Jump to content


A Creationist Approach To Biology?


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#21 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 02 December 2008 - 09:52 PM

Then life was created to look like it evolved.


I would agree if we had an ancestor that was 99.999% geneticaly similar.The closest one i'm aware of is only 96%,maybe you see evolution no matter what.

#22 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 02 December 2008 - 09:56 PM

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?


We dont have to,that was tested decades ago by a russian scientist on wild foxes.

The rates of variation fit exactly as we predicted.

Thanks.

#23 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2008 - 10:01 PM

I would agree if we had an ancestor that was 99.999% geneticaly similar.The closest one i'm aware of is only 96%,maybe you see evolution no matter what.

View Post


Why would our ancestor be 99.999% genetically similar? Even the average genetic divergence within the human population is greater than that.

We dont have to,that was tested decades ago by a russian scientist on wild foxes.

The rates of variation fit exactly as we predicted.


And do you have a citation for this?

#24 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 02 December 2008 - 10:22 PM

Hi Shpongle,

Why would our ancestor be 99.999% genetically similar? Even the average genetic divergence within the human population is greater than that.


You know what I mean,evolution cant bridge millions of genetic differences without slow gradual change,if at all.

And do you have a citation for this?


Today, 14 years after his death, it is still in progress. Through genetic selection alone, our research group has created a population of tame foxes fundamentally different in temperament and behavior from their wild forebears. In the process we have observed some striking changes in physiology, morphology and behavior, which mirror the changes known in other domestic animals and bear out many of Belyaev's ideas.

http://www.freerepub...ws/807641/posts

Many more such studies showing rapid evolution in different species can be found in the literature since this one.

Thanks.

#25 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2008 - 05:30 PM

Hi Shpongle,
You know what I mean,evolution cant bridge millions of genetic differences without slow gradual change,if at all.


Sure it can. There's nothing about genetic divergence that suggests mutation rates can't account for that.

Today, 14 years after his death, it is still in progress. Through genetic selection alone, our research group has created a population of tame foxes fundamentally different in temperament and behavior from their wild forebears. In the process we have observed some striking changes in physiology, morphology and behavior, which mirror the changes known in other domestic animals and bear out many of Belyaev's ideas.

http://www.freerepub...ws/807641/posts

Many more such studies showing rapid evolution in different species can be found in the literature since this one.


This doesn't at all address jamesf's question. The issue is not "rapid evolution" by means of high selective pressure. Because that's all this really is. It doesn't mean actual rates of genetic mutation are increasing, just that variation is under high selective pressure. In fact, it's the opposite. Because of selective pressure, you'd have reduced genetic variation.

What you'd really want to look at is the relative genetic differences and background mutation rates. And you'd want to see if the genetic variation between each species could be accounted for given an extreme population bottleneck only 4-5 thousand years ago.

Given what I know about certain rates of genetic divergence in species, there is no way to account for current variation given such a bottleneck without the genetic load (i.e. mutation rates) being off the chart. Mutation rates are a huge problem for the creationist model, not the evolution one.

#26 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 03 December 2008 - 06:12 PM

This doesn't at all address jamesf's question.  The issue is not "rapid evolution" by means of high selective pressure.  Because that's all this really is.  It doesn't mean actual rates of genetic mutation are increasing, just that variation is under high selective pressure.  In fact, it's the opposite.  Because of selective pressure, you'd have reduced genetic variation.

What you'd really want to look at is the relative genetic differences and background mutation rates.  And you'd want to see if the genetic variation between each species could be accounted for given an extreme population bottleneck only 4-5 thousand years ago.

Given what I know about certain rates of genetic divergence in species, there is no way to account for current variation given such a bottleneck without the genetic load (i.e. mutation rates) being off the chart.  Mutation rates are a huge problem for the creationist model, not the evolution one.

View Post


I quite agree. Don't see how the selective breeding issue is even relevant.

One would think that if young earth creationists were confident in their point of view, then they would be searching for positive evidence. This particular issue should be very obvious in the genetics of animals that descended from animals on the ark. Let the creationists decide what a "kind" is, then show that all animals within a kind have 5000 years worth of mutations. It is really quite straightforward.

Of course, our current genetic maps show accumulated differences that require millions not thousands of years. New and old world monkeys have a genetic divergence that requires 40 million years worth of mutations. So if that was a "kind", then the mutation rate is off by a factor of 8000.

Similarly, new and old world squirrels show divergence that corresponds to about 25 million years. So the number of mutations is off by a factor of 5000.
http://www.bioone.or...jsz.17.405&ct=1

That is 5000 times more mutations than predicted by a "Noah's flood" model if squirrels represent a "kind".

The DNA of African and Asian elephants show that they diverged 7.6 million years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/6913934.stm

Afraid I do not see any evidence of a 5000 year old divergence. Do creationists propose that there are any "kinds" that show either a bottleneck at 5000 years or show that the divergence of species matches a 5000 year model?

#27 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 03 December 2008 - 06:18 PM

What you'd really want to look at is the relative genetic differences and background mutation rates. And you'd want to see if the genetic variation between each species could be accounted for given an extreme population bottleneck only 4-5 thousand years ago.


