|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: We have another thread going for this topic now, so I won't respond here.
quote: Yes, of course. I've tried to be clear about this. I was using the term "common ancestry" as short-hand to indicate "common ancestry of all life forms".
quote: Of course....but my belief is based on the evidence. If I were to see evidence demonstrating mutationally created new usable information in the genome I would revise my belief accordingly. The closest I've seen so far was a study done on E. Coli (I believe - sorry I can't find the link right now) in a nutrient-deficient environment. A mutation in a gene caused the breakdown of the coded protein that allowed the bacteria to synthesize the nutrients in the solution. However, this was simply the result of a deterioration in an existing protein, and not the creation of a new mechanism. I may be unintentionally mis-representing this study slightly, as it's been a while since I read it and I can't find the link. If you have evidence suggesting the evolution of new features I'd love to review it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Yes, unfalsifiable hypothesis are science. Evolution is one. A rabbit in the pre-cambrian would not suddenly cause the scientific community to abandon darwinistic evolution - mainstream scientists (due to their inherant bias toward their 'dogma') would expand the theory to explain this phenomena, or find some means to rationalize away the evidence. The statement that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be valid is bologna (and interestingly is unfalsifiable itself). Unevidenced hypothesis can also be valid (though should obviously be tested) - though I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion that YEC is unevidenced.
quote: Of course....could we please avoid arguments that pick at the semantics of my statements instead of addressing the obvious intent of the message?
quote: I've seen plenty such evidence....and again - I wasn't born yesterday here. I understand that falsifying evolution doesn't prove YEC - but that really had nothing to do with my statement. You asked a question: What would falsify Baraminology? I responded with a possible falsification test.
quote: I have made a good faith effort to avoid straying off-topic - including dropping lines of conversation and starting (or suggesting the start of) new threads when the topic veered too far. I have also not posted any bare links without discussion. The links I have posted are contextual to the discussion at hand and used to support the arguments and positions I have made (as Rule 5 requests).
quote: Sigh... No, evidenced assumptions take precedence over unevidenced assumptions. No, I'm not confusing anything - call it whatever you'd like. My point is that any scientific conclusion is not 100% certain. Therefore a certain measure of certainty must be assumed in order to use that conclusion to advance further hypotheses. When an earlier conclusion is found to be errant, all subsequent hypotheses based upon that conclusion must be re-evaluated. I've stated this multiple times now...can we move on?
quote: Yeah, it's like the darwinistic principle: when a ape or human fossil with unusual features is found, declare it a human ancestor. Look we can both take accusational potshots at the other's viewpoint. Percy, the quality of your responses have seemed to deteriorate a bit. Could we get back to discussion of the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: I have already seen adequate evidence to convince me of a YEC model - if I hadn't I would still be an old-earth creationist or theistic evolutionist as I was many years ago. I do however realize that both YEC and darwinian evolution cannot both be true. They are incompatable theories. Therefore, if you wish to convince me of a viewpoint other than YEC I need to see data that either discredits YEC or supports darwinian evolution.
quote: They take an interpretation of the Bible as their hypothesis and test it against the evidence of the natural world. How is this not science?
quote: You entirely missed the point. A naturalistic origin of life is unevidenced (and moreover rather discredited). Do you prefer that story instead?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: But that is exactly what has happened. Mainstream atheistic scientists have ruled out an intelligent supernatural Creator as "unevidenced" and yet advanced abiogenesis through chemical evolution - a hypothesis with striking evidence against it. The only logical explanation for such behavior is a bias toward their atheistic darwinistic 'religious' dogma.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Glad to have this discussion! Courage is not required - I have nothing to fear. Either my beliefs are correct or they are in error and need to be corrected.
