Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?

zenapplesai:
"But if you really want to have some fun, ask an evolutionist to define "evidence"!!"Try to get the definition monger itself to provide a definition. It cannot do so.It is irrelevant what the definition monger thinks.

quote:

---

Furthermore, mutations introduced through oxidative stress, radiation, etcetera are also not really random since they often are introduced at the same spot.

---

What do you mean "same spot"? And are these mutations non-random with repect to location or to fitness? If some happen to affect fitness (whihc is what started this whole "directed mutation" debacle in the 1980s) what about all the ones that don't?Is shooting a blunderbus and hoping one piece of shot gets the bird evidence that the one piece of shot that does was THE one intended to do so?The amount of repeated already-debunked gibberish employed by the creationist is truly amazing.

quote:

---

Seeing as how phylogenies are based upon the assumption of TOE by themselves, then you cannot legitimately use them in a debate for evidence for TOE unless you have peripheral evidence collaborating it.

---

Actually, this is somewhat hyperbolic.Phylogenetic reconstruction is premised on the fact that mutations occur and can be passed on to progeny. That evolution is an underlying assumption is warranted.

quote:

---

The problem here is that all the evidence for TOE
that has been brought to bear on the subject all contain the same grand assumption. This negates any evidence for TOE unless some can be provided that speaks for itself. To date,
there is none.

---

What evidence, in and of itself, devoid of interpretive bias, indicates a miraculous creation event no more than 10,000 years ago?

quote:

---

Appletoast:
Phylogeny itself is an assumption, not a prediction.

---

This is so wromg I don't know where to start.Phylogeny is not a prediction. One can, of course, predict a phylogentic pattern, but the phylogeny itself is not a prediction.Phylogenetic reconstruction, as has been pointed out, is premised on simple realities - mutations occur (rarely) and can be passed on to progeny. It is the patterns of observed nucleotide change that indicates phylogeny.
There is a wealth of published tests of the methods employed, as well as in depth and technical discussions regarding the shortcomings, pitfalls, and corrective methods for these analyses.One need only do some research on the topic to find such things out.

quote:

---

Hi Page,
Page: What do you mean "same spot"?

​

PB: Same spot in the DNA sequence. Has been observed in the mtDNA. You ahve the reference, since I've referred to it already.

---

You have referred to a number of papers purporting to support your claims. However, upon examination, not one has actually done so and, in fact, several have actually contained evidence contrary to your repeated assertions. "Darwin in the Genome" comes to mind.As for "same spot in the DNA", this is also old-hat. You are making a metaphysical mountain out of a physical molehill. Of course certain loci are more prone to mutation than others. There are simple, 'natural' explanations for this. No special creation required, no divine intervention.

quote:

---

Page: And are these mutations non-random with repect to location or to fitness?

​

PB: The are for sure NR with respect to location. Fitness? I don't know.

---

And so the case for special creation falls apart. In order for special creation of adaptive genomes to have a leg to stand on, there would by necessity be non-randomness with regard to fitness. Location is, for the umpteenth time, a simple physical side effect.

quote:

---

Page: If some happen to affect fitness (whihc is what started this whole "directed mutation" debacle in the 1980s) what about all the ones that don't?

​

PB: They are either neutral or selected against.

---

And how do you tell which are which? aside form your simply saying "this one is NR, this one isn't", what actual, verifiable, legitimate methods are there to tell NR from R?

quote:

---

Page: Is shooting a blunderbus and hoping one piece of shot gets the bird evidence that the one piece of shot that does was THE one intended to do so?

​

PB: Obviously, bacteria have this trick present in their genome to respond to suddenly changing environments.

---

What 'trick' is that? Suffering hypermutation in response to oxidative stress? Yeah, thats one superbly designed trick, wherein most of the colony dies while a few "lucky" ones (chosen?) just happen to get a mutation that helps them out, at least in the short run...

quote:

---

For organism like bacteria it wouldn't mind shooting with a blunderbus, as long as they hit the bird. Bacteria are clones anyway that can spawn billions of offspring in 24 hours. Preexisting mechanism to induce variation do not have to be perfect, therefore.

---

Nice ad hoc explanation...

quote:

---

For higher organism it would be nice to have a better controlled mechanism. As demonstrated they have.

---

False.

quote:

---

If such mechanisms don't work properly the genome degenerates, and selection will work against it. Selection is mainly to get rid of degenerate genomes.

---

Apparently you arew not aware of papers such as this one:Nature 1997 Jan 9;385(6612):151-4Episodic adaptive evolution of primate lysozymes.Messier W, Stewart CB.Department of Biological Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, 12222, USA.Although the darwinian concept of adaptation was established nearly a century ago, it has been difficult to demonstrate rigorously that the amino-acid differences between homologous proteins from different species have adaptive significance. There are currently two major types of sequence tests for positive darwinian selection on proteins from different species: sequence convergence, and neutral rate violation (reviewed in ref. 1). Lysozymes from the stomachs of cows and langur monkeys, two mammalian species displaying fermentation in the foregut, are an example of amino-acid sequence convergence among homologous proteins. Here we combine tests of neutral rate violation with reconstruction of ancestral sequences to document an episode of positive selection on the lineage leading to the common ancestor of the foregut-fermenting colobine monkeys. This analysis also detected a previously unsuspected adaptive episode on the lineage leading to the common ancestor of the modern hominoid lysozymes. Both adaptive episodes were followed by episodes of negative selection. Thus this approach can detect adaptive and purifying episodes, and localize them to specific lineages during protein evolution.

quote:

---

Page: The amount of repeated already-debunked gibberish employed by the creationist is truly amazing.

​

PB: I am not aware of any 'already-debunked creationst gibberish'. Maybe you could point it out.

---

Most of the threads that ytou started, then later requested to be closed, for example...

quote:

---

Funny thing is, all legitimate scientific theories CAN be established in a court of law. ToE cannot.

---

Funny - I was not aware that any scientific theory would need to be 'established' in a court of law. Of course, this claim seems to have ignored the round-about way ion which bibical creationism was shown not to be scientific while evolution is in the Arkansas case in the 1980s.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, ToE won't submit itself to objective inquiry in a court of law (never has btw),

---

Why would it? That would have no usefulness whatsoever. If a 'court of law' can put innocent people in jail - even execute them - and allow perpetrators fo crimes to get off scot-free due to some idiotic technicality, why on earth should anyone care what the 12 stupidest people lawyers can find think about scientific theories?of course, maybe Applezephan can provide some verifiable examples of other scientific theories being established in courts of law.Gravity, relativity, germ theory, etc. Got any?