Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence

You're caught in a misconception about dating with index fossils.

quote:

---

Also, I didn't get the idea you knew this already (though I may be misunderstanding your first comment) but they DO NOT date fossils by radiometric decay--fossils are dated based on what layer of rock they are found in

---

That's true but misleading. The fossils are part of the characteristics of rocks which were recognized centuries ago. They helped to sort out the layering. Some fossils are very restricted to what layers they are found it and make this easier but other characteristics of rocks help. This produced the geologic column with relative ages. Only relative.A long time after that various methods became available to date the layers directly. This put absolute dates on the layers.Now since the geologic column had already been sorted out and the fossils which could be used as index fossils for a layer already been determined it is easy to date a layer by looking the fossils. In any case where there is doubt about a date a direct dating can be done. The fossils help tell what layer you are looking at. The index fossils anyway. These layers are dated separately. Any other non-index fossils in the same layer can then be assigned the same date.
Got that?

Sorry to sound like some of those evolutionists out there, but where are the sources?
If I'm going to see what's going on with the geologic column, I'd like to read more toroughly on that.However, the relative ages are still based off of a few assumptions.
1) that there was no flood--not even a deluge or a run-off
2) that the layers are permanent (Mt. St. Helens eruption created over 100 feet of what appeared to be "geologic strata" within a few hours)
3) that the polystrate fossils are simple glitches, and mean nothing.
Perhaps you might be able to resolve these three assumptions based on the geologic tests, since you seem to be the expert on that.
Just curious--I'm not trying to be rude: just fair and inquiringBooboo

No problem. I don't see you as being rude.But you're going to have to supply the Mt St Helen's sources. It seems we are on a lot of rather detailed individual discussions. I think they should all be spun off as separate topics under specific fora, don't you think?I'm not an expert on anything but read in some areas more than others. I'll dig out some specific sources for you.How about we hold off and organize the topics first? I'll create ones for Mt St Helen (if no appropriate one exits), for protein comparisons, and I think there is one for polystrate fossils already.Will you start trying to organize topics too?

BBC, meanwhile if you could go toFor Booboocruise - digestive enzymes
and finish that up. You could repost some of what you have posted other places.It appears from what is there that you assumption that the stanford site would mention chimps and humans was wrong.However, I'm still not sure we know what proteins or what ever are being talked about.

I'll start a topic in geology for this if that's ok?

How can the Flood explain biogeography ? According to the Flood story all the surviivng animals ended up at a single location. How they spread out from there is the issue and there is no reason to suppose that that would have anything to do with the biological relationships.Want to explain why Australia had, for instance, "marsupial wolves" rather than wolves ?You need to do more research on polystrate fossils. They were explained in the 19th Century. This article refers to that explanation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.htmlBy your comparison it seems that you think DNA is a simple structural material with very little variation. That is not true - the primary function of DNA is not structural, the sequence of the constituent units codes for the protiens which are used to make up the organism. It is not just a repetitive structure of identical elements as our analogy suggests.
The number of chromosomes has very little to do with complexity. Especially in plants where the entire genome is quite often duplicated in reproduction (polyploidy). And you have to remember that modern ferns will be different genetically from their ancient ancestors.

Booboo, your response to my message #76 in the Why Literal? thread regarding the pattern of distribution of the GLO pseudogene in mammals as evidence for the theory of evolution (and reproduced as message #13 in this thread) was irrelevent and illogical. It indicated that you were not knowledgeable on the topic of pseudogenes, or even vitamin C. Therefore you may wish to read this article by Edward E. Max from Talk.Origins Archive.So the challenge still remains for you to provide a creation scientist explanation for the observed pattern of GLO pseudogene distribution in mammals.

