Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

[mark kennedy]

Well, the "orchard" model that was presented here which is widely accepted by creationists now depicts zebras gaining stripes from non-striped horses.

Perhaps from non-stripped but emerging from existing genes, that is, genomes originally created in pristine condition but accumulating bottleneck effects and mutations over time. What you are going to need to do is to discern between simple change and adaptations.

So I'm wondering where the information for making stripes came from since creationists are saying that they developed from non-striped horses.
Did horses "devolve" into zebras by GAINING stripes? doesn't make sense to me...

So you do know that the concept of information is not a creationist ideal right? That goes back to the Francis Crick paper on DNA and the triplet codons of amino acid sequences. At any rate, stripes must first emerge as a trait, what triggers the molecular mechanism, and more importantly, the innate potential for variation in the sequences, expressions and combinations are whats important.

The thing is, the information had to be preloaded at the front end. If all you have to facilitate variety are random mutations then you have nothing. Certainly nothing capable of facilitating the conversion of vital organs with a high degree of specificity.

Earlier in this thread I finally got a creationist to define "information" as "the function of a gene"
So any time there is a change in the function of a gene, isn't that adding new information?
If you think this is an incorrect definition then please define "information" for me.

Limited strictly to the amino acid sequence of protein coding genes, it's 'the colinearity between the order of the bases in the gene and of the amino acids in the protein.' (Francis Crick)

Would you expect stripes to be generated as an allele through changes in the protein coding genes, regulatory genes, fluctuation in gene expression or genes simply being turned on and off my molecular mechanisms responsible for that function?

Oh, and no one has yet to explain to me where zebra stripes came from.

Genes

 

[KhaosTheory]

So an organism can gain something like stripes because you assert that the genes for them were already in the genome but they can never gain a new organ?

 

[SkyWriting]

So an organism can gain something like stripes because you assert that the genes for them were already in the genome but they can never gain a new organ?

Unlikely.

 

[Metal Minister]

Unlikely.

More like impossible.

 

[mark kennedy]

So an organism can gain something like stripes because you assert that the genes for them were already in the genome but they can never gain a new organ?

You can imagine anything you like but you can only understand the truth according to Sir Isaac Newton.

 

[SkyWriting]

So an organism can gain something like stripes because you assert that the genes for them were already in the genome but they can never gain a new organ?

Some species can regrow limbs so the ability to regrow an organ
is possible, in the imagination. Scientists are working on it.

 

[BobRyan]

4th reason: They have a different understanding from Scripture.

Turns out - that never happens.

=============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
===========================

Nobody ever argues against the 7 day timeline in the text because of what they find in the text of Gen 1:2-2:3... they argue for ignoring the details of the text "in spite of the text" and not "because of it".

And apparently the hebrew scholars of all world-class universities see that point clearly.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SkyWriting]

Turns out - that never happens.

It's pretty common.