When

[Joshua0035]

YEC lost decisively.

YEC is quite intact because YEC has NOTHING to say about anything that happened more then 6,000 years ago.

 

[HitchSlap]

The term "Darwinian theory" or "Darwinism" has been obsoleted; Darwin had his fifteen minutes of fame.

If by "fifteen minutes" you mean one hundred fifty four years, you'd be spot on!




Sorry buddy, ToE is "the greatest show on earth, the only game in town."

 

[HitchSlap]

YEC is quite intact because YEC has NOTHING to say about anything that happened more then 6,000 years ago.

Yes, YEC has nothing to say about anything.

 

[HitchSlap]

Along with atomic theory and germ theory.

I even heard they're getting rid of gravity, too.

 

[essentialsaltes]

YEC is quite intact because YEC has NOTHING to say about anything that happened more then 6,000 years ago.

You must have an unusual definition of YEC.

How about "In scientific circles, the theory of a young (less than 10,000 year old) earth lost decisively by the early 19th century."

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, YEC has nothing to say about anything.

YEC says nothing about the Creation week -- as does Embedded Age.

You guys need to learn that "nothing" is a big part of Creationism.

The specific term is: creatio ex nihilo = creation out of nothing.

 

[Split Rock]

When are they going to scrap Darwinian theory?

I think it's about time.

When are they going to scrap creationism?

I think it's about time.

 

[Split Rock]

YEC says nothing about the Creation week -- as does Embedded Age.

Sorry, but The Deluge is more often than not an important part of Young Earth Creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but The Deluge is more often than not an important part of Young Earth Creationism.

Maybe of Young Earth Creationists, but if Young Earth Creationism as well, then I would say they need to truncate it.

 

[keith99]

That's not correct. Darwin believed that the environment changes the parents who them produced altered offspring. That's a pretty fundamental flaw. I mean it was a flaw. Now it has some support again, but not in the way Darwin imaginated it.

- The "warm little pond" theory - not accepted
- The supposed simplicity of the cell - wrong in every way - (the single cell holds the codes for the entire finished organism)
- His theory of human beings evolving from chimps - rejected

Yes it is.

And it is quite the OPPOSITE of what Darwin said.

Which is a rather significant flaw in your post.

 

[TLK Valentine]

YEC says nothing about the Creation week -- as does Embedded Age.

You guys need to learn that "nothing" is a big part of Creationism.

We already know -- Creationists are self-appointed experts in nothing.

The specific term is: creatio ex nihilo = creation out of nothing.

Which isn't even supported by Genesis.

 

[Mr Clean]

YEC is quite intact because YEC has NOTHING to say about anything that happened more then 6,000 years ago.

YEC says that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and therefore didn't exist before then, so it actually says a great deal about what happened before 6000 years ago. And what it says is completely wrong...

 

[Loudmouth]

When are they going to scrap Darwinian theory?

I think it's about time.

It will be scrapped when it stops working. As it is, it works just fine.

PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Oct;1(5):e45. Epub 2005 Oct 7.
Protein molecular function prediction by Bayesian phylogenomics.
Engelhardt BE, Jordan MI, Muratore KE, Brenner SE.

Source
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America. bee@cs.berkeley.edu

Abstract

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5'-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.
Protein molecular function prediction by Ba... [PLoS Comput Biol. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

​

Why should biologists scrap their most successful theory?

 

[Loudmouth]

"By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair."--Ernst Mayr, "80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery", 2004

 

[sfs]

Yes it is.

And it is quite the OPPOSITE of what Darwin said.

Which is a rather significant flaw in your post.

Perhaps my understanding of Darwin is incorrect, but I believe SkyWriting is correct. Pangenesis (Darwin's name for his theory of inheritance) did include inheritance of acquired characteristics.

 

[Joshua0035]

YEC says that the Earth is only 6,000 years old,

No it does not. The Bible does not say that. We clearly find Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden 6,000 years ago. Science can verify that. YEC has no idea how old the Earth is because the Bible does not talk about it. Clearly there was something here before Adam and Eve. I do not see how anyone could deny that. I think we can know a lot about what was here before though shadows and types, but nothing direct. Shadows and types are for believers to understand, not unbelievers.

 

[CabVet]

No it does not. The Bible does not say that. We clearly find Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden 6,000 years ago. Science can verify that. YEC has no idea how old the Earth is because the Bible does not talk about it. Clearly there was something here before Adam and Eve. I do not see how anyone could deny that. I think we can know a lot about what was here before though shadows and types, but nothing direct. Shadows and types are for believers to understand, not unbelievers.

Jamin, Jazer, why do you keep coming back with different user names? Five verses, one day:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Before God created the heaven and the earth, there was neither heaven nor earth. That is what the Bible has to say about what was there before Adam and Eve.

 

[Joshua0035]

Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick

The double helix was discovered by Rosalind Franklin. She did not receive a Noble prize because she died in 1958 and as a general rule they only give the prize to living people.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps my understanding of Darwin is incorrect, but I believe SkyWriting is correct. Pangenesis (Darwin's name for his theory of inheritance) did include inheritance of acquired characteristics.

That is correct. He had ideas about gemmules and other strange ideas (by today's standards). One of his greatest concerns was that the gemmules would be diluted out over each new generation and the character would be lost like dye moving into larger and larger bodies of water. The discovery of genes did away with this concern.

 

[Joshua0035]

Jamin, Jazer, why do you keep coming back with different user names? Five verses, one day:

2 And the earth was without form, and void;

This is the same as we read in Jeremiah 4:23[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT] "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light."[/FONT] In both cases this says the earth was in a state of ruin. Science tells us of at least 5 extinctions. So to read about this in the Bible should be no surprise for you. Two theorys abound for why there was no light. One is because of volcanic dust and the other theory is because of dust from a meteor. There is no beginning without an end and there is no end without a beginning. Even God knows the end from the beginning. Life is NOT random events as some people would suggest. Even Natural Selection shows this.