Similar Design

Talk about religion here
Forum rules
Please read the forum rules carefully before you post.

If you like AnimorphsFanForum.com, please consider making a donation. Any donation will go towards the cost of the hosting, the domain and any other running costs.
User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Similar Design

Post by Tobias_Marco » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:17 am

<Below is some of the text from a chat between myself (Tobias_Marco), Blu, and Sorunome about Chromosome 2, and the reasons why so many life forms on Earth have simmer designs (Most of the mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians have a head, a body, 4 limbs and a tail of some kind. Most insects have 3 body segments, and 6 legs.>
<However we had to end it because one of us had to go, please feel free to join in and we can hopefully come to a better understanding of each other.>

Tobias_Marco: <As I understand it all members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. and recent studies suggest that genes on chromosome 2 may play an important role in human intelligence.>
<This implies that Chromosome 2 is what sets humans apart from the other members of the ape family.>
Blu: Human chromosome two has two centromeres, indicating that is it a combination of two different chromosomes
<If that is true, then it could be called 'the soul gene', but I think it is a little early for that.>
Blu: The point is, two chroms. combined. This explains why humans have a pair less than other primates
Tobias_Marco: <I can see how you might see it that way.>
Tobias_Marco: The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B. At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B prior to the fusion event. It remains to be determined if these inserted genes confer a selective advantage.
Tobias_Marco: <Where did those 'extra' genes come from?>
Tobias_Marco: <I would say that God used the same basic design in more then one creature, and so used similar parts.>
Blu: The extra genes will have occurred via gene duplication
Sorunome: I think it was all coincidence.
Blu: How can you show that God deliberately used similar designs/parts?
Tobias_Marco: <'gene duplication' so where were those genes copied from?>
Blu: already existing genes, which as the post says, likely came from chromosome 9
Tobias_Marco: <Have you ever seen a screwdriver?>
Blu: yes ive seen a screwdriver
Tobias_Marco: <My tool kit has two kinds of screw drivers in it. For two different kinds of screws.
Tobias_Marco: <Most of the things that humans build are put together using nails or one of those two kinds of screws.>
Blu: so?
Tobias_Marco: <Most houses in the world are build with right angles.>
Blu: but houses and screwdrivers don’t reproduce
Tobias_Marco: <We don't use other materials because the ones that we have work.>
Blu: reproduction is key to evolution, so your analogy fails
Tobias_Marco: <Humans build houses, and so houses are produced all the time.> Tobias_Marco: <An intelligent mind designed the building you live in.>(08:36:42 Blu: and then you have the problem of dissimilar designs. For example, bats and birds are both meant to fly, but have completely different designs
Tobias_Marco: <That same intelligent mind did not need to design a new way to make a screw.>
Sorunome: but maybe he wants coz it's fun?
Tobias_Marco: <There are many buildings that are as dissimilar from each other as the hawk and the bat are from each other.>
Last edited by Tobias_Marco on Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: Simmer design

Post by Blu » Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:04 pm

There is a big difference between things like houses and organisms. Firstly, houses dont have the potential to evolve because they don't reproduce like organisms do. Reproduction is absolutely fundamental to evolution.
Secondly, we know how houses are built, because we can watch them being built. They are built by intelligent minds. We can't see how organisms were first created. Just because both look complex and purposeful, doesn't mean we can assume that they were both "created" in a similar fashion. For example, at first glance a snowflake may look like it was crafted by hand, because humans also create perfectly symmetrical, complex shapes. In the contrary, snowflakes form perfectly naturally. We found this out by going out and studying such phenomena, as we have done with evolution and/or abiogenesis.
Lastly, instead of birds and bats, now please explain gorillas and ferns. Similar design?

User avatar
Current
Eldritch Abomination
Eldritch Abomination
Posts: 1780
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:20 pm
Favourite Animorph: Rachel
Location: Southwestern quartersphere

Re: Simmer design

Post by Current » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:15 pm

Besides, if similarity of parts was only due to an intelligent designer reusing parts, then
a) You would have no reason to expect similarity in the non-functional parts (i.e. junk DNA). And yet we observe that humans and other apes are similar in the entirety of their genome, not only the useful parts.
b) You shouldn't be able to trace matching phylogenetic trees by looking at similar parts.

Which is to say, and I'm going to reuse an explanation I've posted here before:

Imagine organisms A and B both have similar parts X, Y, and Z in their genome, C has X and Y, and D has X, then we can deduce that A and B's common ancestor is existed after the Y and Z additions, and that their common ancestor with C existed after the Y addition, and that their general common ancestor existed after the X addition. This is obviously very simplified. Then we can compare dozens of similar parts additions and match the trees we build to each other, and also similar analyses using other mutations to our DNA that might serve a use, or not. What we see is that these trees always match up. This wouldn't happen if DNA was designed, unless the designer specifically distributed similar bits of DNA in such a way that they would always form matching phylogenetic trees in a common ancestry model.

Phylogenetic trees matching is only something you would expect if it was indeed the case that there are common ancestors and new traits are added at different points in the lineage. Under a design model, where all traits are designed at the same time and similar parts are only used because they fulfil similar functions, you have no reason to expect this pattern to show up.



Also: is "simmer design" supposed to mean "similar design"? Because otherwise this thread title confuses me.
What is not the answer to this question?

