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

Phospho,

quote:

---

The evolutionary geological construct is based upon hypothetical evolutionary fossil standings...the strata is "aged" by the fossils found within it, based upon the assumption that evolution is a fact of nature.

---

No. Certain fossils are found so reliably in strata of an age that has been independently dated, that it can be reliably inferred that any rock that they are discovered in is of the same age. It is not circular. In fact it has nothing to do with assuming evolution at all. As Gould pointed out, if only bolts were found in Cretaceous rocks, then you find a strata with a bolt in it, you know the approximate age.

quote:

---

Similarity within comparative anatomy does not demonstrate evolutionary ancestor - descendant relationships, except by the assumption that evolutionary theory is a fact of nature. Similarity is only similarity, and nothing more. Since similarity alone does not demonstrate conclusively evolutionary relationships as far as phylogeny is concerned, it gives no help to homology. Especially since homology is used to classify organisms based uupon similarity and not based upon supposed evolutionary relationships.

---

Well, it needn’t be equivocal evidence, but when you start making cladograms of multiple characters, & they are consistent with phylogenies derived from other data, then you have strong evidence suggesting evolution happened. Nor do you need to assume evolution, either. It is a test of the theory. See below.

quote:

---

Those relationships are imposed upon the data, via the assumption that evolution is a reality, it is not recieved in straight forward observation of the facts.

---

Data is not self evident. It requires interpretation. See below.

quote:

---

For example, one cannot legitimately call upon the fossil record (with its assumption that TOE is a reality) and then call upon homology as far as it bears on fossils with its assumption that TOE is a reality.

---

Yes you can. New fossil discoveries that are consistent with evolutionary theory are tests of the theory. Nothing need be assumed. See below.

quote:

---

Basically, what I am getting at is this. In times past, creationists have argued that all of the evidence for TOE is circumstantial. This is not the case, for circumstantial evidence is based upon solidly based peripheral evidence, and is utilized as "clean-up" evidence to solidify the case even further just in case there is any "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury. Evolutionary theory has no solid evidence, nor even circumstantial evidence, because all of that given as evidence rests on the single assumption that TOE is a reality.

---

According to your reasoning, there is no such thing as an electron. Any test or observation you could make to conclude that there is a discrete negative charge carrying particle, would have to rest on the assumption that such a thing exists before you can assert it. Nothing is self-evident. Data supports a hypothesis or it doesn’t.In fact, you’ve just written off ALL of scientific enquiry. No data can be presented in support of any theory because you are assuming that theory to be true in order to do so!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.

quote:

---

Evolutionary theorists can keep on inferring all they want to, and they can expect that the public will keep on believing them if they want to. But sooner or later, and I believe that the time has far passed, they are going to have to stop using inferrence based upon the assumption of the reality of TOE and find some solid evidence that would give the theory some kind of hold in fact.

---

Again, you have written off not only electrons, but ALL of science. Science is based on inference from data. All of it.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Buz,

quote:

---

IMO, much better to do the geometry thing rather than to begin theorizing up ideas with the unknown. Better to assemble the known and work to determine the unknown from that.

---

That is, as Mister Pamboli observes, exactly what I describe. It seems creationists are happy to let the rest of science proceed in this fashion, but evolution for some reason isn't allowed.

quote:

---

IMO, there ought to be billions of observable transitionary fossils to warrant a move toward TOE.

---

If you can support your opinion, you'll have a point. Please provide evidence, at least as good as you accept for evolution, that taphonomy suggests that there should be billions of transitional fossils.What do you think the member organisms in a cladogram represent?Am I to understand that you accept there are transitional fossils, just not enough, if so, how are these transitional fossils to be interpreted? After all, if a theory is tested by it's predictions, even a single transitional is informative, non? According to cxreationists there should be no transitionals at all at the macroevolutionary level.

quote:

---

BTW, I listened to a study on the odds of DNA existing without intelligent design and it is impossible. I don't remember the details, but the this's n that's of the formation of DNA all must be timed by exact senarios with odds beyond anything possible.

---

I'll bet a penny to a pound it was a strawman. The odds of what happening exactly?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-29-2003]

Scott,In fact, I did offer a definition of evidence back before apple toast metamorphosed, Percy has done it since over here. The only side of the argument that hasn't offered a definition is Zephan."Kettle", says Pot, "you absorb all visible frequencies."Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This off-topic post has been moved to Message 27 of the Zephan: What is Evidence? thread. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-29-2003]

Buz,

quote:

---

M: 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.

​

B:This kind of thinking, imo is what leads evolutionists rediculous extremes like constructing an alleged ape-man transitionary from a tooth or a jawbone. Wouldn't it be more scientific and sensible to observe and consider the impossible odds of so many billions of random formations of complex things like dna, cells, human brains and trees to say "Hmmm, the odds here are highly indicative that some intelligent entity had to do all this?"

