Search This Blog

Friday, February 26, 2010

Answers to comments on DNA and Science


I did not ask how preexisting DNA is read, nor did I ask about mutations."

No, you said information doesn't grow on trees. Jon responded to that by pointing out that it comes from mutations, though it should be added that it comes from mutations filtered through natural selection, leading to information as to which mutations are useful being retained and becoming part of the organism's genetic makeup. Hence an accumulation of genetic information over time.

You have nothing here. Mutations of WHAT? Where does DNA come from? The immense complexity of DNA is a mystery to most of us. A great deal of DNA is information. Information is intentional, a component of design. Anyone who looks at this objectively would say that DNA is a remarkable piece of engineering.

Maybe you can do card tricks, but first you need the cards. Darwinism has no explanation for where the cards came from in the first place and shuffling the deck is not making anything. Taking a couple of cards from the deck changes it but doesn't make it...

"Where in the world did you get the idea a pile of mud would suddenly convert itself into a complex blueprint with complex copying/coding mechanisms that the finest minds do not yet completely understand?"

Ah, I see where you're having a problem with this: "pile of mud" and "suddenly". A pile of mud suddenly turning into a modern human... but wait, that's the story in the Bible. And you're right, it does sound pretty silly... but it's not what the theory of evolution says, so you can direct that complaint at the Bible, not the theory of evolution.

We're talking about something different here, see. Gradual evolution over many, many, many generations, not suddenly. The evidence is strong for evolution having occurred. Witness for example - this has come up on your blog quite a lot in the last few days - the fact that the theory of evolution perfectly matches the location of fossils in the fossil record, for which YEC/global flood thinkers have absolutely no response. You hear incredibly vague mutterings about "specific gravity" or "ability to flee" and such as ways of explaining why fossils are arranged in this way, but none even comes close to matching up with reality and providing a scientific explanation of how such a mechanism "sorted" the fossils as they are currently found.

Point one.

"If you could peer into any one of your body's 50 trillion cells, you'd find a fantastically complex and busy world. At the center of this world you'd find a nucleus containing 46 molecules called chromosomes-23 from your mother and 23 from your father. These chromosomes are basically an instruction set for the construction and maintenance of... you..

These two long stacks of building blocks fit together like two sides of zipper, but there's a rule involved: adenine only pairs with thymine, and cytosine only pairs with guanine. So each rung in the DNA ladder is a pair of nucleotides, and each pair is either an A stuck to a T or a C stuck to a G.

You've got six billion of these pairs of nucleotides in each of your cells, and amongst these six billion nucleotide pairs are roughly 30,000 genes. A gene is a distinct stretch of DNA that determines something about who you are. (More on that later.) Genes vary in size, from just a few thousand pairs of nucleotides (or "base pairs") to over two million base pairs." From Stanford University's tech blog. The DNA in your body would stretch out to the moon and back 130,000 times. Why is this important? Because DNA is very exacting and very complex. It is hilariously ridiculous to believe that any series of accidents could produce this blueprint for life.

Second, hydrologists know that sorting by size and shape and specific gravity happens and that the oft-found ripple marks in the rock record is a clue of fast-moving flood waters.

Third, Darwinists say that the fossils show an evolution of creatures. So why are all these living fossils being found? If Coelecanths and Wollemi Pines are all found deep in the rocks and then disappear as other forms take their place, how is it they still exist? There are many creatures that are found in just one or two "epochs" in the fossil record but are also found now. Did they all get in a time machine or was the layering of the sedimentary rocks a matter of habitat, escapability and size?

I take the fact that you attempt to argue against the theory of evolution by focusing on another subject, abiogenesis, as a tacit admission that you can't actually come up with any solid arguments against the theory of evolution itself. Fine by me. So if your beef is with abiogenesis, why not conclude that God did it? The theory of evolution stands regardless, as it matches the evidence and there is no competing theory that does the same.

I have often pointed out that evolution has been tested and falsified so you have to have intentionally missed that part. Speciation is invariably associated with the loss of information. Mutation is nothing more than a bit player in the game. On rare occasion one mutation may pass on but one mutation in the genetic code that is exceedingly complex is not enough to even begin to make a new system, let alone a new organism. I will say it again, thousands of generations of fruit flies and millions of generations of bacteria have falsified Darwinism.

As for the origin of DNA not being solved yet, did you think that was some kind of secret? You make a fuss about Chaos Engineer "admitting" this, but who ever claimed that this had been 100% solved?

Here's the thing though: if you think you have the answer, and that answer happens to be "God did it", then you don't have any more information at all. And to make it worse, you have less (or no) curiosity. You've given yourself a reason not to investigate further.

But... you don't really have the answer as to how God did it, do you? That answer is "well, God just did it", right?

Right?

Hey, you understand that part, yes. God is the only answer here. Your so-called answer is to replace "God" with "Oops" and have "Oops" just keep on happening in every situation. What a lucky break that everything came from nothing and turned itself into billions of objects in the sky and billions of organisms under the Sun! Boy that Oops it just happened is a great example of science in action!


You see, Radar, if what you believe is true and God did create everything we see around us, he must have done it somehow. And it's that somehow that concerns scientists. How did this happen in nature?

It's at this point that scientists investigate and, little by little, expand human knowledge about the world around them. Creationists say "God did it", mistake that for an answer, and then try to shoot holes in the theory of evolution.

-- creeper

Funny how the terrible cumbersome disadvantage of believing in God did not hinder Newton or Linnaeus or Mendel or Kelvin, huh? In fact, scientists believed that a Logical God made the Universe and therefore a logical reason for how things work and logical systems of operation could be investigated and understood and that is the way most scientists did work and still do work. Operational science depends on a logical Universe and expects logical answers. It only makes sense that a Logical Mind designed everything. Otherwise why would things make sense? Why would random happenings produce non-random processes? Darwinists drive the vehicle God made when they call upon reason and logic.

Do a search on my blog on "rapid speciation" and then we will talk further.

~

Scientists don't claim to have all the answers...and even if they did have all the answers, they wouldn't admit it, because then they'd be out of a job! Anyway, there are other questions that are easy for scientists but hard for Creationists. Like: "How many of the 350,000 known species of beetle were on Noah's Ark, and how many evolved after the Flood? And why do we even need 350,000 species of beetle, anyway?"

No beetles would have been on Noah's Ark, the language of the Bible is specifically limited to land-based veterbrates and birds. All other creatures had the ability to last out a year-long flood by living in vast mats of plant and tree debris that would have floated on the surface during the 150 plus days that the water overflowed everything.

Instead of focusing on questions that science can't answer yet, I think it would be better to focus on the questions that science does a good job of answering, and then shoehorn that information into a Creationist model. (For example, the Flood story makes the most sense when we read it as the story of a memorable local flood, which was part of an oral history and had gotten greatly exaggerated before Moses finally wrote it down.)

Not really. We have rock layers that stretch across continents and are often very thick in places so that we are talking of millions of tons of rock comprising just one layer of an entire series of rock layers that are all typical of flood layering. Only a world-wide flood works in this case.

Besides, the knowledge we have does not have to be shoehorned into Creation. It is the simple solution, the one that does not need all sorts of incredible stretches of the imagination to explain the world in which we live. We will all be better off when science agrees that the Universe was designed and spends more time trying to use it better and safer and no more time on fruitless snipe hunts for the Chance Fairy's invisible tracks.

Let's address the speciation issue soon, perhaps Monday?

103 comments:

Anonymous said...


Funny how the terrible cumbersome disadvantage of believing in God did not hinder Newton or Linnaeus or Mendel or Kelvin, huh?


You just don't get it.

creeper said...

The theory of evolution explains evolution not the origin of life. How life went from simple to more complex organisms.

Your response is twofold: first, an argument from personal incredulity (coupled with disregarding gradual evolution), and second that the theory of evolution cannot be valid because it doesn't explain the origin of all of this. That would be like saying that plate tectonics is invalid because it doesn't explain where planet Earth came from, or that atomic theory is invalid because it doesn't explain how it all originated.

So your attempt to attack the theory of evolution from this angle is not a particularly effective one.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Second, hydrologists know that sorting by size and shape and specific gravity happens"

"Hydrologists know" this. Seems suspiciously vague, but then again this is one of those subjects you can’t answer, so you have to tread very carefully and hope nobody notices.

In any case, what these “hydrologists know” still doesn't match up with what global flood apologists are trying to pull here. If "sorting by size and shape and specific gravity happens"...

... then why isn't the fossil record sorted by size and shape and specific gravity???

As Jon said previously:

"It's also been rejected, because a flood would not be so selective in its sorting. Ichthyosaurs are never found with dolphins, despite having similar shapes and lifestyles. Brontosaurs are never found with elephants. Lions are never found with velociraptors, or even with creodonts. Angiosperms are never found lower than the Early Cretaceous -- not even the ones that today grow in the same habitats as ferns and pines. Never, not even once, throughout the entire geologic column.

Must have been a very smart flood."


You can speculate in the abstract about this or that sorting mechanism, but none of them ever describe the actual order found consistently throughout the fossil record.

So on the one hand we have a theory that perfectly accounts for what is found where in the fossil record and can even make predictions using dating techniques where specific kinds of fossils can be found (Tiktaalik) and find them confirmed.

On the other hand we have a viewpoint that can not account for what is found where in the fossil record (none of the supposed mechanisms you mention do this), that points at isolated examples of flooding and jumps to the conclusion that they must be evidence of a global flood and can make no testable predictions of any kind and find them confirmed.

An open mind would look at this and conclude that the former is the correct one.

"and that the oft-found ripple marks in the rock record is a clue of fast-moving flood waters. "

Which by itself may be evidence of fast-moving waters, which of course we know are present on Earth. So... big deal. It is not evidence of a global flood.

-- creeper

creeper said...

3. "Third, Darwinists say that the fossils show an evolution of creatures. So why are all these living fossils being found? If Coelecanths and Wollemi Pines are all found deep in the rocks and then disappear as other forms take their place, how is it they still exist?"

Or, as that famous scientist Larry King once said: "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" :-0

Radar, along with your bacterial evolution nonsense and numerous other ignorant remarks, the only thing this kind of comment puts the lie to is your claim that you once "studied" this stuff and were persuaded otherwise by "evidence". You simply read your way through creationist blogs and regurgitate them.

a. Yes, the fossil record shows an evolution of organisms.

b. No, the evolution is not necessarily linear, or teleological for that matter. It does not aim for some kind of perfect state that we just happen to be experiencing right now.

c. Sometimes organisms survive in their present state because it happens to suit them very well. See for example sharks, who have evolved very little over an extremely long time.

d. Finding that an organism has survived longer than we were previously aware is not a refutation of the phylogenetic tree, it simply adds a detail to it. What would be a refutation of the phylogenetic tree is if you found something earlier than its clear predecessors, for example a modern rabbit in the Cretaceous period - something that should be entirely possible according to YEC and utterly impossible according to the theory of evolution - and which is never, ever found.

