last edited:
