Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Hans Blaster]

What paleontologists need to do is turn their fossils over and read the expiration date. If it says fresh if packaged after 75,000,000BC, then they know it's ok to find soft tissue on their fossils.

I've never done any scientific studies on the age of the earth.

I'll just take that dodge as an admission that you are a YEC.

 

[Frank Robert]

You post a link and I ask you to tell us what you think is the best observational evidence of macroevolution and you post another link. Take what you think is the best one of your 29+ evidences and write it in your next post.

Sorry Alan, but I answered that numerous times. It's not possible to put billions of years of evolution into a lab. If you believe that our inability to do what can not be done is reason to deny the phenomenal amount of evidence for macroevolution then that is your problem not mine.
Peace.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I'll just take that dodge as an admission that you are a YEC.

As I always tell macroevolutionists, I've never done a scientific study on the age of the earth. I put my scientific study effort into understanding biological evolution. Biologists and anyone else interested in understanding this physical and mathematical process should do likewise. And I'm not so gullible to start that scientific study by believing the claim that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals as a scientific fact. I started that study with the observation of actual examples of biological evolution and computer simulations of the process. I looked for patterns in these observations and tried to understand what physical laws were at work in these patterns. I studied what biologists and geneticists were saying about these same things that I was observing and tried to understand what makes sense or not. What exactly were people like Darwin, Haldane, Kimura, and others were saying in their attempts to make a theoretical explanation of this phenomenon. What were people like Kishony and Lenski measuring and what were the patterns they were demonstrating in their experiments of biological evolution. I then looked for the correct mathematics to describe these patterns, whether that math was already published in the literature or my own efforts to derive the correct math necessary to define the different components of biological evolution.

I decided that Haldane gave the correct math for evolutionary competition. But I couldn't find what I considered the correct math for DNA microevolutioary adaptation, so I went back to the first principles of probability theory and derived some probability equations. I did this by identifying the random trial(s) associated with DNA microevolutionary adaption, identify the possible outcomes, and then derived the probability distribution for this stochastic system. I also had questions in my mind as to how recombination affects microevolutionary adaptation, so I also derived an equation that describes random recombination that gives a mathematical explanation for why random recombination doesn't defeat combination therapy for the treatment of HIV.

This scientific study process to understand biological evolution took more than a decade and that doesn't include the many years of study necessary to prepare to undertake such a study. If any biologist thinks they have a better explanation for microevolutionary adaptation. Put it forward, I would like to hear it. Don't just say "parallel evolution". Give an empirical example, demonstrate what is measured in your observation, try to give a mathematical explanation of the observation. Try to make your arguments clear and understandable. I try to get people to understand what is happening with each replication in the population and at each site in the genome, that's how you develop the mathematical accounting rules for genetic transformation.

If I were to undertake a scientific study of the age of the earth, I would approach it the same way. For example, if I were to do a scientific study on the age of soft tissue found on a fossil, I would do carbon dating of that soft tissue. I would not make the excuse that there is too much contamination of excavation sites with modern carbon. They certainly don't make the complaint that their excavation sites are contaminated with ancient rocks. If paleontologists don't understand how to prevent contamination of their excavation sites, they need to take lessons from police crime scene investigators who seem to be able to gather biological evidence without contaminating it. I'm actually aware of the carbon dating of soft tissue from a dinosaur fossil and if I recall, it dated to 24,000 years.

So Hans, if it turns your crank to call me a YEC, that's fine. If that's the best argument you can come up with in this discussion, I know you have no mathematical, empirical, or experimental evidence to make any case.

 

[Yttrium]

I'm actually aware of the carbon dating of soft tissue from a dinosaur fossil and if I recall, it dated to 24,000 years.

Carbon dating is only reliable to about 50,000 years. You can't use it to date things millions of years old. We have other radiometric dating techniques for that.

