DNA/genetic code as evidence for Creation

Started by Wanstronian, January 20, 2010, 02:01:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Wanstronian

I have a Creationist work colleague who asserts that the evidence evolutionists use to support evolution, equally supports Creation.

To be precise, when I quote homology and the relation of gene sequences throughout the taxonomy of organisms as evidence that evolution has occurred, his reponse is just that "DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

How do I respond to this? What's the real evidence that supports evolution as opposed to Creation?

pinkocommie

Quote"DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

This is an unsupported statement with zero evidence to back up the assertion.  If your friend had any proof whatsoever that a creator god did in fact exist and did use DNA as legos or whatever, then his argument might warrant some consideration, but saying god uses DNA to make stuff is like saying god made gravity so girl's skirts wouldn't float up at dances or that there is a unicorn ever present on the dark side of a moon far far away.  You can say whatever you want about anything you want, but scientifically your statements hold little merit unless you have evidence supporting your point.  Ask your friend for his evidence.  If he says the Bible, explain that the Bible is not an excepted basis for information within the scientific community because it is an unverifiable source of information.  I don't think these kinds of assertions deserve any scientific defense because the initial premise put forth by your friend is scientifically fundamentally flawed.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

Dagda

Creationism is very odd in that it never provides real evidence, only pointing to flaws in Evolutionary theory. Like saying Gravity does not exist because we do not know what gravity is.
That which does not benefit the hive does not benefit the bee either-Marcus Aurelius

karadan

Quote from: "Wanstronian"I have a Creationist work colleague who asserts that the evidence evolutionists use to support evolution, equally supports Creation.

To be precise, when I quote homology and the relation of gene sequences throughout the taxonomy of organisms as evidence that evolution has occurred, his reponse is just that "DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

How do I respond to this? What's the real evidence that supports evolution as opposed to Creation?

You could tell them that DNA isn't made from moulded plastic :)
QuoteI find it mistifying that in this age of information, some people still deny the scientific history of our existence.

curiosityandthecat

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

Also, science fail.
-Curio

Wanstronian

Quote from: "pinkocommie"
Quote"DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

This is an unsupported statement with zero evidence to back up the assertion.  If your friend had any proof whatsoever that a creator god did in fact exist and did use DNA as legos or whatever, then his argument might warrant some consideration, but saying god uses DNA to make stuff is like saying god made gravity so girl's skirts wouldn't float up at dances or that there is a unicorn ever present on the dark side of a moon far far away.  You can say whatever you want about anything you want, but scientifically your statements hold little merit unless you have evidence supporting your point.  Ask your friend for his evidence.  If he says the Bible, explain that the Bible is not an excepted basis for information within the scientific community because it is an unverifiable source of information.  I don't think these kinds of assertions deserve any scientific defense because the initial premise put forth by your friend is scientifically fundamentally flawed.
His point is that it's the same evidence. What I'm asking is how can we SHOW that the building block theory is wrong? Evolutionists say that homology shows evolution, Creationists say that it shows building blocks. It's the same evidence in both cases.

So what's the evidence that Evolution is the right interpretation and Creation is the wrong one? It's no good saying, "your interpretation of homology is wrong and mine is right" unless we can show that statement to be true. If you like, ignore the presence/absence of God - how does the evidence show that we evolved and were not created or design by someone/something?

Wanstronian

Quote from: "Dagda"Creationism is very odd in that it never provides real evidence, only pointing to flaws in Evolutionary theory. Like saying Gravity does not exist because we do not know what gravity is.
I have to disagree in this case until someone can answer my question - the 'evidence' for Creation in this case is the exact same evidence we use for Evolution. I need to be able to argue effectively that his interpretation is wrong, and show why.

Wanstronian

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

Also, science fail.
Well, that's helpful, thanks.

Jolly Sapper

Well, tell your friend that its a good hypothesis.  Then ask them to prove their hypothesis.

This is where there is a failure of your friend's grasp of the scientific method.  Your friend seems to be trying to assert that evidence supporting evolution (which just explains the diversity of life, not the origins) does indeed support the origins of life.  

