Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
CREATION MOMENT : Are Sharks related to Pigs ?
15 views
Skip to first unread message
ilbe...@gmail.com
May 24, 2012, 10:12:21 AM5/24/12
to
Today's Creation Moment
Is the Shark Related to the Pig?
Genesis 1:21
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every
winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."
If all life evolved from, and is related to, earlier forms of life,
then closely related animals should also have similar kinds of
chemicals in their bodies. As the science of biochemistry has grown,
those who believe in evolution have held high hopes that creatures
that look similar to each other would also have similar chemicals. For
example, insulin from a shark should be more like insulin from other
fish than insulin from mammals.
Unfortunately for the evolutionist, chemical comparisons between
various creatures don't usually show the same relationships as their
evolutionary charts. For example, research at the Medical University
of South Carolina compared the hormone relaxin that was produced by
pigs and rats with relaxin produced by sharks. The results showed that
the pig's relaxin was more like the shark's relaxin than it was like a
rat's.
This seems to suggest that pigs are more closely related to sharks
than to another mammal, the rat. A similar study comparing insulin
showed a closer similarity between the shark and the pig than between
the shark and another fish, the carp.
While evolutionists will sometimes point out instances where these
comparisons have worked out as they expected, those results are
unusual. Normally, these comparisons show that the evolutionary
histories and relationships that evolutionists claim are nothing more
than imagination. As the Bible says, each kind of creature gives
evidence to the fact that it was uniquely created by God.
Prayer:
Father, I ask that the fact that each kind of creature has been
specially created by You would become increasingly apparent to modern
science. In Jesus' Name. Amen.
Notes:
Illustration: Relaxin 1 protein hormone.
View/Print/Share This on CreationMoments.com
Is the Shark Related to the Pig?
Genesis 1:21
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every
winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."
If all life evolved from, and is related to, earlier forms of life,
then closely related animals should also have similar kinds of
chemicals in their bodies. As the science of biochemistry has grown,
those who believe in evolution have held high hopes that creatures
that look similar to each other would also have similar chemicals. For
example, insulin from a shark should be more like insulin from other
fish than insulin from mammals.
Unfortunately for the evolutionist, chemical comparisons between
various creatures don't usually show the same relationships as their
evolutionary charts. For example, research at the Medical University
of South Carolina compared the hormone relaxin that was produced by
pigs and rats with relaxin produced by sharks. The results showed that
the pig's relaxin was more like the shark's relaxin than it was like a
rat's.
This seems to suggest that pigs are more closely related to sharks
than to another mammal, the rat. A similar study comparing insulin
showed a closer similarity between the shark and the pig than between
the shark and another fish, the carp.
While evolutionists will sometimes point out instances where these
comparisons have worked out as they expected, those results are
unusual. Normally, these comparisons show that the evolutionary
histories and relationships that evolutionists claim are nothing more
than imagination. As the Bible says, each kind of creature gives
evidence to the fact that it was uniquely created by God.
Prayer:
Father, I ask that the fact that each kind of creature has been
specially created by You would become increasingly apparent to modern
science. In Jesus' Name. Amen.
Notes:
Illustration: Relaxin 1 protein hormone.
View/Print/Share This on CreationMoments.com
Ken
May 24, 2012, 12:12:35 PM5/24/12
to
More Daveshite
Devils Advocaat
May 24, 2012, 12:20:37 PM5/24/12
to
every article they publish and Dave chooses to parrot without checking
for simple errors and blatant lies.
Singling out just one protein and claiming this alone suggests a close
relationship between two so disparate creatures would be like claiming
anyone with a gammy arm is without a doubt closely related to Adolf
Hitler.
Wombat
May 24, 2012, 1:12:50 PM5/24/12
to
pnyikos
May 24, 2012, 1:29:24 PM5/24/12
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
On May 24, 10:12 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com>
wrote:
you'd need for this similarity to be there across a wide variety of
proteins before you could conclude anything from this.
> This seems to suggest that pigs are more closely related to sharks
> than to another mammal, the rat. A similar study comparing insulin
> showed a closer similarity between the shark and the pig than between
> the shark and another fish, the carp.
