Renowned Christian Geneticist to Retire from Human Genome Research Institute

Cheisa »

Fri May 29, 2009 1:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I have seen the arguments about whether Collins is a creationist or not. He isn't because I don't know a creationist that accepts evolution as Collins clearly does. As a scientist, he embraces the theory wholeheartedly. As a Christian he realizes that at some point in our biological development, God stepped in to make us unique among all animals, but he is able to separate his science from his faith. He is able to see the validity of each and how they actually compliment each other, reconciling faith and science, but from what I see from his writings, he is no creationist.

seedplanter »

Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I, the Preacher, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under heaven. It is a grievous task which God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with. I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind. What is crooked cannot be straightened and what is lacking cannot be counted.
I said to myself, “Behold, I have magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has observed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge.” And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also is striving after wind. Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.

-The Preacher, Ecclesiastes 1:12-18

All is vanity in a world without God and in a death that is a mere footnote on a tombstone amidst the pages of meaningless existence. To argue over evolution is a striving after the wind. This does not mean that a life devoid of God is meaningless, but that if God does not exist it is meaningless.

igh »

Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

igh »

Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

mathetes »

Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:42 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

ERVs, you have repeatedly called all creationists liars + accused them of insulting all scientists. You also said: "Like most creationists, you are happy to live in your childish everything-is-magic fantasy world, and the last thing you need is knowledge about scientific facts that conflict with your idiotic religious beliefs."

So you have no problem insulting 90-95% of CP readers + their beliefs. Do you understand the meaning of "hypocrisy"?

ERVs »

Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:32 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

oldstudent: "When Dawkins (or you) can bring an answer to the simple question..."

Why did you use Dawkins? There's thousands of biologists. Why did you choose a biologist who is also a famous atheist? Collins could answer your questions about evolution, but you chose Dawkins. Are you implying that the science of biological evolution is atheistic? Collins would disagree.

Agentorange answered your question and he asked you if you want more examples.

It's obvious you are not interested in the answer. You have no desire at all to learn anything about biology. Like most creationists, you are happy to live in your childish everything-is-magic fantasy world, and the last thing you need is knowledge about scientific facts that conflict with your idiotic religious beliefs.

Believe what you want, insult the integrity and competence of brilliant scientists like Collins if you want, but please keep your childish belief in magic out of our schools.

ERVs »

Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:23 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 4

"The greater story of evolutionary theory isn’t that only we and Chimps share close ancestry, rather in the abstract, it’s that we as humanity are a piece of a greater whole of extended common ancestry of all living things, past, present and future."

Definitely I agree. When talking to the creationists I like to emphasize the fact that their closest living non-human relatives are the chimpanzees. They need to get rid of the childish idea that humans are the biggest deal in the universe. So I remind them they are just apes.

"Neanderthals had on average perhaps larger brains than current Sapiens do, and they were around a good 75,000 + years before the first modern Sapiens become apparent in Africa, so whatever they had, they still didn’t have we do or they couldn’t make use of it, because if they had they would’ve been the ones having this conversation."

If our ancestors somehow went extinct before entering Europe and competing with Neanderthals, I bet Neanderthals would have become a very successful species. Instead they were wiped out. We will never know for sure but I bet genocide might have had something to do with it. It's too bad. It would have been interesting to have more than one human species alive today.

How do the creationists explain the fact there used to be more than one human species living at the same time? New DNA evidence shows that successful interbreeding between the two species was not likely. They were closely related but different species. The creationist liars will deny all this. That's all they're good at, constant lying.

ERVs »

Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:05 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 4

agentorange, thanks for all that information. I think you would agree that biological evolution is many times more interesting than magical creation. The creationists don't know what they're missing.

"The great apes have very similar brains to ours, but even the Chimps and Bonobos which are our closest living extended relative still lack what we have, it’s definitely not identical. Quite similar yes, but not identical, not in structure, nor in wiring."

OK, similar is more accurate than identical.

A quote, as best as I can remember it, from PZ during a debate with a everything-is-magic creationist: "The human brain and the chimpanzee brain have the same structure. The quality is the same, the difference is in the quantity."

I just spent about 30 seconds researching this using google and I found this:

They act like us, they look like us, they can understand our language to some extent, and now researchers say they have evidence that chimpanzees have some of the same brain structures for communication as humans.

Chimps, our closest cousins, may have smaller brains, but the part of the brain believed to control language is similar, physical anthropologist Patrick Gannon of New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and colleagues reported.

He and a team at Columbia University and the National Institutes of Health found similarities in a small area on the side of the brain called the planum temporale.

The planum temporale is normally bigger on the left side of the brain than on the right in people. It was also enlarged in the same way in all but one of 18 preserved chimp brains directly observed by Gannon's team using a low-power microscope.

