7-Day Creation- Figurative or Literal?

[Metal Minister]

Yes I do agree that what you and other Creationists describe when you use the term "macro-evolution" is absurd. I agree with you that it does not and can not happen that way. But my agreement is moot. The Evolutionary Model does not make any comparable claim, and in fact it points out the absurdity of those claims. Where we disagree is that you believe the lie propagated by professional Creationist apologists tha the ToE endorses this absurdity.

Short answer: they're not.

Longer answer, truncation and generation of "junk" DNA

as soon as you got here, I stopped paying attention. The more we learn about DNA, the more we realize that there is no such thing as "junk" DNA. Try again. Mutations are a scrambling of existing information. I can scramble the information on my computers OS, and I will not get a new OS, I will get a pile of scrap metal and plastic.

 

[Guy1]

It would still be a rabbit yes?

A subset of rabbits, yes.

Then your macro-evolution definition is a fail.

No. Your crap understanding of the concept of a nested hierarchy is a fail. Creationists are the ones that insist that paraphyletic groups must form for it to be evolution. In reality we expect no less than to find groups that fall neatly into said nested hierarchy (Ie. Its ancestors were Eukariotes and it, or none of its descendants will ever stop being Eukariotes. Same with vertebrates, mammals, and monkeys.) This leads to the uncomfortable (for some realization that since apes descended from monkeys; that apes (including humans) are merely a subset of those.

One can very accurately say that humans are a subset monkeys and they will never stop being that. You may not like it- but it's what we find in nature.

We are listed as primates by our current standard of classification. However the fact that we are created in God's image precludes us from that classification, but that's probably a discussion for another thread.


Chimp/Human DNA - count the differences!

Your baseless assertions can take a hike.

 

[Loudmouth]

as soon as you got here, I stopped paying attention. The more we learn about DNA, the more we realize that there is no such thing as "junk" DNA. Try again.

There is most certainly DNA that an organism can do without. For example, they took out two big chunks of DNA (2.3 million base pairs in all) from the mouse genome and the mice were unaffected:

Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable m... [Nature. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

Not to mention that the size of the human haploid genome is about 3 billion bases. Do you know what the size of the amoeba's genome is? 670 billion base pairs. It is 200 times larger than our own. What about the onion? Again, orders of magnitude larger than our genome.

Then there is the puffer fish which is a vertebrate like us and about as complex as we are. It's genome size is just 400 million bases, about a seventh the size of ours.

Mutations are a scrambling of existing information. I can scramble the information on my computers OS, and I will not get a new OS, I will get a pile of scrap metal and plastic.

And yet the mutations that produced the DNA differences between humans and chimps is responsible for the differences between humans and chimps. The facts are seriously against you on this one.

 

[Metal Minister]

Therefore, God is a part of nature and can be investigated by science.

No, He created it, He is not part of it, anymore than the creator of the computer is a part of his computer.

You would need a working concept before you can claim it is being ignored. You can hardly blame science for ignoring something that doesn't exist.

I'm saying its being quashed. You can see here, and other threads that even the mention is answered with ridicule and scorn instead of all of us perhaps putting our heads together and sorting out if its even possible to figure out.

Are you insane? Do you know how much money creationist organizations have? The Discovery Institute brings in about 5 million a year. They built the Creationist Museum for around 27 million, and they are currently trying to build that Noah's Ark park for around 70 million. There is no shortage of funds for creationist research. You have no one to blame but creationists themselves.

And again, how many of those creationist organizations are allowed to have their scientific claims and papers peer reviewed by the scientific community? The answer...0. Look at the dust up that happened when a single paper that only MENTIONED ID as a possibility "snuck through".

I'm sorry, but if you are going to play the Rosa Parks card you actually have to get on the bus. You can't pretend that you will be ignored and claim it is the same as really being ignored. That is a really, really pathetic argument you are pushing.

That's what I like about you loudmouth, always so open minded....(sarcasm in case it isn't obvious). Actually I'd held out hope that you might have been one of those who would've been willing to discuss what might or might not constitute a kind, because you usually seemed open and honest without being snarky or nasty...I will admit it appears I was wrong on that...

