My overall view from this boards.

Very astute observations.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]We are simply prepared to tell you the common sense reasons why we beleive in creation and why 99% of scientific findings have an immediate creationist interpretation. [/QUOTE]Then perhaps you would care to start doing this?You can start, for example, by providing the "common sense reasons" that we should believe that a 'creator' would put the observed patterns of shared mutation in organisms.Not the same genes.The same exact mutations.I would love to hear the 'creationist interpretation' of that.You can look here:http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htmfor example, and provide a creationist 'interpretation' of what you see.Of course, there are locial interpretations, and illogical ones.

Ahh - there you are TB. You must have missed this:***********************************************************We are simply prepared to tell you the common sense reasons why we beleive in creation and why 99% of scientific findings have an immediate creationist interpretation.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Then perhaps you would care to start doing this?You can start, for example, by providing the "common sense reasons" that we should believe that a 'creator' would put the observed patterns of shared mutation in organisms.Not the same genes.The same exact mutations.I would love to hear the 'creationist interpretation' of that.You can look here:http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htmfor example, and provide a creationist 'interpretation' of what you see.Of course, there are locial interpretations, and illogical ones.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matt:
[B]Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Then perhaps you would care to start doing this?

​

You can start, for example, by providing the "common sense reasons" that we should believe that a 'creator' would put the observed patterns of shared mutation in organisms.

---

Are you sure they are mutations? How can you tell if you didn't originally see those strands as they were begotten? Perhaps they were originally unmutated strands that were later subjected to excessive ultraviolet radiation and were both likely changed in similar manners. I can do the same thing with 2 identically programmed EEPROM chips and come out with similar observed (mutated) data by subjecting them to ultraviolet light for a set period of time. [/quote]It is a shame that computer chips are nothing at all like DNA. I have often wondered, perhaps you can answer: Why is it that computer geeks always seem to think that everything in the world works just their little computer chip does?Well, anyway, maybe YOU can go here:http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htmAnd see if real life data is just like your little chips.

quote:

---

Similar strands are obviously a repetative design coming from a single style/process used at some type of inception.

---

Yes, obviously. Perhaps you can provide some documentation demonstrating that this applies to DNA.

quote:

---

Repetative mutation in no way proves common ancestry one bit for holding a water-tight argument. It can however back the ID claim that they were originally designed similar at the beginning of inception. So, as you see, I now have more than 1 solution to your problem.

---

I see you think you have a 'solution.' However, I also see that as is typical for non-biology oriented folks, you are going about it in a very simplistic manner.The problem is, you are forgetting/did not know that mutations happen. And in reproducing organisms, these mutations can get passed on. As this occurs, these passed-on mutations start forming patterns (see the link I provided). Only when one ignores the data and its implications can one produce the 'solution' you do.

quote:

---

There are MANY observed phenomena that can't be explained rationally.
Obviously you "believe" you know the answer for the evolutionist's. So let's hear it!

---

See above. And the support for the validity of the argument?One of several:Science 1991 Oct 25;254(5031):554-8
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice.Atchley WR, Fitch WM.Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

quote:

---

I am a computer scientist.

---

That much was clear.

quote:

---

So your answer has to be PROVEN and unbiased. If you can't answer then you have no claims for your argument. So why bring up this topic in the first place if it can't be proven??

---

I doubt you are any sort of 'scientist'. A troll, if anything. This shopworn simpleton's view of what science is something of a joke. PROVEN?One thing I can prove - computer scientists have little reason for engaging in discussions of anything other than computer science...[This message has been edited by Matt, 09-07-2002][/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Matt. I just noticed that you are form Grand Rapids. I lived there for about 3 years.You have a subscription to the "Something Better News", right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:
Please explain to all of us where "evolution" has anything to do with medical science. I would really like to know.

