Continuation of Noah discussion

[Jim]

In addition to Eon’s link of the haloes faq, I would highlight some points about it if it is too long to read:
The main points being:

1) Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks.

2) The biotite in which Gentry obtained some of his samples (Fission Mine and Silver Crater locations) was not from granite, but from a calcite dike. The biotite formed metamorphically as minerals in the walls of the dike migrated into the calcite. Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments. Thus, all of the locations Gentry examined show evidence of an extensive history predating the formation of the micas; they show an appearance of age older than the three minutes his polonium halo theory allows. It is possible God created this appearance of age, but that reduces Gentry's argument to the omphalos argument, for which evidence is irrelevant.

3) Stromatolites are found in rocks intruded by (and therefore older than) the dikes from which Gentry's samples came, showing that living things existed before the rocks that Gentry claimed were primordial.

Dinosaur tracks

Many fossilized dinosaur track patterns suggest that the creatures who made them were fleeing from something; in some cases this may have been a predator. A soft surface capable of receiving foot imprints would be unlikely to retain those prints unless relatively quickly covered by further sediment, such as in a flood catastrophe.

Fossilized dinosaur footprints have been found in these Colorado mines. In Cyprus Plateau Mine (Utah), a fossilized dinosaur footprint was found in the coal seam next to one of the many coalified logs of the plateau. In Kenilworth Mine, eight different types of dinosaur tracks were found.

The pattern of tracks suggests that the animals were fleeing from an imminent catastrophe. Nearby, a huge dinosaur graveyard has been found at Dinosaur National Monument (Vernal, Utah) in Jurassic sediments.

Obviously, the dinosaurs that made these tracks didn’t escape. The catastrophe got them. The collapse of geologic time and the young age for the rock formations confirm that these dinosaurs lived on Earth, at the same time as man, only a few thousand years ago.

Conclusion
This scientific evidence, presented in leading journals, is a major problem for the idea of ‘millions of years’. It is, however, consistent with the vast fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock deposits of the Colorado Plateau having been laid down rapidly by the catastrophic global Flood described in the Bible, some 4,300 years ago. The dinosaurs that left footprints on the plateau, and were then buried and fossilized in the nearby rocks, also lived then—at the same time as man.

The only tracks I’ve really heard of are those at Paluxy, championed by creationists Morris, Baugh and Patton. 1, none of the depressions are very human-like, and 2. The same depressions have been interpreted in vastly different ways by different creationist authors--some claiming they were "giant human prints" from 16 to 19 inches long, and others, such as Morris and Stan Taylor, indicating that the "best" prints in the trail represented normal sized feet about 10 inches long. Baugh and Patton recently attempted to show that the "new" human prints (in the same dinosaur tracks) are each 11 1/2 inches long. This they did by partially filling each track with muddy water until a puddle about 11 1/2 inches long was achieved!

Also unfounded is Morris' assertion that several prints contain properly configured "toe-like impressions" or that they are "accentuated by colorations." None of the depressions contain anything approaching clear human toe marks, and the few markings that Baugh and Patton are claiming as toes are merely vague or irregular features representing broken and or partially eroded portions of the infilling material, or (in one case) a mudcrack pattern. Also, in no case are the supposed human toes accompanied by a complete or clear set of other human features (ball, arch, heel), and often the contours of the track contradict those of genuine human prints.

Other tracks seem to have failed to impress independent paleontologists too. Why are breaking finds like this only found by creationists? Why have independent paleontologists never made similar discoveries?

E.g. the amount of helium in the atmosphere, the decay and rapid reversals of Earth’s magnetic field, the salinity of the oceans, lack of continental erosion, and population statistics. A good summary is given by Morris, J.D., The Young Earth, Master Books, Arizona, 1994.

Again, taken from talkorigins:

1. Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere

The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)

But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to "get" a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers "handwave away" mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:

"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." ( Morris 1974, p. 151 )

But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:

"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." ( Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 )

Radiometric dating relies on three unprovable assumptions about the past:

The amount of ‘daughter’ isotope in the rock at the start is known.


No loss of ‘parent’ or gain of ‘daughter’ since the rock formed (closed system conditions).