 

[Loudmouth]

It would still be a rabbit yes? Then your macro-evolution definition is a fail.

Then it does not require macroevolution to produce humans from the common ancestor of all primates since humans are still primates. It is microevolution throughout.

We are listed as primates by our current standard of classification.

Yes, the same classification that we use to classify rabbits.

However the fact that we are created in God's image precludes us from that classification, but that's probably a discussion for another thread.

Fantasies are not a part of taxonomy.

Chimp/Human DNA - count the differences!

You didn't answer the question. Of the DNA differences between humans and chimps, which could not be produced by the observed mechanisms of microevolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, He created it, He is not part of it, anymore than the creator of the computer is a part of his computer.

And yet I can find evidence of how a computer was created in the computer. I can find soder joints and determine what the flux was like and the temperature needed for the iron, as one example. If God created nature then God is part of nature and can be investigated by science.

I'm saying its being quashed.

What is? You haven't shown anything.

And again, how many of those creationist organizations are allowed to have their scientific claims and papers peer reviewed by the scientific community?

How many have original research that can be presented? You have to do the research before you can claim persecution. You have to submit those papers to peer review before you can claim persecution.

The answer...0. Look at the dust up that happened when a single paper that only MENTIONED ID as a possibility "snuck through".

And that paper is . . . ?

That's what I like about you loudmouth, always so open minded....(sarcasm in case it isn't obvious). Actually I'd held out hope that you might have been one of those who would've been willing to discuss what might or might not constitute a kind, because you usually seemed open and honest without being snarky or nasty...I will admit it appears I was wrong on that...

And still no research to present.

 

[Metal Minister]

And yet I can find evidence of how a computer was created in the computer. I can find soder joints and determine what the flux was like and the temperature needed for the iron, as one example. If God created nature then God is part of nature and can be investigated by science.

What is? You haven't shown anything.

How many have original research that can be presented? You have to do the research before you can claim persecution. You have to submit those papers to peer review before you can claim persecution.

And that paper is . . . ?

And still no research to present.

If you haven't seen the movie "Expelled" I would suggest you start there...there are numerous examples given there. As of now, I'm honestly busy trying to see about starting a thread to actually have open minded people discuss (civilly) where animals may be able to fit into the idea of kinds. I don't have access to grants or massive scientific tools, so all I have is my wits, and some free time.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you haven't seen the movie "Expelled" I would suggest you start there...

That movie is loaded with lies. Are you aware of this?

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

there are numerous examples given there.

No, there aren't. I dare you start a thread on just one example. I think you will be quite embarrassed by the actions of your fellow creationists.

As of now, I'm honestly busy trying to see about starting a thread to actually have open minded people discuss (civilly) where animals may be able to fit into the idea of kinds. I don't have access to grants or massive scientific tools, so all I have is my wits, and some free time.

Creationist organizations do have access to piles of money, and they haven't even tried to do that type of work. Good luck though.

 

[OllieFranz]

As of now, I'm honestly busy trying to see about starting a thread to actually have open minded people discuss (civilly) where animals may be able to fit into the idea of kinds. I don't have access to grants or massive scientific tools, so all I have is my wits, and some free time.

Actually evolutionary scientists have done something like what you want already. Check out cladistics. The definition of a clade is very similar to the best descriptions of a "kind" I have been able to find.

The biggest difference is that the root (or founding member) of a "kind" is the cow (or sheep, or bird, etc) of that kind which God created during the Genesis week, and the root of a clade is chosen arbitrarily (which is not the same thing as randomly), and two related clades can be combine in a greater clade, simply b finding the common ancestor of their roots.

 

[Metal Minister]

Creationist organizations do have access to piles of money, and they haven't even tried to do that type of work. Good luck though.

