Jump to content


A Creationist Approach To Biology?


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#41 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 04 December 2008 - 12:34 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


Cats and Dogs

#42 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 - 12:35 PM

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.


It proves your wrong.You said nothing can evolve faster than darwinian evolution predicts.When every biologists in the world says something comepletly different,you still live in a world of denial.

That is truly pethedic.

PREDICTION FAILED, Niles Eldridge, American Museum Of Natural History "He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ...it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

#43 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 - 12:45 PM

Okay, really. Just look at the level of variation left in dogs to quickly pull out all kinds of goofy breeds.

Remember, we can demonstrate that genetic load is actually limiting variations as you get further away from the original kind. You'll never start breeding Teacup Chihuahuas (or Paris Hilton)...

Posted Image

...And get tinkerbell or Paris to produce Great Danes:

Posted Image
(BTW, that's Paris after the breeding attempt :rolleyes:)

The DNA information has been limited out of the breed.

With this knowledge, I think it’s safe to assume that the level of speciation was more rapid back then because those animals had all the variation capacity and capability programmed into them for what we see today.

(If a mod clips out a couple of the above comments, I'll understand :lol:)

#44 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 - 12:52 PM

That is truly pethedic.


Jason,

I'm not trying to be rude but I wouldn't want someone calling my beliefs pathetic. I think if we're honest Darwinian Evolution does have a rational allure and a clever explanatory mechanism.

If it didn't, people wouldn't adopt it the way they have. I believed it, in some ways, for almost the first 30 years of my life, didn't you?

In peace,
Adam

#45 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2008 - 01:16 PM

It proves your wrong.You said nothing can evolve faster than darwinian evolution predicts.When every biologists in the world says something comepletly different,you still live in a world of denial.

That is truly pethedic.


If you are going to resort to ad-homs, then you might want to step out of this discussion. A challenge was posed. If you can't meet it then so be it, but don't resort to ad-hom attacks.

#46 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2008 - 01:24 PM

Okay, really. Just look at the level of variation left in dogs to quickly pull out all kinds of goofy breeds.

Remember, we can demonstrate that genetic load is actually limiting variations as you get further away from the original kind. You'll never start breeding Teacup Chihuahuas (or Paris Hilton):

<snip>

The DNA information has been limited out of the breed.

With this knowledge, I think it’s safe to assume that the level of speciation was more rapid back then because those animals had all the variation capacity and capability programmed into them for what we see today.

(If a mod clips out a couple of the above comments, I'll understand :rolleyes:)

View Post


It's interesting you bring up dog breeds actually, since I was recently reading a paper on a genetic study of just that. From what I recall from the paper, only ~30% of genetic variation in dogs can be accounted for due to breeds.

#47 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 - 02:15 PM

It's interesting you bring up dog breeds actually, since I was recently reading a paper on a genetic study of just that.  From what I recall from the paper, only ~30% of genetic variation in dogs can be accounted for due to breeds.

View Post


You'll have to back that up because I've heard that the DNA of dog's shows they shared a common ancestor about 4500 years ago. Now what?

http://www.answersin...igers-wholphins

http://www.answersin...27/i2/dingo.asp

http://www.answersin...n/v4/i1/dog.asp

I bet the research you’re referring to is straining at a gnat and it's inconclusive as far as the scientific method goes because you can't demonstrate it. You only fain imply your assumptions.

#48 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2008 - 03:32 PM

I bet the research you’re referring to is straining at a gnat and it's inconclusive as far as the scientific method goes because you can't demonstrate it. You only fain imply your assumptions.

View Post


What? Sheesh, you haven't even read it and you're already dismissing it out of hand.

#49 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 - 04:03 PM

What?  Sheesh, you haven't even read it and you're already dismissing it out of hand.

View Post


I'm not trying to be ignorant. It's just this. You don't have enough constants to confirm this type of testing:

What about Mitochondrial Eve?

Mitochondrial Eve, the secular version?

or...

Mitochondrial Eve, the right version :D

#50 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

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

Posted 04 December 2008 - 07:08 PM

You'll have to back that up because I've heard that the DNA of dog's shows they shared a common ancestor about 4500 years ago. Now what?

http://www.answersin...igers-wholphins

http://www.answersin...27/i2/dingo.asp

http://www.answersin...n/v4/i1/dog.asp

I bet the research you’re referring to is straining at a gnat and it's inconclusive as far as the scientific method goes because you can't demonstrate it. You only fain imply your assumptions.

View Post


Unlike the folks at answersingenesis, evolutionists don't yet know when dogs shared common ancestry with gray wolves. The great thing about AiG is that it shows us all how science is so easy. All that the evolutionists can do is tell their fairytales, like this:

http://ccr.nci.nih.g...nature04338.pdf

I liked the detailed, evidence backed analysis of how the kangaroos hopped to Australia in the ice age around 3,800 years ago in one of your links. Do you know if AiG have any information as to how the sloths got to South America in the post-Ark period?

#51 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2008 - 09:02 PM

Cats and Dogs

View Post


Domesticated animals tend to show more recent common ancestors, but even with domesticated animals, I have heard no one claim that the total number of genes supports a 5000 year old model where there were two sets of genes at the time of the flood.

When one considers the wild versions of these animals, the "flood model" is off by several orders of magnitude. That is, we are not talking about errors of 50% or 100%, but errors of 100000%. The models that should predict 5000 years of acquired mutations show millions of years of acquired mutations.

We are not discussing the phenotype (what an animal looks like), we are discussing the genotype and the variation in the genome of anything creationists want to call a "kind". We are looking at the number of different mutations that are found in animals of "a kind." These mutations develop at predictable rates and measured in a wide variety of ways.

Furthermore, it is possible to measure the genomes of animals several thousand years old. So, for example, we can look at the genome of animals during Roman or Egyptian periods (there are a number of such studies) and compare those to modern animals. Again, nothing appears to meet the flood model. But if creationists want to provide genetic evidence, most of us would very much like to see it.

If I was a creationist geneticist and had confidence in my model, I would be using the genetics of animals to support a 5000 year model (or whenever the flood was). Here is a map of the genetic differences between cats.
Posted Image

http://www.corante.c...m_deep_time.php

Animals native to the old and new world are typically separated by millions of years. This is true for cats as well as dogs.

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

As one can see, there are a wide variety of cat like and dog like animals in the wild. There is nothing that looks close to a flood model, that I can see.

#52 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 - 09:14 PM

There is nothing that looks close to a flood model, that I can see.

View Post


Since you know what a flood model must look like, please explain it to us.

#53 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2008 - 10:16 PM

Since you know what a flood model must look like, please explain it to us.

View Post


Here is what I stated before

"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.

View Post



I am giving you a lot of freedom here to build your own creationist model of genetics. However, I understand that you do not have a background in genetics so it would be unreasonable to expect you to start a new model.

What is important to realize is that most scientific claims make testable predictions. If creationists want to claim that there were only two cats 5000 years ago, then that makes testable predictions regarding the genomes of cats. If you want to claim that mutations were once faster then that makes testable predictions. If you want to say that a pair of animals from each genera was on the ark, then that makes testable predictions.

Creationists should welcome such tests. Most all scientists love these tests if they believe they are right. For example, suppose you wanted to argue that the ancestors of ocelots migrated to South America 1 million years ago and created the current diversity of oscelots in the last million years. Suppose most other scientists argued that it was 8 million years ago. By looking at the genetics, we can settle this question.

Paleontologists would bring other forms of data to bear on the issue (radiometric dating, similarity to fossil forms etc). You may not accept the data, but the scientists use this every day to settle the debates among themselves. And it is the convergence of these different measures that make scientists confident in the results. Scientists like Michael Behe, while promoting intelligent design, do accept the earth is 4 billion years old. The evidence is just to overwhelming.