Gannon said the findings support theories that chimpanzees do use language, just not in the same way that people do.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4451/ChimpsLikeUs.html

agentorangex »

Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:27 pm Agree: 9   Disagree: 1

ERVs,

The greater story of evolutionary theory isn’t that only we and Chimps share close ancestry, rather in the abstract, it’s that we as humanity are a piece of a greater whole of extended common ancestry of all living things, past, present and future. For some this ruins their idea that they are somehow special, as it makes them think we are no different and simply 'just animals', but that isn't the case at all. The story told by the evolutionary model reveals our closeness with and within nature, it speaks to our very inner most instincts on why we prefer mammals over reptiles and arachnids. We as the end product so to speak is something to marvel over, feel exctied about and most of all to realize that we are perhaps the only species to ever come along to even have the possibility to avoid its own extinction.

The great apes have very similar brains to ours, but even the Chimps and Bonobos which are our closest living extended relative still lack what we have, it’s definitely not identical. Quite similar yes, but not identical, not in structure, nor in wiring.

Our brains, and our overall nervous systems are different than theirs and much of our recent genetic changes which occurred since the split between our groups is directly in this area of the genome. If you want, I’ll cite some of these too, but go to HHMI, it’s out there folks, read up. Neanderthals had on average perhaps larger brains than current Sapiens do, and they were around a good 75,000 + years before the first modern Sapiens become apparent in Africa, so whatever they had, they still didn’t have we do or they couldn’t make use of it, because if they had they would’ve been the ones having this conversation.

agentorangex »

Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:08 pm Agree: 8   Disagree: 2

oldstudent,

A ‘student’ huh, mkay, I’ll attempt to learn you up, my young Palawan.

“and unwarranted extrapolations made from such a small box full of bones)”

A ‘small box’ huh, hmmmm, ok, well to you it might be small, but the collections of fossils for all species we have are quite numerous, some to this day still aren’t fully cataloged after being excavated years ago. Here’s but a few (non all inclusive list) from the australopithecines and hominid lineages.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

And FYI, there is quite the extensive genetics evidence for evolution as well, and importantly it emphatically supports the earlier estimates and predictions put forth by the evolutionary theory, I’m sure you knew this with Collins’ being a Geneticist and all.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

"please give ONE example of a POSITIVE, RANDOM MUTATION that has been demonstrated to be BENEFICIAL to mankind's "evolution, "

Ok, here are some…

Lactose tolerance (consumption of diary post infancy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance

Sickle cell anemia (aids in warding off Malaria infection in malaria prone region, an obvious benefit) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_anemia

CCR5 Gene mutation (Immunity to a strain of HIV, yes HIV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5
http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/hugenet/factsheets/FS_CCR5.htm

If you want more please ask, are you ready to take it seriously?

ERVs »

Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:16 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

As Collins pointed out, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Collins, who should know what he's talking about, considers our close relationship to chimpanzees to be a scientific fact. We have the complete genome of both species, and Collins has seen with his own eyes the DNA analysis that shows this evolutionary relationship to be correct beyond any doubt. The evolution deniers, also known as creationists, have not seen this evidence. They know nothing about it. Yet they think they know more about it than Collins, the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. To give you an idea of how insulting this is, imagine telling a brain surgeon you know more about brain surgery than he does.

Here's an interesting fact. The structure of the chimpanzee brain and the human brain is identical. The only difference is the human brain evolved to become larger. This is a fact and it's an example of something that can be predicted by evolution.

What does magical creation predict? Nothing. Magic is a worthless childish idea. Collins is a Christian, but he didn't become the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute by believing in magic like the creationists do.

ERVs »

Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:52 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

oldstudent asked "please give one example of a positive, random mutation that has been demonstrated to be beneficial to mankind's evolution, we will take your theory of random mutation seriously."

There are mutations, or changes in DNA, with every single generation. Mutations that help a species survive accumulate. The mutations are random, but the natural selection of favorable mutations are not random. After thousands of generations new species can and have developed.

I don't understand the point of your question. Are you denying humans developed from other animals? If that's your problem, you should talk to Francis Collins. He's the guy who said "Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes."

oldstudent, you're a creationist. Francis Collins is not a creationist. When it comes to biology Francis Collins agrees with me, not you.

Your belief in magical creation really is insulting to Collins and other scientists. Instead of complaining about me and instead of complaining about biological evolution, why don't you study it? How hard would it be to learn about how your species developed? Don't you care about these things? Or would you rather forever live in your everything-is-magic fantasy world?

"your bluster and childish spitting out of venom"

You are making things up mister. All I did was point out that creationists are uneducated. That's a fact. If creationists made any effort to educate themselves, they wouldn't be creationists. I ask you again to study evolution instead of complaining about it. By being willfully ignorant, you disgrace your religion.

"unwarranted extrapolations made from such a small box full of bones"

Are you talking about fossils? You should listen to Collins. I will repeat his quote again. This time why don't you actually read it and understand it.