Constant decay rate of ‘parent’ to ‘daughter’.

Creationists seem fond of attacking radiometric dating. Ironic since they themselves use it to get findings which coincide with what they want.

The first two ‘assumptions’: the article seems to think they are wild guesses. They aren’t. They are based on evidence. Also, the article seems to suggest when it gets it wrong, all other situations where it gets it right should be discarded, which is dishonest. To quote an example:

How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.

These examples fail to explain why methods that allegedly produce randomly wrong results fall in line with mainstream science 95% of the time.

Finally, the radiometric dating decay rates isn’t an assumption but is based on evidence; Isotopes involved in radiometric dating have never been observed to change their rate of decay, despite experiments to try and achieve this. As much as AiG might ‘want’ this to be an assumption, it isn’t.

 

[Jericho_falls]

Eon, answer the arguments yourself. You can't just say "They were dismissed." Who dismissed them? I'm sure everyone has dismissed someone's theory at some point. The only difference is that when evolutionary theories are "dismissed" it's the "dismisser" with the "problem." (yay for quotation marks!)

This discussion was about Noah and the ark correct? Well, if you guys think it's improbable or impossible to have a man build an enormous boat out of wood and survive a worldwide flood with two of every kind aboard plus food, then consider the alternative:

The human DNA sequence has 3 billion basic pairs, 98% of which are in line with chimpanzee DNA sequence. That means the difference is 2%, or 60,000,000 basic DNA pairs. In the proposed evolutionary timeline, humans evolved from apes in the last 4 million years. Punch the numbers and that means that there would have to be 15 beneficial mutations (if there is such a thing) every year! The fact is that humans haven't received a beneficial mutation ever since scientists started looking for them. Course we should see about fifteen a year, according to the precepts of unatariarnism. Yes, we do see mutations in humans, but what you get is mentally and physically retarded people, stillborns, and premature deaths.

When I say that the cats of the world came possibly from one original feline (or two, who knows?) I'm not talking about mutations, which are a rediculous theory. I'm talking about thinning gene pools. I'm talking about sexually inherited traits of offspring contained within a parent's gene pool. A chimpanzee has no capability of producing a man, but two white parents can produce a black child and horses can be bred into different species. Micro evolution (and I would prefer to call it species varience because it has nothing to do with pop-evolution) is a fact, Macro evolution is a fantasy.

 

[Jim]

This discussion was about Noah and the ark correct? Well, if you guys think it's improbable or impossible to have a man build an enormous boat out of wood and survive a worldwide flood with two of every kind aboard plus food,

A trait shared by the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields.

then consider the alternative:

The below is not an alternative, since it isn’t even correct.

The human DNA sequence has 3 billion basic pairs, 98% of which are in line with chimpanzee DNA sequence. That means the difference is 2%, or 60,000,000 basic DNA pairs. In the proposed evolutionary timeline, humans evolved from apes in the last 4 million years. Punch the numbers and that means that there would have to be 15 beneficial mutations (if there is such a thing) every year! The fact is that humans haven't received a beneficial mutation ever since scientists started looking for them. Course we should see about fifteen a year, according to the precepts of unatariarnism. Yes, we do see mutations in humans, but what you get is mentally and physically retarded people, stillborns, and premature deaths.

No. Descent from ape-like ancestors didn't consist entirely of, or even mostly of beneficial mutations. If you are going to argue genetics, please get a basic understanding of them first.

Note: Descent from ape-like ancestors. Evolving from apes is a common strawman argument used by creationists. You probably didn’t mean that the way I took it, but just so you know. There is a major difference between chimps and humans sharing an ancestor and evolving from one another.

A given mutation is not necessarily just a change in just one base pair. For example, a single gene duplication mutation might involve tens or hundreds of thousands of base pairs. Further, many of the differences between chimps and humans are in non-coding regions and thus are neither "beneficial" nor "deleterious" -- they're neutral.

If beneficial mutations don't exist please explain bacterium developing resistance to antibiotics. Or the Apolipoprotein mutation that reduced the risk of cardiovascular illness of some residents of an Italian village discovered in the 1980’s. What is a natural resistance to AIDS, resistance to sickle cell anemia in malaria environments, if not beneficial?

In short, benficial mutations happen all the time.

If I am wrong, and the above are not examples of beneficial mutations, say so and give reasons. It reflects poorly when you repeat an argument I dealt with in another thread as if nothing happened.

When I say that the cats of the world came possibly from one original feline (or two, who knows?) I'm not talking about mutations, which are a ridiculous theory.

No, you are talking about, in many cases, macroevolution, since this idea proposes speciation without barriers to change. You should stop calling other things ridiculous when you don’t even understand the implications behind your own ideas.

I'm talking about thinning gene pools. I'm talking about sexually inherited traits of offspring contained within a parent's gene pool. A chimpanzee has no capability of producing a man, but two white parents can produce a black child and horses can be bred into different species.

It seems to me that you don’t have much understanding of genetics or much biology at all.

I am guessing that the above is your assumption that all current genetic information is watered down from it’s original. That the stock kinds on the ark contained all the information for today’s species.

Not only is this wrong, it doesn’t even apply to the conundrum, which is the reason I asked for the definition of kinds. To put aside the considerable mental gymnastics the above requires, let us assume it was true for a moment.

It would mean you are still using speciation and macroevolution. From the stock kinds to today’s kinds requires changes you would ascribe to macroevolution.

The ark requires one of two things: a small number of representative animals (Around 50,000, possibly up to 75,000 in some calculations, but in all cases a tiny fraction of today’s species) or a large number (in the millions of millions, far more than any creationist model for the Ark could hold.)

If you agree with 1), few animals, then you need to explain how a handful of representative species became the many we see today. Whether you accept it or not, such significant changes require speciation and macroevolution by virtue of the huge changes involved alone. Neither of which are acceptable to creationists. To say that massive variation can come from small variation with only 'thinnin of the gene pool' is a slap in the face to modern genetics.

If you agree with 2) many animals, you will have to explain to creationists that all their calculations over the years are wrong, and that Noah had to take the population of a small country on the Ark with him. I think this throws the credibility of the Ark way beyond miraculous.

Macro evolution is a fantasy

Read this: 29+ evidences for Macro-Evolution

I have no doubt you will not, though; just as you most likely did not read the polonium faq. It seems you are more interested in being right than getting the truth.

 

[Arkanjel]

And yet another article to give you the answers you so desperately seek. I hope you enjoy and learn from the presented information.
-Arkanjel-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

Here there is that AIG website again, boy they must have some GOOD stuff over there!


Genetics: no friend of evolution
A highly qualified biologist tells it like it is.
by Lane Lester

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.

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.

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. He thus explained the origin of the giraffe’s long neck in part through ‘the inherited effects of the increased use of parts’.1 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.

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 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.

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.

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

Mutation
Now to consider the third source of variation, mutation. Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. 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. 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.

Based on the creation model, what kind of effect would we expect from random mutations, from genetic mistakes? 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. Some examples help to illustrate this.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Recommended Resources

Refuting Evolution 2 (Softcover)
A sequel to Refuting Evolution that refutes the latest arguments to support evolution.

References
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th Edition, John Murray, London 1902, p. 278. Darwin did see natural selection acting on this and other causes of variation as an important factor in giraffe neck evolution, but not many are aware of his reliance on inheritance of acquired characteristics. Return to text.
The different species of Galápagos finches have been observed interbreeding at times, clear evidence that they belong to the same created kind. Return to text.
Dan L. Lindsley and E.H. Grell, Genetic Variations of Drosophila melanogaster, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 627, 1967. Return to text.

 

[Jim]

Arkanjel, you shouldn’t just parrot entire articles and leave it at that. It’s dishonest at best and doesn’t show that anyone understands, just that you happen to trust the source at their word. If you can’t understand the article in question, how can you understand the refutations?

Having said that, the article doesn’t really have much content on refuting evolution. They highlight the difference between recombinant evolution and mutation evolution (correctly, as far as I can see), but then simply assert that mutation evolution doesn’t work. Their ‘evidence’ so to speak, is that we cannot directly observe it, even though the lack of direct observation is part of the original hypothesis. I don’t see how a lack of direct observation falsifies a theory that assumes lack of direct observation.

