|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: I was (of course) referring to the abiogenesis in the sense it is known scientifically: that of the spontaneous self-generation of life from inorganic material without the assistance or oversight of an intelligent being. Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden off topic sections
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Where did geophysics come from? Astrophysics? I claim they came from the designer. Your argument makes no sense. Edited by AdminModulous, : Hid sections that didn't advance the discussion towards understanding Biological classifications vs 'Kinds'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Great observation! Why do I get the impression that you believe you caught me on some inconsistency?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: As I said before - there are multiple semi-coherent explanations of the data.
quote: Repeating your dogma doesn't make it true.
quote: Darwin really was brilliant. His observations lot of conclusions that have since been shown to be accurate. Unfortunately, not all his conclusions were accurate. Instead of throwing out the bad and hanging on to the good mainstream science has 'adjusted' Darwin's theories to fit the data - nothing wrong with this, it's a scientific process (refine the hypotheses) but at some point you have to admit that you're stretching things a bit too far. Edited by AdminModulous, : non advancing parts hidden - more tangents that need to be trimmed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: It is exactly what ERVs and shared pseudogenes demonstrate IF common ancestry is true. If however the baramin hypothesis is true ERVs and shared pseodogenes demonstrate something altogether different (similar creatures sharing similar design). There is more than one way if interpreting the evidence. My way IS logically consistent.
quote: A hypothesis is opinion. You examine the evidence and form an opinion about what that means. You then test it as you describe. The results of your tests then allow you to revise and improve your hypothesis - but it starts with an opinion (in this case Darwin's).
quote: I do not know the answer to either of these questions. Baraminology (as we've discussed) is not a well-developed science yet - so the answer to your first question may be none. You are certainly welcome to do the research to answer your second question, you haven't given me any reason to take the time out of my day and do it.
quote: I don't wish to participate in this game. If you'd like to discuss so-called transitional fossils on a case by case basis then name one and we'll get started.
quote: I don't recall you showing anything of the sort. The SIFTER research was the closest - but that was based on an ontological model and had nothing to do with common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined:
|
First - I apologize sincerely to everyone for straying off topic. It was not my intent to violate the forum rules, but it is my responsibility to abide by them. For my breach of etiquette I am sorry.
Second - I leave today on a four day trip and it is unlikely I will be able to post during that time. During that time I intend to re-assess my level of involvement in this forum - It is consuming a disproportionate amount of my time. I'd really like to respond to each of your posts personally (I hate to leave questions or comments unanswered), but I'm not sure that's realistic. I don't want to cease my involvement entirely as I have enjoyed our conversations and have learned a lot in the process. My goal is to find a way to participate in a limited fashion while still fairly responding to the major questions and arguments that are raised. Thank you all - I appreciate your taking the time to discuss these matters with me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
Replying to all outstanding messages here, sorry for the wait.
Taq in M340:
quote: I guess I'm not understanding how this allows selection to preserve a non-expressed gene over time. Can you explain further? or point me to some reading material? Taq in M346:
quote: Where did the retro-virus initially come from? Even in a darwinian model it is not unreasonable to suspect that the first retro-viruses were spawned by a mutated section of transposable DNA in a different organism.
quote: Please elaborate on 'EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS'. So called 'evolutionary distance' is primarily just a measure of genetic differences between species (part of the ontological model). Percy in M350:
quote: Borger's hypothesis (which I've since learned appears to have been put forward - at least in part - much earlier by Todd Wood) does fit the evidence we currently observe - if it does not please demonstrate how.
quote: Borger isn't arguing against selection by environment. Directed VIGE transpositions activate dormant psuedogenes causing new phenotypes - and natural selection then chooses the most fit phenotypes for the environment. Borger also hypotheses VIGEs that serve other function (modifying chromosomal configurations to prevent interbreeding and thus force speciation) but this is in addition to the first function, not in place of.
quote: Again, you are assuming that genetic similarity implies common descent. Common descent is one reasonable explanation - but common design is another.
quote: I'm not at all suggesting no commonality. I don't argue against the genetic commonality of all life - I actually find this to be rather solid evidence for common design.
quote: Agree. However, for the full traditional darwinian evolutionary process to occur - even in a rapidly reproducing organism - would still require a considerable amount of time. Consider the steps:1. Gene duplication 2. A mutation event that deactivates the duplicated gene (thus allowing it to freely mutate) 3. A series of mutation events to modify the protein coded by the gene - as well as modifications to the regulatory elements that control expression for that pseudogene. 4. A mutation event that re-activates the new gene for expression. At a minimum you must admit that the above process does not allow for the rapid evolution we have witnessed in bacterial studies. What has been observed is the activation of pre-existing dormant pseudogenes.
