Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?

"Perhaps you can explain why the fact that archaeopteryx is a clear intermediate is NOT in itself reason for an evolutionary interpretation."Because in one person's mind the similarity between two organisms means "intermediate" only because they assume that TOE is a fact of nature. To others who see that similarity, but see no peripheral evidence for support of that assumption, that similarity is only similarity. It means nothing more. Tell you what, if you can provide some peripheral evidence that in itself does not include the grand assumption that TOE is a reality, then I will give credence to it."If you properly analysed the platypus - as taxonomists have you would not conclude that it is related to birds. The "bill" resembles a duck's bill in general shape but it is not a beak."What makes it a beak or not? Both a duck and a platypus utilize the bill in the same manner. How are you defining "beak"?"The case for archaeopteryx IS based on the clear anatomical similarities. So long as you accept the possibility of evolution then evolution can be shown to be the best explanation for those similarities. All without assuming that evolution is true."This is not so. If you solely base Archy's stand as an intermediate on similarity alone, then it may have the credulity it would take in order to allow an unbaised mind to see TOE as a possibility. However, when we take all other things into consideration - such as that TOE has no bonafide mechanism for itself - the idea falls through, especially when there is no peripheral evidence to support the notion that can stand up against common sense evaluation and scientific scrutiny...unless one is attached to the notion from the outset."The same goes for whales - but more so since there are several species involved and the genetic data indicates a relationship which was LATER confirmed by clear fossil evidence."Have you examined those so-called whale evolution fossils closely with a scrutinizing eye, PaulK? Have you put into consideration all of the anatomical changes that would have had to take place and asked yourself how in the world could they have taken place and yet still produce a creature that could function long enough to reproduce and continue the line for hundreds of thousands of years while waiting for then next small point mutation to change it just a litle bit more? I have, and there is no way.Shifting the hip from canine position to modern whale position would require massive make-overs. This would change and destroy at the same time spinal attachments, nerve endings, muscluar structure, etc. The hind legs would eventually become useless, and how many thousands of amino acid substitutions would be necessary for such a feat? No one knows, but do you know why? Because evolutionary theorists give us only the just-so stories of how a whale came to be from a canine-like ancestor but never work out the details in how such a feat could even be a possibility.If you have seen one, please e-mail it to me, I will give you my address. But to tell me that a whale came from a land dwelling ancestor millions of years ago is to tell me nothing scientifically, it is a story, and nothing more. Based upon similarities and the fact that cladistics (utilizing the grand assumption) dictates that it must be so just because a whale is a mammal. That doesn't cut it, not until they can produce a plausible route for that evolutionary line."Your explanation offers no clear reasoning - but it seems that you do indeed insist that the proper approach is to close your mind to even the possibility of evolution. That would rule out finding evidence for evolution, but it would certainly not be a sound approach."What explanation? What I am addressing is the fact that evolutionary theorists have pulled the wool over the eyes of people, that their TOE explanations do not stand up against unblinded scrutiny. All evolutionary explanations to date that I have come across entail the grand assumption based on the grand assumption, based upon the grand assumption. Conjecture upon speculation upon assumption...with no peripheral evidential standing anywhere. This is where my scepticism lies, and this is why, from the standpoint of legal evidence, I do not consider evolution a possibility.This is why...ready? IN ORDER FOR AN ASSUMPTION TO BE CONSIDERED, IT MUST FIRST BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS ASSUMPTION IS A POSSIBILITY, AND THAT POSSIBILITY MUST FIT THE CIRCUMSTANCES.In other words, if you find me dead in my car, you could at first assume foul play. Once you examine the body as a good investigator would do, you find no evidence of foul play, therefore you have to rule out the possibility that I was murdered. This was a very real possibility at first, but the evidence ruled it out.AFter Darwin the possibility of TOE was brought to the forefront, but the idea has received too many death blows since that time, especially in the modern genetics age. The possibility has been eroded through scientific research, and at each turn in order to stick with the paradigm, the grand assumption has been utilized. Evidence upon evidence that incorporates the grand assumption does not stand, it fell, and great was the fall.If you can provide evidence that does not rest upon the grand assumption, that does not rest upon further evidence incorporating the grand assumption, then you will have 110% of my attention.Have a nice day!

PaulK and others, I don't have the time right at this moment to answer all these posts, but I will get to it ASAP!Have a nice day!

Certainly a single similarity between two animals does not give rise to a full-blown, developed theory of evolution. In the same way, one cannot extrapolate a line (or a trend) from a single point.But scientists have catalogued thousands of telling similarities between disparate species. The evolutionary model, therefore, was developed to explain the striking similarities between many, many animals and fossils. That one model can explain so much data is what makes it a very robust theory. If you deny evolutionary explanations then you need an ad hoc hypothesis for each individual case of similarity between species.The evolutionary model is inferred from a vast weight of separate data points. This is called "recognizing a trend." Do you then argue that this is an inappropriate way to analyze data? You should be prepared to demonstrate why, as the utility of generalizing data and establishing explanations is quite well demonstrated. It's the basis of science, you know. I don't understand what you mean by ToE having no mechanism for itself. The mechanisms are simple: heritable variation and natural selection. These two mechanisms are all that is needed to produce the diversity of life on Earth from a single ancestor. (Where that first ancestor first came from is not a part of the theory.) Both of these mechanisms have been modeled, tested, and verified. Given these two mechanisms, the ToE itself is a body of hypotheses concerning the evolutionary development of specific species. This is the historicity aspect of evolution. I'm sorry, your qualification to make sweeping changes about what is and what is not biologically possible stems from what? Personal incredulity, as many have pointed out, is not an appropriate argument. I'm sorry but I don not see you as the source of what is and is not possible.Consider that an organism is grown from scratch as part of its pre-natal development. Changes to gross body plan are not uncommon (human babies born with extra toes, without arms, etc all attest that gross body plans can be changed without terminal damage to the individual. For instance, the unfortunate case of the thalydimide babies - individuals born without arms, legs, or both continue to survive to adulthood.) Consider also that many species of insect undergo drastic metamorphosis where their bodies are literally reduced to component cells and built again. (Did you think that cocoon was magic?) Drastic body plan change is common in the animal world. Of course, it's only "change" to us. To the individual, they've always been that way. They were born that way. Again, how do you know? If the limbs are growing in that way to begin with (evolutionary biologists conclude that evolution in gross body plan is linked to the genes that control body development during gestation), why would anything have to be severed? If you would only look you would find that biologists have models for these scenarios. The details have been largely postulated. But they may not make sense to you (they only barely do to me) without a better grounding in both genetic and developmental biology. Potentially, hing legs could be made useless (and therefore out of the way, an advantage for a water-living organism) with changes to a few control genes.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

"The Platypus has a bill that resembles a duck's bill but is actually
an elongated snout covered with soft, moist, leathery skin and sensitive nerve endings. "
http://home.mira.net/~areadman/plat.htm
You might like to check out http://www.platypusforum.org/ as well- especially the "Evolution" section.Oh, and if the platypus usese it's bill like a duck perhaps that explains the shape.Taxonomy is based on an analysis of the complete organism - or as complete as we can manage.The rest of your post makes it quite clear that you really did mean that you deny the evidence for evolution on the grounds that you refuse to accept evolution as a possibility.THat means that your original claim that the evidence for evolution rquired assumign evolution was false and misleading. Yet you seem prepared to make accusation of deception against others with no more basis than the fact that you refuse to accept that evolution is possible.Let me correct some of your other errors. Evolution does not rely solely on point mutations. You have not truly considered the evolution of whales - nor how developmental biology works. You have not even considered the fact that whales are descended from ungulates, not dogs!But thank you for demonstrating that your original claim is false and that there is no point discussing the evidence with you since you refuse to accept even the possiblity of evidence.You have had evidence that does not resat on the assumption of evolution and you have offered no viable explanation for it. Looks like evolution wins again.

Phospho,Not a problem, take your time... message 49, when you're ready, please.Thanks,Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-01-2003]

bump.....

quote:

---

I quite agree, but observing a fossil form that has reptilian & bird like characters is independent of evolution, so by your own argument can be legitimately included as evidence. You do not have to assume evolution to observe the data.

---

True, I agree. What I am trying to help you understand is that simply observing the similar characters in an organism does not necessarily imply TOE, you do not need to assume evolution to observe the data. But the next step that an evolutionist will take is to say, "Look, this reptile has feathers like a modern day bird. Therefore it must be an intermediate between reptiles and birds." Now, where does this "therefore" statement come from? From the assumption of TOE, which at this point is not a "bad" thing, it is part of scientific investigation. What I am trying to get at is the fact that sooner or later, we must have solid evidence that needs no outrageous interpretation (interpretations that the facts do not warrant) in order for those assumptions to hold validity in the debate. And TOE has none.

quote:

---

False. Molecular phylogenies are based upon the TESTABLE assumption of heritable mutation, & that the nature of relationships can be recovered. So it to is independent of (macro)evolution, & is therefore also legitimate evidence.

---

But see, the assumption of heritable mutation is based upon the assumption that the entirety of the genome of every organism on this planet was formed by one successive mutation after another. This can not be tested, nor validated in any way, shape or form. As such, it is therefore invalid because the assumption is untestable. As a result, the assumption of heritable mutation is also untestable from being based on the first untestable assumption.

quote:

---

That is the data! The interpretation would be the methodology you used to determine the calibre of weapon used, with what weapon, from how far was it fired, fired by whom etc.

---

You are confusing interpretation of the data with the investigation of the crime. The two are not the same thing. The bullet hole needs no interpretation, it is a bullet hole. Determining the kind of firearm, calibre and so on is the investigative part, not the interpretating part.

quote:

---

So when evolutionary theory states that there should be fossils which possess characters between two later taxa (predictions), then we can legitimately interpret Archaeopteryx to be a transitional fossil between reptiles & birds.

---

The problem here is the FACT that TOE theorists NEVER predicted Archy, they found him and then retrodicted the entire scenario. A retrodiction does not hold the power that a prediction holds, it tells us nothing substantial that helps us in our investigation. A retrodiction is nothing but an observation after the fact. Also, we cannot legitimately interprete Archy as a transitional fossil because, once again, that interpretation comes from the assumption of TOE, springing from the assumption of similarity, springing from other assumptions all native to TOE alone, with no solid anchoring evidence.

quote:

---

And when molecular phylogeny produces consistent results that show modern lineages to be related in similar ways (again, a prediction), this is legitimate evidence of macroevolution in phylogenies consisting of of higher taxa.

---

First of all, molecular phylogeny is a sham. A phylogeny has to do with living organisms descending via sexual/asexual reproduction, and your molecules do not mate or divide to produce offspring. They are built by complicated biomolecular machinery within your cells.Secondly, think about what you are saying. If an organisms phenotype is different from another's by only a few differences, then their molecular make-up typically will differ also...where? Only in those areas within the genome corresponding to the physical differences. This does not give evidence of TOE, this only demonstrates developmental biological differences.

quote:

---

Science works like this: An observation is made that makes someone inductively derive a hypothesis. They basically go hmmm, I wonder if this larger idea I have explains the observation X? They then go on to make predictions, data that should be discovered if the hypothesis is indeed true. This is how a hypothesis is tested, by means of the predictions it makes. So, any data, like the existence of transitional forms, possessing characters between later taxa in the fossil record is perfectly valid, logical, evidence of evolution. Once you start racking up all the predictions that have been realised, then you can place much more confidence that your hypothesis is indeed indicative of reality. Such evidence may very well be equivocal or not, but it is still valid evidence. This is the process by which electrons were discovered, & is the same process by which evolution is supported evidentially.

