Jump to content


Photo

Ken Miller


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 July 2009 - 08:54 PM

I don't see why Noah's ark has to come up in a biology classroom but obviously if my beliefs came up as YEC and the students asked, I wouldn't hesitate to affirm that I do indeed believe that the flood account was historical. If they think I'm crazy, great. That means they'll pay closer attention to what I say making the class more interesting. If biology class is actually focused on biology and not origins, I would see no need to spend excessive time on the issue because it is irrelevant to the attributes of biology that we can observe, test and demonstrate.

View Post

And I presume you would also tell the class that radio-isotope dating of rocks is incorrect, and that evolution is impossible because information can not be created, and Boyle's law prevents the formation of stars, etc.

Judging by your posts here you would be supremely confident in all your errors - just the attitude to generate thoughtful discussion by impressionable students.

#22 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2009 - 02:10 AM

No one has ever seen deuterium fuse into helium either.  What's your point?

View Post


I love this.

#23 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 15 July 2009 - 05:50 AM

And I presume you would also tell the class that radio-isotope dating of rocks is incorrect, and that evolution is impossible because information can not be created, and Boyle's law prevents the formation of stars, etc.

View Post

Why would radiometric dating, or Boyle's Law be in a biology class? First, there is more to both of those things then just saying "Radiometric Dating is wrong." or "Boyle's law prevents star formation."

Now information and its implications in biology is a very viable aspect of studying living systems. I would definitely bring up ideas like Shannon Information and Werner Gitt's Information theory and compare it to DNA and what falls out of this perspective and how the empirical data confirms or denies what we perceive regarding living system functions and the information that drives them. Problem?

You see Keith, as an educator, my best job will come out when I guide the class by being fair with whatever perspectives may come up in class. The better I am at facilitating a conversation and allowing the students to hammer out their own ideas the better suited they will be for thinking critically on their own. Sheltering them from what I believe is foolish and not realistic but imposing what I believe on them if they don't want it, is equally foolish.

I'm continuing to read Jerry Bergman's, Slaughter of the Dissidents and it seems that Creationists get turned down regularly for PHDs because of what they believe not because of their competence in subject matters. If an evolutionist demonstrated a well balanced understanding of biology and systems involved, while also maintaining his naturalistic origin perspective, that's fine. You see, since origins (in my textbook :) ) is not part of the biology curriculum, even though it may come up in classroom discussion, I would be forced to give that student his/her merit based on understanding the science of biology. What a novel idea, huh? :P

#24 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2009 - 03:08 PM

Why would radiometric dating, or Boyle's Law be in a biology class? First, there is more to both of those things then just saying "Radiometric Dating is wrong." or "Boyle's law prevents star formation."

Knowing the extreme age of the earth is essential to understanding how slow evolutionary change has produced such diversity of life.
In both cases, it is easy to spread false information and much harder to teach the technical details showing how certain scientists are of their conclusions.

You see Keith, as an educator, my best job will come out when I guide the class by being fair with whatever perspectives may come up in class. The better I am at facilitating a conversation and allowing the students to hammer out their own ideas the better suited they will be for thinking critically on their own. Sheltering them from what I believe is foolish and not realistic but imposing what I believe on them if they don't want it, is equally foolish.


Thinking critically is only possible if students are provided with a correct framework and shown how to reason from that. I think there is far too much sharing of ignorance in both school classrooms and bible study groups.

If you really are an educator, what ages and subjects?

#25 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 15 July 2009 - 03:23 PM

I don't see why Noah's ark has to come up in a biology classroom but obviously if my beliefs came up as YEC and the students asked, I wouldn't hesitate to affirm that I do indeed believe that the flood account was historical. If they think I'm crazy, great. That means they'll pay closer attention to what I say making the class more interesting. If biology class is actually focused on biology and not origins, I would see no need to spend excessive time on the issue because it is irrelevant to the attributes of biology that we can observe, test and demonstrate.

View Post



I know you don't think it's necessary to introduce origins to a basic high school bio class, but the Noachian flood is not really about origins, is it? I think a high school student might find it quite a fascinating study in animal husbandry to find out how Noah fit every single species in the world onto a wooden boat and took care of them for a year. Maybe you could use Woodmorappe's feasibility study.

Then you could explain how Noah got most of the marsupials back to Australia and New Zealand, separated the New World monkeys from the Old World monkeys, etc.

But I really think you're the kind of teacher who would be content to say "We don't know, and guess what, we may never know. So don't try to find out. It was a miracle."

Unfortunately, the Flood would also force educators to edit their World History textbooks, you know the ones that mention the Egyptian and Chinese civilizations that existed and were thriving when all this flooding was supposedly taking place? They'll just have to revise those dates, or those high school students will start getting a bit befuddled, won't they?

#26 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 18 July 2009 - 03:21 AM

No one has ever seen green unicorns fly from the moon to Saturn either. What's yours?

View Post


With dinosaurs evolving into avians, even though no one sat there and watched it happen, there is fossil evidence of creatures possessing characteristics of both. With fusion, even though you can't see the fusion take place, you can analyse the products from it.

No one has ever seen a unicorn, green or otherwise. Neil Armstrong didn't even so much as find hoof prints on the Moon.

#27 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 18 July 2009 - 10:15 AM

The dishonest part is the fact that he did'nt tell the reporter that evolution is not a theory.All theories have been tested emperically and can be observed and repeated (e.g. Atomic theory,gravity).

No one has ever seen a dinosaur evolve into a bird,which makes evolution an unempirical philosophical theory,that contradicts thousands of pieces of data and scientific laws.
Ken can equivocate terms all he wants,but he is'nt fooling anybody around here.

View Post

Well, there are some who give the appearance of being fooled, or at least attempt to do so...

No one has ever seen a dinosaur evolve into a bird,which makes evolution an unempirical philosophical theory,that contradicts thousands of pieces of data and scientific laws.

No one has ever seen deuterium fuse into helium either. What's your point?

View Post

Could've read the whole post, one supposes. Point's not hard to find. Even finishing off the selected sentence might suffice.

No one has ever seen green unicorns fly from the moon to Saturn either. What's yours?

View Post

With dinosaurs evolving into avians, even though no one sat there and watched it happen, there is fossil evidence of creatures possessing characteristics of both.

View Post

Who needs fossils? I have characteristics of both. What'd be needed would be evidence that dinosaurs actually did have avian descendants. When investigating history (events of the past), the best evidence comes from those who saw an event take place.

With fusion, even though you can't see the fusion take place, you can analyse the products from it.

No one has ever seen a unicorn, green or otherwise.  Neil Armstrong didn't even so much as find hoof prints on the Moon.

View Post

Nobody analyzes the products of fusion directly. And proper procedures experimental science differ from proper procedures for investigating the past. It's apples and oranges.

History is not properly investigated by making up a story and then claiming any evidence that can be "creatively" interpreted as not inconsistent therewith proves the story happened. Discover, verify, and reconcile.

Evolutionists won't touch proper historic methodology with a 10-foot pole when it comes to the events the religion claims, yet they're forced to employ proper methods all the time in real life. Funny how that works.

The bulk of the moon has not been examined for unicorn hoofprints, and it may well be that Neil Armstrong wasn't particularly alert and trained in how to detect them. We still have a moon, and this moon isn't inconsistent with the story at all, so the story is proven. I don't even need to resort to "creative" interpretations.

#28 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 18 July 2009 - 01:59 PM

Who needs fossils? I have characteristics of both.

This is humorous. Archaic birds share far more similarities with dinosaurs than you do, and what's more, evolution demands you share some features with dinosaurs and birds, as you share a common ancestor with them.

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 July 2009 - 02:26 PM

I think there is far too much sharing of ignorance in both school classrooms and bible study groups.

View Post


And yet we have been forcing the ignorance of evolution on our captive students for how many years now?

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 July 2009 - 02:28 PM

This is humorous.  Archaic birds share far more similarities with dinosaurs than you do, and what's more, evolution demands you share some features with dinosaurs and birds, as you share a common ancestor with them.

View Post


More like a common Creator.

#31 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 18 July 2009 - 03:23 PM

This is humorous. Archaic birds share far more similarities with dinosaurs than you do.


It's not the simularities that validate evolution,it's the differences and chronology in the fossil record that falsifies it.

"Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]. "
"feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, as an 'undeniably unique' character distinguishing birds"
(A.H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers" Journal of Evolutionary Bioglogy, vol.9, 1996, s.132)

"Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century."
(Alan Feduccia as quoted in Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?", p. 28.)

"To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.
(Larry Martin as quoted in Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?", p. 28)

"'Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur,' Feduccia says. 'But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.'"
(Allan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms", Science, Vol. 259, 5 February 1993, p. 764)

"Paleontologists continue to assess homology a posteriori from cladistic analysis of multiple synapomorphies and to explain discrepancies by mechanisms such as the frameshift hypothesis. In spite of developmental evidence that overwhelmingly supports a II- III-IV bird hand, in contrast to the I-II-III theropod hand, paleontologists will do whatever is necessary to accommodate the cladogram."
(Comments; Accommodating the Cladogram; by Alan Feduccia found in Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Posted May 25, 2001 - Issue 103. Please note: If this quote makes no sense, it is regarding the debate over the fact that the digits of the three fingers of the hand in theropods (I, II and III), differs from that of birds (II, III and IV). This is a major point against the camp that says that birds came from theropod dinosaurs.)(Sereno, Paul C., The evolution of dinosaurs, Science 284(5423):2137-2147 (quote on p. 2143), June 25, 1999)

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."
(W.E. Swinton [British Museum of Natural History, London], 'The Origin of Birds', Chapter 1, in Biology & Comparative Physiology of Birds, A.J. Marshall (editor), Academic Press, New York, Vol. 1, 1960, pg. 1)

"Feathers are unique to birds, and no known structure intermediate between scales and feathers has been identified."
(J. Alan Feduccia, The Age of Birds, Harvard University Press, 1980, pg. 52)

#32 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 18 July 2009 - 04:42 PM

This is humorous. Archaic birds share far more similarities with dinosaurs than you do.


It's not the simularities that validate evolution,it's the differences and chronology in the fossil record that falsifies it.

"Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]. "
"feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, as an 'undeniably unique' character distinguishing birds"
(A.H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers" Journal of Evolutionary Bioglogy, vol.9, 1996, s.132)

"Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century."
(Alan Feduccia as quoted in Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?", p. 28.)

"To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.
(Larry Martin as quoted in Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?", p. 28)

"'Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur,' Feduccia says. 'But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.'"
(Allan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms", Science, Vol. 259, 5 February 1993, p. 764)

"Paleontologists continue to assess homology a posteriori from cladistic analysis of multiple synapomorphies and to explain discrepancies by mechanisms such as the frameshift hypothesis. In spite of developmental evidence that overwhelmingly supports a II- III-IV bird hand, in contrast to the I-II-III theropod hand, paleontologists will do whatever is necessary to accommodate the cladogram."
(Comments; Accommodating the Cladogram; by Alan Feduccia found in Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Posted May 25, 2001 - Issue 103. Please note: If this quote makes no sense, it is regarding the debate over the fact that the digits of the three fingers of the hand in theropods (I, II and III), differs from that of birds (II, III and IV). This is a major point against the camp that says that birds came from theropod dinosaurs.)(Sereno, Paul C., The evolution of dinosaurs, Science 284(5423):2137-2147 (quote on p. 2143), June 25, 1999)

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."
(W.E. Swinton [British Museum of Natural History, London], 'The Origin of Birds', Chapter 1, in Biology & Comparative Physiology of Birds, A.J. Marshall (editor), Academic Press, New York, Vol. 1, 1960, pg. 1)

"Feathers are unique to birds, and no known structure intermediate between scales and feathers has been identified."
(J. Alan Feduccia, The Age of Birds, Harvard University Press, 1980, pg. 52)

View Post


Why do birds have the genes for teeth? Even though they don't express them?

#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 18 July 2009 - 05:02 PM

Why do birds have the genes for teeth? Even though they don't express them?


If molecules to man evolution is true,then why do organisms only loose traits instead of gaining them?

The obvious reason would be,that birds diets changed after the flood.

Besides,the teeth of Mesozoic birds share no homology with therapods.

Martin, Stewart, Whetstone Museum Of Natural History, U. Of Kansas, "Therapod dinosaurs, by comparison, have serrated teeth with straight roots and no constriction. …Archaeopteryx has unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots like those of other Mesozoic birds."" The Auk, V.97, p86, 1980.

