Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

I must have missed this. Where is it?And why are you talking about "blog posts?" Was some of this conversation you are referring to carried on somewhere else?

Well I wasn't very clear I guess but your response made an even bigger mess of it than it was. All I was saying is that I don't know HOW many generations it would take and that it's not important to know how many, which is synonymous with how much time it would take. It could take a lot of generations or not so many, depending, as I said, on accidental circumstances.If it's this easy to get misread you ought to see why it's important to me to define terms.I'll come back to this tomorrow.

quote:

---

Hydraulic sortibng plus original location of the original creature, plus level of the currents in the ocean that carried them etc etc etc.

---

And still not even plausible. Dinosaurs lived all over the world, had a huge range of sizes and shapes. Even the difference between Cretaceous and Jurassic dinosaurs is a problem for you. And when we add in the marine reptiles of those eras and the pterodactyls we really have to ask ourselves how they came to be restricted to a relatively narrow range of eras, with no modern mammals - none from the huge range of different mammals alive today - mixed in with them.Hydraulic sorting isn't any real help. Location isn't either. Ocean currents would really depend on location again so it isn't really distinct.I guess that Mikey really should have discouraged you from going this route - instead of encouraging it, as he did.

Complete and utter nonsense!Words have meanings. Discussion requires that we all use the same definitions for the words that we use. Without that, there can be no discussion.Here's an analogy I wrote for you earlier but haven't posted until now:

quote:

---

You are in a marketplace in Italy. You tell the salesperson in English what you want. The salesperson doesn't speak English, so he doesn't understand you. So you do what you always do: you repeat it in English, only louder (yeah, that always works in these situations as any American tourist will tell you). He still doesn't understand. So you keep yelling at him LOUDER and LOUDER as you always do. And guess what. He still doesn't understand you even when you're screaming at him at the top of your lungs. If instead you were to have learned a little Italian then he would have understood you. But, no, you "don't have the time" and you have no desire to bother learning even the most basic vocabulary, even though doing so would solve the problem immediately. But the very next day you're back in the marketplace yelling at the salesman again in English. And the day after. And the day after that. And the day after that.

---

You need to use the language of the subject of the discussion. That includes using the definitions that everybody knows for the words that are being used. Those definitions are the standard definitions. By using the standard definitions, you will understand everything that we write -- doesn't mean you have to agree with those concepts, but you will understand what we're writing.And more important, by you using the standard definitions we will understand what you are writing. Look back on most of the rancor that you've raised here. What was the cause? How many times have you nearly given yourself ulcers in your fury at us for not understanding what you've written? Well, that is what happens when you concoct your own definitions for words. All that creates is confusion, which leads to us having to pull teeth to get out of you what you're talking about and you getting angry and frustrated and ulcerated because we don't understand you.If you want us to understand you, then use the standard definitions. Also, learn the basic vocabulary of geology (which means you have to gain some basic knowledge of geology) and of biology and of genetics and of evolution (which means gaining some basic knowledge of those subjects). Remember, learning about something does not require believing in it -- eg, when the US Air Force instructed us in Marxism and Communism.Refusing to use the same definitions only results in confusion. And you getting ulcers. Your stomach.

No, it is important that you use standard terminology and definitions.

quote:

---

I must have missed this. Where is it?

​

And why are you talking about "blog posts?" Was some of this conversation you are referring to carried on somewhere else?

---

Easy to summarise the first. I suggested that you needed better arguments and evidence and that you should learn to tell good arguments from bad.Mikey raises and links to his blog post in Message 48 You can see where the discussion went there.

Well, it's really a narrow range of layers, not eras. It's just mammals that you notice are absent? What about creatures lower in the strata, none of them either? If no other animals are found with them in their layers that should be a hint that they aren't eras at all but locations where dinosaurs were buried. I mean what reason could there be for an absence of all the creatures that came before dinosaurs? Dinosaur beds often have the look of a bunch of them having been buried together in a massive mudslide. It was nice of him to come and encourage me at all.

quote:

---

Well, it's really a narrow range of layers, not eras.

---

I meant to write strata, there, so you're right. But it still needs explaining.

quote:

---

It's just mammals that you notice are absent? What about creatures lower in the strata, none of them either? If no other animals are found with them in their layers that should be a hint that they aren't eras at all but locations where dinosaurs were buried

---

Oh no, I didn't mention the amphibians because you would just argue that that was different locations (even though such a claim is hard to support). I guess that there is some distinctive land life from the Permian, though which is worthy of mention. And of course we find plenty of other life in layers with dinosaurs, birds, crocodiles, the first snakes even some mammals. Not to mention the sea life.

quote:

---

Dinosaur beds often have the look of a bunch of them having been buried together in a massive mudslide.

---

There may be some that are, but there are plenty of dinosaur fossils found in different places which definitely weren't.

