Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 12:44 PM
334 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo (6 members, 328 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,247 Year: 28,853/21,208 Month: 919/1,847 Week: 294/475 Day: 59/82 Hour: 3/15

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2728
29
3031
...
35Next
Author Topic:   Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?
Taq
Member
Posts: 7280
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 421 of 518 (811351)
06-07-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by mike the wiz
06-01-2017 3:17 PM


Re: falling into place
mike the wiz writes:

And the award for the post most packed with question-begging-epithets goes to...............

Read any peer review journal on the relevant scientific subjects. Find out for yourself what the scientific consensus is.

What you will find is that no one is presenting any research on a Young Earth, a recent global flood, a recent origin of fossil and living species, or the separate creation of species groups. None. Nada. Zip. Those subjects are dead, and it is backed by the simplest of PubMed or Google Scholar searches.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by mike the wiz, posted 06-01-2017 3:17 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7280
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 422 of 518 (811352)
06-07-2017 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
06-01-2017 12:33 PM


Re: Not trashed at all, in fact falling more clearly into place
Faith writes:

What led me to the two-allele gene was the recognition that it is sufficient to produce all the diversity that exists and then some.

That is disproven by the multiple alleles for HLA-B that have different functions against different diseases.

And if this is the illusion I think it is, based on the fact that it so far manages not to be overtly and immediately destructive, and that its displacement of an original better system is hidden by these facts, even though it actually allows more diseases than it protects against, you can go along being deceived by it for quite some time.

A less fit system would not replace a fitter system. It's called natural selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 12:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10121
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 423 of 518 (811353)
06-07-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Faith
06-07-2017 10:47 AM


Re: YEC requires selection on mutants
But I will make one point: if all those mutant alleles really contribute to protection against many diseases it's rather odd that we seem (to me anyway) to have a lot more immune deficiency diseases than ever before.

Again, the multiple gene systems still exist, so there is no way to blame this all on mutant alleles. Secondly, "seems to me anyway" with an anecdote or two is not really evidence. We have no idea what immune deficiency diseases people died from 6000 years ago. And of course, pathogens evolve two.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Not really, it is a theory that is imposed on nature so consistently that you think you are observing it. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 06-07-2017 10:47 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7280
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 424 of 518 (811355)
06-07-2017 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
06-03-2017 3:46 PM


Re: YEC requires selection on mutants
Faith writes:

Haven't seen any evidence that all these alleles do anything new, so I assume they just do whatever the original alleles did for any given gene.

We have already shown you that different alleles have different activities against different diseases. That is something new, times 100.

All that's needed to create all the known diversity since the Ark is two alleles per gene shared by all individuals.

That's disproven by the hundreds of HLA-B alleles that are observed in the human population. The existence of these alleles isn't theoretical. It is a fact.

If there are too many mutations to have occurred in the last 4500 years since the Ark, what can I do but assume that for some reason they occurred a lot faster than usual since then, at least in the immune system which appears to be unusual for its great number.

You could take a second and realize that you are trying to force your theory onto reality, and ignoring the evidence that falsifies your theory.

You don't need selection to increase the number of a certain allele in the population if it does the same thing as the original alleles or SOME original allele somewhere in the original system. Anything that actually functions is going to be passed on no matter what because there's no reason for it not to be.

Then we should see the same amount of genetic drift in other genes, but we don't. There is simply not enough time for these neutral mutations to reach such a high percentage of the population.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 3:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7280
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 425 of 518 (811357)
06-07-2017 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Faith
06-07-2017 10:47 AM


Re: YEC requires selection on mutants
Faith writes:

But I will make one point: if all those mutant alleles really contribute to protection against many diseases it's rather odd that we seem (to me anyway) to have a lot more immune deficiency diseases than ever before. I note mention of them here and there, but I also have personal experience of it: A friend of mine suddenly acquired one a few years ago and was dead within six months of his first symptoms, a rare muscle-wasting immune deficiency disease that hit him out of the blue in the midst of what had seemed like a condition of robust health.