booboocruise:
Anyway: biogeography is a far cry from evidence for evolution. The divergence of similar animals between continents can just as easily be explained by the flood as it can by evolution.Except that that does NOT explain the pattern of what species are found -- as Darwin himself had noted, the species that are found on oceanic islands are those that can naturally get there. Thus, there are no big land mammals on such island, though there are other big warm-blooded animals: flightless birds. And there are big cold-blooded land animals: the giant turtles of the Galapagos and Aldabra Islands.That's because birds can fly to the islands, while land animals would have to drift in driftwood and vegetation mats. If they are warm-blooded, they will quickly starve, while if they are cold-blooded, they can snooze a long time. Thus, turtles make it over, while small rodents don't.Paleontolofy: if your side be true, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to the polystrate fossils--there are hundreds of them, particularly in Nova Scotia, and they all indicate that the rock layers were set down at the same time.Polystrate trees are no difficulty. A tree that dies in a swamp can remain an undecayed stump, which then gets buried by sediment. Here is a more detailed discussion.Molecular biology: There is no reason to believe that the molecular similarities between animals are evidence of evolution. DNA are the building blocks of life--the Governor's Palace of Williamsburg and Tradoc Headquarters of Fort Monroe are both made of brick, yet that means they have a common creator--MAN!However, they have separate groups of human beings as their creators, not some single great unified entity "MAN".Furthermore, the similarities are detailed sequence similarities, and the patterns of similarities form treelike topologies which often agree remarkably well with the family trees found from previous work.Booboocruise, if you were exploring the ruins of some old town in a desert, and you found an old Bible in it, would you immediately conclude that God Almighty had made it pop into existence on the spot? Or would you conclude that someone had brought it there?Also, if you are so into molecular biology, and IF evolution is true, then perhaps you could explain why the fern has 480 chromosomes (evolution says it's one of the first plant forms to evolve, yet it is more complex at the molecular level than most of its "predecessors")Evolution is NOT a simple straight line. And chromosomes can split and fuse, making chromosome number a non-measure of biological complexity.I wonder why booboocruise mentions this issue; is he looking for things to stumble over?However, the relative ages are still based off of a few assumptions.
1) that there was no flood--not even a deluge or a run-offFlood strata do NOT invalidate the stratigraphic method.2) that the layers are permanent (Mt. St. Helens eruption created over 100 feet of what appeared to be "geologic strata" within a few hours)Unconsolidated volcanic ash != consolidated sediment.

Sorry, wj, but I no longer trust the science of talkorigins (or you... I have tried to remain polite and open-minded, but you are resorting to personal attacks and unscientific crap).This may come as a surprise to you (because I may not have shown it very well with a few bad examples) but I am very particular about ONLY researching legitimate science with as little bias as possible. Science up until the early 19th century was quite unbiased and generally open to all possible conclusions and observations. Now, however, the theory of evolution is shutting down the once open-minded field known as science. For instance, Ernst Mayr, Professor of Zoology at Harvard, writes: "Everything at the creation is as it is today [no need for change]" He is quite particular about keeping an anti-creation theme in his book, rather than unbiased science.
Biased opinions are, unfortunately, the basis for many modern fields of science. What is one good thing that the theory of evolution has brought to us? The theory of evolution has not helped us get to the moon, or develop cancer research, or develop the laws of thermodynamics, friction, and motion.
As for vitamin C and the GLO genes: I am not the expert on molecular biology, but I do know that this is not evidence of evolution. For instance, check this site out:http://www.biology.wustl.edu/faculty/Chilsonresearch.htmlIt reveals that the rat enzyme AMP deaminase (and the chicken AMPD as well) are more closely related to humans than that of a rabbit.
This conflicts with evolution pretty harshly.As for the biogeography: here is a possible theory (not proven but it is consistent with the Bible, most creation scientists, and has yet to be disproved) developed by a few creation scientists (listed below):
After the flood, the waters assuaged (calmed) and receded, the Bible says that the mountains arose, and the valleys sank in, creating the oceans - - (and there IS enough water to cover the globe - - in fact, if you were to raise the valleys and lower the mountains so the earth was perfectly smooth, the water would cover the earth at a depth of about 9000 feet). So, also around the time of the flood (4400 BC) a comet struck the earth. You see, the Amen-Ra of Egypt and the Stonehenge do not line up with the stars the way they were designed to. In fact, if you study the orbit of the earth and the axis, graph out the rotation, you?ll find that the earth is behaving like a spinning top that was struck by something about 44-4500 BC. Anyway, that would 1) explain the possibility that the ice age was, in fact, much sooner than originally thought, 2) explain why the Amen-Ra and Stonehenge are off course, and 3) explain why there are plants, un-decayed and un-fossilized, under several feet of ice in Antarctica (because, if the earth was not tilted on its axis, the north and south poles would be much warmer).
Anyway, during the rise of the polar ice caps, the ocean waters would sink down a few hundred feet (as the caps grew and covered much larger areas). If you lower the oceans only a few hundred feet that would 1) make it possible to WALK from Asia to Australia via the Indies, 2) make it possible to walk from Florida to Cuba, and 3) explain the beaches and apparent coastline discovered 500 feet below in the Black Sea.
So, this theory (some of which is my thoughts, although most is accepted by many creationists) is consistent with the Bible, has no apparent evidence against it, and logically explains the biogeography and why some animals are on islands that they shouldn?t technically have been on.
Here?s from where that theory came:
Dr. Hovind > The Hovind Theory
Dr. John Morris > The Young Earth
Dr. Duane Gish > ICR

