Creationism will only destroy science

[mark kennedy]

There are imaginable barriers between kinds, my favorite is one i've posted here several times, is a different genetic code for each kind.

What is interesting about the question- can we see a kind barrier? and your short answer-" laws of inheritance in Mendelian genetics."
what are the Mendelian genetics rules?
there is a reasonable intro at:
http://onlinetc.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/Core81/chap8.html

The genes in what Medel called the elementum and we now know are the chromosomes. The dogma of biology is DNA and the clearest limit of evolutionary change is in the energetic cost of adaptative changes. I am somewhat familar with Genetics but thanks for the link just the same.

i don't think it is any more complex then high school f1, f2 type of exercises. How does this form a kind barrier?

The random variations that are the cause of change through random variation are fixed in the genotype and are cyclical with regards to the expressed phenotype. It is this random cross over of genes and the ability of enzymes to turn certain genes on and off that gave rise to the diversity we see spanning the natural world. Bear in mind the patterns that Mendel reduced to ratios tend to run in cycles and swing from the right to the left of a median.

next- what are your kinds? class. actually it is the first time i've seen this answer from a YECist. so what is class in systematic classification?
see:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Class-(biology)
# Class
# Order
# Family
# Genus
# Species
so what are some examples of classes?
Insecta, Mammalia,

That is the first time someone actually accepted a definition of 'kinds' and didn't just ask the question again. I have a definition for class and I don't really know what object oriented biology is but it sounds like a reasonably good working definition:

"A class is a template from which object instances are created. It specifies the common characteristics that objects created from it will contain. Classes are created from gene products whose characteristics are defined by the GO (Gene Ontology) molecular function and cellular component terms. Example: The class Smad 2 is created based on the properties of the gene product Smad 2, which are defined by molecular functions such as “protein homodimerization’ (GO:0042803) and ‘ATP binding’ (GO:0042301)"

http://www.nodalpoint.org/node/1645

The class, or the kind, will depend largely on what characteristics you are attempting to classify. I don't intend to do an elaborate study on this just simply qualifying my use of the term 'kind'.

personally, i think this too large a classification for most YECists. but it's your dime.

I don't think that YEC has a standard classification system and they tend to like ambiquity when dealing with classification systems. Taxonomy is a subjective classification system that is organized largely for the sake of convienance.

so essentially your argument is that there is an absolute barrier between say mammals and birds. and that this barrier is expressed in the basic genetic laws discovered by Mendel.

Yes, of course that is what I am saying. I am also saying this is directly contradicted by neodarwinism that claims there are no such barriors. For me, the choice is between Mendel and Darwin because they both could not have been right.

There is no mechanism differences in any living creature but a few genetic code variations in archaebacteria. The only thing different between a mammal and a bird is the specific genes. The DNA is the same, evidence is the interesting fact that we have thousands of virus genes encoded into our genome. There appears to be no barrier to integration from any number of outside of mammalia order viruses.

Speaking of viruses I assume you are familiar with the Spiegelman's monster where an RNA genome of 4,500 nucleotides over 74 generations was reduced to 220 bases. I noticed this again in the Chimpanzee/human DNA comparison where they postulated that the original genome of the mrca was larger then either one dispite the large number of insertions. Creationists contend that the effect of mutations is allways a net loss of information and I tend to agree, at least in principle.

By the way, DNA is structured the same and we will be 25% identical in all living things since there are only four base combinations. So being less then 80% simular and only about 39% identical in our protein coding genes would be a logical disproof of common ancestory. What TOE lacks is a genetic basis for these macroevolutionary change and rely on accumulation of minor variations over incomprehensible periods of time. It is an absurd assumption, not a demonstrated mechanism.

this data alone, this the enormous amount of work being done shows me convincingly that there is simply no barrier to the integration of avian genes or dna into the human genome via virus infection.

Ok, that is viruses, now how about protein coding genes. What are the effects of fundamental change to these DNA stands as directly observed and empirically demonstrated in modern genetics?

now this is certainly at a level lower than your gene analysis, but until i know the specifics of what you believe Mendalian genetics erects as a barrier i have to stick with the things i know best.

That's fine, I am use to anecdotal evidence being passed for a demonstrated mechanism.

i think that sufficiently proves my contention until i learn more about exactly what it is about Mendelian genetics that you think a barrier between classes.
....

You might try this:

Human Genome Project Information

At the top of the page are the human chromosomes, if you want to know what happens when one of them has a genetic mutation just click on the number. If you like they will send you a poster with all of the diseases and disorders associated with they various chromosomes. Here are the ones associated with Human Chromosome 21 believed to be the one containing the genes that make us unique.

Human Chromosome 21

 

[mark kennedy]

If you truely believe that accepting assumptions is a handicap then evolution isn't scientific either. origins deals with theology and there is no escape from that. Either man is a separate created being that was created by God or he is a accident by evolution (mutations are errors), both deals with religious beliefs which deals who we are and how we got here. While creationist admit we accpet something by faith ,evolutionist are more dishonest by trying to claim their assumptions are scientific fact.
The is strong scientific evidence of a supernatural miracle happened in the past called Life. So Evolutionists still have to deal with the chicken or the egg paradoxes found in nature which requires a miracle.(this is why evolutionist want to separate their theory for their genesis) One of the big hang up with evolutionists is Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Either man is a glorified ape (the so called common ancestor between man and ape is still a stupid ape.) or he is created by God separate from the animals and became a living soul. Both positions is a matter of faith.

Bear in mind that the prize evolutionists need is the genetic basis for their assumed evolutionary adaptations from single common ancestor. They have been hiding behind genetics for decades and the known differences between the genetic makeup of the chimpanzee and the human genomes is vast. Our brains are 2 1/2 times larger, considerably denser and the genetic basis for changes that could cause this is a complete mystery in natural science. It's not mystery to me, the Lord formed man independantly of the apes and the various other classes of kinds in the natural world.

My point is that it's not all faith unless we are talking about ultimate origins. There are emprical facts that TOE has yet to come to grips with and genetics has never been a friend of the single common ancestor model. What really bugs me about this is that school children are being told that mutations are what drives evolution, it doesn't, it degrades creation.

Good post, I would have reped you but I guess I have to spread it around a little before I can do that again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SBG]

Good post, I would have reped you but I guess I have to spread it around a little before I can do that again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I will rep him for both of us. Smidlee, the rep points is from me and Mark.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That is the first time someone actually accepted a definition of 'kinds' and didn't just ask the question again. I have a definition for class and I don't really know what object oriented biology is but it sounds like a reasonably good working definition:

"A class is a template from which object instances are created. It specifies the common characteristics that objects created from it will contain. Classes are created from gene products whose characteristics are defined by the GO (Gene Ontology) molecular function and cellular component terms. Example: The class Smad 2 is created based on the properties of the gene product Smad 2, which are defined by molecular functions such as “protein homodimerization’ (GO:0042803) and ‘ATP binding’ (GO:0042301)"

http://www.nodalpoint.org/node/1645

thank you very much for the link, i will probably spend most of today reading there.
i had no way of knowing that you proposed to introduce such a definition of class into the discussion. My reply took the word "class" in the only way that was acceptable and common, the taxonomic definition inherited from Linnaean classification. i simply had no way to know that this complex and extremely idiosyncratic definition was what you had in mind to use to define kinds. That is the problem with definitions, we have to share them.


Spiegelman's monster, yes i've read the 5th Miracle, but it is not proving what you desire to, that is the reduction of the genome. It rather shows that spontaneous duplication of RNA will occur and that there appears to be a darwinian type of competition based on speed of replication of subsequences. this is not a demonstration of information loss.

Chimpanzee/human DNA comparison where they postulated that the original genome of the mrca was larger then either one dispite the large number of insertions

this is new to me, can you provide a reference for me to study?

The random variations that are the cause of change through random variation are fixed in the genotype and are cyclical with regards to the expressed phenotype. It is this random cross over of genes and the ability of enzymes to turn certain genes on and off that gave rise to the diversity we see spanning the natural world. Bear in mind the patterns that Mendel reduced to ratios tend to run in cycles and swing from the right to the left of a median.

i do not understand your point.
crossover events mix the parental strands, they are not the major source of the allelic diversity, mutations are. Not only proteins but RNA and DNA bind to regulatory sites, this does not show the origins of diversity, the mutations that altered binding elements either the signaling element or the binding site is the source of the diversity, not the mere fact of binding ability. Control elements are modified by mutation, so? it is another mutation, with potentially enormous influence in the new organism, but it is still a mutation.

Ok, that is viruses, now how about protein coding genes. What are the effects of fundamental change to these DNA stands as directly observed and empirically demonstrated in modern genetics?

i think you misunderstand the force of my viruses swap DNA between chickens and people example. It shows that there is no barrier of kinds between them. same sorts of processes, no elemental differences that would mark a kinds barrier. The fact that we have 1000's of proviruses in our genome, some with murine, some with avian genetic information. and that several of these sequences are producing useable proteins in people should be sufficient data to banish "there exists a kind barrier".

other then that i really need more information about your proposed gene or chromosome level barrier.

but i do appreciate the response as it does attempt to engage with science on a level more appropriate then the usual YECist canards.