They also neglect to tell the readers that the evidence for drastic non-recombinative evolution is indirect and we make the inference for evolution based on this indirect evidence.

The AiG article claims that

All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly-exactly as predicted by the creation model

There is no logical connection between a creation hypothesis and a lack of information increasing mutations. It also happens to be a bare-faced lie. Most mutations are neutral. Further, of those that are not, most are harmful, but since they are less likely to survive to pass on, the majority of mutations with far-reaching effects are beneficial. Most mutations are also dependant on their environment, which creationists consistently fail to understand. A mutation that is of help in one environment can be a hindrance in another.

I also note you didn’t have any comment on the beneficial mutations outlined in my previous post. I take it AiG knows of them?

Another example, AiG claims that

One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.

Searching the literature reveals that this is patently false. One beautiful example is the so-called "nylon bug," a bacterium that gained the ability to metabolize nylon without losing any other abilities. AiG has an article that supposedly refutes the nylon bug, but it is basically just a bunch of hand-waving hot hair.

 

[Arkanjel]

Well first of all Jim, I put the whole article up there so that all the information is presented and I cant be taken out of context. Im sure that if I just put partial quotes up there I would be even more scrutinized than I already am. Secondly, amazingly enough I do understand what Im talking about, and "parroting". Im sure you think that most of us Christians are fools who follow anything, but I want poeple who are just reading the site and not actually replying to be able to read the WHOLE article so that they get the full effect of the explanation, not just tiny snipets here and there.

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).

"There is no logical connection between a creation hypothesis and a lack of information increasing mutations. It also happens to be a bare-faced lie. Most mutations are neutral. Further, of those that are not, most are harmful, but since they are less likely to survive to pass on, the majority of mutations with far-reaching effects are beneficial. Most mutations are also dependant on their environment, which creationists consistently fail to understand. A mutation that is of help in one environment can be a hindrance in another." - Jim

Perhaps you should re-read this paragraph and then maybe restate your claim.

"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.

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." AiG article

Wow! He said that yes, there are such things as beneficial mutation! And further more most are driven by the environment! Both of which you say we creationists dont understand! Did you even read the article I posted or just reply to what you thought was, or wasnt in there?

And finally, the nylon bug! Sounds like it could be deadly in a ladies hose department. 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. 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. 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. A rock you say? 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. Amazingly enough this goop kept on becoming more and more complex until it is sending rockets to the stars, and questioning its own existence. If this were true, wouldnt we be continually getting stronger and more resistant to our environment and living longer? Actually the exact opposite is true, we are becoming sicker and weaker and more affected by our environment.
Well I hope everyone has a good weekend.

 

[Jim]

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?

 

[Jim]

In fact, I think I will stop now. It seems I have been too provocative.

I apologise for the offense I seem to have caused. I'd rather this didn't escalate, for the sake of argument or otherwise. I enjoyed the arguments more when there was an air of amicability. It seems that air has been lost due to my excessive sarcasm.

I will leave Eon to continue, should he decide to do so. If not, all the same thank you (especially Jericho_Falls, for the considerable effort in the previous thread and in this one. Most thought provoking.)

I would prefer to leave now, when there is still hope of amiability, rather than later, after upsetting everyone.

 

[Dark Virtue]

UGH, the morass this thread is stuck in.

Let's try and get it back on course with a few questions that may not have been answered:

Did Noah have to store food and fresh water for all the animals? If so, how did he get eucalyptus leaves and bamboo shoots, for instance? How did he preserve meat for the carnivores?

How was the Ark ventilated?

How was the Ark cleaned? All those animals must've produced tons of feces and urine.

How did the animals get sufficient exercise, to prevent them from developing deep vein thrombosis?

How did Noah deal with animals which reproduce rapidly? Did he put contraceptives into the drinking water to prevent mice from swarming underfoot?

What about bacteria and other microorganisms? Inside such a warm and humid environment, fungi must have been flourishing. Moreover, the stresses of the journey and the unfamiliar surroundings would have made animals and humans alike that much more susceptible to infections. How did Noah and his family avoid picking up anything from the animals - or didn't they?