Evolution by natural selection doesn't go into what started the first celled organism.  It does try to explain why, over time, one species of organism may branch into more species of organisms.

DNA are the building blocks of life, but I do not believe knowledge of DNA has much to do with what started life.

I'm sure Squid will give you a much more detailed and well sourced solution to your problems as soon as he pops in.

pinkocommie

Quote from: "Wanstronian"
Quote from: "pinkocommie"
Quote"DNA are the building blocks of life, they're what God used to create everything." His reasoning is that the overall gene pool is just like a big box of lego that God raked through to build things - no wonder we see similarity in the genetic makeup of organisms.

This is an unsupported statement with zero evidence to back up the assertion.  If your friend had any proof whatsoever that a creator god did in fact exist and did use DNA as legos or whatever, then his argument might warrant some consideration, but saying god uses DNA to make stuff is like saying god made gravity so girl's skirts wouldn't float up at dances or that there is a unicorn ever present on the dark side of a moon far far away.  You can say whatever you want about anything you want, but scientifically your statements hold little merit unless you have evidence supporting your point.  Ask your friend for his evidence.  If he says the Bible, explain that the Bible is not an excepted basis for information within the scientific community because it is an unverifiable source of information.  I don't think these kinds of assertions deserve any scientific defense because the initial premise put forth by your friend is scientifically fundamentally flawed.
His point is that it's the same evidence. What I'm asking is how can we SHOW that the building block theory is wrong? Evolutionists say that homology shows evolution, Creationists say that it shows building blocks. It's the same evidence in both cases.

So what's the evidence that Evolution is the right interpretation and Creation is the wrong one? It's no good saying, "your interpretation of homology is wrong and mine is right" unless we can show that statement to be true. If you like, ignore the presence/absence of God - how does the evidence show that we evolved and were not created or design by someone/something?

My original reply was eaten, so this is my best effort at re-creating it:

My point is that your friend accepts the scientific method to a point because he accepts that DNA exists.  We only know about DNA because of the development of the scientific method - a means of understanding the physical world through tested and verified data.  If a conclusion does not adhere to the constraints of the scientific method, it's not considered to be science.  So your friend agrees with science and it's methods up to a point, and then takes a left turn into some untested, unverified conclusion about god and rejects what science has concluded about the information.  If you friend rejects any part of any theory which has thus proven to be scientifically sound, then he has to reject anything that science has to offer because it's all bound by the constraints of the scientific method.

It makes about as much sense to accept science to a point and then claim science is wrong and it's god as it does accepting gravity as a scientific concept but rejecting all scientific explanations of gravity in favor of a giant hamster generating gravity in the middle of the earth with a big wheel.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

curiosityandthecat

Quote from: "Wanstronian"Well, that's helpful, thanks.
It is, actually.

First, RNA almost certainly (though there's no way to scientifically prove this, just infer it) came before DNA, so that's a flaw right there. Second, even RNA is composed of smaller building blocks, single nucleotides containing a ribose sugar. The claim that DNA is the building block of life is like saying furniture is the building block of an Ikea store.

Your friend is in a Creationism mindset from the onset, making any sort of logical discourse impossible without a mind-bending amount of mental gymnastics. Twisting current knowledge to prove previous theories is called Postdiction and we see it constantly. Tell your friend to audit an evolutionary biology course at the local university and read up on cognitive dissonance.

It's fruitless, but you can try to explain to him that the concept of higher powers, Gods, the supernatural, etc., are leftovers from times when people needed them to make sense of the natural world. We no longer need God to explain 99% of what goes on in nature. This is where, for him, cognitive dissonance comes in. This is not to say that we need God to explain that last 1%; we're just still wrapping our heads around it. (For example, what exactly happens when you pass the event horizon of a black hole?  :crazy: )
-Curio

Wanstronian

Quote from: "pinkocommie"My original reply was eaten, so this is my best effort at re-creating it:

My point is that your friend accepts the scientific method to a point because he accepts that DNA exists.  We only know about DNA because of the development of the scientific method - a means of understanding the physical world through tested and verified data.  If a conclusion does not adhere to the constraints of the scientific method, it's not considered to be science.  So your friend agrees with science and it's methods up to a point, and then takes a left turn into some untested, unverified conclusion about god and rejects what science has concluded about the information.  If you friend rejects any part of any theory which has thus proven to be scientifically sound, then he has to reject anything that science has to offer because it's all bound by the constraints of the scientific method.