....

 

[mark kennedy]

this is new to me, can you provide a reference for me to study?

First things first, I think I have been asked about this:

DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22

Now, that is the comparison of the genomes of humans and the chimpanzee. Check out the section on the gene coding sequences, it's a very indepth study so you might want to skip to the highlights.

"83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level...A total of 140 of these 179 genes show amino acid replacements, but no gross structural changes are expected... Fifteen genes have indels within their coding region yet retain frame consistency in all but one case (TCP10L)...For those 179 genes, the average nucleotide and amino acid identity in the coding region is 99.29% and 99.18%, respectively. Of these, 39 genes show an identical amino acid sequence between human and chimpanzee, including seven in which the nucleotide sequence of the coding region is also identical...Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins...)"

I'll look over the rest of your post but since this is new to you I thought I would give you a heads up on what I am basing my statements on.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

First things first, I think I have been asked about this:

DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22

Now, that is the comparison of the genomes of humans and the chimpanzee. Check out the section on the gene coding sequences, it's a very indepth study so you might want to skip to the highlights.

"83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level...A total of 140 of these 179 genes show amino acid replacements, but no gross structural changes are expected... Fifteen genes have indels within their coding region yet retain frame consistency in all but one case (TCP10L)...For those 179 genes, the average nucleotide and amino acid identity in the coding region is 99.29% and 99.18%, respectively. Of these, 39 genes show an identical amino acid sequence between human and chimpanzee, including seven in which the nucleotide sequence of the coding region is also identical...Taken together, gross structural changes affecting gene products are far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins...)"

I'll look over the rest of your post but since this is new to you I thought I would give you a heads up on what I am basing my statements on.

you have made reference to this article in other threads you've posted to, however this is the first time i've read it.

now let me try to understand your argument.
1- human beings are their own kind. therefore chimps and human beings are not in the same kind.
2-there exists a kind barrier on either the chromosome or gene level that makes it impossible for evolution to occur across this kind barrier, therefore common descent is not true.
3-this article supports your thesises 1,2 above.
4-despite the authors' obvious regard for evolutionary thinking evident throughout the article they are mistaken that the chimp PTR22 and the human HSA21 are not related as sketched by http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6990/fig_tab/nature02564_F4.html.


ok. where in the article do you find evidence of this kind barrier?

the second paragraph i quoted from your message is an analysis of homology not discontinuity. certainly it expresses a surprise at the extent of the difference but no where do the authors express any thoughts that common descent via mutational changes couldn't have the power to produce what they are researching.
so i fail to see how this article supports your argument.
..

 

[mark kennedy]

you have made reference to this article in other threads you've posted to, however this is the first time i've read it.

now let me try to understand your argument.
1- human beings are their own kind. therefore chimps and human beings are not in the same kind.
2-there exists a kind barrier on either the chromosome or gene level that makes it impossible for evolution to occur across this kind barrier, therefore common descent is not true.
3-this article supports your thesises 1,2 above.
4-despite the authors' obvious regard for evolutionary thinking evident throughout the article they are mistaken that the chimp PTR22 and the human HSA21 are not related as sketched by http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6990/fig_tab/nature02564_F4.html.


ok. where in the article do you find evidence of this kind barrier?

the second paragraph i quoted from your message is an analysis of homology not discontinuity. certainly it expresses a surprise at the extent of the difference but no where do the authors express any thoughts that common descent via mutational changes couldn't have the power to produce what they are researching.
so i fail to see how this article supports your argument.
..

First of all, the artical is just mapping the differences between the two genomes. Secondly, the differences should be accounted for based on empirical evidence and this is another issue as well. Only 39 of the 231 genes (not counting the ones that cannot be classified) are identical, how did 83% of the genes have such dramatic changes? 20% of the protein coding genes have gross structural changes (differences), it seems reasonable to ask how they got in there.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

First of all, the artical is just mapping the differences between the two genomes. Secondly, the differences should be accounted for based on empirical evidence and this is another issue as well. Only 39 of the 231 genes (not counting the ones that cannot be classified) are identical, how did 83% of the genes have such dramatic changes? 20% of the protein coding genes have gross structural changes (differences), it seems reasonable to ask how they got in there.

