Reconciling Creationism with Evolution: both are correct...

a reply to: cooperton

Multiple consecutive generations of altered gene expression = man made evolution

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Multiple consecutive generations of altered gene expression = man made evolution

It's worth pointing out here that such gene therapy is necessary because our DNA isn't intelligent enough to modify itself as required. Vaccines and antibiotics have to be engineered because often our natural immunities aren't sophisticated enough to respond appropriately without help from outside technology. This is especially accurate when biology adapts to counter such methods and resist treatment.

a reply to: cooperton


You know you're a laugh a minute. You don't even read your own sources. The excerpts below are from your sources - every one describes the evolutionary significance of their research.

Conclusion In this report we describe the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria mediated by the epigenetic inheritance of variant gene expression patterns. This provides proof in principle that epigenetic inheritance, as well as DNA mutation, can drive evolution.

The analysis of regulation of the EcoRV, CfrBI and LlaJI R-M systems described above has provided insight into the evolution of epigenetic control systems that are predominantly controlled by “orphan” methyltransferases, including DNA cytosine methylase (Dcm) (202) in E. coli.

Dam homologues without a restriction enzyme counterpart are also present in bacteriophages, including Sulfolobus neozealandicus droplet-shaped virus (7), halophilic phage φCh1 (15), H. influenzae phage HP1 (204), phage P1 (61), phage T1 (9), and phage T4 (226). The last MTase, T4Dam, has been well characterized biochemically, primarily by Hattman and colleagues (123, 228). T4Dam, like EcoDam, is highly processive (169) and complements a dam mutant E. coli mutator phenotype (226). T4Dam and EcoDam may have a common evolutionary origin, sharing up to 64% sequence identity in four different regions (11 to 33 amino acids long) (105).

All pap Lrp binding sites share the sequence “GNNNTTT” with the Lrp binding consensus determined by systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment (64).

Cutting phage genomes in a precise manner may optimize DNA packaging and facilitate circularization of phage DNA upon entry into the next recipient cell. However, the use of Dam methylation to label phage DNA ends is an enigmatic evolutionary acquisition.

The fact that two independent bacterial lineages (Gammaproteobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria) use DNA adenine methylation as a signal for the initiation of chromosome replication is an interesting case of evolutionary convergence, which is strengthened by the evidence that the DNA methylases involved (Dam or CcrM) are also of independent origin.

Two of these enzymes, the Dam methylase of enteric bacteria and the CcrM methylase of Caulobacter crescentus, are paradigms of an evolutionary process in which DNA adenine methylation acts as a signaling mechanism that regulates DNA-protein interactions.

) Fig. 4 reports the evolutionof the RI for different populations subjected to a different number M of antibiotic shocks. In each case, the arrows indicate the time at which the antibiotic is removed. The results depicted in Fig. 4 show that the final stationary value of the resistance index (the one reached when the antibiotic is removed) depends on how long the population remains in contact with the antibiotic

It is important to mention that the increase in the basal level of the RI shown in Fig. 4A when the population is kept in a high antibiotic concentration for a long time is non reversible. Indeed, Fig. 4D shows the evolutionacross generations of the average pump efficiency με and the average transcription rate μβ for the population corresponding to the blue curve of Fig. 4A.

In this study we present a theoretical framework that identifies the essential mechanisms for the emergence,evolution and reversibility of adaptive resistance.

The results presented in Fig. 4 indicate that the permanent change in the RI observed after a long induction time is not due to transitions between fixed points, but to the fact that the unique fixed point of each cell moves throughout the evolutionof the population.

a reply to: cooperton

Evolutionary theory insists that all organisms resulted from ancestral organisms that underwent gradual changes throughout generations. If this is true we should be able to emulate this transition in a lab, but we have not, despite trying with, for example, millions of generations of fruit flies over many labs throughout the world.

It is "emulated" in the lab today. There are hundreds of transitional fossils that have been thoroughly analyzed and characterized as transitional fossils from one stage to the next. And this just shows your lack of understanding as to how science works. You expect someone go into a lab and modify a 3 inch lizard into a 30 foot dinosaur - or vice/versa.
You understand nothing about laboratory methodology and even less about genetics and molecular biology.

Evolutionary theory doesn't "insist" upon anything. The evidence for evolution is contained in hundreds of research papers. Your "empirical" evidence is just your own opinion backed up by nothing.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a measurable sample of supernatural substance that can be linked to the human genome or any ecosystem on Earth. So far all we have seen here is natural events that form a very logical chain resulting in the world and life forms we see today.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
We are referring to research to make the case for evolution, not opinion. Experiments and tests.

Ok good the rubber meeting the road. So what experiment, the empirical evidence, not just appeals to authority opinion, demonstrates the validity of evolution. One at a time and we can dissect each one.

