| Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,378
| 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abel  Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Linked off the wikipedia page is a paper titled: Evolution at the nucleotide level: the problem of multiple whole-genome alignment
The full text of the article is free for download.
Abstract is as follows: Quote: |
With the genome sequences of numerous species at hand, we have the opportunity to discover how evolution has acted at each and every nucleotide in our genome. To this end, we must identify sets of nucleotides that have descended from a common ancestral nucleotide. The problem of identifying evolutionary-related nucleotides is that of sequence alignment. When the sequences under consideration are entire genomes, we have the problem of multiple whole-genome alignment. In this paper, we first state a series of definitions for homology and its subrelations between single nucleotides. Within this framework, we review the current methods available for the alignment of multiple large genomes. We then describe a subset of tools that make biological inferences from multiple whole-genome alignments.
| It's literally a book that has the entire history of evolution by natural selection written in it. All life forms on earth come together to tell the story of our origin in exquisite detail.
The biblical account is childish, boring, and flat out incorrect compared to the story obtained from analysis of inter-organism sequence homology.
Care to comment Abel? | No, I do not. I am not a scientist. You have presented a book written from a presuppostion that evolution is true and can be proven. I am not qualified to respond, so I will allow those who are qualified to speak:
Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE
(partial list, in alphabetical order)
Agard, E. Theo
Allan, James
Anderson, Kevin
Armstrong, Harold
Arndt, Alexander
Austin, Steven
Barnes, Thomas
Batten, Don
Baumgardner, John
Bergman, Jerry
Boudreaux, Edward
Byl, John
Catchpoole, David
Chadwick, Arthur
Chaffin, Eugene
Chittick, Donald
Cimbala, John
Clausen, Ben
Cole, Sid
Cook, Melvin
Cumming, Ken
Cuozzo, Jack
Darrall, Nancy
Dewitt, David
DeYoung, Donald
Downes, Geoff
Eckel, Robert
Faulkner, Danny
Ford, Dwain
Frair, Wayne
Gentry, Robert
Giem, Paul
Gillen, Alan
Gish, Duane
Gitt, Werner
Gower, D.B.
Grebe, John
Grocott, Stephen
Harrub, Brad
Hawke, George
Hollowell, Kelly
Holroyd, Edmond
Hosken, Bob
Howe, George
Humphreys, D. Russell
Javor, George
Jones, Arthur
Kaufmann, David
Kennedy, Elaine
Klotz, John
Koop, C. Everett
Korochkin, Leonid
Kramer, John
Lammerts, Walter
Lester, Lane
Livingston, David
Lopez, Raul
Marcus, John
Marsh, Frank
Mastropaolo, Joseph
McCombs, Charles
McIntosh, Andrew
McMullen, Tom
Meyer, Angela
Meyer, John
Mitchell, Colin
Morris, Henry
Morris, John
Mumma, Stanley
Parker, Gary
Peet, J. H. John
Rankin, John
Rosevear, David
Roth, Ariel
Rusch, Wilbert
Sarfati, Jonathan
Snelling, Andrew
Standish, Timothy
Taylor, Stephen
Thaxton, Charles
Thompson, Bert
Thomson, Ker
Vardiman, Larry
Veith, Walter
Walter, Jeremy
Wanser, Keith
Whitcomb, John
White, A.J.(Monty)
Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
Wile, Jay
Williams, Emmett
Wise, Kurt
Wolfrom, Glen
Zuill, Henry
If you care to, you may read their findings since you are such an open minded scientist. I have neither the time nor inclination to, since I have read and believed the story in the Bible. I too can produce a list leading scientists that hold the creation account as true. But, here's a couple more comments.
A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design: "The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."
Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started."
All information was taken from website www.christiananswers.net | When all religions, and people, can generally agree on these approximations we will be closer to the truth. This is why the Roman Catholic Church picked such a general creation story in the first place. The early church fathers put two versions of a generalized story in the bible to try and show people the limitations of the book. They assembled the bible not for then, they assembled it, and the traditions, for 100, 1000, 10,000 years after them.
They never intended for the bible to be taken literally. One of the reasons for the traditions surrounding the RCC is to help people not use the bible as the complete and final description of the nature of God. God told them “You can not know me in my entirety today”.
Only the devil would have you think that we hold the complete and final description of the nature of God in our hands. In one book none the less. Place the book in the center of meadow in spring and look around. Take it to center city, lay it on the sidewalk, and look around.
The bible answers one Question, Who am I?
Og’s descriptions of what science is and how evolution is perceived is spot on. I am a science (well more of an engineer) guy. God knows I do not agree with him on everything. “God” here meaning Og. 
Leave the science stuff to science people, be them believers or non-believers. Adel, I tell my believing friends to stay out of the areas they do not know. Keep your supporting evidence to the notions that you can speak to. You do not know evolution, just say “I can’t speak to that, but I can speak to this …”
Little joke:
What’s the difference between a scientist and an engineer?
Scientist only worry about what others think.
Engineers only worry if their wiggit is going to work. |