Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

grimbly · Jan 22, 2007

In the abiogenesis frenzy, you may have missed my post #276. You claimed that you do not accept C14 dates greater than 5000 years. I linked to some calibration work that vastly exceeds 5000 years.

Again I ask, why are they wrong?

Thank you

KerrMetric · Jan 22, 2007

withreason said:
did you not say something to me about "spell check"

Yes I did. And I didn't make a spelling mistake above. I think the only error is that my iffy laptop keyboard left a y of the end of the word they.

I have a habit of relying on the content of what I read to decide it's merit. forgive me if this faith based forum does not like to read posts from a Man with an awkward understanding of your proffesional expertise in the subject of my post's.

No you don't. Nice try though.

KerrMetric · Jan 22, 2007

grimbly said:
In the abiogenesis frenzy, you may have missed my post #276. You claimed that you do not accept C14 dates greater than 5000 years. I linked to some calibration work that vastly exceeds 5000 years.

Again I ask, why are they wrong?

Thank you

Because he wants to maintain a convenient fiction at about 6000 years or so. That is the ONLY reason for a line being drawn at 5000.

withreason · Jan 22, 2007

KerrMetric said:
Why don't you ask other posters around here. I have made literally hundreds of posts where I do go into scientific detail - but on this board the often wilt since the creationists avoid technical discussion like the plague. As long as they can waffle with language and vagueness they are happy - try to pin them down on science and they get nervous.
I'm just puzzled by your claims here and there of understanding but I've yet to see such a post.

Maybe you can help me to understand why evolutionists are pleased to state the presents of the dormant exon 10 Gulo in the human genome, but fail to explain why, for all of the mutations that must have occurred, there are no dormant footprints, natural selection removed those! right.....but for some reason..natural selection is selective, only when disputing evolution.becaus for some reason it forgot to remove the Gulo!
maybe you can enlighten me about this..? please.

KerrMetric · Jan 22, 2007

withreason said:
Maybe you can help me to understand why evolutionists are pleased to state the presents of the dormant exon 10 Gulo in the human genome, but fail to explain why, for all of the mutations that must have occurred, there are no dormant footprints, natural selection removed those! right.....but for some reason..natural selection is selective, only when disputing evolution.becaus for some reason it forgot to remove the Gulo!
maybe you can enlighten me about this..? please.

Is English your primary language? What are "presents of the dormant ......"

withreason · Jan 22, 2007

withreason said:
Maybe you can help me to understand why evolutionists are pleased to state the presents of the dormant exon 10 Gulo in the human genome, but fail to explain why, for all of the mutations that must have occurred, there are no dormant footprints, natural selection removed those! right.....but for some reason..natural selection is selective, only when disputing evolution.becaus for some reason it forgot to remove the Gulo!
maybe you can enlighten me about this..? please.

grimbly said:
In the abiogenesis frenzy, you may have missed my post #276. You claimed that you do not accept C14 dates greater than 5000 years. I linked to some calibration work that vastly exceeds 5000 years.

Again I ask, why are they wrong?

Thank you

sorry, bit busy...basically, biological life has the possibility to influence the amount of C14.
for one reason.
there have been substantial errors in dating using this method, I do not believe it is reliable.
I believe that 5000 years allows for alternate methods of dating to corroborate the data.

http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/A_freshly_killed_seal_was_C14_dated_at_1300_years_old

Deamiter · Jan 22, 2007

Oh Kerr, lay off! No need to go trolling up trouble!

Let's stick to one subject at a time. Pasteur proved a particular theory wrong. This was the theory of spontanious generation. mswilliamsll is looking at it closer in another thread (do respond, he's great at research) but my understanding is that the theory stated that creatures like flys would spontaneously come from meat (as it appeared before we could use microscopes to see fly eggs laid in the meat).

This does not in any way prove that life cannot come from reproducing molecular structures!

rmwilliamsll · Jan 22, 2007

withreason said:
Maybe you can help me to understand why evolutionists are pleased to state the presents of the dormant exon 10 Gulo in the human genome, but fail to explain why, for all of the mutations that must have occurred, there are no dormant footprints, natural selection removed those! right.....but for some reason..natural selection is selective, only when disputing evolution.becaus for some reason it forgot to remove the Gulo!
maybe you can enlighten me about this..? please.

there are no selective pressures on pseudogenes.

Once the vit C synthesis route was broken, and the chimp-human LCA had the GULOP fixed in it's population, there was no selective pressure. There basically is no garbage collection routines in genetic mechanisms, if a gene doesn't produce something useful then the selective pressure on that gene is effectively zero (genetic drift etc still operate on it however)

The interesting thing about the GULOP, it that since the gene is fixed we know that that LCA had a VitC rich diet and that the broken enzyme didn't burden those individuals who carried it. Otherwise it could never have driven to fixation.

there is lots of information on this pseudogene, perhaps the most interesting i found quickly was:
http://www.d113.lake.k12.il.us/hphs...weiland_web_page/evolworkshop/pseudogenes.htm
a handout for a student lab on the topic.

but the basic answer to your question is that there are no molecular genetic equivalent processes analgous to garbage collection in compiler theory. Good thing to, for most of our DNA is remnants of retroviral transposon activity, and this forms one known way to create new functional proteins.

withreason · Jan 22, 2007

KerrMetric said:
Is English your primary language? What are "presents of the dormant ......"

it must have been my computer,right!!
forget I asked Mr science.

withreason · Jan 22, 2007

rmwilliamsll said:
there are no selective pressures on pseudogenes.

Once the vit C synthesis route was broken, and the chimp-human LCA had the GULOP fixed in it's population, there was no selective pressure. There basically is no garbage collection routines in genetic mechanisms, if a gene doesn't produce something useful then the selective pressure on that gene is effectively zero (genetic drift etc still operate on it however)

The interesting thing about the GULOP, it that since the gene is fixed we know that that LCA had a VitC rich diet and that the broken enzyme didn't burden those individuals who carried it. Otherwise it could never have driven to fixation.

there is lots of information on this pseudogene, perhaps the most interesting i found quickly was:
http://www.d113.lake.k12.il.us/hphs...weiland_web_page/evolworkshop/pseudogenes.htm
a handout for a student lab on the topic.

thats not answering my question. why are there no other Dormant footprints from previous mutations..?

rmwilliamsll · Jan 22, 2007

withreason said:
thats not answering my question. why are there no other Dormant footprints from previous mutations..?

i answered the question of why NS did not remove the GULOP from the human or chimp genome. ("but for some reason..natural selection is selective, only when disputing evolution.becaus for some reason it forgot to remove the Gulo!")

i can't answer:
"why are there no other Dormant footprints from previous mutations"
because i don't know what a "Dormant footprints " is.

google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="Dormant+footprints"&btnG=Search
is not helping.

withreason · Jan 22, 2007

withreason said:
thats not answering my question. why are there no other Dormant footprints from previous mutations..?

additionally...as you stated..there are no garbage collection routines in genetic mechanisms...
where are they?? there should be ample supplies of dormancies....

withreason · Jan 22, 2007

rmwilliamsll said:
i answered the question of why NS did not remove the GULOP from the human or chimp genome. ("but for some reason..natural selection is selective, only when disputing evolution.becaus for some reason it forgot to remove the Gulo!")

i can't answer:
"why are there no other Dormant footprints from previous mutations"
because i don't know what a "Dormant footprints " is.

google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="Dormant+footprints"&btnG=Search
is not helping.

yes you did answer that and I thank you! I am not trying to be snooty, please forgive me...I am slightly annoyed..

</IMG>

rmwilliamsll · Jan 22, 2007

withreason said:
additionally...as you stated..there are no garbage collection routines in genetic mechanisms...
where are they?? there should be ample supplies of dormancies....

i do not understand this question.
i do not know how to show where something that doesn't exist is.

plus i do not understand the terms: "dormancies" or "Dormant footprints".

withreason · Jan 22, 2007

rmwilliamsll said:
i do not understand this question.
i do not know how to show where something that doesn't exist is.

plus i do not understand the terms: "dormancies" or "Dormant footprints".

that is what the "exon gluto 10" is.
a dormant footprint from a mutation, becaus, as you say there is no garbage routines in these mechanisms, there should be more of these similliar dormancies from previouse mutations.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:984

withreason · Jan 22, 2007

I must retire...thank you and goodnight, Godbless

Deamiter · Jan 22, 2007

So you don't think tens of thousands of years of sediment layers and tree rings and hundreds of thousands of years of ice cores that are all calibrated together (especially to major events like volcanic eruptions and meteorite impacts) can push our understanding of atmospheric C14 back a bit further than 5000 years?

Yeah, contamination is possible. That's why scientists specifically rule it out before reporting a date as valid.

Deamiter · Jan 22, 2007

I too have never heard the term "dormant footprint" used in the context of this topic.

Are you perhaps thinking of our disabled Vitamin C gene or ERVs that hold partial viral sequences but which have tertiary (if any) function in our genome?

rmwilliamsll · Jan 22, 2007

withreason said:
that is what the "exon gluto 10" is.
a dormant footprint from a mutation, becaus, as you say there is no garbage routines in these mechanisms, there should be more of these similliar dormancies from previouse mutations.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:984

if you mean pseudogenes there are tens of thousands of them.

http://www.pseudogene.org/

you can look at their datasets at:
http://www.pseudogene.org/cgi-bin/s...=&operator0=&searchValue0=&sort=0&output=html

or you can go to an easy to use gene database and search for pseudogenes like:
http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP...dogene+&field=all&ncbi_tax_id=0&organism_syn=

or you can search for a particular protein, say the alpha chain in hemoglobin and get all the known pseudogenes of it:
http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/121571.html

in any case, if by the terms:
dormant
-you do mean pseudogene, there are lots of them. in all creatures. that is the point of the student lab i linked to above. showing the similiarities between exon 10 of the GULOP.

hsilgne · Jan 22, 2007

hsilgne said:
I recently read this quote from an athiest and it made allot of sense to me. Unfortunately, I do not have the quote in front of me so I will paraphrase...

Evolution teaches us that there could not have been a First Man - Adam, therefore there can not be Original Sin, therefore there was not a fall from Grace, therefore there is no need to be reconciled and therefore there is no need for a Saviour.

Your thoughts?

Just thought I would throw the original post out there.

Funny how we can get gabbing away, eh?

Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

I just follow Christ.

avid reader

Active Member

Active Member

avid reader

Active Member

Active Member

avid reader

Active Member

Active Member

I just follow Christ.

I just follow Christ.

avid reader

Frustrated in Hooterville.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency