I am sorry for being rude, Arkanjel. However, I do not think Christians to be fools by virtue of the fact my parents are devout Catholics, and only one of my real-life friends is an atheist, the rest being Christian. Please do not assume I think the worst of my opponents.
But why are you getting annoyed at me? You posted two full-length articles that could have taken all of 10 seconds to link to, leaving me to do research for a few hours. It doesn't exactly leave an even playing field. The first one wasn't even strictly involved with the Noah's Ark discussion. You included no comments on what you thought, no ideas as to why they were relevant to the discussion, zip. You just posted and left me to do research for a few hours.
I will re-state my post so as to prove I did my homework:
Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.
Darwin's concepts were about change in populations over generations, which he very ably supported in his works. Darwin was mistaken about how changes were passed on, because he was not aware of Mendel's work. When Mendel's research was re-discovered, after both Darwin and Mendel's deaths, it was incorporated into evolutionary theory, and provided the missing means of inheritance that Darwin was unaware of. Modern genetics supports evolutionary theory, and does not support biblical Creation stories in any way.
To help us develop a new biology based on creation rather than evolution, let us sample some of the evidence from genetics, arranged under the four sources of variation: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation.
One cannot develop a "new biology" based on an unscientific concept.
Environment
This refers to all of the external factors which influence a creature during its lifetime. For example, one person may have darker skin than another simply because she is exposed to more sunshine. Or another may have larger muscles because he exercises more. Such environmentally-caused variations generally have no importance to the history of life, because they cease to exist when their owners die; they are not passed on. In the middle 1800s, some scientists believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited. Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another.
AiG is describing Lamarck's concept, which has been known to be incorrect even in Darwin's time. Darwin did not accept Lamarck's type of inheritance, but was unable to provide a better explanation for inheritance of traits during his lifetime.
He thus explained the origin of the giraffe’s long neck in part through ‘the inherited effects of the increased use of parts’.
Nope, that's false. Reading Darwins Origin of Species for myself proved that wrong.
In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring.
Lamarck, not Darwin.
Recombination
This involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel’s great contribution to the science of genetics.
Mendel's contribution was to show that inherited traits are in discrete "packets", not blended, as was originally thought.
Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.
And of course this is strictly wrong. There are plenty of mutations. Evolution can happen very quickly if there is a big reservoir of existing variation. But neither does it stop if that variation is exhausted. You would think that knowledge of experiments with monoclonal bacterial colonies would have prevented the "highly qualified biologist" from making that silly claim.
For example, from 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.
Or perhaps there were physiological tradeoffs that made further sugar production difficult. Note: there is no support for this assertion. Other factors such as the metablolism of the beet plant itself likely plays a role as well. A better example of plant breeding would be tesonite, which was bred into hundreds of different varieties of maize (corn)
Among the creatures Darwin observed on the Galápagos islands were a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group, we can see wide variation in appearance and in life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the South American mainland, and today’s finches are descendants of those pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.2
And this is utter nonsense. No single species has enough genetic variation for that to have happened. And the finches involved are nested within a larger group of (mostly Caribbean) birds that have even wider morphological variation (look up bananaquits), and those within a largely South American group loosely called "tanagers", and so on until the groups all link up into the complete tree of life. I wonder at what point in this tree we go from acceptable recombining variation among kinds to unacceptable differences between kinds.
However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.2
No definition of "kind" is presented.
Mutation
Now to consider the third source of variation, mutation. Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process.
Mutations are changes in the genetic make up. The can result from mistakes in the copying process, or duplication of segments, etc.
Each living cell has intricate molecular machinery designed for accurately copying DNA, the genetic molecule. But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur, although not very often.
But often enough for mutations to enter the gene pool.
Once in every 10,000–100,000 copies, a gene will contain a mistake. The cell has machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all, or produce so small a change that they have no appreciable effect on the creature. But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners.
It's these mutations which are the raw material for evolution.
Based on the creation model, what kind of effect would we expect from random mutations, from genetic mistakes?
The "creation model" can accomdate anything, so no specific predictions can be drawn from it.
We would expect virtually all of those which make a difference to be harmful, to make the creatures that possess them less successful than before. And this prediction is borne out most convincingly.
As I've already said, in this and the other thread, multiple times, some mutations are harmful, but some are beneficial. Most are neutral.
Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified.3 All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly-exactly as predicted by the creation model.
Whatever does "more successful fruit fly" mean? Successful in what environment? The usefullness, or benefit of a particular mutation is entirely dependent on what the enviroment selects. For an expert, he is surprisingly lax on the disciplines which most other experts take for granted.
Is there, then, no such thing as a beneficial mutation? Yes, there is. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation.
Which, of course is the mechanism of evolution.
Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.
Of course it's harder to evolve a wing or eye de novo than to get rid of one. But of course the original evolution of these features took a very long time and we wouldn't expect them to pop up quickly. And there are known beneficial mutations that involve new capabilities. Most of them are known from microorganisms, just because you can raise more generations of them in the lab and get more mutations than with other organisms. But many sorts of antibiotic resistance are caused by gains of function.
One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.
This part is patently false. We can observe in the fossil record theropod dinosaurs, forearms being modified into wings.
Natural selection is the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be more successful than others, and so they will contribute more offspring to future generations. A favourite example of natural section is the peppered moth of England, Biston betularia. As far as anyone knows, this moth has always existed in two basic varieties, speckled and solid black.
Not true. In fact it's a clear example of a mutation. Melanistic mutations are not all that rare in populations. But if selected against they disappear quickly. In fact no melanistic moths had been seen (or at least reported) before the indiustrial revolution, for the simple reason that they were all presumably eaten long before they achieved noticeable frequency. When melanism became favorable, one or more of the newly-occurring mutants was able to spread.
In pre-industrial England, many of the tree trunks were light in colour. This provided a camouflage for the speckled variety, and the birds tended to prey more heavily on the black variety. Moth collections showed many more speckled than black ones. When the Industrial Age came to England, pollution darkened the tree trunks, so the black variety was hidden, and the speckled variety was conspicuous. Soon there were many more black moths than speckled [Ed. note: see Goodbye, peppered moths for more information].
As populations encounter changing environments, such as that described above or as the result of migration into a new area, natural selection favours the combinations of traits which will make the creature more successful in its new environment. This might be considered as the positive role of natural selection. The negative role of natural selection is seen in eliminating or minimizing harmful mutations when they occur.
So he's not doubting natural selection, or even the existence of beneficial mutations. All he's doubting is that beneficial mutations can do more than result in the loss of characters. But then he uses as an example melanistic moths, which do indeed result from a mutation that adds a character (i.e. greater pigment deposition). Is this confused or what?
Creation
The first three sources of variation are woefully inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see on earth today. An essential feature of the creation model is the placement of considerable genetic variety in each created kind at the beginning. Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras from the same kind; of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind; of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves and coyotes from the same kind. As each kind obeyed the Creator’s command to be fruitful and multiply, the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see.
Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras from the same kind;
How do you determine what is, or is not the same "kind"?
of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind;
What about those fossil Equids that are neither horses, donkeys or zebras?
of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves and coyotes from the same kind.
So, why aren't humans part of the "ape" kind? Humans are genetically closer to apes than jackals are to pomeranians.
I'm afraid that last paragraph is incompatible with observation. There are no such discrete "kinds". There is merely a nested tree of life that joins any two species you would care to mention. Dogs and lions belong to the same kind, which we call Carnivora. Horses and lions belong to the same kind, which we sometimes call Zooamata. And this clade is nested within a clade we call Laurasiatheria, and that within Eutheria, and so on. Further, the genetic divergence within the various things you have called "kinds" is much greater than that seen between humans and chimps or gorillas, and too great to have ever existed within a single population. I'm afraid mutation is the only way to account for that much divergence or diversity.
Actually there is a lot in the article on refuting evolution, it is just presented in a way that informs the reader as to both sides of the coin, you know so we cant be said to be "withholding evidence" to prove a point, which amazingly enough evolutionists do all the time ( so they can keep their grant money and not loose their job).
Can you cite an example of 'holding back evidence' by evolutionists? And they don't get grant money for lying to keep in with the status quo, they get grant money for innovating; scientists who fail to come up with new stuff and
challenge the status quo get grants reduced. However, I would like to point out your own source has a statement of faith they are required to sign stating that no evidence will change their dogma. Physician, heal thyself.
My first question to you is "Has anybody ever run the gene sequence on this creature to see if "new" genes showed up?" Or perhaps its that this creature has always had this ability, but nylon isnt really found in its natural environment, since nylon is after all man-made.
Edited for clarification:
Since nylon is completely synthetic, and even the bonds of are non-naturally ocuring, why would it exist before nylon came into being? It is obvious that the genes for degrading nylon cannot have been present from the beginning, as in the absence of the nylon, not present before 1930, the gene product is non-functional, and the gene would be mutated to uselessness (or an entirely different function) in a few hundred years by random mutations, let alone thousands.
Have evolutionists used circular reasoning on this like they do with fossil-rock dating? You know, the fossil must be X old because it was found in this rock, and this rock must by X old because this fossil was found in it.
A strawman through and through, since your example doesn't even apply in the slightest to genetics. Also, they do not use that method; they use methods outside of the fossils such as radiometric dating. Also, the dates and relative ages of the geologic column were determined long before evolution showed up.
Evidence for a young earth is everywhere, afterall if we were truely products of evolution we would be walking on the bones of our ancestor because of all the generations it would take to get us from a rock to an upright human.
Second strawman. We are lucky to find the fossils we have; fossils require very specific conditions for fossilisation. Ever wondered why fossils tend to be found in certain spots? The only way what you said would be true is if every single creature just happened to die in the right spot for fossilisation to occur.
Yes because afterall what else was there if this planet was a big accident, nothing but rock and lightning, and POOF! we have a mass of protien swimming around in a pool of goop.
Third strawman. By the way, this is abiogenesis.
Amazingly enough this goop kept on becoming more and more complex until it is sending rockets to the stars, and questioning its own existence.
Fourth strawman. I could make equally exaggerated strawmen about biblical creation and Genesis, but I won't, because I respect the feelings of the posters here who by and large believe it. Apparently, you don't offer the same consideration for guests.
If this were true, wouldnt we be continually getting stronger and more resistant to our environment and living longer?
There is no such thing as 'directional evolution' that's a misconception. You don't evolve up or down. Only evolve to better suit your environment. For someone so adamant that it's a myth, you're very quick to make statements proving you don't even know what the theory says.
Actually the exact opposite is true, we are becoming sicker and weaker and more affected by our environment.
What does this have to do with anything? And where is the evidence?
