Answering Questions on Creation and Creationism

[Naraoia]

It's been observed in horses.

A citation/link/something about that would be handy in my instant source list for crevo discussions

 

[Naraoia]

Wow, you do talk a lot...

<<nothing to do with??>> To my recollection it would depend on what
viruses are being reverse transcribed. There are single-stranded RNA
viruses that need a DNA intermediate to replicate.

That's the ones called retroviruses.

But I always look for a window to take about the beauty of transfer
RNA because when they primer, they act sort of like a key that unlocks code.

When tRNA "primer"? What's that?

The beauty of this complexity shows the need for a Creator to
have set this "complex" process into motion.

Re-check cdk007's Origin of Life video please.

I don't see how this is evidence of when we don't ever see those kinds of mutations resulting in speciation beyond the genus level.

The "genus level" is about as objective as "quite small". Speciation (at least in more well-behaved things like vertebrates) is the only sort-of objective landmark in divergence.

Every big split starts small (compare Pezosiren with an early elephant. Then compare a modern manatee to a modern elephant. The early forms in any two related lineages are more similar than the later forms). It only gets larger and larger with time. The reason why you don't see the whole "getting larger" is because it takes an awful lot of time.

Without transitional species to observe such mutations to conclude common ancestry between apes and humans, you have to assume it and then prove it by showing all the different commonalities.

No. You have to assume it, work out the consequences in theory and test them in real life.

Testing common descent doesn't just involve cherry-picking similarities. It also includes predicting, say, that an as yet uninvestigated vertebrate will have a sonic hedgehog gene, and that its sonic hedgehog protein will do similar things to what it does in other vertebrates. If it doesn't, you've got some thinking to do.

This kind of thing goes on all the time in labs around the world.

If anything turned up that contradicted it then common descent would soon be gone, but I'm not aware of such data. Not in great apes, not anywhere else.

Scientists are so busy trying to find ways to prove relatedness, that
they never stop to actually think whether there "is" relatedness.
~Michael

'Cause they'd done that about a hundred years ago. And again, I'm not aware of any data that go against relatedness so far, and we have orders of magnitudes more data than 19th century scientists had.

That doesn't mean contradictory evidence can't (or doesn't) exist, but it does mean that we can be much more confident in common descent than the early evolutionists were.

Ssssssshhhhhh, quite....you wouldn't want to let them know they carry the same defunct vitamin C synthesis pseudo-gene as other extant apes and in the exact same genetic location.

Which we would expect, BTW.
~Michael

It is a sequence completely without function. Why would we expect a designer to put in similarities that don't make one iota of a difference? Is this a deceptive designer?

The issue is not what works and is observed, the issue is that commonalities do not always equal relatedness.
~Michael

No they don't. But when you look at lots of commonalities in lots of organisms and they kind of add up to very similar nested hierarchies then that rather smacks of true "relatedness".

It's not that there are commonalities. It's that there is a pattern. (And that some commonalities have no reason to be similar other than, as Stephen Jay Gould so aptly put it in Wonderful Life, "the shadow of their past".)

What do you mean by "natural process?" Please be specific.

"Natural processes" are processes that happen without any magical being interfering. But I doubt you really didn't know what "natural" was.

And please explain how "information" arises naturally.

Please state what you mean by "information" in a way that can be objectively used to quantify information in a biological context. (Just to prevent us talking past each other.)

 

[Naraoia]

There are plenty of more excuses as you should know.

Should? *blink* (So you did mean it as an excuse. I hope you are aware that it's a rubbish excuse, then)

1. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.

This ain't gonna convince anyone who doesn't already believe it. Have any (objective) evidence to support that view?

How many people actually start their assumptions with the fact and
the absolute knowledge that God created???

Faith is neither fact nor absolute knowledge.

(first argument will of course be Information needs an Informant.
Schematics and blue prints need Authors, etc.)

Define information in a way that can be used to objectively quantify information in biological system. I'll keep saying this until you do it.

This is ABSOLUTELY scientific to DO so!!!

It is only "absolutely scientific" to take something for granted if it's already been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. Even then, you must be prepared for surprises that may prove your assumption wrong.

Scientific data demonstrates the need for an Informant or an Author for blue print information."

Scientific data demonstrate no such thing. (If they do, show me the data. "I can't imagine how else" is not data.)

2. If you don't start with wisdom and the knowledge of creation, how will you be able to correctly interpret the information?

The whole point of science is that some things are unknown. That's why we do science: to get to know the previously unknown. If anything, preconceptions prevent you from correctly interpreting evidence.

And sorry, you have no knowledge of creation. You have faith.

The more information you obtain, especially if you are using
thousands and thousands of inductions that result in aggregate
self-deception, the less you are able to decipher it.
(you can use, "professing to be wise, they became fools"

Wise? I've never professed to be "wise" (especially in the sense that "fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom" ). You, on the other hand, if only implicitly...

(So far this "aggregate self-deception" has been working fairly well. I think I'm not parting with it unless you offer something that works even better.)

3. Forgetting about the flood is one of the most important areas to understanding the world wide deception.
2 Peter 3:5-7 Lack of knowledge in how the flood affected
almost all areas of science is a key factor.

Where is the evidence for this flood we shouldn't forget about?

4. Back to point one. Someone made the mistake of claiming
science can never point to the supernatural,

It's not a mistake. Unless the "supernatural" is as observable and behaves as consistently as nature (which would, in my eyes, make it a natural phenomenon), science can't touch it other than "we can't see no miracles so far"

and everyone followed along like little puppy dogs and ignored the evidence that proved special creation:

Didn't you debut here by calling out Thaumaturgy on an ad hominem? I don't know, I find this "puppy dog" phrase a bit... insulting. Especially in the light of the fact that I usually prefer to do my own thinking.

The miracle of life itself, and God is not mocked by man's inability to create a living cell.

Neither was he mocked by man's inability to ascend in the sky, I guess.

How is life miraculous and how is the fact that we (who don't nearly know everything about chemistry or living cells) as of the early 21th century can't create something (though, check out Jack Szostak's work again...) mean that it can't happen naturally? Can we create volcanoes yet?

Abiogenesis is not a viable theory and it never has been for
several reasons.

Watch cdk007's Origin video again and detail why the model presented isn't viable. Be specific.

5. People followed induction on "everything" instead of
employing the limits of wisdom when it should and shouldn't
be used because invalid assumptions based on induction
often lead to error.

Blather. Vague, pure blather with big words in it. IOW, where, specifically, were "people" wrong and why?

6. People that do have wisdom from divine revelation from
apostles and prophets generally go into theology or other
areas of life and trade, and raise families and such, so
those that go into science are usually outnumbered 110
to 1.

"Wisdom". You disapprove of the overuse of induction (which is only part of the scientific process) as a way of coming to conclusions. But is it really worse than the way you came to yours?

Besides, do you really think scientists don't raise families "and such" or don't do anything useful?

Please let the record show that because of these above
things it is often unfruitful to debate creation vs evolution
because there are two entirely different sets of assumptions.

The only fundamental assumption behind evolution is that the world is knowable and science is a good way of learning about it. Do you have any good reason to doubt either?

(BTW, if you find it "unfruitful" then why are you in it?)

 

[Naraoia]

Ok, issues here. What does "schematic complex information" mean?

It "defines" who we are biologically. What defines? Arranged
information defines. Complex information that like a schematic
or a blue print is present in DNA.

Blather. That's like defining "red" as "you know, like, red".

Information needs a source.
It has always been that simple, but....only to the person
who does not have a bias against the Creator.

No, it's never been simple, and the "bias" isn't against the Creator because we quite simply can't take a creator into account as a potential explanation. The creator is to science is like the mechanisms of enzyme action to heraldry. We don't have the tools to investigate it. Even if God did manually change every nucleotide that ever mutated we have no way of knowing that.

And besides, "explaining" something with the supernatural is equivalent to saying "it just is that way". Since the supernatural doesn't have to be consistent with natural laws or even itself, neither takes you anywhere near understanding the system.

