Biological classification vs 'Kind'

quote:

---

And how do you explain trilobite (not trilobyte) remains atop Mount Everest?

---

Most YEC scientists agree that the flood caused widespread tectonic shift. Mount Everest is more recent than creation.

quote:

---

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?

---

Some sedimentary layers have been laid down in the "slow and gradual" way post-flood - but this thread doesn't cover geology.

quote:

---

Where does this 95% figure come from?

---

It's 95%+ (as in greater than 95%), and it is an educated guess, nothing more.

quote:

---

Bob, there's no such thing as a baranome in the real world. Prove me wrong.

---

It's a hypothesis only. Dr. Borger puts forward a large body of circumstantial evidence in his series of articles on the subject - but there is nothing conclusive at this time.

quote:

---

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."

---

I'll try to do a little better. However, as I've previously stated I base my conclusions upon the evidence I've reviewed. Being only one person has very limited free time I can take me a while to review evidence. I am open to review specific evidence that's posted here in the discussions I am part of. In fact, this evidence has led me to two nagging 'voice in the back of my head' problems:
1) accelerated radio-isotope decay (as touted by YECs) causing extreme heat.
2) ERV patterns following the phyolgenetic tree.#1 paticularly is bothersome since I haven't yet seen a reasonable YEC explanation (but I haven't done a lot of searching either). #2 not as much since Borger's baranome hypothesis answers it to some extent (though I intend to give it a closer look). Neither of these is sufficient to sway my belief in YEC - it still seems to fit the evidence that I have reviewed better than darwinian evolution - but maybe you all will change that.

quote:

---

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

---

Sorry...it appears I may have misrepresented this. this is the study I was thinking of. If I understand it correctly, it shows that much of the redundancy in the genome is not due to gene duplication. I was wrong in that it didn't have anything to do with frequency.

quote:

---

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?

---

Another poor choice of wording on my part. What I meant was: The evolutionary prediction that this type of adaptation requires large amounts of time is falsified by these studies. Therefore, if common ancestry is true - why does it require billions of years to get from the first life to modern life?

quote:

---

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?

---

Here's the link to a study demonstrating this. Remember: transposons are a type of semi-functional remnant VIGE in Borger's hypothesis.

quote:

---

Which is fine; except that it isn't the atheistic subset that hold evolution to be true, it's almost every single biologist. Step outside of biology and look at astrophysics or geology and you find that they too disagree with the YEC notion and, again, it's not just the atheists. Trying to dismiss Evolution as something only atheists believe is simply untrue. Trying to act like Creation is dismissed by only the atheist scientists is also untrue.

​

It's not atheistic scientists you're disagreeing with, it's just scientists.

---

Yes, I understand this also. I have only used the term 'atheist' to specifically refer to atheists - not evolutionists. For the quote in question I was referring to abiogenesis - a distinctly atheistic belief - thus I referenced atheists, a subset of darwinists who adhere to that belief. While there may be some crossover I suspect that the vast majority of non-atheistic darwinists are theistic evolutionists - ie: they believe the creation of life at least included some divine element.

quote:

---

Which is a nice assertion, but that's all. The fact is that scientists aren't dismissing supernatural explanations because they're anti-God or anti-religion, but because they're trying to understand the world around them (and us) and postulating supernatural explanations simply does not help with that

---

But it does help those of us who have a reason to postulate the supernatural.

quote:

---

YEC "scientists" did not predict the Neanderthals were not a human ancestor. They simply asserted that humans have no evolutionary ancestors. Baraminology makes the identical claim. If baraminology is science then tell us based on what evidence does it make this claim.

---

Yes, YEC scientists did predict Neanderthal to be human - and have for some time. Here's a quote from a 2003 AiG article: I know the prediction goes further back than that too.If you're looking for a more scientific looking prediction, here's an article from Dr. Borger who uses the "indicator gene" method (the one he referenced in the baramin hypothesis that was briefly discussed) to predict neanderthal's inclusion in the human baramin:

quote:

---

Can I presume that if you're willing to accept the findings of science that Neanderthal is not an evolutionary ancestor of humans that you're also willing to accept the findings of science that Homo egaster *is* our evolutionary ancestor?