quote: If anything the Miller-Uray experiment demonstrates the absurdity of abiogenesis. Miller-Uray and subsequent ilk have at best been able to produce a few amino acids and other compounds that contribute to the formation of more advanced organic molecules. The most successful of experiments to model abiogenesis (unless there is one I am unaware of) was able to produce only one of the four nucleotides required for DNA formation. Keep in mind too that these experiments are conducted using highly artificial environments supposedly based upon the atmospheric composition of the earth several billion years ago. However, this supposed mixture has been revised and revised in an effort to get better results from origin of life experiments. Here's some of the steps that still must be overcome before abiogenesis is evidenced:1. All four nucleotides must be produced at the same time 2. nucleotides must be organized into a coherent DNA or RNA molecule 3. A genetic code must be established - one that not only codes proteins but also provides serves the many other functions of the current genetic code in parallel 4. The complex mechanism for unzipping and replicating DNA must be duplicated. 5. A simple cellular body must be devised to contain the genome 6. animo acids need some mechanism to be stitched together to form functional proteins 7. Only left handed optical isomers must be created Once you get to that point, then you have to figure out how to generate the complex machinery of a eukaryotic cell - for which there is no clear evolutionary pathway - and that's just the first of many hurdles to cross once you've got a live cell on your hands. Taken from another perspective - do we see any evidence of complex intelligent (or even semi-intelligent) organization in nature apart from living organisms? Surely if such organization were possible from a pool of goo then we would see other evidence of inorganic materials forming semi-intelligent organized systems?
quote: Severly retarded? No. Potentially crippled? Yes. Obviously there are a lot of unevidenced hypotheses out there - and there is certainly no point in wasting time on most such theories. I understand why atheistic darwinists would have every reason to ignore the supernatural as a possible theory - why look for something that you don't believe exists if there is no observable evidence for it? However, as a Christian who not only believes in God but has experienced circumstantial spiritual evidence of his existence - why would I have any reason to ignore a scientific hypothesis that assumed his intervention?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Of course not...many young-earth creationists consider this a broad falsification test for the YEC model. A God of truth would not create a young-world that was deliberately deceptive to look like an old-world. Either the data matches a young-earth, or the YEC model is wrong. I don't think you'll get much argument from creationists on this point.
quote: Agree.
quote: Disagree - based upon the evidence I have reviewed.
quote: If you'd like to prove Dr. Wile wrong feel free to point me to evidence to the contrary. I'm certainly more than willing to examine it.
quote: My point was to demonstrate that like many factors of darwinian evolution there not only are minority opinions, but the majority opinion frequently shifts in an effort to force the theory to fit new data. To some extent, this isn't a problem (and is indeed good science), but at a certain point the theory is stretched to fit so many failed predictions that its validity as a whole comes into question. Here's a great paper on Darwin's failed predictions that helps demonstrate this point.
quote: Yes and no. A simple answer like that - if not testable and falsifiable can still be valid - but certainly doesn't help much. However, there are some tests that we can use. Since the YEC model is based upon the Bible, and the Bible reveals to us the character and attributes of God, we know that God would not design that which does not within His character. The Bible also provides other constraints which can be formed into tests - such as the size of Noah's Ark, descriptions of animals, etc.
quote: And as I pointed out many times darwinistic evolution is inseparable from the origin of life. Life must exist in order for common-ancestry evolution to run its course - so some origin of life must be assumed. They may be distinct concepts but attempting to separate them leads me to suspect you're trying to sweep the nasty problem of abiogenesis under the rug.
quote: The geological record supports the concept of a global flood rather well (sediment layers laid down rapidly during a catastrophic event instead of over long periods of time) - I have seen considerable research from creationists on this issue. If you disagree perhaps you'd like to show me evidence to the contrary?
quote: Your first sentence here summarizes rather well the point I've been trying to make regarding the inherent flaw in naturalistic science.
quote: I'm not hand-waving anything away - I base my conclusions upon the evidence I have reviewed (and I hope by now I have demonstrated a willingness to review any data - within the limits of my time). As I stated before, a detailed analysis of the supposed common ancestry between chimps and humans seems beyond the scope of this topic - but if you wish to start another topic for it I'd happily participate as my time allows. Common descent applies within baramins - so DNA evidence should aid in placing a creature within a baramin as all creatures within the same baramin would share a common ancestor. It's nowhere near as arbitrary and vague as you make it out to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: As I pointed out in a previous post there are MANY intermediate steps that must be overcome. I don't think anyone suggests that if abiogenesis were true that a cell suddenly "poofed" into existence from non-organized inorganic material. However, the sheer number and complexity of these intermediate steps makes abiogenesis all the more unlikely.
quote: Yes, life could exist in other forms - precursors to life as we know it today. I'm familiar with the RNA World theory. The big problem here is that its an unevidenced assumption - we don't see life existing in these other forms (at least not any forms that would demonstrate a clear evolutionary pathway to DNA-based life). As everyone here has tried to tell me over and over again, I thought 'real scientists' didn't bother with unevidenced assumptions?
quote: Creationists do not make the first assumption (at least any creationist willing to seriously examine the issue) - and as I've demonstrated darwinists make the inverse of the second assumption despite having any supporting evidence.
quote: Agree with your last sentence - but as I've pointed out several times now it is to the detriment of science. It makes sense for many things to have a naturalistic explanation - Put yourself in my shoes for a moment: God is a God of order - if He created the fundamental scientific laws that govern our universe it would make sense for him to allow them to take their course. This however does not mean that God has not supernaturally intervened in His creation - and if he has (for example, by originating life) then naturalistic science will never be able to determine that. Perhaps the track record of naturalistic science is seen as being so superb because it has been successful at finding many of the naturalistic phenomena in our universe. No one doubts however that there are many phenomena we do not yet understand - and as of yet naturalistic science has failed to reveal them. It is quite possible for some subset of these phenomena to be supernatural - and if so naturalistic science will forever be blinded to them. Edited by BobTHJ, : omitted a "the" Edited by BobTHJ, : A few other spelling and grammar mistakes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: I've done a little more reading since first commenting on ERVs. Dr. Borger has put together a YEC hypothesis that answers the ERV problem (as well as other problems) rather well. I tried to explain this earlier but probably didn't do a good job since I hadn't yet read his paper outlining the hypothesis - only an article about it. To simplify: Baranomes are the set of genomes initially created by God - one for each created kind. Baranomes are incredibly vast - containing dormant material for a variety of variations. Baranomes contain VIGEs (Variation Indicuing Genetic Elements) - what mainstream biologists would call ERVs, transposons, etc. VIGEs modify the genome in an orderly fashion causing rapid adaptation and speciation among kinds. Over time however these VIGEs are disabled or repurposed by mutation leading to the variations of mobile DNA we see today. Some of these VIGEs have lost their controlling functions and now jump around haphazardly - modern retroviruses. Over time mutation and selective pressure eliminate function from the baranome among certain populations resulting in the modern genomes we see today. ERVs similarities between humans and chimps don't post a problem in this hypothesis. Rather than being the result of a retroviral insertion they are instead remnants of VIGEs present in the baranome at creation. Since humans and primates share similar mophological features it logically follows that their initial baranomes would have had much similarity.
quote: Dr. Borger's articles referenced above give some insight into how to construct a baramin using certain indicator genes like FOXP2 in humans. He doesn't go into this in great detail - so I'm afraid I can't explain it here - I'll search for more information on this subject.
quote: Not dismissal - simply a different interpretation of the evidence. As I've tried to demonstrate - I am not willing to ignore any evidence. In areas where the YEC argument is weak (such as rapid isotope decay) I have admitted as much. Creation scientists will need to come come up with some reasonable data that supports these hypotheses or abandon them. Creation science (while no doubt a minority) is not the domain of extreme fringe. There are many who scientists who believe in Biblical creation - for reference here's a list and here's another (neither are comprehensive, though there may be some overlap). As I mentioned previously, my religious beliefs would allow me to be a theistic evolutionist (many Christians are) - my only reason for believing the YEC model is because it's a better fit for the data I have reviewed. Please don't insult me by assuming that my religion dictates my scientific beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: My use of the word "ancestors" was intentional.
