Possible falsification of Darwinism via gene data

[WisdomSpy]

Need some help… been trying to find the actual genomic data from the landmark discovery of the Siberian or “Taimyr wolf” rib DNA which was found in 2014 and ostensibly dated to 35K YBP per carbon-14. I think that this data might represent an ENORMOUS potential for falsifying the Darwinian idea of simple-to-complex progression of life (usually called “evolution”, though without proper definitions, confusion has largely resulted from this word).

If anyone can find a link which tells the actual genomic data, i.e. how many nuclear genes and how many pseudogenes in the ancient genome, please post the link.

Also, since many evolutionists tout their theory as having “predictive powers”, I suggest this challenge to both evolutionists and creationists:

If the theory which you subscribe to is accurate, how many genes would an ancient ancestor to the modern dog have—more genes or less genes? And how many pseudogenes would the ancient ancestor have—more of them or less of them? What would the theory of evolution predict? What would the theory of creation (even via “ancient aliens”) predict?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Since as written in Scripture Creation is not a theory,
and
since the theory of evolution is always a theory....
therefore it follows that there is always a lot of falsification....

(no surprise to Ekklesia(set apart ones by God, for God Himself),
as God's Word/ Scripture/ prophecies this).

 

[HTacianas]

Need some help… been trying to find the actual genomic data from the landmark discovery of the Siberian or “Taimyr wolf” rib DNA which was found in 2014 and ostensibly dated to 35K YBP per carbon-14. I think that this data might represent an ENORMOUS potential for falsifying the Darwinian idea of simple-to-complex progression of life (usually called “evolution”, though without proper definitions, confusion has largely resulted from this word).

If anyone can find a link which tells the actual genomic data, i.e. how many nuclear genes and how many pseudogenes in the ancient genome, please post the link.

Also, since many evolutionists tout their theory as having “predictive powers”, I suggest this challenge to both evolutionists and creationists:

If the theory which you subscribe to is accurate, how many genes would an ancient ancestor to the modern dog have—more genes or less genes? And how many pseudogenes would the ancient ancestor have—more of them or less of them? What would the theory of evolution predict? What would the theory of creation (even via “ancient aliens”) predict?

If I can ask, what are you planning to do with that information?

 

[Andrew77]

Need some help… been trying to find the actual genomic data from the landmark discovery of the Siberian or “Taimyr wolf” rib DNA which was found in 2014 and ostensibly dated to 35K YBP per carbon-14. I think that this data might represent an ENORMOUS potential for falsifying the Darwinian idea of simple-to-complex progression of life (usually called “evolution”, though without proper definitions, confusion has largely resulted from this word).

If anyone can find a link which tells the actual genomic data, i.e. how many nuclear genes and how many pseudogenes in the ancient genome, please post the link.

Also, since many evolutionists tout their theory as having “predictive powers”, I suggest this challenge to both evolutionists and creationists:

If the theory which you subscribe to is accurate, how many genes would an ancient ancestor to the modern dog have—more genes or less genes? And how many pseudogenes would the ancient ancestor have—more of them or less of them? What would the theory of evolution predict? What would the theory of creation (even via “ancient aliens”) predict?

Carbon dating is inherently unreliable. And in fact, the science of carbon dating itself, suggests the Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

The issue with carbon dating is that it relies the equilibrium of carbon 14 in the environment. Carbon 14 is created and is destroyed constantly over time. If the Earth is millions or billions of years old, the amount of carbon 14 in the environment should be stable.

Based on this, they assume how much carbon 14 was in the Siberian Taimyr Wolf, when it was alive. Then based on how much Carbon 14 is left in the wolf's bones, they can determine how old it is.

The entire concept hinges on them knowing how much carbon 14 was there to begin with.

But carbon 14, has not reached equilibrium. Carbon 14 was increasing before the start of the nuclear age, and the amount of carbon 14 has not decreased after the end of atmospheric nuclear testing, to the levels we had before the nuclear age began.

Meaning, it was not at an equilibrium. Which therefore indicates that level of Carbon 14 in the past, could have been drastically lower.

If the levels of Carbon 14 in say 4,000 BC, were drastically lower than they are today, then when we dig up the bones of an animal that was alive just several thousand years ago, it would appear (based on the assumption it had as much Carbon 14 then as we do today), to be millions of years old. This would be a false estimation.

For us Christians who believe the Bible is true, we not only think that Carbon 14 was lower in the past, we know this for a fact.

Carbon 14 is created by solar rays hitting nitrogen with a neutron, that changes it into Carbon 14.

