Jump to content


A Creationist Approach To Biology?


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2008 - 06:49 PM

In other thread on applied evolution the subject of a creationist approach to biology came up a few times. So I thought I'd make a new thread and give creationists a chance to explain exactly what they mean.

I'd also like to give it some context, the same as the applied evolution thread. That is, the application of a creationist approach to genomics.

The science of genomics involves the study of whole genomes of species. Scientists have sequenced various species including things like the mouse, chimpanzee, puffer fish, human, various bacteria and viruses, crop plants, etc.

Now what do we do with all this data? The main issues scientists need to tackle are:

1) Locate critical genome sequences including identification of genes and regulatory regions.

2) Figure out what unknown parts of genomes (including gene families, individual genes/proteins, etc) actually do.

3) Compare genomes with various species, particularly "model species" (i.e. species typically used in lab studies) to determine how and why they are the same/different.

So, can creationists:

A) Give me a creation (i.e. designer) specific approach to tackling these issues in current genomics studies. This would assume these genomes were created de novo and did not evolve from common ancestors.

B ) As a huge bonus, give me examples of this approach being carried out in current genomics research. I have a strong feeling this second challenge will be impossible to meet, however, because I don't think the first challenge has ever been formalized.

#2 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 01 December 2008 - 10:09 PM

In other thread on applied evolution the subject of a creationist approach to biology came up a few times.  So I thought I'd make a new thread and give creationists a chance to explain exactly what they mean. 

I'd also like to give it some context, the same as the applied evolution thread.  That is, the application of a creationist approach to genomics.

The science of genomics involves the study of whole genomes of species.  Scientists have sequenced various species including things like the mouse, chimpanzee, puffer fish, human, various bacteria and viruses, crop plants, etc.

Now what do we do with all this data?  The main issues scientists need to tackle are:

1) Locate critical genome sequences including identification of genes and regulatory regions.

2) Figure out what unknown parts of genomes (including gene families, individual genes/proteins, etc) actually do.

3) Compare genomes with various species, particularly "model species" (i.e. species typically used in lab studies) to determine how and why they are the same/different.

So, can creationists:

A) Give me a creation (i.e. designer) specific approach to tackling these issues in current genomics studies.  This would assume these genomes were created de novo and did not evolve from common ancestors.

B ) As a huge bonus, give me examples of this approach being carried out in current genomics research.  I have a strong feeling this second challenge will be impossible to meet, however, because I don't think the first challenge has ever been formalized.

View Post


You must first understand that it will be addressed by common design. Also you need to realize genomics poses no problem for creationist. It is phylogenomics which is totally useless. We absolutely don't need to know about common ancestors which could easily be defined as common design.

Even if I was an evolutionist, or atheist I would still argue that phylogenomics is just a program to better help (evolutionist) better understand their own theory. In which they assume the relationships based upon similarities in the genes. Evolution need not apply. You will find it is only evolutionist who use phylogenomics and promote it, because it promotes them vice versa.

Now, you ask for applied creationism. What kind of question is that? All things were created in the beginning by God. Therefore the Creation event is not taking place anymore. Creation need not apply. Scientific studies are doing just fine without saying, oh look at this gene, I found similarities between a mouse and a human, therefore they share a common designer. Or if I was an evolutionist I would say, Woo Hooo common ancestor. There is absolutely no point in either as far as I can see.

#3 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2008 - 12:17 AM

It is phylogenomics which is totally useless.


You can repeat this all you want, but I posted literature in other thread (posts 13-15) which proves that it's not useless. Scientists are using phylogenomic approaches and achieving results in genomic studies of genes. Still don't believe me, run a Google Scholar search and see for yourself.

And heck, I still haven't even gotten into comparative genomics (boy that's going to be a fun topic! :P)

Now if you can demonstrate an equivilant or even better approach using a "creation" approach, then do so. If not, then there's nothing to discuss.