We have imperical evidence to calculate mutation rates.The first one gave a mtdna eve ~6,500 years ago,a later study including a larger sample gave a maximum age of ~20,000 years in humans.Ofcourse mutations are driven by external and internal forces that are'nt exactly as accurate as an atomic clock.But,we can reach a reasonable conclusion.

In no way shape or form could mutation rates support your model unless you want to continue making up stories that are'nt supported by any imperical evidence ever.

If evolution is'nt supported by evidence,then what does that tell the rest of the world about evolutionists.

From what you "know" about mutation rates are based on circular reasoning.

Please give us an imperical mutation rate,or at least admit none exists that agrees with what you "know" about mutation rates.

And yes that requires a peer reviewed scientific journal,to say the least,if you think what you "know" proves the bible wrong.

Thanks.

#28 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2008 - 06:54 PM

Please give us an imperical mutation rate,or at least admit none exists that agrees with what you "know" about mutation rates.

And yes that requires a peer reviewed scientific journal,to say the least,if you think what you "know" proves the bible wrong.


Sure, if you want use mutation rates from this paper (see Table 5 for rates based for eukaryotes including humans and mice):

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

Now, your turn to do some legwork. Come up with a model which demonstrates that the variation within a "kind" of animal (you can pick whatever you want) can be accounted for within the time frame of ~4000-5000 years and with respect to a population bottleneck of 2 individuals.

I'm not going to do the homework for you. Time for you to do some.

#29 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 03 December 2008 - 08:10 PM

Thanks shpongle,

The math on that paper is beyond me,sorry about that.

RATES of spontaneous mutation per replication per measured target vary by many orders of magnitude depending on the mutational target size

According to that though,it sounds like it is'nt imperical at all and can be fudged to fit anything.

The paper also says the mutation rate of humans is less reliable than the mouse.

Thanks.

#30 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

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

Posted 03 December 2008 - 08:29 PM

We have imperical evidence to calculate mutation rates.The first one gave a mtdna eve ~6,500 years ago,a later study including a larger sample gave a maximum age of ~20,000 years in humans.Ofcourse mutations are driven by external and internal forces that are'nt exactly as accurate as an atomic clock.But,we can reach a reasonable conclusion.


Jason, the large mtDNA sample gave a minimum of ~17,300 years. There is no "maximum" in these calculations, because of the factors of detrimental mutations and hotspots. This means that a 6,300 year old human race is impossible.

In no way shape or form could mutation rates support your model unless you want to continue making up stories that are'nt supported by any imperical evidence ever.


There is empirical evidence for both detrimental mutations and hotspots. I'll find some for you.

If evolution is'nt supported by evidence,then what does that tell the rest of the world about evolutionists.


It's supported by overwhelming evidence. You need to worry about the scientific evidence for your own model. Remember, we got into the discussion on the other thread about mtDNA mutation rates because you had defined "kinds" as being the equivalent of genera, and I had pointed out that you wouldn't be able to account for the genetic changes and speciation within genera over just 4,000 years. Look at the problems you're having with the mtDNA differences in humans from 6,000 years. That's change within one species. The genetic differences between species of the same genera will be far greater than inter-human differences, and you've got to account for it in 4,300 years.

#31 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2008 - 08:50 PM

RATES of spontaneous mutation per replication per measured target vary by many orders of magnitude depending on the mutational target size

According to that though,it sounds like it is'nt imperical at all and can be fudged to fit anything.


No, that's not at all what they are saying. All they are saying that mutation rates vary. For example, in bacteria they list mutation rates per base pair that differ by several magnitudes between different bacteria. Although, probably not coincidently, the mutation rates per genome per cell replication of those bacteria end up being all roughly the same.

I'm not sure where you got this idea that anything is being "fudged".

The paper also says the mutation rate of humans is less reliable than the mouse.


Well, mutations rates are somewhat difficult to estimate. I've seen mutation rates for humans range from ~60 per individual up to ~175 per individual. This particular paper is over 20 years old, and newer data has produced different estimates.

#32 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 03 December 2008 - 11:28 PM

Jason, the large mtDNA sample gave a minimum of ~17,300 years. There is no "maximum" in these calculations, because of the factors of detrimental mutations and hotspots. This means that a 6,300 year old human race is impossible.


It means that rapid mutation accumilation occured as a result of adaption to the cold climate of iceland.The only thing it proves impossible is the out of africa model.IMO.

Thanks.

#33 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 04 December 2008 - 01:16 AM

It's supported by overwhelming evidence. You need to worry about the scientific evidence for your own model. Remember, we got into the discussion on the other thread about mtDNA mutation rates because you had defined "kinds" as being the equivalent of genera, and I had pointed out that you wouldn't be able to account for the genetic changes and speciation within genera over just 4,000 years. Look at the problems you're having with the mtDNA differences in humans from 6,000 years. That's change within one species. The genetic differences between species of the same genera will be far greater than inter-human differences, and you've got to account for it in 4,300 years.


ScienceDaily (Apr. 18, 2008) — In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.


“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.”