If anyone is "biased" it is those that insist on explaining things with an entity that can't actually explain things.

 

[Naraoia]

I'm sorry, but I have just been out of the deception too long and it just all looks like foolishness to me now.

Why did you decide it was deception?

The requirements for the "primordial soup" and what they are asking
us to believe took place in one small area at once is completely
ridiculous.

Sorry, what are you talking about?

That the model suggests hydrothermal vents are a good place for replicating vesicles to start? Or that some organic molecules are needed? Neither is "ridiculous" as far as I'm aware. Vents are common on today's earth and they would've been far more common on an early, less cooled earth. Organic molecules of all sorts, including the bases of DNA/RNA and amino acids, form naturally under conditions likely on the early earth. The vesicles are known chemistry, not a figment of someone's imagination.

What's the problem, then?

By the way, I've been referring you back to the origin of life video for things that aren't in there... they are in another piece in the same series, the one about the origin of the genetic code:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc

The description of this video also has download link to a selection of related scientific papers, if you are interested in some of the actual science behind it.

There is a joke in creationism. "They are believing a miracle and they
don't even have God there to make the miracle happen." Of course
this does not apply to the theistic evolutionist.

Only we don't need God for this particular "miracle".

Just like with the living cell, once you tear it apart "no matter
how much money you pour into research, you can never put
humpty dumpty back together again." (not really a joke, just
a saying that was taken and applied from a Lee Strobal video.

We can't do it now doesn't equal "never". Who would've dreamt of invisibility cloaks 200 years ago, even just the kind that's described in the article I've linked?

 

[agentorange20]

Or this is the most logical place for them to be.

It would be logical if one considers how ERV insertions are 1) random in their location and 2) in how they propagate in heredity via the infection of sex cells. Their locations just happen to be located in idential locations to boot. GULO, got for it, lets hear your explination on it.
Serving no current function does NOT mean the Designer or the Creator
didn't first set a course of action. [/quote]

Course of action? Do you understand that mutations are entirely random, or not? Their randomness and how they equally affect both protein and non-protein coding sequences equally makes your position rather absurd.

In other words you're implying like as Behe does in 'Darwin's Black Box' that these very specific mutations and sequences would all just arise naturally in a given certain time and viola, here we are and there they are! Sorry, no such luck here. Behe makes an assumption that al the genes were already 'designed' some 4 billion years ago, and just sat dormant all these years awaiting for Natural Selection to act on them by mutation. Sorry, but this isn't how genes work, if a gene isn't selected for it becomes a psedo gene farily quickly and in evoluiton either the organims uses it or looses it.

"The constant bombardment of mutation will erode the text of genes that are not used, as it has in icefish, yeast, humans, and virtually every other species. There is no mechanism for genes to be preserved while awaiting the need for them to arise." The Making of the Fittest pg 244 -Sean Carrol

I have still have my appendix but its
function is currently pointless, unless it gets infected then it is worse.

Yup, it's pretty much a vestigial organ, something we aught to find if we hypothetically share common ancestry with other extant apes which still make use of such an oversized similar organ.

From a creationist theory standpoint, Adam had a working one with his cecum and had a better digestive tract and lived longer because of it (and many other reasons).

'Creationist theory' ? umm, you guys don't have a theory, least of which a scientific one. And (somehow?) that one Adam had has know become somewhat defunct, why? What caused it to be so?

Any mutated genes that appear pointless may be at that point in time, or they may be hazardous.

Psudeo genes are pointless, hence their name., If they weren't they're be included in the other genes responsible for building protiens for the organisms. If the genes are hazardous or not it all depends on the relative fitness to the nice and environement, there is no single pinacle, as get this all organisms continually biologically change.

This doesn't take away from the complexity of the universe, its order, nor its NEED for special creation.

Universe.....evoluiton....do try to stick with one topic.

 

[agentorange20]

I did laugh we I read this, only because you "did" find identical patterns where common ancestry wasn't taking place.../quote]

No, where? Those ERV's formentioned in the primate lineage are specific with and unique to the group as a whole and what do you know their insertion locations just happen to fit the existing models and predictions for common ancestry. ERV's further vindicate and support evolution and common descent.

 

[agentorange20]

The issue is not what works and is observed, the issue is that
commonalities do not always equal relatedness.
~Michael

Ok Micheal, go tell that to the Judges who preside over paternity court cases.

 

[agentorange20]

Ssssssshhhhhh, quite....you wouldn't want to let them know they carry the same defunct vitamin C synthesis pseudo-gene as other extant apes and in the exact same genetic location.

Which we would expect, BTW.
~Michael

Huh? No, we should expect to find them in the same genetic location, and defunct if we shared common descent and evolution is true. If this god/designer is out and about making organisms from scratch then there is no need to share non-functional genes.

Why would the designer purposely leave a defunct non-functioning gene in us, and curiously in the same genetic location as living apes?

Here, a user from Youtube created a visual aid so the comprehension can begin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_UFImmulY

 

[agentorange20]

DET = Darwinian Evolutionary Theory vs Speciation and Natural Selection

Ummm, what!? Who do you think came up with the notion of evolution via natural selection? Yes, Darwin.

1. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. How many people actually start their assumptions with the fact andthe absolute knowledge that God created???

Here's a hint, in science, you don't start with assumption, you start with observations and falsifiable tests to support them. Nevermind the fact that according to science it's only allowed to use the natural world as a means of verification and not the supernatural.

Holy incoherent and illogical statement batman! How could it be both an A) assumption and B) a fact (absolute knowledge) at the same time?

(first argument will of course be Information needs an Informant.
Schematics and blue prints need Authors, etc.)
This is ABSOLUTELY scientific to DO so!!! Scientific data
demonstrates the need for an Informant or an Author for
blue print "information."

Ok, lets hypothetically say something or someone authored this universe, then what might we ask authored the thing which authored the universe?

The more information you obtain, especially if you are using thousands and thousands of inductions that result in aggregate self-deception, the less you are able to decipher it.

And strangely ever since humanity started to rely more on science for answers we've been getting results, like the kind of results you're using right now! So much for self deception.

 

[agentorange20]

If you examine what is going on in RNA and DNA from an "information
requiring a source" standpoint, you have even MORE evidence for
God. It is illogical to believe that information can arise on its own.
~Michael

And what does this matter? My question was related to ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusion (you still haven't tried to explain this one). Regardless of how the first life was formed, God, aliens, or natural, common descent and our shared ancestry with apes is still viable. Quit the bullet dodging, explain the evidence for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

 

[agentorange20]

Tom
What if your "logic" is misguided because you rejected communication
from the One you are actually studing about?

Didn't he or another spell it out to you earlier how in Science one can't start with forgone conclusions and assumptions?

How can you test and retest when you were not even there?

In the same way we can test and retest the evidence from a murder scene. We don't have to witness it directly to deduce indeed who the killer was and by what means and at what time and under what circumstances especially when all the evidence is consistent. Same thing for science theories.

When you do not observe mutations that would warrant such common
ancestry,

Um, we do. ERV's and human chromosome 2 fusion, transposons, retro-elements, GULO, GBA, PAX-6, etc. They just all happen to support the same nested hierarchy too.

Here, I made some vids dumbing own the evidence for human chromosome 2 fusion to explain how we know its a fusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPp0c_5_m6Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk5W2ISYvjM&watch_response

AND you don't have fossil evidence for it?
~Michael

Sure we do, review and enjoy, then study and explain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

 

[agentorange20]

(Nevertheless, it does make the point that ERV =/= junk. Hmm, while we are at ERVs, is there any indication that some of the primate-specific ones might have a function? Or indeed, any useful ERV genes other than syncytin?)

I haven't read anything on Primate ERV's and if they at all serve function, from what I can find the H-ERV's and those in primates, they are retro-elements. I do recall reading an article on sheep (I think) and one of their many, many ERV's has been now co-opted for use alongside other genes.

I'll look for it...