---

Here's an AiG review of Wood, B. and Collard, M., The human genus, Science 284(5411):65—71, 1999. I can't access the original article without a subscription - but unless AiG is misrepresenting the findings the study showed H. Ergaster to be completely human with the exception of brain size - which was more ape-like. Since small brains have been found in modern humans without impairing function I don't see any reason to consider this a human ancestor. I'm curious if there is DNA available for sequencing for H. Ergaster - if there is I predict that the FOXP2 protein will be identical to modern humans, thus confirming H. Ergaster is part of the human baramin.Edited by BobTHJ, : fix tag formatting of linkEdited by BobTHJ, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes, he's closed it. Unsurprisingly, quite a few topics are closed down on his blog. I need to find an open one to start dismantling his rhetoric that he has been "persuaded" that decay rates are variable by the "evidence"

---

FYI, Wile's blog auto-closes comments on posts older than about a month. I've seen him mention before that if you want to comment on an old post to just post your comment to one of the more recent posts and he would address it.

quote:

---

Translation:

​

Everything I say is getting challenged and I don't have any evidence to support what I'm saying, so I'm just going to start ignoring posts that pose inconvenient questions.

---

I wouldn't normally respond to a post such as this - but I thought I ought to clarify something. I will respond to any post that:
1) Contains evidence (particularly if backed by references) that either refutes a YEC position I have advocated or advances a darwinian position I have attempted to refute (so long as it is on topic).
2) Asks a non-rhetorical question of me which I have not yet answered in the current thread (though my response may be "I don't know").What I can not do however is continue to respond over and over again to posts that attempt to 'gotcha!' me on some silly issue, or that ask me to describe something I have already described in detail more than once. Some examples are:1) Discussions on why I believe naturalistic science to be flawed
2) Assuming I think all darwinists are atheists
3) Proclaiming that my religious beliefs force me to be a YECYou are certainly welcome to disagree with me on these issues, but I can no longer respond. I'm working hard to get caught up on the legitimate responses to my posts.

quote:

---

But that's just it. There is no single nested hierarchy for automobiles. You can have two Ford trucks, one with a Cummins deisel and the other with a Ford engine. You can have a Chevy and Ford with the same tires and the same airbags. Depending on what features you pick you will get a different nested hierarchy. This is not so with life. Life fits in a single nested hierarchy. There are no animals with teats and feathers, as one example.

---

But there are aquatic and flying mammals that both use echolocation. And when I brought that up you told me that we don't classify based on a single feature but on the overall similarity. Based on overall similarity I could build a nested hierarchy of vehicles.

quote:

---

Without common ancestry there is no reason that separately created species would even share the same genetic molecule, much less the same genes.

---

Yes there is....common design. Every other level of nature shows order in similar structures - why would we not find it at the genetic or morphological levels?I'm adding common design to my list of topics that I've explained too many times to warrant further responses.

quote:

---

Why would different baramins share any features at all? There is no reason for them too. Why should the human and ape baramine share any features, much less 98% of the DNA? Why should mammals and bacteria use the same tRNA codons if they were created separately?

​

Again, why isn't this surprising? Isn't this exactly what we should see if common ancestry is true? Or are you saying that we should throw out every DNA paternity test ever done because the two people could have been magically poofed into being?

---

see "common design"

quote:

---

If common ancestry is true should we or should we not observe a nested hierarchy? Since we observe a nested hierarchy, why isn't this evidence of common ancestry? Is your only refutation, "Well, they could have been magically poofed into being"? Is your only refutation a what-if fantasy based on supernatural magic?

---

This is bad logic. Yes common ancestry requires a nested hierarchy, and yes we seem to have an ontological model that looks very similar to a nested hierarchy. However, you need more than that to prove common ancestry - if this weren't the case then scientists would have no reason to go "hoopla!" every time they find a so-called transitional fossil. They are desperate for something to support this massive assumption.

quote:

---

This is in stark contrast to the theory of evolution which is based on the empirical evidence.

---

Complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is based upon the opinions of Charles Darwin (and others). You may have evidence that you believe supports it, but that doesn't make it any more evidence based than YEC.

quote:

---

It originated from the evidence that Darwin discovered on his journeys, most notably on the HMS Beagle.

---

It originated from Darwin's opinions about nature, which he believed coincided with the evidence.

quote:

---

Can you name a single scientific advancement that is solely based on divine revelation? From my knowledge, the scientific advances we have today are the product of methodological naturalism, not divine revelation.

---

Naturalism didn't lead to those advances. An increasing population size and the freedom to pursue science relatively unrestricted of political bonds did. I'll reference AiG's list of creationists agian - if you scroll down you will see that many of the scientists who made significant advances in modern science were creationists. Science didn't advance because of naturalism - it advanced in spite of it.

quote:

---

What dismal track record? We have more hominid fossils than we ever had the right to expect to have. Using the letters next to each skull can you tell us which belong to the ape baramin and which belong to the human baramin?

---

If you'd like to discuss this I am happy to. Let's take them one at a time. You pick.

quote:

---

Important for what? Apologetics?

---

For the continued advancement of science. If/when the day comes that common ancestry is discarded as a viable theory it would be nice to have some of the classification work of baramins complete so no further time is wasted.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic material hidden, press peek to view the hidden material.

quote:

---

Is that really what you think? Isn't it more likely that evolution - even if false - does look rather convincing? Even you have admitted that "Darwinism" as you call it, looks good from a distance; all I am saying is that the view from close-up is pretty convincing too. Whether it is true or not, evolution holds out as a hypothesis beyond a mere superficial examination. In fact, it is convincing enough to have fooled almost every biologist on Earth.

---

No, of course evolution LOOKS true (at least in the big picture sense). There is a good reason for this.

quote:

---

One of the tasks a new scientific hypothesis must perform is to explain why any previous (mistaken) hypothesis looked so convincing. YEC fails this test. The failure is especially glaring given that you refuse to accept an omphalist god.

---

Look at it from my perspective. Darwinian evolution LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain God's creation without the existence of God. It's the best naturalistic argument that can be put forth (at this point anyway) so of course it is going to 'look' true. Appearances can be deceiving. My religious beliefs even explain this rather well: We have a spiritual enemy who specializes in deception.As for omphalism, it doesn't make logical sense from my perspective. It implies that God created to look like darwinism - but (see my last paragraph) darwinism is an invention to explain what God created without his incorporation. That's circular reasoning.

quote:

---

You are wrong about this. The arguments that people like AiG put forward on the starlight issue are just as omphalist as ever, they just lie about it, to hide the unfortunate ramifications. The idea that the speed of starlight has speeded up for instance, is just as much an omphalist argument as the "created in transit" one. It means that God must have set up the universe in such a way that it should look older than it really is - omphalism.

---

You're apparently not very familiar with the current creationist hypothesis then. I'll discuss it with you in another thread at another time if you'd like.

quote:

---

Right, You are not an expert on identifying fossils. Your opinion is not worth much here. Also, you chided me for making what you thought was an argument from popularity a moment ago; now you are content to make an argument from incredulity? Come now. That is not a scientific argument either

---

Which is why I added a disclaimer to my statement.

quote:

---

The fact of the matter is that dinosaur feathers have the same structure as modern bird down. They have two lines of filaments extending from a central rachis, just like bird feathers. They closely resemble the feathers of some modern birds, such as the kiwi. Can you think of a more parsimonious explanation? There is no assumption here. There is only a hypothesis which provides a reasonable explanation for the facts.

---

You haven't shown that there is any 'fact' to the matter. But even if there is I'm not sure how it is relevant to the topic of this thread.

quote:

---

So, to recap, you believe that God put structures identical to bird melanosomes into a dinosaur, in fact, into the same type of dinosaur that is suspected to be an evolutionary link between avians and non-avian dinosaurs. But this does not in any way resemble the appearance of evolution. Hmm...

---

To recap - I demonstrated that assumptions were made. If the statements in your rebuttal are correct then it's possible they were reasonable assumptions. To get back where this started, if the assumptions are reasonable then Dr. Wile should have mentioned so in his post (even if he didn't believe the fossils to show feathered dinosaurs).

quote:

---

I have told you, I am not going to address bare links. Please stop it. Doing it at all is bad enough; doing it when you have been asked dozens of times to stop is simply childish. It makes you look dishonest and thus tarnishes your argument

---

I didn't consider it a bare link - it was supporting evidence for the position I was defending. It appears you and others adhere to a different unwritten standard for links. If this is the case perhaps the published forum rules should be changed to match this standard.

quote:

---

Your experiences on the bat/dolphin thread should have taught you that this is false. Organisms that are thought to be closely related show far more similarity that those with similar morphologies that are less closely related. There is no reason for this to be the case, unless God is fucking with us. Or of course, unless evolution is true.

---

I'm guessing you typed that without thinking. How exactly did evolutionists determine two organisms were closely related when constructing the phylogenetic tree? Oh yeah, morphological similarity. Yes, the convergence thread did show me that some cases of convergence (organisms in different parts of the tree that share a similar feature) don't have genetic similarity - but of course organisms that are close on the tree and share many features and genes - or are you disagreeing with the sacred scientific consensus?

quote:

---

So when you say that the Bible can help us with defining our baramins, you were only talking about a tiny handful of examples. There are millions of species out there; the Bible mentions... what? A score? Maybe two score? I think you are going to need some other objective way of identifying a baramin, because the Bible sounds useless in over 99% of cases.

---

Agree. Dr. Borger's indicator gene method seems promising.

quote:

---

Fair enough. Although I must admit, if you are willing to acknowledge Biblical errors, I am at a loss as to why you would cling so stubbornly to something as false as creationism. The universe wasn't made in six days. that is an error. Admitting this would save you a lot of time and mental effort.