Again, you do not have to understand, accept or agree with these different forms of data. The point of this thread is to suggest that creationists should be using genetics to support their models. But they seem to be curiously silent about genetic diversity.

#54 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2008 - 10:48 PM

What is important to realize is that most scientific claims make testable predictions. If creationists want to claim that there were only two cats 5000 years ago, then that makes testable predictions regarding the genomes of cats. If you want to claim that mutations were once faster then that makes testable predictions. If you want to say that a pair of animals from each genera was on the ark, then that makes testable predictions.


Precisely. Any claim can be tested, even if it took place in the distant past.

If there was a major extinction event and genetic bottleneck ~4-5 thousand years ago then that should be verifiable based on genetic data. So why haven't creationists tested this?

#55 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2008 - 10:51 PM

Since you know what a flood model must look like, please explain it to us.

View Post


For one, there should be genetic bottlenecking ~4-5 thousand years ago. And this should be consistent across all major groups of species IF the creationist flood model is true. So where is the bottleneck? If you found consistent bottlenecking across all major groups of species, that would be powerful evidence for the flood model (or at least, a major extinction event 4-5 thousand years ago).

#56 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

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

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:54 AM

For one, there should be genetic bottlenecking ~4-5 thousand years ago.  And this should be consistent across all major groups of species IF the creationist flood model is true.  So where is the bottleneck?  If you found consistent bottlenecking across all major groups of species, that would be powerful evidence for the flood model (or at least, a major extinction event 4-5 thousand years ago).

View Post


Certainly. Also, we descend from three couples and, even though three of our 6 ancestors were siblings, we start off with considerably more genetic diversity than other "kinds". Most of them have shorter generations than us, so they might make up some diversity, but a long generation "kind" like the elephant kind should not show more diversity. We now have the mammoth genome to add to the data on the elephant kind, interestingly.

Theoretically, on the flood model, we should be able to compare an African elephant genome and one from Sumatra or Sri Lanka, and find no more diversity than we would between humans from the same regions, and probably less.

That's a good idea for a creationist research project, and I'm sure that there's enough information on the internet if any of our creationist members would like to investigate.

#57 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 05 December 2008 - 05:57 AM

And genome sequences for how many species are available? Kinda hard to analyze data nobody has.

And in an honest world, it'd be risky to found theories upon what we don't know.

#58 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 December 2008 - 06:09 AM

That is truly pethedic.


I'm not trying to be rude but I wouldn't want someone calling my beliefs pathetic. I think if we're honest Darwinian Evolution does have a rational allure and a clever explanatory mechanism.

If it didn't, people wouldn't adopt it the way they have. I believed it, in some ways, for almost the first 30 years of my life, didn't you?


Okay guys, cool it. I maybe a little late in catching some bad attitudes in this thread, but if the attitude continues I will either delete offending posts or close the thread.

If someone posts unkind stuff that is personal attack, it's best to be an adult and ignore the post. So I don't have to get on to two members but only one.


#59 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 05 December 2008 - 06:50 AM

Unlike the folks at answersingenesis, evolutionists don't yet know when dogs shared common ancestry with gray wolves.


Hi NowhereMan,

Nice name, what does it mean? Sure, according to your paper, you evolutionists know exactly when dogs and wolves shared a common ancestry, 15,000 to 100,000 years ago…

(Page 803) The history of the domestic dog traces back at least 15,000 years, and possibly as far back as 100,000 years, to its original domestication from the grey wolf in East Asia1–4.

(Page 814) a, Modern haplotype structure arose from key events in dog breeding history. The domestic dog diverged from wolves 15,000–100,000 years ago97,119


My neighbor had a half husky, half wolf when I was growing up. According to the statements above, its wolf ancestry was at least 15,000 years ago, (with an error window of plus 85,000 years) Wow! What precision. I have a feeling that my neighbor would have had proof that this minimum of 15,000 years is a smoke screen.