 

[Blayz]

(Nevertheless, it does make the point that ERV =/= junk. Hmm, while we are at ERVs, is there any indication that some of the primate-specific ones might have a function? Or indeed, any useful ERV genes other than syncytin?)

Google is your friend

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=erv+exaptation&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Note exaptation is a probably a better search term than co-option

 

[Breckmin]

You didn't answer the question at all. Just saying "This is EXACTLY what we would expect" doesn't reveal anything, it's empty rhetoric. Again, why would creationism expect ERVs to be in the same positions? Why are these findings always in accordance with the nested hierarchy?

Here's a quiz:

1.If a chimpanzee and a human share an ERV in the same position will we also necessarily find it in the same position in an orangutan?
2.If an orangutan and a human share an ERV in the same position will we also necessarily find it in the same position in an chimpanzee?

What do you think evolution would predict, and why? What would creationism predict?

Peter

The commonalities between chimpanzees and humans are always
expected, but we do not share common ancestry. Creationists
would expect the same positions because of the chromosomes
and what we have always seen as God's Trademark in creation.

This doesn't prove common ancestry at all. I'll post more on
it later.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

In the same way we can test and retest the evidence from a murder scene. We don't have to witness it directly to deduce indeed who the killer was and by what means and at what time and under what circumstances especially when all the evidence is consistent. Same thing for science theories.

But the difference is we actually know murders themselves take place
and we know people who eye witness them and we have some killings
on tape.

We do not have evidence for these kinds of mutations. The morphological
difference in the slightly over 1% variance alone shows how vast that
1% is. Commonalities do not equal relatedness, as I will explain later.

 

[Breckmin]

Nice, but completely irrelevant. If you want to make a model that adheres to reality, you need to leave your preconceptions and common sense behind and test it.

On this point we are going to have to disagree. Since I believe in
divine revelation I would appeal to the prophet Isaiah in Isa. 1:18
and say that we need to step back first, and look at the whole
picture, before we dive into inductions that can mislead.
(i.e. ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny - never had an explanation
for that sperm and egg, BTW)

I refuse to leave common sense behind. We do not share
common ancestry with chimpanzees, and they are actually a
gift to us to teach us that we are created in God's Image.
But they are VERY much like us biologically.

It is unwise to abandon common sense.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Re: What if your "logic" is misguided because you rejected communication from the One you are actually studing about?

If that communication from "the One" does not adhere to reality, it is wrong.

The "One" would dictate that reality and we would be wise to interpret our perception of reality according to the communication!
And not hide behind "I can't" because it's science.

If science demonstrates information in RNA and DNA and it is known
"by common sense" that Information needs a source, and it is also
known that schematic blue prints require an intelligent source, THEN
it is logical to start with the conclusion of creation. When you study
creation you are studying what the Creator made and it is actually
science that teaches you this.

By testing the effects a process would leave.

Then we look for the results those mutations would have. Such as a twin-nested hierarchy (which we observe), the mimicking of the pattens of the twin-nested hierarchy by ERV's (which we observe) etc. We can then compare those genetic results with the fossil evidence (which we do have), and see that it adds up.

mimicking patterns? or Trademarks from a Creator who uses the same
patterns and the same biological structures for SEVERAL reasons.

Also, you are "assuming" outside source.
~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

The commonalities between chimpanzees and humans are always
expected, but we do not share common ancestry. Creationists
would expect the same positions because of the chromosomes
and what we have always seen as God's Trademark in creation.

This doesn't prove common ancestry at all. I'll post more on
it later.
~Michael

Why would you expect that? Again, you avoided giving any real answer to the actual question!

 

[Tomk80]

But the difference is we actually know murders themselves take place
and we know people who eye witness them and we have some killings
on tape.

We do not have evidence for these kinds of mutations. The morphological
difference in the slightly over 1% variance alone shows how vast that
1% is. Commonalities do not equal relatedness, as I will explain later.

Indeed, commonalities do not equal relatedness. The pattern given by the commonalities and the differences does. The pattern is important, not the commonalities in themselves.