I've posted tons of them for you and they were all ignored. How many of the research papers from the talk origins link have you refuted?

a reply to: Phantom423

The results of Evolution we observe in nature today didn’t happen in a lab. It is said to have occurred in the Uniformitarians type landscape. How does showing in a lab prove anything other than it’s very deliberate and guided process to get an organism to show a succession of adaptations.

That’s like praying for the Browns(worst Football team ever) to win the Super Bowl. But the only way they can win is if your play a virtual super bowl in a video game. God answered your prayers right? They won.

If evolution is such a slam dunk then we should see a bottomless pit of the losers bones and fossils in the rock layers. Hell based on some of the research evolution does not stop so why can’t we observe it now. Oh that’s right it takes 3.23 zillion years.

Anyway, I think we should be able to go for a walk in the tall grass and you should be able to show me a grasshopper evolving into anything other than a bigger grasshopper.

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Phantom423

The results of Evolution we observe in nature today didn’t happen in a lab. It is said to have occurred in the Uniformitarians type landscape. How does showing in a lab prove anything other than it’s very deliberate and guided process to get an organism to show a succession of adaptations.

That’s like praying for the Browns(worst Football team ever) to win the Super Bowl. But the only way they can win is if your play a virtual super bowl in a video game. God answered your prayers right? They won.

If evolution is such a slam dunk then we should see a bottomless pit of the losers bones and fossils in the rock layers. Hell based on some of the research evolution does not stop so why can’t we observe it now. Oh that’s right it takes 3.23 zillion years.

Anyway, I think we should be able to go for a walk in the tall grass and you should be able to show me a grasshopper evolving into anything other than a bigger grasshopper.

Yes, I agree with you. Read my post again. It isn't possible to see a complete transformation of one species into another in the lab environment because it takes many years. What we do see is the genetic modifications that ultimately result in speciation. If you read the sources that Cooperton posted, they demonstrate exactly what I just said.

This link is to a list of transitional fossils. You can study the references to learn how they analyze the fossils and determine their origins: en.wikipedia.org...

Anyway, I think we should be able to go for a walk in the tall grass and you should be able to show me a grasshopper evolving into anything other than a bigger grasshopper.

I don't know why you think you should be able to see an organism changing in real time. Can you quote a biology textbook or some other reference that says it's possible? There is nothing evolutionary science that says we should be able to observe that type of change in real time.
You obviously don't understand the real science or you wouldn't be asking that type of question.

a reply to: Phantom423

Are you concerned at all with the credibility of these fossils. Faking fossils is a big business. Even caught National Geographic falling for it. Your 100% sure these transitionsinal fossisl you linked me to are genuine.
How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology

Another much more serious problem, however, is posed by forged, faked and manipulated specimens – such as National Geographic’s Archaeoraptor – which are becoming increasingly common. Farmers who dig for fossils do so to supplement their meagre incomes and are well aware that complete and spectacular specimens are worth far more than the fragmentary remains. Some don’t even realize they are faking specimens and combine pieces of different fossils found at the same locale. In the most extreme cases, this manipulation is intentional, involving fossils found at disparate locations. It sounds crude, but even the experts have to look carefully to detect the trickery when master forgers have been at work.

It’s a significant hurdle to good science, and one that can’t easily be solved. ‘Fossil forgery in the last decade highlights some troubling trends in Chinese vertebrate paleontology’, wrote Xiaoming Wang, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County in an opinion piece for the journal PNAS. “While fossil forgeries unfailingly stoke public fascination … the widespread damages that forgery causes are often not sufficiently recognized.

Why is faking fossils such a good business? That’s interesting to me. If there is such an abundance of them, why do they need to be forged.

As for my evolving grasshopper, yes im being ignorant here. Try to be clever, and clearly failed.

Anyway carry on. I do appreciate your input and have no doubt you have logged many hours on these subjects. I’m in the mind set of always learning, I definitely have a firm idea about origins and creation but im not afraid to look and learn about how and why others choose their beliefs in these areas.

a reply to: Observationalist

Statistically, there are enough samples that we can say the vast majority are yielding the correct information. The fake fossil episodes are certainly there, particularly in the early 20th century. I'm sure there are still plenty around. That said, our radiometric techniques have improved considerably since then. Usually a simple UV/IR spectroscopic test will show evidence of foreign inclusions such as glues, resins and all kinds of crap that shouldn't be there. As to forging and selling the "fossils", if you've ever been to a Chinese marketplace you'd find all sorts of fake stuff - including fossils. Tourists buy anything.

But as I said, I wouldn't worry too much about it today. Museums use the most modern scientific techniques to verify the authenticity of their exhibits. They cross reference with several institutions and labs to verify the results. But you can't rule out the occasional anomaly.

