feral:

One does not have to disprove God to prove evolution, or vice-versa... where did you come up with that notion?

I personally believe that God is 'responsible' for evolution.

In your second post in this thread, you said that Evolution is correct and that Creationism is based on folklore. Sorry buddy, but you aren't being objective. I have said over and over again that Evolution is possible, but I haven't seen evidence that can convince me. So you and others suggest that I haven't looked, won't look, ignored, etc the evidence. And now you have the balls to claim that "[You] have never said that it must be one or the other... " You clearly have and several times. And now you just can't handle that I'm mocking your beliefs just like what is done to be and other Creationsists in this forum daily. Non-Christians are SOOOOOO good at giving grief, but they cry and whine anytime someone gives them a little grief.

And just so you know, I have said "I have never said that it must be one or the other... " many times. I admit that the origin and speciation of life is debatable, that the evidence doesn't give either side the advantage. I choose to believe in Creationism until more evidence comes along to support evolution. It's you guys that have the hangup, thread after thread talks about how little thought goesn't into Christian beliefs. But you guys couldn't answer my little question, could you? You also didn't know about the new research on Erectus / Habilis, did you? I've posted that in various forums for months now. I do my research. If you read what I posted instead of believing the sick, twisted characature of me that is painted by Voil and Abra and others, you might actually know what I believe. Instead, you get to be conviced that me, someone who used to believe wholeheartedly in Evolution, just someone threw all thought and reason out the door and became a Creationist. It must be so bruising to your collective egos when NONE of you can refute my statements. "There's proof of evolution" is all I hear. Then you guys talk about fossils. Fossils are NOT proof of evolution, GET OVER IT. If someone has told you that fossils prove evolution, you have been lied to. Fossils prove that something died, you cannot prove that the fossil had children, little less that it had children different from itself.

"There is no middle ground....Because if you believe we were created by anything other then God.....that goes against God"

I'm gonna say this for the last time, the scripture tells us God created, but not HOW God created, and as per my belief we're still on the seventh day of creation. So, evolution doesn't mean God didn't create us, it doesn't say that he didn't use materials from other species to create us. I'm not telling you you have to agree with evolution, but I am saying I believe in both, they're not neccesarily contradictive. Chimps eventualy evolved into Lucy, somewhere Lucy evolved into other species, other pre sapian species came & went until Sapian was born. Eventualy only Sapian & Neandertaul were left, Sapian wiped out Neandertaul & now our closest living relative remains the chimp, not the ape (I get tired of people saying ape). That's the scientific theory, theory being almost proven but not quite, far past the stages of hypothisis.

But again, it seems pretty judgemental to tell me I can't believe in both, to each their own & I'll continue discovering the hands of God in science;^]

Did something change between yesterday and today? You are clearly saying that Creationists are wrong. Your belief is that God created life and that life evolved? That's called "Comprimised Creationism". True Creationism states that God created life, not that life evolved or that the universe was created in a big bang or any of that stuff. Maybe you need to accept the fact that (GASP!) not everyone who believes in God believes like you do.

Where does the scripture say life didn't evolve? That's purely subjective and open to interpitation. Errr, there I go getting dragged into this mess again..lol;^]

If man knew everything wouldnt we be God. Do you actually think that in this life, of mankind that we will know everything? Not 1 person but in a general for of everything. Shoot most people cannot even break addictions, how am i suppose to take man created theories and call someone who is perfect not real? Faith is the main battle here, is your Faith in God or is it in Man.

Im a "god created all man" however i believe God gave us the ability to evolve, to not agree with such would deny growth.

spider:

I have chosen to allow you to paint your picture of yourself...

While no one is perfect, you definitely have called me names quite often... while claiming it is I who make fun of you?

The style of randomly interjecting insults within the context of your arguement(s) is obvious to anyone who reads you with any consistant regularity, and it subtracts from the merit of the information presented.

There IS a significant amount of folklore related to many religions... if not all. That does not automatically make it bad, or 'wrong'.

I debate in no such style spider, I never clearly stated Creationism was 'wrong'... some of it IS impossible...

I have never required anyone to believe as I do... and always have known that. It is not a matter of me accepting another's right to believe as they choose... and never has been.