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 02 December 2008 - 10:08 AM

You can repeat this all you want, but I posted literature in other thread (posts 13-15) which proves that it's not useless.  Scientists are using phylogenomic approaches and achieving results in genomic studies of genes.  Still don't believe me, run a Google Scholar search and see for yourself.

And heck, I still haven't even gotten into comparative genomics (boy that's going to be a fun topic!  :P)

Now if you can demonstrate an equivilant or even better approach using a "creation" approach, then do so.  If not, then there's nothing to discuss.

View Post


I think you're missing the point. I'm sure alchemists before chemistry loved talking about how their methods were proving what they already believed without any real data.

I could show you Satanists who right long dissertations about how Satanism is applied to life. Just for clarity, I’m not comparing Evolutionists to Satanists. I’m using it as an extreme case of how anything can be justified and supported when filtering the evidence through your belief lens.

The communists in the Soviet Union probably taught all the evidence and had hoards of research material and studies showing the effectiveness and necessity of Marxism. After all, communism was the consensus view, how could it be wrong? Again, just an example not a comparison of communists to evolutionists but just sharing how easy it is to selectively defend one’s own ideas.

Yeah, there are lots of scientists out there who love to show how their research supports their belief in evolution. We just see that the information is getting more and more distorted to support a theory that looks absolutely nothing like what Darwin predicted it should look like.

Most all of Darwin’s matter-of-fact statements regarding what exactly would disprove his theory have been demonstrated over and over again. No problem though right? We’ll just keep shifting the definitions and filtering the observations to proclaim how Darwin has withstood 150 years of science research.

The question is; Are Bible believing Christians capable of doing the same thing? Yeah, they are. However, the Bible, itself, warns us to test all things (1 Thess 5:21) and to examine ourselves (2 Cor 13:5).

As people (all people that is) we are marvels at convincing ourselves of things that aren’t true. We are easily deceived and we’re good at deceiving. So it takes a lot of humility to stop and ask if the starting point of truth is:

“Cogito ergo sum”

or…

“In the beginning God created…”

God gave you the freedom, so the choice is yours.

#5 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2008 - 12:02 PM

I think you're missing the point. I'm sure alchemists before chemistry loved talking about how their methods were proving what they already believed without any real data.


But we're not talking about trying to prove theories here. We're talking about trying to apply theories. Do you understand the difference?

Say I go to an alchemist and say, "Okay Mr. Alchemist, you've got this wonderful theory about turning lead into gold. I believe you. I own a bank and we need to shore up our gold reserves. How'd you like a job?"

Now if the alchemist's claims were false, he'd be fired from the bank pretty quickly. You can't bluff when it comes to application.

But say I go to a biologist and say, "Okay, Mr. Biologist, you've got this wonderful theory about how organisms share common ancestry. That's all wonderful. I run a biotech company and what I really need is someone to analyze these genomes and figure out what some of these genes do. Can you apply your theory to do that?"

And yet, in practice this is exactly what scientists are doing. They're taking their theory and applying it to solve real issues in modern genomics.

The question is; Are Bible believing Christians capable of doing the same thing? Yeah, they are.


I'm not talking about people can do, however. I'm talking about applying specific ideas to solve problems.

In a creation perspective, I would assume that major groups life forms were engineered independently (i.e. no common descent). Therefore concepts that are used in phylogenomics (like orthologs and paralogs) no longer apply. So how would you solve the issue of improving functional gene prediction?

You guys keep trying to make these generalized criticisms but so far no one has addressed the key points of:

a) If evolution is false, how come these scientists are directly applying it to problems in modern genomics and getting tangible results?

b ) If you throw evolutionary theory out the window, then what would you do that's better?

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 December 2008 - 12:32 PM

In a creation perspective, I would assume that major groups life forms were engineered independently (i.e. no common descent). Therefore concepts that are used in phylogenomics (like orthologs and paralogs) no longer apply. So how would you solve the issue of improving functional gene prediction?