Peter Vlar, who posts here occasionally, is a professional paleoanthropologist - if he happens to read this, perhaps he could post more detailed information about fake fossils.

a reply to: Phantom423

Correct me if im wrong, I mean im no scientist... and evolution is far from my strong suit in sciences

But wouldn't the Chihuahua be exactly what they've been asking for?

Dogs are selectively bred wolves from thousands of years ago... And even though they're genetically similar, they are completely different

Wouldn't the evolution of dog breeds show exactly what the creationist fundies are asking for?

Or perhaps Noah had a pair of ankle biters on the boat beside him?

a reply to: Akragon

That actually turned out to be an interesting question. I looked up the evolution of wolf to dog and came across an article which suggests that domestic dogs are more closely related genetically to each other than to the grey wolf. In fact, they suggest that the domestic dog may not be directly linked to the grey wolf at all but rather they are both tied to a common ancestor that is extinct.

I suppose this would be analogous to humans and the great apes where we share a common ancestor but are not directly related to each other (humans were never apes and apes will never be human). I remember reading somewhere that dogs had a unique ability to diverge genetically very fast - hence the wide variety of dogs.

Creationists don't study science. They make it up as they go along to fit their cult model - followers blindly following a leader whose beliefs contravened rational, research-based science. I think "fundies" are probably just people with little or no science education and have never learned critical thinking. They're a prime target for cults like Creationism. Similar to the arguments that I continually have with Cooperton, they use the rhetoric of science to twist an idea into something that it's not while completely ignoring the real science. I'm sure there's a name for this tactic but I don't know what it is - I would just call it stupid!

Link to that article:

Did dogs really evolve from wolves? New evidence suggests otherwise.
New genetic research seemingly overturns the long-held notion that dogs evolved from the gray wolf.

www.csmonitor.com...

It turns out that today's dog breeds may not have evolved from the gray wolf, at least not the kind of gray wolf that exists today. A study in the current issue of PLoS Genetics suggests that, instead, dogs and gray wolves share a common ancestor in an extinct wolf lineage that lived thousands of years ago. An international team of researchers generated genome sequences from three gray wolves – one each from China, Croatia, and Israel, the three countries where dogs are believed to have originated. They then sequenced the genome of a basenji dog from central Africa and a dingo from Australia. Both the regions have been historically isolated from wolf populations, according to a press release by The University of Chicago Medical Center.

a reply to: Akragon

That actually turned out to be an interesting question. I looked up the evolution of wolf to dog and came across an article which suggests that domestic dogs are more closely related genetically to each other than to the grey wolf. In fact, they suggest that the domestic dog may not be directly linked to the grey wolf at all but rather they are both tied to a common ancestor that is extinct.

I suppose this would be analogous to humans and the great apes where we share a common ancestor but are not directly related to each other (humans were never apes and apes will never be human). I remember reading somewhere that dogs had a unique ability to diverge genetically very fast - hence the wide variety of dogs.

Creationists don't study science. They make it up as they go along to fit their cult model - followers blindly following a leader whose beliefs contravened rational, research-based science. I think "fundies" are probably just people with little or no science education and have never learned critical thinking. They're a prime target for cults like Creationism. Similar to the arguments that I continually have with Cooperton, they use the rhetoric of science to twist an idea into something that it's not while completely ignoring the real science. I'm sure there's a name for this tactic but I don't know what it is - I would just call it stupid!

Link to that article:

Did dogs really evolve from wolves? New evidence suggests otherwise.
New genetic research seemingly overturns the long-held notion that dogs evolved from the gray wolf.

www.csmonitor.com...

It turns out that today's dog breeds may not have evolved from the gray wolf, at least not the kind of gray wolf that exists today. A study in the current issue of PLoS Genetics suggests that, instead, dogs and gray wolves share a common ancestor in an extinct wolf lineage that lived thousands of years ago. An international team of researchers generated genome sequences from three gray wolves – one each from China, Croatia, and Israel, the three countries where dogs are believed to have originated. They then sequenced the genome of a basenji dog from central Africa and a dingo from Australia. Both the regions have been historically isolated from wolf populations, according to a press release by The University of Chicago Medical Center.

a reply to: Phantom423

Wouldn't that still show short term evidence of what nature can do though?

Unlike most species, with dogs you can have giants like a Great Dane, and little rats like teacup Poodles... granted their still dogs in any case... but some of these dogs can't actually breed with others

Wouldn't that pretty much be an evolution in species?

Like I said, I wouldn't know... relying on those that would

a reply to: Akragon



We should be finding all sort transitional forms that look like this dog evolving into a whale.

a reply to: Observationalist
Why would we need to find transitional forms when the evidence of mutation is right in front of us...

a reply to: Akragon

If your saying dogs are just mutations of the wolf then we still only have wolf type behaviors and limitations in dogs various types of dogs. Yes they can swim, but we don’t see any dogs mutated that have overly large webbed paws or see dogs with holes forming in the top of their head, preparing a blow hole. Or dogs with a mix of bone teeth and baleen.

To be fair the creature was not a dog it was a dog like so it could have had those adaptations available.

Still, The process in that video would have taken a longtime. And there would have been a lot of unfit dog like creatures that didn’t make it to the next phase. Those are the transitional fossils I’m talking about.

Side note about dog breeding:
Dog breeding has been more harmful than good for the dog species. Humans practice of eugenics on dogs has done nothing to improve their behaviors or instincts. It has however helped their cuteness improve. Why Breeding Pedigree Dogs Is Just Eugenics By Another Name

a reply to: Akragon

a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

If an organism can't breed with another organism that means that they don't have the genetic commonality to breed. It's my understanding that the definition of another species is one that can't breed with another species. When organisms diverge they lose the capability of breeding with the older organism. Of course, with molecular biology and genetics, we now can define much more accurately what it is that separates species. Regarding dogs, since they have such a rapid rate of mutation resulting in different breeds, I guess it could be an example of rapid evolution. I don't know where that scenario fits in because there's a tremendous difference in timing.

To my mind, evolution is about common ancestry. If we went to another planet and observed organisms of diverse forms, biology, metabolism, appearance - but when we analyzed their DNA they all had about 90% commonality among them, what would that say? It would say that they probably had a common ancestor or some common element, but for whatever reason, they diverged into different types of organisms. I don't believe evolution is linear. It's more like a matrix, crossing over in many different ways to produce different results. Mathematically, you'd have to develop a rank 2 tensor to describe it.

That said, we see speciation, we see the results of millions of years of change. If someone has a different idea as to how it occurred, bring it on. But to date, no one has. We don't have all the answers, but we certainly have a good start.

a reply to: Phantom423

Every time I request a viable alternative theory, no one steps up. Every time I ask politely for someone to describe intelligent design theory in realistic terms, it turns out that the strongest argument in favor of creationism is evolution being full of malarkey and ID theory wins by default. And then there's the crowd who believes in a fusion of MES and creation hypothesis...because the only way to both honor the facts and be respectful of ideology is bring them together and find a common language. But at the end of the day, science is science and philosophy is philosophy. A microscope and chemistry set cannot do the work of a priest or a politician.

a reply to: TzarChasm

That's because, on this board at least, we're dealing with a cult, not a religion. A cult doesn't have to answer the hard questions. They only have to sell a bill of goods to the ignorant. But I think the best rationale for challenging them is that you never know who's reading these threads. The real science and the truth will always shine through.

Francis Collins is a good example of someone who can blend his religious beliefs with the pragmatic application of real science to discoveries in nature. You won't find him touring the Creation Museum with his pet dinosaur any time soon!

The ’Evidence for Belief’: An Interview with Francis Collins

www.pewforum.org...

We have all of these famous stories in our history that pit science against faith – Galileo’s trial before the Inquisition, the Anglican Church’s strong public condemnation of Charles Darwin and the debates that followed the publication of his On the Origin of Species, the Scopes trial. And they have created this impression that there is an inherent conflict between religion and science. Do you believe there is such an inherent conflict? And if there isn’t, why is this impression false?

I don’t believe there is an inherent conflict, but I believe that humans, in our imperfect nature, sometimes imagine conflicts where there are none. We see something that threatens our own personal view, and we figure that there must be some reason why that alternative view has to be wrong, or even why it has to be evil.

First of all, let’s look carefully at the history of conflicts between science and the church and be sure that those are adequately represented. The story of Galileo is an interesting one. But I think it might be fair to say that Galileo’s greatest mistake was being a bit arrogant in the way he presented his own views and insulting the pope who, prior to that, had been fairly sympathetic with Galileo’s conclusions. Basically the pope couldn’t let Galileo get away with this kind of insult. Similarly, I think when Onthe Origin of Species was published, while there were objections coming from the church, there was also a large segment of the church, including some conservative theologians like Presbyterian Minister Benjamin Warfield, who embraced this new view of how living things were related to each other as a wonderful insight into the method by which God must have carried out creation.

Perhaps today’s conflict, which seems particularly intense, is so difficult to understand because, after all, evolution has been very much on the scene for 150 years, and the science that supports Darwin’s theory has gotten stronger and stronger over those decades. That evidence is particularly strong today given the ability to study DNA and to see the way in which it undergirds Darwin’s theory in a marvelously digital fashion. And yet, we have seen an increasing polarization between the scientific and spiritual worldviews, much of it, I think, driven by those who are threatened by the alternatives and who are unwilling to consider the possibility that there might be harmony here.