Darwinism and Mutations

[miamited]

Hi mark,

Don't know why you would think such an occurence, while it can be forced in laboratory testing, necessarily actually happens in the real world. We can force many unnatural changes in the natural, but just because something can be made to happen in a laboratory environment with people introducing elements that don't normally happen in the natural world, doesn't mean that those things do actually happen in the real world when left to it's own natural development.

Further, even if epigenetics is proven to occur natually in the real world environment, can we prove that they happened more than 6,000 years ago, or have these changes occured in the 6,000 years that God says this realm has existed?

Further, I always thought you were a 6 day creationist as regards all life and mankind, but you drew the line with the creation of the universe itself also being contained within that time frame. If you do believe what I think you have said is your position in this, how do you reconcile epigenetics, which only occurs in living organisms, 'proving' my 6,000 year old creation belief to be false.

Aren't you the guy that wrote to me a while back that you do believe in the literal 6 day creation and the genealogies of mankind, but that the universe itself may be old because the Scriptures say that 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. I thought you agreed with me that God created all the plants on day three and all the living creatures and man on day six. And that you were the one always fighting the good fight that the creation week was 6 literal earth days.

Maybe I have you mistaken for someone else. Please accept my apologies if that is the case.

Oh, and BTW, the blurb you posted was not my words. I don't honestly know why it formatted as it did, but if you'll look a few posts up you'll see that everything down to the /

just above my greeting to frogman was a previous post quote.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi mark,

Don't know why you would think such an occurence, while it can be forced in laboratory testing, necessarily actually happens in the real world. We can force many unnatural changes in the natural, but just because something can be made to happen in a laboratory environment with people introducing elements that don't normally happen in the natural world, doesn't mean that those things do actually happen in the real world when left to it's own natural development.

Well yea, genetic engineering and hybrids have come a long way.

Further, even if epigenetics is proven to occur natually in the real world environment, can we prove that they happened more than 6,000 years ago, or have these changes occured in the 6,000 years that God says this realm has existed?

What a strange question, epigenetics is a confirmed phenomenon in nature known, observed and demonstrated. What does that have to do with '6000 years ago'? I'm talking about real world adaptations and the molecular mechanisms involved. In case you missed it, life was created about 6000 years ago and I've never argued anything to the contrary.

Further, I always thought you were a 6 day creationist as regards all life and mankind, but you drew the line with the creation of the universe itself also being contained within that time frame. If you do believe what I think you have said is your position in this, how do you reconcile epigenetics, which only occurs in living organisms, 'proving' my 6,000 year old creation belief to be false.

The first part is right on the money, the age of the earth can be young or old it makes no difference. Life was created 6000 years ago and we know that because of the genealogies. Epigenetics is a process by which genes are turned off and on and genes can be expressed differently, that's all. Mutations are very rarely associated with adaptations on an evolutionary scale, epigentics and Mendelian dominant/recessive genes are normative heritable variation. That's all I'm saying, I don't deny a 6000 year old creation with regards to life. The age of the earth and the cosmos is not necessarily young or old, the Scriptures just say it was in the beginning.

Aren't you the guy that wrote to me a while back that you do believe in the literal 6 day creation and the genealogies of mankind, but that the universe itself may be old because the Scriptures say that 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. I thought you agreed with me that God created all the plants on day three and all the living creatures and man on day six. And that you were the one always fighting the good fight that the creation week was 6 literal earth days.

I have no idea where this is coming from, I've never argued anything else.

Maybe I have you mistaken for someone else. Please accept my apologies if that is the case.

Oh there's a misunderstanding alright, I think you somehow totally misunderstood what I was saying, not who I am.

Oh, and BTW, the blurb you posted was not my words. I don't honestly know why it formatted as it did, but if you'll look a few posts up you'll see that everything down to the just above my greeting to frogman was a previous post quote.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I saw the part about mutations and thought it might be an interesting discussion if someone picked up on it. Mutations are the worst possible source for variation, adaptations and evolution. Perhaps your confused about how I'm using those terms, evolution started at creation 6000 years ago. God created life with internal molecular mechanisms that evolved the birds, mammals and reptiles 4000 years ago into the vast array we have today after the Flood.

I think you may have totally misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[miamited]

Hi mark,

I may have, but since you wrote your post based on a 'quote' from one of my posts, I figured you were trying to bring up some point against what I had posted earlier as to my understanding of the time of the creation event. That's why I included in my response that I didn't understand why you had brought it up regarding my post.

Unfortunately, when one responds with just, 'one word epigenetics', there is a lot left up to the reader as to what point is being made.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi mark,

I may have, but since you wrote your post based on a 'quote' from one of my posts, I figured you were trying to bring up some point against what I had posted earlier as to my understanding of the time of the creation event. That's why I included in my response that I didn't understand why you had brought it up regarding my post.

Unfortunately, when one responds with just, 'one word epigenetics', there is a lot left up to the reader as to what point is being made.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I thought the issue at hand was adaptations, obviously you had something else in mind. No matter, if there's something of interest you want to discuss just let me know.

 

[miamited]

Hi mark,

I was merely offering my understanding of the Scriptures to the claim made that no one knows what happened 25 million years ago.

As far as the earth and this universe, I do.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi mark,

I was merely offering my understanding of the Scriptures to the claim made that no one knows what happened 25 million years ago.

As far as the earth and this universe, I do.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

There are things you can believe, but you can't write out a procedure for us to
follow that will replay any events from last week for us to observe over again.

You MAY, for example, write one that shows water evaporating from a glass,
at a certain rate, due to heat.

But when we recreate your experiment the wind may blow, or the atmospheric
pressure may drop, and the result may not be the same.

So even controlled recreation of an event you observed yesterday may not turn
out the same. Now, compare that to events 10 or 10 billion days ago and you
see how much less accurate any historical conjecture may be.

 

[gluadys]

There are things you can believe, but you can't write out a procedure for us to
follow that will replay any events from last week for us to observe over again.

You MAY, for example, write one that shows water evaporating from a glass,
at a certain rate, due to heat.

But when we recreate your experiment the wind may blow, or the atmospheric
pressure may drop, and the result may not be the same.

So even controlled recreation of an event you observed yesterday may not turn
out the same. Now, compare that to events 10 or 10 billion days ago and you
see how much less accurate any historical conjecture may be.

So far, so good.
However, what a scientist might do is run the experiment over and over and over again under different conditions to see how those conditions affect the rate of evaporation. How quickly does the water evaporate when brought to a boil in a tea-kettle? How slowly if left on a shelf in the refrigerator? What is the evaporation rate at night compared to the day? In the shade as compared to direct sunlight? What are the effects of air pressure, wind velocity, etc. on the evaporation rate? What are the extreme limits of evaporation rate? What is the overall average, or the average in any particular set of circumstances?

Having discovered all that can be found out about evaporation rates, the scientist still could not tell you how long it would take for a particular glass of water to evaporate whether it was 10 years, 10 billion years or only 10 hours ago.

But what he can tell you now is the probable time it took for any large body of water, exposed to a variety of conditions, to dry up and leave only an evaporite where there used to be an inland sea. One could calculate with reasonable certainty, how long it would take the floodwaters after the global deluge to be removed from the earth by evaporation. Because that would be like taking an average of millions of experiments under different conditions.

The range of evaporation rates may change considerably, and without knowledge of the particulars, one cannot predict what is the case for any single glass of water. But averages change far less than particular occurrences and tend to remain stable over great lengths of time.

So although you are right about one-off experiments, that doesn't mean we are as foggy about historical events as your conclusion implies.

 

[SkyWriting]

So far, so good.
However, what a scientist might do is run the experiment over and over and over again under different conditions to see how those conditions affect the rate of evaporation. How quickly does the water evaporate when brought to a boil in a tea-kettle? How slowly if left on a shelf in the refrigerator? What is the evaporation rate at night compared to the day? In the shade as compared to direct sunlight? What are the effects of air pressure, wind velocity, etc. on the evaporation rate? What are the extreme limits of evaporation rate? What is the overall average, or the average in any particular set of circumstances?

Having discovered all that can be found out about evaporation rates, the scientist still could not tell you how long it would take for a particular glass of water to evaporate whether it was 10 years, 10 billion years or only 10 hours ago.

But what he can tell you now is the probable time it took for any large body of water, exposed to a variety of conditions, to dry up and leave only an evaporite where there used to be an inland sea. One could calculate with reasonable certainty, how long it would take the floodwaters after the global deluge to be removed from the earth by evaporation. Because that would be like taking an average of millions of experiments under different conditions.

The range of evaporation rates may change considerably, and without knowledge of the particulars, one cannot predict what is the case for any single glass of water. But averages change far less than particular occurrences and tend to remain stable over great lengths of time.

So although you are right about one-off experiments, that doesn't mean we are as foggy about historical events as your conclusion implies.

We are quite foggy about historical events.
"History is manufactured by the historian who writes it."
is a common comment.

I'm referring to pre-history for which there is no written record.
Ask someone who has worked in a national park all their lives
"what formed these rocks" and they will tell you plain that they
have read dozens of different conflicting theories.

I went to the traveling Mummy exhibit and only ONE mummy
had a date. And that was because somebody wrote it down.

People will try to explain origins. But they are less informed than
the teams of scientists for the mummy exhibit who just barely
have a clue.