That's where this time machine jibe of yours would make sense. Surviving longer = fits in, being alive earlier (i.e. before predecessors) = problem for theory of evolution.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I have often pointed out that evolution has been tested and falsified so you have to have intentionally missed that part."

No, I intentionally asked you for examples, which you then couldn't provide – or provided but they turned out not to be falsifications of the theory of evolution at all. So let us know when you have some, or if you really think I overlooked one, let me know what it is.

And just so you know, the bacterial evolution one that you have the gall to bring back up here isn't it - all that falsifies is your claim that you didn't sleep through biology class in its entirety and never bothered to acquaint yourself with even a most basic understanding of biology afterwards.

"Speciation is invariably associated with the loss of information."

Ah yes, I think you had something about bears posted a while back, so let's get into that one next. Should be entertaining.

"Mutation is nothing more than a bit player in the game. On rare occasion one mutation may pass on but one mutation in the genetic code that is exceedingly complex is not enough to even begin to make a new system, let alone a new organism."

That depends on the kind of mutation and the number of mutations.

"I will say it again, thousands of generations of fruit flies and millions of generations of bacteria have falsified Darwinism. "

Wow.

Just to bring Jon up to speed on this, this is one of Radar's more hilarious claims in the time I've been on this blog. As far as I can tell, it originated in this post, and Radar’s basic claim is that because in a certain (extensive but obviously limited) experiment, bacteria didn’t turn into “something other than bacteria”, macroevolution had been falsified. I pointed out to him numerous times that this indicated such a profound ignorance of both basic biology and the theory of evolution that it was safe to completely disregard anything he had to say on either subject. Which remains true of course.

Part of the beauty of Radar’s proclamations on this blog is that once he has made a particularly ignorant statement and is called on it, Radar is either too proud or ignorant to understand his error, and he will double down. So here he is again, making the same asinine claim.

Maybe you want to explain it to him...

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Hey, you understand that part, yes. God is the only answer here."

You missed the point. HOW did God do it is the question. If you want to jump to the conclusion (and it is a jump, as you should be aware) that God did it, it still doesn't answer the question of how, say, God created DNA - in a way that matches the evidence. The evidence doesn't match, say, God willing all creatures into being more or less in their present state 6000 years ago. The fossil record as well as other evidence contradicts that strongly.

So cling to your conclusion if you must, it still doesn't explain what happened even if you say "God did it".

"Your so-called answer is to replace "God" with "Oops" and have "Oops" just keep on happening in every situation. What a lucky break that everything came from nothing and turned itself into billions of objects in the sky and billions of organisms under the Sun! Boy that Oops it just happened is a great example of science in action! "

If by "oops" you mean "random chance", then yes, that's part of it. We can observe random chance around us all the time. We can also observe natural laws around us all the time. That's something we can work with.

-- creeper

creeper said...

You can claim that God created natural laws (because apparently you think of a law here in the same way you think of a law like a political law that must be put in place by someone) along with everything else, a mere 6,000 years ago, but that also quickly gets you into trouble when confronted with observable evidence.

Actually, you once asked this very question in a blog post here:

"If you were God, how would you do it? How would you make this massive, wondrous, exciting and dangerous Universe and then populate it with your people? Just think on it for a minute. How WOULD you do it? Would you, who invented and has dominion over all natural laws, confine yourself to those laws after you begin putting the Universe together? Or would you just do the elegant and direct thing, the most simple thing as you do your creative work?"

You then speculate that God would do things efficiently and in the most elegant and direct way (which as an argument was of course quickly dismantled). Funnily enough, you do all this in a discussion on Genesis. Now, there’s a big problem for YEC, and that is how to explain stars being more than 6,000 light years away. You (and others who insist in reading Genesis literally) proposed that God put the rays of light in space before the objects that they supposedly originated from even existed (due to the order of events listed in Genesis).

This not only makes the personified God you believe in very deceptive, but also unnecessarily awkward and clumsy. Why would he first create the beams of light in space and then the objects they originated from (though actually he doesn’t need to even do that – he could just create the beams of light and leave it at that, but that would make him even more deceptive)?

But why would he be subject to such constraints? If you’re of the opinion that God didn’t set all natural laws in motion, the answer is easy: he had to contend with the speed of light, that wasn’t something he could alter.

But what if you do believe that God put all these natural laws in place? Why would he create such a stumbling block for himself, such a contradiction? Because the real stickler here is the speed of light.

I pointed out that God could “just do the elegant and direct thing” by making the speed of light instantaneous. Instead, he did exactly what one would expect if (1) he did not in fact create the natural laws and (2) didn’t care one whit about doing the elegant and direct thing.

Which in turn is perfectly consistent with it being one of many creation myths, this one cooked up by Bronze Age tribes.

Funnily enough, you didn’t have a comeback to that one. You can imagine my surprise...

-- creeper

creeper said...

” Funny how the terrible cumbersome disadvantage of believing in God did not hinder Newton or Linnaeus or Mendel or Kelvin, huh? In fact, scientists believed that a Logical God made the Universe and therefore a logical reason for how things work and logical systems of operation could be investigated and understood and that is the way most scientists did work and still do work. Operational science depends on a logical Universe and expects logical answers. It only makes sense that a Logical Mind designed everything. Otherwise why would things make sense? Why would random happenings produce non-random processes? Darwinists drive the vehicle God made when they call upon reason and logic.”

We’ve been over this one ad nauseam as well. Nobody claimed that believing in God is a hindrance to scientists. On the contrary, it’s been pointed out to you numerous times that Christians and people of other faiths can all happily engage in scientific research because they use the scientific method instead of using a foregone conclusion.

What is a hindrance to scientists is claiming that some parts of the Bible are to be read as a scientific textbook and that they should trump observed reality. Did any of the scientists you mention try to follow this credo: "I come from the position that the Bible is correct and science needs to adjust to IT."?

Can you imagine where science would be today if they had done that? They'd still be trying to turn pi into 3, for pity's sake!


Next: you’re proceeding from the logical fallacy that just because random chance does exist, that non-theists then supposedly claim that everything is random, which simply isn’t true. There are natural forces at work, such as gravity, the interaction of atoms and molecules etc., that over time created order in the Universe – planets, stars, chemical elements etc. The human mind may seek agency in this, but there is nothing to indicate that such agency actually exists.

”Do a search on my blog on "rapid speciation" and then we will talk further.”

I’m aware of your arguments. How do you figure they fit in here? Maybe you want to dig up the discussion about how races developed from the time of Noah’s flood onwards by way of a mechanism that we can observe today?

-- creeper

creeper said...

And from a logic point of view, I just want to add that none of these arguments lead to a personified God existing in the present. First cause, observing supposed design, claiming natural laws have to be "created"... none of them lead to the inescapable solution that the madly inconsistent character described as God in the Christian Bible exists. That is far better explained by the gradual evolution of beliefs among his believers.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

An eloquent and heartfelt argument, radar. But unfortunately, that's not enough to make it true.

You have nothing here. Mutations of WHAT? Where does DNA come from? The immense complexity of DNA is a mystery to most of us.

Only because we imbue it with more significance than it actually has. DNA is a molecular code. That's all. We can't tell if it's a particularly good molecular code, or a particularly bad one. There's a general principle in statistics: you can't generalize from a sample of one. For all we know, DNA is a staggeringly bad method for encoding genetic information.

A great deal of DNA is information. Information is intentional, a component of design.

Nope. Information of the type encoded in DNA can and does arise by chance. This all gets back to the definition of information. There are several different definitions of "information," which have little to do with each other and cause no end of confusion among people who don't know how to distinguish between them. For example, there is "signal information," or the information that a string of symbols carries to an observer, and there's "entropic information" or "Shannon information," which is the number of bits required to describe the full signal. These different definitions give rise to an interesting paradox: a string which has a high "signal information" content will typically have a low Shannon-information content, and vice versa. A string of completely random bits has the highest Shannon-information content of all. And a change in a string which increases its "signal information" will often decrease its Shannon-information content.

With DNA, the 'signal information' is the string of codons which is transcribed into a protein. The 'Shannon information' is the sequence of bases. When a mutation results in a protein that is more capable of doing its job, then the signal-information content of that DNA segment increases, but the Shannon-information content often decreases. Creationists like you, radar, often get into trouble because you don't understand these esoteric differences, or forget to take them into account. Double-talking creation scientists like Morris and Gish talk about Shannon information, but make you think they're talking about signal information. And you wind up trying to defend the blatantly absurd position that a mutation which adds to an organism's genetic code, such as polyploidy in plants, actually represents a decrease in information.

Anyone who looks at this objectively would say that DNA is a remarkable piece of engineering.

Well, I wouldn't. I'd say DNA is adequate to serve its purpose, but a good designer could have designed a much better system. As with Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument about such things as the blood-clotting cascade and the immune system, the "complexity of DNA" argument has a powerful backblast: why would a smart Creator choose to create such a complicated, rickety, easily-broken system for doing things? It's almost as ridiculous as the placement of the prostate gland in human males.

Jon Woolf said...

Another point. Radar, you wrote:

Operational science depends on a logical Universe and expects logical answers. It only makes sense that a Logical Mind designed everything. Otherwise why would things make sense? Why would random happenings produce non-random processes?

Mind-blowing revelation about mathematics #19: random processes can sometimes produce ordered results because randomness by definition includes isolated fragments of order.

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper, 'way up above you wrote:

"Or, as that famous scientist Larry King once said: "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" :-0

"Radar, along with your bacterial evolution nonsense and numerous other ignorant remarks, the only thing this kind of comment puts the lie to is your claim that you once "studied" this stuff and were persuaded otherwise by "evidence"."

I wouldn't be so sure of that. As I said in another comment, I used to do this a lot. And I got the distinct impression that even some of evolution's defenders didn't always fully grok the theory they were defending. The standard response to the question ""If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" is, of course, "evolutionary theory doesn't say that a parent-species has to go extinct when a new species evolves from it." However, if you think about it for a moment, that isn't really much of an answer. It's a theory argument, a he-said-she-said thing.

But if you really understand that at its root, evolution is nothing more than a long, long line of descent, parent-organism to child-organism, then you understand that "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" is just as ridiculous a question as "why didn't your parents die when you were born?" is. Not everybody ever achieves that.

radar said...

