why creation "science" isn't science

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B]I am reading through "29 evidences for Macroevolution." I will discuss them in groups. First up:"One True Polygenic Tree"#1"According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life."...Well, to tell you the truth, I don't want to falsify this claim because it fits perfectly to a Creation model. I strongly predict that a foreign, non-nucleic acid of genetic material will be found as well. My reason? Common creator, common system of creating. There is no reason to suspect God would stray to far from the near-perfect system of DNA he created when he developed new species.[UNQUOTE]"stray too far", "near-perfect system". Well I suppose that provides plenty of wriggle room. But how does that reconcile with the reality of variation in the genetic code?Robin D. Knight, Stephen J. Freeland and Laura F. Landweber (2001) "REWIRING THE KEYBOARD: EVOLVABILITY OF THE GENETIC CODE," Nature Reviews - Genetics. 2: 49-58.This is a paper which consolidates the variations which have been found in the genetic code used a number of organisms. For exmple, the UAA and UAG codons have been reassigned from Stop to Gln in some diplomonads , in several lineages of ciliates and in the green alga Acetabularia acetabulum.A diagram of the relationship between the variants and the standard genetic code is at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7705_pr89_10182001__di_fails_aga_10_18_2001.aspThis raises some interesting questions for creation and/or design. Why would the designer make some variations of the genetic code for some taxa? Is it intelligent to have slightly different codes operating across taxa? Were the organisms created with the variant codes or did their divergence from the standard genetic code occur after their creaton?Why would an intelligent designer create a "near perfect" genetic system when, presumably with a little more effort, a perfect genetic system could surely be provided? Does this mean that the capacity for mutation is designed into the genetic system? What would be the purpose of facilitating mutation? To provide variation within species to enable them to be more fit for their environment?Cobra, you may need to revisit this piece of evidence before charging onto the others.

CobraPerhaps you should define what characteristics of observed nature would be consistent with your (unstated) theory of creation. I supposed, perhaps unjustifiably, that you would have argued that the appearance of "intelligent design" in certain aspects of nature would be consistent with your theory. But don't let me put words in your mouth.Then we might be able to better assess whether the presence of variations in the genetic code has implications for the theory of evolution or your theory of creation.BTW, what is the difference between me questioning the way God made species and you conjecturing what and why God would have done something?

Cobra, does your book by Parker provide specific details of the conference of evolutionists? If so, please advise. And does it have a specific statement of the outcome of the conference?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I wasn't saying it is a conspiracy. I'm just saying a source like Talkorigins will not be too quick to provide information on something that is not good for evolution. I expect the same from a Creationist source.

---

Your statement is generally wrong, cobra_snake. Many of the TalkOrigins articles have links to creationist rebuttals, and further response. I have seen this occassionally at TrueOrigins but never in answersingenesis or ICR.I recall referrring you to an exchange at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html Did you read it? If so, why say what you said above? The "evolutionists" are not afraid of making all of the information available because they are confident it supports the theory of evolution.

​

[This message has been edited by wj, 02-03-2002]