Debunking Creationism

[kamcho_papio]

I'm curious what debunkers have to say about the 'loss of genetic information' argument. The common ancestor of apes and humans would have had to contain genetic information both for apes and humans, and its descendants (us) would have less genetic information because it would have had to lose some to make apes and humans.

Could you explain the loss of genetic information argument from a creationist point of view?

[Constance Vigilance]

I'm curious what debunkers have to say about the 'loss of genetic information' argument. The common ancestor of apes and humans would have had to contain genetic information both for apes and humans, and its descendants (us) would have less genetic information because it would have had to lose some to make apes and humans.

This is the first time I'm hearing some of these arguments, and they are based on such a wilful misunderstanding of science it makes me sad.

Chimps and humans are 99.9% similar on a genetic level. What is different is that .1% of DNA sequence, and also where and how we express the genes we share. (The .1% sounds like nothing, but is actually a very significant amount. There are 3,000,000,000base pairs in the human genome, and a change in one of them can cause fatal disease. A difference in 3,000,000 of them is huge.)

I think the best example is in the brain. One of the major differences between chimps and humans is our brain -- it is bigger and more complex. So you'd expect some of the .1% difference to be in the genes that control brain development, wouldn't you? And so they have proven to be. It's still being investigated and more is being found out all the time, but stretches of DNA involved in the enlargement of critical brain regions in humans have undergone some of the fastest evolution in the transition from common ancestor to human. The same region in chimps has not.

Many genes have barely changed at all since we devolved from a common mammalian ancestor. Even mice are 90% homologous to humans -- you can take a human copy of many genes and put it into a mouse in place of the mouse copy, and the mouse is completely unchanged. The point is that you can't do this with ALL genes. The ones that have changed are the ones that have made us human.

So it is not that any genetic information has been "lost". It is that some of it has changed -- perhaps a slightly different protein is being produced, or in different cells, or at a different time in development. And all these tiny differences build up over millions of years, until you have something as recognisably different as a chimp and a human both coming from a common ancestor.

Edited because even though I hate maths I do know the difference between 3 million and 3 billion.

[debrand]

Here is one from Ray Comfort's site.

How did man survive in his primitive state until females evolved?

Constance vigilance, you are very lucky that you haven't heard some of these arguments.

[celestial]

I'm curious what debunkers have to say about the 'loss of genetic information' argument. The common ancestor of apes and humans would have had to contain genetic information both for apes and humans, and its descendants (us) would have less genetic information because it would have had to lose some to make apes and humans.

I'm not interested in me trying to debate one over the other, everyone's got their beliefs and what they see as scientific evidence, but I am interested in hearing Creationist theory explained from evolutionary standpoint. I try to keep an open mind.

Here is an article on this topic. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ation.html

Nutshell: The premise of the argument, that "The common ancestor of apes and humans would have had to contain genetic information both for apes and humans," is flawed because mutations can in fact create new species from existing ones. Hope that makes sense and does in fact speak to what you meant by your statement. It's not really a viewpoint I'm familiar with.

[Constance Vigilance]

Here is one from Ray Comfort's site.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :doh:

Constance vigilance, you are very lucky that you haven't heard some of these arguments.

I am only now realising that. Is the above one for real? How does he get dressed in the morning?

[CanadianHippie]

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :doh:

I am only now realising that. Is the above one for real? How does he get dressed in the morning?

The congregation comes together to support those in need. There is a list somewhere detailing whose turn it is to put on his underwear, pants, shirt, etc.

[debrand]

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :doh:

I am only now realising that. Is the above one for real? How does he get dressed in the morning?

Check it out for yourself. http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/search?q=sex

Yes, that was one of his arguments against evolution.

Sometimes I think that Ray Comfort is a conman pretending to be stupid so that he can convince people to give him money.

[AnnoDomini]

Could you explain the loss of genetic information argument from a creationist point of view?

Nope. Science isn't my strong point and I never could quite follow the Creationist videos. I just try to respect others' beliefs/science, not push my faith on them, and keep an open mind.

[Constance Vigilance]

Sometimes I think that Ray Comfort is a conman pretending to be stupid so that he can convince people to give him money.

Blatantly. You can't know enough about evolution to create arguments against it without realising how incredibly stupid a question like that is. He is doing it on purpose to trick people less educated than himself. It's shameful.

[Constance Vigilance]

Also because it is often thought to be the case: "You can't believe in God creating the world and evolution at the same time. They are mutually exclusive."

Creationist American Christians are the only ones I know of in any numbers in Western society who have any difficulty with those concepts co-existing. The UK/Ireland have millions of Christians, and hardly any creationists. "Religion" does not have to be the same as "ignorance", they are just choosing to make it so.

[emmiedahl]

I'm curious what debunkers have to say about the 'loss of genetic information' argument. The common ancestor of apes and humans would have had to contain genetic information both for apes and humans, and its descendants (us) would have less genetic information because it would have had to lose some to make apes and humans.

I'm not interested in me trying to debate one over the other, everyone's got their beliefs and what they see as scientific evidence, but I am interested in hearing Creationist theory explained from evolutionary standpoint. I try to keep an open mind.

First, the genetic differences are quite small. We share 96% of our DNA with chimps. We actually use only 1% of our genome. That is a lot of genes just sitting there, not being used anymore. We could contain enough different DNA just in the human genome to make millions of genetically distinct organisms; the difference is what is expressed.

Further, evolution is mutation-based. Mutations happen in germline cells all the time. Most of the time, the mutation is a death sentence because it affects growth and differentiation. A very small amount of the time, the mutation does not negatively affect the zygote, and so the mutation is passed on and over time may be beneficial, and thus become part of a future species' genome. (eta for clarity, sometimes mutations are deletions--losses of genetic information)

This is not always the case but IN GENERAL the more specialized an organism is, the more DNA it carries. This suggests that in most cases, genetic information is not lost; it just sits there unused. It just becomes irrelevant to the organism's survival and is never transcribed. Most genes need to be "turned on", so if you don't need them, they merely take up genomic space. Example: a bacteria in a glucose-rich environment will never use the genes in its lac operon.

[Constance Vigilance]

I want you to know that in searching papers to try to find out which is the most accurate current estimate of human-chimp homology (probably emmiedahl's because I was learning about it four years ago and a lot can change in Genetics knowledge in that time) I found a paper on something called Human Foamy Virus. :shock: There's an image that will give me nightmares.

[emmiedahl]

I could be incorrect on the exact number of genes we share with chimps, but I know that we share a lot/the vast majority of DNA.

I am firm on the amount of genetic information that we use; it is from a textbook. We have proven via various human genome sequencing experiments that most of our genome does jack-shit. It is probably leftovers from ancestors, some viral DNA, etc.

I don't know what the Human Foamy Virus is, but if you want creepy, check out transposons. The fact that "jumping genes" exist is creepy as hell and certainly nothing that a benevolent creator would have invented and hidden just for giggles.

[Constance Vigilance]

I could be incorrect on the exact number of genes we share with chimps, but I know that we share a lot/the vast majority of DNA.

You are more likely to be right than me, I remember something about it being revised down as more subtle differences were uncovered.

I don't know what the Human Foamy Virus is, but if you want creepy, check out transposons. The fact that "jumping genes" exist is creepy as hell and certainly nothing that a benevolent creator would have invented and hidden just for giggles.

I know, deactivated transposons are some terrifying propertion of our genome! Oh, DNA, you are the funnest/scariest.

Edited to add a bit.

[trebello]

Constance Vigilance, I hear you on the changing trees. I taught an Evolution course for the first time in spring, and things have changed a TON since I was in school (but that was a looonnggg time ago, even grad school). There is so much more molecular information now than back then (pre-PCR days).

On the "monkeys into humans", the issue that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor has been pretty well covered, but I want to elaborate on "why are there still monkeys?" part. Evolution isn't linear. It is a big old branching tree. Part of a population gets isolated (for myriad reasons) from the original population. Different pressures on the two populations lead to an accumulation of differences. Eventually, these differences lead to a big enough gap in the two populations that even if they meet, they no longer can successfully reproduce.