---

LOL, you mean that kind of woolly thinking that pervades all of science? It isn’t just the jawbone, you know, gross simplification. What about the thousands of other fossil hominid bones? What about the cladistic analyses & molecular phylogenies that consistently support the same theory?You stated:

quote:

---

Better to assemble the known and work to determine the unknown from that..

---

Isn’t that what I said? So why , without gross simplifications, can’t this work for evolution too?What was the odds of DNA occurring naturally that is actually a position theorised in science?

quote:

---

IMO, there ought to be billions of observable transitionary fossils to warrant a move toward TOE.

---

Why? Show your working. I expect you to be able to support your own claims to the same standard you expect of evolution. The fossil record in NO WAY supports a flood, unless plants had brains, & molluscs & brachiopods could run like cheetahs.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Buz,

quote:

---

"Theorized" odds? That sounds quite guessy. Shouldn't odds be mathmatically calculated determinations?

​

I saw the math on it but all I remember is that it was impossible odds.

​

The following statement which is broader in scope does not show the math, but the statements, imo, make sense.

---

I never said "theorised odds". What was meant, was what precisely were these odds of? Of a 3 Gb genome appearing in one hit? A single gene? Regardless, it is already a strawman, since no scientist seriously theorises that DNA spontaneously appeared in the first place. Therefore, any argument that tries to scupper the claim would be scuppering an argument no one is making.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Phospo,Please respond to message 13. You are making the same mistakes.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Phospho.

quote:

---

My reasoning does not state anything of the sort. My reasoning says that you begin with an assumption, but sooner or later, for that assumption to be solidified and able to be legitimately used as evidence in the matter, there must be peripheral evidence independent of the assumption utilized in the beginning of the investigation.

---

It didn’t say this in the last post you made!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.

quote:

---

Seeing as how phylogenies are based upon the assumption of TOE by themselves, then you cannot legitimately use them in a debate for evidence for TOE unless you have peripheral evidence collaborating it. The problem here is that all the evidence for TOE that has been brought to bear on the subject all contain the same grand assumption. This negates any evidence for TOE unless some can be provided that speaks for itself. To date, there is none.

---

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.

quote:

---

Not all data requires interpretation. When a murder is investigated, and there is a bullet hole in the deceased temple, you need no interpretation that there is a bullet hole in the deceased temple.

---

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.

quote:

---

Some data requires interpretation, yes.

---

Well, you don’t need to interpret data, but it will tell you nothing if you don’t, beyond the observation itself, that is. Take your hole in the temple scenario, for example, you have already interpreted the hole to have been caused by a bullet, no? I would tentatively accept that, but..... Let me put it this way, someone lying on the floor with a hole in their temple is not self evidence of anything other than someone is lying on the floor with a hole in their temple. The point is, as I said before, data is not self evident of anything other than itself. It requires interpretation if you expect it to tell you anything beyond the actual observation of the data. Were they shot with a gun? From the data you provided, the hole could easily have been caused by a bullet, or a crossbow bolt (OK, you said it was a bullet hole, but for the sake of analogy, let us assume we don't know the cause of the wound). We have two competing hypotheses, both of which could be wrong. Using the scientific method, what sort of predictions could we make to decrease uncertainty & test the hypotheses?Prediction of the bullet hypotheses: There is a bullet lodged in the victim’s cranium (you never mentioned an exit wound, I can only go by the data).Prediction of the bolt hypothesis: There is a crossbow bolt lodged in the cranium.The borne out prediction of one falsifies the other.Test: A crossbow bolt was lodged in the cranium.Conclusion: We have interpreted the data in such a way as to be consistent with other observation (we know what a bullet & crossbow bolt looks like) the hole was made by a crossbow bolt, & not a bullet.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.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.

quote:

---

And when all of the data needs to be interpreted via one viewpoint only, especially when that interpretation presupposes an assumption throughout the data that cannot be verified without supporting assumption

---

Like I say, it doesn’t. You are essentiall describing a circular argument, where you have to accept the conclusion before the premises. You do not have to accept macroevolution before performing molecular phylogenetics, so what's your beef? The 2 assumptions involved with phylogenetic analyses I have described elsewhere, & one of them isn't "macroevolution is true".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.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.

quote:

---

I said...
For example, one cannot legitimately call upon the fossil record (with its assumption that TOE is a reality) and then call upon homology as far as it bears on fossils with its assumption that TOE is a reality.

​

Mark said...

​

Yes you can. New fossil discoveries that are consistent with evolutionary theory are tests of the theory. Nothing need be assumed.

​

What fossils? Bambiraptor, with non-existant feathers applied to the models simply because cladistics says that they should be there? No. That does not qualify for our discussion, that only qualifies as examples of the zealousness of certain individuals and groups and their efforts at solidifying their pet theory.

---

A fossil that has been interpreted isn't data, is it? It is the fossil itself........How about these ones. Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright 2002 McGraw-Hill)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).

quote:

---

By the way, can someone tell me how I can do quotes on this board, I do not yet know how this is accomplished. thanks!

