Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo

Nineveh posted:

No, "junk DNA" was thought useless until recently.

Dimo:

Again Nineveh you are misinformed. This is the laypersons understanding. Genticists and paleobiologists realize that any DNA was usefull at one point and may become usefull in the future. When analysing the current influence of any DNA on enzyme production some effects are more apparent than others. The current effect of much DNA is still not known. Bob's one example does not change the whole of scientific understanding.

But of course your black or white thinking kicks in again. If there is one inaccuracy, it must all be wrong.

How sad.

Um... how does this make the assesment that DNA now is "junk"? OOPs no, sorry, they don't think it's "junk" anymore because it has a use now. They finally realized it wasn't just evo left overs but actually has a function. They labled it "junk" before they had a clue what it was or what it did.

To set the record straight:
Junk DNA Definition: Stretches of DNA that do not code for genes; most of the genome consists of so-called junk DNA which may have regulatory and other functions. Also called non-coding DNA.

"Junk" is somewhat a misnomer, because molecular biology remains a young science. Segments of DNA may function in additional ways that have not yet been discovered, which might suggest uses for much or all of the junk. Scientists generally keep this likelihood in mind even as they persist in using the word "junk," which for better or worse has stuck."
cite

DNA was usefull at one point and may become usefull in the future.

I would really like to read up on "may become useful in the future". Got a link?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo

Kind of like every other thread and subject started by YECs about origins.

May I suggest I started this thread about Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI teaming up? I sorta thought the OP and thread title would give it away...

 

[Jukia]

Nineveh: No our posts were not equivilent.

Brown's hydoplate theory has no factual scientific basis that I have ever come across. I once asked on one of these threads for a site to anyone working in the field of oceanography who agreed with Brown. I thought the oceanographers would be the appropriate people since they deal with oceanic trenches, mid-ocean ridges, etc. But I never received any response.

I guess I figure Brown is just a genius and the world has not caught up with him yet, or he is the biggest self-deluded person on the planet. Take your pick, gotta be one or the other.

 

[Stratnerd]

Never mind, I don't think you want to understand what I have been trying to relate.

:doh: That's why I asked several times what you were trying to say. Geesh.

Alright. Look. Two fossils, that we have many of, were put together as a hoax. There isn't anything but a novelty value to them. Well... and a draw from museums (who should know they are a hoax) to display them as a missing link this summer...

OMG... they are using the pieces individually not a composite. I don't get why you insist that each piece is worthless? The hoax is the composite not the individual pieces.

Like I said, out of ignorance they were labled "junk". Now evos have a reason for them being there. I guess it's an evo trait to waste resources proving the obvious

it was exactly because of evolutionary theory that we suspected that those sequences had function. What is it about creationism that makes any predictions that would make you think that a particular sequence had a function? If everything has a function then if we found a region of DNA without a particular function would you insist that it did or would you allow to falsify your "hypothesis" that all DNA has function?

It's not like the fossils themselves are one-of-a-kinds. (I still think you are silly for believing these modified fossils have any value other than their intended purpose)

ITS THE UNMODIFIED PIECES THAT HAVE VALUE.

Speaking of "science" news, have you gotten a load of the new reviews of Joan Roughgarden's Book in "Science" and "Nature" on bisexuality?

no, I steer away from that kind of stuff.

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: No our posts were not equivilent.

Brown's hydoplate theory has no factual scientific basis that I have ever come across. I once asked on one of these threads for a site to anyone working in the field of oceanography who agreed with Brown. I thought the oceanographers would be the appropriate people since they deal with oceanic trenches, mid-ocean ridges, etc. But I never received any response.

I guess I figure Brown is just a genius and the world has not caught up with him yet, or he is the biggest self-deluded person on the planet. Take your pick, gotta be one or the other.

If one defines "genius" by IQ and academic honors then Brown is a genius. Nevertheless his concept must stand or fall depending on the evidence and it is very difficult to verify events that happened in the far past.

His theory is consistent with scripture, which is more than one can say about the vague "millions of years" concept favored by most scientists working in the field of Origins.

 

[Stratnerd]

Haven't seen one yet.

yea, you keep saying that but you, by your own admission, aren't looking.

I would think there would be many of these as there are many fossils found of other species.

Darwin, over 150 years ago, provided reasons why we shouldn't find very many fossils of intermediates. I would read his chapters in Origin of Species. To sum it up, the conditions that favor fossilization are rare enough that they don't capture/sample all that is going on.

Are you suggesting that the layers of our planet(I can only speculate on the first mile) don't appear in anyway similar to the sedimentary layers that would be found like in deltas or river beds?

heck no, why should they? completely different processes.

You know heavy stuff falling first and light stuff last in concern to say animals or their fossilized bones.

then, given a global flood, why don't we find a single heavy layer, then a single medium layer, then a fine layer, and organisms sorted out by weight?

I have never heard of these "super" things before. Please enlighten me.

Bob B., is quite familiar with all these since he has suggested them. In fact, the hydroplate theory is part of the super-tectonics. The superspeciation thing is use when accounting for the few thousand years between Noah's kinds and all the species today. Super light speed to account to the star light/distance problem. All ad hoc explanation meant to explain way problems that reality and logic present. Problem is they leave more unexplained.

If apes evolved into humans why didn't all species of apes evolve into something better?

evolution works through mutations that are random as well as the interaction with the environment. The likelihood that the same combination of mutations that occurred to produce us will occur in a another lineage is ~ nil. Also, given the intelligence of apes now and the other species of primates, I would say they they too have become more intelligent.

How would they have naturally appeared or "poofed"?

assuming that the same processes that occur today (mutation/selection, etc) occur in the past and we have never witnesses poofing - why should we invoke a process/event that we've never seen and how no idea how it happens (which means you can never justify it).

And how do you know for sure that there was nothing around but prokaryotes?

we never know for sure but that's what the evidence suggests.
[/quote] And how did evolutionists find evidence/fossils(?) of these? [/QUOTE] by being out in the field

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: No our posts were not equivilent.

Yeah, they were

Brown's hydoplate theory has no factual scientific basis that I have ever come across. I once asked on one of these threads for a site to anyone working in the field of oceanography who agreed with Brown. I thought the oceanographers would be the appropriate people since they deal with oceanic trenches, mid-ocean ridges, etc. But I never received any response.

So because we have no Oceanographers on TOL, Brown's ideas are less of a theory than, let's say... dinosaurs-to-birds theory?

I guess I figure Brown is just a genius and the world has not caught up with him yet, or he is the biggest self-deluded person on the planet. Take your pick, gotta be one or the other.

Yep

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by bob b

His theory is consistent with scripture.

And the reason you buy into it, clearly nothing to do with facts and evidence.

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by Nineveh




So because we have no Oceanographers on TOL, Brown's ideas are less of a theory than, let's say... dinosaurs-to-birds theory?

No, nothing to do with oceanographers on TOL. I have suggested that someone, preferably someone on TOL, find an oceanographer, unconnected with Brown, who agrees with him.

Brown's theory is actually fascinating but made up of whole cloth, there is no basis for it that I am aware of other than perhaps bob b's statement that it is consistent with Scripture. But that is not really the point of science--to make up theories that fit with Scripture. The point of science ought to be to investigate the natural world, get the facts first etc.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
OMG... they are using the pieces individually not a composite. I don't get why you insist that each piece is worthless? The hoax is the composite not the individual pieces.

They were presented as one fossil, a "missing link".

In stark contrast to their sensationalistic ‘Feathers for T. rex’ article, National Geographic has printed a brief, yet revealing statement by Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing. Xu's revelation appears in the somewhat obscure Forum section of the March, 2000 issue, together with a carefully crafted editorial response. The letter from Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, reads:

‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’1 cite

If we only had one of each of the peices, I might see your point, but we have many of these fossils. Why you insist this hoax can be worth anything but an embarrasment to National Geographic and any museum that makes a display on this "missing link" is beyond me.

it was exactly because of evolutionary theory that we suspected that those sequences had function. What is it about creationism that makes any predictions that would make you think that a particular sequence had a function? If everything has a function then if we found a region of DNA without a particular function would you insist that it did or would you allow to falsify your "hypothesis" that all DNA has function?

Nice try. It's the evos that that didn't understand not all DNA coded for genes, they labled DNA that didn't act in their realm of understanding as "junk". This isn't the only example of this attitude either. At one point the appendix was considered an evo left over, too.

ITS THE UNMODIFIED PIECES THAT HAVE VALUE.

Whatever you wanna believe.

no, I steer away from that kind of stuff.

I thought Science and Nature were two of those "peer review" things you keep talking about...

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

No, nothing to do with oceanographers on TOL. I have suggested that someone, preferably someone on TOL, find an oceanographer, unconnected with Brown, who agrees with him.

Looks like that leg work belongs to you.

Brown's theory is actually fascinating but made up of whole cloth, there is no basis for it that I am aware of other than perhaps bob b's statement that it is consistent with Scripture. But that is not really the point of science--to make up theories that fit with Scripture. The point of science ought to be to investigate the natural world, get the facts first etc.

Sorta like the whole cloth that turns two fossil teeth into a thriving social community?

 

[Jukia]

Nineveh: No the leg work is not mine.
Got a cite for the 2 fossil teeth into the thriving social community comment?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: No the leg work is not mine.

Ok, so because you don't like Dr. Brown's theory, you want someone else to prove it to you? Are you willing to put forth the same effort proving evo theories?

Got a cite for the 2 fossil teeth into the thriving social community comment?

I will start by referencing Mr. Smith's post, and then ask you how many museum displays you have seen with the happy neanderthal family cooking dinner.

 

[Jukia]

Nineveh: Sorry, dont have time to work through Smith's entire rant. got a specific issue to refer me to?
And I don't want someone to "prove" Brown to me, I would think that is something you would jump at. I think it is utter nonsense, garbage science at its best (or worst?). But if you think it makes sense, find some other support. When I first heard of plate tectonics I thought it was pretty crazy but have since seen enough evidence to think it is factual. But the general idea of plate movement over millions or billions of years is a bit more palatable than Brown's ideas. However, I remain willing to look at evidence.

 

[Flipper]

Jukia:

Sorry, dont have time to work through Smith's entire rant... However, I remain willing to look at evidence.

Actually, it's really not that long. Agent Smith references Java Man and Nebraska Man. One from the 1890s, the other from 1922.

Java Man would probably have been demonstrated as mistaken ID had the finder of the bones actually allowed scientists to see more than just sketches.

Clearly hominid palaeontology left a lot to be desired at the turn of the century, slightly more than 30 years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. I think science has moved on a bit since then though.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

Nineveh: Sorry, dont have time

No hurry, I can wait

And I don't want someone to "prove" Brown to me, I would think that is something you would jump at. I think it is utter nonsense, garbage science at its best (or worst?). But if you think it makes sense, find some other support.

And what support other than you-like-it-better does evo have? ("Most scientists agree" won't cut it. "Most scientists" can be completely wrong, too. An example is the appendix, etc.)

When I first heard of plate tectonics I thought it was pretty crazy but have since seen enough evidence to think it is factual. But the general idea of plate movement over millions or billions of years is a bit more palatable than Brown's ideas. However, I remain willing to look at evidence.

You should see the vid on Mt St Helens. Things happen a lot more rapidly than one might be lead to believe through evo

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Flipper

Clearly hominid palaeontology left a lot to be desired at the turn of the century, slightly more than 30 years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. I think science has moved on a bit since then though.

But someone forgot to tell the museums to catch up....

 

[Jukia]

And someone forgot to tell Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI to do good science. But that's OK, you can just continue to complain about hoaxs perpetrated by others an ignore plain incompetence.

 

[Flipper]

Nineveh:

Well, I have to say that I've never seen Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man) on display at any museum, nor in any text book. Have you ever seen the name Hesperopithecus on display anywhere? It's quite an unusual one, so it probably would stick in your mind.

And, as it turns out, I may have just taken the creationist cant on Java Man as read. It appears that a number of creationists are now accepting that JM is a hominid.

As mentioned above Lubenow, publishing in 1992, was one of the first major creationists to conclude that the Java Man skullcap did not belong to an ape. Bill Mehlert came to similar conclusion in a paper published in a creationist journal in 1994:

The finding of ER 3733 and WT 15000 therefore appears to strongly reinforce the validity of Java and Peking Man. The clear similarities shared by all four (where skeletal and cranial material available), render untenable any claims that the two Asian specimens are nothing more than exceptionally large apes. (Mehlert 1994)

Following this many of the better-informed creationists decided that the skullcap which had hitherto belonged to an ape was in fact human, such that Carl Wieland, the CEO of Answers in Genesis was able to write in 1998 (in a review of Richard Milton's book Shattering the myths of Darwinism) that [Milton's] statement that the Java Man remains are now thought to be simply those of an extinct, giant gibbon-like creature is simply false. He appears to have been misled by the myth (commenced by evolutionists, and perpetuated in both creationist and evolutionist works since) that Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of Java Man, recanted and called his discovery a 'giant gibbon'. Knowledgable creationists do not make this sort of claim anymore. (Wieland 1998)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

Not quite so open and shut now, is it?

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

"Junk" is somewhat a misnomer, because molecular biology remains a young science. Segments of DNA may function in additional ways that have not yet been discovered, which might suggest uses for much or all of the junk. Scientists generally keep this likelihood in mind even as they persist in using the word "junk," which for better or worse has stuck."

Dimo:

Well in your case it was definitely for the worse. So you agree with me. Why was that like pulling teeth? Please tell me how a discipline in it's infancy, which has some inaccurate terms associated with it, is evidence against natural philosophy?