Also, how is it known that the geologic column is reliable?
Try this on: the strata at Mt. St. Helens are NOT volcanic ash! They are clearly stone. First of all, ash is much softer sediment, much lighter, and would not be layered into stone the way it is (unless a catastrophe such as water buried it so that it could petrify). Also, the polystrate tree argument posted by talk origins does not explain the polystrate trees in Canadian cliffside, or in France (some areas where polystrate trees are found are far from where there used to be a swamp).
Also, things can petrify very rapidly. I have in my basement a piece of petrified would that was hand-carved on some parts of it. It only takes running water, a few years, and no open air for something to petrify. The trees that washed into Spirit Lake since Mt St. Helens are already petrifying. You see, polystrate trees and the existence of fossils are still just as easily explained by the flood. When you start LOOKING for ways to explain them (as talkorigins has) you begin to develop that close-minded evolution-philosophy that has crippled the open-minded research that science used to be.

Booboo - that site you quote with the rat, rabbit, chicken and human sequences is a bit hard to follow for our purposes, because it's about physiology, not evolution, so I've taken the data and analysed it.I've removed the parts of the chains that are the same in all the different organisms, and just focused on the bits that are different.This is what we find:Data:Rat HIDADRVVYSTK
Human QIDADRVVYSTK
Chicken RVDADRVVYDAK
Rabbit QVDADRVVYSTKComparison (d=different, s=same)Rat/Human:HIDADRVVYSTK
QIDADRVVYSTKdsssssssssss = 11/12 92%Rat/RabbitHIDADRVVYSTK
QVDADRVVYSTKddssssssssss = 10/12 83%Rat/ChickenHIDADRVVYSTK
RVDADRVVYDAKddsssssssdds = 8/12 67%Human/ChickenQIDADRVVYSTK
RVDADRVVYDAKdd sssssssdds = 8/12 67%Rabbit/ChickenQVDADRVVYSTK
RVDADRVVYDAKdssssssssdds = 9/12 75%Human/RabbitQIDADRVVYSTK
QVDADRVVYSTKsdssssssssss = 11/12 92%Discussion:Well. When it comes down to it, this is a short sequence, so a certain amount of chance deviation from a perfect match is to be expected (e.g. it is perfectly possible for a protein to mutate from say Q to R, and later by chance back to Q again)However, we can still see general trends.The highest correspondences are seen between the mammalian groups, as expected. We might expect higher correlation between rat and rabbit than between rat and human, but with the small numbers involved and the point mentioned above, it does not falsify the evolutionary model to observe that this is not quite so.What is quite noticeable is the large difference between the mammalian groups and the chicken.I agree this study does not present particularly strong evidence for evolution. But that was not its aim. What it most certainly does not do is demonstrate any falsification of evolution. This would require a much larger set of comparisons, so that the statistical "noise" caused by chance remutations back to the original amino acid is less of an obscuring factor.To be thorough, I think it is necessary to do some statistical analysis of these results to see whether the discrepancies from the expected differences are indeed due to the chance effects described above.Could a statistitian advise?