How was the Ark lighted?

After the Ark came to rest and Noah released the animals, what did the koalas eat on their way back to Australia? What did the carnivores feed on?

How did the sudden reduction in numbers affect animals which are very social creatures? For instance, monkeys commonly live in large troops; how did they cope when there were just two of them?

What happened to all the bloated and rotting corpses? And considering that so many plants were submerged for weeks, wasn't most of the earth devoid of material that could sustain life?

Was it actually possible to gather enough wood where the story took place to make an ark of that size in time for the flood?

How could the ark support itself if it were only made of wood, when current ships of the same size rely on steel to keep their shape and size?

(Note these aren't all of my own devising, I'm sure I could come up with more, but I'm tired)

So have at them!

 

[Eon]

I'm not sure, Jim, if I could be even as polite as you have. I felt your answers above were certainly detailed and definitive enough to terminate that speculation by Ark, unless he comes up with some new material.

Actually, I'd love to see some new Creationist material. Generally the same strawman arguments, or the same false cause arguments or the same false dillema arguments. And the same "scientific" arguments that I have been refuting for 5 years, more or less.

I'll just link you guys to the following site. http://www.creationtheory.org/

IF you know something NOT covered by this website (just one of the many out there rightly ridiculing Creationist "science") then I'll gladly discuss it with you. If it's on that site, unless you have a very good argument I don't want to hear it.

 

[Jericho_falls]

Well you guys are full of sketicism on how to fit some animals on a boat for a year... let me ask some questions of my own, and please realise that I often use "evolve" in a broader term than bio-evolution.

How could the complexities and perfections (design) of the eye evolve (randomly)?
How did the eye evolve differently for creatures such as squid who have blood underneath allowing extra vision but less UV protection?

How did asexual animals evolve sexual organs? Where is the "missing link" form of sexuality (Paramesial Conjunction doesn't suffice)? How could a species survive if its sexual functions changed on them and they can't reproduce with their own species?

How did the feather evolve? What purpose did the feather have before it served for flight? How did all those tiny hooks and threads line up perfectly and how did the oil glands in birds evolve simultaneously to provide nessissary preening?

How did insects evolve exoskeletons form animals with endoskeletons? How did spiders evolve the making of their silk? What did slugs do with their mucus before they used it for transportation or what did they do before mucus was developed?

Where did matter come from? How did protons electrons and neutrons evolve? How did gasses form into stars when the gravitational force required to squish gas into a star cannot be naturally produced by those gasses? How did physical and chemical and mathematical laws evolve from chaos?

How did conscience evolve? How did philosophy evolve? How or why did religion evolve? How did musical instruments evovle? How did time evolve?

How did DNA evolve (too complex, all life needs it)? How did amino acids evolve? How did hormones evolve into their perfectly timed functions? How did cerebrospinal fluid evolve? How did blood evolve (we certainly did not "carry the sea with us" because blood is fundamentally different from sea water)? How did organelles evolve?

The probability of all these things evolving is so rediculously high that I can't understand why we think it's so impossible for a guy to put some animals on a boat for a year!

 

[Dark Virtue]

No offense, but what do those questions have to do with Noah's Ark? That IS what this thread is about, isn't it?

 

[Jim]

I’m sorry but if I don’t do this, I will explode.

How could the complexities and perfections (design) of the eye evolve (randomly)?
How did the eye evolve differently for creatures such as squid who have blood underneath allowing extra vision but less UV protection?

# photosensitive cell
# aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
# an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
# pigment cells forming a small depression
# pigment cells forming a deeper depression
# the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
# muscles allowing the lens to adjust

These are all possible intermediate ‘eyes’. We know they exist because they exist now, in some animals. The intermediary steps between these are slight and and may even be broken into smaller increments. Although we can’t find exactly the path it took, since eyes don’t fossilise well, there is certainly no reason to say there is no path.

Well you guys are full of sketicism on how to fit some animals on a boat for a year... let me ask some questions of my own, and please realise that I often use "evolve" in a broader term than bio-evolution.