quote: Certainly (as stated above) environmental selection would play a major role. The flood event (and resulting continental drift) would cause some rapid environmental change. Species spreading into new areas of the now-unihabited world would also provide rapid exposure to new environments. Also please understand I'm not suggesting high-orders of evolutionary change. The primary evolutionary change I am advocating for is exactly environmental adaptation. Historians wouldn't witness dinosaurs morphing into birds in a matter of a few generations - they would be able to see some minor variations in doves/pigeons as they speciated and adapted to the various environments they expanded into. WoundedKing in M354:
quote: What I was referring to is that the study demonstrates 83% of genes to be non-essential to survival, and of those 60% have no noticeable phenotype. Now, given - phenotypes may exist for some which were not found - for the sake of argument let's assume half of those 60% of non-essential genes would have a phenotype that reduces fitness in the wild (far more than is likely). That still leaves approx. 25% of the expressed genes in Yeast that HAVE NO PHENOTYPE and thus grant no additional fitness. How does natural selection conserve genes that convey no fitness? The explanation was "those genes are the result of gene duplication", but the study shows this to be the case for less than one in ten. Granny Magda in M355:
quote: If conclusive evidence of feathered dinosaurs were shown this would not invalidate kinds. It would fit a new taxon between birds and dinosaurs - likely a separate extinct baramin (or baramins).
quote: Conclusions based on evidence are assumptive in nature - because we never have full evidence. To use our example the evidence in question is several distinct fossils. We can draw reasonable conclusions from these fossils (and maybe feathered dinosaurs is a reasonable conclusion) but that conclusion requires a certain level of assumption - because there is much that remains uncertain.
quote: As I've stated previously, I agree that the ontology based on genetic and morphological similarity models life with greater than 95% accuracy. This agreement does nothing to vindicate darwin (who made an assumption/conclusion of common ancestry based upon morphological evidence) it merely demonstrates that life shares much similarity.
quote: I agree wholeheartedly - and can state with certainty that my YEC belief is a result of the evidence (at least the evidence I have seen).
quote: I'm not contradicting myself here - let me see if I can explain more fully: A hypothesis that isn't falsifiable isn't necessarily incorrect. It is however of limited use to objective science until a method of falsification is devised. Specific baraminological hypothesis are falsifiable. The science as a whole would also be falsified if humans and chimps (or some other primate) were shown to have common ancestry. Dr. Adequate in M358:
quote: This, of course, is not what I said. Thanks to our Creator we do have a tremendous capability to use our senses to acquire knowledge (which in itself is powerful argument against non-intelligent design). We can learn about what we observe. This however does not mean we ever fully understand anything - we only understand that which we have observed about it. Just to set the record straight: I am not in any way suggesting that a spiritual enemy 'fixed' our observations (Though Granny's new avatar is cute) - evidence is evidence. I am suggesting that a spiritual enemy might influence the conclusions drawn from those observations. This is of course opinion on my part and should in no way be construed to be anything else. articulett in M359:
quote: Scientific theories are the best explanation for the observed facts in the opinion of the one adhering to the theory.
quote: I falsify this hypothesis. Percy in M360:
quote: Two means led to this prediciton. First, neanderthal fossils have been found with evidence of civilized society. Since baraminology dictates that only humans are sentient and capable of this level of societal organization, then neanderthal must be human. Secondly, baraminological distances were compared between neanderthal and human fossils indicating a close correlation between the two. Sorry, I can't give great detail on this process as I don't clearly understand it yet.
quote: As mentioned in other posts YEC baraminology predicts much faster 'evolution' (adaptation and speciation) than would be found under a darwinian model. No doubt the 500k year estimate you refer to was based on the darwinian timescale and derived either from radio-isotope dating of fossils or from genetic differences and assumed mutation rates.
quote: Yes...sorry if I wasn't more clear. The homo genus is roughly equivalent to the YEC human holobaramin - ie 100% human 0% ape from a YEC perspective. articulett in M361:
quote: I wasn't implying neanderthal were human ancestors - an extinct species of the human baramin is more accurate. However, you give some good examples and thus allow me to state the following falsifiable hypothesis (which I've been considering and did not originate with me):
Interbreeding (even under laboratory conditions) can be used as an inclusive test to determine if an organism lies within a certain baramin. Note that when interbreeding was discussed at the beginning of this thread by those attempting to characterize baraminology it was done so in an exclusive manner: "if two organisms can't interbreed then they are in separate baramins". This does not hold true however due to speciation (organisms that were once able to interbreed may no longer be able to due to chromosomal reconfiguration or phenotopic incompatibility). However, if two organisms CAN interbreed then the baraminologist can reasonably conclude that they ARE in the same baramin. This includes interbreeding under laboratory conditions (up to but not exceeding manual alignment of chromosomes for meosis) and is valid even if offspring do not remain viable until maturity. This hypothesis can be falsified if a human/chimp interbreeding could be accomplished in the laboratory. According to this hypothesis (and using your examples) horses and zebras are part of the same baramin. Dogs and wolves also share a baramin. Finally humans and neanderthal's share a baramin. I'm trying to get as far away from 'fast and loose' here as I can... articulett in M365:
quote: You're not asking any tough questions here... rapid speciation from a sheep/goat common ancestor is certainly possible - and I've demonstrated the means (VIGEs - see the baranome hypothesis I posted about here and on the genetic redundancy thread). A global flood event as hypothesized by YEC would generate the continental drift from pangaea to (almost) present form thus allowing for rapid re-population of the planet and explaining how specific kinds may be found all or only certain continents.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024