On the "lost DNA" argument... that's a new one to me. It isn't "lost" most of the time (although this does happen); it is changed. Much adaptation also results from duplication of genes, or addition of novel genes from another organism or genetic element. When a gene is duplicated, selective pressure is off on the copy, and more mutation is tolerated. With a novel genetic element, like insertion of a virus or transposon, it can bring a new function, or simply new genetic material that can then mutate.

I'm looking forward to this thread. I teach biology at a college in the Deep South, so I've heard most of the arguments that are parroted in the pulpits. I also really learned a lot from teaching this evolution course. I'm a microbiologist, and haploids evolve in a slightly different way than diploids, and differently than organisms that use sexual reproduction.

[CanticleoftheTurning]

I homeschooled with A-Beka books and nearly all the books are littered with anti-evolution "facts." It wasn't until college that I realized the anti-evolution BS is stupid.

Didn't these anti-evolution-ers realize that Christians discovered evolution and the Big Bang?

Mendel is probably the forefather of evolutionary theory, and Georges Lemaître first supposed that the universe began with a big bang.

Oh yeah. Mendel was a friar and Lemaitre was a Catholic priest.

Booyah evolution disbelievers! Evolution does not, contrary to your belief, preclude belief in a Creator.

[emmiedahl]

Yes, and Darwin was a minister. I have heard anti-evolution people say that he recanted his theory later and became a minister--the fact is, he was a minister before, during and after his theory.

[MrsYoungie]

Here is one. If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Americans all came from other countryies. Why are there still other countries???

[celestial]

Americans all came from other countryies. Why are there still other countries???

LOL :lol:

[trebello]

You know, MrsYoungie, that's actually a great analogy! May I use it in class?

[OohLaLa]

I just wanted to say thank you SO MUCH for this thread! I posted an intro awhile back then kind of fell back into lurking, but my homeschooled, extremely religious right education was seriously lacking in the science department and it's been hard trying to come back from that and gain the basic understanding I feel I should have as a young adult. Pretty much all I ever got growing up was some simple (Christian) "Science for grade __" books, then a lot of Answers in Genesis shoved down my throat. I never really understood why so many educated, intelligent people believed in such a 'stupid' or 'unfounded' theory like evolution, but after awhile I just stopped caring. Since I've gotten out on my own though I've been able to educate myself about a lot of things, but it has been hard to break the YEC beliefs that were so ingrained for so long. I knew literally nothing about evolution except what we were taught 'counter-arguments' to. It's kind of scary, feeling so ignorant, but keep the articles and wonderfully informative posts coming, I'm making up for a lot of lost time. :)

[bananacat]

Question. Is there a difference between evolution and adaptation? My husband works with a man who says that he doesn't believe in evolution but believes that living things adapt. Isn't that a part of evolution?

Adaptation is just a way for people to accept evolution without using the dreaded E-word. I had the same thing happen to me when I was a teenager. I mentioned evolution, and another girl insisted that I just meant "adaptation". "Adaptation" is how would hear evolution described in any freshman bio class. "Evolution" is a straw man of some ridiculous theory where dogs give birth to ferns. Essentially, they accept evolution on its actual terms but don't realize it.

[AnnoDomini]

I knew literally nothing about evolution except what we were taught 'counter-arguments' to.

Me too.

[trebello]

For those of you who have said that you are unfamiliar with some of the "creation/ID/evolution" debate, may I recommend two sites? The first one, talk.origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/), is an old group (usenet!) that directly addresses creationist/ID arguments. The second, Understanding Evolution at Berkeley (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/) is a great place that explains evolution at levels for all interest groups. It is geared toward educators who struggle teaching evolution to K-12.

Happy reading!

[Aurora]

LOL :lol:

The previous is funnier, but actually we and monkeys both came from some ancient common ancestor that doesn't exist any more. It probably lived several millions of years to hundreds of millions of years ago. Someone on here who's a better biologist than me probably knows what the closest living relative to that ancient species is (I think it might be lemurs?? Don't take my word for that, though)

eta: oops, posted that before seeing that a few others posted essentially the same thing