You are spinning my arguments. What I am saying is that we find coelecanth in the fossil record deep in the depths of fossil rocks and then no coelecanth. Coelecanth is then said to disappear, being replaced with more advanced fish. But Coelecanth still lives. And, in fact, the fossil record has an uncomfortable lack of bottom-dwelling sea life at the upper end of the strata. Did fish and shellfish take a time machine to now? Or are fossils sorted primarily by environment level at time of flood?

radar said...

As to whether fossils are found with other fossils, that is not really true. Rocks are dated by fossils and fossils by rock but often out-of-place fossils are found in rocks. The geological table taught to students is not really found that way on earth.

Most importantly, while Darwinists look hard for mutations causing changes in life forms, these mutations looked for are within DNA. We see lots of variation of form amongst kinds of animals depending on their DNA and we even see some transference of genetic material from one organism to another. But there is no explanation for DNA and speciation is due to information loss or recombination.

radar said...

creeper you have a litany of fables told by Darwinists, that unlike fossils are not found together (untrue) and that ripples are to be expected in sedimentary levels (untrue). Ripples are not preserved except under special circumstances caused by floods. Ripples are normally erased, as are footprints. In fact, the flat water-marked sedimentary layers so easily seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon are proof of flood activity. Exposed ground will find itself turned into hills and valleys and bumps and lumps by weathering and age. The sedimentary rock layers all over the earth are nice flat layers smoothly laid one upon another.

Jon Woolf said...

The sedimentary rock layers all over the earth are nice flat layers smoothly laid one upon another.

They are?

Wow.

radar said...

No it is not true that random noise makes actual information. Can a series of numbers by chance make a small pattern like 1-2-3? Yes. But then mathematicians have already agreed that the odds against even one cell happening by chance or in fact one working string of DNA happening by chance is too infinitesimal to be considered. You statisticians pretend to be unimpressed but the Universe does not have enough matter to have the gravitational pull required to bring everything back together to explode into another universe even on the absurd assumption that this Universe is the reanimation of a previous one or a twin.

So then they talk about infinite Universes so that in an infinity of Universes anything could be posited to have happened by chance. Ludicrous! There are trillions of cells in your body. Each of them is a complex factory of activity and contain the blueprint to make another you. But you are only one of billions of other creatures on the planet. The utter dismay of logic when it considers what Darwinists do to it!

radar said...

And like it or not, if you are a naturalist you have to show where matter came from, where energy came from, where time came from, where life came from and etc. You fail to see you substitute a Supernatural God with a All-powerful Chance that does all the work. Even though the math says chance cannot do the job.

The silly thing Darwinists will say is that they could simply be trying to find out the natural means by which God made things. But there are two forces Darwinist cannot understand:

1- Redemptive power by which Christ renews a man and makes him a Christian
2- Creative power by which God made all things and all life

Jesus turned water into wine as his first miracle. He turned six pots of water into wine. Wine normally requires aging and ingredients not found in water.

God also made all things in six days. The Universe has an appearance of age but that is so we can observe and enjoy it.

Jon Woolf said...

Rocks are dated by fossils and fossils by rock but often out-of-place fossils are found in rocks.

Examples? Evidence, citations?

What I am saying is that we find coelecanth in the fossil record deep in the depths of fossil rocks and then no coelecanth. Coelecanth is then said to disappear, being replaced with more advanced fish. But Coelecanth still lives.

And it was a hell of a surprise when a living species of coelacanth was found to be alive today. (Note in passing: Latimeria chalumnae, the species of coelacanth discovered alive off the east coast of Africa in 1938, does not appear in the fossil record at all. As a deepwater fish, it is extremely unlikely to be fossilized.) It was the very first Lazarus taxon ever discovered. Since then a few others have been found, and palaeontologists learned a valuable lesson in humility. A taxon's last appearance in the fossil record is exactly that and nothing more.

However, the phenomenal rarity of Lazarus taxa suggests that they are rare in reality too. When a major taxon disappears abruptly from the fossil record, such as dinosaurs at the K-T boundary, the overwhelming probability is that all members of that taxon really went extinct at that time.

And, in fact, the fossil record has an uncomfortable lack of bottom-dwelling sea life at the upper end of the strata. Did fish and shellfish take a time machine to now?

Maybe this is because most of what was seafloor one or two million years ago is still seafloor today. Rather difficult to look for fossils under several hundred feet of water.

Jon Woolf said...

But then mathematicians have already agreed that the odds against even one cell happening by chance or in fact one working string of DNA happening by chance is too infinitesimal to be considered.

No one seriously thinks it happened that way. If nothing else, the chemical reactions that presaged life on Earth were constrained by the available raw materials, the available energy, and the laws of chemistry.

radar said...

Yes, they are. Look at the valley walls of the canyon, Mr. Woolf. The layers are nice and flat. The layers are flat, that does not mean that the layers were not later turned into canyons, twisted like pretzels and folded and pressed into hills and mountains in the post-flood world. The Grand Canyon gives us a good view of the nice flat layering of sediments accomplished by the flood. The Canyon was formed by a burst massive freshwater lake made up of melting glacial waters and precipitation that broke through their boundary and poured out violently and rapidly, cutting a massive swath across the Southwestern United States.

We now know plenty of lakes (like Missoula) were formed and drained and left their mark in the still-new sedimentary layers of the flood. We also know rapid tectonic plate subduction made several continents in place of one and contributed to huge uplifts like the Himalayan and the Rockie Mountain ranges.

Uniformitarians have been forced to become multiple catastrophists but in time they will have to adjust back to the normal view of the rock layers, which is that of flood sedimentation. The evidence is forcing them to change, slowly, but change they will.

I have confidence enough honest scientists will emerge from the younger generations and they will cast aside the now-ridiculous notion of spontaneous life generation (as Pasteur 'proved' in 1861)and accept that the Universe was created and life was designed.

BTW give up on the "DNA is a bad design" garbage. That assertion was from ignorance. DNA is revealing itself to be far more complex that first thought and with uses for portions once considered junk.

radar said...

"But then mathematicians have already agreed that the odds against even one cell happening by chance or in fact one working string of DNA happening by chance is too infinitesimal to be considered.

No one seriously thinks it happened that way. If nothing else, the chemical reactions that presaged life on Earth were constrained by the available raw materials, the available energy, and the laws of chemistry."

Gobbledygook. Miller-Urey did their best. Experimentation shows any conditions volatile enough to have provided a "life spark" whatever that might be would also be too volatile to preserve a new-born life form. Serious DNA students cannot begin to believe it just happened. They began seeking aliens to see if they designed us, or crediting God with creating primitive creatures or simply agreeing that God created.

You cannot explain the beginnings of ANYTHING and to try to prove evolution by speciation is silly. The genetic machine is already completely made and you are fooling with the timing to see if the machine will backfire.

Speciation happens through information loss. Ring populations are naturally selected to lose so much information that they often cannot even MATE with other varieties of what were their own kind.

radar said...

"Funny how the terrible cumbersome disadvantage of believing in God did not hinder Newton or Linnaeus or Mendel or Kelvin, huh?

You just don't get it."

Brilliant counterthrust.

I do get it. A logical Universe made by a Logical God works in logical ways, allowing us to make predictions and utilize the created world to make things and accomplish things.

You believe random forces produced logical processes. You believe blind chance has formed DNA, a blueprint we are still trying to understand completely and the human brain, which is more complex and powerful than any man-made computers. In other words, you believe in the ultimate fairy tale.

Only one logical conclusion can be reached about an entire Universe that appears to be designed. IT WAS DESIGNED!!! So quit playing with fairy tales and start doing real science. If only all the time wasted by Darwinists had been devoted to operational science, we might have developed better ways to stop cancer, to try to rebuild spinal cords, etc.

radar said...

As to seafloor fossils? You mean the ones found everywhere around the world on mountains and hills and prairies and canyons but not often under water at all? They are found near the bottome because they lived near the bottom during the flood. The fossil sorting is largely a matter of where such animals lived, whether land or sea animals and also their size and escapability. So-called Lazarus fossils are becoming so common now it is embarrassing to Darwinists.

Your Coelecanth dodge will not work. Species is just another name for a variety of the same animal. More than one type of Coelecanth are in existence now. The Wollemi Pine has now been found to exist. As we study jungles and wilderness in New Guinea and China and Kamchatka and South America and Indonesia and etc. we find more and more animals thought to be long extinct. More to the point, we find that with few exceptions the animals found in the fossil record are still found today. They have speciated to adjust to conditions but they still exist. It appears that the only true extinctions of kinds happened to dinosaurs and dinosaurs lasted into the 14th century and even beyond before being killed off entirely.

radar said...

It is speculated that even the famous trilobite has been spotted in recent years. I will not be surprised when a specimen is located. The trilobite had one of the most advanced eyes known in nature and you think it is a primitive form of life?

Why does the Mantis Shrimp have a far superior eye than humans? How does the Brush Turkey keep the interior of its nest at exactly 91 degrees and 95 per cent humidity? How does a Beaver engineer such efficient dams from branches and logs? Why do their front teeth keep growing, thus allowing them to saw down trees all through their lives? How did the Bombadier Beetle develop the multi-chambered staccato explosive devices it has? How do garden spiders make so many kinds of webs and strands and apply them all properly? How can there be life forms depending on four different sources of energy rather than one?

Jon Woolf said...

radar, you're making this too easy.

The photo I pointed to shows the contact between the Grand Canyon Supergroup and the Tapeats Sandstone, which is the lowermost of the eight Upper Canyon formations. This contact is a textbook example (literally!) of an angular unconformity -- that is, an unconformity where the upper and lower component layers contact at an angle. In this case the angle is a measured 15 degrees. You can see it plainly at the left of the photo.

Jon Woolf said...

radar wrote: "More to the point, we find that with few exceptions the animals found in the fossil record are still found today."

ROTFLMAO

Synapsids are still alive today? Pterosaurs are still alive today? Eurypterids, ammonites, trilobites, ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, cynodonts, rauisuchids, pelycosaurs, titanotheres are still alive today? Anomalocaris and Opabinia are still alive today?

radar, you're dreaming.

radar said...

There are two different ecological systems found deep underwater so far that depend on chemicals from within the Earth itself. Two differing systems, both originating from within the planet.
Deep in the ocean, far from the light of the Sun and in very extreme temperatures inexplicable life has been proved to live comfortably.

Plants obtain power from the sun via photosynthesis, a process so complex Darwinists cannot begin to explain it as it must all work together to work at all. Animals live off of plants and/or other animals. Since the energy of the Sun feeds the animals eventually then both of these kinds of beings get power from the sun, one directly and one indirectly.

But plants also need animals in order for both to work together to keep the atmosphere in balance and most plants root in some kind of soil and obtain nutrients thereby, many of which are derived from the remains of animals so that even the plant-animal-sun chain is interdependent.

Oh yeah, and the Sun is not a constant. Stars have lives and our Sun will not be hospitable to life for a long time and could not have been hospitable for multiple millions of years as Darwinists say.

Not to mention that carbon-14 is not stable in the atmosphere so the atmosphere has not been around long enough to reach a static state. Whereas helium atoms leaving zircon in granitic rock and polonium radiohalo readings tell us that the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old, other dating systems claim much older dates. Darwinists just toss aside any "young" readings. Good luck with that.

radar said...

and now I go enjoy my Sunday!

radar said...

Alright, it does not matter how many of those animals survive now (pterosaurs certainly made it into the 18th century in North American and the 17th in Europe)and it appears man deliberately killed off any dinosaurs he could. In fact, the only reason rather large creatures like the Bison survive now was because people like Teddy Roosevelt decided preserving animal types was worthwhile.

Design involves contingencies and redundancies. That creatures change over time is indisputable. Once you understand that this change is a design feature then your eyes will be opened.

Trachodon or Rhino, nevertheless the place in the ecological system remains. If not mosasaurs then killer whales. If not cynodonts then dogs. If not mammoths then elephants. The redundancies and provisions of the genetic pool of created beings allows for multiple kinds of animals that fit into a niche. Whether antelope or deer or moose or bison or cattle or sheep or goat or younameit there will be herbivores and carnivores and omnivores that are found in water on land or amphibious in habitat. Many creatures are entirely symbiotic and that speaks to design. If one kind of animal cannot fit the habitat another steps in. Or the kind changes according to the genetic information available.

You do know that there are bears that live in the Arctic and others at the equator and both are simply varieties of bear? I assume you are aware that polar and grizzly and brown bears can all mate? They are all kinds of bears.

A Poodle and a Great Dane are both dogs, but very different in genetic material. Usually a dog can mate with a wolf or a coyote but Darwinists fail to see that they are all of one kind or baramin.

Jon Woolf said...

Alright, it does not matter how many of those animals survive now

Your admission of defeat is noted for the record. ;-)

(pterosaurs certainly made it into the 18th century in North American and the 17th in Europe)

[blink]

[goes and gets stiff shot of whiskey]

[comes back, reads again]

I confess to being flummoxed, radar. I thought I'd seen every kind of creationist argument there was, but you've proved me wrong. Never before have I seen a creationist seriously attempt to argue that the Amerind and Old European legends of monsters are based on living dinosaurs and pterosaurs. That's so way-out-there that Wolfgang Pauli's famous put-down applies: Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!

Jon Woolf said...

Stars have lives and our Sun will not be hospitable to life for a long time and could not have been hospitable for multiple millions of years as Darwinists say.

Sol is a G2V-class main sequence star with an estimated lifespan of around ten billion years. A little less than half of that has already elapsed -- 4.5 to 4.7 billion years.

Not to mention that carbon-14 is not stable in the atmosphere so the atmosphere has not been around long enough to reach a static state.

The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere depends on the level of cosmic ray activity. As the one fluctuates, so does the other.

Whereas helium atoms leaving zircon in granitic rock and polonium radiohalo readings tell us that the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old, other dating systems claim much older dates.

Gentry's babbling about radiohalos and Humphreys's invocation of deep-granite helium don't hold water any better than any of your other arguments. See here for a refutation of the first, and here for an answer to the second.

creeper said...

Just as an aside...

"Why does the Mantis Shrimp have a far superior eye than humans?"

Erm, isn't that kind of against your mythology? Man's supposed to be the pinnacle of creation, no? And then it turns out there's some friggin' shrimp with better eyes?

God didn't feel like giving us humans better eyes?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Again, fits in with evolution, not so much with YEC (or OEC for that matter).

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Nice catch, Creeper.

creeper said...

BTW, Jon, those last two links you posted are from TalkOrigins. Radar has a long-standing tradition of uaing the ad hominem fallacy on TO. From what I recall, they once didn't "correct" their content to his liking, and so he now dismisses anything from that source, regardless of content or veracity.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"That creatures change over time is indisputable."

Another concession, wow!

Radar, what you say here is true, and because it is indisputable that creatures change over time, this is what we call the FACT of evolution. It's not generally questioned, even by you.

HOW that happened has been the subject of considerable debate over the years, leading to the THEORY of evolution.

"Once you understand that this change is a design feature then your eyes will be opened."

What leads you to conclude that it's a design feature? It's certainly compatible with evolution.

What you have here is the first twinkle in your eye of a hypothesis. Next you can start thinking about what the world would look like if this were true and form testable hypotheses.

You'd certainly have an easier task if this designer of yours were at least consistently efficient or wasteful. Instead, he seems determined to act exactly as if he didn't exist and evolution (i.e. nature) were doing its thing.

Seriously, what would DNA look like if God had created all living beings more or less in their present species 6,000 years ago, then wiped them all out except for the occupants of Noah's Ark 4,000 years ago, and the variety of all living beings today stemmed from that?

For example, it's kind of hard to explain endogenous retroviruses in that kind of scenario - unless of course you want to resort to that mischievous deity who is just ever so determined to act just like if he were evolution.

One wonders exactly when this supposed open mind of yours starts acting like one... everything is always starting from the conclusion backwards.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Never before have I seen a creationist seriously attempt to argue that the Amerind and Old European legends of monsters are based on living dinosaurs and pterosaurs"

Previously.

On Radaractive.

Radar just keeps on giving, doesn't he?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"unlike fossils are not found together (untrue)"

Such as...?

"ripples are to be expected in sedimentary levels (untrue)"

... and not a claim I made. Ripples are evidence of moving water, and the sand was then rapidly submerged, thus preserving it.

That's what I've been saying all along. Your understanding of uniformitarianism is faulty in that it includes the strawman argument that supposedly uniformitarianism precludes any catastrophes or anything sudden happening ever, which is just not true.

Evidence of an instance of sudden burial is not evidence of a global flood.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

crepper: "Radar just keeps on giving, doesn't he?"

Indeed. Grendel was a T-rex? A monster that is described as a deformed human descended from the race of Cain, was actually an animal forty feet long and fourteen feet high, massing seven tons, with three-toed feet, two-fingered hands, and a tail that was half its overall length? His mother of the venomous blood was also a dinosaur? The nameless dragon, a creature fifty feet long that could breathe fire and had a venomous bite, was a dinosaur?

[Jokeresque ROFL]

And he says evolution needs magic to work?

creeper said...

"And like it or not, if you are a naturalist you have to show where matter came from, where energy came from, where time came from, where life came from and etc. You fail to see you substitute a Supernatural God with a All-powerful Chance that does all the work. Even though the math says chance cannot do the job."

All scientists are naturalists in the sense that they work on the basis of observable nature. That includes Christians, Muslims, Hindus, what have you. And it includes Newton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Kelvin. That's why their belief in God didn't hinder those guys, see?

And being able to observe the world around them, they weren't prevented from learning about that world, studying it, observing it, by some nonsensical requirement that forbade them to do so unless they could declare with absolute certainty how it all originated.

Because there is no reason for such a requirement. On the contrary, you want to be able to learn as much as possible in as objective a way as possible before you can draw any conclusions about where it came from.

And these naturalists don't replace "God" with "chance"; that would be way over-simplifying what they are saying. Chance is an aspect, yes, and chance also happens to be something we can observe every day, so it's not like explanations involving chance are invoking something that has never been observed (unlike, for example, invoking some kind of divine magic).

But you unduly over-simplify the explanations by pretending that they only consist of chance. They consist of other factors as well, involving other things that we are also able to observe around us. For example, reproduction, heredity with variations etc.

It makes perfect sense to explain the world around us in these terms, and it is something that people of all beliefs can examine, exactly because they are things we can observe around us.

"The silly thing Darwinists will say is that they could simply be trying to find out the natural means by which God made things."

Which makes perfect sense. When you observe nature, you observe what God has created. By definition. Nature can not contradict God, and God can not contradict nature. If the Universe appears to be billions of years old, then why wouldn't it be billions of years old? The only thing you have to contradict that is a particular interpretation of an ancient scripture.

But remember, Radar: God didn't just write the Bible.

God also wrote the Universe.

And the Universe doesn't lie.

So when you are faced with blatant contradictions and if both the Universe and the Bible were created by God, why do you deem the Universe to be "wrong"? Why do you see room for divine mischief all over the Universe except in the Bible?

And if you are capable of seeing God as being deceptive or mischievous, why not see him as something far more consistent and benign: capable of simple literary devices like symbolism, allegory and the like?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"But there are two forces Darwinist cannot understand:

1- Redemptive power by which Christ renews a man and makes him a Christian"


We're definitely in the area of a "category error" on this one... This has nothing to do with science. Which doesn't make it wrong, or bad, or whatever. It's simply a different discussion, that's all.

"2- Creative power by which God made all things and all life"

Which is kinda what we were talking about. So fine, this God you hypothesize is powerful, has awesome creative powers etc. Still: what did he do when and how? That's what I mean about how this leads to a complete lack of curiosity.

Jesus turned water into wine as his first miracle. He turned six pots of water into wine. Wine normally requires aging and ingredients not found in water."

Which is why turning water into wine was a miracle. And was never described by any eye witnesses. But if you want to use "turning water into wine" as proof of how utterly awesome Jesus was, then we can just as easily use them to "prove" how awesome, say, Osiris was. Or Appollonius or whatever.

That's the problem with including any ancient religious texts as "evidence". In doing so, you're abandoning any rational criteria by which you can tell the validity of one over the other. Can we conclude from Homer's Iliad that certain deities and demigods actually existed? After all, it says so in this ancient text.

"God also made all things in six days. The Universe has an appearance of age but that is so we can observe and enjoy it."

???

You mean we wouldn't be able to observe and enjoy a 6,000-year-old universe? Say what? God's creation wouldn't be impressive enough for his creations?

You mean that God felt inadequate or something? "Oh, I made you this Universe, but it's only 6,000 years old - better make it look like it's a few billion years old by adding a bunch of fake stars and fossils and aged rocks etc. etc. etc."

Radar, don't you see the kind of pretzel logic you have to pull out of thin air, based on absolutely nothing at all, just to be able to uphold a particular interpretation of a part of the Bible?

At what point does this supposed "open mind" of yours kick into action?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Many creatures are entirely symbiotic and that speaks to design. If one kind of animal cannot fit the habitat another steps in. Or the kind changes according to the genetic information available."

How does this "evolution" (because that's the word you're looking for when you say "another steps in" or "the kind changes") indicate design rather than evolution, seeing as it's evolution?

I don't know if this kooky notion is something you cooked up yourself, but seriously, what would DNA look like if this were true?