That's why I was hoping others who might have a different idea, might jump on board. If someone were willing to set aside origins (as I would) and the evolution/creation debate for a bit, and simply focus on trying to differentiate kinds in a scientific manner, I think the findings may surprise a lot of people. The problem is, no one seems willing to do that. Everyone seems more apt to get in a snarky jab or veiled insult rather than actually do some science and set our worldviews aside. If at the end, we find no way to place animals in kinds, then so be it, but I'd hate to leave it unattempted.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's why I was hoping others who might have a different idea, might jump on board. If someone were willing to set aside origins (as I would) and the evolution/creation debate for a bit, and simply focus on trying to differentiate kinds in a scientific manner, I think the findings may surprise a lot of people.

I would love to participate in such a thread. Feel free to start it any time you want. Like others have suggested, I would strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with cladistics if for no other reason that to contrast your method with other known methods.

You might also be interested in a thread that I started on cladistics:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7673894/

 

[Metal Minister]

I would love to participate in such a thread. Feel free to start it any time you want. Like others have suggested, I would strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with cladistics if for no other reason that to contrast your method with other known methods.

You might also be interested in a thread that I started on cladistics:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7673894/

Ok, glad to have you aboard. I'll check out your thread in a bit, but for now, though I do know some cursory aspects of cladistics, I do want to brush up. I'll pm you if you want when I get it started.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, glad to have you aboard. I'll check out your thread in a bit, but for now, though I do know some cursory aspects of cladistics, I do want to brush up. I'll pm you if you want when I get it started.

Probably won't be on this weekend, but feel free to start it anytime you want. There are other biologists here who will supply constructive criticism.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, there aren't. I dare you start a thread on just one example. I think you will be quite embarrassed by the actions of your fellow creationists.

Fortune telling and Prophecy are your weakest job skills.
I'd leave them off your resume.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is most certainly DNA that an organism can do without. For example, they took out two big chunks of DNA (2.3 million base pairs in all) from the mouse genome and the mice were unaffected:

Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable m... [Nature. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
.... The facts are seriously against you on this one.

No they are not. Your link is CLEAR that they don't KNOW what all the effects of altering the DNA are.

The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fortune telling and Prophecy are your weakest job skills.
I'd leave them off your resume.

I've been through this material with creationists before. It doesn't end well for them.

As one example, creationists will claim that Sternberg got fired as editor of the journal after the ID article was published. Is that true? No. He handed in his resignation 6 months before anyone knew that the article had been published. Not only that, but Sternberg and Meyer cooked up this whole scheme at an ID supporters only conference. Sternberg waited until he was leaving the journal and then bent all of the rules to get the paper published.

And was Sternberg's life "ruined"? No.

"After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy."
Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Richard Sternberg

This is just one small example of the lies that the movie pushes on its audience.

Want to move to Guillermo Gonzalez next? That is even a bigger embarrassment for creationists.

 

[Loudmouth]

No they are not. Your link is CLEAR that they don't KNOW what all the effects of altering the DNA are.

From the abstract:

"Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis."

They were indistinguishable from wild type mice in every assay they ran. The DNA they removed was disposable. It didn't affect fitness in any discernable way.

 

[SkyWriting]

I've been through this material with creationists before. It doesn't end well for them.

As one example, creationists will claim that Sternberg got fired as editor of the journal after the ID article was published. Is that true? No. He handed in his resignation 6 months before anyone knew that the article had been published. Not only that, but Sternberg and Meyer cooked up this whole scheme at an ID supporters only conference. Sternberg waited until he was leaving the journal and then bent all of the rules to get the paper published.

And was Sternberg's life "ruined"? No.

"After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy."
Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Richard Sternberg

This is just one small example of the lies that the movie pushes on its audience.

Want to move to Guillermo Gonzalez next? That is even a bigger embarrassment for creationists.

Propaganda is a well known tool of Tools.
That's one reason I avoid video-information
from any source.

 

[Loudmouth]

Propaganda is a well known tool of Tools.
That's one reason I avoid video-information
from any source.

And that is why you should avoid the Expelled movie. It is nothing more than propoganda. If you want to present an honest argument then you should definitely distance yourself from that movie. At the very least, do some fact checking of your own.

 

[Metal Minister]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7686056/