|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5019 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 5019 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 5019 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The YEC geological model has most sedimentary layers laid down during the global flood. Aren't you the least bit bothered by the vast differences in age between those various sedimentary layers? Or the huge amounts of time those took to form, compared to the 4,350 or so years since the date attributed to the flood? Or that all dating methods show that you are wrong in your young age belief? You claim to want evidence, yet you deny everything that contradicts your a priori belief. To me that is nothing more than religious apologetics. It certainly isn't the way science works. While this may seem off topic, the issues are related. The belief in "kinds" follows the exact same pattern. Kinds are a religious belief, and no amount of scientific evidence will make the least bit of difference to believers. We have already seen that demonstrated in this thread. In both cases we see the antithesis of science. Nowadays it seems fashionable in creationist circles to wrap their religious beliefs in scientific terminology, apparently in hopes of fooling those who don't know any better and to feed believers just what they want to hear. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
BobTHJ writes: Based on Borger's baranome hypothesis, VIGEs (Variation Inducing Genetic Elements)... What is the evidence that there is any such thing as VIGEs?
...would have operated with specific function at the point of creation and thereafter until partially or fully disabled by mutation. Where in the genome are these "partially or fully disabled" VIGEs.
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. What is the evidence for "rapid adaptation and speciation" 4500 years ago (in other words, since the flood)? What is the evidence that they operated 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. How many human/guidea pigs genes were identical "at creation?" You know what it means if too many of their genes were identical, don't you? But the important question concerns evidence. Do you have any evidence that human and guinea pig GULO genes were identical at any time in the past?
It would also make sense that VIGEs in both kinds would operation in a similar fashion - making similar changes to those genes. You've just added to the amazing thigns VIGEs can do. Not only can they "cause rapid adaptation and speciation by activating and deactivating various genes," but they can also make actual changes to genes. What is the evidence that anything like this has ever happened?
This also neatly explains the similarity in the GULO genes of humans and other primates. You have again managed to complete an entire post without providing any evidence. Your story has no more evidence than any other fairy tale. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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. It could be, of course, mutational hotspots and common ancestry.... Other options you haven't considered are 3) Some other as yet unknown commonality.4) common ancestry, and it is the rat's gene that has evolved. 5) something else. You have to pick the explanation that best fits with all the other data and support your conclusion. The question I'd want to ask for your preferred hypothesis is why would a common designer commonly design things this way? Is there some reason proteins that don't impact external morphology should vary in a fashion that matches up with the patterns of external morphology?
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. Indeed - we still haven't got a reasonable deep understanding of the big picture patterns we see. We agree on the smaller patterns indicate common ancestry (whether the ancestor is either the FIRST EVER (created kind) or not) - but you are just telling us what we knew: Common ancestry gives us explanations.
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. We have been discussing this hunt for the causes behind such circumstantial spiritual experiences over at Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?. I've detailed my experiences - I'd be interested in hearing yours. But be warned, we're being flagrantly atheist in that thread
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. The feeling is mutual. I've kept this one a bit shorter, since that being in the minority opinion results in a lot of demand for your time around here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5019 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Yes, you are correct. My knowledge of genetics has grown considerably since starting this discussion - so I need to withdraw my earlier statement regarding evolution adding information to the genome. It is clear that new alleles can be created via point mutation other mechanisms rather easily. This fits the baranome hypothesis - baranomes are designed to do exactly that - diversify the kind, partially through the creation of new alleles. The traditional evolutionary model though is still riddled with problems. In order for the creation of a new novel gene there must first be a duplication of an existing gene (recent research has shown this to occur at much lower rates than originally predicted) - then than gene must undergo a number of non-synonymous mutations (of which very few are beneficial) to code a new novel protein. That protein must then provide some fitness benefit to the organism to encourage positive selection. Even if all this comes together this process must occur simultaneously in 50+ genes to form a new novel mechansim for a complex organism. Yes, I understand there are other ways of obtaining new genes (frameshifts, activaiton of pseudogenes, etc.) but the above is the traditional best evolutionary model for the development of new features. Even given timeframes of millions of years it is highly improbable that even a few such new genes would be developed this way. The evolutionary model also fails to explain the rapid variation and adaptation that has been observed in scientific experiments - such as the ability of bacteria to rapidly evolve and synthesize new nutrients. Baranomes explain this rather well - the VIGEs are there specifically to cause this rapid adaptation - but if it can happen so rapidly - then why are millions of years required to develop new traits?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
BobTHJ writes: his also neatly explains the similarity in the GULO genes of humans and other primates. What else could it possibly imply?
For example, I could build a nested hierarchy of automobiles. Sure, if you ignore the history of the automobile industry, just like you're ignoring the natural history of life on Earth. When you figure out how innovations like diesels and intermittent windshield wipers can cross between unrelated clades like ships, trucks and cars you let me know. Entire new car companies arise with no automobile background, like Honda which started in lawnmowers - the first Civic had a 2-cycle engine. With automobiles the evidence screams out that there is no common ancestry, no nested hierarchy.
The YEC geological model has most sedimentary layers laid down during the global flood. Where is there any evidence that most of the world's sedimentary layers were laid down in a short period of time? Where is there any evidence that most of these layers are the result of a single flood? Where is there any evidence that these layers are only about 4500 years old?
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. And how do you explain trilobite (not trilobyte) remains atop Mount Everest?
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. And how do you explain both large and small creatures being found in both early and late layers? Why are clams found above mammals in some places?
Remember - your nested hierarchy is 95%+ accurate at categorizing creatures according to genetic and morphological similarities. Where does this 95% figure come from? Congratulations on another evidence-free post! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Bob, there's no such thing as a baranome in the real world. Prove me wrong.
--Percy Edited by Percy, : Remove cheeky paragraph.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
BobTHJ writes: Yes, you are correct. My knowledge of genetics has grown considerably since starting this discussion - so I need to withdraw my earlier statement regarding evolution adding information to the genome. Kudos for the concession, but is there at least a little voice in the back of your head telling you that you are reaching too many conclusions in the absence of evidence? Most of the other stuff you're saying is just as wrong as your original claim that new information cannot be created through mutation. Remember how you felt when you made that claim? I bet you made it just as confidently as you did your other statements about the YEC model, baranomes and VIGEs. Could I suggest a strategy of "Inform self first, reach conclusions later."
The traditional evolutionary model though is still riddled with problems. It is your knowledge of biology (and geology, for that matter) that is riddled with holes.
In order for the creation of a new novel gene there must first be a duplication of an existing gene (recent research has shown this to occur at much lower rates than originally predicted)... What was the original prediction and at what rate do they actually occur? I only ask because I think you're repeating something that someone else made up.
Even if all this comes together this process must occur simultaneously in 50+ genes to form a new novel mechansim for a complex organism. If by this you mean that many different genes are experiencing gradual change through generations of time, then this is correct. Reproduction is imperfect and neutral and positive mutation gradually accumulate. Because of imperfect reproduction it isn't a question of how speceis change, but how do they ever stay as much the same as they do.
Yes, I understand there are other ways of obtaining new genes (frameshifts, activaiton of pseudogenes, etc.) but the above is the traditional best evolutionary model for the development of new features. The gradual accumulation of point mutations is the easiest process to describe and understand, but I don't know that anyone within biology would describe it as the "best." Evolution is more a "whatever works" type of process.
Even given timeframes of millions of years it is highly improbable that even a few such new genes would be developed this way. Could we see the math? I'm curious how you calculated the probability of a process you so poorly understand.
The evolutionary model also fails to explain the rapid variation and adaptation that has been observed in scientific experiments - such as the ability of bacteria to rapidly evolve and synthesize new nutrients. You have got to stop just repeating everything you hear. Possibly the only correct sentence in your entire post was about adding information to the genome. When we can actually sequence the DNA of the bacteria both before and after the new ability and know precisely what mutational changes occurred, what is it that you think the evolutionary model doesn't explain about bacterial mutations and evolution?
Baranomes explain this rather well - the VIGEs are there specifically to cause this rapid adaptation - but if it can happen so rapidly - then why are millions of years required to develop new traits? This is great! Finally something that can verified in the here and now. So in these experiments where bacteria rapidly evolve new abilities right there in the lab where we can observe precisely what is going on, you claim that there are VIGEs we could supposedly see that are driving the process. So where is the observational evidence for VIGEs? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
followed by Wile's blog Just as a brief aside, as Wile seems to have been referenced multiple times in this thread, I have been quizzing him over at his blog. To demonstrate the level of his intellect, here is his repeated argument for the impossibility of abiogenesis:
Wile writes: Venter’s team was trying to create life according to their design. They couldn’t do it without the help of life — at three different points. Thus, it shows the impossibility of abiogenesis, as life is required for life. I have repeatedly called upon him to retract this obvious non-sequitur and he has merely dug himself in. Complete waste of space and a danger to children who are exposed to his "educational" books.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5019 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: The first thing that comes to mind is neanderthal. YEC scientists predicted through baraminology that neanderthal was not a human ancestor, nor a separate offshot of the primate clade, but a extinct species of the human holobaramin. This prediction was found to be correct when recent testing of the neanderthal genome showed evidence of interbreeding with humans.
quote: Just because a hypothesis can't be tested doesn't make it an invalid hypothesis. Of course, it doesn't make it particularly useful either. Thus it is wise to attempt and find falsification tests for your hypotheses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5019 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Certainly - I set up a topic here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5019 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: You make a point - and yes, if there is a clear naturalistic explanation then I sometimes don't consider a supernatural one (though I'm not convinced that I shouldn't). However, this is because of a firm belief that the natural (the physical laws that govern our universe) were set into place by the supernatural. I think we're off topic here though - theological debate should probably be saved for a different topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5019 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Thanks - I looked over both of these resources, but I don't have time at the moment to go into either in depth, nor am I certain I would fully understand (at least not without taking a fair amount of time to do so). Would you be so kind as to summarize this research for me? What are the implications?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024