And if a polar bear and brown bear have "lost information" from their ancestors/predecessors, then what happens if they mate? Is information gained?

-- creeper

Chaos Engineer said...

Wow, everybody was busy over the weekend! You guys sure do have a lot of patience.

I guess I'll take this bit:

No beetles would have been on Noah's Ark, the language of the Bible is specifically limited to land-based veterbrates and birds.

Which edition of the Bible are we using? I checked a couple different translations, but I couldn't find any that said Noah didn't take arthropods. They used language like, "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

All other creatures had the ability to last out a year-long flood by living in vast mats of plant and tree debris that would have floated on the surface during the 150 plus days that the water overflowed everything.

Has anybody actually done this experiment? It seems like some arthropods would have trouble surviving...scorpions and trap-door spiders come to mind.

creeper said...

"Has anybody actually done this experiment?"

I seem to recall that that experiment was carried out at the same time they did the one that demonstrated the perfect sorting mechanism of a global flood.

Kidding, of course. It's all pie-in-the-sky speculation as usual, aiming to uphold the conclusion of Bible-as-science-textbook at all costs.

-- creeper (propl)

Jon Woolf said...

Well, to be fair, "rafting" is thought to be one way that small animals and plants get to new habitats such as isolated islands. But it's a long way from a few drifting trees to "huge mats of vegetation" big enough to sustain entire habitats-full of invertebrates.

What's really funny is that the "raft" dodge doesn't help the Ark-eologists much. There are about 6000 extant species of amphibians, 8200 of reptiles, 10,000 of birds, and 5400 or so of mammals. It's simply impossible to cram all those organisms, plus a year's worth of food for all of them, plus all the necessary infrastructure, into a single ship the size of the biblical ark.

And what did all the freshwater fish do in those salty floodwaters?

radar said...

Unbelievable the amount of stuff you guys drag back up that has been answered. For one thing we established that rapid speciation happens and is observed now. Secondly the Hebrew words in Genesis translate to land-dwelling vertebrate and birds. We already discussed saltwater and freshwater fish and plant mats and yadda yadda. Nothing new, guys? Maybe a dealth knell for titlaatik now that the polish amphibian was "discovered"? Or maybe you saw the 3,000 dinosaur tracks found in China all running in the same direction and realize they were running from floodwaters and are finally going to concede?

But back to speciation. Natural Selection is a process in which information is selected OUT. Breeders know this. Honest scientists know this. No chance evolution Darwinist style ever happens. Fairy tales.

radar said...

As to whether God was restrained by the speed of light, really? God who invented time and invented light?

You guys have no idea where things came from and how time came to be.

You cannot explain life and how it came to be.

You use a process by which information is selected OUT of organisms as an explanation for how it is written IN to organisms.

You lie about the rock layers and the fossils found therein. You lie about evidence. Ida was a lemur that laid around in the basement for 26 years. Remember Nebraska Man? Oh, yeah, five years later he was a pig tooth!

How did God make the Universe? When you can comprehend God call me back. Otherwise if you have any sense you will quit assuming He didn't and assume He did and go back to operational science that involves figuring out how things work and how they can be made better rather than making up fairy tales about how the Universe was made and life impossibly came from non-life.

Assumptions. My assumption makes sense and fits into the evidence way better than yours. Only reason you argue with me is the fear that God did make everything and you do not want to conceive of it. For once I would love to hear one of you admit it.

Anonymous said...

Once again Radar goes down in flames.

Boy were you caught with your pants down, Radar! What a joke, LOL!

Jon Woolf said...

But back to speciation. Natural Selection is a process in which information is selected OUT.

Natural selection is only half of the evolutionay process, radar.

Hey, have any of you folks ever enlightened radar on the subject of nylon-eating bacteria?

creeper said...

Jon,

"Hey, have any of you folks ever enlightened radar on the subject of nylon-eating bacteria?"

We've tried, but as you can imagine, Radar is somewhat resistant to information input.

-- cree[er

creeper said...

Wow, what a perfect example of a Gish gallop – this one even has froth on top! And chock full of sloppy thinking!

I'll just do one little portion for now and come back for more later:

"As to whether God was restrained by the speed of light, really? God who invented time and invented light?"

* facepalm *

That's right, this hypothetical God who "invented time and invented light" somehow invented time and light in such a way that he had to go about creation in a completely backwards way, putting rays of light and all kinds of other radiation of a fictitious Universe into space in such a way as to delude everyone on Earth into believing there is a much larger Universe out there, and only then creating the objects from which they supposedly originated.

(Although - and I've pointed this out before - that part is optional. Once the rays themselves are in place to deceive mankind, there's really no need to actually have the objects themselves, right?)

In either case, it is of course deceptive and makes a liar out of this hypothetical God in this hypothetical scenario that you concoct to maintain a literal interpretation of a part of the Bible.

Your response is weak to incoherent, since you wish to deny that God would have been restrained by the speed of light, when that is actually precisely what we are looking at: a speed of light as a restraining factor, and an explanation by YECers that has God putting rays of light into space to account for all the evidence and still maintain a belief in a young Earth. That's the pretzel explanation that YEC is forced to present.

If God were the inventor of light and capable of dictating its characteristics, a far more elegant solution would have been to make the speed of light instantaneous.

The fact that the speed of light is not instantaneous and that Genesis is in the order in which it is indicates that (1) God was not able to create the laws of nature (and light in particular) as you would have it, and/or (2) God is such an unpredictable entity that he/she/it doesn't care about efficiency etc. In which case, the very last thing we should do is follow your suggestion of including God and religious texts in science - as if that wasn't obvious already.

-- creeper (trocapat)

Anonymous said...

This blog really needs a warning label.

Kinda like: proceed with caution, may damage brain cells!

creeper said...

"You guys have no idea where things came from and how time came to be.

You cannot explain life and how it came to be."


Nobody knows where "things" came from and "how time came to be". That includes you. So why bring it up?

All you have so far is a hypothetical "Who", and that's it. If that's your final answer, so be it, we don't mind if you sit things out from here on.

-- creeper

creeper said...

”You lie about the rock layers and the fossils found therein. You lie about evidence.”

I don’t think any commenter on your blog has lied about any of these things. Link?

"Ida was a lemur that laid around in the basement for 26 years."

Ida was similar to a lemur, but not a lemur. And what exactly is your beef about how long it lay around? And what exactly do you think this has to do with a lie?

"Remember Nebraska Man? Oh, yeah, five years later he was a pig tooth!"

Nebraska Man? The one from the 1920s? The one that was then corrected by scientists? You want to use that against an argument against the theory of evolution today? Seriously?

-- creeper

creeper said...

”How did God make the Universe? When you can comprehend God call me back. Otherwise if you have any sense you will quit assuming He didn't and assume He did and go back to operational science that involves figuring out how things work and how they can be made better rather than making up fairy tales about how the Universe was made and life impossibly came from non-life.”

One couldn’t come up with a better example of “shut up and stop it with all this science already”. I was saying earlier that Radar’s stance leads not to any useful research, but to a complete lack of curiosity.

And here you have it, crystal clear.

"Assumptions. My assumption makes sense and fits into the evidence way better than yours."

Which one? That the world is 6,000 years old? Doesn't fit into the evidence at all, let alone "way better than yours". That "God did it"? As long as God is defined as a completely inconsistent and all-powerful something or other, that assumption fits into just about anything you can think of, anything at all - which makes it a completely useless assumption.

"Only reason you argue with me is the fear that God did make everything and you do not want to conceive of it. For once I would love to hear one of you admit it."

Nonsense, and I'll tell you why (again). If you want to plug "God did it" into the unanswered questions of, say, the origin of the Universe or abiogenesis, by all means go ahead. You won't get an argument from me. For all I know, you may be right. You may of course also be wrong. We just don't know, and there's no way for us to figure that out. Even if a theoretical path for abiogenesis to have taken place is discovered, that still doesn't mean that God didn't do it. And as long as such a path isn't found, it also doesn't mean that God did do it.

We don't know and we can't know. We can gather evidence for what may have happened, but there is no result here that can either confirm or refute the involvement of a supernatural being.

I don't discount that explanation on the basis of me disliking it, because I'm utterly apathetic on that subject. In general I tend to discount it as an explanation because it tells us so very little and, as we can see here clearly on display, it apparently gets in the way of curiosity.

But the origin of life and/or the origin of the Universe have precious little to do with the personified God described in the Bible. I don't see any automatic connection between a thing called "God" that may or may not have created the Universe and a thing called "God" that engages in a genocidal turf war in the Old Testament, and so when you present the argument -

We think someone created the Universe, but we don't know who.

Therefore God.

Therefore the personified God in the Bible.


- all I see is a logical mess, a non sequitur.

But "afraid that God made everything"? Nope, not me. I don't care if something that you want to call God did make everything.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"For one thing we established that rapid speciation happens and is observed now."

I guess you didn't read my response at all. I was asking how you thought that related to the subject at hand.

"Secondly the Hebrew words in Genesis translate to land-dwelling vertebrate and birds."

Can't say that I recall that argument being made on this blog, but I may well be mistaken - BUT you can hardly blame Jon for not having read your entire blog.

And of course you didn't answer his other comments on this subject, immediately above your own comment.

"We already discussed saltwater and freshwater fish"

I don't recall you coming up with a workable answer for this. A quick search of your site gave no relevant hits. I know you have no clue what you've previously said on your blog (because apparently that's too much "homework" for you), but unless you dig up a link for this, I'm calling fib on this one.

"and plant mats and yadda yadda."

About those plant mats - that's complete speculation, right? It's not in the Bible and no evidence for such mats has ever been found, correct?

"Nothing new, guys? Maybe a dealth knell for titlaatik now that the polish amphibian was "discovered"?"

How do you figure that? Tiktaalik was shown to be the transitional form between the form before it and after it, in the rock layer dated between them using modern dating methods. As such it serves as a powerful confirmation both of the fossil record and modern dating methods, both of which are questioned by YEC apologists.

Thinking that the footprints found in Poland would somehow be the "death knell" of Tiktaalik means you're making the same error that you've made a few times: assuming that evolution marches in lockstep toward a teleological end.

It's definitely an interesting and exciting find, but all it tells us is that some kind of tetrapod evolution occurred earlier than we thought up to now.

"Or maybe you saw the 3,000 dinosaur tracks found in China all running in the same direction and realize they were running from floodwaters and are finally going to concede?"

"Realize they were running from flood waters" - this kind of pure speculation is somehow "proof" for you?

"But back to speciation. Natural Selection is a process in which information is selected OUT. Breeders know this. Honest scientists know this."