What on earth do some of these questions have anything to do with Noah’s ark, or even evolution? Time? Physical laws? Protons, neutrons, electrons? Music?

This is like me blasting the Germ Theory of Disease because it won’t tell me what stocks to invest in. Extrapolating the ToE to include everything in the bleeding universe from the origin of life, to how the Crazy Frog Remix jumped to the top of the UK charts ahead of bleeding Coldplay demonstrates you either don’t know what it teaches or your frustration with it.

ToE is how atheists and theists alike explain the changes in life through the years. It is not a be-all and end-all manual to all questions conceivable.

 

[Eon]

Matter didn't "evolve" we know how matter is created because we can do it ourselves. In the instant of a Nuclear Fission reaction all sorts of elements are created from Hydrogen. That's how it happened in the stars as well - you start with aggregates of Hydrogen gas (starstuff if you will) and those aggregates clump and and clump and clump as they grow larger until they develop a strong enough gravitic field that they BOOM become stars.

Some of the debris escapes the system. Some of it becomes the Oort cloud. Some of it establishes a stable orbit. Some of it falls into the sun. Whilst falling into the sun, many pieces are captured by the gravity field of the larger masses and are absorbed inot them - we can see that still happening today.

Oh, and before they were feathers, feathers were scales.

 

[Arkanjel]

Wow, Eon you have surprised me. That website is full of hate from the get go.

"Click on the links at left to learn more about this insidious attack on science, and in some cases, on religious freedom in society."

Insidious attack? That is some pretty strong wording. Religious freedom? I dont see any Christians censoring books as to what is taught in them, you know, much like the school boards do when it comes to teaching about intelligent design. What is so bad about believing in a God who helps you get through life?

"The creationist movement is very powerful in America because it's so well funded. That funding, plus a weak education system and a gullible public, has led to a very successful misinformation campaign for the oxymoronically named "Creation Science" lobby."

I think the creationist movement is so strong in America, because the foundation of evolution is full of flaws. Plus the Almighty might have a hand in influencing things. His so called weak education system is the one that wont allow intelligent design to be taught in schools, only the THEORY of evolution. AS for the gullible public part, Ill give you that, its amazing what people will believe when God has been removed from society, anybody seen the Ten Commandments in a court room lately? No thats right, because the ACLU took care of that. And last there is a LOT of credible Creation Science; evolutionists just choose to call it false because it points out all the flaws in there thinking. O, and this just made me laugh at you,

"IF you know something NOT covered by this website (just one of the many out there rightly ridiculing Creationist "science") then I'll gladly discuss it with you. If it's on that site, unless you have a very good argument I don't want to hear it." - Eon

Sorry I didnt know we had to go through you before we posted a thread on this site. All hail administrator Eon!

 

[Eon]

I don't recall being sarcastic to YOU, mister Arkanjel - I merely said I didn't want to hear it, I didn't say you weren't allowed to post it. Just don't expect me to pay attention to one of the sad arguments that's been trotted out whenever Creationist attempts to debate non-Creationist.

And it's funny that in no other First World country (that I'm aware of) is Creationism even considered for teaching alongside the brief treatment that evolutionary science gets in schools. One is based on the scientific method and one is based on theology. One belongs in science class and one belongs in religious education. Unless you want to start teaching everyone elses creation myths along with Christian ones. There are QUITE a few you know.

As for the hate in that site - well, I suppose I should have pointed out that it was a pro-evolution site when I included the link. There are, it has to be said, many scientists who see the erosion of science teaching in schools as a huge threat to the American future. Two definitions of insidious that might apply are:

Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner: insidious rumors; an insidious disease.

Beguiling but harmful; alluring: insidious pleasures.

I would have no problem in assigning either of the two definitions to attempts to get creationism taught as the science it so clearly is not.

When will you understand the threat that your religion poses when it is dominant? How it is exactly previous abuses of power and status that have led to Christianity increasingly being chased out of politics, medicine, education and jurisprudence? We have a long memory and we can still smell the burning - both of books and people - from the last time.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Is there ANY hope at getting back on topic?

 

[Genesis1315]

I would like to see DV's recommendation followed pls

Gen