User avatar
Sorunome
Warrior
Warrior
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:30 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Germany

Re: Simmer design

Post by Sorunome » Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:31 am

If DNA was created then there wouldn't such things happen as down-syndrom or other DNA-fails. They would have been made perfect.
And the DNA would be sorted different, so that the Introns don't have to be cut out of the pre-mRNA to form the final mRNA.
Wait, what happened? Oh, you just lost THE GAME

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: Similar Design

Post by Tobias_Marco » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:53 am

<You got me, I admit it, I am not a great speller.>
<I miss-spelled the title of this topic.>
<As for junk DNA, I have heard many people, some who think that we evolved, say that they don't think that junk DNA is really junk at all, just stuff that we don't know what it does yet.>
<To prove this point, here is something from wikipedia's page on "Junk DNA">:
"In genetics, noncoding DNA describes components of an organism's DNA sequences that do not encode for protein sequences. In many eukaryotes, a large percentage of an organism's total genome size is noncoding DNA, although the amount of noncoding DNA, and the proportion of coding versus noncoding DNA varies greatly between species.

Much of this DNA has no known biological function and is sometimes referred to as "junk DNA". However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have known biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences. Other noncoding sequences have likely, but as-yet undetermined, functions (this is inferred from high levels of homology and conservation seen in sequences that do not encode proteins but, nonetheless, appear to be under heavy selective pressure). While this indicates that noncoding DNA should not be indiscriminately referred to as junk DNA, the lack of function and sequence conservation in a majority of noncoding DNA indicates that much of it may indeed be without function."

<Think of it like a computer program. If I was to take the operating system of my computer and copy all those lines of code into a txt document, then went searching for errors, how many lines of code would I find that I had no idea what they do? (Hint: I am not a programer, but I have taken some classes, so the answer is that I would not understand most of them.)>
<Just because you don't know what a line of code on your computer does, that doesn't mean that that line of code is junk, anymore then a line of code in your DNA is junk because you don't know what it does.>
<I think it is safe to say that THIS much is true if you believe in a god or not.>

<As for houses, yes I will grant you that they do not reproduce the same way that birds or fish do.>
<However I still think it works, when a house is built, we see how well it works, if it does not work then we tear it down, if it does work then we build more like it.>
<In this way the blueprints for houses and other buildings 'evolves', true this evolution of ideas is guided by intelligent minds, but it is still guided by generally the same thing that you say guides our DNA.>
<If it fails it is not passed on, if it works it is passed on.>

<On an unrelated note, as soon as this post is posted my post count will be equal to the year that I was born. To celebrate this, I will only be posting in forum games for a while.>
<However I promise to respond to all your thoughts when I get the chance.>
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Current
Eldritch Abomination
Eldritch Abomination
Posts: 1780
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:20 pm
Favourite Animorph: Rachel
Location: Southwestern quartersphere

Re: Similar Design

Post by Current » Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:27 pm

Tobias_Marco wrote: <As for junk DNA, I have heard many people, some who think that we evolved, say that they don't think that junk DNA is really junk at all, just stuff that we don't know what it does yet.>
<To prove this point, here is something from wikipedia's page on "Junk DNA">:
[snipped]
Parts of non-coding DNA have a use, yes. That doesn't invalidate the existence of junk DNA. See for example this experiment where they remove millions of base pairs from mice, to absolutely no effect at all. If that DNA had some use, you'd expect consequences from it being gone, wouldn't you?
As an aside, there's parts of DNA which we know what they do (or did), but are quite useless to us. For example, transposons mostly go jumping around the genome. Pseudogenes are DNA sequences that look similar to actual genes, except they don't code for any proteins.

I'll let Blu handle the part about houses, since it was his point in the first place.
What is not the answer to this question?

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: Similar Design

Post by Tobias_Marco » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:50 am

"The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined1. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts2, 3, 4 can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals."

<So they removed the junk DNA and the mice seemed to be unchanged, but how many generations have passed with these mice?>
<I wouldn't be at all suprized if in a few years they find something very wrong with the children or grandchildren of these mice, but they don't say too much about it.>
<I think that you will have to go searching for it to find the paper they write about it.>
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Sorunome
Warrior
Warrior
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:30 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Germany

Re: Similar Design

Post by Sorunome » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:35 pm

See it this way: There may have been mice that had these junk-DNA and some that didn't have it. In the first generations everything was normal but suddenly all the mice without the junk-DNA died, so we just have mice with junk-DNA left.
Wait, what happened? Oh, you just lost THE GAME

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: Simmer design

Post by Tobias_Marco » Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:37 am

Blu wrote: Lastly, instead of birds and bats, now please explain gorillas and ferns. Similar design?
<Its been a while, and I wanted to see what all had been said over the last few years, and this point may not have been addressed enough.>
<Gorillas and ferns are clearly very different, however so are microwaves and airplanes. Each is made to serve a different function. It would be kind of odd to see a fern with legs as it doesn't need to go anywhere to serve its function.>
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: Similar Design

Post by Blu » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:59 am

Exactly. And the reason we DON'T see ferns with legs is perfectly explained by Evolution, and not by Creationism/I.D. All of life falls into a perfect hierarchy. For example, we are primates, because we share certain derived characteristics that classify us as such. We are also monkeys for the same reason. We are then Mammals, Vertebrates, bilaterally symmetrical, etc...

EVERYTHING falls into this hierarchy, and that's why we don't see birds suckling their young with milk, or fish photosynthesizing energy.

Creationism cannot explain shared derived characteristics and how they align pretty much perfectly with the theory of Evolution. If creationism were true, why couldn't we see a fern with legs? Surely, it would be beneficial if, for instance, a fire started nearby, and the fern needed to get away. Why does the fern only display characteristics of creatures deemed to be ancestral, and not of any that phylogenetics has shown to be cousins of plants that are not ancestral?