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm - 51k -

One well known macroevolutionary event is the specialization of lizards on Caribbean islands. Lizards have evolved into 150 different species spread across these islands. Losos and his colleagues write that their lizard experiment suggests that macroevolution is simply microevolution observed over a much larger time period.

Punctuated equilibrium proponents suggest that a given species may remain unchanged for millions of years until some event shakes up the ecosystem, causing rapid evolution. Since the lizards on all 14 islands evolved as expected, Futuyma states that "it means you don't need to invoke a complicated hypothesis of this type."

The rate of evolutionary change is measured in units called darwins. Darwins provide a measure of the proportional change in a given organ over time. Changes typically seen over millions of years in the fossil record usually amount to 1 darwin or less. The transplanted lizards evolved at rates of up to 2000 darwins.

www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/lizard.html - 7k -

Do you beleive species introduced to a new environment or under natural selective pressure can adapt much faster than darwinian evolution predicts?And were not even talking about thousands of years here.

Enjoy.

#34 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 04 December 2008 - 01:24 AM

It should also be noted that adaption,speciation,and mutation has been proven to occur thousands of times faster than darwinian evolution predicts,yet no new genus has ever been observed.

Thanks.

#35 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

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

Posted 04 December 2008 - 04:05 AM

It means that rapid mutation accumilation occured as a result of adaption to the cold climate of iceland.


Eh! The paper based on the survey on Iceland was about the rate at which mutations occur, not their accumulation. The rate of accumulation over time cannot exceed the rate of mutation, so we cannot have descended from a mitochondrial Eve within the last 10,000 years according to the rate (1 mutation in 87 generations) in the combined surveys.

But the rate of accumulation over time can be a lot less than the mutation rate, for reasons that I've already touched on (negative selection and hotspots).

The only thing it proves impossible is the out of africa model.IMO.
Thanks


See above. And thank you!

#36 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

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

Posted 04 December 2008 - 05:30 AM

It should also be noted that adaption,speciation,and mutation has been proven to occur thousands of times faster than darwinian evolution predicts,yet no new genus has ever been observed.

Thanks.

View Post


Jason, your lizard examples are great examples of natural selection in action, but they are not about mutation rates. They involve no increase in mutation rates.

Rapid adaption is well known to evolutionists, and there are many instances in the wild and from laboratory experiments. When the rapid adaption to the new environment has finished, the organisms settle down to equilibrium as the selection pressure is reduced. Even classic Darwinism predicts this to some extent, although Darwin might be surpised at the speed of some known adaptions if he were here to see them.

"the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."

Charles Darwin in the fifth edition of "The Origin of Species", predicting punctuated equilibrium!

The rapid adaptions we observe in lizards isn't speciation, although it can certainly be described as the potential beginnings of it. The most rapid example of known contemporary speciation I can think of (not counting natural hybrids in plants) is London Underground Mosquitoes over about 2,600 generations. For mammals with generation gaps of several years or more, you don't get too many generations between us and the Ark.

If "kinds" equal genera, you won't get the genetic differences between creatures like lions and tigers in 4000 years (not in 40,000 or perhaps even 400,000, I'd guess). :lol: A personal guestimate is that you've got time for less than 200,000 mutations in each species, and the difference between them will be millions, possibly tens of millions.

We need to find out what mammals within genera have had their genomes sequenced and compared.

I think that we might be derailing the topic, which is about scientific applications of creationist theory. My comment on that (shpongle if you're reading) is that I don't know of any, and no-one else seems to so far on this thread. :rolleyes:

#37 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 04 December 2008 - 10:24 AM

Sorry about that,creationists aproach biology is through reality.The only thing that is known for sure is that evolution occurs at extreme speeds to adapt and then remains stable until adaption is needed through natural selection again.

Thanks.

#38 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2008 - 10:48 AM

It should also be noted that adaption,speciation,and mutation has been proven to occur thousands of times faster than darwinian evolution predicts,yet no new genus has ever been observed.

Thanks.

View Post


A genus (like most human classification) is an entirely arbitrary* grouping of species. Species barriers (i.e. breeding barriers) are the only true biological unit of classification.

You could if you wanted to speciate a few different populations and then lump those new species into a genus. But what does that prove? Nothing really, other than you can label a classification onto a group of organisms.

* Arbitrary in the sense that it depends solely on the human definition of the word and classification scheme.

#39 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2008 - 10:53 AM

Sorry about that,creationists aproach biology is through reality.The only thing that is known for sure is that evolution occurs at extreme speeds to adapt and then remains stable until adaption is needed through natural selection again.

Thanks.

View Post


Well, then demonstrate you can account for the genetic variation within a "kind" of animal within 4-5 thousand years given a population bottleneck of 2 original breeding organisms.

Time to ante up.

#40 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 04 December 2008 - 12:33 PM

Well, then demonstrate you can account for the genetic variation within a "kind" of animal within 4-5 thousand years given a population bottleneck of 2 original breeding organisms.

Time to ante up.

View Post


Here I'll do it.

Okay, I just started... I'll see you in 4 - 5 thousand years to demonstrate the results. :rolleyes:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users