By finding it's function (some evolutionists believe most of DNA doesnt even have a function) And stop assuming it changes into a comepletly different gene just because you believe it must.

a) If evolution is false, how come these scientists are directly applying it to problems in modern genomics and getting tangible results?


Because evolution is a fact,it just does'nt lead in the direction you want it to.


b ) If you throw evolutionary theory out the window, then what would you do that's better?


Stick to the biological facts of evolution and not what is untestable,unobersavable,and contradictory to other branches of science.That could only be a good thing.

Thanks.

#7 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2008 - 12:44 PM

By finding it's function (some evolutionists believe most of DNA doesnt even have a function)


But how would you find the gene function? Be specific.

And stop assuming it changes into a comepletly different gene just because you believe it must.


Are you talking about the difference between orthologs and paralogs here? I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here.

If you are talking about orthologs versus paralogs (i.e. genes that arose via common ancestry verus genes that arose via gene duplication in a specific lineage) then you'll have to explain why using orthologs to predict gene function works better than if we go by sequence similarity alone (i.e. if we stop distinguishing between orthologs and paralogs).

Because evolution is a fact,it just does'nt lead in the direction you want it to.


What do you mean by this?

Stick to the biological facts of evolution and not what is untestable,unobersavable,and contradictory to other branches of science.That could only be a good thing.


Can you be specific? Give me a specific example with respect to determining gene functions of unknown genes.

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 December 2008 - 01:04 PM

Thanks shpongle,

If you are talking about orthologs versus paralogs (i.e. genes that arose via common ancestry verus genes that arose via gene duplication in a specific lineage) then you'll have to explain why using orthologs to predict gene function works better than if we go by sequence similarity alone (i.e. if we stop distinguishing between orthologs and paralogs).


I dont need to explain something that is'nt proven to be true,thats your claim is'nt it?Your looking for comparisons to try and prove something,when you do let us know,beyond "circular reasoning" or it's "best explained by" or "if there was a God he would'nt do it like this" as if people who dont beleive in God are experts at what he would or would'nt do.

Thanks.

#9 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2008 - 01:09 PM

Thanks shpongle,
I dont need to explain something that is'nt proven to be true,thats your claim is'nt it?


Sure you do. Because as I linked to examples in the literature, using orthologs versus paralogs to improve gene functional prediction actually works.

You guys seem to be making a lot of excuses to try to avoid addressing this. When you actually want to address this, by all means feel free.

#10 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 02 December 2008 - 01:28 PM

But we're not talking about trying to prove theories here.  We're talking about trying to apply theories.  Do you understand the difference?


From your perspective I’ll try to sum up what I hear you saying:

You believe that gene sequencing and the assumption of common decent intermesh to give a more robust picture of how different organisms are interrelated. How’s that for summing up what you're saying?

Say I go to an alchemist and say, "Okay Mr. Alchemist, you've got this wonderful theory about turning lead into gold.  I believe you.  I own a bank and we need to shore up our gold reserves.  How'd you like a job?"

Now if the alchemist's claims were false, he'd be fired from the bank pretty quickly.  You can't bluff when it comes to application.


Oh, no. If he was sly enough he would say something like this:

Alchemist Resume:

Dear Mr. Banker,

I would like to invite you to start an Alchemist research facility. My group and I have been doing cutting-edge research now for ten years. Our observations are showing us that certain metals have very common traits. We believe that our current data shows that we are on the edge of solving some of earth’s biggest mysteries.

Through aggressive study and analysis we have made a chart to show what we have called the “mineralogic column”. Through careful and precise calculations we have determined that Lead and Gold are very closely related while Copper is a distant cousin mineral. However, with properly calibrated equipment we have discovered that the properties of Gold and Lead are almost identical except for the color. Even a layman can see the obvious similarities by only handling the two and through testing how similar the softness is when compared.

We would like to make a generous offer by giving you the opportunity to fund our much needed research. We already have most of the data figured out. We would say that our ten years of research would be impossible to elaborate on in this short resume but we have reams of data and calculations showing how close we are to solving this mystery.

Posted Image

We believe a five year grant of $1 million dollars per year for five years should give us the boost we need to complete the final but most difficult leg of our testing.

With the completion of our research we hope to have ushered in an era of wealth and prosperity for all those involved. The Bank that lays hold of this cutting edge research will surely have an advantage once the research is complete.

Sincerely,
Mr. Alchemist Extraordinaire



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shpongle, your example was a perfect springboard to show how the Evolution Alchemists approach the question of Evolution verses Creation. Have you ever listened to Eugene Scott or Richard Dawkins rail against creationists? Their only defense is to keep people convinced that the scientific method would unravel if people in high-school classrooms even received a hint of the controversy between Evolution and Creation. Did you notice how I didn’t say between Religion and Science? This isn’t about Religion verses Science, It is about two religions fighting for how the evidence gets interpreted and not how the scientific method is used. God fearing people are the ones that came up with the scientific method, in the first place.

But say I go a biology and say, "Okay, Mr. Biologist, you've got this wonderful theory about how organisms share common ancestry.  That's all wonderful.  I run a biotech company and what I really need is someone to analyze these genomes and figure out what some of these genes do.  Can you apply your theory to do that?"


I don’t need a belief in evolution or creation to do that, just like evolution and creation theories have nothing to do with jet propulsion except the fact that we couldn’t do it because we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for creation. I will say this much. The design inference is so rudimentary and fundamental to biological study (and all sciences really) that all biologists are using a design inference without even thinking about it because Darwin has them hypnotized.

And yet, in practice this is exactly what scientists are doing.  They're taking their theory and applying it to solve real issues in modern genomics.

I'm not talking about people can do, however.  I'm talking about applying specific ideas to solve problems.


Every day that you think about how and why something works you are inferring design and purpose. You do it so much that it’s instinct. That’s why people get duped into believing evolution. The basic assumption of design, function and purpose are so fundamental to our nature we assume it without even realizing that we’re doing it. That includes you.

In a creation perspective, I would assume that major groups life forms were engineered independently


Why do you insist on pigeon-holing creationism with assumptions that not one creationist would agree is needed to believe creation? Your assumption is silly and only an evolutionist would say this because no creationist has ever made this assumption or even needs to make this assumption.

You guys keep trying to make these generalized criticisms but so far no one has addressed the key points of:


It seems to me that you are getting very specific critiques of your effort to pass off the religion of evolution as needed in an applied manner because of your ad hoc interpretations.

a) If evolution is false, how come these scientists are directly applying it to problems in modern genomics and getting tangible results?


No, they are doing the same science and work anyone and everyone can do. After it’s done they just slap it with a sticker that says...

“Approved for Telling the Evolution Fairytale”

Posted Image

b ) If you throw evolutionary theory out the window, then what would you do that's better?

View Post


Shpongle, since evolution doesn’t do anything and it’s just a belief that rides like a monkey on many scientists backs, it doesn’t need replaced with anything. We will be happy just to kill the stupid theory and be done with it. It’s outdated, outmoded, and counterproductive to try and defend it.

The scientific method, for how it works, and what it does, functions just fine with observations and tests and demonstrations without painting any type of origins story at all.

However, since I'm a Christian and find the meta-physical aspect of life crucial. I am at liberty (actually I’m obligated) to show people how robustly the science shows the nature of God when bad moth-eaten ideas are replaced with the philosophy and history of The Holy Scriptures, which continues to bury it pall-bearers with its TRUTH.

#11 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2008 - 02:06 PM

Adam_777, I think there's a lot smoke being thrown up in response to this but nobody is addressing the specifics of this (particularly with regards to phylogenomics).

Do you guys understand what orthologs and paralogs are? Do you understand how these concepts relate to evolutionary theory? Do you understand phylogenetic trees and how those apply to this as well? And do you understand why predicting gene function for unknown genes is an important part of genomics research?

I'm not trying to be condescending here, but you guys keep trying to dismiss all this without really demonstrating that you understand what you are dismissing.

Look, this is a direct citation of what scientists are really doing:

Phylogenomic inference of protein molecular function: advances and challenges

From the paper (emphasis all mine):

As a number of studies have shown, standard methods of protein function prediction produce systematic errors on these data.Phylogenomic analysis—combining phylogenetic tree construction, integration of experimental data and differentiation of orthologs and paralogs—has been proposed to address these errors and improve the accuracy of functional classification.

...

Results of protein functional classification using phylogenomic analysis show fewer expected false positives overall than when pairwise methods of functional classification are employed.


Or to put it another way: scientists are taking concepts that only work in an evolutionary framework (i.e. like distinguishing orthologs and paralogs, and applying phylogenetic trees) and applying that to predict gene function. And what they have found is that this approach works better than previous methods of regular sequence comparison.

You guys keep talking in these generalities as though "evolution" was just a label biologists keep slapping on things (heck, you said so directly). But you guys don't seem to be understanding how evolution is really being applied. Or perhaps you do understand and you're just trying to deflect that issue. But at this point these continual denials that evolutionary theory is being applied is just getting ridiculous.

#12 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 02 December 2008 - 02:16 PM

I'll respond but I want your answer to this first:

You said:

In a creation perspective, I would assume that major groups life forms were engineered independently

I said:

Why do you insist on pigeon-holing creationism with assumptions that not one creationist would agree is needed to believe creation? Your assumption is silly and only an evolutionist would say this because no creationist has ever made this assumption or even needs to make this assumption.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please answer this:

Why do you keep insisting that creationism requires independent designs where you, as an evolutionist, assume they should be for creationism to be true? What creationist ever said that in order for creation to be true all organisms must have no interchangeable parts or genetic code?

#13 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2008 - 02:22 PM

Please answer this:

Why do you keep insisting that creationism requires independent designs where you, as an evolutionist, assume they should be? What creationist ever said that in order for creation to be true all organisms must have no interchangeable parts?

View Post


No, I think there's some misunderstanding on what I meant.

What I mean by "engineered indepedently" was that they were created individually as opposed to having evolving from common descent. I'm not saying a creator can't use interchangeable parts (i.e. common genes). In fact if I was a creator, I certainly would use interchangable genes. But in the context of design, a creator would not be constrained in mixing and matching genes the same way that evolution (as a design algorithm) is constrained.

This gets back to my example of the glow-in-the-dark rabbit which had a jellyfish gene inserted into its genome. A creator could do all sorts of things like that. In contrast, such a thing makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective.

#14 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 02 December 2008 - 02:36 PM

Do you guys understand what orthologs and paralogs are?


It looks to me like the homology argument on the microscopic scale. It’s not convincing when similar structures are shown in mammal skeletons and I don’t see why it’s earth shattering on the microscopic level.

God made great variety and implemented functional features the same in certain animals. The similarities don’t phase Creationists but the day an Evolutionist opens their eyes up to the differences and what their claiming through Darwinian Evolution a light bulb hopefully goes on.

Like it did for people like:

Dean H. Kenyon, Michael Behe, and Jonathan Wells and a growing number of many others.

#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 02 December 2008 - 02:39 PM

But in the context of design, a creator would not be constrained in mixing and matching genes the same way that evolution (as a design algorithm) is constrained.


You're staring at how He did it. Problem?


This gets back to my example of the glow-in-the-dark rabbit which had a jellyfish gene inserted into its genome.  A creator could do all sorts of things like that.  In contrast, such a thing makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective.

View Post


Can you rephrase this? Why does the glow-in-the-dark bunny make sense from an evolutionary model but not a creation model?

#16 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2008 - 02:41 PM

It looks to me like the homology argument on the microscopic scale. It’s not convincing when similar structures are shown in mammal skeletons and I don’t see why it’s earth shattering on the microscopic level.


