Creationist arguments against genetics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2013, 06:38 AM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2013 09:31 AM by ghostexorcist.)
Creationist arguments against genetics
What are some of the arguments that you've seen creationists use against genetic evidence of the relatedness between all life on earth? The crown jewel of my personal experience is this one:

Quote:While we would expect a range of overlap between human and animal genome.
So some genus/species/min are bound to be a closer match then others.
because of a common creator and common building blocks.
even a 100% match would be no proof of common descent.
As the designer/creator Hashem (H') may have desired an animal counterpart to human beings.

You read that right. According to him, not even a 100% match in DNA between two or more organisms means they are related. Using his logic, even a 100% match would mean a child that his wife gave birth to is not his own. They simply share almost identical genes (half coming from the father) because they have the same creator. That sounds really silly doesn't it? I bet this person would resort to paternity testing if some mystery woman came to them claiming they had a son or daughter.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like ghostexorcist's post
15-05-2013, 06:58 AM
RE: Creationist arguments against genetics
Yes this is fairly amusing. The number of possible human genome combinations falls somewhere north of 1.6x10^12000 mark, or in other words, a number so large that writing it down would stretch across the universe and back, or in other words, many more times than the total number of atoms of matter in the entire universe.

Clearly God made this number of combinations possible and then chose to make all of life only utilize a few fairly closely related possibilities. Super logical. Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 07:09 AM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2013 07:24 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Creationist arguments against genetics
(15-05-2013 06:38 AM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  What are some of the arguments that you've seen creationists use against genetic evidence of the relatedness between all life on earth? The crown jewel of my personal experience is this one:

Quote:While we would expect a range of overlap between human and animal genome.
So some genus/species/min are bound to be a closer match then others.
because of a common creator and common building blocks.
even a 100% match would be no proof of common descent.
As the designer/creator Hashem (H') may have desired an animal counterpart to human beings.

You read that right. According to them, not even a 100% match in DNA between two or more organisms means they are related. Using their logic, even a 100% match would mean a child that his wife gave birth to is not his own. They simply share almost identical genes (half coming from the father) simply because they have the same creator. That sounds really silly doesn't it? I bet this person would resort to paternity testing if some mystery woman came to them claiming they had a son or daughter.

From

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resour...evolution/

"The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?"

When you have an agenda, an active imagination and limited intellect this is what happens. This is why we can't have nice things.

“I suppose our capacity for self-delusion is boundless."
― John Steinbeck, Travels with Charley: In Search of America
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's." - Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
15-05-2013, 08:09 AM
RE: Creationist arguments against genetics
"If I gave you a sandwich that was 96% shit and 4% ham, would you tell me that's a ham sandwich?" - Joe Rogan on the 96% overlap of DNA similarity between humans and some primates.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Superluminal's post
15-05-2013, 09:10 AM
RE: Creationist arguments against genetics
Well, the "Christian" who wrote that is obviously stupid. A 100% match means we are the same species and we are chimpanzees and they are human.

Shame none of you noticed that. Confused
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 09:18 AM
RE: Creationist arguments against genetics
(15-05-2013 09:10 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Well, the "Christian" who wrote that is obviously stupid. A 100% match means we are the same species and we are chimpanzees and they are human.

Shame none of you noticed that. Confused

Actually, I'm pretty sure he is Jewish. I think you are missing the point of my first post. The person thinks close genetic relatedness is nothing more than the sign of a common creator. This would mean his own children are not related to him.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ghostexorcist's post
15-05-2013, 09:55 AM
Re: Creationist arguments against genetics
Having pj on ignore makes this place much better lately. But seriously his trolling is getting worse, its as of he didn't read what you wrote.

Good thing I know this now. I can have kids and have no responsibility to them... You can't prove its mine with any fancy DNA testing. God made her.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 10:25 AM
RE: Creationist arguments against genetics
You gotta love this part too:
Quote:As the designer/creator Hashem (H') may have desired an animal counterpart to human beings.
The failure to recognize that humans are animals...

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: Creationist arguments against genetics
Ghostexorcist,

To be fair, this was a prevailing view among scientists pre-Darwin - that things were similar and used similar parts because they had a common designer. It was the pattern of similarities and differences that this model could not explain. It couldn't explain why some features always appears together and never appeared apart (fur and milk for example), other than "that's how he wanted it". It took the theory of evolution to explain the pattern of relationships, and without that pattern of relationships similarity might not have implied any kind of ancestral relationship.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2013 08:16 PM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: Creationist arguments against genetics
(15-05-2013 06:13 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Ghostexorcist,

To be fair, this was a prevailing view among scientists pre-Darwin - that things were similar and used similar parts because they had a common designer. It was the pattern of similarities and differences that this model could not explain. It couldn't explain why some features always appears together and never appeared apart (fur and milk for example), other than "that's how he wanted it". It took the theory of evolution to explain the pattern of relationships, and without that pattern of relationships similarity might not have implied any kind of ancestral relationship.

That is a very valid point. However, Darwin published his work almost 155 years ago, and a lot of scientific progress has been made since then. Yet, people still cite this as a reason for not accepting evolutionary genetics.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ghostexorcist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: