PDA

View Full Version : Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds



Pages : [1] 2 3

musterion
February 23rd, 2016, 07:42 AM
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21677188-it-rare-new-animal-species-emerge-front-scientists-eyes


Whether the coywolf actually has evolved into a distinct species is debated. Jonathan Way, who works in Massachusetts for the National Park Service, claims in a forthcoming paper that it has. He thinks its morphological and genetic divergence from its ancestors is sufficient to qualify. But many disagree. One common definition of a species is a population that will not [and cannot] interbreed with outsiders. Since coywolves continue to mate with dogs and wolves, the argument goes, they are therefore not a species. But, given the way coywolves came into existence, that definition would mean wolves and coyotes should not be considered different species either—and that does not even begin to address whether domestic dogs are a species, or just an aberrant form of wolf.

In reality, “species” is a concept invented by human beings.

The answer to their confusion is found right there in Genesis 1:


And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:25 (https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/1/21/s_1021)).

Jose Fly
February 23rd, 2016, 10:58 AM
So what is a "Biblical kind"? (not examples, but an actual definition)

6days
February 23rd, 2016, 01:38 PM
But, given the way coywolves came into existence, that definition would mean wolves and coyotes should not be considered different species either—and that does not even begin to address whether domestic dogs are a species, or just an aberrant form of wolf.

In reality, “species” is a concept invented by human beings.

Good comments Musty.*

I think its long been believed that all dogs are descendants of just two of the dog kind which survived the flood. The Biblical model is that creatures can rapidly adapt or even speciate.... and generally through a loss of pre-existing genetic information. IOW, a mutant poodle is a descendant of wolves.*


It does not take millions and millions of years for organisms to adapt and change. Ask any plant or animal breeder... they will likely tell you that artificial selection is a process of eliminating unwanted traits. (Loss of genetic info).*


Rapid adaptation is evidence of our Creator.... programmed information allowing organisms to survive in diverse environments in the post flood world.*

musterion
February 23rd, 2016, 01:41 PM
Thanks but the comment is from the Economist article, which as far as I know is not a creationist magazine.

musterion
February 23rd, 2016, 01:47 PM
So what is a "Biblical kind"? (not examples, but an actual definition)

A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc).

Jose Fly
February 23rd, 2016, 02:00 PM
The Biblical model is that creatures can rapidly adapt or even speciate.

Via what mechanisms?


and generally through a loss of pre-existing genetic information.

If you can't say how you measure "genetic information", how can you say whether there's been a loss or gain of it?

Jose Fly
February 23rd, 2016, 02:01 PM
A basic type or model of organism

What is a "type or model of organism"?


created as distinct from other models

How can you tell they were created?


within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc).

Via what mechanisms?

User Name
February 23rd, 2016, 02:10 PM
What is a "type or model of organism"?

Creationists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

musterion
February 23rd, 2016, 02:14 PM
What is a "type or model of organism"?



How can you tell they were created?



Via what mechanisms?

I answered yours.

Now tell us how everything comes from nothing.

Fool.

Jose Fly
February 23rd, 2016, 02:20 PM
I answered yours.

Not really. You just gave two synonyms, neither of which helps define "Biblical kinds".


Now tell us how everything comes from nothing.

What does that have to do with "Biblical kinds"? Looks to me like you're just dodging.

Quetzal
February 23rd, 2016, 02:33 PM
I answered yours.

Now tell us how everything comes from nothing.

Fool.
Ah, my personal favorite. "I can't reasonably answer his question... gotta save face... I KNOW! An clever insult will do! That'll show em."

6days
February 23rd, 2016, 06:30 PM
*

The Biblical model is that creatures can rapidly adapt or even speciate.

Via what mechanisms?


I'm glad you asked....

Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)

Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:
Fruit flies grow longer wings...
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'
New Scientist 165 wrote:
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"


Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...
... Evolutionists are surprised.
Science Daily wrote:
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm


And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!

That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.

rexlunae
February 24th, 2016, 01:41 AM
A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc).

All of those are closely related examples (i.e., they had recent common ancestors). Is a Biblical "kind" in your understanding just a proxy for closely-related organisms, or does it include "similar-looking" things? Would you expect, under your model, to find a dol-fish, for instance? Or a cog (cat/dog)? How do you think the example of closely-related species interbreeding confounds evolution?

chair
February 24th, 2016, 06:26 AM
...

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome...

So you agree with the basic concept of evolution. You just think that the mechanism is different, and that it takes place extremely fast.

Jamie Gigliotti
February 24th, 2016, 11:30 AM
So you agree with the basic concept of evolution. You just think that the mechanism is different, and that it takes place extremely fast.

Micro evolution is true. Polar bears/Grizzly Bears and Wolves/Coyotes have histories of becoming isolated breading populations and through genetic mutations and natural selection they have respectively have different pysical characteristics. But the bears and the K9s can breed because they are the same kind species. Gene mutations and natural selection do not cause Macro evolution, where kinds/species add or lose chromosome pairs and become new species/kinds.

Jose Fly
February 24th, 2016, 11:40 AM
Micro evolution is true.

According to 6days, macroevolution (evolution above the species level) is also not only true, but Biblical.


Polar bears/Grizzly Bears and Wolves/Coyotes have histories of becoming isolated breading populations and through genetic mutations and natural selection they have respectively have different pysical characteristics.

IOW, evolution.


But the bears and the K9s can breed because they are the same kind species.

Is "kind species" a new term or something?


Gene mutations and natural selection do not cause Macro evolution

6days says they do. Is he wrong?


where kinds/species add or lose chromosome pairs and become new species/kinds.

Are you saying "kind" = species?

Jamie Gigliotti
February 24th, 2016, 03:08 PM
According to 6days, macroevolution (evolution above the species level) is also not only true, but Biblical.



IOW, evolution.



Is "kind species" a new term or something?



6days says they do. Is he wrong?



Are you saying "kind" = species?

Species/Kinds, it all comes down to defintions and they are all over the map. The Bible calls dinstinctive animals kinds. Its makes sense as the article points out, that if animals can breed they are the same species or kind of distinctive animal.

Micro evolution is proven knowledge. Macro is an hypothesis with no evidence.

6days
February 24th, 2016, 04:25 PM
Micro evolution is proven knowledge. Macro is an hypothesis with no evidence I agree... sort of. I just don't use those words, 'micro' and 'macro' because they are rubbery. We know creatures within the same kind can have lots of variance...ex... poodle and wolf.

Jose Fly
February 24th, 2016, 04:31 PM
Species/Kinds, it all comes down to defintions and they are all over the map.

"Kind" has no definition.


The Bible calls dinstinctive animals kinds. Its makes sense as the article points out, that if animals can breed they are the same species or kind of distinctive animal.

Does that mean if they can't breed together they are different "kinds"?


Micro evolution is proven knowledge. Macro is an hypothesis with no evidence.

I'm sure that's what you believe, but that only matters to you.

Jose Fly
February 24th, 2016, 04:33 PM
I agree... sort of. I just don't use those words, 'micro' and 'macro' because they are rubbery.

Unlike "kind", which has no definition.


We know creatures within the same kind can have lots of variance...ex... poodle and wolf.

Exactly how did you establish that there is a "dog kind"?

6days
February 24th, 2016, 04:35 PM
According to 6days, macroevolution (evolution above the species level) is also not only true, but Biblical.

You are fabricating again Jose. Evolutionists love creating strawmen.*

musterion
February 24th, 2016, 04:35 PM
Exactly how did you establish that there is a "dog kind"?

Because God said so.

Jose Fly
February 24th, 2016, 04:37 PM
You are fabricating again Jose. Evolutionists love creating strawmen.*

So now you're saying speciation (evolution above the species level) isn't part of the "Biblical model of creation" (whatever that is)?

Jose Fly
February 24th, 2016, 04:38 PM
Because God said so.

Where?

6days
February 24th, 2016, 05:12 PM
So you agree with the basic concept of evolution. You just think that the mechanism is different, and that it takes place extremely fast.

Uh...... no.

Evolutionists like to use rubbery words so they can equivocate.

God's Word tells us common ancestry is false. Science helps to confirm common ancestry beliefs are impossible.

Mechanism? We know that organisms adapt to various environments through pre-existing information and mechanisms. There is no mechanism to tweak the genome of a carrot to turn it into a carpenter...that is pseudoscience....and anti-Biblical.*

Grosnick Marowbe
February 24th, 2016, 05:14 PM
So what is a "Biblical kind"? (not examples, but an actual definition)

Hi how are you? Having a fine day?

6days
February 24th, 2016, 05:15 PM
No... I said you fabricate things trying to create a strawman.

Jose Fly
February 24th, 2016, 05:38 PM
Science helps to confirm common ancestry beliefs are impossible.

Exactly what science are you relying on for that empty claim?


No.

So macroevolution (evolution above the species level) is part of the "Biblical model of creation" (whatever that is)?


I said you fabricate things trying to create a strawman.

What did I fabricate? Be specific.

Nick M
February 24th, 2016, 06:27 PM
Via what mechanisms?

Reshuffling of the genes. Not new genes.

Crucible
February 24th, 2016, 06:31 PM
So what is a "Biblical kind"? (not examples, but an actual definition)

Broader specification; not every species of a genus; types.

Jose Fly
February 24th, 2016, 06:45 PM
Reshuffling of the genes. Not new genes.

According to what 6days has posted here previously, during the flood there was a single breeding pair for each "unclean kind" that would later rapidly give rise to all the species within that "kind".

And now since you're saying no new genes arose, that means the breeding pair also had all the genes necessary for all the subsequent species that would arise post-flood.

Correct so far?

Jose Fly
February 24th, 2016, 06:45 PM
Broader specification; not every species of a genus; types.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Crucible
February 24th, 2016, 06:51 PM
That makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes perfect sense, because that is the context in which the word 'kind' is being used.

~kind: a particular type or variety of person or thing~

Jose Fly
February 24th, 2016, 06:57 PM
It makes perfect sense, because that is the context in which the word 'kind' is being used.

~kind: a particular type or variety of person or thing~

It is "being used" in the context of biological classification. The definition you posted does nothing in that context.

It's like if you and a biologist went to Africa and you said "Let's classify everything by kinds". He'd naturally ask what a "kind" is. If you answered "a particular type or variety", that wouldn't help at all.

That's what we're asking for. Creationists like to claim that God created everything by "kinds" and as a result everything can be grouped according to their "kinds". If that's true, it should be trivially easy to post a useful definition and/or criteria for such a grouping.

Crucible
February 24th, 2016, 07:41 PM
it should be trivially easy to post a useful definition and/or criteria for such a grouping.

:doh:

http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLSpec/images/CatFamily.jpg

chair
February 24th, 2016, 11:26 PM
There is no mechanism to tweak the genome of a carrot to turn it into a carpenter...

You say this, then have the nerve to point a finger at "evolutionists" and say "Evolutionists love creating strawmen."

Take a look in the mirror.

exminister
February 25th, 2016, 05:00 AM
:doh:

http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLSpec/images/CatFamily.jpg

Kinds:
Dogs/wolves
Cats
Goats
Snakes


Are all birds a kind?
Are all fish a kind except those that are mammals?
Are whales and dolphins the same kind or two different kinds?

6days
February 25th, 2016, 06:27 AM
You say this, then have the nerve to point a finger at "evolutionists" and say "Evolutionists love creating strawmen."

Take a look in the mirror.
I was being generous giving you a carrot to start with. Perhaps I could have argued that atheist believe dentists are descendants of dust... and, that the dust magically popped into existence. If that isn't an accurate portrayal of atheist beliefs (apart from the word 'magical').... please enlighten us where dentists came from.

6days
February 25th, 2016, 07:36 AM
ccording to what 6days has posted here previously, during the flood there was a single breeding pair for each "unclean kind" that would later rapidly give rise to all the species within that "kind".

And now since you're saying no new genes arose, that means the breeding pair also hadall the genes necessary for*all*the subsequent species that would arise post-flood.

Correct so far?

Wow... pretty good, Jose!

Not necessarily the genes, but the pre-existing genetic information allows adaptation and speciation.

It would be impossible for natural processes to assembke even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists.*

chair
February 25th, 2016, 07:47 AM
I was being generous giving you a carrot to start with. Perhaps I could have argued that atheist believe dentists are descendants of dust... and, that the dust magically popped into existence. If that isn't an accurate portrayal of atheist beliefs (apart from the word 'magical').... please enlighten us where dentists came from.

You are pretending that "evolutionists" said that men can be descended from carrots. No scientist says that. it is a straw man.
The theory of evolution does not say anything about where matter comes from, or where life comes from. Another straw man.
And "evolutionists are all atheists"- simply not true.

exminister
February 25th, 2016, 07:52 AM
Kinds:
Dogs/wolves
Cats
Goats
Snakes


Are all birds a kind?
Are all fish a kind except those that are mammals?
Are whales and dolphins the same kind or two different kinds?

Anyone?

Nick M
February 25th, 2016, 08:05 AM
According to what 6days

...not relevant, nor a concern of mine. Therefore, misdirection will not be addressed.

6days
February 25th, 2016, 10:24 AM
Anyone?
It seems strange that evolutionists are so interested in Biblical "kinds" when they can't clearly define and determine their own terminology with words like 'species'.

Nick M
February 25th, 2016, 10:26 AM
http://host.jwcinc.net/1170501/evolution.jpg

Jose Fly
February 25th, 2016, 10:32 AM
:doh:

http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLSpec/images/CatFamily.jpg

Um, that's neither a useful definition nor criteria for grouping things by "kinds".

Jose Fly
February 25th, 2016, 10:34 AM
Not necessarily the genes, but the pre-existing genetic information allows adaptation and speciation.

And what is "genetic information" (there's that question again)?


It would be impossible for natural processes to assembke even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists.*

So is your position that only God can create and install a gene?

User Name
February 25th, 2016, 10:34 AM
How many bird kinds are there?

Jose Fly
February 25th, 2016, 10:36 AM
It seems strange that evolutionists are so interested in Biblical "kinds" when they can't clearly define and determine their own terminology with words like 'species'.

Sure we can. There are different definitions and criteria for different situations (e.g., sexual vs. asexual organisms, extant vs. extinct organisms). Or did you forget?

exminister
February 25th, 2016, 10:42 AM
It seems strange that evolutionists are so interested in Biblical "kinds" when they can't clearly define and determine their own terminology with words like 'species'.

Hmmm.. 6days I have found your answers in the past well thought out. Not sure what you mean here.

Species is understandable and Linnaeus taxonomy clearly delineates it. It has been backed up and refined by DNA with great detail. You may find an oddity here and there but it is beyond anything I have seen on "kinds".

Speciations can clearly answer the questions below. Is it true Kinds is poorly defined and cannot delineate in the same way?



Kinds:
Dogs/wolves
Cats
Goats
Snakes


Are all birds a kind?
Are all fish a kind except those that are mammals?
Are whales and dolphins the same kind or two different kinds?

exminister
February 25th, 2016, 10:44 AM
http://host.jwcinc.net/1170501/evolution.jpg

Good one. Glad to see evolution is moving towards adorable. :chuckle:

6days
February 25th, 2016, 06:26 PM
Species is understandable and Linnaeus taxonomy clearly delineates it. It has been backed up and refined by DNA with great detail. You may find an oddity here and there but it is beyond anything I have seen on "kinds".Speciations can clearly answer the questions below. Is it true Kinds is poorly defined and cannot delineate in the same way
No....That is not correct.
"That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

There are many examples of organisms being classified incorrectly or re-classified based only on evolutionary assumptions. (Darwins finches, Neandertals ETC)

6days
February 25th, 2016, 06:32 PM
So is your position that only God can create and install a gene?
What I said was "It would be impossible for natural processes to assemble even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists.