---

True, absolutely true as far as you description of scientific method goes. However, this does not hold true for TOE. For example, July 2000 article in Scientific American, a peer-reviewed journal, Mayr makes the following clear statement about evolutionary theory in an article entitled "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought"..."Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." (p. 80)(Emphasis mine)By not holding to any laws of nature, TOE cannot be tested on any scientific level. By not holding to any laws, experimentation is indeed impossible. Predictions based upon cladistics is, as Mayr points out, only an exercise in "story telling" i.e., making up stories about how one thinks an organism came to be based upon the assumption that evolution is a reality.Now please tell me, if it cannot be tested empirically because it holds to no physical laws of nature, and if all evolutionary scenarios are only "just-so" stories based upon the assumption of TOE made up by evolutionary theorists on how they THINK it happened, what have you got if not the largest and most expensive fairy tale ever spun by the priest-hood of evolutionary theorists?

quote:

---

Observations are made without assuming evolution. The data is objective, not subjective. If the data is predicted by evolution, then it is evidence of evolution, in the same way we tested whether our victim was shot by a gun or a crossbow.

---

Again, you are confusing interpretation with the data at hand. When I said shot in the temple, I meant that the direct observation told the story without any interpretation. There was a bullet hole, no shaft sticking out of the deceased's head, only a circular hole which would also exclude a knife, axe, etc. This was not a test of the mode of death, it was a simple observation that needed no interpretation to one who has experience with types of wounds.Secondly, evolution is incapable of predicting anything, period. All such predictions are retrodictions, which are in fact observations after the fact, having no predictive power. As far as similarity goes in fossils, and stating that because TOE predicts similarities in species "related" by descent, this is nothing more than similarities and the assumption of TOE again, not circular reasoning, but circular argumentation.

quote:

---

A gradual morphological change over time, as predicted by evolution. A transition between taxa also documented by molecular evidence (who’s 2 testable assumptions are not that macroevolution is real, but that mutations are heritable, & the relationships of subsequent lineages can be recovered by phylogenetic analyses).

---

My last answer addresses both your pictures and the above quote. Nothing but pure similarity, mixed with the assumption of descent with modification from a single common ancestor. In reality, descent with modification from common ancestry can only be codified in direct ancestor - descendant relationships (your grandparents to your parents to you...not your ancestry 400 years ago, or worse), all else is untestable nonsense.It is common sense that amphibians and reptiles share more common characteristics that amphibians and humans. In and of itself this observation does not speak of descent with modification (TOE), all it speaks of is degrees of similarity / diversity ratios. And that is all that it speaks of. To see TOE in this scenario, you have to assume it into the equasion. This is fine, if once again, you have supporting peripheral observations that need hardly any or no interpretation, such as a bullet wound verses the shaft of an arrow sticking out of the wound.Every scenario in TOE is a made up story by a theorist holding to an untrue paradigm - naturalism. Naturalism is not the criterion of scientific investigation, discovering "what is" and "why it is" is the criterion, no matter where that may lead us. Because evolutionary theorists still to their paradigm over the scientific method, their "science" is performed incorrectly from the very beginning. TOE was assumed correct from the first printing of Origins and from that time onward theorists have only looked for confirming evidence, and have never been compelled to test their hypothesis.What destroys TOE today is the fact that we have young scientists today more interested in testing the theory's assumptions against the known FACTS of nature rather than blindly believing what they were told in our colleges and universities.Have a nice day!

quote:

---

Phylogenetic reconstruction is premised on the fact that mutations occur and can be passed on to progeny. That evolution is an underlying assumption is warranted.

---

A couple of things.#1 It is a fact that mutations occur.
#2 It is a fact that some mutations are passed on to progeny.
#3 TOE is not a warranted underlying assumption when it is divorced from the assumption that mutations add to the instructional information of the genome...which has never been established and codified as a reality.When it can be demonstrated that a mutation can add to the informational content of the genome instead of being neutral (like an extra space in a line of type) or destructive, then you will have a hypothesis that can be tested and demonstrated true or false. To date, TOE has none.Remember the definition of a mutation: a change in DNA by addition, deletion or substitution of amino acids during replication. Adaptive variational changes are not mutations, they are changes in the expression of genes switched on by environmental ques.

quote:

---

What evidence, in and of itself, devoid of interpretive bias, indicates a miraculous creation event no more than 10,000 years ago?