---

You misread me. I believe the Bible to be inerrant. But I'm not here to argue the inerracy of the Bible.

quote:

---

Please don''t pretend that it is not normal practise for creationists to hold up the Bible as an infallible authority. You may not believe it, but for many YECs the mantra "God said it, I believe it, That settles it." is their bottom line. It is used by AiG and they are the largest creationist presence online. You are by no means a typical YEC (if there can be such a thing) if you reject biblical infallibility.

---

Yes - I believe the Bible is accurate. Yes, I agree with AiG - sorry if I wasn't more clear. The scientific evidence I've seen thus far has confirmed my religious belief to be accurate. I admit I've seen a few trouble spots in YEC specifically which I intend to research further (I mentioned them in a different post) - but my religious beliefs may allow for other models as well should YEC not hold up (on this point I'm not in complete agreement with AiG).

quote:

---

I'm just making a point. If there is no objective means of identifying a baramin, how are we to know whether your version is correct, or someone else's - like the one I linked to - is correct? Without such objective measures, how can we even say that the baramin exists?

---

Agree. Objective measures must be found if baraminology is to advance as a science.

quote:

---

Yes, you have said that. What I think you fail to realise is just how strongly this removes baraminology from the realm of science. Supernatural ideas are unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable ideas are not science. In suggesting that we use baramins, you are essentially suggesting that we throw out the entire science of biology and replace it with vague, half-formed superstition.

---

I'm not sure where you got the idea that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be a valid scientific hypothesis - the concept isn't even falsifiable itself and is thus contradictory. I've posted on this previously.Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden off topic parts or potential thread diversions

quote:

---

So can I take this to mean that gorillas, chimps, and humans are more sinful, or at least groan more under the weight of sin, than tarsiers or New World monkeys? And why take away our VNOs and AOBs in the same way in humans and in the other great apes?

---

That's a gross misrepresentation of my statement. Each baranome would decay independently based primarily on the selection caused by environmental factors. Thus the least used part of the baranome would be most likely to disappear first. Consider plants that can be seen to once have the capability for both C3 and C4 photosynthesis, but have long one or the other due to climate related factors. This also explains the VNO - as stated previously both apes and humans were likely created with similar baranomes. For them to both lose the same non-essential piece of the genome is not altogether unlikely.

quote:

---

Which came first, meteors or the craters on the moon? Obviously, retroviral activity came first since the ERV's carry the genes necessary for integration into the genome, reverse polymerase, and capsid proteins necessary for making a viron. ERV's are without a doubt the result of retroviral insertion SINCE THAT IS WHAT RETROVIRUSES DO.

​

If you want to claim that they were magically poofed into the genome by a supernatural deity then it is incumbent on you to supply the observations.

---

Taq said so, therefore it must be true!Since ERVs have been known to turn into retroviruses and retroviruses have been known to turn into ERVs your claims are baseless. You have no clue which came first - and neither do I. Your hypothesis says retroviruses came first, mine says ERVs. Until there is some evidence to demonstrate one or the other than your claim that retroviruses "obviously" came first is nothing more than opinion.

Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden off topic parts.

quote:

---

1. What evidence, if found, would falsify Borger's hypothesis.

---

1) Evidence of new genes creating significant new function not previously found either active or dormant within the genome.2) Evidence that mobile genetic elements (VIGEs) are and always have been "selfish" and random.There is likely more - those were just the first two things I could think of.

quote:

---

2. How did Borger determine what the original intention for these genes was.

​

3. How did Borger determine that "damage" started to accumulate in these genes just 6k years ago.

---

Borger didn't determine anything. He is postulating. This is a hypothesis. You examine the data and the propose a model that fits that data. Then you make predictions based on the model and test those predictions to see if they hold up. I assumed you were familiar with this process.

quote:

---

Examples?

---

Hall, B.G., Transposable elements as activators of cryptic genes in E. coli, Genetica 107:181—187, 1999. I quoted from it earlier.

quote:

---

Evidence please.

---

None available. Note that this is still a discussion of the baranome HYPOTHESIS. I'm demonstrating that the hypothesis is internally consistent - which a good hypothesis should be.

quote:

---

Sounds to me that natural selection is keeping these genes around.

---

Please explain how there is positive selective pressure for an unexpressed gene?

quote:

---

The problem here is that you are rejecting explanations backed with tons of evidence in favor of your unevidenced postulations.

---

No, the problem here is that you are failing to understand that I am explaining a hypothesis. It is supposed to be postulation.