I'm afraid you still owe us an explanation for this. I know you presented some bear evolution thing some time ago, but I can't find it right now. Though I suspect that what's at the bottom of this is yet another colossal misunderstanding re. evolution on your part or some strawman argument that you fell for and got suckered into passing along.

"No chance evolution Darwinist style ever happens. Fairy tales."

That this evolution happened is indisputable at this point. The actual debate is as to how it happened.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Or maybe you saw the 3,000 dinosaur tracks found in China all running in the same direction and realize they were running from floodwaters and are finally going to concede?"

I googled this and stumbled on this lovely article. The comments section is hilarious, both from believers and skeptics.

One question that immediately popped in my head is mentioned here several times as well. If they were fleeing from raging flood waters (not just rain or slowly rising flood, but something actually worth running away from), then how on Earth did their tracks get preserved? You're talking about soft mud, torrential rain (so no time for the tracks to dry), followed by raging flood waters.

And: why just dinosaurs? It's easy for us to overlook this, since we, uh, "mainstream people" are so used to thinking of the "age of dinosaurs" before our "modern" animals and of course us humans. But try to put yourself in the mind of a young Earth creationist for a moment. To a young Earth creationist, all dinosaurs lived around the year 2348 BC. All of them at the same time. And so did all our modern animals - the moose, the elephant, the badger, what have you.

So when we find something like these dinosaur tracks, featuring a variety of different dinosaurs, why aren't some other creatures thrown in, a hippo or something - or even humans?

Again, it's that weird sorting going on that is just ever so compatible with the theory of evolution, but that can not be logically explained in a YEC context.

You'd think that would give a YEC pause for thought at some point.

-- creeper (artron)

creeper said...

Jon said: "Natural selection is only half of the evolutionary process, radar."

Actually, between natural selection selecting things OUT (and thus keeping other things IN) and his insistence that evolution is just "pure chance", he's slowly but surely assembling the puzzle, isn't he? Pure chance plus selecting out the useless = retaining useful information.

-- creeper (irser)

Jon Woolf said...

radar wrote: You lie about the rock layers and the fossils found therein. You lie about evidence.

A bit overbroad there, don't you think, radar? These other folks may have been around for a while, but I'm new here. You know nothing about my background except what I've chosen to reveal. You don't know what evidence I've seen, what fieldwork I've done. You don't (or at least didn't, until now) know that I've collected many fossils in those very same Cincinnatian rocks I wrote about elsewhere, so I know what they look like firsthand and why your attempts to explain them away fail dismally. You didn't know that I've seen the "Hesperopithecus" tooth with my own two eyes, and how it is in fact similar to a human tooth, so the mistake of classifying it as hominid is understandable. You don't know how much more first-hand experience I have to draw on. And yet, you call me a liar?

Most unChristian of thee, treating a fellow-traveler so.

creeper said...

Jon, it's absurd to accuse you of lying, and I can tell you it's a pretty broad and utterly baseless accusation even with regard to the rest of us.

I eagerly await Radar's justification. What did we lie about, Radar? Which fossils, which rock layers, which evidence?

-- creeper

radar said...

To quote Sarfati "What is Evolution?-It is vitally important that words should be used accurately and consistently. The theory... is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent designer.

The evolutionist Kerkut defined this ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ He continued: ‘the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.’

However, many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch’, is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproved.

From the beginning, all of the commenters keep denying that all speciation we observe is information loss and you need to address this first and foremost.

Lies about fossils are perhaps not your fault since you are just repeating propaganda you have heard?

Jon Woolf said...

and I can tell you it's a pretty broad and utterly baseless accusation even with regard to the rest of us.

Oh, I'm quite sure of that, creeper. Just glancing back through old posts, I can see you folks know your stuff. A few things I'd have said differently, maybe, but then I'm sure you could find the same in my comments. But nothing really wrong, and certainly nothing that gives off "intentionally wrong" vibes.

I'm just something of a fan of judo arguments, y'see, and nothing says you can't do judo with religious/moral arguments as well as with scientific ones...

Jon Woolf said...

"Evolution" can mean many things, radar.

EVOLUTION, Fact of (1): that genes and gene frequencies in a population change over time in ways that can be analyzed, observed, and predicted.

EVOLUTION, Fact of (2): That life through geologic time has changed in systematic ways, as illustrated in the fossil record.

EVOLUTION, Theory of (1): that the changes in genes and gene frequencies occur through recognized mechanisms of genetic variation followed by natural and sexual selection.

EVOLUTION, Theory of (2): that the observed changes in genes and gene frequencies, produced by recognized mechanisms of variation and selection, are sufficient to explain the history of life on Earth over geologic time.

Note, by the by, what is not included in any of these definitions of "evolution:" abiogenesis, or the origin of the first living cell from nonliving material. Evolution applies only to what happened after that first cell came into existence. Whether abiogenesis occurred naturally or otherwise doesn't matter one whit to evolutionary theory.

From the beginning, all of the commenters keep denying that all speciation we observe is information loss

We deny that claim because it isn't true. In truth, it's meaningless because two of its critical terms are undefined. What is information? What does it mean to "lose" information?

radar said...

Ida is a perfect example. Ida was just a variety of Lemur that scientists had laying around for 26years. When the Year of Darwin came along and no big fossil finds seemed worth promoting then the same "scientist" who promoted Pakicetus as a whale predecessor gave us Ida. Gingerich. What a joke!

In fact modern science is broken because you have people like Eugenie Scott who are more worried about stifling debate and "protecting" Darwinism than in actual science.

Intelligent Design is science while Darwinism is a religion. Once the general public begin to understand this they will accept genuine scientific study and fewere fairy tales will be presented. History Channel and Nova and PBS and such media outlets are propagandists continually giving people the same old nicely packaged garbage.

radar said...

One thing I have at least begun to do is show others where they can access peer-reviewed science that does not get warped by Darwinism. Since I am not trying for tenure or a government grant I will not get fired or my career ruined by being a creationist, unlike normal scientists who cannot afford to reveal any doubts about evolution until they at least have the tenure and position they need.

The movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is something no intelligent person should miss. Anyone who sees the movie and hears the words of the various scientists on both sides of the aisle and the evidence presented will at least have a chance at a balanced look at the ruling paradigm in science today and how it impacts research and education.

Jon Woolf said...

Intelligent Design is science while Darwinism is a religion.

[ROFL]

The results of a courtroom trial, using formal rules of evidence, say you're one hundred percent wrong, radar. Evolutionary theory is science, and "intelligent design" is religion. Not even your fellow cdesign proponentsists can deny the record of their own words, given under oath before their fellow-men and their God.

Jon Woolf said...

radar wrote: The movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is something no intelligent person should miss.

Yeah, right. radar, I don't even believe scientists I agree with unless they've got the evidence to back up their claims -- hard evidence, just as it came out of the ground. What makes you think I'm going to pay any attention to a movie that I know has been edited by somebody with a bias to make one side look as good as possible, and the other side look as bad as possible? At least with the NOVA episode on the Dover Panda Trial, they could offer the court transcripts as support for their version. Benjy Stein can't even do that much.

radar said...

"Dover"?! You guys have nothing, do you.

Name one example of information being added to genetic code to form a new creature, or anything like it? Just one...

You got a stupid judge who has no knowledge of the subject claiming ID is religion and Darwinism is science? Guess what, there are a lot of ignorant people who think Polar Bears are dying off (their populations are rising) and that the Moon landing was shot in a Hollywood studio. You guys have great press, just no science behind the facade.

I remember it was a judge who said that slave ownership could extend into the Western regions. There were judges who ruled that Jim Crow laws were constitutional. Judges decided it was okay to killing babies. A version of a judge jailed Galileo.

Don't answer a science question or a philosophical question or even a religious question with what some judge ruled.

I will repeat, speciation happens when information is selected OUT of the available information. Man has been doing this with animals and plants for centuries. When the organism has information selected out it can be an advantage for one set of circumstances but deadly in another. Thus we have extinctions from time to time.

radar said...

Oh, and since the movie includes Richard Dawkins admitting that he has no problem with Intelligent Design as long as aliens from outer space were the designers I think you just might want to watch it someday. Might learn something...

Anonymous said...

It's comments like this by Radar, "Intelligent Design is science while Darwinism is a religion" (not to mention the whole "Dinosaurs-lived-a-scant-few-thousand-years-ago-along-with-man-and-all-other-modern-animals" thing that he's got going on), that have many of us "regular Darwinist commenters" regularly questioning either Radar's sanity, intelligence or honesty (or, of course, 'd', all of the above). No, actually Radar. As has been told to you on many occasions, ID has been proven in a US court of law to have been merely religion, wrapped up to look like science. With the sole purpose of shoehorning christianity back into US classrooms. They came to this conclusion by investigating the very people that invented ID. They had evidence and everything. You should google it sometime. Seriously Radar, to deny this fact is to deny reality. Do you own homework dude.

I mean, this is getting pretty pathetic. Ranting that we're all liars, and by talking about "rock layers" you were obviously directing your comments to Jon (someone whom you just met and from whom you also recently and infamously "borrowed" some photographs). Hey Radar, remember way-back-when, that time that creeper called you a liar (concerning some topic you were lying about of course)? And how you ABSOLUTELY. FREAKED. OUT. If I had time I might be able to find it because I'm sure you dedicated a front page post to the matter. Anyway, I digress, Radar, calling us all liars is beneath you, or at least it should be. All of us have shown compassion for you and your various health and family situations in the past (google it). But some of your latest gallops seem incredibly desperate and increasingly personal. Pull yourself together man.

- Canucklehead

tl:dr
ID = Religion, Evolution = Science ftfy Duh! Google it.
IMO Radar is nuts, or his pants are on fire.
Radar really doesn't like being called a Liar yet he calls everyone of us liars fairly regularly, including people he just met. How Rude!

Anonymous said...

Radar says,
""Dover"?! You guys have nothing, do you."
Right, we've got a courtroom trial and you have that movie by Ben Stein. Sounds like an even debate to me.

- Canucklehead

creeper said...

"Oh, and since the movie includes Richard Dawkins admitting that he has no problem with Intelligent Design as long as aliens from outer space were the designers I think you just might want to watch it someday. Might learn something..."

Because the aliens could then be explained by the theory of evolution. He says this because evolution is something that has been observed while instant creation by divine fiat is speculation based on a creation myth in an ancient religious text.

Basically, even if you insist that life on Earth (e.g. DNA) was designed by an intelligent designer, it still doesn't answer the question where the intelligent designer came from. Creationist apologists shrug this off with a flippant "but we've defined God as being outside that question", which gets us exactly nowhere.

And then they claim to have all the answers...

-- creeper (apheurg)

creeper said...

"I will repeat, speciation happens when information is selected OUT of the available information."

