|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 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 4998 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Certainly - I set up a topic here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 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 4998 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Since you asked the question I'll clarify this once more - and then I need to move on or risk being buried by having to explain myself so many times: My religion dictates certain beliefs. YEC is not one of those. I could be a theistic evolutionist and still be a Christian (and was one prior to giving the subject any serious examination). I have chosen the YEC model as my preferred model for two reasons:1) It seems to best fit the Biblical text 2) It seems to best fit the scientific evidence I have reviewed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
Since you may not have caught my previous explanations I'll respond to these again - but going forward I'm just going to have to skip responses to these type of posts - nothing against you personally, I just don't have time to repeatedly clarify my positions.
quote: Yes - I understand there are many non-atheist darwinists. When I use the term "atheistic scientists" or "atheistic darwinists" I am referencing a subset of scientists or darwinists respectively - those who are atheists. I have not and will not assume all persons of those respective classes are atheists.
quote: Supernatural explanations have a 100% track record of failure simply because only naturalistic phenomena have been scientifically understood thus-far. Science is able to easily answer natural phenomena - but this does not mean that supernatural phenomena do not exist. It is quite possible that a subset of unexplained phenomena are supernatural - and our present naturalistic scientific methods would not be able to detect this. Those phenomena would then (under a naturalistic system) remain permanently unexplained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: There was a majority of nazis in Germany during WWII (or at least those non-conforming were silent to the issue) - does this mean we should have supported nazism were we to live there in that time? This isn't a scientific argument - of course we should not go along with a belief simply because that belief is held by a majority. I do not see evidence that overwhelmingly makes the earth look old or evolution look true. If I did I would be a theistic evolutionist (as I've stated several times already). I do see that darwinian evolution looks good from a distance - and I correspondingly understand why many people (particularly prior to the last few decades) have been swayed to believe in darwinian evolution - but under close examination it doesn't seem to hold up.
quote: I stand corrected. I'll revise: Most mainstream creationists do not subscribe to Omphalism - though it may have been more prevalent in the past. YECs have several hypotheses for the distant starlight problem that do not involve Omphalism - but a discussion of those hypotheses are beyond the scope of this thread.
quote: Wow....it looks like to me they found exactly what they set out to find. Consider the assumptions that were made:* The imprints on the fossil are feathers (I'm not seeing it - but I don't look at fossils all day either) * The carbon-structures found in the impressions look like melanosomes under a microscope so they must be melanosomes * the impressions may contain melanosomes - bird feathers also contain melanosomes - so they must be feathers (nevermind that many other organisms contain melanosomes). I'm sure their bias for wanting to find feathered dinosaurs didn't play into this at all - nope, not at all (sarcasm implied in case it wasn't apparent). As for the other so-called feathered dinosaurs? The evidence seems to be equally scant. I think Dr. Wile has just cause for his statement. Who knows though - maybe their wild assumptions are correct. Maybe there are feathered dinosaurs. I can live with that - it doesn't harm my scientific worldview.
quote: The link was not bare - but posted as supporting evidence for the position I stated. Though of course - you are free to disagree - and to read whatever you would like.
quote: False. Most every new organism discovered fits well into an ontology for classifying organisms according to similarities. Not surprisingly, most genetic evidence also fits because organisms with similar morphological features often share similar genetic features. Darwinists just make the jump from there that the nice ontological model implies a common ancestry of all organisms - a claim for which there isn't much evidence.
quote: No no no. Let's get something straight: I'm not here to argue "The Bible tells me its true - so all of you are wrong!" I do believe the Bible to be 100% accurate - but I won't use that belief as the basis of my arguments here. I came here to debate scientific evidence - not theology. I was stating that the YEC model (and its hypotheses) are based upon an interpretation of the Bible. It certainly isn't the only interpretation, but theologically it seems to be the most sound (vs. old-earth creationist models or theistic evolution). Just because the model is originated from the Bible doesn't mean it can't be scientifically examined. You wouldn't suggest that the ToE is unscientific simply because it originated from Darwin would you?
quote: There is none. There are of course many topics that the Bible does not address in detail. Specifically when it comes to baraminology there are only a few relevant verses from which conclusions can be drawn - but there are some.
quote: I've answered this multiple times. Feel free to read through my other posts on this thread for an explanation - I don't have time to retype it all again here.
quote: The short answer is: Yes. The long answer is off-topic.
quote: Flawed reasoning. There is no causation between naturalism and scientific advance.
quote: Nope - you are still making the assumption that genetic similarity implies common ancestry. The dismal track record of supposed transitional "human ancestor" fossils over the years doesn't help you here. If the consensus among other posters is that an examination of those fossils is on-topic then I'd be happy to discuss them in more depth.
quote: I've never heard of the site you referenced - but suffice it to say there will probably be some disagreement and minority viewpoints among creationists when classifying creatures into kinds. This is irrelevant to your argument against the validity of baraminology.
quote: Conclude whatever you would like - Baraminology is worthless to those who have no reason to assume the supernatural. I've gone into this in detail previously. For those of us who do subscribe to Baraminology - it is important to identify the limits of a baramin. There is work currently being done by multiple creation scientists to do exactly that. Baraminology (the modern variant anyway which incorporates factors such as genetics) is a relatively new field of study, and creation scientists don't have the same numbers or backing to support the advancement of their research, so it naturally moves at a slower pace. Thank you for the comprehensive reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Mr. Thomas is not being inept or dishonest here. He doesn't mention Sarmiento's conclusions because it is already clear what those conclusions are. Thomas was drawing attention to the contreversy: evolutionists can't decide where Ardi fits. No one doubted that they believed Ardi to not be some sort of a primate ancestor - darwinists wouldn't draw any conclusion that wouldn't fit their dogma. If anything (probably in an effort to simplify the issue for non-scientific readers) he chose poor wording for the title of the article.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Yes you already know the answer. This is simply proof that there is more than one way semi-coherent way to interpret the evidence. Two questions to ask yourself about a set of beliefs: 1) Is it (to a high degree) internally consistent?2) Does it (to a high degree) match what it observed around us? I can answer both those questions with a resounding "Yes" for YEC. I suspect you would answer them "Yes" as well for darwinian evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 119 Joined:
|
quote: Easily. In the creationist model the baranomes have decayed over time (via mutation and information lost via natural selection due to speciation). It is not at all unlikely that one or more parts of the human body are no longer functional due to loss of information. I'll even go so far as to predict that more presently functioning organs will become non-functioning in the future. Creation is doomed to a bitter end (well, without supernatural intervention anyway). Thanks for bringing this up though - because this highlights one of the uglier sides of darwinian evolution: The host of vestigial organs that Darwin predicted simply aren't there. The already small list grows smaller every time we learn the function of another organ. Appendix is out. Spleen is out. No problem though - we'll just replace that hypothesis with Junk DNA! Oh wait....so much for that one too. Interestingly - the insistence upon vestigial organs and junk DNA to support darwinian evolution has actually hindered the advancement of science. When entire organs and sections of the genome are written off as evolutionary remnants there ceases to be a concerted attempt to find their function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: This would seem to add evidence for the baranome/VIGE hypothesis. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The ERV or the retrovirus?
quote: I'm not going to reply to this here. I am looking deeper into this topic to investigate the level that ERVs fall into the evolutionary nested heirarchy - and if Dr. Borger's baranome hypothesis can provide a suitable explanation. When I do respond (which I intend to) it will likely be in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 119 Joined:
|
quote: You discredit one list by posting a video debunking a different list? Seems there is a disconnect somewhere. Anyway, I didn't post the lists so you could go over them with a fine-toothed comb (though feel free to if you wish). I posted them to demonstrate that there are SOME scientists who subscribe to YEC. Yes, I understand darwinist dogma doesn't allow the words "creation" and "science" to go together - and you are free to live in your deluded world if you wish.
quote: I've seen the light! I'm ready to give my mind over to Darwin! I no longer wish to question assumptions that are made by the scientific majority! Lobotomize me and set me free! No, seriously - that part of your post was funny. I LOLed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: I stated this twice - please read my posts. Borger coined the term VIGE's to refer collectively to insertion sequences, ERVs, transposons, and other mobile genetic elements. There has been some recent evidence showing that at least some of these mobile elements are not selfish and random (as originally believed) but instead have very specific function to activate and deactivate dormant genes (pseudogenes). These functions have been observed when the cell goes into a starvation state - the mobile elements begin to shift causing the activation of previously dormant genes. In bacteria domant genes were activated allowing the synthesis of new sugars available in the artificial lab environment. I'll locate and link the appropriate studies if you'd like. Borger's hypothesis is that the mobile genetic elements we see today are what's left of VIGE's. Many seem to have been damaged by 6k+ years of mutation and so don't function as originally intended.
quote: There is circumstantial evidence - the ability of organisms to rapidly adapt and evolve - far faster than darwinian evolution would predict. The current level of diversity in life we witness today matches with the 4500 year timeframe since the flood - assuming base kinds were transported on the ark. As to activating and deactivating genes, Borger quotes this in Part 4 of the Baranome hypothesis:
As cryptic genes are not expressed to make any positive contribution to the fitness of the organism, it is expected that they would eventually be lost due to the accumulation of inactivating mutations. Cryptic genes would thus be expected to be rare in natural populations. This, however, is not the case. Over 90% of natural isolates of E. coli carry cryptic genes for the utilization of beta-glucoside sugars. These cryptic operons can all be activated by IS [insertion-sequence] elements, and when so activated allow E. coli to utilize beta-glucoside sugars as sole carbon and energy sources The quote is taken from Hall, B.G., Transposable elements as activators of cryptic genes in E. coli, Genetica 107:181—187, 1999. He also provides several other examples demonstrating mobile genetic elements acting with purposeful altruistic intent.
quote: Not what you'd think. The bulk of genetic function seems to be in the regulatory portions. It is quite possible that similar organisms all shared very similar genes with the functional differences being in how and when those genes were expressed.
quote: No, I don't have any evidence - I was postulating. Do you have evidence?
quote: See above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4998 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Yes, it could be common ancestry - I don't think Woodmorappe's article is to disprove common ancestry so much as it is to demonstrate design as a reasonable explanation.
quote: Fair enough. I don't have an answer at this point.
quote: Yes, I saw that thread - and I'm not sure I want to get into the thick of it, but thanks for the offer. As I've mentioned before my spiritual evidence of God's existence is circumstantial - and while adequate to convince myself - I highly doubt any circumstantial evidence would be taken seriously on these forums. Plus - it's not my job to convince all of you of God's existence - He can do that just fine Himself.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024