It makes about as much sense to accept science to a point and then claim science is wrong and it's god as it does accepting gravity as a scientific concept but rejecting all scientific explanations of gravity in favor of a giant hamster generating gravity in the middle of the earth with a big wheel.

I guess the problem is not that the evidence supports Creation, so much as it allows room for doubt over Evolution. If my colleague was a YEC, at least I could point to Plate Tectonics as a reason why the evidence supports Evolution but not Creation. But then, YECs are leaning against an open door anyway when it comes to their assertions!

So I guess the strongest rebuttal for Creation is that it presupposes a God for which no evidence exists. It's only if God exists that the evidence could feasibly support Creation. Evidence of Creation is contingent on evidence of God.

Regarding your last paragraph, surely you've heard of IF? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Wanstronian

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"
Quote from: "Wanstronian"Well, that's helpful, thanks.
It is, actually.

First, RNA almost certainly (though there's no way to scientifically prove this, just infer it) came before DNA, so that's a flaw right there. Second, even RNA is composed of smaller building blocks, single nucleotides containing a ribose sugar. The claim that DNA is the building block of life is like saying furniture is the building block of an Ikea store.

Your friend is in a Creationism mindset from the onset, making any sort of logical discourse impossible without a mind-bending amount of mental gymnastics. Twisting current knowledge to prove previous theories is called Postdiction and we see it constantly. Tell your friend to audit an evolutionary biology course at the local university and read up on cognitive dissonance.

It's fruitless, but you can try to explain to him that the concept of higher powers, Gods, the supernatural, etc., are leftovers from times when people needed them to make sense of the natural world. We no longer need God to explain 99% of what goes on in nature. This is where, for him, cognitive dissonance comes in. This is not to say that we need God to explain that last 1%; we're just still wrapping our heads around it. (For example, what exactly happens when you pass the event horizon of a black hole?  :crazy: )
Some excellent points (what on earth was going on in your first post - I thought you were a nutter!) - I think the Postdiction thing is key to his (and most theists') contentions, although I wasn't aware of the word until now. Thanks - you've educated me!

Tanker

I don't why but I'm getting a strong Poe vibe from you. I could be wrong but I am after all a sceptic. Perhaps it's your lack of understanding of basic evolutionary theroy which you want us to provide the proof for. IDK like I said I'm sceptical of all new posters, nothing personal just a long sad experience of dealing with actual poes has made me jaded.

Just checking but you do realise The Onion is a satirical newspaper right?
"I'd rather die the go to heaven" - William Murderface Murderface  Murderface-

I've been in fox holes, I'm still an atheist -Me-

God is a cake, and we all know what the cake is.

(my spelling, grammer, and punctuation suck, I know, but regardless of how much I read they haven't improved much since grade school. It's actually a bit of a family joke.

pinkocommie

Quote from: "Wanstronian"I guess the problem is not that the evidence supports Creation, so much as it allows room for doubt over Evolution. If my colleague was a YEC, at least I could point to Plate Tectonics as a reason why the evidence supports Evolution but not Creation. But then, YECs are leaning against an open door anyway when it comes to their assertions!

So I guess the strongest rebuttal for Creation is that it presupposes a God for which no evidence exists. It's only if God exists that the evidence could feasibly support Creation. Evidence of Creation is contingent on evidence of God.

Regarding your last paragraph, surely you've heard of IF? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I haven't read that before, thank you - hilarious.

I think the less the person understands evolution, the more room for doubt.  I'm not trying to insinuate that you co-worker is an idiot, I just want to point out that the evolutionary process is something people go to school for years and years to learn about and often even they only focus on a specialized aspect of evolution.  It's a truly awesome process and while it can be simplified, with reduction comes less and less details and that's when misunderstandings occur.  And too many misunderstandings leads us to people like Ray Comfort saying the banana is proof of god because it fits so well in our hand.   :|
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/