Crucible
February 25th, 2016, 06:38 PM
I love watching atheists go from acting as if they have the decoder ring to all things reason- and then turn into complete, oblivious idiots on the fly. You can seriously go through this thread and pinpoint the exact location in which it begins :chuckle:

This is one of the big tactics atheists have been using to get as far as they've come- they pretty much turn the brain off until whatever inconvenient thing passes and is forgotten, and then they turn it back on and go on the assault once more.

User Name
February 25th, 2016, 06:59 PM
Good one. Glad to see evolution is moving towards adorable. :chuckle:

It's funny, but that isn't the way the evolutionalists say it happened. This is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds

chair
February 25th, 2016, 11:43 PM
I love watching atheists...

I love watching creationists pretend that anybody who accepts a particular scientific theory is an atheist.

exminister
February 26th, 2016, 12:07 AM
No....That is not correct.
"That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

There are many examples of organisms being classified incorrectly or re-classified based only on evolutionary assumptions. (Darwins finches, Neandertals ETC)

No surprise with common ancestry. Kinds has the hard walls, not evolution. So your shifting constantly away from my original questions shows Kinds cannot be clearly defined. Sadly I say thank you for your indirect answer. I hoped for some clarity on that position for my own education.

alwight
February 26th, 2016, 02:33 AM
I love watching atheists go from acting as if they have the decoder ring to all things reason- and then turn into complete, oblivious idiots on the fly. You can seriously go through this thread and pinpoint the exact location in which it begins :chuckle:

This is one of the big tactics atheists have been using to get as far as they've come- they pretty much turn the brain off until whatever inconvenient thing passes and is forgotten, and then they turn it back on and go on the assault once more.We are indeed fortunate to have the benefit of your sage opinions of atheists. :Plain:

Jose Fly
February 26th, 2016, 10:41 AM
What I said was "It would be impossible for natural processes to assemble even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists.

So if natural processes can't create genes, what does?

And given two different genomes, how do we tell which has more "genetic information"?

6days
February 26th, 2016, 02:42 PM
No surprise with common ancestry.

Sorry... what is no surprise? That the term 'species' is rubbery and not clearly defined?*


Kinds has the hard walls, not evolution. So your shifting constantly away from my original questions shows Kinds cannot be clearly defined.
Its been clearly defined by myself in other threads, as well as by Stripe and others. Musterion defined it in this thread..."A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc)."


You said you were interested in the definition of 'kinds' for education purposes. Its easy to find articles on the topics such as...http://creation.mobi/variation-information-and-the-created-kind

Or, if you want something more technical, there are articles in peer reviewed journals such as this one from 'Answers Journal'..."An Initial Estimate Toward Identifying and Numbering Amphibian Kinds within the Orders Caudata and Gymnophiona
Jan. 23, 2013, pp. 17–34"

exminister
February 27th, 2016, 11:29 AM
Sorry... what is no surprise? That the term 'species' is rubbery and not clearly defined?*


Its been clearly defined by myself in other threads, as well as by Stripe and others. Musterion defined it in this thread..."A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc)."


You said you were interested in the definition of 'kinds' for education purposes. Its easy to find articles on the topics such as...http://creation.mobi/variation-information-and-the-created-kind

Or, if you want something more technical, there are articles in peer reviewed journals such as this one from 'Answers Journal'..."An Initial Estimate Toward Identifying and Numbering Amphibian Kinds within the Orders Caudata and Gymnophiona
Jan. 23, 2013, pp. 17–34"


I like the article. I see the author recommends avoiding the use of 'micro evolution'.

I see why now Creationist cannot specify Kinds in the questions I originally asked. The walls are unknown and the author warns against be specific to avoid moving the 'Maginot Line' as he describes it, avoiding a misperceived win by Evolutionist.

I wrote "not a surprise" because all living things come from common ancestry. I don't have a problem calling species rubbery if within Kinds it is also called rubbery.

Are there Kind trees that show the sub-kind reversals are impossible?
For example, I will use dog kind with coyote as a sub-kind. You can provide a better pair set if you know one.

Can a dog kind give birth to a coyote in one generation? It's a shuffling of info to produce a sub-kind and either DNA remains static or there is information loss. If a loss of DNA it cannot go backwards meaning a coyote cannot have a dog in one generation, but dogs could regularly give birth to a coyote granting the same shuffle and loss. With the earth being 6000 years old this would seem to have some frequency. This maybe why Creationist say "if humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?". It's a reflection on their view of Kinds.

So do we see or why don't we see kinds giving birth to a sub-kind in one generation? Also with the mapping of the genome isn't it easy to see higher order kinds from their sub order kinds? The loss of information should be obvious?

Greg Jennings
February 27th, 2016, 01:47 PM
What I said was "It would be impossible for natural processes to assemble even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists.

Why won't you tell Jose what "genetic information" is? You can't dodge the same question day after day and expect nobody to take notice

exminister
February 28th, 2016, 02:47 AM
Sorry... what is no surprise? That the term 'species' is rubbery and not clearly defined?*


Its been clearly defined by myself in other threads, as well as by Stripe and others. Musterion defined it in this thread..."A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc)."


You said you were interested in the definition of 'kinds' for education purposes. Its easy to find articles on the topics such as...http://creation.mobi/variation-information-and-the-created-kind

Or, if you want something more technical, there are articles in peer reviewed journals such as this one from 'Answers Journal'..."An Initial Estimate Toward Identifying and Numbering Amphibian Kinds within the Orders Caudata and Gymnophiona
Jan. 23, 2013, pp. 17–34"


I like the article. I see the author recommends avoiding the use of 'micro evolution'.

I see why now Creationist cannot specify Kinds in the questions I originally asked. The walls are unknown and the author warns against be specific to avoid moving the 'Maginot Line' as he describes it, avoiding a misperceived win by Evolutionist.

I wrote "not a surprise" because all living things come from common ancestry. I don't have a problem calling species rubbery if within Kinds it is also called rubbery.

Are there Kind trees that show the sub-kind reversals are impossible?
For example, I will use dog kind with coyote as a sub-kind. You can provide a better pair set if you know one.

Can a dog kind give birth to a coyote in one generation? It's a shuffling of info to produce a sub-kind and either DNA remains static or there is information loss. If a loss of DNA it cannot go backwards meaning a coyote cannot have a dog in one generation, but dogs could regularly give birth to a coyote granting the same shuffle and loss. With the earth being 6000 years old this would seem to have some frequency. This maybe why Creationist say "if humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?". It's a reflection on their view of Kinds.

So do we see or why don't we see kinds giving birth to a sub-kind in one generation? Also with the mapping of the genome isn't it easy to see higher order kinds from their sub order kinds? The loss of information should be obvious?

Bump + plus testing multi-quote

6days
February 28th, 2016, 08:24 PM
Why won't you tell Jose what "genetic information" is? You can't dodge the same question day after day and expect nobody to take notice
Greg.....
This is what I said
"What I said was "It would be impossible for natural processes to assemble even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists."
How does your question relate to that?
And...btw, Jose's question has been answered numerous times. Google "genetic information definition" and do some reading.

6days
February 28th, 2016, 08:49 PM
.....all living things come from common ancestry.

Actually, "In the beginning God created..." All living things come from Him, our common Designer.




I don't have a problem calling species rubbery ...

Yes, not much choice on that. Its often referred to as 'The Species Problem'



Can a dog kind give birth to a coyote in one generation? It's a shuffling of info to produce a sub-kind and either DNA remains static or there is information loss. If a loss of DNA it cannot go backwards meaning a coyote cannot have a dog in one generation, but dogs could regularly give birth to a coyote granting the same shuffle and loss. With the earth being 6000 years old this would seem to have some frequency. This maybe why Creationist say "if humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?". It's a reflection on their view of Kinds.
So do we see or why don't we see kinds giving birth to a sub-kind in one generation? Also with the mapping of the genome isn't it easy to see higher order kinds from their sub order kinds? The loss of information should be obvious?

Sorry but I really don't get your question.

Are you suggesting 2 purebred poodles could give birth to some type of dog like a German Shepherd?

No... of course not if breeding has eliminated the genetic info.

Greg Jennings
February 29th, 2016, 12:25 AM
Greg.....
This is what I said
"What I said was "It would be impossible for natural processes to assemble even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists."
How does your question relate to that?
And...btw, Jose's question has been answered numerous times. Google "genetic information definition" and do some reading.

Well I guess I'm confused because you have said that genetic information cannot increase but instead only decrease. If that is so, then how is genetic information measured so that you know it cannot increase? And what exactly constitutes this genetic information?

exminister
February 29th, 2016, 04:10 AM
Actually, "In the beginning God created..." All living things come from Him, our common Designer.



Yes, not much choice on that. Its often referred to as 'The Species Problem'



Sorry but I really don't get your question.

Are you suggesting 2 purebred poodles could give birth to some type of dog like a German Shepherd?

No... of course not if breeding has eliminated the genetic info.

Ok within Kinds it is rubbery in a similar way as species is in a larger framework. As I originally posted there are minor outliners. The species "anomalies" are consistent with common ancestry and genetics so no surprise. However, I am not seeing how Kinds is proved by this and that's why I was asking questions about a kind giving birth to a new sub-kind in one generation. Sorry I wasn't able to give a good Kind/sub-kind example.

And you concur kinds cannot be specified because it is uncertain at this time which the article states. Therefore my questions: are all birds a kind, are all fish a kind (except mammals), are whales and dolphins the same kind cannot be answered like species. We don't know kinds from sub-kinds. Kinds would have full genetic DNA information and sub-kinds would have partial genetic DNA info due to genetic loss. We don't know whether a kind with full genetic coding could produce a sub-kind in one generation. I clearly stated before a sub-kind could not give birth to a kind with full genetic info since that info was lost. My question whether a kind with full genetic material give birth to a sub-kind in one generation.

I will keep reading CMI but so far even they admit kinds has so many open questions. They blame funding for the lack of in depth research.

Kinds on the surface seems like a clear concept but when you dig more questions arise. But human constructs are like that. Nature in so many ways is not intuitive.

6days
February 29th, 2016, 04:34 AM
And you concur kinds cannot be specified because it is uncertain at this time which the article states. Therefore my questions: are all birds a kind, are all fish a kind (except mammals), are whales and dolphins the same kind cannot be answered like species. We don't know kinds from sub-kinds. Kinds would have full genetic DNA information and sub-kinds would have partial genetic DNA info due to genetic loss. We don't know whether a kind with full genetic coding could produce a sub-kind in one generation. I clearly stated before a sub-kind could not give birth to a kind with full genetic info since that info was lost. My question whether a kind with full genetic material give birth to a sub-kind in one generation.

The Bible says God created different kinds of birds.
He created the waters teeming with different kinds..... so it would seem many fish kinds.
Whales and dolphins...It would seem some are from the same created kind

Here is something I posted previously on this...
Cats may all be the same kind...I'm not sure. Likely all dogs are the same kind. The wolf, or similar, may have been the original dog kind. Breeds of are created when an existing trait is selected for and other traits eliminated. In theory you can 'create' a poodle from a wolf over many genetations.

Georgia Purdom PhD microbiology says "the first thing that needs to be addressed is: “What is a kind?” Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not! There is more on this word and its definition and relationship to “kinds” later in this chapter. The Bible uses the term “kind.” The Bible’s first use of this word (Hebrew: min) is found in Genesis 1 when God creates plants and animals “according to their kinds.” It is used again in Genesis 6 and 8 when God instructs Noah to take two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal onto the ark and also in God’s command for the animals to reproduce after the Flood. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)! So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”
https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ds-in-genesis/

Jose Fly
February 29th, 2016, 10:58 AM
Greg,


Well I guess I'm confused because you have said that genetic information cannot increase but instead only decrease. If that is so, then how is genetic information measured so that you know it cannot increase?

If you can get any creationist to answer that question, you'll have done something no one else could do.

Jose Fly
February 29th, 2016, 11:04 AM
So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind.

Are we going with that? If so, does that mean if we observe populations diverge to the point where they are physically incapable of breeding together, we have witnessed evolution crossing the "kinds" barrier, and the concept of "kinds" is falsified?

6days
February 29th, 2016, 04:15 PM
Well I guess I'm confused because you have said that genetic information cannot increase but instead only decrease.
If you quote something that I said, then I can try defend what I actually said.

6days
February 29th, 2016, 04:35 PM
Are we going with that? If so, does that mean if we observe populations diverge to the point where they are physically incapable of breeding together, we have witnessed evolution crossing the "kinds" barrier, and the concept of "kinds" is falsified?

If you don't have alzheimers Jose, you are dishonest. No matter how often something is explained to you.... you seem not to remember.

So..... again...http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

Jose Fly
February 29th, 2016, 04:59 PM
So AiG's "if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind" is pretty much meaningless, right?

Greg Jennings
February 29th, 2016, 06:15 PM
If you quote something that I said, then I can try defend what I actually said.

Can genetic information increase? Yes or no?

6days
February 29th, 2016, 07:04 PM
Can genetic information increase? Yes or no?
Does a photocopying error resulting duplicated pages provide extra information?

Does gene duplication and polyploidy increase genetic information? I would say no.

6days
February 29th, 2016, 07:07 PM
So AiG's "if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind" is pretty much meaningless, right?
JOSE.... I know you are trying hard to make a good argument but you don't seem to know what you are talking about. This has been answered for you many times in the past. Are you forgetful? If you get off your talking points you might be able to ask more meaningful questions

Jose Fly
February 29th, 2016, 07:11 PM
This has been answered for you many times in the past. Are you forgetful?

And that answer is........?

You don't have any trouble repeating yourself when it comes to your creationist talking points, but suddenly when it comes to answering questions all you can say is "I already answered" without saying what that answer is or where you posted it.

Go ahead, ask me a question you've asked before. I'll tell you "I already answered", but I'll also say "Just so we're clear, here is my answer again..." and I'll either re-state that answer or link to where I posted it before. That's how a true discussion works.

Not this "I already answered, but I won't say what that answer is or show where I posted it" nonsense.

exminister
February 29th, 2016, 08:09 PM
Well I guess I'm confused because you have said that genetic information cannot increase but instead only decrease. If that is so, then how is genetic information measured so that you know it cannot increase? And what exactly constitutes this genetic information?

Greg or Jose,
How is genetic information measured to say it increases?

exminister
February 29th, 2016, 08:37 PM
Greg or Jose,
This article if I understand it is saying Evolution can increase or decrease information.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13617-evolution-myths-natural-selection-leads-to-ever-greater-complexity


Is that right? But I don't see how it is measured. Number of chromosomes would be the same, no?
The genes would turn off but remain as "junk"?

Is it measured by external traits alone ?

6days
February 29th, 2016, 08:41 PM
And that answer is........?The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information. http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

Greg Jennings
February 29th, 2016, 08:48 PM
Does a photocopying error resulting duplicated pages provide extra information?

Does gene duplication and polyploidy increase genetic information? I would say no.

Ok we have now confirmed that you believe that genetic information cannot increase.

If that is so, then how is genetic information measured so that you know it cannot increase? And what exactly constitutes this genetic information?

Greg Jennings
February 29th, 2016, 08:53 PM
Greg or Jose,
How is genetic information measured to say it increases?

Not a clue. I'm trusting in people much smarter and more qualified that they aren't lying to me and the rest of the world.

