ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.

[baloney]

Additional genetic info nonsense:

It's hard to understand how ayone can make this claim since whatever muations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add info to a genome and some subtract it. Creationsits get by with this claim by leaving the term "info" undefined.

By any reasonable definition we observe info added in evolution through;

increased genetic variety in population.
increased in genetic material.
novel genetic material.
novel genetically regulated abilities.

Genetic sequencing has revealed the likely adding of info in some proteins such as two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel shaped were formed by two half barrel shaped enymes created from genetic duplication and combined. RNSAE1 and RNSAE1B. yeast was put in a mixture of very little sugar and the DNA duplicated and mutated.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed

This link gives more than 3,000 references to DNA duplication where info was added.

 

[kalel29]

a) "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..." Exodus 20:11

b) "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female..." Mark 10:6

c) "23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God." Luke 3

In part (a) above we have Exodus stating that everything was created in six days. In part (b) above we have Mark stating that humans were created in the beginning. And then in part (c) above you have a geneology of Jesus going all the way back to Adam (the first human).

Hope this helps.

A bunch of words from the Bible, which has been discredited time and time again. :cheers:

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no evidence of species ever attaining additional genetic information from one generation to the next, they can mutate all day, but without adding info to their dna;

Demonstrably wrong. Here's an example:

1. A mutation (which might or might not change the activity of a protein) occurs and over time, this allele comes to represent one-quarter of the population, with three other alleles forming one-quarter each.

The formula for information increase is:

-Σ p log p

where p is the frequency of each allele.

Before the new allele (assume the 3 existing ones were all equal to simplify the calculations) the information was about 0.43.

After the new allele it was about 0.60, a substantial increase.

particle to human evolution is rediculously absurd.

Sure is. Humans evolved from other primates, not particles.

 

[noguru]

False, the crusaders didn't even own Bibles personally- how in the world were they to know what Christ said?

For any of them to be saved would have been a miracle.

What? You missed the point entirely. Does this mean that an illiterate person can't be a Christian?

 

[chatmaggot]

A bunch of words from the Bible, which has been discredited time and time again. :cheers:

Hey, thanks for joining in the conversation two weeks later. Did you read ANY of the other posts or do you just post and run?

Thank you for you useless comment.

 

[Jukia]

Demonstrably wrong. Here's an example:

1. A mutation (which might or might not change the activity of a protein) occurs and over time, this allele comes to represent one-quarter of the population, with three other alleles forming one-quarter each.

The formula for information increase is:

-Σ p log p

where p is the frequency of each allele.

Before the new allele (assume the 3 existing ones were all equal to simplify the calculations) the information was about 0.43.

After the new allele it was about 0.60, a substantial increase.



Sure is. Humans evolved from other primates, not particles.

Oh, puhleeze, first you try to throw some science into this discussion and now MATH, with logs? Just go read Genesis, all this is just way tooooo much information.

 

[bob b]

Additional genetic info nonsense:

It's hard to understand how ayone can make this claim since whatever muations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add info to a genome and some subtract it. Creationsits get by with this claim by leaving the term "info" undefined.

By any reasonable definition we observe info added in evolution through;

increased genetic variety in population.

True but irrelevent. People sometimes confuse both themselves and others by mixing the idea of information of a population and information of individuals. The total information in a population can obviously increase if the population increases, but if no individuals within a population achieve an increase of information then obviously evolution can never produce populations with ever increasing information levels.

So the focus for one to prove evolution should be on whether the information of an individual lifeform can be increased significantly by simply throwing away all the failures provided by so-called random mutations. The trivial case where a "bad" mutation is later reversed can be safely ignored. There are simply too many "bad" mutation possibilities in the genome of a lifeform to consider that a good one will ever occur randomly, not to mention that because of the servomechanism nature of genomes that a single mutation can only screw up any servomechanism that is working well, i.e. to achieve an improvement in any servomechanism design multiple mutations would have to occur simultaneously, making such a possibility completely unthinkable to have occurred by chance.

 

[The Barbarian]

People sometimes confuse both themselves and others by mixing the idea of information of a population and information of individuals.

Evolution, as you know, is what happens to populations. Individuals don't evolve. Hence mutations cause increases in information in a population. The genetic information in an indivdual doesn't change.

The total information in a population can obviously increase if the population increases, but if no individuals within a population achieve an increase of information then obviously evolution can never produce populations with ever increasing information levels.