"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."

oldstudent »

Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Collins is a theistic evolutionist. It is a process set up by God with His laws leading to man emerging or even the possibility being created by redoing another species and instilling a soul (TLOG 138-140). God created the order of the universe. That isn't 6 literal 24 hour day-young creationism but it is still creationism.

Pages 157, 171-211 of TLOG also show Collins saying God created the universe (creation). He questions how the first living cell would have emerged unguided (that would be serious doubt although he allows for it to happen being a good scientist) on p. 93 of TLOG.

Collins holds that the Moral Law and the universal search for salvation “defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature” (p. 200).

Although I disagree with Collins on many things (some of which he bows over such as the paucity of human ancestry in a very small box and the very large and unwarranted extrapolations made from such a small box full of bones), I respect him and his beliefs.

The only ones insulting anyone here is you my friend and it demonstrates a juvenile and adolescent silliness that defies rational discussion. You think your bluster and childish spitting out of venom makes you intelligent and an adult (intellectually and emotionally speaking) but it shows you to be someone in need of help.

When Dawkins (or you) can bring an answer to the simple question, "please give one example of a positive, random mutation that has been demonstrated to be beneficial to mankind's "evolution, " we will take your theory of random mutation seriously. amazing how one of the less of Darwinian evolution can't be easily pointed out by one of the 'gods' of Darwinian evolution.

Grace and Peace,
Jim

BTW, when quoting someone you should make sure you have the entire context and collection of his or her sayings. It will help keep you from making you look foolish.

steveh20 »

Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:37 pm Agree: 8   Disagree: 1

Much like Intelligent Design is an oxymoron.

Down Under »

Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:51 am Agree: 7   Disagree: 5

"uneducated creationists who know nothing about science":
What an uneducated comment is that.

ERVs »

Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Here's another quote from Francis S. Collins, a geneticist and the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute:

"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."

It's obvious Collins loves evolution and it's obvious he is convinced evolution is a scientific fact. He has seen the DNA evidence with his own eyes and he agrees it "provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."

The creationists have never seen what Collins has seen, and the creationists don't have anywhere near the understanding of molecular biology that Collins has. So who is right about biological evolution? The former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, or the uneducated creationists who know nothing about science?

ERVs »

Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:54 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

oldstudent said "Collins is still a creationist..."

Most people would agree that creationists, like yourself, deny the facts of evolution.

If you read the following quotes from Collins, you should be able to notice he completely accepts evolution.

"While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time."

"Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required."

"Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes."

"But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature."

His 4th sentence is exactly what I would expect a Christian to say, and I think we can agree he's a Christian.

His first 3 sentences are exactly what I would expect any evolutionary biologist to say. Notice he doesn't even invoke God for the development of the first living cells, even though scientists have not solved that problem yet. Most Christians want to immediately invoke God for every gap in human knowledge, but Collins is a competent scientist so he doesn't do that. He knows that scientific problems will never be solved if people give up and say God did it.

Collins says in the 2nd sentence that God had absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution ("no special supernatural intervention was required").

In the 3rd sentence Collins says we are cousins of the other ape species, and no creationist would ever agree with this.

Collins is most certainly NOT a creationist. It's obvious he completely accepts evolution, and your claim that evolution "has not be shown to be true" is an insult to Collins and all other competent biologists.

Your denial of the facts of evolution can only be explained if you think Collins and the rest of the scientific community are incompetent and/or liars. You owe Collins and thousands of other biologists an apology. It took 150 years of hard work by tens of thousands of scientists to create the mountains of evidence for evolution, and the creationists want to completely ignore all that hard work so they can live in their fantasy world.

oldstudent »

Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

ERVs,

Collins has made it clear that the evolutionary signs he has seen is guided by a creator (otherwise their is no need for a creator as Collins has previously stated). Any statement by someone who attempts to claim as you have that Collins doesn't see design is either not paying attention to Collins words and works or is just being disingenuous at best.

Collins is still a creationist and your silly attempt to be more intelligent than creationists by calling names and declaring something to be fact when the basics of the theory (Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian evolution) has not be shown to be true demonstrates a bluster that is intended to cover the missing evidence for your theory. Denton and the other creationists are correct, Darwinism is a theory in crisis because of the lack of positive evidence. No matter how much bluster you muster, it is like smoke, gone in a heartbeat.

Grace and Peace,
Jim

ERVs »

Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:03 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

Collins might call it theistic evolution, but he doesn't invoke God to guide evolution. He doesn't use God to explain the development of humans from other animals.

He has seen the history of life in the genome of humans and other animals with his own eyes, so of course he agrees that evolution is a scientific fact. The flat-earthers who deny the facts of evolution should explain why they think Francis Collins, the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, is incompetent and/or a liar. Better yet the creationists should apologize to Collins and thousands of other biologists for insulting their competence and integrity.