Jump to content


A Creationist Approach To Biology?


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#121 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 December 2008 - 01:20 PM

Like I said, the context of the what they are talking about, they are referring to the distribution of alleles in a population, not necessarily the number of alleles in the population (if that makes sense).

For example, say I had a gene called "Gene A" with two variations, A1 and A2.  If a population is 90% homozygous for A1 and the rest of the population is heterozygous for both genes, this means 95% of the alleles in the population are A1 and the remaining 5% are A2.  So there is low variability in the population because most versions of gene A are the A1 variant.

OTOH, say selection favors a heterozygous population and things swing so that now 90% of the population is heterozygous for these genes and the remaining 10% is homozygous for A1.  Now only 55% of the gene copies are A1 with the remaining 45% being A2.

In the second scenario genetic variability has increased because there is more even distribution between the two alleles.  That is basically the point of what they are saying in the article.

View Post

There's no way for 'natural selection' to "favour" an heterozygous population. Unless this is some sort of selection goddess, seeing the undesired genes in spite of their recessive state., that is.

It can never work. You cannot generate variety by killing. It's that simple.

#122 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2008 - 08:40 PM

There's no way for 'natural selection' to "favour" an heterozygous population.


Sure there is. If being heterozygous is more beneficial than homozygous. It depends on the genes and genotypes in question, however.

It can never work. You cannot generate variety by killing. It's that simple.

View Post


I already detailed what they mean by variety in this context.

#123 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2008 - 08:44 PM

I listened to that show. You need to turn your baloney detector on yourself, Shpongle.

View Post


Hey, I've been spending the last three years staying abreast of contemporary genomics and what's been going on in the biotech industry. I've read up on all sorts of examples of applied evolution. If you guys don't see it, *shrug* that's your prerogative. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it certainly doesn't mean it's going away any time soon.

#124 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 December 2008 - 03:40 AM

There's no way for 'natural selection' to "favour" an heterozygous population.

Sure there is. If being heterozygous is more beneficial than homozygous. It depends on the genes and genotypes in question, however.
I already detailed what they mean by variety in this context.

View Post

For the benefit of those who haven't followed closely, shpongle maintains nature can kill lifeforms on the basis of recessive genes - genes that have no impact on the body of the individual, but may potentially be passed on to offspring.

Now even if nature kills based on what features a lifeform has, it's not possible for nature to evaluate genetic information which isn't even part of the lifeform's blueprint. The capacity to "know" the recessive genes are there requires some sort of god(dess). Period.

Now what's worse, is that in this specific case, the goddess is fickle. She's not killing lifeforms (sheep) in order to exterminate a recessive gene she has no means of knowing about. No. She's killing lifeforms because their brethren have "better" recessive genes. She's comparing two things she cannot see, choosing to "like" one more than the other, and bumping off the unfortunate.

That's precisely what "natural selection favouring heterozygousity" translates to in ordinary language. Except that they deny the goddess is a goddess. They do say she makes these very decisions.

#125 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2008 - 01:24 PM

Now even if nature kills based on what features a lifeform has, it's not possible for nature to evaluate genetic information which isn't even part of the lifeform's blueprint. The capacity to "know" the recessive genes are there requires some sort of god(dess). Period.


Er, what? Recessive genes are genes that in a heterozygous individual (i.e. they one copy of the gene) have no effect, but in a homozygous individual (i.e. they have two copies of the gene), the genes have an effect. This is because in heterozygous individuals the other gene (the dominant one) is the one that has the effect.

So when you have harmful recessive genes in a population, heterozygous individuals are fine while homozygous individuals suffer the effects of the recessive genes. Ergo, heterozygous individuals go on to reproduce while homozygous individuals are killed off.

There's no "knowing" required. It's just basic natural selection at work.

#126 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 07 December 2008 - 03:23 PM

If you'd like to find out what the term 'hostile witness' means, here's some google results.

http://www.google.co...y&start=10&sa=N

There is no implicit support of any of Gould's other views; only the view quoted is implicitly supported. Indeed, arguments that anyone adopts all of anyone else's views would in most cases reduce quickly to absurdity.

I have no indication that English is a secondary language for you, but if this is the case you might need a little more than the google page to learn about the term.

View Post


Why call a hostile witness in that way? Why would a creationist want to extract that quote from Gould talking about stasis in support of his particular macro-evolutionary theory? How would Goulds' views that species could be seen in stasis in the fossil record for periods far longer than 6,500 years be of any comfort to a young earth creationist?