That's helpful actually. I usually try to remember to list all the possible synonyms, variety, race, breed, species, subspecies, but often forget some of them, but I would like to be as clear as possible so I'll stop using "variety" when I'm talking about animals. That's fine, can do. But that means I'm going to have to keep saying that I do not regard the product of "speciation" as a new species, but only a subspecies that can no longer interbreed with others of its kind. But maybe that would be clearer anyway. ABE: "Speciation" as I've been thinking of it is a specific event that is usually presented as the product of a population split, as I've encountered it anyway. I'm getting the impression there are confusions associated with my attempt to use the term this way, so I need a clear way of saying what I have in mind. As the product of a population split on my model it has to be a subspecies not a new species, even if it can no longer interbreed with others of its kind. /ABE I've lost track of what this refers to so I'll just skip it. I simply need a way to say clearly that on my model what is called speciation is not macroevolution but just a subspecies that has microevolved to the point that it can no longer interbreed with others of its species. If this is not clear please suggest a clearer way to say what I mean. I tend to be thinking of dogs and cats myself. This is apparently a problem with the word "species" which although I said I meant "variety" by it, to you it obviously implies inability to interbreed, but I didn't mean to imply that." I was saying something quite casual, answering a question: How long to get a clearcut subspecies or race or breed is what I had in mind. A couple hundred years max would be my guess. Sure it depends on the number of generations so it could go faster with more frequently breeding creatures. I'm sorry to say that I have NO idea what you are getting at in all the above quoted. Perhaps it is a problem with the way I'm using words as you've said. You think you've defeated some assumption of mine but I don't even know what you think that assumption is let alone how you think you've defeated it.I was guessing it would take a few hundred years from the ark to establish a welldefined subspecies like lions or bobcats, or coyotes. I never meant to imply anything about loss of ability to interbreed, which might or might not occur, and equating "species" with "variety" ought to have been a clue to that. To establish a human racial group I suppose I'd guess about the same amount of time, a couple hundred years. So you think you've defeated this guess? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If one was to assume that the Ark held the genetically superiour animals then why do we not have them among our midst anymore? Where did they vanish?Is it not so that YECs claim that speciation is only genetic variation based on degeneration ie. that all modern animals (humans included) are weaker than the "original" ones? That being the reason why Noah lived 900 years and roughly 12 or 22 men were able to build cities...

Changing the sequence of DNA can create an entirely new allele (trait) that did not previously exist. That is this new sequence of DNA will, in turn, construct new sequences of amino acids which, in turn, combine to form new protiens which, in turn, can alter the morphological characteristics of that type of organism. All that evolution needs to move forward is enough variation in a population to genetically isolate it from other populations of the same species enough to not be able to interbreed with the previous population and thus make a new species. Or create an allele for a new trait not previously existing in that type of organism. Most mutations are neutral not destructive. That is because many multicellular organisms are diploid and have duplicate chromosomes which can correct or mitigate the effects caused by mutations that may occur on the other chromosome. However, sometimes the effects of mutations (point, insert, deletion, frameshift, etc) overcome this mitigating factor to the point that new traits can come into existence. Since natural selection and other factors weed out the organisms with mutations that are potentially harmful to a species, mutations which cause new traits to be introduced are inherently 'favored' by nature to perpetuate. It changes the sequence of the genome which by definition changes the genome just like changing the amount of ingredients or the procedural steps of a recipe for a cake can change the outcome of that cake (or even create something different from a cake). See my explanation above. Junk DNA is a misnomer. Much of this 'junk' DNA actually serves a purpose and is a carry over of mutations from previous generations. The very existence of junk DNA, much carried over from the evolving of one species to another, is evidence for the TOE. Changes in traits combine to change the "formula" for that species. A change in the sequence of nucleotides in DNA can produce new traits. Even in single cell organisms such as E-coli bacteria there may be over 4 million base pairs (nucleotides), yet this bacteria only has about 3000 genes. Are you saying that any mutations of this DNA will ONLY result in one of the 3000 pre-defined genes being changed of another, and never creating a new gene with a different sequence of base pairs? If so what is keeping new sequences of gene base pairs other than the already exhibited genes from being created? No evidence to back up this claim. Correct, but this allele (gene sequence) can be a newly introduced one as opposed to one that existed previously in a population so your point it moot.Below is an example of the evolution of hindwings of fruit flys and beetles caried over by mutations in the regulatory genes of ancestral four wing insects as an example of how mutations in DNA can cause new traits to arise. This is but one of many examples of how mutations can cause new genetic traits to be introduced. For more in depth analysis of this, here is the link: From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design - Sean B. Carroll, Jennifer K. Grenier, Scott D. Weatherbee - Google BooksEdited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

How long have you got?But in this instance, genetics. Once more I urge you to get a basic book on it and read it.

Very quickly on one item before I rush off to work. Posting a short one-paragraph disclaimer should do.When the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) was still in Santee, CA, and was offering post-graduate science degrees, the State Board sent a visitation committee to determine whether it could remain accredited (this was just before 1990, as I recall). I obtained a copy of the visitation committee's report. In one biology class they observed, they were shown that a standard textbook was being used, but the difference was in how it was being used. The instructor was having the class go through the book with markers crossing out everything that they didn't believe -- "OK, we don't believe that. And we don't believe that either."In a regular school, we study and learn about anything and everything. We can do that because the goal is understanding the material, not compelling believe in the ideas. What the ICR school was doing was eliminating everything that they didn't believe so that the students wouldn't need to think about any of it. Why is it so hard for them to understand that you can learn about and discuss and consider the consequences of ideas that you don't believe in? Instead that school was imposing ignorance, the opposite of education.So, you should have no problem learning about and thinking about and discussing ideas that you don't believe in. If you want to post a short disclaimer at the start of each message, then do so -- you can easily write it in a text editor and save it, then copy-and-paste it each time you use it. It would be best to not include disclaimers throughout the discussion as that would reduce the readability.

Let's look at your claims.First, you claim there were basic forms on the ark, with subsequent evolution into modern species and radiation outwards from the Middle East. This had to take place in 4,350 years since the flood.Actually, this evolution would have to take place very shortly after the ark landed, as historical records do not show the intermediate forms. You would think somebody would have noticed critters changing that rapidly.Also, archaeological excavations show only modern forms. I have found all the modern critters you would ever want, in sites dating back thousands of years, but no intermediate forms. Deer, elk, bears, mountain lions and all the rest are fully modern.But we do see evidence in the fossil record of those earlier forms you need to have. They go back millions to tens of millions of years.You say you don't want to deal with dating but you need to. You can't just keep denying what is supported by massive amounts of evidence for many different dating methods.Your needed scenario of transitional critters after the ark doesn't work, but those same critters are found in the fossil record long before humans show up.So, your suggestion that critters evolved after the ark landed is partially correct in that they did evolve, but not nearly as fast as you would need and not radiating out from the Middle East.So, I'm glad that you are beginning to accept evolution. Now we just have to work on the dating issue.

That is exactly what we would expect to find! A form of critter between the supposed ancestral "kind" of feline and the various types of felines that currently exist. These intermediary forms should be between the Middle East (Supposed Ark landing point) and the region where the feline type (Lion, Tiger, Panther, etc...) currently lives. You claim there is no way to tell what cats were like on the ark, but because the flood killed almost all animals in your scenario, wouldn't any felines fossilized in the Strata (formed by the flood in your viewpoint) point a marker toward the original cat "kind"? We should especially see the intermediaries between these large cats and the future domesticated feline and this should appear not in the strata, because the flood already laid it down, but in the same area where we find human remains, in the sediments that have not had time to lithify. He is saying in the recent past (the same sediments we find modern humans in) we do not find evidence of transitionals between an ancestral "kind" and the modern form of felines. Rather, we continuously see modern forms in these same areas as modern humans. In the case of civilization, yes like today's housecats. In the wild, we see the forms of lions, tigers, cheetahs in the recent past, but no connections between these cats are included in the recent past. Now Coyote has left the field of archaeology and is entering into paleontogy. Archaeology deals primarily with the search for human remains, artifacts and civilizations while paleontology is the field that enters the strata to find ancient biological life of all types. The main area that archaologists explore has to do with human origins. Coyote is discussing that paleontologists, when looking through the strata do see these transitional forms between modern animals (cats, lions, etc..) and more ancient forms. However, these findings do not help your scenario because these ancient creatures are buried in what you would call pre-flood or during the flood catastrophes. None of the animals in the strata would be available to "micro-evolve" into something else, on the account of being dead in your scenario. Noah would have taken one pair (or seven, not sure on the clean animal rules here), and it should be represented by some fossil cat buried in the flood, say.....something like this Scientists discovered the oldest cat fossilThis would be a good idea for something that would have led to all other forms of feline in your scenario. Here is the problem though, in recent digs into the more recent past, where human ancestors are found, these cats (and transitionals to the modern forms) are not found. This would be required for your scenario.Finally, I saw that you have shrunk the evolution to modern forms from "kinds" down to approximately 1,000 years in your estimate. So, figuring this out similarly to how Bill Nye did, this would mean that your 7,000 "kinds" would have to turn into approximately 44 Brand-new species per day!!! That is still an amazing thing to witness and any human alive would be writing about it and would have been fascinated by the abundance of new creatures every day! Also, as per your question on this yes Bill did include insects in his count because insects are animals...Coyote, if I got anything wrong, please feel free to correct me on it. Thanks!