The problem here is, as a Christian, we know there was a band of water above the Earth, that likely absorbed all those cosmic rays, thus making the creation of carbon 14 nearly impossible. There could be carbon in this band of water, but most rays would be absorbed by the water itself.

So we already know that C14 was much lower in the distant past.

As to disproving the Darwinian idea of simple-to-complex progression of life, while I applaud any effort you wish to put in, in order to add more evidence against Darwinism, the fact is Darwinism is already a disproved theory.

The evidence against Darwinism is almost endless. You can't explain how blood clotting would be evolved from a simple to complex system.

Blood clotting works. There are at least a dozen different working parts of the body that allow blood to clot at the right spot, with the right amount of restriction of blood flow, with the right immunal response, with the right chemical response, causing the right cells to move to that area, then band together, then plug the hole... and on and on... and on... and on........

The key is, without even one of these complex response systems, your blood would not clot right.

Without that one seemingly irrelevant ability, you would not be able to heal.

So let me ask you.... how many millions on millions of years, did animals throughout the planet die consistently from even the most tiny scratch from a thorn bush, before the magic evolution fairies gave animals the ability to have blood clotting work?

I don't mean to discourage you, but the vast majority of human beings that believe in evolution, believe it not because of it's merits, but rather simply because that is what they want to believe.

 

[WisdomSpy]

If I can ask, what are you planning to do with that information?

Good question. Wouldn't it be interesting to poll 100 evolutionary science teachers and get their prediction related to the wolf genome, prior to knowing the answer? And include the predictions of 100 Creationists? And then reveal the answer? It could make for an extremely interesting article. If you think about it, the predictions really should be opposite of each other, shouldn't they be?

 

[WisdomSpy]

Carbon dating is inherently unreliable. And in fact, the science of carbon dating itself, suggests the Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

The issue with carbon dating is that it relies the equilibrium of carbon 14 in the environment. Carbon 14 is created and is destroyed constantly over time. If the Earth is millions or billions of years old, the amount of carbon 14 in the environment should be stable.

Based on this, they assume how much carbon 14 was in the Siberian Taimyr Wolf, when it was alive. Then based on how much Carbon 14 is left in the wolf's bones, they can determine how old it is.

The entire concept hinges on them knowing how much carbon 14 was there to begin with.

But carbon 14, has not reached equilibrium. Carbon 14 was increasing before the start of the nuclear age, and the amount of carbon 14 has not decreased after the end of atmospheric nuclear testing, to the levels we had before the nuclear age began.

Meaning, it was not at an equilibrium. Which therefore indicates that level of Carbon 14 in the past, could have been drastically lower.

If the levels of Carbon 14 in say 4,000 BC, were drastically lower than they are today, then when we dig up the bones of an animal that was alive just several thousand years ago, it would appear (based on the assumption it had as much Carbon 14 then as we do today), to be millions of years old. This would be a false estimation.

For us Christians who believe the Bible is true, we not only think that Carbon 14 was lower in the past, we know this for a fact.

View attachment 233882

Carbon 14 is created by solar rays hitting nitrogen with a neutron, that changes it into Carbon 14.

The problem here is, as a Christian, we know there was a band of water above the Earth, that likely absorbed all those cosmic rays, thus making the creation of carbon 14 nearly impossible. There could be carbon in this band of water, but most rays would be absorbed by the water itself.

So we already know that C14 was much lower in the distant past.

As to disproving the Darwinian idea of simple-to-complex progression of life, while I applaud any effort you wish to put in, in order to add more evidence against Darwinism, the fact is Darwinism is already a disproved theory.

The evidence against Darwinism is almost endless. You can't explain how blood clotting would be evolved from a simple to complex system.

Blood clotting works. There are at least a dozen different working parts of the body that allow blood to clot at the right spot, with the right amount of restriction of blood flow, with the right immunal response, with the right chemical response, causing the right cells to move to that area, then band together, then plug the hole... and on and on... and on... and on........

The key is, without even one of these complex response systems, your blood would not clot right.

Without that one seemingly irrelevant ability, you would not be able to heal.

So let me ask you.... how many millions on millions of years, did animals throughout the planet die consistently from even the most tiny scratch from a thorn bush, before the magic evolution fairies gave animals the ability to have blood clotting work?

I don't mean to discourage you, but the vast majority of human beings that believe in evolution, believe it not because of it's merits, but rather simply because that is what they want to believe.

Thank-you for the reminder of the C-14 differences in interpretation. If you noticed, I used the word ostensible in front of the published age of the sample. This is because I did not want to get into a debate about dating techniques and ages. To me, it is virtually irrelevant to the genomic evidence. The point of agreement between evolutionists and creationists is that it is ancient. Hence, it should serve as a valuable data point for comparison. The other point of agreement is that wolves and dogs belong to the same "kind" or continuum of life. Hence, the comparison of genes and pseudogenes should be a credible way to determine which theory, which idea, fits the actual data.

I believe that this comparison has the potential power to eclipse all previous attempts to falsify Darwinism (for lack of a better word) while realizing that change-over-time and natural selection are not being challenged by me or anyone else I know. I hope everyone realizes what I mean. It is confusing when "evolution" is spoken of by someone who really is referring to the theory of naturalistic origins and not simply natural selection. "Evolution", in a very limited sense, is certainly a "fact". But evolutionary origins is purely a theory, and one that lacks evidence which is indisputable.

If you want to have some real fun, walk into a room of evolutionists and ask if anyone can tell you whether "evolution" is a cause or an effect. Hint: in so many "scientific" as well as lay articles, "evolution" is used as an ostensible cause. Is it really? Think about it.

 

[sfs]

Carbon dating is inherently unreliable. And in fact, the science of carbon dating itself, suggests the Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

The issue with carbon dating is that it relies the equilibrium of carbon 14 in the environment.

No, it really doesn't. Carbon dating relies on a calibrated correlation between apparent C14 age and actual age, based on objects of known age. It would be really good if you understood at least the basics of the science before attempting to criticize it; here is a good place to start.

 

[sfs]

If you want to have some real fun, walk into a room of evolutionists and ask if anyone can tell you whether "evolution" is a cause or an effect. Hint: in so many "scientific" as well as lay articles, "evolution" is used as an ostensible cause. Is it really? Think about it.

What an odd question. Evolution is a process. As such, it has causes and it produces effects. Exactly how many evolutionary biologists have you talked to?

 

[sfs]

Need some help… been trying to find the actual genomic data from the landmark discovery of the Siberian or “Taimyr wolf” rib DNA which was found in 2014 and ostensibly dated to 35K YBP per carbon-14. I think that this data might represent an ENORMOUS potential for falsifying the Darwinian idea of simple-to-complex progression of life (usually called “evolution”, though without proper definitions, confusion has largely resulted from this word).

If anyone can find a link which tells the actual genomic data, i.e. how many nuclear genes and how many pseudogenes in the ancient genome, please post the link.

The data are and [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/ERX947748]here, but I doubt you want the actual data. I don't think anyone has counted the genes and pseudogenes for you.

If the theory which you subscribe to is accurate, how many genes would an ancient ancestor to the modern dog have—more genes or less genes? And how many pseudogenes would the ancient ancestor have—more of them or less of them? What would the theory of evolution predict?

The ancient wolf (only it's not really that old, genetically speaking) should have just about as many genes and pseudogenes as a modern wolf.[/url]

 

[Andrew77]

No, it really doesn't. Carbon dating relies on a calibrated correlation between apparent C14 age and actual age, based on objects of known age. It would be really good if you understood at least the basics of the science before attempting to criticize it; here is a good place to start.

I read through your link, and unsurprisingly there was nothing there that I had not read before. Since I have spent the last 20 years reading up on radiometric dating, this was expected.

Given the wide variety of sources I have read from, which includes numerous empirically documented evidence, I stand by my original post and the conclusions therein.

While I appreciate your attempt to educate someone, far more educated than the rather quick overview you linked, your position seems to indicated a narrow view of scientific knowledge about the topic at hand.

If you wish to learn more about the topic, I would encourage you to read from a variety of perspectives, and not just those of the mainstream.

Remember, scientific exploration can only happen by questioning the status quo, not just repeating it.

 

[sfs]

I read through your link, and unsurprisingly there was nothing there that I had not read before. Since I have spent the last 20 years reading up on radiometric dating, this was expected.

Then why did you make a statement about carbon dating that was simply false? You said it assumes that C14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere. That's not true, right? Why, if you are so familiar with the subject (more familiar, evidently, then those who do that sort of thing for a living), did you make a statement like that?

(Oh, and I've read a great deal of creationist literature. It consistently bears no relation whatever to actual science or, well, reality.)

 

[sfs]

Remember, scientific exploration can only happen by questioning the status quo, not just repeating it.

Might I ask how much science you've done?