The great thing about AiG is that it shows us all how science is so easy. All that the evolutionists can do is tell their fairytales, like this:

http://ccr.nci.nih.g...nature04338.pdf

View Post


NowhereMan, this is how I can tell people’s wires are getting crossed over this issue. Creationists talk about how evolution is a fairytale for adults and you hear us saying that we want to shut down Comparative Genomics. Listen, compare all the genes you want. It looks like a fascinating endeavor that I would be proud to be involved in. There are many useful things we can understand about God’s design through it (oops... that statement would probably find me blacklisted, no more genomics for me.) especially, when that which you are studying actually does have common ancestry like Dogs or People.

"Yes, but don't you see the commonalities between dogs and people..."

Yes, that's very interesting. The common designer put similar provisions in the two for adaptation purposes for a common environment. Is there a problem?

Let’s take a look at a couple more quotes from that paper:

(Page 804) The genome sequence can be used to select a small collection of rapidly evolving sequences, which allows nearly complete resolution of the evolutionary tree of nearly all living species of Canidae.


This is great, low and behold, we can study common ancestry for organisms that actually have common ancestry, like dogs. This isn’t evolution, it’s dogs.

(Page 809) Gene duplications. Gene duplication is thought to contribute substantially to functional innovation69,71.


This is a fancy way of saying; “We hope to prove how things became genetically complex, but until we have... just trust us, because we know there must be a natural mechanism that did it. I believe in evolution. I believe in evolution. I believe in evolution.”

(Page 815) Resolving the evolutionary relationships of such closely related taxa has been difficult because a great quantity of genomic sequence is typically required to yield enough informative nucleotide sites for the unambiguous reconstruction of phylogenetic trees.


What would you say, currently, the phylogenetic trees beyond species/kinds are (you know the ones that tie Camels and Whales together) the ambiguous variety or the unambiguous kind?

Posted Image
"Hey, cuz, what's up!"

Posted Image
"Nothin much, cuz, how you doin?"

(Page 815) Conclusions. Genome comparison is a powerful tool for discovery. It can reveal unknown—and even unsuspected—biological functions, by sifting the records of evolutionary experiments that have occurred over 100 years or over 100 million years.


Everything here is great. I hope lots of cool things are discovered as people do genomics research. That little tidbit at the end, you know “100 years or over 100 million years (I said that in a priestly deep voice, in case you’re wondering “100 MILLION YEARS!”) is a fairytale.

(Page 816) Despite these advances, it is clear that mammalian comparative genomics is still in its early stages.


That’s good to know. Maybe people can stop pretending that we’ve proven common descent.

On a side note:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Pseudogene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

This whole Pseudogene business, sounds like a pronouncement that is really arrogant. We don’t know why it’s there, but we know it’s useless. It sounds like a modern day example of Tonsils and Appendix function. We don’t know what they are there for so let’s just take them out…oops… those things are meant to be there after all…

I liked the detailed, evidence backed analysis of how the kangaroos hopped to Australia in the ice age around 3,800 years ago in one of your links. Do you know if AiG have any information as to how the sloths got to South America in the post-Ark period?

View Post


Nowhereman, I don’t know but I'm sure when God reveals it to us, it will all make sense. Before we can convince anyone about the Bible they must turn their baloney detectors on. Actually, turning it on is easy, turning it on yourself takes some humility.

I have a trust worthy eye-witness that keeps on proving itself faithful. Rather than assuming that sections of the Bible are junk (like your junk DNA assumption) call us crazy but we believe Jesus and His Word over your theories because He’s faithful and we aren’t.

I hope you trust in Him someday too before it's too late.

#60 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:13 AM

And genome sequences for how many species are available? Kinda hard to analyze data nobody has.


You don't need complete sequences to infer genetic bottlenecking or derive genetic relationships between species.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users