|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Study of Intelligent Design Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Conclusions have been reached, reptiles & mammals won't be in the same baramin, fish & amphibians won't be in the same baramin, & Homo sapiens won't be in the same baramin as other primates. All this was concluded before they lit the bunsen burner. It is according to scripture. The nuber ONE consideration. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by John Paul: John Paul:Wow. How many times do you have to be told that this is a reletively recent research venture, that the research is ongoing and no conclusions have been reached yet? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mark: Conclusions have been reached, reptiles & mammals won't be in the same baramin, fish & amphibians won't be in the same baramin, & Homo sapiens won't be in the same baramin as other primates. All this was concluded before they lit the bunsen burner. John Paul:First, when taken in context. I was referring to specific conclusions that schraf appears to want. As for reptiles & mammals not being in the same baramin- it's that way in the classification system we use now. The same goes for fish & amphibians. Humans and other primates hasn't been finished yet. Mark:It is according to scripture. The nuber ONE consideration. John Paul:Yup, it's called conducting research under a Biblical framework ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 1/ Reptiles & Mammals are in the same holobaramin. 2/ "conducting research under a Biblical framework" presupposes scripture validity, & isn't science. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Especially when any results that contradict Scripture are tossed out on the basis of this 'biblical framework'. Just read Robinson and Cavanaugh's primate paper in CRSQ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: I've searched, but can't find the paper. Do you have a link? Much appreciated, Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: The abstract should be available through CRSQ. I believe their address is www.creationresearch.org. You can do an author search at the link to their 'journal'. It is CRSQ 34(4):196-208. "A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology with Examples from the Catarrhine Primates." Its a hoot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
"We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates. "
Meaning 12S-rRNA sequences showed humans & primates to be very similar indeed. Priceless. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"conducting research under a Biblical framework" presupposes scripture validity, & isn't science."
--I thought you wanted to know what a biblical 'kind' was? ---------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Meaning 12S-rRNA sequences showed humans & primates to be very similar indeed. Priceless."
--I would expect much simmilarity, wouldn't you? We both have significantly simmilar structure, but then again when you look at this close resemblance and see exactly how large a quantity the similarity is (97-99% similarity) you see the ratio of even this 3-1 and even less is an emense amount of information, and thus, the differentation. --------------- [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-19-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Not too many of my posts get many replies need there be a one.
------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
So there is no more argument from evolutionists that Intelligent design isn't present?
------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
But 12S-rRNA sequences were rejected. Why?
Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Were not rejected but 'were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates. '
--I would expect much similarity from humans and various primates, but as I emphesized above, this small percentage as it seems small, is an extreamly large quantity of difference. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: No, I wouldn't expect any particular similarity in bio-molecules if God did it. Cytochrome c has no particular relation to form or appearance, yet human & chimp cytochrome c is identical. The further the genetic distance (re. morphological phylogeny), the greater the difference between a humans, & another organisms cytochrome c. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON God gave humans & chimps the same molecule UNLESS THEY ARE CLOSELY RELATED. The molecule performs EXACTLY the same function in whatever organism it is found in. Why does a chimp have "human" cytochrome c, when it could function just as well with a slugs cytochrome c? So, please explain why a molecule differs with distance, in relation to morphological phylogenies, when it has no relation to those taxonomies, if it isn't a product of common descent with modification? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 01-29-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Irreducable complexity eh...
From:
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html "Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required. The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system "have to be there from the beginning" is dead wrong. It's worth noting that our scenario is neither hypothetical nor confined to the often irretrievable world of biological history. Indeed it's a common experience among computer programmers. Anyone who programs knows how easy it is to write yourself into a corner: a change one makes because it improves efficiency may become, after further changes, indispensable. Improvements might be made one line of code at a time and, at all stages, the program does its job. But, by the end, all the lines may be required. This programming analogy captures another important point: If I were to hand you the final program, it's entirely possible that you would not be able to reconstruct its history-that this line was added last and that, in a previous version, some other line sat between these two. Indeed, because the very act of revising a program has a way of wiping out clues to its history, it may be impossible to reconstruct the path taken. Similarly, we have noguarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway. But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution any more than the irreducible complexity of a program does-which is to say, not at all. I wish I could claim credit for this Darwinian model of irreducible complexity, but I'm afraid I've been scooped by eighty years. This scenario was first hinted at by the geneticist H.J. Muller in 1918 and worked out in some detail in 1939 Indeed, Muller gives reasons for thinking that genes which at first improved function will routinely become essential parts of a pathway. So the gradual evolution of irreducibly complex systems is not only possible, it's expected. For those who aren't biologists, let me assure you that I haven't dug up the half-baked lucubrations of some obscure amateur. Muller, awarded the Nobel Prize in 1946, was a giant in evolution and genetics." ROTFLMAO Did " Behe forget to do some reading?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024