That's pretty silly, bob. If a mutation spreads through a population, the information (as you saw) increases. The next generation, other mutations will also spread, and so information will increase again, and so on. Of course, if the population is well-adapted to a constant environment, then information should stay relatively the same. But if any thing changes, information will again increase.

So the focus for one to prove evolution should be on whether the information of an individual lifeform can be increased significantly by simply throwing away all the failures provided by so-called random mutations.

Nope. And evolutionary theory doesn't say it does. You've confused evolution with some kind of change you want to happen in an individual. That's just goofy, bob.

The trivial case where a "bad" mutation is later reversed can be safely ignored. There are simply too many "bad" mutation possibilities in the genome of a lifeform to consider that a good one will ever occur randomly,

That's demonstrably wrong. Want to see some good ones?

not to mention that because of the servomechanism nature of genomes that a single mutation can only screw up any servomechanism that is working well, i.e. to achieve an improvement in any servomechanism design multiple mutations would have to occur simultaneously, making such a possibility completely unthinkable to have occurred by chance.

That's demonstrably wrong, too. In fact, engineers are now using random mutations to improve complex systems, by simulating natural selection.

Would you like to learn how it works?

 

[mighty_duck]

Yet this hasn't been done with the flagellum so no scenario has been provided. For example, if we take the mousetrap, it is known that this is an example of a irreducibly complex system. Therefore, we already have provided the proof so the burden of proof is passed on you to demonstrate that it is not so. Like most, you argue that we don't know and it could be figured out. How do you know that it will be solved in the first place? What if it really is IC? Sure, be my guest and try to provide a scenario of the flagellum's evolution, but you won't find anything if it is really irreducibly complex. Understand though that irreducibly complex systems CAN exist, and that's what ID is attempting to demonstrate. Would something that is established to be IC evolvable? Can the mousetrap evolve or work without one of it's parts? As the evolutionists argues that they don't specifically, then why should we know 100% until we

The mousetrap is indeed IC, not because it can't function without one of it's parts, but because it can't reproduce.

I am not ruling out the possibility that IC structures exist, but if you want to dispute evolution, the burden is on you to show that they actually do exist.
What we have so far from proponents of IC are two things:

1. Here's an advanced structure. I can't imagine how it could have evolved.
2. Here's an advanced structure. If you remove a part, it won't work.

The first is an argument from personla incredulity, basically an argument from ignorance. The second uses a straw man of evolution. Both do nothing to prove IC.

It is not a form of IC which claims that there cannot be a step-by-step process because all the parts are necessary.. What I am questioning is whether natural selection is a true explanation for evolution when there is contradictions.

It is only a contradiction if a beneficial trait in terms of survival in a certain environment actually got less common in a population. What you are doing is looking at a trait that may be beneficial in today's environment, and concluding that there could never be an environment where it would be neutral or detrimental. See the sickle cell anemia / malaria point made a few posts back. A future Macguy looking at a world without malaria may suggest that evolution has failed here.

How then, can evolution be refuted? The reductionist approach is also an argument from ignorance in that it assumes no irreducibly complex systems exist.

It is an assumption that has so many lines of corroborating evidence that it has become the default position. All you have to do is prove that a system really is IC to disprove evolution. Darwin admitted as much in OoS.

It's funny because these evolutionists then think this is evidence against a designer.

Why is it funny?
With a designer, you can rationally ask why they didn't implement a design that even a lowly human can think of.
With evolution, this point becomes nonsensical. Creatures without cellulose digestion seem to survive. That is all the theory requires. Evolution doesn't give creatures what they need when they need it, unlike a designer.

To the evolutionist, all this means is that "Evolution is a fact! All they are debating now is on how it was done" but then a visitor comes in and says "I see the evolutionary theory explains everything, therefore it explains nothing".

I see where you are coming from, and I agree it is somewhat discouraging. I doubt there would be any single finding that would disprove evolution in one fell blow - chances are the theory will change slightly to account for that finding.
The basic fact of evolution - that creatures change over time, and mechanisms like natural selection - are as likely to be disproved as the theory of gravity.
Some sub mechanisms are in fact in dispute because we don't have exhaustive knowledge or perfect fossil records.

All human knowledge is an approximation of the truth. Should we have abandoned Newtonian physics because there is a chance it is false? Should we now abandon general relativity?

The key is that the fact contradicts evolutionary scenarios where convergence is used as evidence for it, but then we find evidence against convergence! It's not that there cannot be an explanation, but according the Neo-Darwnism version of evolution, there is inconsistencies here. As you can see, this is way different than saying it cannot be explained by gradual process. It is just to say that evolution will have to update their theory. I find it doubtful for you to find an explanation without contradicting convergence which is often used against ID. Now then, we have something which contradicts evolution but it's used against a designer too! I guess both theories may be inadequate to them? That's convenient.