I'm interested in hearing 6days's explanation of how he is certain that genetic information can only decrease. He must have a method of gathering this "genetic information" if he is saying that info never increases

6days
February 29th, 2016, 10:57 PM
Ok since we have now confirmed that you believe that genetic information cannot increase. If that is so, then how is genetic information measured so that you know it cannot increase? And what exactly constitutes this genetic information?
Hmmmmmm Perhaps we should start with why you MUST believe that genetic information increases.

Darwinian evolution absolutely requires that complex functional information increases on average over the course of time. If Genetic info doesn't increase..... their theory falls.

Anyways Greg, as to your question... Most if not all knowledgeable evolutionists admit that natural selection eliminates existing genetic information.

Ex..... ""Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b]*most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation*as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

So...... Perhaps you should ask your question to these evolutionists...... Genetic information obviously provides variation... How are they determining that natural selection eliminates genetic information / variation? The answer seems fairly easy, but it might be easier to accept from fellow evolutionists?

Yet.... You must believe that somehow....'Please let evolution be true'... that genetic information increases... BUT HOW??? Gene duplication caused by mutations? These are overwhelmingly harmful.

Evolutionists have no mechanism to increase genetic information.... but put their faith in mutations.

World renowned geneticist John Sanford with 80 peer reviewed articles says geneticists have been looking for examples of information increasing mutations but he is unaware of a single clear example. I posted this here previously... "The overwhelmingly deleterious nature of mutations can be seen by the incredible scarcity of clear cases of information creating mutations. It must be understood that scientists have a very sensitive and extensive network for detecting information creating mutations, and most geneticists are diligently keeping their eyes open for them all the time. This has been true for about 100 years. The sensitivity of this observational network is such that even if only one mutation out of a million unambiguously creates new information apart from fine tuning, the literature would be overflowing with reports of this happening. Yet I am still not convinced there is a single crystal clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously Created information"

6days
February 29th, 2016, 11:05 PM
Greg or Jose,
This article if I understand it is saying Evolution can increase or decrease information.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13617-evolution-myths-natural-selection-leads-to-ever-greater-complexity


Is that right? But I don't see how it is measured. Number of chromosomes would be the same, no?
The genes would turn off but remain as "junk"?

Is it measured by external traits alone ?

I don't think the article says evolution increases or decreases??
Your article from my quick glance seems to support the Biblical model, yet they try to fit the data into the evolutionary belief system.

As to measuring....... They are pretty clear that information decreases...... We see it all the time such as in breeding programs that eliminate variation. Yet there are ways to truly measure exact information since geneticists don't gully understand how its even read yet. (It seems there are overlaying layers of complexity and that some DNA is also read backward. How would you quantify that?)

alwight
March 1st, 2016, 02:43 AM
Hmmmmmm Perhaps we should start with why you MUST believe that genetic information increases.Misdirection, I'm quite sure by now that even you do understand that genetic information CAN increase (e.g. gene duplication) because you don't seem to be able to provide any rational reasoning for whatever mechanism it is that you think stops it, nor indeed quantify how much information actually exists.
Face it 6days your overriding concern is how to support daft ideas like "Original Sin" and "The Fall" by any means available, science being typically something of an inconvenience to that goal and thus something to automatically oppose when it contradicts a literal Genesis, why you're almost like a mini AiG or Discovery Institute.

Stripe
March 1st, 2016, 03:21 AM
So what is a "Biblical kind"?
This question has been answered multiple times (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation&p=4346755&viewfull=1#post4346755) over many years.

exminister
March 1st, 2016, 04:48 AM
Sorry. Double post.

exminister
March 1st, 2016, 04:53 AM
I don't think the article says evolution increases or decreases??
Your article from my quick glance seems to support the Biblical model, yet they try to fit the data into the evolutionary belief system.

As to measuring....... They are pretty clear that information decreases...... We see it all the time such as in breeding programs that eliminate variation. Yet there are ways to truly measure exact information since geneticists don't gully understand how its even read yet. (It seems there are overlaying layers of complexity and that some DNA is also read backward. How would you quantify that?)

I linked this article because it was stating its a myth that evolution only increases complexity. It can also go the other way, decreased complexity, which is the only direction for kinds.

I agree while scientist can read the genome, how to read it they have got a long way to go. Saying it increased or decreased is hard to define genetically.

I read Wiki on nylonase. Bacteria in Japan found in 1975 had developed the ability to eat this newly synthetic material unknown before 1935. Proponents of evolution stated it was increased info, a positive and repeatable mutation. Creationist said it was a combining of existing material, already in the design related to transposase genes and not a mutation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria


...had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frameshift mutation. Ohno suggested that many unique new genes have evolved this way.

http://creation.mobi/the-adaptation-of-bacteria-to-feeding-on-nylon-waste

Oh, I see. God at creation said it was very good and nothing can improve after sin. Therefore a mutation can never be good and the news (information) is always bad. Perhaps a bit flippant, but I see the intersect requirement, even demand, of theology and science. Nothing new there for y'all. Just a light for me.

Stripe
March 1st, 2016, 05:04 AM
I read Wiki on nylonase. Bacteria in Japan found in 1975 had developed the ability to eat this newly synthetic material unknown before 1935. Proponents of evolution stated it was increased info, a positive and repeatable mutation. Creationist said it was a combining of existing material, already in the design related to transposase genes and not a mutation.
There's no need to get into a debate over whether it is an increase or decrease in information — there's no simple way to measure such an idea anyway.

However, it is easy to show that evolution was not involved; there was no random mutation or natural selection.

6days
March 1st, 2016, 06:47 AM
I linked this article because it was stating its a myth that evolution only increases complexity. It can also go the other way, decreased complexity, which is the only direction for kinds.

I agree while scientist can read the genome, how to read it they have got a long way to go. Saying it increased or decreased is hard to define genetically.

I read Wiki on nylonase. Bacteria in Japan found in 1975 had developed the ability to eat this newly synthetic material unknown before 1935. Proponents of evolution stated it was increased info, a positive and repeatable mutation. Creationist said it was a combining of existing material, already in the design related to transposase genes and not a mutation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria


http://creation.mobi/the-adaptation-of-bacteria-to-feeding-on-nylon-waste

Oh, I see. God at creation said it was very good and nothing can improve after sin. Therefore a mutation can never be good and the news (information) is always bad. Perhaps a bit flippant, but I see the intersect requirement, even demand, of theology and science. Nothing new there for y'all. Just a light for me.
Mutations can sometimes result in a beneficial outcome. But that is a slightly different topic than increase / decrease of genetic information. In the example you provided, a mutation caused a loss of specificity to a pre- existing enzyme.

Stripe
March 1st, 2016, 07:01 AM
Mutations can sometimes result in a beneficial outcome. But that is a slightly different topic than increase / decrease of genetic information.
This might technically be correct, but the distinction is not worth introducing. Mutations can never improve information, thus any "benefit" will always be alongside a cost — which evolutionists will try to hide — that outweighs the advantage.

Greg Jennings
March 1st, 2016, 08:13 AM
This question has been answered multiple times (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation&p=4346755&viewfull=1#post4346755) over many years.

So what "kind" is a panda according to your definition? Keep in mind they cannot interbreed with other bears

Greg Jennings
March 1st, 2016, 08:14 AM
This might technically be correct, but the distinction is not worth introducing. Mutations can never improve information, thus any "benefit" will always be alongside a cost — which evolutionists will try to hide — that outweighs the advantage.

I'm sure an esteemed professor at a university told you that, and not a AiG "expert" right?

Greg Jennings
March 1st, 2016, 08:22 AM
Hmmmmmm Perhaps we should start with why you MUST believe that genetic information increases.

Darwinian evolution absolutely requires that complex functional information increases on average over the course of time. If Genetic info doesn't increase..... their theory falls.

Anyways Greg, as to your question... Most if not all knowledgeable evolutionists admit that natural selection eliminates existing genetic information.

Ex..... ""Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b]*most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation*as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

So...... Perhaps you should ask your question to these evolutionists...... Genetic information obviously provides variation... How are they determining that natural selection eliminates genetic information / variation? The answer seems fairly easy, but it might be easier to accept from fellow evolutionists?

Yet.... You must believe that somehow....'Please let evolution be true'... that genetic information increases... BUT HOW??? Gene duplication caused by mutations? These are overwhelmingly harmful.

Evolutionists have no mechanism to increase genetic information.... but put their faith in mutations.

World renowned geneticist John Sanford with 80 peer reviewed articles says geneticists have been looking for examples of information increasing mutations but he is unaware of a single clear example. I posted this here previously... "The overwhelmingly deleterious nature of mutations can be seen by the incredible scarcity of clear cases of information creating mutations. It must be understood that scientists have a very sensitive and extensive network for detecting information creating mutations, and most geneticists are diligently keeping their eyes open for them all the time. This has been true for about 100 years. The sensitivity of this observational network is such that even if only one mutation out of a million unambiguously creates new information apart from fine tuning, the literature would be overflowing with reports of this happening. Yet I am still not convinced there is a single crystal clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously Created information"

Any expert in evolution will tell you that beneficial mutations are rare. Very very very rare. That's common knowledge, 6.

You seem to have the same problem with this that you do with deep time: you simply can't fathom things like "every one mutation in 10,000,000 is beneficial and helps an organism" or "light traveled millions of years to reach us" when the statements are plainly true, and have been repeatedly shown to be. Numbers above 6,000 are an issue it would seem.


My recent re-familiarization with geology has once again made me see how utterly ridiculous your YEC positions are. My Christian professor has such a disdain for YECs because, as she puts it, "They aren't scientists because there is only one answer they will accept." Oh, and before you say something like "Christians are always neglected in geology," go take a look at the entire first 150 years of professional geology. All of the ideas are based on biblical Christianity originally, and one by one they all got disproven. For example, basalt deposits were originally thought to be laid down by the ocean and all sedimentary layers laid down during the Great Flood. But through actual science, geologists were able to determine that basalt is an igneous rock that comes from magma and that sedimentary layers could not have been laid down all at once due to the lateral incontinuitues in the layering, as well as fossils and sedimentary features that can't form without exposure to dry atmosphere (such as mudcrack "fossils").

Also, you never told me how you measure genetic information

6days
March 1st, 2016, 08:53 AM
Any expert in evolution will tell you that beneficial mutations are rare. Very very very rare. That's common knowledge, 6.
Greg..... I would give up on this one if I were you. Admit you know little about genetics. We weren't discussing beneficial outcomes.... its a different topic. *But anyways... lets see what you have to say.



"every one mutation in 10,000,000 is beneficial and helps an organism"

Again..... you don't have a clue what you are talking about. For starters where did you get that number? Also.... since you seem to pin your hopes on a 1 in ten million shot at beneficial mutations; how are you handling the multiple deleterious mutations that are added to each succesive generation causing an overall gradual loss of fitness. Keep in mind.... you cannot call on natural selection as your Savior. It does not eliminate the vast majority of deleterious mutations.*

Greg Jennings
March 1st, 2016, 10:32 AM
Greg..... I would give up on this one if I were you. Admit you know little about genetics. We weren't discussing beneficial outcomes.... its a different topic. *But anyways... lets see what you have to say.
Oh man, that's rich. Please please please let's put your AiG "knowledge" up against information gathered from actual college professors. Your confidence is somewhat amusing, though I'm 90% certain it is a front for the insecurity you feel regarding the validity of your favorite origins myth



Again..... you don't have a clue what you are talking about. For starters where did you get that number? Also.... since you seem to pin your hopes on a 1 in ten million shot at beneficial mutations; how are you handling the multiple deleterious mutations that are added to each succesive generation causing an overall gradual loss of fitness.
And again, you are in way over your head. The number was pulled from my head because I don't remember if it was one in a 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 and it doesn't really matter what the exact ratio is. The point is very very few mutations are anything but neutral, and most of those are negative.

Not that I haven't explained this to you ten times before, but I'll tell you why bad Justin's don't pile up. It's pretty simple: If a mutation is so negative that it impacts an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, it isn't going to last long. Is there a chance that it could be passed on from the original carrier to its offspring? Yes, but then remember that at least some of those offspring also now carry that negative mutation, and within a few short generations (at the absolute most) the organisms carrying the negative mutation will have been eliminated.

Let's illustrate this more: a bear is born with no claws. It is difficult for him to catch and kill large animals or to dig for roots, so his fitness is negatively impacted. He will likely die, but if there aren't any big environmental events (drought, flood, other problems) then he still might be able to get by eating bugs or honey or vegetation, though he won't be as strong as the other bears. If he does somehow live long enough to reproduce, his cubs are now also claw-less. They suffer the same deficiencies daddy bear did, but instead of the mild environmental conditions he had growing up, his cubs encounter a big drought in their third year. That drought wipes out all plants and bugs that the claw-less bears rely on, and then they starve. So within a few generations any physically debilitating mutations will be eliminated in the wild.


Keep in mind.... you cannot call on natural selection as your Savior. It does not eliminate the vast majority of deleterious mutations.*
Find me one geneticist who says that natural selection doesn't remove very harmful mutations from a population.

Why is it that you won't tell me how "genetic information" is gathered?



Also: which "kind" is a panda bear?

exminister
March 1st, 2016, 11:40 AM
This might technically be correct, but the distinction is not worth introducing. Mutations can never improve information, thus any "benefit" will always be alongside a cost — which evolutionists will try to hide — that outweighs the advantage.

What kind of cost?

I read about there being trade offs in evolution. For example, rats could have better long lasting teeth, but something like their skeleton is weaker. Is that you you are referring to or is it something else?

Jose Fly
March 1st, 2016, 11:45 AM
Greg or Jose,
How is genetic information measured to say it increases?

According to 6days, the answer is "don't know" (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?94434-Creation-vs-Evolution/page1136&p=4638574#post4638574).


it can't be measured at present since we don't fully understand the overlaying layers of complexity in our DNA, and how its read

Now, in the real world my understanding is that most geneticists think of "genetic information" as functional genetic sequences (setting aside the legal definition of "genetic information", which refers to information about your personal genome). If we go with that, then the question of whether evolutionary mechanisms can generate or increase genetic information/functional sequences is to be honest, pretty silly. It's something we see happen all the time.

6days
March 1st, 2016, 11:53 AM
Why is it that you won't tell me how "genetic information" is gathered?

A bunch of geneticists go out into information fields with long rakes.*

Greg.... now try ask a smart question.*

Also: which "kind" is a panda bear?

I asked 5 year old Tyson just now what kind of animal a Panda is. He says its a bear.

Greg... try harder to ask smart questions.*

6days
March 1st, 2016, 11:55 AM
Find me one geneticist who says that natural selection doesn't remove very harmful mutations from a population.

Unable to counter what was actually said, you once again resort to a strawman.*


I will give you another crack at what I actually said.

6days: "(natural selection)does not eliminate the vast majority of deleterious mutations."

Jose Fly
March 1st, 2016, 12:43 PM
Hmmmmmm Perhaps we should start with why you MUST believe that genetic information increases.

Since you've admitted that you don't know how to measure genetic information, we'll stick with how it's commonly defined in genetics, i.e., genetic information = nucleotide sequences.

Thus, the question becomes: how do we know that evolution can increase or add to nucleotide sequences? The answer is ridiculously easy....we see it happen, all the time.


If Genetic info doesn't increase..... their theory falls.

Then it's a good thing we see it increase. :up:


Evolutionists have no mechanism to increase genetic information.... but put their faith in mutations.

Um...no. Genetic information = nucleotide sequences. Do we see evolution increase the number of nucleotides in a genome? Um....all the time! I mean, you might as well be arguing that it never rains.


World renowned geneticist John Sanford with 80 peer reviewed articles says...

I love it when you cite John Sanford! :up: I just wonder if you even understand how he serves as a perfect walking, breathing illustration of the utility of evolutionary theory and the vacuousness of creationism. Let's see...

Remember THIS INTERVIEW (http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible) with Dr. Sanford you posted previously? I covered it before but you bailed on the thread without responding. Anyways, as Dr. Sanford explains, he used to be an "evolutionist" and that was when he did all his productive work, e.g., those 80 peer reviewed papers you like to cite as well as inventing the gene gun. Let's make no mistake...that's a very impressive body of work...all done while armed with the understanding of evolutionary theory. Then Dr. Sanford "came to believe in God" but kept contributing to science, until as he explains...


"still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history."

Then he describes how he stopped doing science. He claimed at that time he was ready to re-enter the scientific world, but looking through the literature I don't see where he's contributed anything since his conversion.

So when we look at Dr. Sanford's history, we see...

Years as an "evolutionist" = steady production and contributions to science

Becomes a creationist = scientific contributions stop

Do you understand the significance of that? When he utilized evolutionary theory to inform him on how things are related, how they work, and how they came to be, he was extremely productive. But as soon as he dropped evolutionary theory and replaced it with (as you like to say) "in the beginning God created", his scientific productivity comes to a complete halt.

I don't know if anyone could have made up such a perfect illustration of just how useful evolutionary theory is, and how empty creationism is. Fortunately, we don't have to make up such a person....John Sanford is a living, breathing illustration of those things.

Jose Fly
March 1st, 2016, 12:50 PM
This question has been answered multiple times (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation&p=4346755&viewfull=1#post4346755) over many years.

And do you remember the rest of that discussion? I asked (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation&p=4346886&viewfull=1#post4346886)...


How do you establish what is and isn't descended from a universal ancestral population?

How do different populations descend from a common ancestral population, if no population ever evolves?

Your answer (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation&p=4347306&viewfull=1#post4347306): "Genetics" and "They adapt".

And when I asked (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation&p=4347670&viewfull=1#post4347670) what in genetics you would look at and what mechanisms were behind this adaptation, you answered (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation&p=4347777&viewfull=1#post4347777) ":idunno:" (literally, the smiley was the full extent of your answer).

Thanks for linking to that! It was funny then, and still is now. It also serves as a good illustration of the extent of creationism...

:idunno:

Jose Fly
March 1st, 2016, 12:52 PM
There's no need to get into a debate over whether it is an increase or decrease in information — there's no simple way to measure such an idea anyway.

It's good to see you and 6days agree that neither of you have any idea how to measure genetic information. At least we cleared that up.


However, it is easy to show that evolution was not involved; there was no random mutation or natural selection.

6days says natural selection is part of the "Biblical model of creation". Is he wrong?

User Name
March 1st, 2016, 01:29 PM
Mutations can never improve information, thus any "benefit" will always be alongside a cost — which evolutionists will try to hide — that outweighs the advantage.

Viruses (such as the flu virus) constantly mutate and change over time. If it were true that mutations come at a cost, shouldn't such viruses have mutated themselves out of existence?

6days
March 1st, 2016, 03:56 PM
Viruses (such as the flu virus) constantly mutate and change over time. If it were true that mutations come at a cost, shouldn't such viruses have mutated themselves out of existence?
Yup... they sometimes do. The mutated population is often less fit than the parent population. You might compare it to an island population highly adapted to a specific envioronment. They can't survive a sudden change of environment since they no longer have the diverse genome of previous populations.

Jose Fly
March 1st, 2016, 04:16 PM
Yup... they sometimes do. The mutated population is often less fit than the parent population. You might compare it to an island population highly adapted to a specific envioronment. They can't survive a sudden change of environment since they no longer have the diverse genome of previous populations.

It's funny to see how your talking points conflict, all of which you seem to be completely oblivious to. In other cases you argued that loss of specificity was a negative evolutionary step for a species, now here you're saying that an increase of specificity is a negative evolutionary step for a species.

Gee....it's almost like you just say whatever you think works at any given time, without ever worrying about having an actual consistent, coherent point of view. :rolleyes:

User Name
March 1st, 2016, 05:06 PM
Viruses (such as the flu virus) constantly mutate and change over time. If it were true that mutations come at a cost, shouldn't such viruses have mutated themselves out of existence?


Yup... they sometimes do. The mutated population is often less fit than the parent population. You might compare it to an island population highly adapted to a specific envioronment. They can't survive a sudden change of environment since they no longer have the diverse genome of previous populations.

Many viruses, in particular RNA viruses, have short generation times and relatively high mutation rates (on the order of one point mutation or more per genome per round of replication for RNA viruses). This elevated mutation rate, when combined with natural selection, allows viruses to quickly adapt to changes in their host environment...The rapidity of viral mutation also causes problems in the development of successful vaccines and antiviral drugs, as resistant mutations often appear within weeks or months after the beginning of the treatment...Viruses evolve through changes in their RNA (or DNA), some quite rapidly, and the best adapted mutants quickly outnumber their less fit counterparts. In this sense their evolution is Darwinian, just like that of their host organisms. The way viruses reproduce in their host cells makes them particularly susceptible to the genetic changes that help to drive their evolution. The RNA viruses are especially prone to mutations. In host cells there are mechanisms for correcting mistakes when DNA replicates and these kick in whenever cells divide. These important mechanisms prevent potentially lethal mutations from being passed on to offspring. But these mechanisms do not work for RNA and when an RNA virus replicates in its host cell, changes in their genes are occasionally introduced in error, some of which are lethal. One virus particle can produce millions of progeny viruses in just one cycle of replication, therefore the production of a few "dud" viruses is not a problem. Most mutations are "silent" and do not result in any obvious changes to the progeny viruses, but others confer advantages that increase the fitness of the viruses in the environment.

-- Wikipedia: Viral evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolution)

6days
March 1st, 2016, 05:09 PM
In other cases you argued thatloss*of specificity was a negative evolutionary step for a species, now here you're saying that an*increase*of specificity is a negative evolutionary step for a species.Jose.... it might help you to be more honest if you provide quotes and context instead of fabricating.*

6days
March 1st, 2016, 05:19 PM
...but others confer advantages that increase the fitness of the viruses in the environment.
Wikipedia
User....there is little I would disagree with in that. It isn't much different from what I said. . The mutated virus is often less fit than the parent population...only more fit in a very specific environment.

Jose Fly
March 1st, 2016, 05:21 PM
Jose.... it might help you to be more honest if you provide quotes and context instead of fabricating.*

So you deny that when presented examples of the evolution of antibiotic resistance, you replied that they involved "loss of specificity" with the thought that such a thing was a net negative for the species?

6days
March 1st, 2016, 05:29 PM
So you deny that when presented examples of the evolution of antibiotic resistance, you replied that they involved "loss of specificity" with the thought that such a thing was a net negative for the species?
Yes Jose... you are fabricating stuff

Jose Fly
March 1st, 2016, 05:32 PM
Gee, I wonder who posted this?


Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information.

Does that come across as someone who thinks loss of specificity is a good thing or a bad thing?

Shall we continue?

Jose Fly
March 1st, 2016, 06:06 PM
Or hey, let's be more specific (HA!) to exactly what I was talking about (your citation of "loss of specificity" regarding antibiotic resistance, since the last quote of yours I posted was actually about a mutation in humans)...


"Most, if not all mutations with a beneficial outcome have destroyed pre-existing information. For example in chromosomal mutations that lead to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, cell *function is routinely lost.(Such as a loss of specificity of an enzyme)." LINK (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?94434-Creation-vs-Evolution&p=4401248&viewfull=1#post4401248)

Jose Fly
March 1st, 2016, 06:08 PM
Oh yeah, and how about that Dr. John Sanford (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116656-Scientists-baffled-by-a-perfect-example-of-Biblical-kinds&p=4639026&viewfull=1#post4639026)? Pretty cool, eh? :thumb:

Greg Jennings
March 1st, 2016, 06:33 PM
A bunch of geneticists go out into information fields with long rakes.*
So you say you're certain that genetic information cannot increase.......yet you haven't the foggiest idea of how you gather or measure it. Nice.


Greg.... now try ask a smart question.*


I asked 5 year old Tyson just now what kind of animal a Panda is. He says its a bear.

Greg... try harder to ask smart questions.*
Oh goodie. I was hoping you'd say that. Fun fact of the day #2: Pandas can't interbreed with any other bear species. How can they be a bear "kind" if they cannot interbreed with other species within their "kind"?

6days
March 1st, 2016, 06:40 PM
Pandas can't interbreed with any other bear species. How can they be a bear "kind" if they cannot interbreed with other species within their "kind"?
DUH.

Greg Jennings
March 1st, 2016, 06:40 PM
Unable to counter what was actually said, you once again resort to a strawman.*


I will give you another crack at what I actually said.

6days: "(natural selection)does not eliminate the vast majority of deleterious mutations."
Ok. Then find me a geneticist who agrees with that. Prove you aren't just making this all up

6days
March 1st, 2016, 06:43 PM
There....the answer to the question "how do we measure genetic information" is "don't know".

What I actually said is 'Jose does not understand genetics, or he would realize his question is still stupid'.. O explained "(evolutionists) are*pretty clear that information decreases...... We see it all the time such as in breeding programs that eliminate variation. Yet there are ways to truly measure exact information since geneticists don't fully understand how its even read yet. (It seems there are overlaying layers of complexity and that some DNA is also read backward. How would you quantify that?)"


As I said, if you believe copying, changing, and rearranging things can't generate new information, then by that logic....

Strawmam.... mutations certainly generate "new" info. Corrupted information is new.*


As your answer shows, Talk Origins was right.* Despite all your grandiose claims about "genetic information", you don't what it is or how to measure it.

Again... you have fallen for a silly atheist argument. Although evolutionists can't measure how much information is in DNA, they still seem to understand / admit that natural selection and mutations destroy pre-exiating genetic information.*


I'll make sure and save your post just in case you forget.

In case I forget? :) Jose....as Stripe pointed out *today, you are the forgetful one. You cry over and over that your silly questions haven't been answered. Both he and I have now shown that your claims are dishonest.*

Greg Jennings
March 1st, 2016, 06:45 PM
DUH.So is a panda, which you just said was a member of the bear "kind" on the last page, a part of that group or isn't it?

Jose Fly
March 1st, 2016, 07:03 PM
What I actually said is 'Jose does not understand genetics, or he would realize his question is still stupid'.. O explained "(evolutionists) are*pretty clear that information decreases...... We see it all the time such as in breeding programs that eliminate variation. Yet there are ways to truly measure exact information since geneticists don't fully understand how its even read yet. (It seems there are overlaying layers of complexity and that some DNA is also read backward. How would you quantify that?)"

What in the world is wrong with you? Not only are you responding to a post in a different thread, you're ignoring quite a bit of what was said. This is what you said regarding genetic information (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?94434-Creation-vs-Evolution/page1136&p=4638574#post4638574)...


But essentially, it can't be measured at present since we don't fully understand the overlaying layers of complexity in our DNA, and how its read

Do you stand by that or not?


Strawmam.... mutations certainly generate "new" info. Corrupted information is new.*

Then we agree...mutations certainly generate new information.


Again... you have fallen for a silly atheist argument.

What are you talking about? Yesterday you said that genetic information can't be measured, despite all the claims you've made over the years about relative amounts of it. That's exactly what Talk Origins said creationists do, i.e., "Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting."


Although evolutionists can't measure how much information is in DNA, they still seem to understand / admit that natural selection and mutations destroy pre-exiating genetic information.*

No, selection eliminates some harmful genetic sequences, but it also promotes and spreads some beneficial sequences. It's very telling that you leave the second part of that out all the time. We know that because not only do we see it happen all the time, we also manipulate the process for our own benefit.


In case I forget? :) Jose....as Stripe pointed out *today, you are the forgetful one. You cry over and over that your silly questions haven't been answered. Both he and I have now shown that your claims are dishonest.*

Really? So you'd previously told me that genetic information can't be measured? Where?

6days
March 1st, 2016, 07:04 PM
Ok. Then find me a geneticist who agrees with that. {That*natural selection does not eliminate the vast majority of deleterious mutations.}Prove you aren't just making this all up


Greg.... if you knew just a wee bit you could be dangerous! You really don't know what you are talking about. Why do you think geneticists write articles about genetic burden (various names). It is because several deleterious mutations are added to our genome with each successive generation. Natural selection eliminates little. It is the savior of evolutionists it but it is such a week impotent Savior.


There are many articles I could refer you to. For ex. Kondrashov in 1995 wrote "Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why we have not died 100 times over? Published in theoretical biology


In that article he is only talking about slightly deleterious mutations. He is not considering the more harmful mutations that are not eliminated by natural selection. Would you like to learn about them?

6days
March 1st, 2016, 07:07 PM
So is a panda, which you just said was a member of the bear "kind" on the last page, a part of that group or isn't it?
Yes... we call Pandas BEARS!

Jose Fly
March 1st, 2016, 07:12 PM
Yes... we call Pandas BEARS!

So I guess red pandas are also in this "kind", since we call them PANDAS!!

:rotfl:

Jonahdog
March 1st, 2016, 08:14 PM
Yes... we call Pandas BEARS!

and we call tardigrades "water bears"

6days
March 1st, 2016, 08:14 PM
So I guess red pandas are also in this "kind", since we call them PANDAS!!

:rotfl:
I wonder what Greg thinks a Panda is. Most peoe call it a bear.
Its like calling both a tuna and a minnow a fish.

M

6days
March 1st, 2016, 08:17 PM
'm quite sure by now that even you do understand that genetic information CAN increase

Disagree.

Again back to the example of the extremely simple whisk fern. Althougg its genome is far larger than that of humans, it contains far less meaningful info. *Again, like a book with numerous duplicated pages... *it isn't adding information.*

6days
March 1st, 2016, 08:23 PM
and we call tardigrades "water bears"
Good point Jonah. Lets hope Greg sees this.

Jonahdog
March 1st, 2016, 08:32 PM
Good point Jonah. Lets hope Greg sees this.

Are tardigrades in the bear kind?

6days
March 1st, 2016, 08:38 PM
Are tardigrades in the bear kind?
Depends what you mean. Do you think they are the same kind of animal as a polar bear?

I thought Greg might be interested in your point because he seems to be working on something to do with things that are called bears. We could also mention koala bears and gummy bears.

Crucible
March 1st, 2016, 11:11 PM
Don't be so concerned with the arrogance of atheists and their evolution- half of it is much trumped up theory and the other the default assumption of the person in denial of their own intrinsic recognizance of God- the suckle from birth you knew from your beginning.

alwight
March 2nd, 2016, 02:14 AM
Don't be so concerned with the arrogance of atheists and their evolution- half of it is much trumped up theory and the other the default assumption of the person in denial of their own intrinsic recognizance of God- the suckle from birth you knew from your beginning.I'd be more concerned with those theists who insist that evolution is only for atheists.

Crucible
March 2nd, 2016, 02:22 AM
I'd be more concerned with those theists who insist that evolution is only for atheists.

Evolution is, by reason and definition, the 'Pentateuch' of atheist belief. To believe there is no creator is to clamber unto natural possibilities.

alwight
March 2nd, 2016, 02:35 AM
Evolution is, by reason and definition, the 'Pentateuch' of atheist belief. To believe there is no creator is to clamber unto natural possibilities.Some atheists may believe that there is no creator while others, the majority imo, don't pretend to know nor will they make presumptive assumptions either way in lieu of specific facts and evidence.

Crucible
March 2nd, 2016, 02:41 AM
Some atheists may believe that there is no creator while others, the majority imo, don't pretend to know nor will they make presumptive assumptions either way in lieu of specific facts and evidence.

That's a bunch of nonsense.
Get cancer and tell me more about how the universe came from a magic bean :rolleyes:

gcthomas
March 2nd, 2016, 02:49 AM
Disagree.

Again back to the example of the extremely simple whisk fern. Althougg its genome is far larger than that of humans, it contains far less meaningful info. *Again, like a book with numerous duplicated pages... *it isn't adding information.*

So how is that measured, again? :chuckle:

alwight
March 2nd, 2016, 02:52 AM
Disagree.

Again back to the example of the extremely simple whisk fern. Althougg its genome is far larger than that of humans, it contains far less meaningful info. *Again, like a book with numerous duplicated pages... *it isn't adding information.*Just suppose for a minute that I had a book of information which contained several duplicate pages.
If I erased a few lines from a duplicate page then that information has not been lost since it still exists on another page, correct?
If I erased say several such lines and replaced them with some new information, perhaps copied and pasted from elsewhere, then the total information in that book has increased, right? :sherlock:

alwight
March 2nd, 2016, 03:06 AM
That's a bunch of nonsense.
Get cancer and tell me more about how the universe came from a magic bean :rolleyes:Please don't talk to me about getting cancer since I'm currently doing chemotherapy after bowel cancer surgery, from which I expect to make a full recovery btw, thanks for asking.
Unlike you most atheists including me do not claim to know the ultimate question nor try to explain it with superstition and mumbo-jumbo.

Stripe
March 2nd, 2016, 03:16 AM
What kind of cost?I read about there being trade offs in evolution. For example, rats could have better long lasting teeth, but something like their skeleton is weaker. Is that you you are referring to or is it something else?I am not referring to that example in particular, but that is the idea.


Do you remember the rest of that discussion?
Do you concede that your question has been asked and answered numerous times?


You and 6days agree that neither of you have any idea how to measure genetic information.Don't be daft. I have plenty of ideas of how to do that. However, such methods are well beyond scientists because they have almost no understanding of how DNA is written.


6days says natural selection is part of the "Biblical model of creation." Is he wrong?No.

Did you have something of relevance to contribute, because this silly tactic of yours is nothing but a red herring.


Viruses (such as the flu virus) constantly mutate and change over time. If it were true that mutations come at a cost, shouldn't such viruses have mutated themselves out of existence?That would depend on several factors:
1. Are what evolutionists call "mutations" actually random changes, or are they design features?
2. How good was the original design at preserving viability?
3. How long have viruses been degrading?

gcthomas
March 2nd, 2016, 03:24 AM
There are many articles I could refer you to. For ex. Kondrashov in 1995 wrote "Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why we have not died 100 times over? Published in theoretical biology


In that article he is only talking about slightly deleterious mutations. He is not considering the more harmful mutations that are not eliminated by natural selection. Would you like to learn about them?

Yes, I would. Could you reproduce the part of the paper that most supports your contention, please? (I can't get any more that the abstract - so unless you have paid access, I think you are just reproducing parts of a YEC bibliography bank without reading your claimed sources - a very dishonest approach, IMO)

chair
March 2nd, 2016, 03:49 AM
A curious thread, in which the creationists insist that evolution happens, even much faster than scientists think. They just don't like the mechanism.

Stripe
March 2nd, 2016, 04:38 AM
Creationists insist that evolution happens.
Nope.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. That never happened and the idea is dead in the water.

Jonahdog
March 2nd, 2016, 05:09 AM
That's a bunch of nonsense.
Get cancer and tell me more about how the universe came from a magic bean :rolleyes:

Where did cancer come from? A result of The Fall?

chair
March 2nd, 2016, 09:21 AM
Nope.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. That never happened and the idea is dead in the water.

Webster:
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

6days
March 2nd, 2016, 09:27 AM
Where did cancer come from?

Mutations - evolutionists magic bean that transformed brachiopods into brain surgeons.*

6days
March 2nd, 2016, 09:32 AM
Could you reproduce the part of the paper that most supports your contention, please?

GC.... it isn't just my contention. Its something every geneticist would agree with. I'm sure you must agree also.

Natural selection is incapable of removing most deleterious mutations. We carry thousands of deleterious mutations.*


The article I quoted from Kondrashov admits the problem in the title. No, I don't have more than the abstract. Kondrahov is an evolutionist and has wrote other similar articles. He tries to understand the high rate of accumulating mutations within his belief system.*


GC....do you believe natural selection removes most deleterious mutations? *I'm guessing you know more than enough to know NS is incapable of detecting most mutations. With the Kondrashov title that you responded to, he was only discussing slightly deletwrious mutations. If we have only 100 of those per generation added to our genome, and natural selection removes them ...what would the birth rate need to be so that humanity survives? :)


One more thing.... I sarcastically asked Greg if he wanted to learn about deleterious mutations. You sarcastically replied 'yes'. *However, maybe we could dicuss things. Would you agree that we have at least 2 (possibly many more) harmful mutations that are added to our genome with each successive generation. IOW deleterious as opposed to slightly deleterious.*

User Name
March 2nd, 2016, 10:16 AM
Viruses (such as the flu virus) constantly mutate and change over time. If it were true that mutations come at a cost, shouldn't such viruses have mutated themselves out of existence?


Are what evolutionists call "mutations" actually random changes, or are they design features?

Are what creationists call "mutations" actually random changes, or are they design features?

Jose Fly
March 2nd, 2016, 10:35 AM
Don't be so concerned with the arrogance of atheists and their evolution

I love it when fundamentalists basically walk away from the sciences. :thumb:

Jose Fly
March 2nd, 2016, 10:39 AM
Do you concede that your question has been asked and answered numerous times?

Not in any meaningful way, unless you seriously expect anyone to count ":idunno:" as an "answer".

But I suppose an idunno smiley does serve as a good icon for the state of creationism today.


Don't be daft. I have plenty of ideas of how to do that. However, such methods are well beyond scientists because they have almost no understanding of how DNA is written.

Sure...let us know when you get around to figuring it out.


No.

So you say natural selection never happens, 6days says it does and is part of the "Biblical model of creation", and now you say he's not wrong.

Way to go Stripe.


Did you have something of relevance to contribute, because this silly tactic of yours is nothing but a red herring.

I'm sure you think of it that way.

gcthomas
March 2nd, 2016, 10:48 AM
GC.... it isn't just my contention. Its something every geneticist would agree with. I'm sure you must agree also.
Natural selection is incapable of removing most deleterious mutations. We carry thousands of deleterious mutations.*

Slightly deleterious mutations do not need removing, since even if they become fixed in the genome rather than just drift to higher frequencies, they may well become fixed in concert with other beneficial mutations. So no real relative harm done. Seriously deleterious mutations cause genetic deaths in a significant proportion of individuals, so I would expect that removal rates of 10 - 100 per generation with the aid of synergistic epistasis for the individually less lethal mutations.


GC....do you believe natural selection removes most deleterious mutations? *I'm guessing you know more than enough to know NS is incapable of detecting most mutations. With the Kondrashov title that you responded to, he was only discussing slightly deletwrious mutations. If we have only 100 of those per generation added to our genome, and natural selection removes them ...what would the birth rate need to be so that humanity survives? :)

You are mixing several different questions here. First, if a mutation doesn't affect the survival rate of carriers, then it cannot be considered seriously deleterious. Slightly deleterious ones I have dealt with already. Large-effect mutations also tend to be partially recessive and so only occasionally harmful.


Would you agree that we have at least 2 (possibly many more) harmful mutations that are added to our genome with each successive generation. IOW deleterious as opposed to slightly deleterious.*

The 2.2 mutations per generation refer to whole genome rates - a better figure would be the 0.35 per generation in protein coding regions. And yes - it is plausible that in today's restricted evolution environment these mild mutations are accumulating at a slow rate, but as long as current environmental conditions are maintained or improved I don't see them causing problems. With the 0.35 figure, fitness loss per mutation are calculated to be between 0.0015% and 0.02% depending on the population. Strongly deleterious mutations are very rare, and are removed rapidly by purifying selection.

If conditions reverted, then evolution would return to selecting out those individuals with several of these mutations at a rate higher than the mutation rate, and the population would carry on regardless.

ClimateSanity
March 2nd, 2016, 10:52 AM
Slightly deleterious mutations do not need removing, since even if they become fixed in the genome rather than just drift to higher frequencies, they may well become fixed in concert with other beneficial mutations. So no real relative harm done. Seriously deleterious mutations cause genetic deaths in a significant proportion of individuals, so I would expect that removal rates of 10 - 100 per generation with the aid of synergistic epistasis for the individually less lethal mutations.



You are mixing several different questions here. First, if a mutation doesn't affect the survival rate of carriers, then it cannot be considered seriously deleterious. Slightly deleterious ones I have dealt with already. Large-effect mutations also tend to be partially recessive and so only occasionally harmful.



The 2.2 mutations per generation refer to whole genome rates - a better figure would be the 0.35 per generation in protein coding regions. And yes - it is plausible that in today's restricted evolution environment these mild mutations are accumulating at a slow rate, but as long as current environmental conditions are maintained or improved I don't see them causing problems. With the 0.35 figure, fitness loss per mutation are calculated to be between 0.0015% and 0.02% depending on the population. Strongly deleterious mutations are very rare, and are removed rapidly by purifying selection.

If conditions reverted, then evolution would return to selecting out those individuals with several of these mutations at a rate higher than the mutation rate, and the population would carry on regardless.

Are you a paid professional scientist or is science your hobby?

gcthomas
March 2nd, 2016, 11:09 AM
Are you a paid professional scientist or is science your hobby?

I am a physicist, so I don't research in biology. But I understand the principles well, especially the statistics aspects in this particular topic, so I can properly read the research papers.

ClimateSanity
March 2nd, 2016, 11:15 AM
I am a physicist, so I don't research in biology. But I understand the principles well, especially the statistics aspects in this particular topic, so I can properly read the research papers.

You learned the principles in undergraduate studies like i did I'm sure. Anyone who has knows the boatloads of evidence for evolution both micro and macro. The ones who oppose it on this board must have never been taught evolution beyond the high school level or took biology for non science majors in college.

6days
March 2nd, 2016, 02:25 PM
Slightly deleterious mutations do not need removing, since even if they become fixed in the genome rather than just drift to higher frequencies, they may well become fixed in concert with other beneficial mutations.

Slightly deleterious mutations really do contribute to a loss of fitness. Your suggestion that they don't need to be removed is an attempt to *shoehorn common ancestry beliefs fit the evidence.

Geneticist J.G.Crow: "the typical mutation is very mild. It usually has no overt effect, but shows up as a small decrease in viabilty or fertility"*

*He goes on to suggest that the decrease in viability from mutation is 1 to 2% per generation.*

Published in PNAS 1994 " THE High Spontaneous Mutation Rate:"


.... I would expect that removal rates of 10 - 100 per generation with the aid of synergistic epistasis for the individually less lethal mutations. Synergistic epistasis is one of several different models proposed by evolutionists to try and explain away the evidence of a very high mutational load. *A more realistic outcome is*synthetic lethality.*




The 2.2 mutations per generation refer to whole genome rates - a better figure would be the 0.35 per generation in protein coding regions. And yes - it is plausible that in today's restricted evolution environment these mild mutations are accumulating at a slow rate....

2.2?

I had asked if you agree that at least 2 harmful mutations are added to our genome with each sucessive generation. The guesstimate numbers vary between different geneticists.

Kondrashov says that we have about 100 mutations per diploid human genome per generation and that " at least 10% of these are deleterious". That would mean about 10 harmful (not "slightly") mutations are added to our genome with each successive generation.*


Also.... it seems you are trying to downplaythe issue calling it a "slow rate". *Geneticists discuss the mutation rate with words such as "problematic...surprising...meltdown" etc.*


If conditions reverted, then evolution would return to selecting out those individuals with several of these mutations at a rate higher than the mutation rate, and the population would carry on regard That is the logic the Nazi's used to elimate the unfit since natural selection wasn't keeping up.

In your scenario.....it seems you think that if modern medicine was eliminated that humans would eventually be more fit? Its also possible, it would rapidly lead to extinction.*

gcthomas
March 2nd, 2016, 03:32 PM
Thanks for playing 6 days, but you have ceased to contribute anything interesting.

Stripe
March 2nd, 2016, 08:12 PM
Are what creationists call "mutations" actually random changes, or are they design features?Words have meaning. Look up a dictionary. Mutations are mutations, they are not by design.


Not in any meaningful way.So you don't think the definition of kind is a meaningful response to a request for the definition of kind.


So you say natural selection never happensNope.

You're not very good at this whole conversation thing are you? You ask the same questions over and over, ignoring the clear answers, and you make up things for your opponents to say.

Let me guess: Evolutionist, right?

chair
March 2nd, 2016, 10:09 PM
...

That is the logic the Nazi's used to elimate the unfit since natural selection wasn't keeping up.

In your scenario.....it seems you think that if modern medicine was eliminated that humans would eventually be more fit? Its also possible, it would rapidly lead to extinction.*

The theory of evolution s about how nature works. It is not about morals. Your argument here is absurd- especially dragging the Nazi's into it.

Stripe
March 3rd, 2016, 07:19 AM
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: <gives definition>
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?

alwight
March 3rd, 2016, 08:51 AM
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: <gives definition>
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: claims that a definition was given earlier
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 11:23 AM
If conditions reverted, then evolution would return to selecting out those individuals with several of these mutations at a rate higher than the mutation rate, and the population would carry on regard

That is the logic the Nazi's used to elimate the unfit since natural selection wasn't keeping up.

Your argument here is absurd- especially dragging the Nazi's into it.

It isn't my argument. It's the argument that GC made which mirrors the logic Nazi's used to eliminate those they deemed unfit.


Words from a Nazi in one of their propoganda films...

"All that is unviable in nature invariably perishes. We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection... not only have we supported inferior life forms, we have encouraged their propagation. Sick people looks like this....(video of people who were likely destined for the gas chamber). ... Tens of thousands of drooling imbeciles have been fed and cared for... individual of lower than beasts."

Stripe
March 3rd, 2016, 11:24 AM
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: claims that a definition was given earlier
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Unfortunately for your false narrative, the definition has been given numerous times, making you a liar.

gcthomas
March 3rd, 2016, 11:32 AM
It isn't my argument. It's the argument that GC made which mirrors the logic Nazi's used to eliminate those they deemed unfit.


An outrageous slur, 6Days. Do you not have the cognitive power to see the difference between a description of nature and an expression of its moral desirability? To be honest, 6D, the fact of your existence is the single strongest argument you have made that argues against survival of the fittest …

alwight
March 3rd, 2016, 11:40 AM
Unfortunately for your false narrative, the definition has been given numerous times, making you a liar.I can assure you Stripe that your opinion is always valuable to me, what do you think defines a "kind"?:sheep:

Jose Fly
March 3rd, 2016, 01:27 PM
So you don't think the definition of kind is a meaningful response to a request for the definition of kind.

The definition of "kind" you gave (organisms that share a common ancestry) is fine. But it's not very useful when, asked how we should determine what organisms share a common ancestry, your answer is ":idunno:".

Also, so far that's your definition for "kind". So when I'm conversing with you, I will go with that definition. But when I'm conversing with someone else I'm going to ask them what their definition of the term is. Given all the things you conflict with other creationists on, this approach is warranted.


Nope.

No it never happens, or no you never said it doesn't happen?

User Name
March 3rd, 2016, 01:39 PM
The mutated population is often less fit than the parent population.

Has any species ever gone extinct due solely to mutations?

If not, how can it be said that the mutated population is often less fit than the parent population? Mutations happen in every generation.

Jose Fly
March 3rd, 2016, 01:48 PM
Has any species ever gone extinct due solely to mutations?

If not, how can it be said that the mutated population is often less fit than the parent population? Mutations happen in every generation.

Put all this in context of 6days' "Biblical model of creation", where....

One breeding pair of each "kind" was taken aboard the ark, and after the flood, through a process of nothing but losses of fitness, reductions in "genetic information", and "corruption" of genomes, those breeding pairs rapidly gave rise to all the species that have since existed.

Oh, and nowhere in the genomes of any organisms do we see any evidence of this absurd bottleneck where Ne was reduced to 2.

Makes total sense, right? :chuckle:

Jose Fly
March 3rd, 2016, 01:52 PM
And something else I wonder about. Hopefully one of our resident YEC's can clarify...

According to young-earth creationism, during the creation week God created organisms "according to their kinds". Does that mean God created a representative for each "kind" that later gave rise to all the different species, or did God create all the species in that week and just referred to them as "kinds"?

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 03:11 PM
Yes... we call Pandas BEARS!

But your definition of "kinds" requires all members of one kind, in this case the "bear kind", to be able to mate with one another, doesn't it?

Of course remember that pandas cannot breed with other bear species

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 03:14 PM
Greg.... if you knew just a wee bit you could be dangerous! You really don't know what you are talking about. Why do you think geneticists write articles about genetic burden (various names). It is because several deleterious mutations are added to our genome with each successive generation. Natural selection eliminates little. It is the savior of evolutionists it but it is such a week impotent Savior.


There are many articles I could refer you to. For ex. Kondrashov in 1995 wrote "Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why we have not died 100 times over? Published in theoretical biology


In that article he is only talking about slightly deleterious mutations. He is not considering the more harmful mutations that are not eliminated by natural selection. Would you like to learn about them?
Please post a link to the article and the article itself so I and other can examine it, and we'll see if it matches up with what you say.

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 03:16 PM
I wonder what Greg thinks a Panda is. Most peoe call it a bear.
Its like calling both a tuna and a minnow a fish.

M

It's a bear, and my definition of species (or more accurately, the one I'm borrowing from the scientific community) fits that perfectly.

However if it is a bear then your previous definition of "kinds" is incorrect

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 03:20 PM
Depends what you mean. Do you think they are the same kind of animal as a polar bear?

I thought Greg might be interested in your point because he seems to be working on something to do with things that are called bears. We could also mention koala bears and gummy bears.

The difference is that pandas ARE bears (unlike koalas), yet still cannot interbreed with other bear species. According to you and others here, species within any "kind" can diversify within that "kind" but they are always able to breed with each other.

Pandas are bears, yet unable to breed with other species within the bear "kind".

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 03:21 PM
That's a bunch of nonsense.
Get cancer and tell me more about how the universe came from a magic bean :rolleyes:

Ahh yes.....I forgot that Christians are immune to cancer. Amazing

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 03:36 PM
Has any species ever gone extinct due solely to mutations?"Reproduction is inherently risky, in part because genomic replication can introduce new mutations that are usually deleterious toward fitness. This risk is especially severe for organisms whose genomes replicate “semi-conservatively,” e.g. viruses and bacteria, where no master copy of the genome is preserved. Lethal mutagenesis refers to extinction of populations due to an unbearably high mutation rate...."*

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410861/

"Theory suggests that the risk of extinction by mutation accumulation can be comparable to that by environmental stochasticity for an isolated population smaller than a few thousand individuals. Here we show that metapopulation structure, habitat loss or fragmentation, and environmental stochasticity can be expected to greatly accelerate the accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations, lowering the genetic effective size to such a degree that even large metapopulations may be at risk of extinction"http://m.pnas.org/content/98/5/2928.full


Lets use T-Rex as an example of something going extinct solely because of mutations. *Surely you have heard that it mutated into a chicken? :) (dinosaur to bird belief)

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 03:42 PM
According to you and others here, species within any "kind" can diversify within that "kind" but they are always able to breed with each other
Greg... are you trying for the title of strawman king?
I have NEVER claimed that.

gcthomas
March 3rd, 2016, 04:10 PM
"Reproduction is inherently risky, in part because genomic replication can introduce new mutations that are usually deleterious toward fitness. This risk is especially severe for organisms whose genomes replicate “semi-conservatively,” e.g. viruses and bacteria, where no master copy of the genome is preserved. Lethal mutagenesis refers to extinction of populations due to an unbearably high mutation rate...."*

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410861/

"Theory suggests that the risk of extinction by mutation accumulation can be comparable to that by environmental stochasticity for an isolated population smaller than a few thousand individuals. Here we show that metapopulation structure, habitat loss or fragmentation, and environmental stochasticity can be expected to greatly accelerate the accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations, lowering the genetic effective size to such a degree that even large metapopulations may be at risk of extinction"http://m.pnas.org/content/98/5/2928.full


Lets use T-Rex as an example of something going extinct solely because of mutations. *Surely you have heard that it mutated into a chicken? :) (dinosaur to bird belief)

Huh?!

How can T Rex have mutated into birds AND gone extinct?

Doesn't extinct mean 'leaves no descendants' in your fantasy YEC world?

alwight
March 3rd, 2016, 04:15 PM
Lets use T-Rex as an example of something going extinct solely because of mutations. *Surely you have heard that it mutated into a chicken? :) (dinosaur to bird belief)
The K-T extinction "mutation" perhaps? :Plain:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html

User Name
March 3rd, 2016, 04:15 PM
Lets use T-Rex as an example of something going extinct solely because of mutations. *Surely you have heard that it mutated into a chicken? :) (dinosaur to bird belief)

No, I hadn't heard that T-Rex went extinct solely because of mutations, or that T-Rex mutated into chickens. This is what I heard:

"The evolution of birds is thought to have begun in the Jurassic Period, with the earliest birds derived from a clade of theropoda dinosaurs named Paraves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraves)." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds

User Name
March 3rd, 2016, 04:36 PM
The K-T extinction "mutation" perhaps? :Plain:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html

Speaking of which: Scientists gear up to drill into ‘ground zero’ of the impact that killed the dinosaurs (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/scientists-gear-drill-ground-zero-impact-killed-dinosaurs?utm_source=newsfromscience&utm_medium=facebook-text&utm_campaign=groundzero-2735)

It will be very interesting to see what they find.

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 04:40 PM
How can T Rex have mutated into birds AND gone extinct?

Hmm... good question. I guess it must be some of that magic bean stuff. Or, maybe I'm just mixing up my fairy tales?

Washington Post headline..."Dinosaurs aren’t really extinct (sorry, Jurassic Park)"
Or
"Extinction of the Dinosaur". http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/cretaceous4.html

Gc..... you are correct though... I get your point.

alwight
March 3rd, 2016, 04:50 PM
Speaking of which: Scientists gear up to drill into ‘ground zero’ of the impact that killed the dinosaurs (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/scientists-gear-drill-ground-zero-impact-killed-dinosaurs?utm_source=newsfromscience&utm_medium=facebook-text&utm_campaign=groundzero-2735)

It will be very interesting to see what they find.If they find a tyranochicken fossil we may have a problem, it would of course need to be kept hidden from YECs at all costs so that evolutionists can keep their belief system intact. :rolleyes:

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 04:52 PM
Speaking of which: Scientists gear up to drill into ‘ground zero’ of the impact that killed the dinosaurs (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/scientists-gear-drill-ground-zero-impact-killed-dinosaurs?utm_source=newsfromscience&utm_medium=facebook-text&utm_campaign=groundzero-2735)

It will be very interesting to see what they find.KFC... original recipe

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 05:08 PM
Lets use T-Rex as an example of something going extinct solely because of mutations. *Surely you have heard that it mutated into a chicken? :) (dinosaur to bird belief)

Nope. Raptors are the ones thought to have evolved into birds. They had feathers, identical hip structure, and some smaller ones even had hollow-ish bones.

T-Rex I'm fairly certain is thought to be the last of its line.

It'd be nice if you just for once could represent something accurately

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 05:11 PM
Greg... are you trying for the title of strawman king?
I have NEVER claimed that.

Well I apologize then. In that case, would you be so kind as to give your definition of "kind" for me? I think you'll agree it's crucial for the understanding of your "biblical model of creation."


Fun fact: Bats are members of the bird "kind" according to Leviticus 11:19. Would you agree with the idea that bats and birds are the same "kind" 6days?

ok doser
March 3rd, 2016, 05:14 PM
strawmen beget strawmen

after their own kind :)

k10vvn
March 3rd, 2016, 05:22 PM
The difference is that pandas ARE bears (unlike koalas), yet still cannot interbreed with other bear species. According to you and others here, species within any "kind" can diversify within that "kind" but they are always able to breed with each other.

Pandas are bears, yet unable to breed with other species within the bear "kind".
But, other bears cannot mate with each other either. Its not just pandas not being able to mate with other bears, polar bears don't mate with brown bears. Moreover, lets expand this "kind" more. What other "kinds" do we see?? The whole argument is silly?? Lizard kind? Mankind? Squirrel kind? These "kinds" r just different categories we put animals in to understand their nature better. It has very little to do with their ability to mate with one another.

Lastly, to the op of this thread. One anecdote does not warrant enough of an argument to throw out a scientific theory. The theory will continue to adapt until a better theory comes along to replace it. All evolution is, is a structure of understanding biological development. If you are a "young earth" theorist, then I hope you grow to realize that your idea of "intelligent design" and "evolution" are not mutually exclusive. "young earth" is a terrible idea that has been disproven with multiple sources of evidence, but is still preach by Ken Ham for no good reason other then his own ego.

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 05:26 PM
But, other bears cannot mate with each other either. Its not just pandas not being able to mate with other bears, polar bears don't mate with brown bears. Moreover, lets expand this "kind" more. What other "kinds" do we see?? The whole argument is silly?? Lizard kind? Mankind? Squirrel kind? These "kinds" r just different categories we put animals in to understand their nature better. It has very little to do with their ability to mate with one another.

Lastly, to the op of this thread. One anecdote does not warrant enough of an argument to throw out a scientific theory. The theory will continue to adapt until a better theory comes along to replace it. All evolution is, is a structure of understanding biological development. If you are a "young earth" theorist, then I hope you grow to realize that your idea of "intelligent design" and "evolution" are not mutually exclusive. "young earth" is a terrible idea that has been disproven with multiple sources of evidence, but is still preach by Ken Ham for no good reason other then his own ego.

No I'm not a YEC. We agree on basically everything you are saying except that bear species do breed together. Brown/black hybrids are common where the two species' ranges overlap, and a few wild polar/brown hybrids have been killed in northern Canada

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 05:27 PM
Well I apologize then. In that case, would you be so kind as to give your definition of "kind" for me? I think you'll agree it's crucial for the understanding of your "biblical model of creation."

Fun fact: Bats are members of the bird "kind" according to Leviticus 11:19. Would you agree with the idea that bats and birds are the same "kind" 6days?
Greg... you need to stop looking for silly arguments found on atheist websites. Bats are not described as part of the bird kind... but as part of 'flying things'.

Also... thanks for the apology.

Re definition.....Here is what I already said in this thread...
It seems strange that evolutionists are so interested in Biblical "kinds" when they can't clearly define and determine their own terminology with words like 'species'.That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41


(Definition of Biblical kind) has been clearly defined by myself in other threads, as well as by Stripe and others. Musterion defined it in this thread..."A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc)."

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 05:34 PM
Greg... you need to stop looking for silly arguments found on atheist websites. Bats are not described as part of the bird kind... but as part of 'flying things'.

Also... thanks for the apology.

Re definition.....Here is what I already said in this thread...
It seems strange that evolutionists are so interested in Biblical "kinds" when they can't clearly define and determine their own terminology with words like 'species'.That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41


(Definition of Biblical kind) has been clearly defined by myself in other threads, as well as by Stripe and others. Musterion defined it in this thread..."A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc)."

And what do you mean by "distinct from other models"? What is your mechanism for measuring how distinct an organism is from another before it is designated as a new "kind"? How do you know where to draw the boundary?

Using your "kinds" definition, are eels and fish the same "kind"? What about freshwater eels and moray eels? Are they the same "kind"?

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 05:52 PM
And what do you mean by "distinct from other models"? What is your mechanism for measuring how distinct an organism is from another before it is designated as a new "kind"? How do you know where to draw the boundary?
Greg..... as has been said... you might be better advized trying to clearly define rubbery evolutionary words such as species....rather than using silly and illogical arguments against something you don't want to understand.

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 05:57 PM
But, other bears cannot mate with each other either. Its not just pandas not being able to mate with other bears, polar bears don't mate with brown bears. Moreover, lets expand this "kind" more. What other "kinds" do we see?? The whole argument is silly?? Lizard kind? Mankind? Squirrel kind? These "kinds" r just different categories we put animals in to understand their nature better. It has very little to do with their ability to mate with one another.

Lastly, to the op of this thread. One anecdote does not warrant enough of an argument to throw out a scientific theory. The theory will continue to adapt until a better theory comes along to replace it. All evolution is, is a structure of understanding biological development. If you are a "young earth" theorist, then I hope you grow to realize that your idea of "intelligent design" and "evolution" are not mutually exclusive. "young earth" is a terrible idea that has been disproven with multiple sources of evidence, but is still preach by Ken Ham for no good reason other then his own ego.
Welcome to TOL!

Jose Fly
March 3rd, 2016, 05:59 PM
(Definition of Biblical kind) has been clearly defined by myself in other threads, as well as by Stripe and others. Musterion defined it in this thread..."A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc)."

That's not the definition Stripe gave. He said "kind" is "All the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population."

Jose Fly
March 3rd, 2016, 06:00 PM
Basically, to creationists "kind" is "whatever taxonomic line we think evolution can't cross".

Stripe
March 3rd, 2016, 06:53 PM
The definition of "kind" you gave is fine.But you keep asking for a definition.


But it's not very useful when, asked how we should determine what organisms share a common ancestry, your answer is ":idunno:".That's not how I answer that question.


Also, so far that's your definition for "kind". So when I'm conversing with you, I will go with that definition. But when I'm conversing with someone else I'm going to ask them what their definition of the term is. Given all the things you conflict with other creationists on, this approach is warranted.
Definitions are not personal; they are universal. Expecting everyone to have a personal definition is to invite nonsense.

Words have meaning. If you're not willing to use them sensibly, you have no right entering into a discussion.


No it never happens, or no you never said it doesn't happen?
Learn to read. :up: I said nothing about natural selection.

Stripe
March 3rd, 2016, 07:07 PM
That's not the definition Stripe gave. He said "kind" is "All the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population."Do the two definitions contradict each other? No.

Learn to think issues through instead of demanding that everything be packaged for you.


Basically, to creationists "kind" is "whatever taxonomic line we think evolution can't cross".Nope.

You have been given the definition of kind many times. It has exactly no reliance on your evolutionary terminology.

User Name
March 3rd, 2016, 07:38 PM
Fun fact: Bats are members of the bird "kind" according to Leviticus 11:19. Would you agree with the idea that bats and birds are the same "kind" 6days?