---

Type the word quote inside square brackets at the beginning of your quote, & the same with /quote at the end.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Zephan,

quote:

---

Predictions about the past aren't predictions at all, they are, as Phos indicated, assumptions. Phylogeny itself is an assumption, not a prediction. The predictions of evolution have never panned out and evos weasil out of this all the time by saying evolution is just special to science and it need not be demonstrated in real time or predict something meaningful about the future.

---

Actually a phylogeny is a hypothesis of relationships, but anyway, are assumptions allowed in court?Page not found – Denver DA"DNA ANALYSISIn order to develop the evidence needed for the prosecution of its case, the state consulted several experts about the feasibility of laboratory testing to compare the HIV taken from different individuals. In this case, the obvious purpose of such a comparison was to determine if DM's HIV was the source of Ms. Trahan's HIV. The state ultimately employed the laboratory of Dr. Richard A. Gibbs at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Michael J. Metzker,4 who was then a doctoral candidate at the school, performed the requested comparison by use of a "phylogenetic" or "phylogenetic tree" analysis. Based on the results of this research, he and Dr. Gibbs issued a report concerning the investigation and their conclusions. In that report, Dr. Metzker and Dr. Gibbs concluded that the HIV found in Ms. Trahan was "closely related" to the HIV found in DM. Further, they concluded that the testing data supported their hypothesis that the direction of the transmission of the HIV was from DM to Ms. Trahan. At the hearing on the admissibility of the evidence, the state informed the court that it intended to use the testimony of Dr. Metzker and Dr. Gibbs to establish only that the two HIV samples were closely related and not to prove actual transmission. Therefore, it is only the conclusion that the samples are closely related that is before the court. Dr. Schmidt contends this conclusion is inadmissible.The general rule concerning admissibility of expert testimony is found in La.Code Evid. art. 702, which provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.Prior to 1993, the general test for admissibility of expert scientific testimony involving new techniques was the "general acceptance" standard of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). In other words, an expert opinion based on a new scientific procedure or technique was not admissible unless the procedure or technique had been generally accepted as reliable by recognized authorities in the field.In 1993, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587-89, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2794, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), wherein it concluded that, with the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a rigid "general acceptance" requirement would be at odds with the "liberal thrust" of the Federal Rules and their "general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to 'opinion' testimony." Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. [153] at 169, 109 S.Ct. [439] at 450 [1988]....In Daubert, the Supreme Court suggested that the trial court should consider four factors in determining whether expert scientific evidence is reliable: (1) whether the theory or technique can be, and has been, tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the theory or technique; and (4) whether the theory or technique is generally accepted in the scientific community.Thus, under the Daubert guidelines, general acceptance in the scientific community is only one of the factors to be considered. Under this evaluation procedure, the trial court assumes "gatekeeping responsibility" to ensure that scientific evidence admitted in a trial is both relevant and reliable. Id. Still, the focus of the trial court's inquiry is not without limits. The focus of the inquiry "must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate." Id. at 595, 113 S.Ct. at 2797.Because La.Code Evid. art. 702 is identical to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the Daubert test as the test to be applied in Louisiana. See State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.1993). In doing so, the supreme court noted that Louisiana had not previously followed the Frye test but had followed State v. Catanese, 368 So.2d 975 (La.1979), which had established standards different from those of Frye. The use of DNA evidence to establish the identity of a defendant as an offender or to eliminate a defendant as a suspect in a criminal case is now well settled in Louisiana.See State v. Quatrevingt, 93-1644 (La. 2/28/96); 670 So.2d 197, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 927, 117 S.Ct. 294, 136 L.Ed.2d 213 (1996). La.R.S. 15:441.1 applies to DNA test results and simply provides that DNA profiles and genetic markers are relevant to "establish the identity of the offender." However, La.R.S. 15:441.1 does not attach a legal presumption to a particular DNA test result but states only a general policy that the evidence is relevant. State v. Spencer, 95-208, 95-328 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/4/95); 663 So.2d 271. The issue in this case concerning the comparison of viral DNA, rather than human DNA, is res nova."So either, constructing phylogenies "from the past", is not an assumption, or assumptions are usable in court. You choose.Enjoy your popcorn.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-31-2003]

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.....

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]

Buz,Given complexity has been observed to evolve at the molecular level in a lab when we were looking (Hall 82). A lac operon was eliminated, a new functional enzyme evolved, an expression control system, & an associated permease. I could argue that if you eliminated the enzyme the other two would be functionless, meaning irreducible complexity evolved under lab conditions.Given that to be true, why is "too much complexity" a problem for evolution?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Phospho,Post 72, when you have time, please.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Phospho,Post 72 please.Evolution, like all science is based on an inductively derived hypothesis that makes predictions. See post 72 for a working example. The assumptions are independent of the hypothesis under test. The data is predicted, or not. Your objection is moot.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-12-2003]