Yes, you've repeated that several times already. And I have repeatedly asked you to back that up. Which you repeatedly have failed to do.

So what's the story? Is it just more unsubstantiated nonsense? At least clue us in to your reasoning.

"Man has been doing this with animals and plants for centuries. When the organism has information selected out it can be an advantage for one set of circumstances but deadly in another. Thus we have extinctions from time to time."

Erm, no, if an organism has "information selected out", as you claim, and the result of that "selecting out" happens to be deadly, then the individual expires, not an entire population.

But to address this question of information loss, it's hard to see how you can tackle that without answering Jon's straightforward questions:

1. What is information?

2. What does it mean to "lose" information?


I was coming at this same issue from a different angle with my questions about the wolf and different types of dogs. But in any case, if you want to make a claim that "speciation represents information loss" and even make it repeatedly as if it were a fact, you can't avoid answering these fundamental questions.

Shouldn't be so hard to answer for someone who claims to understand information. But why do I smell yet more evasions coming up...?

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

radar wrote: Name one example of information being added to genetic code to form a new creature, or anything like it? Just one...

I'd love to, radar, but you haven't sufficiently defined the problem. You refuse to define two critical terms in your question: what is information, and what does "new creature" mean? Thus, I can't be sure that examples such as:

* nylon-eating Flavovirium bacteria
* citrine-eating E. coli bacteria (when by definition E. coli can't eat citrine)
* mosquitoes that can digest insecticides that once killed them
* wild lizards that shifted from insectivorous to herbivorous diet -- in less than 40 generations
* garter snakes that can now safely eat a toxic newt, where they couldn't just a few years ago
* Western rattlesnakes suddenly producing both hemotoxic and neurotoxic venoms, where a few years ago they were hemotoxic only.

will meet your definition of "gaining information."

creeper said...

Jon,

I suspect Radar will come back with something like "but they're still bacteria/lizards/snakes/whatever"...

... and still refuse to answer your questions re. defining "information" and "new creature".

-- creeper (galic)

Jon Woolf said...

Probably about right, creeper. If creationists didn't keep moving the goalposts, they'd have had to admit defeat long ago.

It's fun watching the length of their 'critiques' of evolutionary theory grow over time. Every year there's more evidence that they have to rationalize or handwave away, and simply repeating "I don' b'leeve it" doesn't work on most people for very long.

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, something else that caught my eye, radar. You wrote: "You got a stupid judge who has no knowledge of the subject claiming ID is religion and Darwinism is science?"

His intelligence aside(though I think Judge Jones showed both smarts and good humor), a judge who has no knowledge of the subject is exactly what you want for a case like this. He has no biases to worry about. He'll rule for whichever side does a better job of convincing him. The judge's decision and the trial transcripts are all online, radar. Why don't you show us exactly what Judge Jones missed, and why he made the wrong decision?

creeper said...

Hm, let's see, we've had:

1. An unsupportable claim by Radar: "Speciation is invariably associated with the loss of information."

2. A call to back that up and to define his terms.

3. Radio silence. (Or should that be "Radar silence"?) :-)

So the next step would be:

4. Radar waits a bit and then claims he's already answered it.

5. A call to show where he thinks he answered it.

6. Radar telling us to do our own homework.

7. Radar moving on to the next subject.

Come on, Radar, please prove me wrong.

-- creeper

radar said...

Sure, creeper. I posted in detail about what information is as a quick search of my blog search box will reveal.

You have it backwards, I challenged commenters to show one example of a gain of information. No one has. A loss of information will allow a kind of animal to "gain" an ability. For instance, beetles on islands off the coast of British Columbia are losing the ability to fly because the ones with wings get blown into the sea and only the ones born with limited or no ability to fly survive.

This information loss is an adjustment to the local environment but the escapability of this particular population is being hindered, so if transferred to land they would likely die off.

Same with bacteria that can "eat" citrase. They have lost a blocking mechanism that allows them to eat citrase/citrine but makes them vulnerable to other things.

radar said...

So I assume creeper and Woolf know quite well what information is and I will have to do an "information loss" post especially for those who think their questions are honest.

But I will give you one example. Take a writing tablet and a pen. Weigh them. Now use the pen to write your name on the pad. Weigh them again. Did they weigh more because you added information? No.

Information is intelligence transmitted through a medium purposefully to accomplish something by some means. DNA is a great example of this. DNA is the tablet and also the written information, as it were. God designed kinds of animals with a wide variety of information so they would be able to adjust to conditions. Thus, we have abundant life at both poles, the equatorial regions and in between. We have life at the bottom of oceans and high over our heads in the atmosphere.

If you have fifty trillion cells and each of them has the DNA information to code for your existence and additional information to be passed on to ancestors, by what means did it get transmitted and by whom? Please do not insult your own intelligence by saying "chance."

radar said...

Therefore as you see "The theory of evolution explains evolution not the origin of life. How life went from simple to more complex organisms" is still not true. Darwinists point to information loss and think gullible people will see it as information gain. Because they do not know any better and the Darwinists can lie about it. But they know that when we breed 300 some odd different kinds of dogs we are actually selecting features OUT so that we get what we want to remain within the breed.

Paleontologists coming across a Great Dane and a Bloodhound and a Chihuahua would probably give them all different Latin names and arrange them in an order of evolution over the course of a few million years.

Horses in the fossil record range from about 17" high to around 70" or so inches high and the same is true now.

I will remind readers who are not in the throes of Darwinism and can think for themselves to review my "rapid speciation" post and consider what it says and means.

AGW is going to be shown to be a fraud and people are going to begin looking closer at Darwinism and then it is going to be in trouble as well. Because it is balderdash.

Jon Woolf said...

So I assume creeper and Woolf know quite well what information is

I know what I mean by "information." I did not (yet) know what you mean by "information." That's why I was asking.

Information is intelligence transmitted through a medium purposefully to accomplish something by some means. DNA is a great example of this.

You have a problem here. It's a logical fallacy called "begging the question." You assume that information must be purposefully designed, then you point to DNA and say "this contains information, therefore it must have been designed." Tsk, tsk, tsk, radar. That's like dating rocks by the fossils they contain, then dating the fossils by the rocks they're in.

You have it backwards, I challenged commenters to show one example of a gain of information. No one has.

I could -- IF you use a sensible definition of "information." But as long as you insist on rigging the game in your favor, why should I bother trying?

Jon Woolf said...

But they know that when we breed 300 some odd different kinds of dogs we are actually selecting features OUT so that we get what we want to remain within the breed.

False.

To take just one example, no wild canid has a nose as sensitive as a bloodhound's.

radar said...

Sorry guys, pretending to dodge and reframe the question will not cut it. You can have a computer all set up to run but if there is not a BIOS and an OS on the harddrive set up and programs to load it will be a big paperweight. Computer programs (far less sophisticated than DNA) require people to write them, using their intellect to understand and transmit information by means of a computer language in order to have a working computer.

Even assuming that matter, energy and time "just happened" (which is silly) and that life "just happened" (Pasteur would disagree) you still need a programmer to input all this specified code into these creatures so that they can grow and mate and eat and etc. Where does that come from? "Just happened" is a poor excuse for science.

Also, Mr. Woolf, since nose hounds and sight hounds are mentioned historically long before your birth you cannot know with any certainty whether any canids were as good or superior to a bloodhound two thousand years ago.

Jon Woolf said...

The proper term is "scenthounds." I guess we can add dog-breeding to the list of things about which you don't know as much as you think you do.

... you cannot know with any certainty whether any canids were as good or superior to a bloodhound two thousand years ago.

I don't have to. Whether it arose two hundred years ago, five hundred, a thousand, or five thousand, the point remains that selectively-bred scenthounds have greater scenting abilities than wild canids do. They are not wolf-minus; they are, in that sense, wolf-plus.

radar said...

Woolf, you just cannot or do not understand. If I separate out a part of the information I am subtracting, not adding. Let's address bacteria and speciation when confronted with antibiotics:

For true evolution to occur, new information has to be added to the genome. Resistance to antibiotics has nothing to do with adding new genetic information. There are several ways that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. One way is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria, obtained by thawing sources that had been frozen before man developed antibiotics, have been shown to be antibiotic-resistant.

When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant.

The same principle applies to insects 'evolving' resistance to insecticides. The resistance was already there, and the insects without resistance are eliminated.

radar said...

as to scenthound or nosehound, before Webster and the like there were various terms used for dogs that could follow smells for long distances and that is not even relevant.

Bloodhounds used for tracking have been selected out from other hounds over centuries to get the ones with the best noses. Such dogs may have other features that are not as useful in the wild, such as speed and dexterity, but in the care of humans such things are not as important.

I have a dog that is half-Bloodhound, Chloe, and she is not as strong nor as athletic as my Alaskan Husky, Faith. If they were in a war to survive in the wild Faith would win over Chloe. But Chloe does have a superior nose. She will easily detect an interesting smell from downstairs, come upstairs and find a small piece of food dropped on the kitchen floor by one of the boys. She has the better nose, and would be more useful in tracking. But such things are not required here.

radar said...

We have found by breeding dogs that dogs specified for breed standards have more of a tendencies to have accompanying weaknesses. Samoyeds, for instance, deal with hip dysplasia and bloat more than mongrel dogs. Hip dysplasia in particular is more likely to happen to purebred dogs. When breeders specified for certain traits they unfortunately limit the amount of information in the breed.

Mutts or mongrels tend to produce a healthier overall animal. If people breed mongrels with mongrels they will find variation in sizes and colors at first but eventually dogs begin to move towards a middle size with fewer color variations when left to their own, such as the wild dog packs that roam areas like urban Detroit. Feral animals combine feature sets and tend to the most common combinations.

It is much like paint. If you take a palette and begin mixing all the paints together you will get a brownish grey. Man has worked for centuries to separate out features within the dog kind and thus the myriad choices - obtained by breeding out information.

radar said...

Actually, to continue the discussion, the Alaskan Husky is a loose term used for a set of mongrel dogs who have been bred together to produce animals with strong shoulder muscles and the ability to run for distance and power. Because sled drivers have no care for ear style or tail or color a Husky can be many colors and sizes and a variety of weights and shoulder heights.

Unlike the Siberian Husky, the Alaskan is selected only for ability to do the task and so not subject to breed specifics like the Siberian. The base of the not-quite-breed is the typical village dog of Alaska, the wolf, the German Shepard and also various hounds, pointers and other husky types.

The result of having a kind of dog that is not produced by strict breeding is a kind of dog that tends to have an even temperament and good health, intelligence and athletic superiority. Thus Alaskan Huskies have fewer health issues and successfully drag loads across the frozen north both for sport and for supplying villages with needed goods.

Jon Woolf said...