The shark diverged from the last common ancestor of the carp and the
pig, and the carp and pig diverged from each other not much later,
geologically speaking. So this comparison is a lot less striking than
the first one was.
Sharks diverged from the other two about 450 million years ago.
Pigs and carp diverged from each other about 430 million years ago.
Pigs and rats diverged from each other about 80 million years ago, by
some estimates; the history of Mesozoic mammals is still very scanty.
So focus on the {shark, {pig, rat}} trio if you think you are on to
something.
> While evolutionists will sometimes point out instances where these
> comparisons have worked out as they expected, those results are
> unusual. Normally, these comparisons show that the evolutionary
> histories and relationships that evolutionists claim are nothing more
> than imagination.
This is a very radical claim. What have you in the way of support for
it?
> As the Bible says, each kind of creature gives
> evidence to the fact that it was uniquely created by God.
But there is wide divergence of opinion even among creationists as to
what constitutes a "kind".
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
wrote:
> Today's Creation Moment
>
> Is the Shark Related to the Pig?
>
> Genesis 1:21
>
> "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
> which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every
> winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."
>
> If all life evolved from, and is related to, earlier forms of life,
> then closely related animals should also have similar kinds of
> chemicals in their bodies. As the science of biochemistry has grown,
> those who believe in evolution have held high hopes that creatures
> that look similar to each other would also have similar chemicals. For
> example, insulin from a shark should be more like insulin from other
> fish than insulin from mammals.
>
> Unfortunately for the evolutionist, chemical comparisons between
> various creatures don't usually show the same relationships as their
> evolutionary charts. For example, research at the Medical University
> of South Carolina compared the hormone relaxin that was produced by
> pigs and rats with relaxin produced by sharks. The results showed that
> the pig's relaxin was more like the shark's relaxin than it was like a
> rat's.
Devil's Advocaat has pointed out the weakness of this argument to you:
>
> Is the Shark Related to the Pig?
>
> Genesis 1:21
>
> "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
> which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every
> winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."
>
> If all life evolved from, and is related to, earlier forms of life,
> then closely related animals should also have similar kinds of
> chemicals in their bodies. As the science of biochemistry has grown,
> those who believe in evolution have held high hopes that creatures
> that look similar to each other would also have similar chemicals. For
> example, insulin from a shark should be more like insulin from other
> fish than insulin from mammals.
>
> Unfortunately for the evolutionist, chemical comparisons between
> various creatures don't usually show the same relationships as their
> evolutionary charts. For example, research at the Medical University
> of South Carolina compared the hormone relaxin that was produced by
> pigs and rats with relaxin produced by sharks. The results showed that
> the pig's relaxin was more like the shark's relaxin than it was like a
> rat's.
you'd need for this similarity to be there across a wide variety of
proteins before you could conclude anything from this.
> This seems to suggest that pigs are more closely related to sharks
> than to another mammal, the rat. A similar study comparing insulin
> showed a closer similarity between the shark and the pig than between
> the shark and another fish, the carp.
pig, and the carp and pig diverged from each other not much later,
geologically speaking. So this comparison is a lot less striking than
the first one was.
Sharks diverged from the other two about 450 million years ago.
Pigs and carp diverged from each other about 430 million years ago.
Pigs and rats diverged from each other about 80 million years ago, by
some estimates; the history of Mesozoic mammals is still very scanty.
So focus on the {shark, {pig, rat}} trio if you think you are on to
something.
> While evolutionists will sometimes point out instances where these
> comparisons have worked out as they expected, those results are
> unusual. Normally, these comparisons show that the evolutionary
> histories and relationships that evolutionists claim are nothing more
> than imagination.
it?
> As the Bible says, each kind of creature gives
> evidence to the fact that it was uniquely created by God.
what constitutes a "kind".
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Devils Advocaat
May 24, 2012, 2:03:29 PM5/24/12
to
July 20th 1944
Burkhard
May 24, 2012, 2:10:56 PM5/24/12
to
based on research by Christian Schwabe, who did indeed conclude on the
basis of this and a small number of similar results that the
evolutionary tree needs some adjustment. (Schwabe, C., Büllesbach, E.