---

Can Vet J 2002 Jul;43(7):556-9
Darwinian medicine: applications of evolutionary biology for veterinarians.LeGrand EK, Brown CC.Toxicology/Pathology, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C., 1000 Rt. 202, Room B-305, Raritan, New Jersey 08869, USA.*****************************************************************
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2002 Jan;26(1):1-19Evolutionary psychiatry. Adaptationist and nonadaptationist conceptualizations.Dubrovsky B.McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. bdubro@po-box.mcgill.ca"Darwin's theory of evolution, and in particular one of its mechanisms, natural selection, is being used as the explanatory cornerstone of many unsolved problems in human biology and human affairs."
****************************************************************Q Rev Biol 2001 Dec;76(4):417-32Evolution in health and disease: work in progress.Stearns SC, Ebert D.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8106, USA. stephen.stearns@yale.edu"This article surveys progress in Darwinian medicine since 1991. Evolutionary thinking has been providing an increasing flow of fresh ideas into medical science, ideas that would not be suggested by other perspectives. "
****************************************************************Well, that is just three. Searching PubMed (you know all about Pubmed, right?) for "Darwinian medicine" got 80 hits.Changing the search parameters would probably yield even more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:
Hugh?

​

Mutation has nothing to do with variation!! Can you prove that it does?

​

[This message has been edited by Matt, 09-08-2002]

---

Hugh? Hugh who?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:
Hey. Look. I am talking about transformations from one kind of animal into the next.

---

Fiunny - that is not what you wrote.

quote:

---

Not about variations within a kind. I am talking about the big picture here.

---

What is the mechanism behind in-kind variation? Can you PROVE that this has occurred?

quote:

---

You're the one making bold assertations. Have you ever SEEN a Dog produce a non-Dog? How about a bacterium turning into a mosquito?

---

Have YOU ever seen an ocelot spring from some mythological original cat-kind?

quote:

---

The answer is no...no one has.

​

You have no case. Drop your dumb idea.

---

Indeed...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx

​

In kind variation is extremely well understood. We all know exactly how the Galapogos finch beaks changed shapes. I know you know that. Go to Medline and check out the protein sequence variations from finch to finch. It's variation of existing genes.

---

Of course, you KNOW that is not what I was talking about, don't you?Please explain how this applies to, say, all extant felines springing forth from the original cat-kind in just a few thousand years.
Oh - what about the rest of my cut-and-pasted message?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Brocolli, cauliflower, cabbage and mustard looks as different as lions and tigers to me.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-10-2002]

---

Relevance?I am still waiting for a creationist explanation for the data patters seen here:http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

​

'Kind' could be exactly identical with families. Who knows? We'll see. From our point of view we expect it to be easy to identify ultimately from genomes but it may be obscured by issues of loss vs gain.

---

Please go to the link that I have provided. It is an alignment of DNA sequences for primates that extends above the level of the Family.Please tell us what the criteria are that you would use to tell at what point descent stopped - or started, I guess.Also, please provide some evidence that God created introns.

The selective responses to posts are intriguing....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx

​

Your post requires actual work to be done! Its not just a chat subject.

---

Not at all.

quote:

---

For now let me say that we've talked about it before that these pseudo-genes may have unknown purposes or that the mutaitons are in some sense determinsitic due to some DNA motifs etc. For us it may even be God's implementation of the curse at the fall.

---

There are no pseudogenes at the link.

quote:

---

I have agreed here before that what you (and others before you) have shown is powerful evidence of common descent. How many times do I have to say it?

---

18 more times.

quote:

---

Kinds? I do not use these sorts of alignments to distinguish kinds.

---

Creation scientists do. But they use arbitrary 'barriers.'

quote:

---

I would use summaries of presence or absence of protein families. We all know that the sequences of functional genes can easily drift through mutations and yet perform the identical function. It is not like this sort of evoltuion created a new function - it is simply drift and optimization.

---

Often accompanied by uncanny support for common descent, as you admit...

quote:

---

It is the presence or absence of protein families that we need to use.

---

Your personal criterion.I say that we need to use synapomorphic sequence.

quote:

---

Introns? I have no evidence that God created introns - but they have a purpose - they partition genes for multiple splicing.

---

But that is not what you said. You said flat out that God created themI suggest that you temper such claims in the future with a disclaimer.