to which the authors reply

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) provide important clues for detecting ancestral and mutant alleles within the human population. The chimpanzee genomic sequence is the best resource for inferring the ancestral allele of any human SNP locus. We thus unambiguously reconstructed 19,985 ancestral states from 21,435 human SNP sites in HSA21q7.

and

Through alignment of the high-quality chromosomal sequences of HSA21q and PTR22q we identified about 68,000 indels in total. Greater than 99% of the indels are shorter than 300 bp, but there is a clear abundance of those around 300 bp in size (Fig. 2). These sites are probably produced either through human insertions/chimpanzee deletions or vice versa. Thus the precise identification of these molecular events in the two genomes is essential to understand the processes underlying human and chimpanzee evolution. For this purpose, we tested 567 indels larger than 300 bp using DNA samples from five human, five chimpanzee, one gorilla and two orang-utan individuals by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification using the same primer sets to classify in which lineage these indels arose (see Methods and Supplementary Information). We compared the size of the successfully amplified DNA fragments from 219 indels, of which 193 showed lineage-specific changes in size. Thus, we were able to distinguish insertion from deletion events independently in human and chimpanzee lineages, and to estimate the original state of these regions in the genome of the last common ancestor.

so known mutational events caused the changes between chimps, humans and the LCA of us both.

 

[dcrowther3]

The understanding we have from science may be imperfect, but it is the best approximation we have of understanding the realities of the physical world. The churches will have to come to terms with that, sooner rather than later.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The understanding we have from science may be imperfect, but it is the best approximation we have of understanding the realities of the physical world. The churches will have to come to terms with that, sooner rather than later.

science says nothing about values or morality, churches talk about little else.
science has a deliberately truncated epistemology, why try to make it access what it was designed not to investigate- the subjective, the unreasonable, the mysterious, the supernatural?
if the physical world is dependent upon and essentially subservient to a greater and more important spititual one, science won't nor can it detect that fact.


...

 

[mark kennedy]

to which the authors reply

Notice that it is clues and not demonstrated mechanisms.

and

"DNA fragments from 219 indels, of which 193 showed lineage-specific changes in size." You should really consider the content of the quotes you are pasting to your posts.

so known mutational events caused the changes between chimps, humans and the LCA of us both.

No, mutational events are presumed to have caused the changes between chimps and humans.

 

[gluadys]

There are four major events that are foundational to the promise of the Gospel, Creation, the Fall, the Flood and Bable.

Interesting choice. Not mine. If I were to choose four major events foundational to the promise of the Gospel, they would be Creation, the Fall, the Atonement and the Eschaton.

And I would like to add a fifth as equally foundational: the Incarnation.

I don't see either the Flood or the story of Babel as having anywhere near the significance of these.

 

[gluadys]

By the way, DNA is structured the same and we will be 25% identical in all living things since there are only four base combinations.

This is the second time I have caught you on this error, Mark. It is time you ditched it.

It is not true that there are only four base combinations.

What is true is that there are four kinds of base nucleotides in both the DNA and RNA molecule. DNA & RNA both use adenine, guanine and cytosine. As its fourth base nucleotide DNA uses thymine, but RNA uses uracil.

These four base nucleotides do form combinations which (in coding DNA) code for amino acids. But there are 64 combinations not just 4.

The Genetic Code in RNA format

 

[gluadys]

how did 83% of the genes have such dramatic changes? 20% of the protein coding genes have gross structural changes (differences), it seems reasonable to ask how they got in there.

Mark, the article said that 83% of the genes showed amino acid replacements. Where did it say that the changes were dramatic?

You do realize that if a gene has only one amino acid replacement it will be counted among the 83% of the genes which show amino acid replacements?

All that 83% means is that out of 213 genes 192 showed at least one amino acid replacement. It does not mean that every change was dramatic or even that the sum total of the changes was dramatic. They could be, but you can't get that from the 83% figure.

To demonstrate dramatic change you would have to look up exactly what amino acid replacements occurred on each of those 192 genes, and show that the change on all or most of them was dramatic. That information may be contained in the tables attached to the reports. I haven't read the tables, so I am not sure what is in them.

 

[gluadys]

No, mutational events are presumed to have caused the changes between chimps and humans.

Mutations do not cause changes. Mutations are changes.

Changes (aka mutations) lead to modified gene products (e.g. proteins). This will often modify the behaviour (functioning) of the protein.

 

[shernren]

What do you mean by the Eschaton?