E. (1994) Relaxin: structures, functions, promises, and nonevolution.
FASEB J. 8,1152-1160) More specifically, he argues that chemical and
biochemical principles drive evolution more than genetic mutation, and
that life on Earth has a multiplicity of origins from chemical pools
of nucleic acids.
For the purpose of your post, we can leave aside if this
interpretation would follow assuming his empirical data were correct,
and simply focus on the data. The article is from the 1990s- in
science it is always necessary to check if results were confirmed by
later research, and in this case, it seems this is not the case. His
research relies heavily on PCR and microsequencing data, which is
known to be in danger of contamination. In this case, it seems that
later research came to different results, see Wilkinson, T. N.,
Speed, T. P., Tregear, G. W., Bathgate, R. A. (2005) Evolution of the
relaxin-like peptide family. BMC Evol. Biol. 5,14
One should note that even if his results had been confirmed, the
general pattern of similarity would have been unaffected, it is
extremely strong. There are a few "anomalies" - biology is not quite
as tidy, and driven by universal laws, as physics. But typically, it
is quite straightforward to find a reason why that anomaly occurred,
e.g. due to paralogy (there is more than one relaxin gene, have the
correct counterarts been studied?) or
the long branch effects, and a couple of others more.
Wombat
May 25, 2012, 1:37:36 AM5/25/12
to
constant replaying of Operation Valkyrie and the The World At War.
BroilJAB
May 25, 2012, 5:49:03 PM5/25/12
to
Over and again, when the claims of evolution
are tested, they fail and usually spectacularly.
Here, so.
are tested, they fail and usually spectacularly.
Here, so.
Ken
May 25, 2012, 10:37:54 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 2:49 pm, BlowJab wrote.............nothing worth repeating
BroilJAB
May 26, 2012, 6:51:46 AM5/26/12
to
Drunken Kenneth the Menneth whines
but can tender no explanation why
testing falsifies 'evolutionary relationship'
claims. Will Darwin123 help him out?
but can tender no explanation why
testing falsifies 'evolutionary relationship'
claims. Will Darwin123 help him out?
Ken
May 26, 2012, 10:49:47 AM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 2:49 pm, BlowJab wrote.............more shit nothing worth
repeating
repeating
Uergil
May 27, 2012, 12:16:00 AM5/27/12
to
In article
<7709c7cf-8e59-44ab...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
Until there is proof to the contrary, evolution suggests that every two
species have common ancestry, though any such common ancestor may well
be uncounted millions of generations ago.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
<7709c7cf-8e59-44ab...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
Until there is proof to the contrary, evolution suggests that every two
species have common ancestry, though any such common ancestor may well
be uncounted millions of generations ago.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
Uergil
May 28, 2012, 12:36:31 AM5/28/12
to
In article
<ce3a5cfc-f7b4-4dda...@j9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
The atomic absorption data too
is fatal to Creationist fables.
<ce3a5cfc-f7b4-4dda...@j9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
The atomic absorption data too
is fatal to Creationist fables.
BroilJAB
May 28, 2012, 7:47:00 AM5/28/12
to
Ken
May 28, 2012, 10:48:02 AM5/28/12
to
BlowJab wrote.............even more shit nothing worth repeating
ilbe...@gmail.com
May 28, 2012, 11:12:37 AM5/28/12
to
Uergil
May 28, 2012, 1:48:47 PM5/28/12
to
In article
<317f7472-314d-4a46...@s5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
<317f7472-314d-4a46...@s5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Drunken Kenneth the Menneth whines
> but can tender no explanation why
> testing falsifies 'creationism relationship'
> Drunken Kenneth the Menneth whines
> but can tender no explanation why
> claims. Will Darwin123 help him out?
`
Devils Advocaat
May 28, 2012, 1:36:30 PM5/28/12
to
favourite website is exposed.
Burkhard
May 28, 2012, 3:00:39 PM5/28/12
to
first time round. The test results on which your post relied have not
been replicated, and are most likely the result of contamination of a
then still very young, and very sensitive testing method. Scientific
results that can't be replicated are with good reasons abandoned and
should not be used for arguments, unless you want to look stupid. And
even if the results were correct, they would not show what your post
claims to show, but simply be examples of paralogy or the long tail
effect.
see on the issue see Wilkinson, T. N.,
0 new messages