 

[Job 33:6]

Need some help… been trying to find the actual genomic data from the landmark discovery of the Siberian or “Taimyr wolf” rib DNA which was found in 2014 and ostensibly dated to 35K YBP per carbon-14. I think that this data might represent an ENORMOUS potential for falsifying the Darwinian idea of simple-to-complex progression of life (usually called “evolution”, though without proper definitions, confusion has largely resulted from this word).

If anyone can find a link which tells the actual genomic data, i.e. how many nuclear genes and how many pseudogenes in the ancient genome, please post the link.

Also, since many evolutionists tout their theory as having “predictive powers”, I suggest this challenge to both evolutionists and creationists:

If the theory which you subscribe to is accurate, how many genes would an ancient ancestor to the modern dog have—more genes or less genes? And how many pseudogenes would the ancient ancestor have—more of them or less of them? What would the theory of evolution predict? What would the theory of creation (even via “ancient aliens”) predict?

Https://www.nature.com/news/ancient-wolf-genome-pushes-back-dawn-of-the-dog-1.17607

This?

 

[Andrew77]

Then why did you make a statement about carbon dating that was simply false? You said it assumes that C14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere. That's not true, right? Why, if you are so familiar with the subject (more familiar, evidently, then those who do that sort of thing for a living), did you make a statement like that?

(Oh, and I've read a great deal of creationist literature. It consistently bears no relation whatever to actual science or, well, reality.)

Ok, now you have my interest. Perhaps you have some new method I am unaware of.

You are suggesting to me, that it is possible to determine the age of a bone from the amount of C14 left in the bone, without knowing how much C14 was in the bone, when the animal died?

Or are you suggesting that the amount of C14 in the animal is static, even though the amount of C14 ingested through the eating of plants is not?

Or that the amount of C14 in the plants being eaten are static even though the amount of C14 in the atmosphere is not?

Please explain.

 

[sfs]

You are suggesting to me, that it is possible to determine the age of a bone from the amount of C14 left in the bone, without knowing how much C14 was in the bone, when the animal died?

Or are you suggesting that the amount of C14 in the animal is static, even though the amount of C14 ingested through the eating of plants is not?

Or that the amount of C14 in the plants being eaten are static even though the amount of C14 in the atmosphere is not?

Um, what? Why would I be suggesting any of those things? You said that carbon dating was unreliable because C14 was not in equilibrium in the atmosphere; instead, the amount has been changing, and we get the date wrong because we assume it is in equilibrium. That's the claim I objected to. Carbon dating does not assume that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere was constant; instead, the amount at any point in the past has been calculated, based on the C14 present in samples of known age.

 

[Andrew77]

Um, what? Why would I be suggesting any of those things? You said that carbon dating was unreliable because C14 was not in equilibrium in the atmosphere; instead, the amount has been changing, and we get the date wrong because we assume it is in equilibrium. That's the claim I objected to. Carbon dating does not assume that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere was constant; instead, the amount at any point in the past has been calculated, based on the C14 present in samples of known age.

Ah, I see.

To me, you just contradicted yourself. Well thanks for chatting, but I just lost interest in this conversation, since you have nothing to offer that I haven't heard before.

Have a good one.

 

[sfs]

To me, you just contradicted yourself. Well thanks for chatting, but I just lost interest in this conversation, since you have nothing to offer that I haven't heard before.

To me, you made a claim that was patently false, responded with irrelevancies when challenged on it, accused me of contradicting myself in an attempt to save face when I pointed out the irrelevancy, and are now trying to extricate yourself from the situation while maintaining a wholly unearned air of superiority.

Prove me wrong: support your original claim that carbon dating assumes a constant level of C14 in the atmosphere. Show where I contradicted myself.

 

[Job 33:6]

The best part of these conversations is when the young earthers suggest that dinosaurs were mis-dated using radiocarbon isotopes.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

To me, you made a claim that was patently false, responded with irrelevancies when challenged on it, accused me of contradicting myself in an attempt to save face when I pointed out the irrelevancy, and are now trying to extricate yourself from the situation while maintaining a wholly unearned air of superiority.

Prove me wrong: support your original claim that carbon dating assumes a constant level of C14 in the atmosphere. Show where I contradicted myself.

Are you claiming that the C14 in the atmosphere has reached its equilibrium? If not, you come across as not understanding entirely the method of C14 dating.

 

[sfs]

Are you claiming that the C14 in the atmosphere has reached its equilibrium?

No. Here's my statement: "Carbon dating does not assume that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere was constant." What in that statement suggests that I'm claiming that C14 in the atmosphere is at equilibrium?

If not, you come across as not understanding entirely the method of C14 dating.

How so?