quote: Because it displays advanced features that shouldn't have existed during that time-frame? No worries though - we'll just shuffle around the clade to make it fit. No need to reply - I'm off topic here. Apologies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined:
|
quote: You are most correct. How soundly I am being trounced on the convergent evolution thread indicates this. I went into that argument unloaded - I realize now I need to do considerable more research before I am ready to debate that topic. Apologies.
quote: Sorry again...that really was a bare link. I'll try and do better.
quote: I really am interested in the evidence - and the conversations I've had the last week on this board has led me to do more research on these topics then I ever had before - so I'm learning a lot. Admittedly, a lot of my knowledge comes from the creationist side - and rightfully so. However, I was hoping to (and have been glad to) learn more about the darwinian positions on issues through the links and arguments posted here. Some of those arguments have made a convincing case - some have not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined:
|
quote: Sorry, I have to admit I know nothing of Mr. Woodmorappe/Peczkis apart from what is written in that article. I'll do my best to summarize the article:Evolution predicts that pseudogenes should be more tolerant to mutation since they are non-functional. If this were true, the ratio of synonymous to non-synonymous mutations should be 1:1 in psuedogenes since there is no selective pressure. A low ratio should indicate a functional gene that is being conserved, and a high ratio should indicate a functional gene that is being selected for - ie currently undergoing evolution. Woodmorappe references a study that shows this prediction to be falsified. While pseudogenes do tend to have a higher ratio than functional genes they are in most cases less than 1:1 - and many have similar ratios to functional genes. This demonstrates that psuedogenes likely have function and adhere to the same preservation and conservation methods as functional genes. I believe he makes this point to demonstrate that non-functioning genes are not in most cases free to mutate as you suggest. From there he examines the Uox pseudogene. There are six stop codons disabling this gene in primates. Five of these fit the evolutionary phylogenetic model, but one does not (requiring separate evolution). Humans and sheep also share a stop codon disabling the p2 psuedogene which would require separate evolution. Additionally there is a shared segment in the intron of the Uox that does not fit the clade organization. Finally, he points out that there are six shared segments between chimps and gorillas in the Uox gene - none of which are shared by humans. Finally he addresses the GULO gene. This is where he talks about the 47 shared positions (out of 647 possible) between guinea pigs and humans. These shared positions are spread throughout the exons and include codings for 4 disabling stop codons. These shared mutations if charted would place humans and primates closer to rodents than prosimians. He quotes a source stating the probability of this degree of shared mutation at 1.84*10^-12 based on random mutation. If I understand correctly Woodmorappe's conclusion is this - Since neither creationists nor darwinists would place guinea pigs and humans as closely related then one or both of the following must be true:1) The similarities indicate common engineering/design. 2) Mutational hotspots - not common ancestry - account for many of the similarities in pseudogenes. quote: Your example of the GULO gene gives a flawed understanding of the evidence as demonstrated by the article. While it holds true in some cases it does not in all - and there is not determining factor between the two. I haven't really researched what understandings baraminology can give - but one idea hit me (off the top of my head): If you look at this article by Dr. Borger under the sub-heading "The multiple genomes of Arabidopsis" he describes a study published in Science. 19 strands of Arabidopsis thaliana were collected from a variety of biomes. Despite being closely related they shared significant genetic differences. Since genetic similarity would indicate that these strands all come from the same baranome the functional unique portions of each strand's genome could be used to determine the maxima adaptive capabilities of the species. These sections could also be combined to reconstruct the original (or close) baranome for the kind. That's probably not the best example - so I'll try and think of some better ones - I'll try and get back to you on this.
