|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,783 Year: 4,040/9,624 Month: 911/974 Week: 238/286 Day: 45/109 Hour: 2/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Most YEC scientists agree that the flood caused widespread tectonic shift. Mount Everest is more recent than creation.
quote: Some sedimentary layers have been laid down in the "slow and gradual" way post-flood - but this thread doesn't cover geology.
quote: It's 95%+ (as in greater than 95%), and it is an educated guess, nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: Here's the link to a study demonstrating this. Remember: transposons are a type of semi-functional remnant VIGE in Borger's hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: 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: But it does help those of us who have a reason to postulate the supernatural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Yes, YEC scientists did predict Neanderthal to be human - and have for some time. Here's a quote from a 2003 AiG article:
Biblical creationists, on the other hand, believe that there were no ‘subhumans’ at any time. Neandertal fossils are all post-Flood, so these bones are believed to represent just one more group of people which split off from other groups following the Babel dispersion. 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:
The recent DNA analysis of the Neandertaler, who according to evolutionary timescales evolved around 400 thousand years ago, showed they carried the exact same FOXP2 protein (deduced from the DNA sequence) as modern humans, including the N and S at position 304 and 326, respectively.4 In addition to morphological and physiological evidence for the vocal tract, including the modern hyoid bone,5 molecular biology is now providing support that Neandertals were fully equipped for speaking complex languages. The FOXP2 genes found in Neandertals therefore show that they were Homo sapiens. These findings are entirely in accord with the creationist’s stance that Neandertals were fully human (post-Flood) inhabitants of Europe and Asia. quote: 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 link Edited by BobTHJ, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: 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 flawed2) Assuming I think all darwinists are atheists 3) Proclaiming that my religious beliefs force me to be a YEC You 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: see "common design"
quote: 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: 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 Darwin's opinions about nature, which he believed coincided with the evidence.
quote: 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: If you'd like to discuss this I am happy to. Let's take them one at a time. You pick.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: The argument was based on logic. Scientists who view organs as vestigial or view DNA as junk had no reason to search for another explanation. Thankfully, some did anyway.
quote: As I understand the evolutionary definition of the term a vestigial organ is one that has lost some or most of its original function. My point was however that vestigial organs were not found in the quantities predicted by Darwin - nor (in my opinion) the quantities required to support his common ancestry hypothesis. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic material hidden, press peek to view the hidden material.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Not at all....and this fits with the example I gave. During the events leading up to WWII in Germany nazism LOOKED appealing to many. That didn't make it any less wrong. quote: No, of course evolution LOOKS true (at least in the big picture sense). There is a good reason for this.
quote: 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'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: Which is why I added a disclaimer to my statement.
quote: 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: 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 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: 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: Agree. Dr. Borger's indicator gene method seems promising.
quote: You misread me. I believe the Bible to be inerrant. But I'm not here to argue the inerracy of the Bible.
quote: 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: Yes, I have answered it - you just assumed I was saying something different. I'll explain it again for your sake - darwinism can be separated from abiogenesis only via the use of an intelligent design argument. Unless you'd like to propose another naturalistic theory that doesn't involve some sort of designer? I made this point to show that atheistic darwinists (a subset of darwinists for those in the "gotcha!" camp) box themselves into abiogenesis because they are unwilling to admit that life is designed.
quote: Yes, the things you mention have naturalistic explanations. No that doesn't mean that science suddenly "got better" when it ruled out the supernatural as a possible explanation. You are arguing a different point than the one I stated.
quote: Agree. Objective measures must be found if baraminology is to advance as a science.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: So far you haven't demonstrated a single piece of evidence that I'd have to "throw out" to believe YEC. The closest you've come is in demonstrating the problem with accelerated decay - which I'll have to do considerable more research on before agreeing that it is conflicting evidence for YEC.
quote: This is all bluster. Show me an inconsistency with the evidence. Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden off topic parts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: Hall, B.G., Transposable elements as activators of cryptic genes in E. coli, Genetica 107:181—187, 1999. I quoted from it earlier.
quote: 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: Please explain how there is positive selective pressure for an unexpressed gene?
quote: No, the problem here is that you are failing to understand that I am explaining a hypothesis. It is supposed to be postulation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024