The same principle applies to insects 'evolving' resistance to insecticides. The resistance was already there, and the insects without resistance are eliminated.

Fine and dandy ... except that in at least some cases, it wasn't. Already there, that is. Genetic analysis of bugs that carry the resistance genes prove it.

radar said...

Therefore when my mother-in-law and her kennel breeds Samoyeds she has to have them checked and x-rayed to avoid the typical problems inherent within the breed so that she only sells and breeds the best of the available Sammies in her kennel. Any sub-standard dogs are neutered and not sold for show. She has to be very diligent because the genome has less information from which to select and so any mutation/copying mistakes can be amplified in the animal.

radar said...

Woodmrappe's Noah's Ark treatise mentioned earlier in this blog explains how easily all the kinds of animals would fit into the Ark. Baramin or kind is what was taken into the Ark. These primary kinds of animals then speciated after the flood ended and continue to do so even now. Variation in kind is built into the organism and this is what Darwinists mistakenly call evolution.

A 6,000 year old Universe would not be viewable by us (most of it) because the starlight would not have arrived here yet.

God does tell us how and in what order He made everything in Genesis 1 and 2. Now if you think He needs to explain HOW he did it then you would need a mind as big as God to understand it. A being able to create all time and matter and energy would be a notch or two above humanity. He does give us how long the process took and in what order things were done. Too bad that does not satisfy you. But no matter how you tapdance your alternative is pure blind chance working untold wonders. Logically a Creator makes so much more sense than a continual accident.

radar said...

"Fine and dandy ... except that in at least some cases, it wasn't. Already there, that is. Genetic analysis of bugs that carry the resistance genes prove it."

Nope. Gotcha! Propaganda alert.

Jon Woolf said...

God does tell us how and in what order He made everything in Genesis 1 and 2.

Yup. In fact, he does it twice over. And in two different orders. Tell me, which one is correct?

Nope. Gotcha!

I really, really doubt that... [evilsnicker.wav]

Tell me, radar, do you understand how genetic analysis works?

radar said...

Two members of our family breed dogs and from your description of how genetics works, Mr. Woolf, you do not understand animal husbandry or genetic too well.

Understanding DNA is difficult because it is so incredibly complex. I have a basic understanding of it and the four base component combinations and the left/right chirality factor and etc. Enough to discuss it.

Jon Woolf said...

I didn't ask if you understood how DNA works, radar. I asked if you understand how genetic analysis works. Do you know what genetic drift is and why it happens faster in some alleles than in others? Do you understand how a geneticist can examine a particular allele at a particular locus, and (under certain conditions) arrive at an estimate for how long that allele has been in the population? Do you see how a geneticist can examine the amount of drift in several different alleles, and from them estimate how long it's been since two populations last interbred to any extent?

creeper said...

Even assuming that matter, energy and time "just happened" (which is silly)”

Why? I can see how you might have questions about how life originated, but time itself, for example, must have had a creator? What’s your reasoning behind this?

”and that life "just happened" (Pasteur would disagree)”

Hm. I’ve had reason to ponder your inability to process information in numerous cases, and it usually came down, in my opinion, to either ignorance or dishonesty. (The idea of a parody blog was tempting when I first stumbled on this blog, but I don’t think it’s the case.) Is it possible that arrogance has something to do with it as well? Perhaps you just assume you’re right, and therefore you think it’s beneath you to actually read the responses to your various ill-informed posts.

Case in point: how many times have your errors re the “law of biogenesis” been pointed out to you? Again, Pasteur was not talking about abiogenesis, but that the bacteria he was studying did not arise spontaneously.

”you still need a programmer to input all this specified code into these creatures so that they can grow and mate and eat and etc. Where does that come from? "Just happened" is a poor excuse for science.”

Just because “computer program” happens to be a good analogy in some ways doesn’t mean it holds true in every single aspect. And if you think “just happened” is what the scientific explanation points to, then you’re not taking into account pretty much the entirety of the theory of evolution.

-- creeper

radar said...

This long list of questions to me? Methinks you are avoiding my question to you:

Name one organism that has gained genetic material and become another organism? Just one. You have the entire history of the planet to work with...

Mr. Woolf, perhaps you personally have never lied about the rock formations and my "you" in that case was for the general Darwinist world. The deception is so broad-based that hundreds of scientists have participated, by naming the same organism with two different Latin names in order to have them fit into an expected evolutionary ladder scenario, by arbitrarily renaming rock formations when the "wrong" index fossils are found and especially by promoting a nonexistent geological table.

As to genetics and DNA and etc? I am talking about the groundgame here. If you cannot find a mechanism by which DNA came into existence then Darwinism is dead already. How to bypass the chirality problem and the complexity problem? Ignore them and brainwash the public into thinking there is no problem! All day long television special programs and news media and publications yammer about millions and billions of years and produce pictures of beings imagined from the finding of a few pieces of skull and a couple of teeth.

Show me the source of information.

Jon Woolf said...

Name one organism that has gained genetic material and become another organism? Just one. You have the entire history of the planet to work with...

You're being disingenuous, radar. You know as well as I do that genes don't fossilize. So when you demand anything related to genetics, you limit me to now-living organisms, or that scattered handful of extinct organisms for which we have useful genetic samples.

In any case, my questions are relevant to yours. If I simply answered your question with "Culex pipiens," you wouldn't understand it. When I answer a question such as yours, I like to give a complete answer, an answer that the reader can understand.

The deception is so broad-based that hundreds of scientists have participated, by naming the same organism with two different Latin names in order to have them fit into an expected evolutionary ladder scenario, by arbitrarily renaming rock formations when the "wrong" index fossils are found and especially by promoting a nonexistent geological table.

Examples, please.

Show me the source of information.

Define "information."

creeper said...

Radar,

I'm afraid you're still skirting the issue, whether you realize it or not. Please define what you mean by "information" and "new creatures" in this context. Jon has named a number of transitions that represent information gained, and certainly the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria - a clear case of a mutation (copying error) that had beneficial effects and thus added information - is an example that runs counter to your claims.

”But I will give you one example. Take a writing tablet and a pen. Weigh them. Now use the pen to write your name on the pad. Weigh them again. Did they weigh more because you added information? No.”

This is supposed to mean what exactly? How does this relate to what we’re talking about?

”Information is intelligence transmitted through a medium purposefully to accomplish something by some means”

As Jon rightly pointed out, this is rather a self-serving definition, tailored to presume intent. To give you an example for why this is an inadequate definition, we can glean information from tree rings about the age of a tree without that information purposefully put there so that we could accomplish that.

”If you have fifty trillion cells and each of them has the DNA information to code for your existence and additional information to be passed on to ancestors, by what means did it get transmitted and by whom? Please do not insult your own intelligence by saying "chance."”

Please don’t insult your own by endlessly repeating an argument from ignorance/incredulity. And for the umpteenth time, the theory of evolution does not boil down to chance. The fact that you can’t acquaint yourself with what exactly you’re trying to argue against severely weakens your position.

”Darwinists point to information loss and think gullible people will see it as information gain.”

You’re still shy of an explanation why, for example, the examples Jon mentioned would be information loss.

-- creeper

creeper said...

”Paleontologists coming across a Great Dane and a Bloodhound and a Chihuahua would probably give them all different Latin names and arrange them in an order of evolution over the course of a few million years.”

A pretty baseless and silly accusation on your part. It depends on what could be found out about their age, of course. If evidence indicates they lived around the same time, they would not be classified as belonging in different eras.

”If I separate out a part of the information I am subtracting, not adding.”

Again, please define the information and how it is supposedly taken away.

”For true evolution to occur, new information has to be added to the genome.”

By “true evolution”, you mean macroevolution?

”Resistance to antibiotics has nothing to do with adding new genetic information. There are several ways that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. One way is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics.”

If there are several ways that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics, on what basis do you make the claim that “adding new genetic information” is not one of them?

”In fact, some bacteria, obtained by thawing sources that had been frozen before man developed antibiotics, have been shown to be antibiotic-resistant.“

Link? Sorry I have to ask, but you have a propensity to make up or distort stuff to suit your purposes.

”When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant.”

If this were the case, then bacteria could never acquire a resistance to antibiotics that they didn’t previously have.

Tell me, is this notion something you’ve cooked up yourself, or is there any actual scientific research that has been conducted to test this hypothesis? And I hope you understand that so far it is just a hypothesis (if that), something like “organisms were created with all genetic information for all potentialities that lie ahead, and they shed this information over time”. So if that were the case, what would we be seeing? What testable predictions could you make about what we would find in DNA?

Jon brought up genetic analysis, and since that is extremely relevant to this hypothesis you propose, I hope you answer his questions.

Oh, and until this hypothesis actually sprouts testable predictions that are then confirmed and thus matures into something resembling a theory, you’re not really in a position to call people who aren’t on board with it liars, do you?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"A 6,000 year old Universe would not be viewable by us (most of it) because the starlight would not have arrived here yet."

Who says a 6,000 year old Universe (with the Earth at its center) would have to be more than 12,000 light years across?

Or is that something that God wouldn't deem impressive enough for his most special creation, Man?

On the other hand, the fact that the Universe is bigger than that and that we can see it should give you an excellent clue that it's considerably older than 6,000 years. If you had an open mind to the evidence, that is.

But no, literal interpretation of Genesis trumps all observation. It must be seen as a science textbook at all costs. That's the ticket.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"If you cannot find a mechanism by which DNA came into existence then Darwinism is dead already. How to bypass the chirality problem and the complexity problem? Ignore them and brainwash the public into thinking there is no problem! All day long television special programs and news media and publications yammer about millions and billions of years and produce pictures of beings imagined from the finding of a few pieces of skull and a couple of teeth. "

The Gish gallops are getting sillier and sounding more desperate around here...

The theory of evolution holds up regardless of how you think life originated. If you think God did it and don't feel like investigating any further, that's your prerogative. But saying God did it doesn't put a dent in the theory of evolution.

What exactly is the complexity problem? Just another way to describe your argument from ignorance/incredulity, I suppose. Get back to us when you read up on evolution through natural selection.

There are many reasons that mainstream science has concluded an Earth older than 6,000 years. Amusingly enough, you even subscribe to some of these methods yourself when you're flogging your other hobby-horse, global warming: dendrochronology and ice core layers.

What exactly is the evidence for the Earth being 6,000 years old? There is none. There is a creation myth (one of many), and no scientific evidence of any kind. Many attempts to shoot tiny little holes here and there into the evidence for the much older Earth, but none that you could point to and say: this clearly indicates that the Earth couldn't be older than 6,000 years.

None.

So quit yammering about all the yammering about millions and billions of years - it's based on solid evidence.

-- creeper