Thanks for your reply - the first one to anything I've posted to date. I will attempt to keep one topic per post, for simplicity and clarity. In addition, since this is one of those occasions where several hours are required to develop a response in each area, I didn't want you to think that I was unable to support any assertion I made in the OP. You ignored the key questions in the OP section on biogeography. Permit me to repost it here.

quote:

---

1. biogeography: why are species distributed around the globe as they are? Why are closely related species found geographically near to each other? Why are continental islands full of terrestrial endemics that are different from anywhere else - but whose nearest relatives are on the adjacent continental masses? Why are oceanic islands filled with endemic birds, insects and plant life, but few if any mammals?

---

Biogeography is the study of the distribution of both living and extinct organisms, and of related patterns of variation over the earth in the numbers and kinds of living things. Although a particular type of habitat might occur in several widely scattered places throughout the world, species in one habitat are more closely related to nearby species in other habitats than to species in the same habitat elsewhere. In addition, species distribution is not uniform around the globe — some 25 regions contain over 70% of all primate and carnivore species diversity, for instance. (Sechrest et al, 2002) These are direct observations — not inference.The easiest places to see it are on islands — which is why I specifically mentioned islands in the OP. There are direct observations that show the that the number of species on an island increases with island size and decreases with island distance to the mainland. Moreover, there are more endemics on islands that were never connected to the mainland (oceanic islands), than are present on islands that were once connected to continents by land bridges — as would be the sole case in your scenario. Finally, not only are there fewer total species per unit of land area on oceanic islands than on continental islands, but entire classes of organisms are absent from oceanic islands that are present on continental islands: there are no mammals, for instance, and only one frog (on New Zealand) that have ever been found on oceanic islands.Your flood-land bridge scenario doesn’t explain the observed pattern of biodiversity.A second and even more compelling observation from biogeography is related to the concept of endemism. An endemic species is one that is found in a restricted geographic area and nowhere else — regardless of whether the specific habitat type exists elsewhere. The island of St Helena in the south Atlantic is a case in point. The island is located some 1900 km from Africa and 2900 km from South America. It is volcanic, formed fairly recently by geological timescales, and has never been connected to any continent (it formed from a volcano off the mid-Atlantic ridge). It is completely surrounded by deep sea (about 4200 m), and hence could never have been connected by dry land to either continent — no matter how much sea level fluctuated during a putative flood. The island is home to over 40 endemic species of plants, including an unusual relative of the sunflower which I’ll get to in a moment. Isolated islands such as St. Helena show the action of several of the postulated mechanisms for evolution: ecological release, as colonizers move into vacant habitat; natural selection operating on initial (often minimal) population variation as a myriad of selection pressures create novel forms; and the population ecology mechanisms of dispersal and extinction. When St. Helena was discovered in the 1500’s, there were an estimated 70 species of flowering plants on the island — 60 of which (in ten genera) were endemic only to the island (Cronk, 1989). Two of these plants are extraordinary examples of evolution in action: the gumwood tree (Commidendrum robustum) is a member of the family Asterecidae — sunflowers and daisies — and the cabbage tree (Lachanodes arborea), also Asterecidae, but completely different morphology and habitat than gumwood. Both of these flowers have occupied and adapted to the tree niche on the island in the absence of any other plant in that category. Until the arrival of humans, terrestrial vertebrates were limited to four endemic bird varieties, three of which are now extinct. No mammals or reptiles existed on the island prior to the arrival of humans.Biogeography explains the distribution of animals. Evolution explains their persistence, periodic extinction, and adaptation to novel environments. This joint effort has been tested — in the wild — by numerous biologists and ecologists. (for example, Case 1987). Moreover, the results of observations of population and ecological dynamics from island biogeography have been successfully translated to understanding of the effects of habitat fragmentation and ecosystem degradation in continental habitats (see, for instance, Templeton 2001, Terborgh 2001, Williams 1997, etc).Your dissolving of the biogeography argument for evolution seems to have, itself, dissolved, as your alternative doesn’t explain the patterns observed in nature. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, does.References:
Case TJ, Cody ML, 1987 Testing theories of island biogeography Amer. Sci. 75: 402-411Cronk QCB, 1989, The past and present vegetation of St Helena J Biogeo 16:47-64Sechrest W, Brooks TM, da Fonseca GAB, Konstant WR, Mittermeier RA, Purvis A, Rylands AB, Gittleman JL, 2002 Hotspots and the conservation of evolutionary history, PNAS 99:2067-2071Templeton AR, Robertson RJ, Brisson J, Strasburg J, 2001, Disrupting evolutionary processes: The effect of habitat fragmentation on collared lizards in the Missouri Ozarks, PNAS 98:5426-5432Terborgh J, Lopez L, Nuez P, Rao M, Shahabuddin G, Orihuela G, Riveros M, Ascanio R, Adler GH, Lambert TD, Balbas L, 2001, Ecological Meltdown in Predator-Free Forest Fragments, Science 294:1923-1926Williams SE, Pearson RG, 1997 Historical rainforest contractions, localized extinctions and patterns of vertebrate endemism in the rainforests of Australia's wet tropics, Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264(1382): 709-16.

quote:

---

... For instance, check this site out:

​

http://www.biology.wustl.edu/faculty/Chilsonresearch.html

​

It reveals that the rat enzyme AMP deaminase (and the chicken AMPD as well) are more closely related to humans than that of a rabbit.

​

This conflicts with evolution pretty harshly.

---

What the page actually says is :"The first twenty-five residues of these fragments are 88.5% identical; the rabbit and chicken segments are greater than 92% and 84% identical, respectively, to the sequences predicted for residues 310 to 335 for AMPD.M from human and rat. "So the rabbit sequence is is 88.5% identical to the chicken sequence - but 92% identical to the human and rat sequences. The human and rat sequences are 84% identical to the chicken sequence.So the rabbit sequence is closer to the rat and human sequences than it is to the chicken sequence (92% is greater than 88.5%). The chicken sequence is definitely not closer to humans than the rabbit sequence is and this data does not contradict evolution.Might I also ask why if you insist on researching the "legitimate science with as little bias as possible" you keep referring to Kent Hovind who offers nothing of the sort while rejecting talk.origins which does ?

Once again, you have completely skipped over the relevant questions in the OP. In fact, in this case, you are dragging in a completely different topic. Since there were no fossils discovered at Mount St. Helens, I fail to see what that volcano has to do with paleontology.
Again, I will repost the OP section for you to address. Unless you address the specific topical areas I posted, it is impossible to continue the discussion of this point.

quote:

---

3. geology/paleontology: Why are the layers of rock so conformal around the world - to the point that you can correlate ages and sequences from one part of the world to another in many cases? Why are the sequences of fossils invariably time-correlated, regardless of where they are? Why don't we find mammals or angiosperms, for instance, in the oldest basement rocks?

---

However, to clarify your attempt at misdirection, when you refer to polystrate fossils — a term which, as far as I know, doesn’t exist in geology - are you discussing in situ or transported fossil trees (such as Specimen Ridge)? Or are you talking about bioturbation, cross bedded fossil animals, etc?Layering around Mt. St. Helens is fascinating for pedological studies. With innumerable formations created over the past 40,000 years of fairly common eruptions, coupled with different depositions caused by tephra/ashfalls, pyroclastic flows, debris flows (avalanches), lahars (mudflows), glaciation, etc, it’s a living laboratory for geologists. Which particular rock layers were you referring to? You were a bit vague. Perhaps you could indicate from this graphic which deposits, layers you were referring to? Here’s a nice photo showing some of the interesting features: You’ll note that there are easily identifiable layers here — showing a sequence of events. For example, the lower rocky area represents glacial till, the next two up (orange and yellow) are pyroclastic flows, followed by several lahar deposits, and at the very top, by the 1980 lahar deposit. Are these the layers you’re referring to? (From here) If so, I’m not sure why you think they pose any kind of problem for geologists.

Booboo, you issued the challenge to provide evidence for evolution. I have provided you with the details of the pattern of distribution of GLO pseudogenes in mammals which is consistent with, and supportive of, evolution in the form of common ancestry of primates (including humans).On two occassions now you have purported to respond but have provided no substance in your posts. I challenge you to go to your creationist sources and read up to your heart's content on pseudogenes. I'm sure they won't have a credible explanation for the distribution of GLO pseudogenes in mammals either. And perhaps, before casting aspertions of bias against someone like Dr Max, you can expound your qualifications and expertise to judge bias. Better still, provide evidence of bias instead of libelling others.Is this another one of those debates which you have had with evolutionists which you have never lost?