 

#34 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 19 July 2009 - 03:21 PM

(Svedish accent)O, look at da quote mine! Zees is precious, ja!(/Svedish accent)

It's not the simularities that validate evolution,it's the differences and chronology in the fossil record that falsifies it.

:rolleyes:

"Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]. "
"feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, as an 'undeniably unique' character distinguishing birds"
(A.H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers" Journal of Evolutionary Bioglogy, vol.9, 1996, s.132)

This could be because A.H. Brush is explaining that feathers indeed did not likely evolve from scales, but from tubercles. See some of his abstracts here and here.

"Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century."
(Alan Feduccia as quoted in Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?", p. 28.)

Alan Feduccia disagrees with mainstream paleontology, and is widely disputed in his assertion that birds did not descend from theropods, see here, but nevermind that he disagrees with mainstream paleontology, because he thinks the link to birds will be found in another line of reptiles.

"To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.
(Larry Martin as quoted in Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?", p. 28)

He's claiming that paleontologists are making erroneous assessments about a link between birds and theropod dinosaurs, because they do not know enough about avian anatomy. It may well be the case he is right, as with Alan, but he also holds that birds evolved from tree-climbing, cold-blooded reptiles, like Alan. You know what, rather than having me break it down for you, you all might like to read this, the source article. It has some information that will save us a little back and forth. Page two and beyond is relevant information as to why the majority of paleontologists are not in agreement with Martin and Feduccia.

"'Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur,' Feduccia says. 'But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.'"
(Allan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms", Science, Vol. 259, 5 February 1993, p. 764)

It's Professor Alan again, but this time he's just making a rhetorical statement, which he has been criticized for, and it is being quoted by another author to illustrate some point: this is not Feduccia's writing in an article in Science. The actual article, as published in Science, was written by Virginia Morell. I can get no abstract for the article, and it is entirely uncited by other scientists, making it one small can of worms.

"Paleontologists continue to assess homology a posteriori from cladistic analysis of multiple synapomorphies and to explain discrepancies by mechanisms such as the frameshift hypothesis. In spite of developmental evidence that overwhelmingly supports a II- III-IV bird hand, in contrast to the I-II-III theropod hand, paleontologists will do whatever is necessary to accommodate the cladogram."
(Comments; Accommodating the Cladogram; by Alan Feduccia found in Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Posted May 25, 2001 - Issue 103. Please note: If this quote makes no sense, it is regarding the debate over the fact that the digits of the three fingers of the hand in theropods (I, II and III), differs from that of birds (II, III and IV). This is a major point against the camp that says that birds came from theropod dinosaurs.)(Sereno, Paul C., The evolution of dinosaurs, Science 284(5423):2137-2147 (quote on p. 2143), June 25, 1999)

A link to an extremely recent find, in lay, and the journal article. It is apparently a transitional form between early theropod dinosaurs and birds. Before, scientists had nothing in the digitary gap, but now they have a theropod with a toothless upper and lower jaw which has all the necessary digits to function as a transition, with the digit found missing in birds shrunken in this example. Slam dunk? One thing is certain: this matches with cladistic analyses -- which have always suggested birds descended from theropods, vindicating the scientists criticized as "accommodating the cladogram" by Alan Feduccia.

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."
(W.E. Swinton [British Museum of Natural History, London], 'The Origin of Birds', Chapter 1, in Biology & Comparative Physiology of Birds, A.J. Marshall (editor), Academic Press, New York, Vol. 1, 1960, pg. 1)

A quote from 1960? Really??? When we know that new bodies of evidence have emerged? I know it "supports" your case, but . . .

"Feathers are unique to birds, and no known structure intermediate between scales and feathers has been identified."
(J. Alan Feduccia, The Age of Birds, Harvard University Press, 1980, pg. 52)

View Post

Aaaaaaand see the response to the first quote again as to this being an expectation based on everything we know of dinosaur skin. As to this quote, aside from being 30 years old, and the discoveries of this, this, this, this, and this, to name a few, all happening after this book was written, it is again Feduccia, making me ask why you trust plain quotes from him with no supporting information when it favors you while you would obviously not accept his assertions of a reptile ancestor to birds based on similar bite-sized quotes.

Oh, and this demonstrates some of the actual controversy in science (note that it arises wherever there is room for speculation, not over evolution where there is no other scientific possibility), as well as the difficulties of the layperson, or in this case, the creationist website you ripped these quotes from, in keeping up with the bleeding edge of science.

#35 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 19 July 2009 - 04:08 PM

Why do birds have the genes for teeth? Even though they don't express them?


If molecules to man evolution is true,then why do organisms only loose traits instead of gaining them?

Now, I'm not entirely sure, but bacteria gaining the ability to digest nylon doesn't strike me as the loss of a trait.

Evolution certainly doesn't claim to be a succession of only losing traits, and that isn't what we observe, so your statement reads as a gross misunderstanding of the mechanics of evolution applied to a gross bastardization of what evolution would entail as carried out in nature, with the presumed effect of you disclaiming your nutty construct for the reason of being nutty. Needless to say, it's not evolutionary theory you are assessing, but your own strawman of it.

#36 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 July 2009 - 06:18 PM

Why do birds have the genes for teeth? Even though they don't express them?


If molecules to man evolution is true,then why do organisms only loose traits instead of gaining them?



Organisms do gain traits. You simply choose to ignore them.

#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 19 July 2009 - 10:09 PM

Now, I'm not entirely sure, but bacteria gaining the ability to digest nylon doesn't strike me as the loss of a trait.

Evolution certainly doesn't claim to be a succession of only losing traits, and that isn't what we observe, so your statement reads as a gross misunderstanding of the mechanics of evolution applied to a gross bastardization of what evolution would entail as carried out in nature, with the presumed effect of you disclaiming your nutty construct for the reason of being nutty.  Needless to say, it's not evolutionary theory you are assessing, but your own strawman of it.


Then please demonstrate a prediction that is'nt made by creation.If you think bacteria digesting nylon is an increase of genetic information,then where is the research without equivocation.All bacteria have the ability to gain new traits through horizontal gene transfer so the equivocation is double edged.

Being parasitic on reality in favor of fantasy,is by definition,intellictual dishonesty.

#38 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 July 2009 - 10:37 PM

Then please demonstrate a prediction that is'nt made by creation.If you think bacteria digesting nylon is an increase of genetic information,then where is the research without equivocation.All bacteria have the ability to gain new traits through horizontal gene transfer so the equivocation is double edged.

Being parasitic on reality in favor of fantasy,is by definition,intellictual dishonesty.

View Post


Nylong-eating Bacteria - Wikipedia

Here's a brief introduction to the subject.

-Arch

#39 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 20 July 2009 - 01:40 AM

Thanks for the link,Arch.

What we are looking for is the research that has verified the mechanism.They have'nt yet determined the exact mechanism.Scientists are divided and left to speculate on exactly how it happened.

If history has taught us anything,it's that evolution hides itself in the gaps of human knowledge,but can never reveal itself in the light of empirical testing without equivocation.

#40 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 20 July 2009 - 08:14 AM

Thanks for the link,Arch.

What we are looking for is the research that has verified the mechanism.They have'nt yet determined the exact mechanism.Scientists are divided and left to speculate on exactly how it happened.

If history has taught us anything,it's that evolution hides itself in the gaps of human knowledge,but can never reveal itself in the light of empirical testing without equivocation.

View Post

Actually, the mechanism is known, and it is detailed here and here (warning: PDFs). The new gene is the result of a duplication and frameshift, which is by all means an increase in information and the addition of a novel trait, rather than a change. Indeed, a duplication on its own would constitute a new trait (the ability to mutate a novel feature without the loss of an existing one), and would constitute an increase in information all on its own, but in this case we also have novel information, with the development of a novel trait which only is manifest since advent of nylon. Oh, and just for the record, even creationists aren't bold enough to claim gene duplication doesn't happen, as evidenced here, nevermind trying to discount frameshifts and viral insertions.

Now that you know, you can adopt the "Well, I'm sure it's not enough for an organism to evolve, it can only develop additional traits" while ignoring the fact that an organism's lineage can gain and lose traits over time until it looks vastly different from its progenitors. "I don't feel like it should be enough." What is there to guard such a creationist belief? Incredulity. You're just not familiar with all this information (but hey, neither is the average "evolutionist"). If you take an honest interest, and assess evolution once you know the facts, I think you'll accept it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users