More fun facts: Birds are reptiles and are most closely related to crocodiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilia). Bats, by contrast, are placental mammals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placentalia).

User Name
March 3rd, 2016, 07:44 PM
:drum:

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 08:07 PM
Greg..... as has been said... you might be better advized trying to clearly define rubbery evolutionary words such as species....rather than using silly and illogical arguments against something you don't want to understand.

I can give you a definition for species. It's something that isn't perfect, but applies in nearly every case. That's usually the best you can hope for in science. There are always exceptions to every rule. For example: water is one of a very few substances that has greater volume as a solid than as a liquid. Exceptions to a rule that applies to the overwhelming majority of cases are not something science fears. There is a definition for species that applies to all but a handful of eukaryotic species known.
You can read here: http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml

However, you won't and likely can't give me any sort of information on what defines "kinds" in detail. When asked to clarify any part of your definition, you predictably dodge any and all questions.

Stripe
March 3rd, 2016, 08:10 PM
Fun fact: Bats are members of the bird "kind" according to Leviticus 11:19. Would you agree with the idea that bats and birds are the same "kind" 6days?
Ignorance exposed: There is no such thing as a "bird kind." No such group is mentioned in scripture. It does mention "owph" ahead of your verse, which can mean "flying things."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5775&t=NKJV

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 08:16 PM
Ignorance exposed: There is no such thing as a "bird kind." No such group is mentioned in scripture. It does mention "owph" ahead of your verse, which can mean "flying things."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5775&t=NKJV
You're right that I erred and there is no "bird kind." I apologize for my mistake.

Stripe, do you say that species within any "kind" must be able to breed together?

Stripe
March 3rd, 2016, 08:22 PM
I can give you a definition for species. It's something that isn't perfect, but applies in nearly every case.Go right ahead.

It is guaranteed that we will quickly be able to name many examples that break your definition of species. This is why evolutionists have at least 14 definitions for the term.


That's usually the best you can hope for in science.Nope.

Definitions are by definition non-malleable. Generalizations are by definition not definitions.

Words have meaning for a reason.


There are always exceptions to every rule.We are not talking about rules; we are talking about definitions.


Exceptions to a rule that applies to the overwhelming majority of cases are not something science fears.But evolutionists do fear definitions, which is why they avoid them at all costs.


There is a definition for species that applies to all but a handful of eukaryotic species known.
You can read here: http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtmlThe biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.So lions and tigers are the same species. Polar bears and grizzlies are the same species. All of the links in Darwin's "ring species" of finches — same species.


However, you won't and likely can't give me any sort of information on what defines "kinds" in detail. When asked to clarify any part of your definition, you predictably dodge any and all questions.Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: <gives definition>
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?

Stripe
March 3rd, 2016, 08:26 PM
You're right that I erred and there is no "bird kind." I apologize for my mistake.:up:


Stripe, do you say that species within any "kind" must be able to breed together?
No, of course not. Mostly because I would never use the word "species." It is a vague and malleable term that is next to useless in a scientific discussion.

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 08:43 PM
Go right ahead.

It is guaranteed that we will quickly be able to name many examples that break your definite of species. This is why evolutionists have at least 14 definitions for the term.
See the link.


Nope.

Definitions are by definition non-malleable. Generalizations are by definition not definitions.

Words have meaning for a reason.

We are not talking about rules; we are talking about definitions.
Either scientists don't agree with you about the fluidity of definitions, or they don't consider the species definition to be a true "definition." They've been at this a while longer than you bud. I think I'm going to side with the experts here


But evolutionists do fear definitions, which is why they avoid them at all costs.
Uh huh. They're shakin in their boots no doubt :rotfl:


The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.So lions and tigers are the same species. Polar bears and grizzlies are the same species. All of the links in Darwin's "ring species" of finches — same species.
If you read further you might see the specifics of it

Crucible
March 3rd, 2016, 08:45 PM
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: <gives definition>
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?

That's their technique.
They will go on a tangent of semantics to deny what is simple. This is despite that they will point out the very same if others throw such on them.

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 08:49 PM
That's their technique.
They will go on a tangent of semantics to deny what is simple. This is despite that they will point out the very same if others throw such on them.
Well will you answer a different question?

Like....how about telling me how all of the aquatic animals in the Great Flood survived in a giant ocean? How would freshwater animals get by for so long in the salty ocean? Seems impossible when you consider that saltwater poisons them within days at the very longest! And how would ocean corals survive the influx of freshwater from the inland water bodies and glacial/polar ice?

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 08:51 PM
I can give you a definition for species. It's something that isn't perfect, ...

However, you won't and likely can't give me any sort of information on what defines "kinds" in detail.

I'm going to revive an old statement of Stripes..."Evolutionists can't read".


Perfect definitions have been provided......something you admit you are unable to do.*

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 08:55 PM
I'm going to revive an old statement of Stripes..."Evolutionists can't read".


Perfect definitions have been provided......something you admit you are unable to do.*

In afraid you have erred here, 6. Note where I say "in detail" above? That's because when you gave the definition, it was very unclear and quite far from "perfect," and I subsequently asked this:

"And what do you mean by "distinct from other models"? What is your mechanism for measuring how distinct an organism is from another before it is designated as a new "kind"? How do you know where to draw the boundary?"

Which you then proceeded to dodge, predictably. Sound about right?

Stripe
March 3rd, 2016, 09:15 PM
See the link.I did. I quoted the definition you claimed included all but a handful of creatures, then I named three examples off the top of my head that broke the definition.

There are thousands more.

Species is a vague and malleable term. It is next to useless in a scientific discussion.


Either scientists don't agree with you about the fluidity of definitions, or they don't consider the species definition to be a true "definition." They've been at this a while longer than you bud. I think I'm going to side with the experts here.Suit yourself.

But we know you won't bow to expert knowledge when it comes to those who hold to the Biblical model.


If you read further you might see the specifics of itThere are no specifics. They briefly mention the exceptions and then ask the question of how they might be resolved, but never resolve them. In later pages, they use alternative definitions of species — eg, "reproductive isolation" — to make it look like there is no problem.

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 09:16 PM
Like....how about telling me how all of the aquatic animals in the Great Flood survived in a giant ocean? How would freshwater animals get by for so long in the salty ocean? Greg, it seems you have fallen for many goofy atheiest 'arguments'.

Tell us what the salinity of the pre-flood oceans were. Tell us how many species of marine creatures did not survive the flood? Tell us if pockets of fresh water might remain intact when mixed with salt water. Tell us how highly adapted marine creatures are now compared to thousands of years ago. Tell us if some fish can live, and or adapt today from fresh to salt.

Stripe
March 3rd, 2016, 09:19 PM
Well will you answer a different question?
Evolutionists hate sticking with the topic.

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 09:27 PM
I did. I quoted the definition you claimed included all but a handful of creatures, then I named three examples off the top of my head that broke the definition.

There are thousands more.

Species is a vague and malleable term. It is next to useless in a scientific discussion.

Suit yourself.

But we know you won't bow to expert knowledge when it comes to those who hold to the Biblical model.

There are no specifics. They briefly mention the exceptions and then ask the question of how they might be resolved, but never resolve them. In later pages, they use alternative definitions of species — eg, "reproductive isolation" — to make it look like there is no problem.

It is basic, yes, but there are links on the left to the main page with much more info. I don't think anybody considers species definition a problem in science. It is what it is, and as we learn more the understanding of what exactly it is becomes more precise.

And what expert, qualified YECs are you gonna throw at me that can overturn the expert opinions of the many many many more, at-minimum-equally-qualified scientists that say the YEC is wrong (and when you look at the evidence it's pretty clear who is right)?

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 09:29 PM
Evolutionists hate sticking with the topic.

So when someone complains about a certain question, and I try to ask a different question in order to continue a conversation, I'm trying to avoid stating on topic.


YEC is more than just a kooky creation "theory". It's a state of mind. All of you guys just live in your own little world cut off from reality

Crucible
March 3rd, 2016, 09:31 PM
Well will you answer a different question?

Like....how about telling me how all of the aquatic animals in the Great Flood survived in a giant ocean? How would freshwater animals get by for so long in the salty ocean? Seems impossible when you consider that saltwater poisons them within days at the very longest! And how would ocean corals survive the influx of freshwater from the inland water bodies and glacial/polar ice?

Presuppositions of the status of aquatic life is the downfall of the evolutionist's opposition on this subject.

If it rained so much freshwater, there wouldn't be such high salinity in the ocean unless cracks in the Earth thereafter poured salt into the ocean. Such cracks would be made by the weight of the Deluge.

How much salt was there before? What exactly happens to an entire planet of aquatic life in such circumstances?
It's easy to rail against a belief while silently demanding the assumption of one's own.

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 09:41 PM
Greg, it seems you have fallen for many goofy atheiest 'arguments'.

Tell us what the salinity of the pre-flood oceans were. Tell us how many species of marine creatures did not survive the flood? Tell us if pockets of fresh water might remain intact when mixed with salt water. Tell us how highly adapted marine creatures are now compared to thousands of years ago. Tell us if some fish can live, and or adapt today from fresh to salt.

We've been through this before. Only a select few aquatic species can survive wide ranges of salinity. Your arguments don't hold up at all because, for you to be correct, you require things to be what we have no reason to suspect that they were. Like you say here that we don't know if aquatic animals pre-flood could just live in any salinity level or if they were like ones today. Your belief hinges on the hope that aquatic animals all used to be able to live anywhere and suddenly in the geologic blink of an eye they all lost this beneficial trait. That doesn't make any sense.

And it's not like that's the only crazy thing your entire belief hinges on. You require the laws of physics and things such as the speed of light in a vacuum (A KNOWN CONSTANT CRUCIAL PHYSICS, ASTRONOMY, ETC) to have been different 5-6000 years ago with no supporting evidence. That's crazy.

Please explain to me how one gigantic flood laid down a layer of granite (a volcanic rock formed from magma; weird that would be a layer in a flood:think:), then a layer of shale, then a layer of sandstone, then a layer of limestone, and so on. My Christian geology professor thinks you modern YECs are a joke. Compared you to flat-earthers :chuckle: Prove her wrong

Greg Jennings
March 3rd, 2016, 09:45 PM
Presuppositions of the status of aquatic life is the downfall of the evolutionist's opposition on this subject.

If it rained so much freshwater, there wouldn't be such high salinity in the ocean unless cracks in the Earth thereafter poured salt into the ocean. Such cracks would be made by the weight of the Deluge.

How much salt was there before? What exactly happens to an entire planet of aquatic life in such circumstances?
It's easy to rail against a belief while silently demanding the assumption of one's own.
Um salt doesn't just go away. It's there still. And we have sediment cores so that we can know the salt contents, among other things, of environments in the distant past.

You say the flood was due to rainwater? How about you start by telling me where all this extra water came from? How did it rain enough water to cover every land surface?

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 11:00 PM
You say the flood was due to rainwater? How about you start by telling me where all this extra water came from? How did it rain enough water to cover every land surface?
Strawman..... AGAIN
He didn't say that.

6days
March 3rd, 2016, 11:07 PM
Only a select few aquatic species can survive wide ranges of salinity.
That is true.

What is interesting is how evolutionists argue against the ability of animals to rapidly 'evolve' because that supports the Biblical model. Science shows organisms can rapidly adapt and change using the genetic information God has given them. See the thread....Rapid Adaptation.


Your arguments don't hold up at all...
Which argument?
I asked you what pre-flood conditions were like. We don't know.



the only crazy thing your entire belief hinges on. You require the laws of physics and things such as the speed of light in a vacuum (A KNOWN CONSTANT CRUCIAL PHYSICS, ASTRONOMY, ETC) to have been different 5-6000 years ago with no supporting evidence. That's crazy.

Hmm... Greg, I think you are frustrated so you create strawmen (Speed of light in a vacuum??)... and you keep trying to move goalposts.



My Christian geology professor thinks you're a joke. Prove her wrong
She also thinks atheists are a joke. She thinks cats are better than dogs. And, she thinks people who eat meat are murderers. (And, she compromises on scripture)

Stripe
March 4th, 2016, 04:52 AM
It is basic, yes, but there are links on the left to the main page with much more info.Information is not a definition.

As we said, your definition has innumerable exceptions, making it no definition at all. And your Web page equivocates on that definition, using alternatives when it comes to addressing the challenges it faces.


I don't think anybody considers species definition a problem in science.That's because it's not used in science; it's used in the religion of evolutionism.


It is what it is, and as we learn more the understanding of what exactly it is becomes more precise.Nope. It has gotten more vague and malleable because the data keep contradicting the ideas of evolutionists.


And what expert, qualified YECs are you gonna throw at me that can overturn the expert opinions of the many many many more, at-minimum-equally-qualified scientists that say the YEC is wrong (and when you look at the evidence it's pretty clear who is right)?We are looking at something, and it is not your side being justified.

Greg Jennings
March 4th, 2016, 11:38 AM
Information is not a definition.

As we said, your definition has innumerable exceptions, making it no definition at all. And your Web page equivocates on that definition, using alternatives when it comes to addressing the challenges it faces.

That's because it's not used in science; it's used in the religion of evolutionism.

Nope. It has gotten more vague and malleable because the data keep contradicting the ideas of evolutionists.

We are looking at something, and it is not your side being justified.

Well you're just as correct, knowledgable, and open-to-reality as ever, aren't you stripe? Only you (actually, only YECs) would consider information about evolution from Cal-Berkeley, a leader in research on the topic, unknowledgeable

Greg Jennings
March 4th, 2016, 11:43 AM
Strawman..... AGAIN
He didn't say that.

Really? He didn't? Then what is this in his quote?

"If it rained so much freshwater, there wouldn't be such high salinity in the ocean unless cracks in the Earth thereafter poured salt into the ocean. Such cracks would be made by the weight of the Deluge."


And so it seems once more that 6days is just yelling "strawman" because it's a word that someone on AiG told him to use when he had no evidence or anything besides "goddidit" to contribute. That explains why he uses the word so often.

Greg Jennings
March 4th, 2016, 11:49 AM
She also thinks atheists are a joke. She thinks cats are better than dogs. And, she thinks people who eat meat are murderers. (And, she compromises on scripture)
She may think all of those things, but unlike in geology, she isn't qualified to give an expert view on any of them. She's an expert in geology. Her opinion in that field is not equal to your opinion or mine, but quite a large amount more meaningful. This ignorant comment by you shows how little regard you have for higher education, which would explain a lot about your obvious lack of interest in ever receiving a proper one (sadly) in subjects that you clearly want to act like an expert in


And why didn't you answer my questions about geology? Surely you aren't dodging, right? Not you 6days.....that would just be ridiculous wouldn't it? To think of YOU dodging? What a joke, right?

I know that you would never do that, so I'll repost them here for you to explain for me. Thanks:

Please explain to me how one gigantic flood laid down a layer of granite (a volcanic rock formed from magma; weird that would be a layer in a flood:think:), then a layer of shale, then a layer of sandstone, then a layer of limestone, and so on.

Jose Fly
March 4th, 2016, 11:50 AM
But you keep asking for a definition.

From other people, yes...because they apparently don't use your definition. :duh:


That's not how I answer that question.

When I asked how you propose we tell what organisms share a common ancestry, you said "genetics", which is a field of study, not a method. When I asked how you would use genetics to do that, your complete response was: ":idunno:"

Have you since figured it out, or is your answer still :idunno:?


Definitions are not personal; they are universal. Expecting everyone to have a personal definition is to invite nonsense.

Your expectation is that you get to define terms for all creationists everywhere? Have you notified them of that? :chuckle:


Learn to read. :up: I said nothing about natural selection.

I'm pretty sure you said that natural selection never occurs. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, is that your view?


Do the two definitions contradict each other? No.

They don't really overlap either. But in the interests of clarity again, should the definition of "kind" now be...

"A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc), and are all descended from a universal ancestor population"

Stripe
March 5th, 2016, 08:27 AM
From other people, yes...because they apparently don't use your definition.
Yet you know what the definition is.


Have you since figured it out?What is the question?


Your expectation is that you get to define terms for all creationists everywhere?You asked for the definition of kind (again). I answered.


I'm pretty sure you said that natural selection never occurs.
Nope.

You probably committed the fallacy of decomposition.


Should the definition of "kind" now be...

"A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc), and are all descended from a universal ancestor population"
Nope. My definition is sufficient.

Jose Fly
March 5th, 2016, 12:06 PM
Yet you know what the definition is.

I know what your definition is. Clearly other creationists don't agree with it though.


What is the question?

Sheesh...try and keep up. How do you propose we use genetics to determine which organisms share a common ancestry?


Nope.

Do you believe that natural selection occurs?


Nope. My definition is sufficient.

So the other attempts at definitions posted by other creationists are wrong?

6days
March 5th, 2016, 05:03 PM
Please explain to me how one gigantic flood laid down a layer of granite (a volcanic rock formed from magma; weird that would be a layer in a flood:think:), then a layer of shale, then a layer of sandstone, then a layer of limestone, and so on.
Greg... I answered you by suggesting you do a wee bit of research before asking silly questions. I also asked you a few easy questions to see how well you understand what you 'argue' against.
BTW.... I also suggested that the various layers are best explained by the flood model.

Greg Jennings
March 5th, 2016, 06:28 PM
Greg... I answered you by suggesting you do a wee bit of research before asking silly questions. I also asked you a few easy questions to see how well you understand what you 'argue' against.
BTW.... I also suggested that the various layers are best explained by the flood model.

Yes, I know you've [incorrectly] stated that a great flood model matches the rock strata before. But it doesn't, and that's why I keep asking you to post an article by a YEC that you think explains this phenomenon so that I can examine it. I suggest you do that instead of plainly dodging yet another question.

I can't find any credible YEC geology research. If you have something that you think is credible and explains the issues of rock stratification, then by all means post it. But your continued chants of "the flood model explains Earth's geology best" is totally, 100% hollow until you post some real information to back them up.

6days
March 5th, 2016, 08:46 PM
I can't find any credible YEC geology research
Of Course you can't..... You start with your belief that Genesis is not correct. Your 'science' starts with your belief and is unwilling to follow evidence that leads to our Creator.

http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Can-Flood-Geology-Explain-Thick-Chalk-Layers.pdf

http://www.icr.org/article/lateral-layers-geologic-strata/

http://www.icr.org/earth-formation/

http://creation.com/continent-wide-sedimentary-strata

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/the-case-of-the-missing-geologic-time/

https://sixdays.org/Fossils-Confirm-the-Biblical-Creation-and-the-Genesis-Flood

6days
March 5th, 2016, 08:51 PM
Yet you know what the definition is.

You asked for the definition of kind (again). I answered.

Nope. My definition is sufficient.
But a week from now (or sooner) one of the evolutionists will say a definition has never been provided.

Greg Jennings
March 5th, 2016, 08:56 PM
Of Course you can't..... You start with your belief that Genesis is not correct. Your 'science' starts with your belief and is unwilling to follow evidence that leads to our Creator.

http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Can-Flood-Geology-Explain-Thick-Chalk-Layers.pdf

http://www.icr.org/article/lateral-layers-geologic-strata/

http://www.icr.org/earth-formation/

http://creation.com/continent-wide-sedimentary-strata

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/the-case-of-the-missing-geologic-time/

https://sixdays.org/Fossils-Confirm-the-Biblical-Creation-and-the-Genesis-Flood
Thank you. I'll examine them one by one and get back to you.

Creation.com was ridiculous. It said because similar sediments are found worldwide, like chalk deposits, that they must have gotten there by way of a great flood. That's beyond stupid, because chalk must be formed by an organic process that involves bacterial sediment deposition.

6days
March 5th, 2016, 09:29 PM
Creation.com was ridiculous.
Naturally Greg... That was the expected response.
You start with the wrong history so everything can be explained away as ridiculous.

But as to chalk.... the global flood is the BEST explanation of the evidence.
http://www.icr.org/article/4456/275/
or
"With such a slow rate of accumulation, how did such monumental chalk beds form on an earth, which is, according to the Bible, a little over 6000 years old? For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources
"With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood.

The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events.

Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. Since sea life was not part of Noah’s cargo on the Ark, they had to endure the ravages of the Flood. Marine life would have been swept into the rapidly forming chalk and other sedimentary layers and quickly buried by successive deposits. That is why we find fossils of sea creatures in even the highest chalk layers, now far above the ocean" From AIG

Greg Jennings
March 5th, 2016, 10:09 PM
Naturally Greg... That was the expected response.
You start with the wrong history so everything can be explained away as ridiculous.
Oh the irony. I based my answer on my knowledge of how chalk beds form, not a prior religious belief. And funny thing is, your own creationist source agrees with me. I have boldnened below the qualifiers that your own source made apparent but you chose to ignore. It seems that not all creationists are as sleazy as you.

But as to chalk.... the global flood is the BEST explanation of the evidence.
http://www.icr.org/article/4456/275/
or
"With such a slow rate of accumulation, how did such monumental chalk beds form on an earth, which is, according to the Bible, a little over 6000 years old? For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources
"With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood.

The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events.
Note the "according to the bible part"? That's important, because the article is addressing a creationist problem (how did such massive chalk beds form in just 6000 years?), not an evolutionary one. As the article itself makes clear, the cliffs of Dover are thought by most (including "evolutionists") to have been formed over millions of years, not merely 6000. Ironically, this article illustrates just another reason how the real-world evidence suggests an Earth far older than 6000 years. Even your creationist buddies honestly recognize this dilemma, yet you refuse to :chuckle:


Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. Since sea life was not part of Noah’s cargo on the Ark, they had to endure the ravages of the Flood. Marine life would have been swept into the rapidly forming chalk and other sedimentary layers and quickly buried by successive deposits. That is why we find fossils of sea creatures in even the highest chalk layers, now far above the ocean" From AIG
Aww man. This paragraph here demonstrates a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of plate tectonics and mountain building processes. I'll post these sites with explanations of how that works here for you to never open and read:
http://snobear.colorado.edu/Markw/Mountains/05/CaliforniaMtns/California_geologic_history.ppt
http://www.nps.gov/gumo/learn/nature/geologicformations.htm
http://www.uh.edu/~geos6g/1376/tectonics7.html

Stripe
March 5th, 2016, 11:00 PM
I know what your definition is. Clearly other creationists don't agree with it though.:darwinsm:

Name one.


How do you propose we use genetics to determine which organisms share a common ancestry?:idunno:


Do you believe that natural selection occurs?Sure.


So the other attempts at definitions posted by other creationists are wrong?English is your second language, isn't it?

Stripe
March 5th, 2016, 11:01 PM
But a week from now (or sooner) one of the evolutionists will say a definition has never been provided.
Exactly.

They aren't interested in understanding the challenges to their ideas.

gcthomas
March 6th, 2016, 06:07 AM
One of 6days' links has the entire chalk deposits of southern England deposited in six days. The amount of carbon dioxide that would have needed to have been dissolved in the sea for the organisms to have used for making their shells would have made the water so acidic that it would have dissolved them.

Catch 22, which makes the whole process impossible. Unless 6days has some magic
he'd like us to consider.

6days
March 6th, 2016, 06:46 AM
Note the "according to the bible part"? That's important, because the article is addressing a creationist problem (how did such massive chalk beds form in just 6000 years?
No Greg..... You misunderstood.
The problem is for evolutionists who think it took millions of years. The best answer to the large chalk deposits is found in God's Word.

The article explains "For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources
"With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood."

alwight
March 6th, 2016, 07:35 AM
One of 6days' links has the entire chalk deposits of southern England deposited in six days. The amount of carbon dioxide that would have needed to have been dissolved in the sea for the organisms to have used for making their shells would have made the water so acidic that it would have dissolved them.

Catch 22, which makes the whole process impossible. Unless 6days has some magic
he'd like us to consider.

It could only have been magic.:)

Stripe
March 6th, 2016, 07:59 AM
One of 6days' links has the entire chalk deposits of southern England deposited in six days. The amount of carbon dioxide that would have needed to have been dissolved in the sea for the organisms to have used for making their shells would have made the water so acidic that it would have dissolved them.Catch 22, which makes the whole process impossible. Unless 6days has some magic
he'd like us to consider.

Darwinists hate sticking to the topic.

6days
March 6th, 2016, 09:14 AM
It's easy to rail against a belief while silently demanding the assumption of one's own.

Yes :)

6days
March 6th, 2016, 09:19 AM
One of 6days' links has the entire chalk deposits of southern England deposited in six days.
Which link?

gcthomas
March 6th, 2016, 09:39 AM
Which link?

Didn't you read them?!!!!!

6days
March 6th, 2016, 10:29 AM
Didn't you read them?!!!!!
I missed it..... or you have mis-stated something.
Which link says the deposits formed in six days?

GlenG
March 6th, 2016, 11:15 AM
deleted post wrong link sorry

gcthomas
March 6th, 2016, 11:36 AM
I missed it..... or you have mis-stated something.
Which link says the deposits formed in six days?

The first one. Were you hoping I was mistaken? :)
Since, for example, in southern England there are
three main chalk beds stacked on top of one another,
then this scenario of three successive, explosive,
massive blooms coincides with the rock record. Given
that the turnover rate for coccoliths is up to two days
(Sumich, 1976), then these chalk beds could thus
have been produced in as little as six days, totally
conceivable within the time framework of the Flood.
What is certain, is that the right set of conditions
necessary for such blooms to occur had to have
coincided in full measure to have explosively generated
such enormous blooms, but the evidence that it did
happen is there for all to plainly see in these chalk
beds in the geological record

Jose Fly
March 6th, 2016, 01:33 PM
Name one.

Sheesh...there have been a few posted in this thread. But unlike you and 6days, rather than just leave it at that, I'll show you where...

Musterion post #5 (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116656-Scientists-baffled-by-a-perfect-example-of-Biblical-kinds&p=4633408&viewfull=1#post4633408): "A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation".

Crucible post #33 (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116656-Scientists-baffled-by-a-perfect-example-of-Biblical-kinds&p=4634466&viewfull=1#post4634466): "a particular type or variety of person or thing".

6days post #67 (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116656-Scientists-baffled-by-a-perfect-example-of-Biblical-kinds&p=4637861&viewfull=1#post4637861): "if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind."


:idunno:

Thanks for once again illustrating the emptiness of creationism. :thumb:


Sure.

Thanks for clarifying.

Greg Jennings
March 6th, 2016, 02:29 PM
No Greg..... You misunderstood.
The problem is for evolutionists who think it took millions of years. The best answer to the large chalk deposits is found in God's Word. No 6, I didn't. I'll highlight it again for you.


The article explains "For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources
"With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood."

It's already boldnened by you, and I have underlined the part you need to see, and then italicized an even more specific part of it. The article is very clearly trying to explain how the Dover Cliffs could have possibly formed if the Earth is only 6000 years old. It literally tells you that almost verbatim.

Stripe
March 6th, 2016, 08:42 PM
Musterion post #5 (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116656-Scientists-baffled-by-a-perfect-example-of-Biblical-kinds&p=4633408&viewfull=1#post4633408): "A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation".

Crucible post #33 (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116656-Scientists-baffled-by-a-perfect-example-of-Biblical-kinds&p=4634466&viewfull=1#post4634466): "a particular type or variety of person or thing".

6days post #67 (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116656-Scientists-baffled-by-a-perfect-example-of-Biblical-kinds&p=4637861&viewfull=1#post4637861): "if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind."Notably, none of your quotes contradict my definition and as expected, you have no evidence that any of these people disagree with me.

Learn to respond coherently and then you need to retract your silly assertion.


Thanks for once again illustrating the emptiness of creationism.Fortunately, my knowledge does not constitute the substantiality of creationism. You seem to think I should be able to answer every question. Do you hold yourself to the same standard? If we ask a question you cannot answer, is Darwinism "empty"?

Is that why you're forever making things up?

Stripe
March 6th, 2016, 08:43 PM
No 6, I didn't. I'll highlight it again for you.



It's already boldnened by you, and I have underlined the part you need to see, and then italicized an even more specific part of it. The article is very clearly trying to explain how the Dover Cliffs could have possibly formed if the Earth is only 6000 years old. It literally tells you that almost verbatim.

Darwinists are forever running from a discussion when they are shown ignorant.

The YEC explanation of the diversity of animals is based on a rational and secure definition of kinds, while Darwinism relies on a vague and malleable term.

Greg Jennings
March 6th, 2016, 09:00 PM
Darwinists are forever running from a discussion when they are shown ignorant.
Do all YECs believe that repeating false things over and over again eventually makes them true? You and 6days certainly do.


The YEC explanation of the diversity of animals is based on a rational and secure definition of kinds, while Darwinism relies on a vague and malleable term.

Did you mean to quote a different post or did you think your words applied to mine? Because they have nothing to do with mine.....I was talking about geology......Do you understand the difference between geology and evolution?

6days
March 6th, 2016, 10:25 PM
Notably, none of your quotes contradict my definition and as expected, you have no evidence that any of these people disagree with me.
Progress???
He is now admitting several people have provided definitions.

6days
March 6th, 2016, 10:31 PM
One of 6days' links has the entire chalk deposits of southern England deposited in six days.
GC..... So now that you have posted the link, are you admitting you mis-stated things?

They explain it can be as little time as six days... not what you said.

Stripe
March 7th, 2016, 12:54 AM
Did you mean to quote a different post or did you think your words applied to mine? Because they have nothing to do with mine.....I was talking about geology......Do you understand the difference between geology and evolution?
Try reading the thread title. :up:

Progress???
He is now admitting several people have provided definitions.
He knew the definition at least a year ago. At this rate, he'll be able to comprehend a paragraph in about 2052.

gcthomas
March 7th, 2016, 07:07 AM
GC..... So now that you have posted the link, are you admitting you mis-stated things?

They explain it can be as little time as six days... not what you said.

That the authors think it was plausible suggests that they haven't taken basic science principles into account. Their six days claim makes their entire article unscientific and unusable.

Do you agree with your source that the deposition could have taken place in 6 days?

Jose Fly
March 7th, 2016, 12:54 PM
Notably, none of your quotes contradict my definition and as expected, you have no evidence that any of these people disagree with me.

Sheesh...try and keep up. When I asked you if Musterion's definition fit with yours, you said (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116656-Scientists-baffled-by-a-perfect-example-of-Biblical-kinds&p=4642061&viewfull=1#post4642061) "Nope. My definition is sufficient."


Learn to respond coherently and then you need to retract your silly assertion.

Learn to keep up with a conversation.


Fortunately, my knowledge does not constitute the substantiality of creationism. You seem to think I should be able to answer every question.

Your ":idunno:" speaks for itself.


Do you hold yourself to the same standard? If we ask a question you cannot answer, is Darwinism "empty"?

It's not just your ":idunno:" that is indicative of the emptiness of creationism, it's also the fact that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over a century.