It's not just homology though. Homologous genes are genes that show similarity. Paralogs and orthologs are both types of homologous genes.

But where the difference lies (and this is key) is that orthologs are genes which are homologous because they share a common ancestral gene. So for example, if species A and species B share an orthologous gene, this gene would have been present in the common ancestor of the two species.

Whereas paralogs are genes which are homologous due to gene duplication. So if, for example, a gene in species A duplicated, the duplicate would be considered a "paralog". That duplicate would not be an ortholog with the gene in species B because the duplicate arose after the two species seperated.

The point of this is that distinguishing between orthologs and paralogs yields greater functional prediction with respect to orthologous genes shared between species. And I really want to stress this point: this isn't just about homology (i.e. similarity). Because genes can be very similar but have different functions.

#17 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2008 - 02:42 PM

You're staring at how He did it. Problem?


Then life was created to look like it evolved.

Can you rephrase this? Why does the glow-in-the-dark bunny make sense from an evolutionary model but not a creation model?

View Post


Um, it doesn't make sense within an evolutionary model.

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 02 December 2008 - 02:44 PM

It's not just homology though.  Homologous genes are genes that show similarity.  Paralogs and orthologs are both types of homologous genes.

But where the difference lies (and this is key) is that orthologs are genes which are homologous because they share a common ancestral gene.  So for example, if species A and species B share an orthologous gene, this gene would have been present in the common ancestor of the two species. 

Whereas paralogs are genes which homologous due to gene duplication.  So if, for example, a gene in species A duplicated, the duplicate would be considered a "paralog".  That duplicate would not be an ortholog with the gene in species B because the duplicate arose after the two species seperated.

The point of this is that distinguishing between orthologs and paralogs yields greater functional prediction with respect to orthologous genes shared between species.  And I really want to stress.  This isn't just about homology (i.e. similarity).  Because genes can be very similar but have different functions.

View Post


I don't know all the ins and outs here but it sounds like your glorifying God through this really wonderful research.

#19 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:29 PM

You guys keep talking in these generalities as though "evolution" was just a label biologists keep slapping on things (heck, you said so directly).  But you guys don't seem to be understanding how evolution is really being applied.  Or perhaps you do understand and you're just trying to deflect that issue.  But at this point these continual denials that evolutionary theory is being applied is just getting ridiculous.

View Post

It seems the new evolutionist approach is to think like a creationist. The old, well-established, time-honoured approach was to assume that whenever the function is unknown, there is no function.

Just as in another field, gradualism must give way to (twisted) catastrophism, so in biology, the evolutionist assumption of nondesign must give way to a (twisted) acknowledgement of purposeful design.

The evidence you provide handily answers your original question.

In other thread on applied evolution the subject of a creationist approach to biology came up a few times.  So I thought I'd make a new thread and give creationists a chance to explain exactly what they mean.



#20 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:38 PM

I had considered starting a thread entitled, "What evidence I would look for, if I was a creation scientist and believed in a young earth"

One of the first things I would look for is the genetic evidence for the following

"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. (Genesis 7:2)."

So we should see evidence that 'clean' kinds would have much greater genetic diversity than that of 'unclean kinds'. Anyone like to show some evidence?

Also, when we look at the genetic diversity within "kinds", we should see evidence of a severe bottleneck at point 5000 years ago. We should also see that all species within a 'kind" diverged from a common ancestor in the last 5000 years.

I have never heard of any of such evidence. Anyone want to provide some?

Here is map of the genetic differences between dogs, wolves, foxes, jackels etc. The divergence times shown are based on current mutation rates. No evidence here.


Posted Image
Nature 438, 745-746 (8 December 2005)

Anyone want to show examples of a "kind" (e.g., elephants, seals, squirrels etc) and show that the genetic divergence within the kind meets a 5000 year model? Are the creationist geneticists working hard on the problem?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users