Richard Dawkins disappoints again

[The Barbarian]

No, the delta can reasonably proven young so...

It is, as geologists predicted, a lot younger than the Earth. The evidence shows that it's a lot older than that. Let's take one case that's easy to explode young Earth assumptions:

Reef coral grows about 0.5 cm per year. Seabees preparing Enitiwok atoll for a bomb test, went about .7 miles down before the coral ended and volcanic rock began. Atolls form when volcanic islands subside and coral along the shore continues to grow faster than the rate of sinking. A deeper and deeper layer of coral results.

Coral has been growing at Enitiwok for at least 88,000 years. And no, that's not the age of the Earth. That's just the miniumum possible time that particular volcano has been sinking into the sea.

 

[4x4toy]

Mississippi River - Information and History - Four Rivers Realty

This website indicates that the river is 10,000 years old. 4,000 years older than many young earthers seem to believe. What numbers are you using?

They must be wrong .. But it's their website, right ?

 

[4x4toy]

It is, as geologists predicted, a lot younger than the Earth. The evidence shows that it's a lot older than that. Let's take one case that's easy to explode young Earth assumptions:

Reef coral grows about 0.5 cm per year. Seabees preparing Enitiwok atoll for a bomb test, went about .7 miles down before the coral ended and volcanic rock began. Atolls form when volcanic islands subside and coral along the shore continues to grow faster than the rate of sinking. A deeper and deeper layer of coral results.

Coral has been growing at Enitiwok for at least 88,000 years. And no, that's not the age of the Earth. That's just the miniumum possible time that particular volcano has been sinking into the sea.

Yawn !!!

 

[dcalling]

Barbarian, regarding where the sediment eroded out of the rock went:
Washed downstream, because of the increased flow of the river. Of what do you think the delta of the river is made?



It's what we see happening today. So yes, obvious.



Washed downstream. As we see today. The mouth of the river is not in uplifted areas, so the river slows, dropping the sediment,and forming a delta.



Yes, that's where the sediment gets worn away. The delta, far downstream, is where it's carried.

So for this picture, https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/colorado-river_david-morgan_istock-1980.jpg

you truly believe the mountain is curved by a river and all that billions of tons of material are carried downstream into a delta?

 

[dcalling]

Is this a joke? Surely you understand that the soil of the Delta is make of eroded rock sediments. What do you think a Delta is? What do you think rocks are made of?

I really can't be bothered with this. Dcalling you appear to have no idea what you're talking about. It's almost as if you're just trolling the forum.

Dcalling: where does the eroded rock go? Me:Well we can see it flow into the Delta that is so big that it can be seen from outer space. Response: not asking about sediment, im asking where the rock went. Me: what?

It erodes and breaks down into gravel and is washed out to sea past the Delta. And the reason the Delta is so large that it can be seen from outer space is because there has been a large source of eroded rock feeding its size, ie erosion and production of the grand canyon.

It is much easier for rivers to go zigzag on soft soil, it is a totally different matter with rocks. The model you used to show how river twists needs soil to deposit to form banks, but on rocks you can only cut away and as the image showed deposits are few. So your video to show how rivers start to twist can't be applied here.

The pictues I had is better explained with earth movements don't you think?

 

[The Barbarian]

you truly believe the mountain is curved by a river and all that billions of tons of material are carried downstream into a delta?

Does erosion work that way? Yep. Observably so. The physics of rivers, erosion, and deposition are pretty well understood.

And yes, material eroded from riverbeds ends up in deltas at the mouth of rivers. Why there? Because as it enters a sea or lake, the water slows down and drops it's load of sediment.

 

[dcalling]

Doesn't matter. Even a major creationist admits that transitional forms are strong evidence for evolution. And now we have genetic data confirming what the fossil evidence shows. Even more important we don't see such evidence where there shouldn't be any. At some point all this complex evidence has to be accounted for.



Good idea. You should find a way to explain the complex examples already on the table, before you ask for more.



Yep. We know for a fact that such changes are often observed in the genome of organisms. It's a matter of physics and chemistry.

I don't really care about what some major creationist says. I care about evidence.

So here is my question again:
With this claim that "Cetaceans and their common ancestor had two more alanines in this sequence than all the other mammals examined", do you have repeatable verifiable tests that show the above claim can happen in nature?

Don't just say yes, produce evidence please. I already simplified it a lot so it is easy for you to find evidence.

 

[dcalling]

Does erosion work that way? Yep. Observably so. The physics of rivers, erosion, and deposition are pretty well understood.

And yes, material eroded from riverbeds ends up in deltas at the mouth of rivers. Why there? Because as it enters a sea or lake, the water slows down and drops it's load of sediment.

So your logic is:
You saw a river flow in a big rocky canyon, and it must be that the water cut through the canyon, and it is not possible that earth quake other other reasons created a canyon and the water just borrowed the road.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't really care about what some major creationist says. I care about evidence.

As you now see, these transitional forms are strong evidence (YE creationist's words) for evolution.

So here is my question again:
With this claim that "Cetaceans and their common ancestor had two more alanines in this sequence than all the other mammals examined", do you have repeatable verifiable tests that show the above claim can happen in nature?

Yep. You see, any sequence of DNA can mutate. It's a matter of physics.

A gene mutation is a permanent alteration in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene, such that the sequence differs from what is found in most people. Mutations range in size; they can affect anywhere from a single DNA building block (base pair) to a large segment of a chromosome that includes multiple genes.
What is a gene mutation and how do mutations occur?

In this case, the mutations were those that changed certain homobox genes in whales. They are very similar to those of other mammals, but have slightly altered by mutation, and that produces the changes.

 

[The Barbarian]

So your logic is:
You saw a river flow in a big rocky canyon, and it must be that the water cut through the canyon

Yep. That's what we observe. It's an ongoing process. Pretty easy to demonstrate.

and it is not possible that earth quake other other reasons created a canyon and the water just borrowed the road.

You think earthquakes can form meanders? As you learned earlier, meanders form in old rivers for reasons that are easy to understand. The current cuts away from the outside bend, and tends to deposit sediment on the inside bend, thus producing meanders.

If the area is uplifted, the old river is rejuvenated and runs faster. Which means it cuts more quickly into the channel, trapping the channel into the existing meanders, and producing deep canyons.

 

[dcalling]

Yep. That's what we observe. It's an ongoing process. Pretty easy to demonstrate.



You think earthquakes can form meanders? As you learned earlier, meanders form in old rivers for reasons that are easy to understand. The current cuts away from the outside bend, and tends to deposit sediment on the inside bend, thus producing meanders.

If the area is uplifted, the old river is rejuvenated and runs faster. Which means it cuts more quickly into the channel, trapping the channel into the existing meanders, and producing deep canyons.

Did you even see Komot's video? The meanders is formed with deposits that alternats on side of the river, when it is a rock, that is not possible since you can't grow rocks out (vs group a soft bank with deposits)

 

[dcalling]

As you now see, these transitional forms are strong evidence (YE creationist's words) for evolution.



Yep. You see, any sequence of DNA can mutate. It's a matter of physics.

A gene mutation is a permanent alteration in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene, such that the sequence differs from what is found in most people. Mutations range in size; they can affect anywhere from a single DNA building block (base pair) to a large segment of a chromosome that includes multiple genes.
What is a gene mutation and how do mutations occur?

In this case, the mutations were those that changed certain homobox genes in whales. They are very similar to those of other mammals, but have slightly altered by mutation, and that produces the changes.

I don't need your generic "DNA can mutate" answer. I am asking for certain mutations that was noted need to happen in your prior link, i.e.

With this claim that "Cetaceans and their common ancestor had two more alanines in this sequence than all the other mammals examined", do you have repeatable verifiable tests that show the above claim can happen in nature?

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't need your generic "DNA can mutate" answer. I am asking for certain mutations that was noted need to happen in your prior link, i.e.

Of course they can happen. As you learned, any part of DNA can mutate. I even showed you that there are other known mutatins of this gene complex.

