Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[gluadys]

Again back to the genetic discussion, the fact that all organisms clasified as deer (moose, elk, deer, etc...) can give way to creatures within the gene pool of that "kind" BUT cannot give way to any "kind" of organisms of "canine" (dogs, wolves, fox, etc...) demonstrates that there is a barrier there between major forms of organisms that cannot be crossed.

That is true of the modern species. It does not demonstrate that this barrier existed between the ancestors of canines and the ancestors of deer. The establishment of a reproductive barrier is what speciation is. Prior to speciation, the barrier does not exist.

The mechanism of choice right now is mutations and natural selection...but it has been demonstrated for over 10,000 years that mutations (copying errors made during cell division...no other genetic change is truly a mutation, they are genetic changes, but they are NOT mutations) do not produce what evolutionists say they do...assume that they do and tell you that it is a fact instead of an assumption.

What is it that you think evolutionists say/assume mutations do?

In my definition (I believe it is the definition used in creationist discussions), the word "kind" means the original pair of organisms made by God, which means that there were not moose, elk, deer, etc in that kind, but having been created with great genetic flexibility in variational genes, we now have moose, elk, etc. Elephants are one kind, dogs are another, cats another, deer still another, various kinds of fish, ampbibians, etc. The gene pools of these kinds give way to great variation which gives us the miriad of varations of organisms that we have today...but that same gene pool does not allow for jumps...elephants cannot give way to something that looks like a cat, fish cannot give way to amphibians because the genes that build an amphibian are not present in the genome of fish...nor can they be constructed to do so. Mutations do not act in that capacity.

No. Mutations do not act in that capacity. But remember that scientists are not using the concept of separately created gene pools in the first place, so they are not claiming that mutations act in that capacity either.

And historically, some fish did evolve into amphibians. One thing mutations do do is add new possibilities for variation to the gene pool. It is not as if a gene pool consists of a fixed number of genes. It will expand or decrease under the influence of mutations and natural selection as well as population size.

And that says what? In a straight forward interpretation (one that does not assume evolution to be true) all it shows is a repeated pattern, and that is found in numerous organisms. It proves nothing.

But the question is: which theory best explains the pattern of repetition? As far as I know, only the theory of evolution explains why repetitions of a pattern occur in a pattern of repetition. Or rather, why repetitions of a pattern occur in the precise pattern of repetition observed. That pattern is a nested hierarchy of pattern repitition and change. Darwin called this pattern, "descent with modification". What process other than evolution accounts not just for these repeated and modified patterns, but for the way these repetitions and changes in patterns lead to a nested hierarchy?

If genetics dictates that all such changes are impossible, then all fossils claimed to be transitory and intermediate are based upon false interpretations, period.

Genetics does not dictate that such changes are impossible. Genetics is one of the strongest supporting lines of evidence for evolution.

 

[gluadys]

We can't, therefore they are doing science an injustice when they claim something that they cannot prove.

Science does not claim to prove anything. It claims to have a theory which explains the observations better than any other current explanation. So you are doing science an injustice in accusing it of making claims it does not make.

A number of questions that I would put to the author of this article:


Did it really? Tell me how one can see nostrils and lungs in a solid rock fossil...was the tiny "hole" that may look like a nose hole really a nose hole, or was it only a hole......




...my point being, if they found no feet or hands, which means that this fossil was definitely torn apart some way, how do they know for a FACT that the limb bones that were only "found with it" (obviously not attached to the fossil or it would not have been worded thusly) belong to the other parts they are grouping together as one?

Only one partial sample and already we are classifying it?

What is the differences between the lower jaw (of nothing that has ever been discovered before) and the lower jaw of an amphibian? How can you HONESTLY even think that you can classify such an artifact?

...how do they know that the legs could not have supported the animal's weight?

They have studied anatomy and paleontology. Can you say the same for yourself?

 

[shernren]

Question for ya: what do you mean by "mosaic", and how is a "mosaic" fossil (which you readily admit exists) not a transitional fossil (which you claim do not exist at all)?

Again back to the genetic discussion, the fact that all organisms clasified as deer (moose, elk, deer, etc...) can give way to creatures within the gene pool of that "kind" BUT cannot give way to any "kind" of organisms of "canine" (dogs, wolves, fox, etc...) demonstrates that there is a barrier there between major forms of organisms that cannot be crossed.

Of course these barriers are not crossed. A proper understanding of evolution shows that evolution isn't the business of crossing existing phylogenetic barriers, but erecting new ones.

The mechanism of choice right now is mutations and natural selection...but it has been demonstrated for over 10,000 years that mutations (copying errors made during cell division...no other genetic change is truly a mutation, they are genetic changes, but they are NOT mutations) do not produce what evolutionists say they do...assume that they do and tell you that it is a fact instead of an assumption.

Well, how do you show that mutations cannot drive natural selection? Why are only copying errors mutations? (And besides, cells reproduce often, and at every copying there is chance of mutation.)

In my definition (I believe it is the definition used in creationist discussions), the word "kind" means the original pair of organisms made by God, which means that there were not moose, elk, deer, etc in that kind, but having been created with great genetic flexibility in variational genes, we now have moose, elk, etc. Elephants are one kind, dogs are another, cats another, deer still another, various kinds of fish, ampbibians, etc. The gene pools of these kinds give way to great variation which gives us the miriad of varations of organisms that we have today...but that same gene pool does not allow for jumps...elephants cannot give way to something that looks like a cat, fish cannot give way to amphibians because the genes that build an amphibian are not present in the genome of fish...nor can they be constructed to do so. Mutations do not act in that capacity.

Definition understood: but then again, this actually concedes a lot to evolutionists. The same force that creates species from families (which you say was not a part of miraculous creation) is also the same force that creates families from orders. Speciation is ultimately the change that occurs across all levels of taxonomy when it comes to evolution: you can't say "well, separate species could have formed from families but separate families couldn't have formed from orders" without proof.

These are the only fish whose fin bones fit the tetrapod pattern of humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb.

And that says what? In a straight forward interpretation (one that does not assume evolution to be true) all it shows is a repeated pattern, and that is found in numerous organisms. It proves nothing.

Within the evolutionist interpretation it does form proof for evolution. What does this show for creation? That God designed feet for marine fishes? You asked to show a progression of features (fishes with no limb bones -> fishes with limb bones) and then when I show you one you say that it is "just" a repeated pattern. The fact is that this "repeated pattern" is exactly the kind of nested hierarchy that evolution predicts, i.e. that same kind of pattern is found within all organisms that evolved from that fish, but nowhere outside the group of all organisms that evolved from that fish.

This fish also had lungs and nostrils

Did it really? Tell me how one can see nostrils and lungs in a solid rock fossil...was the tiny "hole" that may look like a nose hole really a nose hole, or was it only a hole......from what I have seen, we have very little "perfect" fossils. Bones have pores......?

I'm not sure about lungs (darn. We really need professional paleontologists here) but I would imagine that yes, nostrils are nose holes in the skull. You try finding a fossilisation process in which two very small holes can be neatly and symmetrically punched in two sides of the skull without actually breaking the whole thing.

368-Elginerpeton is a very primitive tetrapod found at Scat Craig, Scotland. Its lower jaw had coronoid fangs as did Panderichthys but they were smaller (Ahlberg 1991, p. 299). The very primitive limb bones found with it include an Ichthyostega-like tibia and an ilia and shoulder girdle comparable to the future Hynerpeton. There are no hands or feet found with the fossil so while the animal is quite tetrapod like in the parts which have been preserved, the final proof of its tetrapod status is missing. (Carroll, 1996, p. 19)

Many fossils are found in contorted and twisted fashion...as if in dire straights (they did not just lay down and die, some kind of catastrophic force contorted their bodies)...my point being, if they found no feet or hands, which means that this fossil was definitely torn apart some way, how do they know for a FACT that the limb bones that were only "found with it" (obviously not attached to the fossil or it would not have been worded thusly) belong to the other parts they are grouping together as one? They don't, they are assuming again....

This is (shocking! Evolutionists actually behave like this!) an honest admission. Here the "limb bones found with the body" were the tibia, ilia and pelvic girdle. And they are very honest to admit that even with those bones, without the hands and feet they cannot confirm its status. (So much for "assumptions".) The pelvic girdle, tibia and ilia would have been found attached to the body. What actually happened is:

Found: pelvic girdle, tibia, ilia.
Not found: hand and feet.
Therefore: by other characteristics descended from the earlier lobe-finned fish; but ancestry to tetrapods cannot be confirmed.

368 MYR- Obruchevichthys was found in Latvia and Russia but is only known from a partial mandible. The similarity between this mandible and Elginerpeton caused Ahlberg (1991) to reclassify this as a tetrapod.

Only one partial sample and already we are classifying it? Come now, another example of rediculousness if ever I saw one. Too often evolutionists are ready to clasify anything, any part of anything, when in reality there is not enough information to classify anything at all. There are more findings that should remain as "i don't know" classification that what evolutionists give credit for.

The whole business of science revolves around provisional conclusions. A mandible that does not match any known organism must belong to a hitherto unknown, and therefore new, organism, yes or no? Besides, the mandible plays an important role in tetrapod evolution. An amphibian mandible is different from a fish mandible, obviously, to reflect the difference in feeding patterns.

365-363 MYR -Densignathus rowei--known only from the jaw but it is transitional between fish and amphibians.

Again, another example of jumping to conclusions and that without ample evidence. What is the differences between the lower jaw (of nothing that has ever been discovered before) and the lower jaw of an amphibian? How can you HONESTLY even think that you can classify such an artifact?

If an animal has a jaw that is transitional between fish jaws and amphibian jaws, by definition it is transitional between fish and amphibia, even if only in that respect.

363 MYR-Ichthyostega-- Is the first animal with feet but the feet are different than most tetrapod feet. They are much like Acanthostega but has 7 digits on his hindlimb. His legs were only good for being in water. They could not support his weight. (Coates and Clack, 1990, p. 67) These are half evolved legs since they have more digits than the normal tetrapod but fewer bony rays than the fish and they are unable to support the weight.

More assumptions, aren't they, being spoken of as fact when there is no possible way they could know for a fact anything of their statements...how do they know that the legs could not have supported the animal's weight?

It is not a statement about muscles but about bones. From the size of an animal's remaining skeleton and the density of its close modern relatives one can estimate the probable mass of the specimen's body. If the bones are not broadly built or strong enough to support it then that is what is meant by "it could not support itself out of water".

Think for yourself, Shernren, think....can you look at fossilized remains of a camel and be able to tell whether or not its leg muscles could support its body weight?

It's not too hard, actually. Not the leg muscles but the leg bones have the responsibility of supporting its body weight. Just calculate the probable weight of the camel, then judging by the cross section and length of the bone see what its maximum strength is, and compare.

And additional digits, do they really boast a big difference? No, they do not.

Actually, that's the sort of statement evolutionists should be making. Creationists should be pointing to the mismatch in the number of digits and proudly proclaiming "Look! This fish should give rise to seven-fingered humans!" But we know that losing and gaining digits is a fairly trivial transformation compared to changing habitats.

Is that mutation able to be copied to his progeny?

It would be if that mutation was copied to his germ cell genome. In fact, as far as I know quite a number of polydactyl mutations should be explained this way ... the mutation must already be present and expressible in the fetus during hand development for it to be visible. This is more easily explained in terms of a mutation inherited from parents.

I would also close in saying that anyone who does believe that there are strict transitional and intermediate fossils needs to research genetics...if one does not understand that basic genetics demonstrates the impossibility of such scribblings, one can look at any fossil and say that it has evolutionary underpinnigns. If genetics dictates that all such changes are impossible, then all fossils claimed to be transitory and intermediate are based upon false interpretations, period.

How does genetics claim so?

 

[Phospho]

What is it that you think evolutionists say/assume mutations do?........... One thing mutations do do is add new possibilities for variation to the gene pool.... .....But the question is: which theory best explains the pattern of repetition? ...Darwin called this pattern, "descent with modification". What process other than evolution accounts not just for these repeated and modified patterns, but for the way these repetitions and changes in patterns lead to a nested hierarchy?.................Genetics does not dictate that such changes are impossible. Genetics is one of the strongest supporting lines of evidence for evolution.

First, evolutionists state very frankly that mutations "must" be the mechanism that creates within the gene pool of an organism new variation, which carries the gene pool of that organism over the barriers between organisms and allows them to go from fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals. That is what evolutionists claim mutations do...and it is not so. That is an assumption that has NEVER been demonstrated to be fact.

Second, nested hierarchy demonstrates only that sister species came from an original "kind" in descent, it does not demonstrate that amphibians came from fish.

Third, you are greatly mistaken about genetics. The fledgling science of genetics was what killed Darwinsim...which is why you have Neo-Darwinism today. When Mayr and his other flunkies got together and came up with terminology that basted genetics into evolutionary definitions. No, genetics delivered the "killing blow" to Darwinism, and with it, any other kind of evolutionary theory that one could dream up.

Blessings!

 

[Phospho]

Science does not claim to prove anything. It claims to have a theory which explains the observations better than any other current explanation. So you are doing science an injustice in accusing it of making claims it does not make........They have studied anatomy and paleontology. Can you say the same for yourself?

And what do you think your evolutionist writers and propagandists are doing?

When they make the claim that mutations ARE the mechanism of new variants within a gene pool, they are claiming it as a fact. What makes matters worse is that it is NOT a fact, but an assumption that they put out to the public as a fact.

Second, I have studied anatomy and physiology, and in my personal opinion, anyone who can study physiology and come away thinking that evolution put your body together in the way that it is...has a few.....problems that they need to really think hard about. I do not mean to blast anyone, that is not my intent. Some just need to take off their evolutionary rose-colored glasses and look at all the evidence with a skeptical mind, as well as the claims made against the evolutionary claims. Many only look at the one side, and they do themselves a grave injustice.

Blessings!

 

[Phospho]

Question for ya: what do you mean by "mosaic", and how is a "mosaic" fossil (which you readily admit exists) not a transitional fossil (which you claim do not exist at all)?

A mosaic animal is one that exibits the physical characteristics of more than one kind of organism...like the platypus...it has all the characteristics of a mammal, yet it lays eggs and sports a bill...something that fowl, particularly ducks, sport. This is a mosaic animal....like "Archy" and his feathered relatives. They are mosaics. Mosaics are not transitional animals, they are different, yes...but not transitionals.

Of course these barriers are not crossed. A proper understanding of evolution shows that evolution isn't the business of crossing existing phylogenetic barriers, but erecting new ones.

The theory of evolution in word only can do this; in reality it can do neither.

Well, how do you show that mutations cannot drive natural selection? Why are only copying errors mutations? (And besides, cells reproduce often, and at every copying there is chance of mutation.)

Actually, nothing can DRIVE natural selection...for in truth (without all the evolutionary hub-bub) natural selection is nothing but glorified chance. As far as mutations, look up the early definitions of mutations when they were first being discovered. The term "mutation" only refers to copying errors made during replication, and that is all. One of the creeds of the new Neo-Darwinism that followed began calling any genetic change a mutation (therefore incompassing cross-overs, new gene expressions, etc as mutations in order to aid the illusion of the evolutionary paradigm)...in other words, they began stretching the story in order to give TOE the semblance of reality.

When a mold subject to disasterous elements incurs a genetically induced change that allows it to "feed" or live within this deadly new environment...it is hailed as a mutation that demonstrates evolution. It is a lie. The change was brought about via the organisms response to new environment cues, just like the valley goat gave way to the mountain goat. New environmental cues signal previously unexpressed genes into expression (long hair where there used to be short hair; shaggy hair where there used to be thin hair, larger hooves where they used to be small hooves, etc.)

To claim that these instances demonstrate evolution is a farce to anyone who seriously examines such claims. Look at the Gallapagos Finches, who in one season of drought and healthy rain again changed beak sizes twice in order to be able to feed and survive. This is not evolution, for TOE is suppsed to be based upon chance mutations...not strict environmental cues to keep the populations from going extinct...which is what TOE states. It is mostly a theory of extinction of the less fit, is it not?


In my definition (I believe it is the definition used in creationist discussions), the word "kind" means the original pair of organisms made by God, which means that there were not moose, elk, deer, etc in that kind, but having been created with great genetic flexibility in variational genes, we now have moose, elk, etc. Elephants are one kind, dogs are another, cats another, deer still another, various kinds of fish, ampbibians, etc. The gene pools of these kinds give way to great variation which gives us the miriad of varations of organisms that we have today...but that same gene pool does not allow for jumps...elephants cannot give way to something that looks like a cat, fish cannot give way to amphibians because the genes that build an amphibian are not present in the genome of fish...nor can they be constructed to do so. Mutations do not act in that capacity.

Definition understood: but then again, this actually concedes a lot to evolutionists. The same force that creates species from families (which you say was not a part of miraculous creation) is also the same force that creates families from orders.

I don't remember saying this. Let me put it this way, if the original kind of deer (say it still existed in its original form) was the White-Tailed Deer, within this original kind we have the Moose, Elk, Spotted Deer, so forth. Just so I am understanding you correctly, what taxonomical status would you give them?
White-Tailed Deer
----------|-------------
| | |
Moose Elk Spotted Deer

If in the White-Tailed Deer, Moose, Elk, Spotted Deer and so forth all share in the same genome so that they are all inter fertile genetically speaking, then they are all of the same "kind."

Speciation is ultimately the change that occurs across all levels of taxonomy when it comes to evolution:

EXACTLY!!!! And that is what is impossible according to the nature of mutations...the vaunted mechanism of supposed evolutionary change.

Within the evolutionist interpretation it does form proof for evolution.

Yes, but in the evolutionist interpretation evolution is demonstrated in finches changing beak size and thickness over night...WRONG! Same goes for the interpretations in your examples....

What does this show for creation? That God designed feet for marine fishes You asked to show a progression of features (fishes with no limb bones -> fishes with limb bones) and then when I show you one you say that it is "just" a repeated pattern. The fact is that this "repeated pattern" is exactly the kind of nested hierarchy that evolution predicts, i.e. that same kind of pattern is found within all organisms that evolved from that fish, but nowhere outside the group of all organisms that evolved from that fish.

It demonstrates that God modified a basic pattern to fit different environments...and no where in your examples did any of them have "feet", only bones that resembled the bones within feet. Its like the ridiculous story of the eye evolving over a hundred times in different organisms. Think about this for a minute....you have the eyeball and all the machinery within it, then you have the eye socket, then the optical nerve which is really an extension directly from the brain (and not just any part of the brain...it just happens to form from the part of the brain that can receive and interpret images...coincidence? I think not.), and how about the route of that nerve from brain to eyeball? What told evolution to put holes in your skull so that this nerve could grow into the back of the eye through your head? All of this TOE says happened by chance...believe it if you want, but you would be believing in fairy tales masquerading as science.

I'm not sure about lungs (darn. We really need professional paleontologists here) but I would imagine that yes, nostrils are nose holes in the skull. You try finding a fossilisation process in which two very small holes can be neatly and symmetrically punched in two sides of the skull without actually breaking the whole thing.

That isn't what I was getting at. What I meant was, are they TRULY nostril holes, or are they simply pores in the fossil or other anomolies? How many of these fossils have been found with the same holes in the same places consistently? Hey, if they are consistantly there, then I believe that they are nostril holes. What I am getting at is this: question everything, one fossil demonstrates nothing and throws science out the window when we hypothesize on only a single specimen...that is not repeatability, is it.

The whole business of science revolves around provisional conclusions. A mandible that does not match any known organism must belong to a hitherto unknown, and therefore new, organism, yes or no?

You are missing a greater picture....this supposed new mandible could have been from a known species, but what if the poor creature suffered from osteoporothus (spelling?) or some form of arthritis, or some other kind of bone depleting or altering disease? We don't know. Humility is one of the key ingredients to the Scientific Method of research, and I find that it is one of the least relied upon among evolutionary scientists and researchers...and definitely missing completely from evolutionary theorists!

If an animal has a jaw that is transitional between fish jaws and amphibian jaws, by definition it is transitional between fish and amphibia, even if only in that respect.

That is a very poor definition for transitional specimens, and it helps nothing when you really think about it.

It is not a statement about muscles but about bones. From the size of an animal's remaining skeleton and the density of its close modern relatives one can estimate the probable mass of the specimen's body.

Here is where physiology would help you see things. The density of your bones is greatly increased not only by the muscle fibers surrounding them, but even more so by the tendons attached in the key areas that they are. Without muscular support your bones could not hold what they could with the muscles, so it is very much a question of the WHOLE SYSTEM working together. If we want to begin taking apart physiological systems that function as a whole, evolution cannot stand up against the onslaught....maybe we should go there!

Actually, that's the sort of statement evolutionists should be making. Creationists should be pointing to the mismatch in the number of digits and proudly proclaiming "Look! This fish should give rise to seven-fingered humans!" But we know that losing and gaining digits is a fairly trivial transformation compared to changing habitats.

Actually, all you KNOW is what the fossil tells you in a straight forward interpretation...and that is that the fossil sports either five digits or six, very little of anything else. Claiming that you can know more from that is putting assumptions before the cart, and that is NOT science, but story-telling.

It would be if that mutation was copied to his germ cell genome. In fact, as far as I know quite a number of polydactyl mutations should be explained this way ... the mutation must already be present and expressible in the fetus during hand development for it to be visible. This is more easily explained in terms of a mutation inherited from parents.

It could be, yes. But from what I have been able to research and find is that most (if not all) of these mutations had taken place during fetal development and were not taking place within germ cells. They cannot be explained as yet (well, actually that was about four years ago the last I looked them up, I guess they may know something more now that I haven't caught up on yet), but they have demonstrated themselves not to be inherited...as yet.

How does genetics claim so?

Genetics does not "claim" this, genetics "dictates" this to be an impossibility. Specifically speaking, mutations. The nature of mutations falls into two catagories...Neutral (unexpressed) and Deleterious. Period, only those two...now, before you go crazy on me, some deleterious mutations do sport what is called beneficial side effects...such as the Milano A or the SCA mutations. here is the key: They are still considered deleterious because they still damage the original function of the organ invovled, the beneficial side afffect does not change the fact that the mutation destoryed the functionality of the organ involved.

As such, no mutation can build genetic information into the genome so as to induce legs where there previously were none...because the developmental pathways for such limbs are not present within the genome to begin with. There is no known mechanism that can build a information carrying genome from one nucleotide to several trillion, like your favorite novel. Mutations are in a clas all by themselves, Bio-entropic, noise in the airwaves, static in your TV screen, nonsense forming, information destroying.

Mutations do not build human beings from microbes, and that is the fact of the matter. The evolutionary assumption is that they MUST because they are the ONLY mechanisms that input change into the genome...but that is all that it is, a wild assumption that has been disproven now many times over, yet evolutionists continue to play it down and deny what it means for their pet theory.

the facts of nature dictate that TOE is an impossibility, therefore we must look at the claims made by evolutionary theorists and articles more closely, because they are filling words with evolutionary definitions that mean nothing outside of those articles. We must look closer, because if the paradigm they are interpreting everything by is wrong (and it most definitely is), then everything they claim is also wrong. It only seems real because of the terminology that it is passed down to us through.


Blessings!

 

[shernren]

What a load to refute, Phospho. Worth the wait.

Mosaics are not transitional animals, they are different, yes...but not transitionals.

How would you define a transitional fossil? When is a mosaic not a transitional, a transitional not a mosaic, and an organism neither? It doesn't help that you go on later to make statements like:

That is a very poor definition for transitional specimens, and it helps nothing when you really think about it.

You can't complain that you don't have a proper transitional sequence when you haven't defined a transitional sequence.

Actually, nothing can DRIVE natural selection...for in truth (without all the evolutionary hub-bub) natural selection is nothing but glorified chance. As far as mutations, look up the early definitions of mutations when they were first being discovered. The term "mutation" only refers to copying errors made during replication, and that is all. One of the creeds of the new Neo-Darwinism that followed began calling any genetic change a mutation (therefore incompassing cross-overs, new gene expressions, etc as mutations in order to aid the illusion of the evolutionary paradigm)...in other words, they began stretching the story in order to give TOE the semblance of reality.

Fine, I'll call them "genetic change" if you like. What I don't get is that creationists think it's okay to believe the latest in general relativity, or in quantum physics, but when it comes to evolution they trot out 50-year-old ideas like when the genome was just being discovered and saying "Hah! Hah! We've disproved it! They're stretching themselves!" That's like saying that computers are useless because they require punched-tape input.

When a mold subject to disasterous elements incurs a genetically induced change that allows it to "feed" or live within this deadly new environment...it is hailed as a mutation that demonstrates evolution. It is a lie. The change was brought about via the organisms response to new environment cues, just like the valley goat gave way to the mountain goat. New environmental cues signal previously unexpressed genes into expression (long hair where there used to be short hair; shaggy hair where there used to be thin hair, larger hooves where they used to be small hooves, etc.)

Calling people liars? Show me where the gene was for the nylon-digesting enzyme before it came about. Show me the signal transduction pathway by which nylon molecules triggered the production of hydrolysis enzymes that don't actually do anything else except hydrolyze nylon. Unexpressed genes? Find them before you proclaim them.

To claim that these instances demonstrate evolution is a farce to anyone who seriously examines such claims. Look at the Gallapagos Finches, who in one season of drought and healthy rain again changed beak sizes twice in order to be able to feed and survive. This is not evolution, for TOE is suppsed to be based upon chance mutations...not strict environmental cues to keep the populations from going extinct...which is what TOE states. It is mostly a theory of extinction of the less fit, is it not?

Here comes more misunderstanding of TOE. It predicts that populations will adjust to their environment, which is precisely what happens in finches. What source are you quoting the example from? Did they say anything about African cichlid left-right-mouthed polymorphism?

I don't remember saying this. Let me put it this way, if the original kind of deer (say it still existed in its original form) was the White-Tailed Deer, within this original kind we have the Moose, Elk, Spotted Deer, so forth. Just so I am understanding you correctly, what taxonomical status would you give them?
White-Tailed Deer
----------|-------------
| | |
Moose Elk Spotted Deer

If in the White-Tailed Deer, Moose, Elk, Spotted Deer and so forth all share in the same genome so that they are all inter fertile genetically speaking, then they are all of the same "kind."

They may be all of the same "kind", but they are of different species, where species are defined as "reproductively isolated populations". The same force that produces species from one kind (remember, God said reproduce within kinds, not within species, so it was not an act of special creation that created species from kinds but rather evolution, even within the creationist framework) also produces genuses from families, etc.

It demonstrates that God modified a basic pattern to fit different environments...and no where in your examples did any of them have "feet", only bones that resembled the bones within feet. Its like the ridiculous story of the eye evolving over a hundred times in different organisms. Think about this for a minute....you have the eyeball and all the machinery within it, then you have the eye socket, then the optical nerve which is really an extension directly from the brain (and not just any part of the brain...it just happens to form from the part of the brain that can receive and interpret images...coincidence? I think not.), and how about the route of that nerve from brain to eyeball? What told evolution to put holes in your skull so that this nerve could grow into the back of the eye through your head? All of this TOE says happened by chance...believe it if you want, but you would be believing in fairy tales masquerading as science.

It's a ridiculous story because even evolutionists don't believe that the eye evolved a hundred different times in a hundred different organisms: it evolved just once in fish and the basic design then carried through. As far as I know, the evolution of the eye started with cephalization trends in which animals gradually became "headed". The eye originally started as a light-sensitive nerve fiber opening in the head which would help organisms sense light from dark: we see this even in planarians. As the skull evolved it left holes for the optic fibers, while the light-sensitive tips continued to specialize and become proper eye structures. Strawmen are bad for your health: why should you trust creationists to tell you about evolutionism? (As I suspect you have been hearing.)

That isn't what I was getting at. What I meant was, are they TRULY nostril holes, or are they simply pores in the fossil or other anomolies? How many of these fossils have been found with the same holes in the same places consistently? Hey, if they are consistantly there, then I believe that they are nostril holes. What I am getting at is this: question everything, one fossil demonstrates nothing and throws science out the window when we hypothesize on only a single specimen...that is not repeatability, is it.

Actually, I think they are found consistently. You'd have to ask a practicing paleontologist for these fine details, not an armchair specialist

You are missing a greater picture....this supposed new mandible could have been from a known species, but what if the poor creature suffered from osteoporothus (spelling?) or some form of arthritis, or some other kind of bone depleting or altering disease? We don't know. Humility is one of the key ingredients to the Scientific Method of research, and I find that it is one of the least relied upon among evolutionary scientists and researchers...and definitely missing completely from evolutionary theorists!

You know what that's like? That's like somebody walking into Abraham Lincoln's murder scene and seeing John Wilkes Booth's fingerprints on the gun, and then saying "But wait! What if somebody kidnapped John Wilkes Booth, and forced him to hold the gun, and then held it himself with a rubber glove and shot him thus leaving no prints!" The whole problem is that from the very start, without any evidential basis whatsoever, you have completely ruled out transitional evolution. If mandible B looks like it's between mandible A and mandible C, of course it's not transitional evolution! It's a strange fishbone-wrecking disease, or arthritis (which doesn't happen in non-synovial joints, which fish joints are, if I remember properly), or rickets, or a miracle of God designed to test our faith and see if we will reject the most logical but false devil-driven hypothesis of transitional evolution!

I can't make headway showing you evidence for evolution if you've from the start rejected evolution on non-evidential grounds. What evidence would suffice?

 

[shernren]

Here is where physiology would help you see things. The density of your bones is greatly increased not only by the muscle fibers surrounding them, but even more so by the tendons attached in the key areas that they are. Without muscular support your bones could not hold what they could with the muscles, so it is very much a question of the WHOLE SYSTEM working together. If we want to begin taking apart physiological systems that function as a whole, evolution cannot stand up against the onslaught....maybe we should go there!

How would muscles help strengthen bones? My physiology is obviously not good but from what I remember muscles are contractive fibers and their force application would compress bones and not strengthen them.

Actually, all you KNOW is what the fossil tells you in a straight forward interpretation...and that is that the fossil sports either five digits or six, very little of anything else. Claiming that you can know more from that is putting assumptions before the cart, and that is NOT science, but story-telling.

Actually, the horse evolutionary tree alone sports a whole variety of numbers of digits. As far as I remember, the modern horse Equus sp. has just one toe.

It could be, yes. But from what I have been able to research and find is that most (if not all) of these mutations had taken place during fetal development and were not taking place within germ cells. They cannot be explained as yet (well, actually that was about four years ago the last I looked them up, I guess they may know something more now that I haven't caught up on yet), but they have demonstrated themselves not to be inherited...as yet.

But there is such a thing as familial polydactyly. Most of the medical sites I visited discussed it as a possible cause of polydactyly, and this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14738113&dopt=Abstract
where three out of four children in a family displayed polydactyly suspectedly as a result of a mutation in one of the parents' germ cell lines. Which goes to show that mutations are indeed copied, contrary to what you tried to say in your post earlier about polydactyly.

Genetics does not "claim" this, genetics "dictates" this to be an impossibility. Specifically speaking, mutations. The nature of mutations falls into two catagories...Neutral (unexpressed) and Deleterious. Period, only those two...now, before you go crazy on me, some deleterious mutations do sport what is called beneficial side effects...such as the Milano A or the SCA mutations. here is the key: They are still considered deleterious because they still damage the original function of the organ invovled, the beneficial side afffect does not change the fact that the mutation destoryed the functionality of the organ involved.

You have got to be kidding me. Which part of bacterial metabolism does the nylon bug damage?

As such, no mutation can build genetic information into the genome so as to induce legs where there previously were none...because the developmental pathways for such limbs are not present within the genome to begin with. There is no known mechanism that can build a information carrying genome from one nucleotide to several trillion, like your favorite novel. Mutations are in a clas all by themselves, Bio-entropic, noise in the airwaves, static in your TV screen, nonsense forming, information destroying.

Ahh. Entropy is not chaos and noise is not lack of information. You'll have to quantify information content and then show that mutations cannot add to it before you'll convince me that mutations do not add information. To be honest I think this task is beyond most people here, even me. But I have come up with two rudimentary models by which mutation does indeed add information: the genome-length model (quite specified) and the protein-function-specificity (not very specified, but functional). You'll have to come up with one in which information content in the genome can be expressed as a function of its contents, and in which mutations only remove information and not add them. Also, as Talk.Origins comments: It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it.

Mutations do not build human beings from microbes, and that is the fact of the matter. The evolutionary assumption is that they MUST because they are the ONLY mechanisms that input change into the genome...but that is all that it is, a wild assumption that has been disproven now many times over, yet evolutionists continue to play it down and deny what it means for their pet theory.

Disproven just how?

 

[gluadys]

First, evolutionists state very frankly that mutations "must" be the mechanism that creates within the gene pool of an organism new variation, which carries the gene pool of that organism over the barriers between organisms and allows them to go from fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals. That is what evolutionists claim mutations do...and it is not so. That is an assumption that has NEVER been demonstrated to be fact.

Even AiG admits there is no way to generate new alleles in a species except by mutation. Alleles are variants of genes. There would be no variability in a species without alleles and the only known source of alleles is mutation.

Now as to the rest of what you are saying, it does not sound like evolution at all. Evolution says that over time species accumulate variations (due to new alleles spreading through the population) such that they eventually become new species. If, during this process, the population has split into two or more groups, each separated group may become a different species. Since this process has been observed to occur, no further demonstration is needed.

But what is this talk of barriers? Barriers between what and what? How can there be barriers between species when one of them does not even exist yet? Speciation is the creation of barriers. But before a population speciates, there is no barrier.

Second, nested hierarchy demonstrates only that sister species came from an original "kind" in descent, it does not demonstrate that amphibians came from fish.

Since amphibians are nested in the clade of Sarcopterygii, yes it does. Amphibians are separated from fish today--even lobe-finned fish. But that was not the case before there were any amphibians. Speciation constructed the barrier that now exists between fish and amphibians.

Third, you are greatly mistaken about genetics. The fledgling science of genetics was what killed Darwinsim...which is why you have Neo-Darwinism today. When Mayr and his other flunkies got together and came up with terminology that basted genetics into evolutionary definitions. No, genetics delivered the "killing blow" to Darwinism, and with it, any other kind of evolutionary theory that one could dream up.

Absolutely not! Genetics supplied what Darwin could not explain: a mechanism for preserving new alleles as organisms reproduced. Under the blending theory of reproduction which Darwin and his contemporaries supposed, it was difficult to see how a new characteristic could be maintained across generations without becoming attenuated. Genetics solved that problem with the notions of the independant assortment of characteristics and the phenomenon of recessive genes. Further work in genetics has only increased the evidence for evolution in this field. Most work on phylogeny today is done on the basis of genetics.

 

[gluadys]

When they make the claim that mutations ARE the mechanism of new variants within a gene pool, they are claiming it as a fact.

It is a fact. Moreover, to date, no other mechanism for introducting new variability into a gene pool is known. (If you are more up-to-date than me, feel free to show me how else a new allele comes into existence.)

What makes matters worse is that it is NOT a fact, but an assumption that they put out to the public as a fact.

Creationists have the darndest habit of throwing around the word "assumption" when the correct term is "observation" and/or "conclusion".

Second, I have studied anatomy and physiology

To what extent? Undergrad, post-grad. Take any studies on evolutionary biology as well?

Some just need to take off their evolutionary rose-colored glasses and look at all the evidence with a skeptical mind, as well as the claims made against the evolutionary claims. Many only look at the one side, and they do themselves a grave injustice.

What evidence?

What claims?

Please don't assume that I have not looked at both sides. Even if I had not done so before engaging in this forum, I have certainly heard plenty in the last two years. And, actually, I heard most of the creationist arguments long before ever getting access to the internet.

You will be the second person I have challenged this week to produce evidence. And if you actually do, you will be the first in my experience to do so.

 

[shernren]

It is a fact. Moreover, to date, no other mechanism for introducting new variability into a gene pool is known. (If you are more up-to-date than me, feel free to show me how else a new allele comes into existence.)

Goddidit, which is the closest thing to a scientific explanation creationism can (and should be able to, by principle) muster.

Here's a clean-cut debunking of the concept of "kinds":

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm

Here's an interesting question for creationists:

We have some kinds that are completely extinct, like the dinosaurs, but we have some kinds for which there are many surviving extant members, like the "dog kind". Is it possible, by DNA analysis, to determine the genome of the ancestral pair of the dog kind? I have a hunch (though not much more) that there would be too much information and too many traits to fit onto a single viable genome, since apparently mutations only delete information, meaning that the "primordial dog genome" must contain more information than the sum of all the genetic information in all dogs, wolves and foxes (or maybe just dogs and wolves, if you take the tribe Canini instead of the family Canidae) today.

 

[Phospho]

Goddidit, which is the closest thing to a scientific explanation creationism can (and should be able to, by principle) muster.

God did what? Made the variation we find within organisms? Yes, He did, but I am discussing science here, not so much origins...but if you want to discuss origins then you will have to concede (whether you like it or not) that TOE is every much "religious" explanation as creation is. Why? Because evolutionists have just as much evidence about origins as we do, the ONLY difference is that we believe God when He tells us that He created them in seven literal days instead of giving His glory to the concept of evolution over billions of years.

Here's a clean-cut debunking of the concept of "kinds":

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm

I don't know where you think this debunks Biblical "kinds," especially when the author begins by saying "the creationist view of the fossil record is based directly upon Biblical Scripture, and centers around the "type" or "kind"...the view of kinds does not say anything about the fossil record, it is a statement concerning the original organisms and the great variation within them to be able to produce so many variations within that original.

"The creationists do not even attempt to make a pretense of science here, but refer openly to their religious preconceptions that all organisms are part of these "baramins" which were originally created by God."

Yep, and TOEists do make a pretense of science, even when they do not know how things got started. Ther are only two possibilities...TOE or GOD, and all the evidence points to God. Cosmologists have come to admit this because of the overwhelming evidence for a being outside of time and space with great intelligence and power...what's keeping TOIsts from admitting it? I'll tell you what, their bias for a lie instead of the truth.

Here's an interesting question for creationists:

We have some kinds that are completely extinct, like the dinosaurs, but we have some kinds for which there are many surviving extant members, like the "dog kind". Is it possible, by DNA analysis, to determine the genome of the ancestral pair of the dog kind?

Emphasis mine.


Sure...does that blow your mind?

Since all mutations do is scramble information, all we have to do is subtract those mutations from the dog genome, and we have that original DNA set. It has never changed because it was designed to never change - the ONLY thing that changes with time is the difference of expressed genes. How many genes is there in the dog for different shapes and sizes of ear?

Some ill-equipped person will spout out something like 4 or maybe even 5...in truth there are probably about 100 or more, and thats only dog ears...what about paws, noses, snouts, sizes, hair color, hair length...the list goes on and on. None of that has changed since the original pair...axcept for the difference in expressed genes, and that's all.

Blessings!

 

[gluadys]

Here's an interesting question for creationists:

We have some kinds that are completely extinct, like the dinosaurs, but we have some kinds for which there are many surviving extant members, like the "dog kind". Is it possible, by DNA analysis, to determine the genome of the ancestral pair of the dog kind?

Not a single pair. But the genome of the first canine species, probably. I read a paper a few months ago which detailed how the researchers had come up with the probable genome of the first mammal, so it is quite likely possible to come up with a probable genome of a more recent common ancestor.

But not a pair. This is the point that trips up creationism. Creationists claim two contradictory things:
-that the original kind contained within its genome all or most of the possibilities for variation which become expressed as the kind diversifies into species, and
-that the original kind consisted of a single pair, male and female, if not at creation,then after the flood.

Two organisms have at most only four copies (2 each in diploid cells) of the species genome. Many species traits today exist in hundreds of differing gene variants (alleles). This is only possible when a species population numbers in the hundreds, so that there are hundreds of copies of the genome in the species gene pool.

If creationism, including the flood story, is fact, the rapidity at which mutation occurs and spreads through the species has to be phenomenal.

Calling on recessive genes or genes which are switched on and off does not help the scenario. Even including these, the original pair can only have, at most, 4 variant genes for any trait.

For every trait for which there are more than 4 alleles, the additional variation must have been acquired through mutation. And under the YEC scenario, all these mutations must have occurred within the last few thousand years without doing any significant damage to the species.

Also without any observers noting the rapid transformation of species this would entail. Or the significant increase in the number of new species each year.

 

[shernren]

I don't know where you think this debunks Biblical "kinds," especially when the author begins by saying "the creationist view of the fossil record is based directly upon Biblical Scripture, and centers around the "type" or "kind"...the view of kinds does not say anything about the fossil record, it is a statement concerning the original organisms and the great variation within them to be able to produce so many variations within that original.

But the fossil record records ancient biodiversity, and the theory of kinds is a theory about the origins and development of biodiversity. So the theory of kinds would have to be tested against the fossil record. In any case, the article did not focus so much on the fossil record itself (that was just an introduction, and in any case, the main difficulty creation science proponents face is with the fossil record) as to the problem of definition of kinds. The article set out to show that the creationists' definition of kinds is simply too inconsistent to allow them to do any real science based on it - and by and large I think it succeeded. Or show me where they were wrong. I understand that you would disagree with their apparently a-religious stance, but so would I, and yet their scientific points stand regardless of their philosophical standpoint.

Since all mutations do is scramble information, all we have to do is subtract those mutations from the dog genome, and we have that original DNA set. It has never changed because it was designed to never change - the ONLY thing that changes with time is the difference of expressed genes. How many genes is there in the dog for different shapes and sizes of ear?

Some ill-equipped person will spout out something like 4 or maybe even 5...in truth there are probably about 100 or more, and thats only dog ears...what about paws, noses, snouts, sizes, hair color, hair length...the list goes on and on. None of that has changed since the original pair...axcept for the difference in expressed genes, and that's all.

I hope you will not mind me saying this, but those two bolded statements that you made (emphases mine) denote a clear lack of understanding of the mechanics of genetics. Now, we'll start with a few baraminological presuppositions you seem to be starting with (if I am wrong, forgive me) :

1. The current biodiversity of all kinds stems from exactly a single pair of original members of each kind that were rescued on Noah's ark.
2. Mutations since then have not added any novel genetic information, they have only caused loss of information.

From these two, we obtain this:

The original pair of each kind that was rescued on Noah's ark contained the complete genetic information contained in the gene pool of that kind today.

Now, as you have pointed out, there are a whole lot of possible traits that can be expressed for each characteristic. How can they fit into exactly two genomes? I'll show you a concrete example where they do, and then an abstract example where they don't.

The concrete example where they can is the human blood group system. The human ABO blood group classification recognizes four possible phenotypes - A, B, AB, O - that come about as an expression of 6 possible combinations of the alleles A, B, and O. Now, if we take that statement earlier (the original pair contained all present biodiversity) we can put together this sample genome at that locus:

Ancestor, male: A B
Ancestor, female: O ??

the ?? can be any of the A, B, or O alleles, and the model is still valid. As they continue to interbreed and father successive generations, each of the six possible combinations (AB, AA, BB, AO, BO, OO) will be produced in their descendants. So there we go.

Now, let's take a hypothetical dog trait for which there are, say, 10 variant alleles at a single locus. (My relative infamiliarity with the dog genome might stop me from showing a concrete example, so I hope somebody who knows more can step in.) What I mean by "10 variant alleles" is that the entire current diversity of the population can be derived by "degenerate" mutation from these 10 variant alleles, but that these 10 variants cannot be derived from each other by "degenerate" mutation (although we have to basically ask whether mutations can add information, which is a completely different topic). This is to give the benefit of the doubt to baraminology theory.

The first dog pair has exactly FOUR locations on their genome in which to fit these 10 alleles, which we will label A-J. Their genotype will look something like:

Male: ?? ??
Female: ?? ??

Let's say that we try to fit the first four alleles in.

Male: A B
Female: C D

Oops! Alleles E-J are not accounted for! Remember, mutations don't add information and don't produce novel features (so you say), so there has to be some way we can stuff them into the original genome. Let's see if we can try an alternative solution:

Male: ABC DEF
Female: GHI J????

where the ?? represents a redundant allele. The problem is, we know that modern dogs have exactly two locations for the current position: one on each homologous chromosome. If the first pair had six locations, then each successive generation of dogs would also have had six locations. Thus, conflict.

Now, that's the problem: when baraminologists tell us that our modern, vast biodiversity all began with exactly two first animals in each kind, they lack an explanatory mechanism to explain how alleles that could not possibly be contained in the original two genomes can be produced in the current population. There are only two ways:

1. Goddidit.
2. Mutation. But if mutation can create new information and novel features then mutation can drive evolution.

 

[Phospho]

But the fossil record records ancient biodiversity, and the theory of kinds is a theory about the origins and development of biodiversity. So the theory of kinds would have to be tested against the fossil record. In any case, the article did not focus so much on the fossil record itself (that was just an introduction, and in any case, the main difficulty creation science proponents face is with the fossil record) as to the problem of definition of kinds. The article set out to show that the creationists' definition of kinds is simply too inconsistent to allow them to do any real science based on it - and by and large I think it succeeded. Or show me where they were wrong. I understand that you would disagree with their apparently a-religious stance, but so would I, and yet their scientific points stand regardless of their philosophical standpoint.

I do not think that the article tripped up creation theory, but they did throw in a whole lot of confusion by saying that creationists concede to evolution of any kind by name to create anything. Adaptation is NOT evolution, especially not in the sense that evolutionists use.

I hope you will not mind me saying this, but those two bolded statements that you made (emphases mine) denote a clear lack of understanding of the mechanics of genetics. Now, we'll start with a few baraminological presuppositions you seem to be starting with (if I am wrong, forgive me) :

I don't believe that it does, at least not on my part, but let us continue...

1. The current biodiversity of all kinds stems from exactly a single pair of original members of each kind that were rescued on Noah's ark.
2. Mutations since then have not added any novel genetic information, they have only caused loss of information.

To this I agree...

From these two, we obtain this:

The original pair of each kind that was rescued on Noah's ark contained the complete genetic information contained in the gene pool of that kind today.

Now, as you have pointed out, there are a whole lot of possible traits that can be expressed for each characteristic. How can they fit into exactly two genomes?

The ingeniousness of the Living God, that's how...but let's stick with science....Francis Ayala (a geneticist) has calculated that just from the known alleles in one human couple can produce over 10 to the 2000th power of different offspring before all the versions of all the genes we come with would be exhausted. Why would it be any less for dogs, or any other organism for that matter (with the same sized genome, of course!)?

Now, let's take a hypothetical dog trait for which there are, say, 10 variant alleles at a single locus. (My relative infamiliarity with the dog genome might stop me from showing a concrete example, so I hope somebody who knows more can step in.) What I mean by "10 variant alleles" is that the entire current diversity of the population can be derived by "degenerate" mutation from these 10 variant alleles, but that these 10 variants cannot be derived from each other by "degenerate" mutation (although we have to basically ask whether mutations can add information, which is a completely different topic). This is to give the benefit of the doubt to baraminology theory.

You lost me here...if the 10 variant alleles where originally created within the genome from the very beginning, how are you now (in your example) attributing them to degenerate mutation (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Please clarify.

The first dog pair has exactly FOUR locations on their genome in which to fit these 10 alleles, which we will label A-J. Their genotype will look something like:

Male: ?? ??
Female: ?? ??

Let's say that we try to fit the first four alleles in.

Male: A B
Female: C D

Oops! Alleles E-J are not accounted for! Remember, mutations don't add information and don't produce novel features (so you say), so there has to be some way we can stuff them into the original genome. Let's see if we can try an alternative solution:

Male: ABC DEF
Female: GHI J????

where the ?? represents a redundant allele. The problem is, we know that modern dogs have exactly two locations for the current position: one on each homologous chromosome. If the first pair had six locations, then each successive generation of dogs would also have had six locations. Thus, conflict.

Now, that's the problem: when baraminologists tell us that our modern, vast biodiversity all began with exactly two first animals in each kind, they lack an explanatory mechanism to explain how alleles that could not possibly be contained in the original two genomes can be produced in the current population....

Here's your answer...

several genes are known to exist in several copies, on purpose we assume, and some traits are known to depend upon the cumulative affect of genes at two or more loci. So, genes of each different copy and at each different locus could exist in form allelic forms, meaning that the potential for diversity is indeed very high, higher than evolutionists want to admit too. And when you begin to examine the fact that some of these alleles could have other possible combinations due to cross-overs and the like, you can very quickly multiply the amount of available diversity from the very beginning...again, another point that evolutionary biologists do not like to concede too.

Creationists do not lack the explanitory mechanisms, evolutionists in their greed to prove themselves vindicated simply refuse to concede, even when the facts of science demonstrate that they are wrong.

Blessings!

 

[Phospho]

This is the point that trips up creationism. Creationists claim two contradictory things:
-that the original kind contained within its genome all or most of the possibilities for variation which become expressed as the kind diversifies into species, and
-that the original kind consisted of a single pair, male and female, if not at creation,then after the flood.

These are true, however, they are not contradictory.

Two organisms have at most only four copies (2 each in diploid cells) of the species genome. Many species traits today exist in hundreds of differing gene variants (alleles). This is only possible when a species population numbers in the hundreds, so that there are hundreds of copies of the genome in the species gene pool.

This has been demonstrated to be unfactual.

Calling on recessive genes or genes which are switched on and off does not help the scenario. Even including these, the original pair can only have, at most, 4 variant genes for any trait. For every trait for which there are more than 4 alleles, the additional variation must have been acquired through mutation.

This is a lack of understanding genetics...not that I am trying to bash or make fun of. I do not mean to hurt anyone's feelings.

Blessings!

 

[Crusadar]

But not a pair. This is the point that trips up creationism. Creationists claim two contradictory things:

-that the original kind contained within its genome all or most of the possibilities for variation which become expressed as the kind diversifies into species, and

-that the original kind consisted of a single pair, male and female, if not at creation,then after the flood.

Two organisms have at most only four copies (2 each in diploid cells) of the species genome. Many species traits today exist in hundreds of differing gene variants (alleles). This is only possible when a species population numbers in the hundreds, so that there are hundreds of copies of the genome in the species gene pool.

It is only contradictory if you are looking at any organism as a complete and error free copy of its progenitor - after all we know that through genetic drift (another important evolutionary mechanism that is often forgotten by evolutionists) which can account for apparently random transferring of alleles from generation to generation as well as unique genetic differences within a population.

“This process of random fluctuation continues generation after generation, with no force pushing the frequency back to its initial state because the population has no "genetic memory" of its state many generations ago. Each generation is an independent event……….. A different population, isolated from the first, also undergoes this random genetic drift, but it may become homozygous for allele "A", whereas the first population has become homozygous for allele "a". As time goes on, isolated populations diverge from each other, each losing heterozygosity. The variation originally present within populations now appears as variation between populations."

- Suzuki, D.T. et al “An Introduction to Genetic Analysis” p. 704 4th ed. W.H. Freeman 1989.

In the case of genetic drift if a male and female pair of sexually reproducing parents produced only a small number of offspring then not all of the parent's alleles will be passed on to their offspring caused by a random assortment of chromosomes at meiosis. In a small or isolated population this would have a dramatic effect in producing a population that is diverse in alleles – but in a large population this effect will be less as it gets evened out.

 

[gluadys]

Francis Ayala (a geneticist) has calculated that just from the known alleles in one human couple can produce over 10 to the 2000th power of different offspring before all the versions of all the genes we come with would be exhausted. Why would it be any less for dogs, or any other organism for that matter (with the same sized genome, of course!)?

This is quite a different matter. What Ayala is doing is calculating the effect of independent chromosome assortation on the distribution of known alleles in the current gene pool of the whole human population.

Even if you just consider how grandparental chromosomes (never mind the genes each carries) are randomly assorted when sperm and egg in the parents are produced to create a zygote, you end up with trillions of possibilities for each human couple. Factor in all the various alleles of every gene in the whole contemporary human gene pool as well, and Ayala's figures are quite right.

But there is a huge difference between Ayala's figures and what shrenren and I are getting at.

He is using the whole gene pool currently in existence with all available alleles for each gene. You cannot do that when you are considering a single couple.

Why? Because each individual human cell, including a human zygote, contains only 2 copies of the human genome. There are indeed hundreds of alleles for certain genes in the human gene pool. But no human couple carries more than four of them. (And may carry only one of them if all the four copies of the human genome in their cells happen to have the same allele.)

Ayala's figures apply to the current population of humanity as a whole. When you have 6 billion people, you can (in theory) have up to 12 billion different variants of each homologous gene. In practice I think only a few thousand have been found of even prolific variating genes like hemoglobins.

But his figures do not apply when considering the possibilities of a single couple. With only two copies each of the human genome, the maximum number of alleles for any homologous genes that you can factor in is four. If the human race began with only four alleles for each gene, and there are now more than four in the gene pool, new alleles had to come about by the mechanism of mutation.

Or a miraculous endowment of new alleles in each generation since creation or after the flood until the current total was reached.

You lost me here...if the 10 variant alleles where originally created within the genome from the very beginning, how are you now (in your example) attributing them to degenerate mutation (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Please clarify.

It's back to the population thing. Since God determined that each human being would contain only two sets of the genome, no more than 2 alleles per gene per person could have been originally created in the genome. The only way ten variants could have been created in the beginning would be to begin with a minimum population of five people. Or to give humans five sets of the genome in each cell.

several genes are known to exist in several copies, on purpose we assume, and some traits are known to depend upon the cumulative affect of genes at two or more loci. So, genes of each different copy and at each different locus could exist in form allelic forms, meaning that the potential for diversity is indeed very high, higher than evolutionists want to admit too. And when you begin to examine the fact that some of these alleles could have other possible combinations due to cross-overs and the like, you can very quickly multiply the amount of available diversity from the very beginning...again, another point that evolutionary biologists do not like to concede too.

Again you are introducing irrelevant factors. There are a great many things that influence morphological variation. And you have named some of them here.

But the point at issue is not morphological variation, but allelic variation. Alleles are the variant forms of a single gene at a single locus. The fact that this single gene may combine with other genes to produce visible morphological variation in a dog or a horse or a human is irrelevant. What we are looking at is how many forms of this single gene exist in the gene pool now and how many could have existed when a "kind" was first created (or rescued in the Ark).

If each "kind" is derived from a single pair that survived in the ark, then the maximum number of alleles for any single gene in the gene pool of the kind at that time was four. If the gene pool of the kind now contains more than four alleles for any single gene, the only known natural source for those additional alleles is mutation. And, as we know, a number of genes have many more than four allelic variations. Some genes number hundreds of allelic variations.

How genes combine or are expressed to produce variations in morphology is a different matter altogether. And how morphological variations can be multiplied to near infinity by chromosomal recombination is still another matter.

In fact, there can be huge numbers of variations with only a very few different alleles per gene. So that is not the issue.


The issue is where did allelic variation come from in the first place under a model which assumes all current members of a kind originated with a single pair on Noah's Ark or at creation, given that a pair can not carry more than four alleles of any single gene?

 

[gluadys]

These are true, however, they are not contradictory.

They are most certainly contradictory. See my comment on your response to shernren

This has been demonstrated to be unfactual.

This is a lack of understanding genetics...not that I am trying to bash or make fun of. I do not mean to hurt anyone's feelings.

On re-reading what I said, I agree that I did impy something non-factual, for what I said suggests that each morphological trait is controlled by a single gene. If that is what you meant, you are right. Many traits are controlled by the combined influence of many genes. And by developmental and environmental factors as well.

However, the fact that a single pair of sexually reproducing species can carry at most only 4 alleles of any single gene is true, and that was my main point. The theoretical maximum number of alleles for a gene at any single locus in the genome is set by the size of the population. And if you have a species population of only one male and one female, the maximum number of alleles in that gene pool for any single locus is four. You can only increase the number of alleles by a combination of increased population size + mutation.

 

[gluadys]

It is only contradictory if you are looking at any organism as a complete and error free copy of its progenitor - after all we know that through genetic drift (another important evolutionary mechanism that is often forgotten by evolutionists) which can account for apparently random transferring of alleles from generation to generation as well as unique genetic differences within a population.

“This process of random fluctuation continues generation after generation, with no force pushing the frequency back to its initial state because the population has no "genetic memory" of its state many generations ago. Each generation is an independent event……….. A different population, isolated from the first, also undergoes this random genetic drift, but it may become homozygous for allele "A", whereas the first population has become homozygous for allele "a". As time goes on, isolated populations diverge from each other, each losing heterozygosity. The variation originally present within populations now appears as variation between populations."

- Suzuki, D.T. et al “An Introduction to Genetic Analysis” p. 704 4th ed. W.H. Freeman 1989.

In the case of genetic drift if a male and female pair of sexually reproducing parents produced only a small number of offspring then not all of the parent's alleles will be passed on to their offspring caused by a random assortment of chromosomes at meiosis. In a small or isolated population this would have a dramatic effect in producing a population that is diverse in alleles – but in a large population this effect will be less as it gets evened out.

First, let me thank you for drawing attention to genetic drift. It is indeed another important evolutionary mechanism, and biologists have found that in small populations it can be more influential that natural or sexual selection.

However, you, like Phospho, are missing the point because you are confounding morphological variation with gene variation. Alleles are variations at the genetic level, not at the level of the organism as a whole. So the point is not whether allele 'A' or 'a' is inherited, but where did 'A' and 'a' come from in the first place.

And how many 'A's and 'a's are there in the gene pool of the species now? (i.e. there can be an A1, an A2, an A3 and so on and also an a1, an a2, an a3 and so on.) And how many were there originally? And how does one account for the increase?

Now usually, we use 'A' and 'a' to designate the dominant and recessive forms of a gene. So let's change this a bit to illustrate. Let P and p designate alleles in the genome of the paternal parent. Let M and m designate alleles in the genome of the maternal parent.

When the germ cells of papa and mama undergo meiosis each bequeathes on of these to the gamete. And the two gametes fuse to produce the zygote from which the embryo will develop. One can quickly see that there are four possible combinations: PM, pM, Pm, and pm. But there cannot be more than four combinations because neither papa nor mama has any other alleles to pass on to their offspring.

Yet there may be many more in the species gene pool. The P allele which papa passes on to his children may not be like the P allele which Mr. Jones or Mr. Chang pass on to their children.

And if the P allele exists in 2 dozen different forms distributed through the population, obviously you need at least 2 dozen people in the population. But the YEC contention is that we began (and most species began) as a single pair. How do you get 2 dozen forms of the same gene into a gene pool which originally consisted of four genomes?