In what world does your anecdotal account of two friends with immune related disease equal a worldwide increase in immune related diseases?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 06-07-2017 10:47 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 426 of 518 (823013)
11-05-2017 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
05-07-2017 12:09 PM


If all the kinds were on the ark, then the millions of species today had to have come from those kinds. We know the timeframe so it had to be fast. That means evolving was fast in the former nature.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluegenes, posted 05-07-2017 12:09 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by jar, posted 11-05-2017 6:14 AM starman has responded
 Message 428 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2017 10:11 AM starman has responded
 Message 431 by ringo, posted 11-05-2017 1:50 PM starman has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29779
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 427 of 518 (823014)
11-05-2017 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by starman
11-05-2017 2:38 AM


starman writes:

If all the kinds were on the ark, then the millions of species today had to have come from those kinds. We know the timeframe so it had to be fast. That means evolving was fast in the former nature.

What former nature? The flood was supposed to have happened only about 4000 years ago. That's almost just yesterday. That is not former but present.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 2:38 AM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:22 PM jar has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 428 of 518 (823021)
11-05-2017 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by starman
11-05-2017 2:38 AM


Wrong again
If all the kinds were on the ark, then the millions of species today had to have come from those kinds.

So some creationists have claimed.

Scientists see the change from Home erectus to modern man taking place over some two million years. Creationists generally balk at the idea that evolution can produce new kinds in two million years--or at all--but now are proposing that such change can occur in a couple of thousand years.

Creationists Lubenow and Woodmorappe write that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.

If this was the case, the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago. The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times faster than scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!


We know the timeframe so it had to be fast. That means evolving was fast in the former nature.

Unfortunately for creationists, the evidence shows they are wrong about this also.

(Oh, incidentally, there was no flood during historic times either.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 2:38 AM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:31 PM Coyote has responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 429 of 518 (823027)
11-05-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by jar
11-05-2017 6:14 AM


If there was a different nature, (and science doesn't know either way) then we could not use features of THIS nature like radioactive decay to ascertain ages.

My opinion at the moment is that the flood was somewhere around the KT layer era. That is of course some almost 70 million imaginary years in so called science time!

Wherever a nature change occurred is where we leave off being able to determine actual time for. So if a change was say, 4400 years ago, all dates beyond that determined by using decay would be bogus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by jar, posted 11-05-2017 6:14 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by JonF, posted 11-05-2017 2:48 PM starman has responded
 Message 434 by jar, posted 11-05-2017 2:51 PM starman has responded
 Message 435 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2017 3:56 PM starman has responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 430 of 518 (823029)
11-05-2017 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Coyote
11-05-2017 10:11 AM


Re: Wrong again
quote:
So some creationists have claimed.

Scientists see the change from Home erectus to modern man taking place over some two million years.



Lots of changes did happen. The changes were mostly in the former nature though, and were lightning fast in comparison to today. Most evolving of the kinds could have happened within a century. Possibly living creatures in the former state may have evolved while alive even!? In any case adapting and evolving were FAST.

quote:
Creationists generally balk at the idea that evolution can produce new kinds in two million years--or at all--but now are proposing that such change can occur in a couple of thousand years.
No, in days! (back then, not now)

quote:
Creationists Lubenow and Woodmorappe write that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
Who knows? I submit that man and most animals could not even leave fossilized remains in the former state, so that we do not know what they looked like then! All bones and fossils of man are post flood.
quote:

If this was the case, the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago.

Funny you should say that. Thie time of Babel was about the very time when I pinpoint that the nature changed probably!
quote:

The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times faster than scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!
No problem. I can out evolution the evolutionists!
quote:

Unfortunately for creationists, the evidence shows they are wrong about this also.
(Oh, incidentally, there was no flood during historic times either.)
I agree. History started after the flood. As for evidence...what are you talking about exactly?

Edited by starman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2017 10:11 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2017 2:33 PM starman has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13982
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 431 of 518 (823040)
11-05-2017 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by starman
11-05-2017 2:38 AM


starman writes:

That means evolving was fast in the former nature.


I find it interesting [translate: hilarious] that creationists use ultra-fast evolution to try to disprove evolution. You might as well try to argue that bumble bees can only fly supersonically.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 2:38 AM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 4:24 PM ringo has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 432 of 518 (823052)
11-05-2017 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by starman
11-05-2017 1:31 PM


Re: Wrong again
As for evidence...what are you talking about exactly?

How about evidence from decades of archaeology which I have done personally (and professionally)?

I have radiocarbon dated mtDNA from before to after the purported dates of the flood and babel, and there is continuity--no change from Native American haplotypes to those associated with the Near East (i.e., Noah's female kin).