#127 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 December 2008 - 05:00 PM

Because Gould said darwins theory of slow gradual change is wrong.If even evolutionists say his theory is wrong,then you cant claim it's a creationists lie.Why else use the testimony of a hostile witness?

If you think his theoritical exuse to explain it is valid,then start another thread and explain the evidence.

Thanks.

#128 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 07 December 2008 - 06:12 PM

When theory becomes application it darn well is.
Actually, you can.  This is where selective forces come into play.  Depending on selective pressure, harmful mutations are weeded out and beneficial mutations gravitate towards fixation.
It's part of the bigger picture.  You can't account for all the differences in gene regulation along and you can't account for all differences in gene variation alone.

View Post


Your not applying evolution to genomics, your applying genomics to evolution. Therefore it is not evolution thats being applied.

#129 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 07 December 2008 - 06:13 PM

I suggest learning the difference between phylogenomics versus phylogenetics, because you aren't helping your case by using incorrect terms...

View Post


Both are pointless.

#130 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 December 2008 - 01:37 AM

Why call a hostile witness in that way? Why would a creationist want to extract that quote from Gould talking about stasis in support of his particular macro-evolutionary theory? How would Goulds' views that species could be seen in stasis in the fossil record for periods far longer than 6,500 years be of any comfort to a young earth creationist?

View Post

I'm guessing the assumption was made that folks could figure out the context, and understand how Gould's evaluation applies to the argument.. Perhaps it was unwarranted.

#131 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 December 2008 - 01:48 AM

Er, what?  Recessive genes are genes that in a heterozygous individual (i.e. they one copy of the gene) have no effect, but in a homozygous individual (i.e. they have two copies of the gene), the genes have an effect.  This is because in heterozygous individuals the other gene (the dominant one) is the one that has the effect.

So when you have harmful recessive genes in a population, heterozygous individuals are fine while homozygous individuals suffer the effects of the recessive genes.  Ergo, heterozygous individuals go on to reproduce while homozygous individuals are killed off.

There's no "knowing" required.  It's just basic natural selection at work.

View Post

That's not what we were talking about. Your interpretation of the article results in a blanket preference for heterozygous lifeforms - not the simple elimination of harmful genes.

If that's what they had been talking about, ...well that couldn't be what they're talking about because that's part of the "standard model", and the "standard model" is insufficient to explain what they saw.

Now the problem remains: selection cannot create diversity. Killing those who aren't diverse in a situation where diversity isn't present simply results in extinction.

Say for example I take a group of cocker spaniels and decide I want to breed a new type of dog from them. Killing the cocker pups won't help much. We all know what's going to happen.

Better still, let's try to breed flying pigs. Here's the plan. First we'll 'select' out piglets that don't have buds that seem to have the potential to grow into wings. Then, when we have a population of pigs with wing buds, we'll 'select' out piglets whose buds don't grow into full-blown wings. Once we have winged pigs, we'll 'select' out piglets whose wings don't have feathers; and finally we'll 'select' out piglets who don't use their wings to fly. Sound like a winner?

Or is it true that no form of 'selection' can generate diversity where it doesn't exist?

#132 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 December 2008 - 03:04 AM

I'm guessing the assumption was made that folks could figure out the context, and understand how Gould's evaluation applies to the argument.. Perhaps it was unwarranted.

View Post


I understood the context. I think some people think having something in context means don't dare point out the unfavorable parts.

If someone makes the proclamation that something is out of context. It is incumbent on them to demonstrate it. Otherwise, it’s intellectual slight-of-hand to attempt to discredit a valid point without actually making the effort to discuss its repercussions.

Simply quoting out of someone’s writing/sayings doesn’t qualify that it is out of context just because the entire work isn’t quoted. We should be able to discuss the ramifications of that quote without straining at gnats.

Christians get shown Bible verses out of context all the time. If I plan on being effective at discussing a topic I should know it. If a verse gets quoted out of context, and that is my feeling, it is my responsibility to demonstrate it regardless of how mishandled the text is before just trumping with "out of context".

#133 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 December 2008 - 10:32 AM

I understood the context. I think some people think having something in context means don't dare point out the unfavorable parts.

If someone makes the proclamation that something is out of context. It is incumbent on them to demonstrate it. Otherwise, it’s intellectual slight-of-hand to attempt to discredit a valid point without actually making the effort to discuss its repercussions.

Simply quoting out of someone’s writing/sayings doesn’t qualify that it is out of context just because the entire work isn’t quoted. We should be able to discuss the ramifications of that quote without straining at gnats.