That's ridicules, when did I say we know everything? When did I say we have to know everything? Man was given a mental capacity for mathmatics and science for a reason, should we abandon theory of relativity too? Get real, my faith is in God but that doesn't mean science is evil, that's as absurd as saying nature is evil. Again, to each his/ her own, I choose to discover Gods work in science;^]

Of course God created all man, the question is how he created man, by the scripture that's missing data;^]

im not saying you did, im saying could we? i was asking such assuming we would all agree with a no. now wait a second Turtle, im disagreeing with no scientific theories nor laws. Im simply trying to explain that we need somthing that does not apply to Science to exist, in order for science to exist.

But God created science too, from the moment there was creation there was science, per my belief anyway. So yes, God created all, I say with science;^]

Does it matter how, in all honesty? Your right it does not say God mentions that some information we will never know, so somthings things we should take his word for it. WE do this all the time in life, not double checking the elecrtic bill and actually figuring out how much per kilo wat you used to compare its accuracy. It would be easier and much less stressful to take thier word for it. There are many things i wonder about, however these things allow us to dwell on, and this can overcome our life, not allowing growth.

I would totally agree if you would say that God was the creator of science, he didnt use science to create all. maybe thats what you were actually saying?

I strongly disagree, I do double check my bills for details, and science is a great interest of mine. To say I should not spend anytime on it would be opression, scripture does not prohibit us from studying the science of Gods works. I can still study science and donate food, I can study science and still take time for praise and prayer. Science is Gods gift to us, our mental capacity is Gods gift to us to understand that science with, the same with studying the science of global warming so that we can use our God given ability to care for and nurture life;^]

way to take everything i say to the utmost extreems, You measure per kilo-wat that you use then? I said some things as pety as how we are created mean nothing in religion. IF everything was explained in religion we would not need A God becasue we would be him, somthings are not explained and left for us to wonder. As well im not saying Science should not explained, i think its great how science has proven so much of how the Earth works. im saying some things are of little importance to us.

So why the criticism? Not like I'm asking you to be scientist or anything of the sort. Little importance to you, but of great interest to me. I say God created science and with science, you say not, but whatever. I agree to disagree;^]

Ahh no im not being critical im sorry if i came off as such but somtimes we need to back off a little in needing an explanation for everything. It can control your life, granted scientist do this on a daily basis. We just need to live life and pick and chose what question we want to investigate further, kinda like what your saying, your "great interest". Not fight every battle but pick and chose the battles worth fighting kinda thing

And you incorrect i was agreeing with you, saying God created science...

In regard to that which has been brought up concerning chimps and humans being 'related'...



The support for common descent given by studies of molecular sequences can be phrased as a deductive argument. This argument is unique, as it is the only instance we can directly conclude that similarity implies relatedness. This conclusion depends upon the similarity of biological structures within a specific context: the similarity observed between ubiquitous genes from different species.

The following discussion is somewhat technical, so it is first presented in the outline of a deductive argument, which makes the logical thread easy to follow. Here are listed the premises of the argument followed by the conclusion and further discussion.

The gist of the argument:

(P1) Ubiquitous genes: There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.

(P2) Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes: Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.

(P3) Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant: Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).

(P4) Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species: Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.

(P5) Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity: There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.

(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

Discussion:

The amino acid sequences of proteins are often used to establish the phylogenetic relationships of species. Sequence studies with functional genes have centered on genes of proteins (or RNAs) that are ubiquitous (i.e. all organisms have them). This is done to insure that the comparisons are independent of the overall species phenotype.

For example, suppose we are comparing the protein sequence of a chimpanzee and that of a human. Both of these animals have many similar anatomical characters and functions, so we might expect their proteins to be similar too, regardless of whether they are genealogically related or not. However, we can compare the sequences of very basic genes that are used by all living organisms, such as the cytochrome c gene, which have no influence over specific chimpanzee or human characteristics.

Cytochrome c is an essential and ubiquitous protein found in all organisms, including eukaryotes and bacteria. The mitochondria of cells contain cytochrome c, where it transports electrons in the fundamental metabolic process of oxidative phosphorylation. The oxygen we breathe is used to generate energy in this process.

Using a ubiquitous gene such as cytochrome c, there is no reason to assume that two different organisms should have the same protein sequence or even similar protein sequences, unless the two organisms are genealogically related. This is due in part to the functional redundancy of protein sequences and structures. Here, "functional redundancy" indicates that many different protein sequences form the same general structure and perform the same general biological role. Cytochrome c is an extremely functionally redundant protein, because many dissimilar sequences all form cytochrome c electron transport proteins. Functional redundancy need not be exact in terms of performance; some functional cytochrome c sequences may be slightly better at electron transport than others.

Decades of biochemical evidence have shown that many amino acid mutations, especially of surface residues, have only small effects on protein function and on protein structure. A striking example is that of the c-type cytochromes from various bacteria, which have virtually no sequence similarity. Nevertheless, they all fold into the same three-dimensional structure, and they all perform the same biological role.

Even within species, most amino acid mutations are functionally silent. For example, there are at least 250 different amino acid mutations known in human hemoglobin, carried by more than 3% of the world's population, that have no clinical manifestation in either heterozygotic or homozygotic individuals. The phenomenon of protein functional redundancy is very general, and is observed in all known proteins and genes.

With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein. In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c. Furthermore, extensive genetic analysis of cytochrome c has demonstrated that the majority of the protein sequence is unnecessary for its function in vivo. Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally similar amino acids). Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 1093 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses. For perspective, the number 1093 is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

In terms of a scientific statistical analysis, the "null hypothesis" is that the identity of non-essential amino acids in the cytochrome c proteins from human and chimpanzee should be random with respect to one another. However, from the theory of common descent and our standard phylogenetic tree we know that humans and chimpanzees are quite closely related. We therefore predict, in spite of the odds, that human and chimpanzee cytochrome c sequences should be much more similar than, say, human and yeast cytochrome c - simply due to inheritance.

Confirmation:

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25.

Criticisms:

One possible, yet unlikely, objection is that the slight differences in functional performance between the various cytochromes could be responsible for this sequence similarity. This objection is unlikely because of the incredibly high number of nearly equivalent sequences that would be phenotypically indistinguishable for any required level of performance. Additionally, nearly similar sequences do not necessarily give nearly similar levels of performance.

Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, let us assume that a cytochrome c that transports electrons faster is required in organisms with active metabolisms or with high rates of muscle contraction. If this were true, we might expect to observe a pattern of sequence similarity that correlates with similarity of environment or with physiological requirement. However, this is not observed. For example, bat cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to hummingbird cytochrome c; porpoise cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c than to shark cytochrome c. As stated earlier in prediction 1.3, the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data. These facts only further support the idea that cytochrome c sequences are independent of phenotypic function (other than the obvious requirement for a functional cytochrome c that transports electrons).

Recap:

The point of this prediction is subtly different from prediction 1.3, "Convergence of independent phylogenies". The evidence given above demonstrates that for many ubiquitous functional proteins (such as cytochrome c), there is an enormous number of equivalent sequences which could form that protein in any given organism. Whenever we find that two organisms have the same or very similar sequences for a ubiquitous protein, we know that something fishy is going on. Why would these two organisms have such similar ubiquitous proteins when the odds are astronomically against it? We know of only one reason for why two organisms would have two similar protein sequences in the absence of functional necessity: heredity. Thus, in such cases we can confidently deduce that the two organisms are genealogically related. In this sense, sequence similarity is not only a test of the theory of common descent; common descent is also a deduction from the principle of heredity and the observation of sequence similarity. Finally, the similarity observed for cytochrome c is not confined to this single ubiquitous protein; all ubiquitous proteins that have been compared between chimpanzees and humans are highly similar, and there have been many comparisons.

Potential Falsification:

Without assuming the theory common descent, the most probable result is that the cytochrome c protein sequences in all these different organisms would be very different from each other. If this were the case, a phylogenetic analysis would be impossible, and this would provide very strong evidence for a genealogically unrelated, perhaps simultaneous, origin of species.

Furthermore, the very basis of this argument could be undermined easily if it could be demonstrated (1) that species specific cytochrome c proteins were functional exclusively in their respective organisms, or (2) that no other cytochrome c sequence could function in an organism other than its own native cytochrome c, or (3) that an observed mechanism besides heredity can causally correlate the sequence of a ubiquitous protein with a specific organismic morphology.