Patterns in DNA - what are your predictions?

Originally posted by josephw
You may find them, but how would you know that those patterns would mean "common ancestry"?

How do you know those patterns wouldn't also show up in the DNA of fish or worms or any other creature?

It is the commonality of the genes that say how close we are related. If we look at the genes for a yeast cell, there will still be a number of identical genes but not like Chimp V Man, like 96% identical, more like maybe 10% similar. So if you go up the totem pole of life and look at say a lizard DNA V Man, you might find 50% same (just picking #'s out of a hat)

A bit of gargling shows yeast having about 20% of the genes of humans and chickens having about 65% of human genes and Bonobos and Chimps clock in at about 95 odd% of human genes. They talk about life forms like onions having 5 times as many genes as humans but the coding portion being only twice as large so it is difficult to compare the two.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not saying (at this stage of the thread) that the pattern would definitively prove common ancestry. I am merely saying that there is a very specific pattern we would expect to find if we are related and would not expect to find if we are not related. You do not need to understand the details to answer the question. Can you give a straight answer?

" I am merely saying that there is a very specific pattern we would expect to find if we are related and would not expect to find if we are not related."

As you say, pattern similarities do not prove common ancestry. But then what do you mean by "related"? Usually it does mean at least one common ancestor. Is "related" just shorthand for meeting some % threshold of similarity in specific patterns? Or does it become a matter of degree of relatedness with no implications for common ancestry? So God made us and chimps directly and separately from dust (and in our case half from a rib), to have more similar DNA than he made us and turnips to have. Does the Bible deny this?

Originally posted by sonhouse
It is the commonality of the genes that say how close we are related. If we look at the genes for a yeast cell, there will still be a number of identical genes but not like Chimp V Man, like 96% identical, more like maybe 10% similar. So if you go up the totem pole of life and look at say a lizard DNA V Man, you might find 50% same (just picking #'s out of ...[text shortened]... s humans but the coding portion being only twice as large so it is difficult to compare the two.

Googling on

calculation of genetic relatedness

will yield links to several scholarly articles and abstracts.

Edit: Note that some calculations of relatedness depend on examination of ancestry relationships, and thus instead of examination of DNA, do not only assume, but depend on information on common ancestry, which TW specifically excludes at this point in the discussion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It is the commonality of the genes that say how close we are related. If we look at the genes for a yeast cell, there will still be a number of identical genes but not like Chimp V Man, like 96% identical, more like maybe 10% similar. So if you go up the totem pole of life and look at say a lizard DNA V Man, you might find 50% same (just picking #'s out of ...[text shortened]... s humans but the coding portion being only twice as large so it is difficult to compare the two.

DNA can show how closely people are related. However, it does not show that one person evolved from another person. DNA may show one person is an ancestor of another person, but that is far different from claiming one person evolved from another person. How can you not see that?

It is clear from the Holy Bible that God made man and the different kinds of animals. One kind did not evolve from another, because each kind reproduces after their own kind. None of them evolve into another kind. No scientist has ever been able to disprove this.
Therefore, the theory of evolution is not science, because it has never been observed to happen.

Originally posted by JS357
As you say, pattern similarities do not prove common ancestry. But then what do you mean by "related"?

By 'related' I do mean 'common ancestry'. I am saying that although certain patterns do not prove common ancestry, they would only be expected if we have common ancestry. So my question to those who do not believe in common ancestry, is what do they expect to find?

Originally posted by twhitehead
By 'related' I do mean 'common ancestry'. I am saying that although certain patterns do not prove common ancestry, they would only be expected if we have common ancestry. So my question to those who do not believe in common ancestry, is what do they expect to find?

" I am saying that although certain patterns do not prove common ancestry, they would only be expected if we have common ancestry."

I have to play devil's advocate.

I suggest they would expect to find monkeys and man having certain patterns in common and yeast and man not having those certain patterns in common if God intended and made it to be so when creating life of all kinds. And finding it to be so, they'd see that as evidence that God did intend it to be so. They might agree that genes are why monkeys beget monkeys and man begets man, but that is how God preserves kinds, at least the ones not yet extinct due to the Flood etc..

And no, not all Christians think this way. Only True Christians. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
By 'related' I do mean 'common ancestry'. I am saying that although certain patterns do not prove common ancestry, they would only be expected if we have common ancestry. So my question to those who do not believe in common ancestry, is what do they expect to find?

Since we believe God made all kinds of animals and plants, we would expect to find similar DNA patterns in all kinds of plants and animals. However, we would also expect DNA patterns that show some major differences in all kinds, so one can not identify one kind as being the ancestor of another kind. By "kind" I don't mean "species" as in scientifice nomenclature, but more like the "family" classification. However, I don't accept that apes are in the same family as man.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Since we believe God made all kinds of animals and plants, we would expect to find similar DNA patterns in all kinds of plants and animals. However, we would also expect DNA patterns that show some major differences in all kinds, so one can not identify one kind as being the ancestor of another kind. By "kind" I don't mean "species" as in scientifice nomenclature, but the "family" classification.

That said, we evolved from apes right?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
That said, we evolved from apes right?

No. I had just edited my previous post because I figured someone would claim that. I was right again. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. I had just edited my previous post because I figured someone would claim that. I was right again. 😏

You mean you've been right before?

😲

Originally posted by JS357
I have to play devil's advocate.

I suggest they would expect to find monkeys and man having certain patterns in common

I am not talking about having just any patterns in common. That, I can understand. I am talking about certain patterns that we would only expect if we had common ancestry.

I am also not saying such patterns exist. I am just asking whether we should expect to find them or not.
I am guessing that creationists are too scared of traps to give an honest answer.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You mean you've been right before?

😲

Of course, many times. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
DNA can show how closely people are related. However, it does not show that one person evolved from another person. DNA may show one person is an ancestor of another person, but that is far different from claiming one person evolved from another person. How can you not see that?

It is clear from the Holy Bible that God made man and the different kinds ...[text shortened]... Therefore, the theory of evolution is not science, because it has never been observed to happen.

It has been shown to happen but you just move the goalpost and call it 'adaptation', as if that was supposed to win an argument.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It has been shown to happen but you just move the goalpost and call it 'adaptation', as if that was supposed to win an argument.

Woodpecker Defies Evolution

Woodpeckers are so uniquely designed for their specific tasks that their amazing features defy evolutionary thinking! Learn about their one-of-a-kind tongue and shock absorbent skulls!

YouTube

How could a woodpecker evolve?
It must have been created.

Timelapse of a Pileated Woodpecker creating a cavity

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Woodpecker Defies Evolution

Woodpeckers are so uniquely designed for their specific tasks that their amazing features defy evolutionary thinking! Learn about their one-of-a-kind tongue and shock absorbent skulls!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KqxqGERH5g

How could a woodpecker evolve?
It must have been created.

Timelapse of a Pileated Woodpecker creating a cavity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPiCAPibtr4

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity