Thursday, December 8, 2011

Evolution Debate

Early this year I had a rather heated debate with a Catholic on the Hebrew Catholic Discussion Board who is also a staunch evolutionist. He is a lovely man and very intelligent but on this issue he seems unable to discuss without resorting to anger and name calling. I felt some of my readers would find my end of the discussion interesting.

"I read recently that the chimp dna had finally been fully sequenced and the article I read claimed that it found 4% not 2% differences as previously held by scientists. And this study says 5%.

I wonder what the next study will say. Common design explains these similarities and differences just as well if not better than any evolutionary theories."

"And I forgot to add this one which states that the similarities are only 86.7. .."

"...I read recently a study that has shown that human dna is not so close to chimp dna as once thought and that in fact pigs have a closer dna. So maybe we evolved from pig-like creatures rather than ape-like creatures. Scientists are still arguing all these things and genetics is still in its infancy days. Theories have come and gone rapidly over the last ten years in this field alone.

Of course those of us who don't accept evolution expect that human and other living creatures will have a great degree of dna in common but that is not because one evolved from the other but because we live in the same environment. If we didn't then we would be unable to eat plants or animals- they would be
poison to us.

I would have no problem as a believer in God accepting that God could have make the original matter out of nothing and then formed all that is in the world through an evolutionary process from that original creation ex nihilo (is that not also magical creationism- creation ex nihilo- I'm sure the atheists
would think so). However I do not accept the evolutionary process as taught by Darwin because I see no evidence that that was how it happened. How God formed all things from the original ex nihilo creation matter is where we have disagreements. We all know that the Bible states that God formed man out of the dust of the earth so even your so called fundamentalist creationists believe man came from preexisting materials that God formed. Thus we know that everything in
our living environment was formed by God from what he originally created ex nihilo- How he did it - using evolution or some other process is where we disagree. I don't think many of us believe God just popped man and the animals etc out of the air with no connection to anything else (not least that we all
share the one Creator whose Divine Will upholds all things). Our whole environment and world has a deep inter-connection on both a material and spiritual level.

By the way I can't see that your analogy of the automobile is
any more apt than the yunkyard- both refer to inanimate things not living. It is the ideas and thoughts of the Designer that evolve not the automobiles which do not evolve from each other. I also wonder what part you do believe God played in the evolutionary process or do you believe he just sets things going with the Big bang and everything developed without any imput from God? That is the impression I get from what you write. Please correct me if this isn't so. I do not believe it is necessary to talk about God in the science class but then I don't believe he should be excluded either. However any decision by American
courts to exclude creationism doesn't impress me either as they desire to exclude God and religion totally from schools..."

"...No you didn't quote to me the latest findings at all- they were the opinion of evolutionary scientists of the 1970's which has since around 2000 been challenged by the gradual full sequencing of the chimp dna and comparing it with the human. In the 1960's they tried to use primate organs as transplants in
humans but it didn't work, they have had much more success with pig organs.

You might like to read this study about the pig dna.\
By the way I never referred you to any religious or creationist sources only scientific research papers (evolutionary ones who I don't even agree with).

I freely confess I do have a religious prejudice- I 100% believe in God and that he created all that is and that he upholds all constantly through his Divine Will present in all things. I do believe that creatures and the mathematical laws reveal evidence of an intelligent designer/creator. I believe in both faith and reason. I do believe that cars and animals and humans and rocks have an intelligent designer and that they didn't come to be through blind chance of evolutionary forces swirling around in a primordial soup. Every aspect of the Universe was carefully and loving designed and created by God- if he did
this through an evolutionary process or a common design process or some other manner I don't understand at this stage- then I am happy to accept that. So far everything I have read supporting evolution is flimsy and can just as easily be
explained by common design.

I have seen the bigotry and prejudice of the scientific and academic establishment to those who question their ideas- one can read how badly they treated Velikovsky who questioned the accepted science and history of the day-
later on many things he was proven to be correct regarding things like space not being a vacuum, that it had radio waves, the temperature of Venus and its opposite rotation to the other planets, that the last Ice Age wasn't 15,000,000 years ago etc. And Velikovsky wasn't a creationist but a fellow evolutionist-
but not the kind they approved of at that time. I also know of the many Australian Aboriginal people who were murdered because the Darwinian evolutionary science of the 19th century decreed them to be inferior and sub human and thus Ok to exterminate like an animal that had become a pest- it was only the churches that insisted they were fully human and descendants of Adam and Eve and fought to protect them..."

"...By the way I did read the Wikipedia article as you said. and I found this.

"The draft sequence of the common chimpanzee genome published in the summer 2005 showed the regions that are similar enough to be aligned with one another account for 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million bases[21] – that
is, 75.8% of the genome. This 75.8% of the human genome is 1.23% different from the chimpanzee genome in single nucleotide polymorphisms[21] (changes of single DNA "letters" in the genome). Another type of difference, called indels (insertions /deletions) account for another ~3 % difference between the alignable sequences.[21] In addition, variation in copy number of large segments (> 20 kb) of similar DNA sequence provides a further 2.7% difference between the two
species.[22] Hence the total similarity of the genomes could be as low as about 70%."

I also read this; "The human genome was sequenced using a hierarchical shotgun method which can deal with duplications and difficult-to-assemble sequences better than the whole genome shotgun method that was used for the chimpanzee
draft genome. The human genome was used as a template for the assembly of the draft chimpanzee genome, on the assumption that the two genomes would be similar." How on earth is it unprejudiced science when they assume that chimp
and human dna will be similar just because some evolutionary theory of the past said they are.

The article goes on to take other factors in to account to raise the percentage of similarity with humans and still they can only come to 5% not 2% as you claim and as they claimed for 30 odd years. " The overall sequence divergence between humans and chimpanzees for example is close to 5% if indels would be included."

What I understood from this that there actually has never been any real comparison of the full human and chimp genomes without filling in with the assumptions of evolutionary theories. Some science!!!!! It is science mixed with philosophical assumptions and even then they can't stretch it back to the 2% so boldly claimed 30 years ago. I guess this is why both Father Jaki and the Pope stated that evolution is not a fully verified /proven scientific theory. That we must take this theory seriously and that it is not just any old theory I can agree with- but from what I can see it is the evolutionists that are using smoke and mirrors (many of them sincerely as they have been indoctrinated in it and have formed their whole world view from it)..."

I will leave my final comment in this discussion to Professor Maciej Giertych who stated, 
"Evolutionists main argument is that there are small positive (beneficial) mutations which occur in the reproductive cells and are then retained by natural selection. These mutations, they say, accumulate and cause one species to gradually change into another. I am a geneticist and I can confirm that in all the laboratories around the world where many generations of organisms have been produced, no where have positive mutations ever been observed. For evolution to occur we need new genes full of new genetic information. There is no natural process known which will produce these new genes either by isolation, selection, mutation, or breeding. This is not possible."

1 comment:

The Bondservant said...

quote of the day:

"By the way I can't see that your analogy of the automobile is
any more apt than the junkyard- both refer to inanimate things not living. It is the ideas and thoughts of the Designer that evolve not the automobiles which do
not evolve from each other.