I have cultural continuity over the same time periods, and consistent stratigraphic layering with no major erosion or deposition that would be associated with a massive flood.

What we do have in southern Washington, though, is evidence of the peri- and post-glacial floods (google "channeled scablands"). These are three times older than the purported global flood, and their extent and dating can readily be established. The same can't be said for Noah's flood.

And putting the flood at the KT event? Do you realize how much established science has to be ignored or hand-waved away for anyone to believe such a thing?

Face it, religious belief is not scientific evidence.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:31 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 4:23 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 433 of 518 (823053)
11-05-2017 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by starman
11-05-2017 1:22 PM


Radioactive decay rates are set by some of the fundamental properties of the universe. Significant change would leave traces. There are none. The most obvious would be an Earth sterilized and molten from the heat and radiation.

Were the properties of the universe different back then there would not be any life as we knew it.

Any fantasy you produce has consequences. We've seen them all before.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:22 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 4:37 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29779
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 434 of 518 (823054)
11-05-2017 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by starman
11-05-2017 1:22 PM


most of us are neither utterly ignorant or utterly dishonest
Are you really that utterly ignorant or are you like all Creationists just a handicapped?

starman writes:

If there was a different nature, (and science doesn't know either way) then we could not use features of THIS nature like radioactive decay to ascertain ages.

How handicapped Creationists are and how pitiful.

Change leaves evidence. If there was a different nature those of us not in the Christian Cult of Ignorance could see the evidence.

We had the same conversation that last time you made a hit-n-run appearance and in fact during every one of your hit-n-run appearances.

Those of us who are neither stupid or dishonest can look at the evidence of the waste products from the Oklo reactor and see that radioactive decay was the same about two billion years ago as it was today. We can look at the spectrum from stars and see that radioactive processes were the same many billions of years ago as they are today.

starman writes:

My opinion at the moment is that the flood was somewhere around the KT layer era. That is of course some almost 70 million imaginary years in so called science time!

And more ignorance, pitiful ignorance, woeful ignorance and utter dishonesty.

The imaginary Biblical flood, regardless of which of the two mutually exclusive flood myths got included in the Bible stories, claims that there were men and women and cattle and sheep and pigs and ravens and doves and lions and tigers and bears and ohmys that existed from the beginning, regardless of which of the two creation myths that got included in the Bible stories yet there is not a single fossil of any of the imaginary kinds mentioned in any of the Bible stories below the K/T boundary.

So we have evidence that the radioactive decay is the same today as it was billions of years ago (and so the same as it was at the time of the K/T boundary) and evidence that none of the Biblical kinds got killed anywhere near the time of the K/T event and so once again that is simply more evidence that the Biblical flood never happened.

starman writes:

Wherever a nature change occurred is where we leave off being able to determine actual time for. So if a change was say, 4400 years ago, all dates beyond that determined by using decay would be bogus.

It might be where the utterly ignorant or utterly dishonest leave off being able to determine actual time but it is not a problem for those of us who are not utterly ignorant or utterly dishonest.

Those of us who are not Creationists are capable of thinking.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:22 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 4:35 PM jar has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19309
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 435 of 518 (823063)
11-05-2017 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by starman
11-05-2017 1:22 PM


If there was a different nature, (and science doesn't know either way) ...

Curiously science has tested and tested and tested to see if there was a "different nature" and have found no trace of it.

Uranium halos for example. See Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?

My opinion at the moment is ...

Completely irrelevant. Opinions for some strange reason seem to have absolutely no effect on reality.

Wherever a nature change occurred is where we leave off being able to determine actual time for. So if a change was say, 4400 years ago, all dates beyond that determined by using decay would be bogus.

And yet we DO have several annual counting systems that don't rely on radioactive decay that show the earth is well over 500,000 years old and ... amazingly they agree totally with the radiometric dates.

You have yet to even pretend to attempt to posit an explanation for this. All you have is fantasy.

And yet, whether you like it or not, there is an amazing consilience of many different means of measurements all reaching the same conclusion.

So we have:

  1. zero evidence of any change in the nature of things
  2. actual evidence that there has been no change in the nature of things
  3. no cause to posit a change in the nature of things

FAIL #3

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:22 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 4:45 PM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2728
29
3031
...
35Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017