---

We are not discussing the evidences for creation on this board, only the evidential standing of similarity among organisms based upon the assumption of the fact of TOE.If you like, start one up and let me know where it is...although, since this discussion is taking a long, time consuming hand, it may be difficult for me to have enough time for this one and that one. If you don't mind long intervals between posts, go for it! I will be there. Just let me know where.Have a nice day![This message has been edited by PhospholipidGen, 04-04-2003]

quote:

---

Funny - I was not aware that any scientific theory would need to be 'established' in a court of law. Of course, this claim seems to have ignored the round-about way ion which bibical creationism was shown not to be scientific while evolution is in the Arkansas case in the 1980s.

---

Typical retort. However, in all court cases to date where evolution was the subject matter, it was always pitted against creation theory. Hopefully, the next time it comes up, it will not be as such, but instead the assumptions behind the theory will be addressed (if I have anything to do with it) and TOE will lose its profound standing in schools that it currently illegitimately enjoys.Hasta.

quote:

---

#3 TOE is not a warranted underlying assumption when it is divorced from the assumption that mutations add to the instructional information of the genome

---

What is "instructional information?"
Why the genome - what about epigenetic inheritance?

quote:

---

...which has never been established and codified as a reality.

---

What does "codified as a reality" mean?

quote:

---

Adaptive variational changes are not mutations, they are changes in the expression of genes switched on by environmental ques.

---

Says who?

quote:

---

We are not discussing the evidences for creation on this board

---

Read the title of the thread. Does the word "Duh" mean anything to you?

quote:

---

What destroys TOE today is the fact that we have young scientists today more interested in testing the theory's assumptions against the known FACTS of nature rather than blindly believing what they were told in our colleges and universities.

---

[Fix quote. --Admin]Could you give some details of the facts that you are referring to?I think there are also a number of facts which are taken as being in support of ToE. Are there any important one which you think are not factual?[This message has been edited by Admin, 04-06-2003]

Phospho,

quote:

---

Mark: Science works like this: An observation is made that makes someone inductively derive a hypothesis. They basically go hmmm, I wonder if this larger idea I have explains the observation X? They then go on to make predictions, data that should be discovered if the hypothesis is indeed true. This is how a hypothesis is tested, by means of the predictions it makes. So, any data, like the existence of transitional forms, possessing characters between later taxa in the fossil record is perfectly valid, logical, evidence of evolution. Once you start racking up all the predictions that have been realised, then you can place much more confidence that your hypothesis is indeed indicative of reality. Such evidence may very well be equivocal or not, but it is still valid evidence. This is the process by which electrons were discovered, & is the same process by which evolution is supported evidentially.

​

Phospho: True, absolutely true as far as you description of scientific method goes. However, this does not hold true for TOE.

---

Au contraire, see below.

quote:

---

For example, July 2000 article in Scientific American, a peer-reviewed journal, Mayr makes the following clear statement about evolutionary theory in an article entitled "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought"...

​

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." (p. 80)(Emphasis mine)
By not holding to any laws of nature, TOE cannot be tested on any scientific level. By not holding to any laws, experimentation is indeed impossible. Predictions based upon cladistics is, as Mayr points out, only an exercise in "story telling" i.e., making up stories about how one thinks an organism came to be based upon the assumption that evolution is a reality.

​

Now please tell me, if it cannot be tested empirically because it holds to no physical laws of nature, and if all evolutionary scenarios are only "just-so" stories based upon the assumption of TOE made up by evolutionary theorists on how they THINK it happened, what have you got if not the largest and most expensive fairy tale ever spun by the priest-hood of evolutionary theorists?