 

[Frank Robert]

What paleontologists need to do is turn their fossils over and read the expiration date. If it says fresh if packaged after 75,000,000BC, then they know it's ok to find soft tissue on their fossils.

I've never done any scientific studies on the age of the earth.

You deny existing evidence and you claim evidence that doesn't exist. Produce the evidence of freshly packed DNA older than 1.7 million years. As I pointed out before the study you quoted from is not what you think it is.

 

[pitabread]

For example, if I were to do a scientific study on the age of soft tissue found on a fossil, I would do carbon dating of that soft tissue.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Carbon dating is only reliable to about 50,000 years. You can't use it to date things millions of years old. We have other radiometric dating techniques for that.

You certainly can apply carbon dating to soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils:
Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins

Given that the mosasaur humerus was housed in the collections at IRSNB for many years, the possibility existed that the collagenous matter identified herein was non-authentic, and instead originated from fungal growth or gelatin-based bone glue. However, histological sections of untreated bone revealed that the fibrous microstructures were deeply embedded in hydroxyapatite prior to demineralization (Figure 1M). Moreover, TOF MS and DNA analyses failed to detect any ergosterol or nucleic acids attributable to fungi, and we were unable to identify any substances that could be related to bone glue (for instance, the vessel lumina were draped by iron oxide crystals, not organic matter; Figure 4). Likewise, the amount of finite carbon was exceedingly small, corresponding to 4.68%±0.1 of modern 14C activity (yielding an age of 24 600 BP), and most likely reflect bacterial activity near the outer surface of the bone (although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex). Two short DNA sequences of possible lagomorph origin were amplified by PCR (together with three human sequences), and consequently it is possible that the outer surface of the bone has been painted with animal glue at some point. Nonetheless, based on the extremely weak PCR products obtained from the DNA analysis (8–26 ng/μl after two rounds of PCR and doubling up of the PCR reaction volume, suggesting very few copies of template DNA prior to PCR), the amount of lagomorph contamination is exceedingly small and cannot account for the relatively large quantities of fibrous matter located in between the vessel-like forms (i.e., in the area of the osteoid). Additionally, some fiber bundles are partially mineralized (Figure 8), providing convincing evidence for their antiquity. Accordingly, we find it reasonable to conclude that the collagenous biomolecules recovered from the fibrous tissues of IRSNB 1624 are primary.

(I added the boldfacing in that quote.) These researchers made no attempt to determine what fraction of carbon came from the collagen from the dinosaur and what fraction came from any possible modern contamination, although they say that "although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex".

I don't expect to see many carbon dating experiments be performed by the macroevolutionist camp, they already have to make excuses for so many other experimental results. But it would be nice to see paleontologists become competent enough investigators that they wouldn't contaminate their excavation sites and specimens so that carbon dating of these soft tissues could be done accurately. Then the carbon dating result should give 0 C14 if these specimens are millions of years old. I don't see much more of that kind of experimentation very soon, just like I don't expect to see an experiment that demonstrates macroevolution.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins

 

[Hans Blaster]

And I'm not so gullible to start that scientific study by believing the claim that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals as a scientific fact.

Biology didn't start there either. They worked through the evidence and that is the (rough) conclusion they came to. It's not really our problem (on this board) that they came to those conclusions before you got involved in your evolutionary studies.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Biology didn't start there either. They worked through the evidence and that is the (rough) conclusion they came to. It's not really our problem (on this board) that they came to those conclusions before you got involved in your evolutionary studies.

Well, there is some modern experimental evidence of microevolution that has appeared since biologists came to their "rough" conclusion. That kind of thing happens in science. Perhaps they should work through the evidence again. They may actually learn something about the physics and mathematics of biological evolution this time through the evidence.

 

[Yttrium]

You certainly can apply carbon dating to soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils:
Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins

That doesn't affect what I said at all.

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

That doesn't affect what I said at all.

You said the following:

Carbon dating is only reliable to about 50,000 years. You can't use it to date things millions of years old. We have other radiometric dating techniques for that.

So you think that the 24,600BP date obtain in the study I presented wasn't measuring the carbon date of that dinosaur collagen? What actually were they measuring the carbon date of? Do you think that carbon dating should be done on the soft tissue specimens found in other dinosaur fossils? If no, why not?

 

[Yttrium]

You said the following:

So you think that the 24,600BP date obtain in the study I presented wasn't measuring the carbon date of that dinosaur collagen? What actually were they measuring the carbon date of? Do you think that carbon dating should be done on the soft tissue specimens found in other dinosaur fossils? If no, why not?

There's nothing wrong in analyzing the C-14 levels of organisms that old, when we can. It can provide some useful data. It's not useful for dating purposes, though.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

There's nothing wrong in analyzing the C-14 levels of organisms that old, when we can. It can provide some useful data. It's not useful for dating purposes, though.

Why did these researchers waste time and money doing carbon dating on this specimen? What were they trying to date?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why did these researchers waste time and money doing carbon dating on this specimen? What were they trying to date?

Microbial contamination.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Microbial contamination.

So they did carbon dating to verify microbial contamination? Read carefully where they found the contamination:

although no bacterial proteins or hopanoids were detected, one bacterial DNA sequence was amplified by PCR, and microscopic clusters of bone-boring cyanobacteria were seen in places along the perimeter of the diaphyseal cortex

Where is the diaphyseal cortex? Why didn't they say they found bacterial contamination on the collagen fibers? They did electron microscopy, if bacteria was on the collagen fibers, that method should have revealed it. They don't need to do carbon dating of their collagen fiber specimens to determine bacterial contamination if they can see the bacteria with electron microscopy on the specimen they are carbon dating.

They already know that most of the carbon in their specimen is from dinosaur collagen, not bacterial collagen. Is there enough modern bacterial carbon on that collagen specimen to give that carbon date? They say most likely then go on to say they don't detect bacterial proteins or hopanoids. A speculative and ambiguous answer at best. A recently excavated specimen with proper handling to prevent any contamination should be tested but I doubt that macroevolutionists are motivated to do that. They aren't in business to collect evidence that contradicts their biased beliefs.

We don't see Lenski restarting his experiment and nobody is trying to repeat the Kishony experiment. There's a lot of denial going on with people that believe in macroevolution, abiogenesis, junk DNA, and multi-million-year-old soft tissue.

 

[pitabread]

There's a lot of denial going on with people that believe in macroevolution, abiogenesis, junk DNA, and multi-million-year-old soft tissue.

You have that the other way 'round. The denial is among contemporary creationists of said science.

Of course given that creationists have yet to proffer anything to replace that which they deny, it seems like a dead end for them.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

You have that the other way 'round. The denial is among contemporary creationists of said science.

Of course given that creationists have yet to proffer anything to replace that which they deny, it seems like a dead end for them.

Whatever you say Pita. Why won't you discuss Joe Felsenstein's text THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS? You keep saying I should study a modern evolutionary biology text. Here's one with lot's of mathematics. Which equation(s) pertain to the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments? Where's the mathematical model of macroevolution?

What I'm proffering is a correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of microevolution. You say my math is wrong and I should study some "modern" evolutionary biology. Well, Felsenstein updated his textbook in 2019. Do we have to wait for the 2022 version of the text for the mathematical explanation of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments?

 

[Frank Robert]

Whatever you say Pita.

I think you are just trying to turn the tables on Frank but I may be giving myself too much credit.
Even so, the only denial on this thread's is Alan's denial of the immense scientific evidence for macroevoution.

Alan's denial of macroevidence is not evidence against macroevolution.
Of course Alan can make a name for hmiself by finding superior evidence for an alternative or by falsifying the 29 evidences for macroevolution

Why won't you discuss Joe Felsenstein's text THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS?

Perhaps you can how and where Felsenstein agrees with you.