If you truely believe that accepting assumptions is a handicap then evolution isn't scientific either. origins deals with theology and there is no escape from that. Either man is a separate created being that was created by God or he is a accident by evolution (mutations are errors), both deals with religious beliefs which deals who we are and how we got here. While creationist admit we accept something by faith, evolutionist are more dishonest by trying to claim their assumptions are scientific fact.
The is strong scientific evidence of a supernatural miracle happened in the past called Life. So Evolutionists still have to deal with the chicken or the egg paradoxes found in nature which requires a miracle.

(emphasis mine) Now there ... if it was a supernatural miracle, how would it have left unequivocal scientific evidence? If I love God, what scientific evidence is there? I was talking about accepting the particular assumption that God did act in space and time to create life, outside of known scientific paradigms. Asking for scientific work on that is like giving kindergarten students calculus problems. Since they do not have knowledge of the necessary paradigms for calculus, how will they solve the questions? Similarly, because the methodological naturalism of science precludes the kind of paradigm that can investigate the supernatural (i.e. the theological framework), how can science investigate the supernatural? Work based on scientific assumptions may be scientific, but work based on non-scientific assumptions will not be scientific.

That's the main point I keep on pressing: that creationism is not scientific whether or not it is true. For me personally I reject abiogenesis, and I believe that God literally created Adam, whether by sand-to-man-via-God's-hand methods, or by taking the most promising australopithecine and installing spiritual software... I know that these assumptions are unscientific. I believe that they are true for my own reasons. But I would never dream of testing them in the laboratory. The thing is, creation science is a giant misnomer and I believe that it is this aspect of creationism that really draws ridicule and shame to the Body of Christ.

 

[Smidlee]

That's the main point I keep on pressing: that creationism is not scientific whether or not it is true. For me personally I reject abiogenesis, and I believe that God literally created Adam, whether by sand-to-man-via-God's-hand methods, or by taking the most promising australopithecine and installing spiritual software... I know that these assumptions are unscientific. I believe that they are true for my own reasons. But I would never dream of testing them in the laboratory. The thing is, creation science is a giant misnomer and I believe that it is this aspect of creationism that really draws ridicule and shame to the Body of Christ.

Yet even evolution also deals with a supernatural events. Many times we they use the term "natural-selection" it is really "supernatural-selection" is what they are referring to. It has already been shown the natural-selection is very limited yet many evolutionist are still claiming it can perform great miracles. instead of a creationist claiming "God did it" the evolutionists just replace God with evolution/natural-selection and say "evolution did it". Notice the article someone given above about the chicken and anyone can easily see the religious views mix into the real facts. evolution has to do more than just pick out the similarities between two species since it is also evidence of common design but it must explain how the differences came about.

 

[gluadys]

What do you mean by the Eschaton?

Events of the end time associated with Jesus' return and the coming of the Kingdom of God.

The branch of theology which focuses on these is called eschatology.

 

[gluadys]

Yet even evolution also deals with a supernatural events. Many times we they use the term "natural-selection" it is really "supernatural-selection" is what they are referring to. It has already been shown the natural-selection is very limited yet many evolutionist are still claiming it can perform great miracles. instead of a creationist claiming "God did it" the evolutionists just replace God with evolution/natural-selection and say "evolution did it".

Could you explain in more detail what you mean by this? Especially "super-natural" selection. What do you think is being claimed that is really super-natural?

 

[mark kennedy]

This is the second time I have caught you on this error, Mark. It is time you ditched it.

It is not true that there are only four base combinations.

This is what I hate about these discussions, it's the evolutionist that need a good basic biology lesson.

"While there are only 4 different nucleotide bases that can occur in a nucleic acid, each nucleic acid contains millions of bases bonded to it. The order in which these nucleotide bases appear in the nucleic acid, codes for the information carried in the molecule. In other words, the nucleotide bases serve as a sort of genetic alphabet on which the structure of each protein in our bodies is encoded."

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=63

Now, while it is true that can be bonded into millions bases there are still only four. This means we will be 25% simular to any living thing on the planet.

Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this “similarity” line of thinking.


"Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical.
Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter human”? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA. Marks went on to concede:

Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes.... Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070

That is what happens when homology is mistaken for science, simularity is mistaken for lineal descent.

What is true is that there are four kinds of base nucleotides in both the DNA and RNA molecule. DNA & RNA both use adenine, guanine and cytosine. As its fourth base nucleotide DNA uses thymine, but RNA uses uracil.

These four base nucleotides do form combinations which (in coding DNA) code for amino acids. But there are 64 combinations not just 4.

The Genetic Code in RNA format

Those are triplet codons for the RNA sequences and somehow you have missed the whole point, once again.