---

You agree with my definition of the scientific method, yet go off on a tangent with your own personal caveats. The ToE meets the standard of the scientific method, that you agree with, or it doesn’t. The SM doesn’t require events to be observed as they happen, nor does it require experiments. The fact remains, that Mayrs method actually meets the standard you agree with, read my description again. You are assuming that in order to be scientific, must be observed there and then, in order to be valid. It doesn’t have to be in order to be scientific.BTW, what physical law isn’t the ToE holding too? And phylogenetic analyses are empirical tests, & since a fossil is an actual observation, not derived theoretically or logically, it too is empirical. Anyway..Try this on for size:Observations/Premises:1/ The fossil record shows flora & fauna have changed over time. It also shows that there are increases & decreases in variety.2/ DNA is the molecule by which all morphological & chemical information is inherited.3/ Mutations occur as copying errors, & accumulate in the genome.Hypothesis/Inference:That the variety of life on earth came about by successive cladogenetic events, with changes in morphology, who’s cause was ultimately brought about by an accumulation of mutations.Predictions:1/ That the fossil record should show intermediate forms. A transitional is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa.2/ The accumulation of mutations should show a phylogenetic tree when such analysis is performed of extant DNA & protein sequences, & these trees should be broadly congruent.3/ 1 & 2 should support each other.Predictions that are borne out:1/ There are many such examples of potential intermediate forms, & of gradualism in the fossil record. Genetics, Paleontology, & Macroevolution by Jeffrey S. Levinton, 2nd Ed. P314-316 lists many primary sources.2/ Phylogenetic trees are broadly congruent, despite the vast odds of it occurring by chance. The number of possible trees from a ten taxa phylogeny is 34,459,425. So the odds of two ten taxa trees being congruent is 34.5 million : 1. When you start adding other congruent trees it starts getting silly, 1,187,451,971,330,625 : 1 for three such trees. Even accounting for the incongruences that occur, there is a very loud signal that begs an explanation.3/ 1 & 2 corroborate each other. Molecular & fossil evidence suggests birds are related most closely to reptiles, for example.Now, what’s your problem? This is a logically sound argument that is supported by a large amount of corroborative evidence. This gives a high degree of confidence that our hypothesis is indeed indicative of reality. You do not have to assume that the ToE is indicative of reality to begin with, you make predictions that test the theory, they may not have panned out, but against vast odds of occurring by chance alone, they did. This meets the standard of the scientific method you agree absolutely with. Please don’t insert your own caveats.Either you accept the scientific method, or you don't. Things that adhere to it's reason & logic aren't invalid on your say so.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-06-2003]

Not an important point, but SciAm is not a "peer-reviewed" journal. While the articles in SciAm certainly go through various levels of review and editing, they are not "peer-reviewed" but are primarily a recitation of recent developments targeted at laypeople. You've misunderstood what Mayr is saying. He isn't saying that the TOE doesn't adhere to physical laws, because it most certainly does. All he's saying is that it is inappropriate to develop evolutionary laws. Mayr makes his point more clearly on page 81 when he says: It isn't that biological concepts don't follow these laws, but simply that they are made at such a high level of complexity and abstraction that they cannot be expressed in terms of fundamental physical laws.--Percy

quote:

---

What evidence, in and of itself, devoid of interpretive bias, indicates a miraculous creation event no more than 10,000 years ago?

---

Imo, all so called evidence, both claimed by creationists and evolutionists is not in and of itself, devoid of interpretive bias.The more complex we find things like cells and DNA to be, the more the creationist can observe the evidence and conclude that these didn't assmble and progress without intelligent design. Too many timely senarios are required for everything to happen by accident.

As I appreciate it, the Archaeopteryx fossils can be advanced as a problematic evidence for the theory of separate creations. Mr Buzsaw, you said that our biases cannot be separated from how we see the evidence. I want to know what you think of the toothed, clawed, long-tailed bird Archaeopteryx, in light of the theory of separate creation. Can you give a different explanation other than our evolutionary interpretation of its transitional status?