Christians get shown Bible verses out of context all the time. If I plan on being effective at discussing a topic I should know it. If a verse gets quoted out of context, and that is my feeling, it is my responsibility to demonstrate it regardless of how mishandled the text is before just trumping with "out of context".

View Post

I was referring to the context of the discussion; not the words surrounding the original quote.

Anyone who knows the first thing about Gould knows he frequently said things like that. He surveyed the "fossil record" for evidence that was consistent with Darwinian evolution, and when he didn't find it, he came up with a new way to explain away the problem. Well, somewhat new, anyhow...

#134 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 09 December 2008 - 11:47 AM

I'm guessing the assumption was made that folks could figure out the context, and understand how Gould's evaluation applies to the argument.. Perhaps it was unwarranted.

View Post


I was hoping that folks could figure out the context of the mined quote, and understand how Gould's evaluation applies to the argument. Obviously, I was being optimistic.

#135 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 09 December 2008 - 12:41 PM

Because Gould said darwins theory of slow gradual change is wrong.If even evolutionists say his theory is wrong,then you cant claim it's a creationists lie.Why else use the testimony of a hostile witness?

If you think his theoritical exuse to explain it is valid,then start another thread and explain the evidence.

Thanks.

View Post


Darwin did not think that the rate of change is uniform, and I certainly don't. Do you agree with Gould's views on stasis in the fossil record, and if so why? How can you perceive stasis in the fossil record without dating methods? In order to agree with Gould's assessment, you have to agree that he can date fossils.

If you don't agree with his assessment, why not quote paleontologists whom you do agree with, and therefore consider to be authorities?

#136 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 December 2008 - 12:41 PM

I was hoping that folks could figure out the context of the mined quote, and understand how Gould's evaluation applies to the argument. Obviously, I was being optimistic.

View Post

Don't feel too bad. So far only one party has indicated difficulties. I'd venture to assume everyone else understood just fine.

#137 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 December 2008 - 12:58 PM

I was hoping that folks could figure out the context of the mined quote, and understand how Gould's evaluation applies to the argument. Obviously, I was being optimistic.

View Post


Hi NowhereMan,

You can use the term "quote mining" to conjure some allegiance from other evolutionists. If you want to be taken seriously you should demonstrate how that quote is mishandled. I haven’t seen the original paper but Steven Jay Gould’s interpretation of evolution is obvious from the now famous:

Punctuated Equilibrium Proposal

What's the need for a theory that cleverly removes the need for transitional forms? If we just get "hopeful monsters" every several hundred thousand years or so then the "time god" looks better still. Another crutch saves a crippled and useless theory.

#138 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 December 2008 - 01:01 PM

Do you agree with Gould's views on stasis in the fossil record, and if so why? How can you perceive stasis in the fossil record without dating methods? In order to agree with Gould's assessment, you have to agree that he can date fossils.

View Post


:lol: Why do you want our help defending a theory that we think should be completely chucked, not revised?

Darwin is wrong and Gould is wrong. The reason Gould's ideas are interesting is because he attempts some honesty and candor with the mounting evidence. We're just sorry that he didn't become a creationist. Instead he was already so used to telling make believe stories that he made up a new one.

#139 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 09 December 2008 - 01:06 PM

Don't feel too bad. So far only one party has indicated difficulties. I'd venture to assume everyone else understood just fine.

View Post


If I'm the only person who doesn't understand why young earth creationists would agree with Gould's observations on stasis in the fossil record, then that's fine. Feel free to explain.

#140 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 09 December 2008 - 01:23 PM

Hi NowhereMan,

You can use the term "quote mining" to conjure some allegiance from other evolutionists. If you want to be taken seriously you should demonstrate how that quote is mishandled. I haven’t seen the original paper but Steven Jay Gould’s interpretation of evolution is obvious from the now famous:

Punctuated Equilibrium Proposal

What's the need for a theory that cleverly removes the need for transitional forms? If we just get "hopeful monsters" every several hundred thousand years or so then the "time god" looks better still. Another crutch saves a crippled and useless theory.

View Post


Where in your quote does Gould say there are no transitionals? Gould (elsewhere) explains that his theory would mean that finding transitionals on a species level would be statistically rare (not non-existent) but this does not "remove the need for transitional forms". We should be able to observe the macro-macro-evolutionary transition of forms between classes, for example, and we can.

Stasis, in the fossil record, means creatures that remain very similar for long periods of geological time. Two similar fossils would not indicate stasis to a paleontologist unless they can be separated in time by some dating method. As you disagree with all dating methods used by scientists for this purpose, how can you express agreement with Gould's view on stasis?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users