quote: I agree that darwinists (specifically atheistic darwinists) have no reason to waste time looking for the 'invisible robber'. However, Christian creationists certainly do - and this is where religious beliefs come into play. As a Christian who has experienced circumstantial spiritual evidence of a Creator I have every reason to search for Him in science.
quote: Modulous - I really appreciate the civil tone of your responses and your willingness to discuss issues without resulting to personal attacks or broad generalizations about your opposition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: I'm not going to respond point by point because doing so would stray too far off topic. However, to summarize the gist of your argument:* Jesus said feed the poor and take care of the sick * The "Christian church" many times in the past 2000 years had dismally failed in this regard (often even working against it) * Meanwhile scientific advances are feeding the poor and taking care of the sick I agree to some extent with what you have posted. Yes, there have certainly been many evils perpetrated by so-called Chrsitians throughout the history of the church - and yes, many modern scientific advances have benefited the poor and sick. You however have cherry-picked the examples that benefit your telling of history - while ignoring the many examples of the opposite: Christians feeding the poor and helping the sick and science harming them. Continuing this line of discussion however seems unrelated to the topic of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Based on Borger's baranome hypothesis, VIGEs (Variation Inducing Genetic Elements) would have operated with specific function at the point of creation and thereafter until partially or fully disabled by mutation. These VIGEs (which as mentioned earlier are transposons, insertion sequences, ERVs, etc.) worked to cause rapid adaptation and speciation by activating and deactivating various genes. Since common design is apparent in a YEC model it would make sense that guinea pigs and humans would have a similar if not identical GULO gene at creation. It would also make sense that VIGEs in both kinds would operation in a similar fashion - making similar changes to those genes. Selection then operated to preserve the forms we see today. This also neatly explains the similarity in the GULO genes of humans and other primates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Not at all. Remember: nested hierarchy does not imply common ancestry. For example, I could build a nested hierarchy of automobiles. In one clade you'd have all the semi-tractors and in a distant clade on another branch you'd have the divergence between 2-door and 4-door sedans. This nested hierarchy could accurately model 95%+ of all automobiles - though there would be exceptions (like, where the heck do you put the El Camino? pickups? cars? maybe it's the result of convergent evolution ). However, just because the ontology could be created doesn't mean that all automobiles had common ancestry: some are Fords, some are GMs, etc.
quote: I'll read up on that thread - thanks for the link. I've also been doing a lot of other reading on this subject as well.
quote: The YEC geological model has most sedimentary layers laid down during the global flood. It follows then that simple marine bottom-dwelling animals (such as trilobytes) would be found in the lowest pre-cambrian/cambrian strata as these would be the first to be buried. Larger and/or more advanced creatures would be buried later as they would be better equipped to survive against the rising waters and would survive longer. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the fossil record according to YEC - so I doubt I can answer all your questions satisfactorily - but that is a synopsis.
quote: I'm going to read through the SIFTER research - as I'd like to better understand it. However, my initial reaction is not surprise. Remember - your nested hierarchy is 95%+ accurate at categorizing creatures according to genetic and morphological similarities. It only makes sense then that by looking at proteins of closely grouped creatures you can predict the function of a similarly constructed protein for another creature within the group. This does not require common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Not forbidden - but since such a fossil would invalidate the model the evidence for transition would need to be very high before being accepted.
quote: Consider in a YEC model that baranomes contain a wide variety of genetic information - far more than modern genomes. Also consider how close primates and humans are morphologically. The baranomes (both pre and post flood) would have caused rapid speciation and variation - some of these species would survive and some would not. It only stands to reason that some primate fossils would be found showing some features more similar to humans than modern primates display. It also stands to reason that some human fossils would be found showing some characteristics closer to primates than modern humans display (neanderthal for one - which creationists successfully predicted to be an extinct race of humans).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024