A nonsense mutation in the HOXD13 gene underlies synpolydactyly with incomplete penetrance
J Hum Genet. 2011 Oct; 56(10): 701–706.

Which does to a human what it does to whales. Whales have several mutations here that result in polydactyly and failure of fingers to separate.

Based on fossils of icthyosaurs, and the genes of existing aquatic diapsids it appears that a slightly different number of mutations to this site did the same thing to them.

American Journal of Medical Genetics
From fins to limbs to fins: Limb evolution in fossil marine reptiles
Abstract

Limb osteology and ontogenetic patterns of limb ossification are reviewed for extinct lineages of aquatically adapted diapsid reptiles. Phylogenies including these fossil taxa show that paddle‐like limbs were independently derived, and that the varied limb morphologies were produced by evolutionary modifications to different aspects of the limb skeleton. Ancient marine reptiles modify the limb by reducing the relative size of the epipodials, modifying the perichondral and periosteal surface of elements distal to the propodials, and evolving extremes of hyperphalangy and hyperdactyly. Developmental genetic models illuminate gene systems that may have controlled limb evolution in these animals. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.


Perhaps you mean something else, and don't know how to ask about it?

 

[The Barbarian]

Did you even see Komot's video? The meanders is formed with deposits that alternats on side of the river, when it is a rock, that is not possible since you can't grow rocks out (vs group a soft bank with deposits)

I can see why this is confusing for you. Old rivers meander slowly on level plains. Young rivers rush downhill, cutting into rock, and have relatively straight courses.

An old, meandering river, being uplifted, speeds up and becomes trapped in the existing meanders, and can only cut more and more deeply into it's bed. That's why we see the deep v-shaped valleys of such rivers, along with the meanders of older rivers.

Does that help?

 

[Tayla]

Dawkins gives us no reason to think his extrapolate argument is correct other than assuming the fact of evolution.

I have been searching for evolutionists to back up their claim that time is all that is needed for the required mutations and gene copying errors to appear based on the probability that such a thing could occur. But all I read is their complaints against the way young earth creationists calculate the probabilities. They themselves assume it was likely to happen the way it did because it happened. But they ignore the possibility of young earth creationism, presumably, because of their assumption of materialism.

 

[Job 33:6]

It is much easier for rivers to go zigzag on soft soil, it is a totally different matter with rocks. The model you used to show how river twists needs soil to deposit to form banks, but on rocks you can only cut away and as the image showed deposits are few. So your video to show how rivers start to twist can't be applied here.

The pictues I had is better explained with earth movements don't you think?

I'm afraid that you are just unfamiliar with geomorphology dcalling. I'll have to let ya go now.

 

[Job 33:6]

They must be wrong .. But it's their website, right ?

I'm just asking you how you derived your younger age.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have been searching for evolutionists to back up their claim that time is all that is needed for the required mutations and gene copying errors to appear based on the probability that such a thing could occur.

It's been directly observed to occur. Would you like some examples?

But all I read is their complaints against the way young earth creationists calculate the probabilities.

Having observed the evolution of a new enzyme system by stepwise mutations and natural selection, scientists can confidently assign a probability to that process. It's 1.0.

They themselves assume it was likely to happen the way it did because it happened.

It happened pretty much the way they expected. However, something unexpected did happen. When Hall looked at the bacteria, they had also evolved a system that didn't turn on the enzyme unless the food source was present. Which means that the system had become irreducibly complex.

But they ignore the possibility of young earth creationism

Since YE creationism expressly denies what has been seen in the lab, and what the Bible says about the origin of life, the probability of YE creationism being true is 0.0.

YE creationists instead argue for "life ex nihilo" presumably, because of their rejection of scripture.

 

[4x4toy]

I'm just asking you how you derived your younger age.

 

[NobleMouse]

I believe the Bible and Jesus, I used to believe what you now preach .. I see the same evidence you see from a new perspective .. Dawkins is lost and has no alternative, he is a fool ..

I'm in agreement with you on this brother - creation is not what creationists teach... creation by a Creator is what the Bible teaches and creationists are called "creationists" because they follow/adhere to what the Bible teaches.