It is only a contradiction if a beneficial trait relative to the environment was selected away. Otherwise, it is just one more process that needs to be investigated. When you have a tool that has provided answers time and again, then that is the tool that will be used to do the investigation.

 

[aikido7]

BEING CONSISTENT AND REJECTING SCIENCE....

BEING CONSISTENT AND REJECTING SCIENCE....

Why don't fundamentalist evangelicals reject ALL science?

It is definitely unfair at the least--and literally dishonest--to refuse to deal with the theory of evolution and then, for example, take an antibiotic when you get a virus.
Granted--creation is in the Bible and evolution isn’t. But aren't there still are a lot of things in the Bible that clearly don’t apply today, like killing your wife is she’s not a virgin or eating lobster or shrimp in defiance of Leviticus.

Isn't the distrust of science fairly selective, then?

Anyway, this distrust or rejection of science it clearly doesn’t extend to the point to where you are willing to die from a sort throat. Does it?

I am posting this on other threads with "evolution" and/or "creationism" in their titles.

 

[chatmaggot]

Why don't fundamentalist evangelicals reject ALL science?...this distrust or rejection of science...

When do fundamentalist reject ANY science? Besides the crazy few who don't accept blood transfusions etc... (but then again I wouldn't label them has fundamentalist).

 

[SUTG]

When do fundamentalist reject ANY science?

If, by fundamentalist, you mean Young Earth creationist, then they do it all the time. To maintain a belief in the literal truth of Genesis, you are required to discard/ignore/misinterpret quite a bit of science.

 

[P8ntrDan]

If, by fundamentalist, you mean Young Earth creationist, then they do it all the time. To maintain a belief in the literal truth of Genesis, you are required to discard/ignore/misinterpret quite a bit of science.

I guess I'll be taking the truth then.

 

[Real Sorceror]

I guess I'll be taking the truth then.

So you've decided to research and understand current theories in biology, genetics, and natural history?

 

[aikido7]

When do fundamentalist reject ANY science? Besides the crazy few who don't accept blood transfusions etc... (but then again I wouldn't label them has fundamentalist).

For one (duh!) the "sciences" of creation and intelligent design. For another, the guidelines for the science of historical inquiry (in regard to Scripture). Thirdly, how about the scientific mystery as to what is the definition of life (one version of Genesis says one is alive when there is "breath" in the body, for example) in regard to abortion ethics?

I rest my rear.

 

[Highline]

True but irrelevent. People sometimes confuse both themselves and others by mixing the idea of information of a population and information of individuals. The total information in a population can obviously increase if the population increases, but if no individuals within a population achieve an increase of information then obviously evolution can never produce populations with ever increasing information levels.

Yes it can. If the population is split and seperated, then the two resultant populations have different information and in sum, have more information. We see this happen with languages. People around the earth spoke thousands of languages, there is probably a finite amount of complexity a language can have, and a more comlicated language does not mean a superior one, yet in total, if all languages combine to make a great amount of communication complexity among humans. For different languages to happen, separation must be involved. Also language differences, like evolutionary differences, are environment dependent.

 

[bob b]

If the population is split and seperated, then the two resultant populations have different information and in sum, have more information.

I must admit to never hearing this argument before.

That's probably because it is so dumb.

 

[noguru]

I must admit to never hearing this argument before.

That's probably because it is so dumb.

How is it "dumb" Bob? Just saying it is "dumb" doe not make it "dumb".

 

[chatmaggot]

If, by fundamentalist, you mean Young Earth creationist, then they do it all the time. To maintain a belief in the literal truth of Genesis, you are required to discard/ignore/misinterpret quite a bit of science.

Really? You sound a lot like the folks that recently protested the creation museum. They say the following on their website (http://www.rallyforreason.com/):

"The organizers of Rally For Reason are aware that AiG monitors this website, since they employ some of the best computer techs in the business--the quality of their website attests to this fact. This is even more amazing since computers are negligently not mentioned anywhere in the Bible."

Don't you think that is a silly comment? That sounds just like yours.

 

[bob b]

How is it "dumb" Bob? Just saying it is "dumb" doe not make it "dumb".

Let us take the "splitting" argument to its logical extreme.

Take a population of 100,000.

Split it into multiple populations of 1 individual each.

Do we now have 100,000 times as much information as the original population of 100,000?