Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View The bible - not history, and...
Show More
Loading...
Flag Slipnish November 3, 2011 11:03 PM EDT

Wow.


I'm predicting she'll abandon the thread.  Or quote Taz Walker.  Same thing, really.

Flag iamachildofhis November 4, 2011 3:30 AM EDT

Nov 2, 2011 -- 10:17PM, Blü wrote:



iama


If you were to follow the "links" provided in the following portion of the "geology of Mt. Everest,"  you will find that the three separate portions of Mt. Everest are comprised of sedimentary materials which were laid down by The Flood, because they contain the fossil remains of marine life-forms.


Blu: Suicide by Wikipedia cut&paste again!  Is it that you don't read them, or just don't understand what they say?  

Your quote says (for example) that the uppermost geological formation of Everest consists of grayish to dark gray or white, parallel laminated and bedded, Ordovician limestone inter layered with subordinate beds of recrystallized dolomite with argillaceous laminae and siltstone [...] in this limestone. [...] samples [...] from near the summit revealed them to be composed of carbonate pellets and finely fragmented remains of trilobites, crinoids, and ostracods. [...]

So, iama, you mention the Ordovician period.  When was the Ordovician?  In 2348 BCE, you say?

Nope.  The Ordovician was from ~ 488 to ~ 443 million years ago (between the Cambrian and the Silurian).  And at that time, where were the minerals and the critters that became the limestone you mention?  Why, they were under water - that's why they're all marine animals.  How come?  Because 450 m years ago, tectonic forces hadn't yet raised the Himalayas!  Get it?

And those trilobites, crinoids and ostracods you mention - were any of them from later than the Ordovician?  You can tell because they evolved later - lots of ostracods and one branch of the crinoids are is still around.  Oh, but the ones you mention were in Ordovician limestone, so I guess NOT from 2348 BCE.  450m years earlier, in fact.

All the facts you needed were in your own post - yet you still got it wrong.



iama:  Blu, The Geologic Table, according to the evoluton paradigm, covers billions of Earth-history-years.


According to the biblical creationist paradigm, The Complete Geologic Table, comprised of sedimentary layers of rocks, containing fossilized remains of all life-form KINDs, COMPRISES THE "ONE LAYER" which you are asking for!


When you / when geologists reach the craton of the continent, they have reached that portion of The Original Creation rocks which were NOT eroded by The Flood.  All of the sedimentary layers which exist above the foundation-craton, are your "one layer" deposited by The Flood of Noah's time.  Your "one layer" is evidenced as the evolution-paradigm's Geologic Table.


So, your "Ordovician" layer of sediments represents but one portion of the year-long deposition which took place during The Flood.  All of the other evolution-paradigm-layer-designations representing millions of years, are, also, but representations of other portions of the year-long deposition which took place during The Flood. AND, all of the fossils which are contained in each of those sedimentary layers, are there, BECAUSE The Flood waters destroyed them and deposited them in that particular layer of sediments.  Most of the fossils in the sediments are of Marine animals, which were the first to be buried by The Flood, and exist in the lower sedimentary layers.  The ability of animal life-forms to escape The Flood ravages, initially, is indicated by their eventual demise in the upper sedimentary layers.


All of the sedimentary layers of the evolutionary Geologic Chart, according to the biblical creation paradigm, were deposited during the one year Flood.



.

Flag iamachildofhis November 4, 2011 3:42 AM EDT

Nov 2, 2011 -- 10:26PM, Blü wrote:



iama


The, above, "bottleneck effect" is a speculation belonging to the evolution paradigm.  What, actually, happens / happened throughout life-form-history, is that there is a great amount of genetic information which was, originally, contained in the original pair of KINDs of life-forms, that great variation is reproduced within each of the KINDs of life-forms, plants, animals and humans.


Blu: Nope.  The bottleneck effect is demonstrated science.  It won't go away just because you use strikethrough on it. 

Genesis creation is a folktale from pre-scientific times.  Three or four thousand years ago, no doubt it sounded good.  In 2011 only a sillybilly would think it could possibly be true.

(Especially since there's no basis for thinking the bible's inerrant.)



iama:  The "bottleneck effect" is demonstrated mathematically, or by computer simulations, and is not the same as scientific observations of such happening.  What is demonstrated / observed by scientists, today, is extinctions / near extinctions.


I, as a believer and a Christian, know that The Bible is inerrant.  But, that is another topic.



"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever." (Isaiah 40:8)



Notice how often the following phrase is stated in The Bible:


The Word of the LORD



.

Flag iamachildofhis November 4, 2011 4:01 AM EDT

Nov 2, 2011 -- 10:40PM, MMarcoe wrote:



iama:  The, above, "bottleneck effect" is a speculation belonging to the evolution paradigm.  What, actually, happens / happened throughout life-form-history, is that there is a great amount of genetic information which was, originally, contained in the original pair of KINDs of life-forms, that great variation is reproduced within each of the KINDs of life-forms, plants, animals and humans.


MMarcoe: Please show me where the Bible supports this "great amount of genetic information" in these original pairs of kinds.



iama:  "This great amount of genetic information" is derived from what the Genome Project and all of the genomes which have been scientifically derived of so many life-forms.  The amount of information which is contained in even the very simplest of genomes contains more information than what we, humans, are grasping.  The understandings which biologists are gleaning from the DNA coding and non-coding information mechanisms, etc., are indicating that the coding is ALREADY THERE IN THE GENOME, and is not there, because of some mutation.  What The Bible tells us is that there were individual KINDs originally created by our Creator-God, and that, even after The Flood, 1600 years post-The Creation, and down history's lane to Moses, and the Laws given for clean and unclean KINDs of animal life-forms, the KINDs of animsl life-forms were still identifiable, as they had been from the time that Adam first named each of the animals.


MMarcoe: Then show me how that's supported by the current science.



The articles which I have recently presented, tell you have the information stored in each of the KINDs' genomes supports the biblical creationists' paradigm.


MMarcoe: Then explain where the computer models that extrapolate genomes backward in time are. They would show us the hypothesized gene code of these original kinds.



iama:  There are none, as far as I know.  You can't use hypothetical computer hypothesis to validate this hypothesis, because the computer program requires a complete understanding of all of the genome mechanisms, and biologists just don't have all of that info, yet.


MMarcoe: Or ... to save yourself time, just admit that this is all a YEC fad that has no support in either the Bible or science.



iama:  The support is, totally, in the current findings regarding the genome's complexity and mechanisms which have been identified which are responsible for the accomplishment of variation within each of the individually created KINDs of life-forms.  The mechanism are ALREADY THERE, as that article on Faciliated Variation by the secular biologists, Marc Kirshner and John Gerhart, indicated:


"Facilitated variation is the first comprehensive theory of how life works at the molecular level, published in 2005 by systems biologists Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart in their book The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwins Dilemma."



Facilitated variation: a new paradigm emerges in biology



.


Flag iamachildofhis November 4, 2011 4:17 AM EDT

Nov 2, 2011 -- 12:12PM, d_p_m wrote:



iama:


Genetic Bottleneck


"It was no coincidence that in the eastern Mediterranean at the change from OIS5 to OIS4, i.e. just after the Toba YTT event, the Afro-Asian biotic community was abruptly replaced by a palaeoarctic one, including the already cold-adapted (ref. Tchernov E. 1992a; Ambrose S.H. 1998).


Estimating how low the number of members of the species could have been to account for today's human genetic uniformity involves a number of variables that are anything but clear-cut. It has been estimated that only 40 to 600 females (which translates into a total population of less than 3,000 persons; Harpending H.C. et al. 1993) came through the bottleneck. Another estimate arrived at 500 to 3,000 females (ref. Rogers A.R. 1993) and yet another at 1,000 to 4,300 individuals (Ayala F.J. 1996; Takahata N. at al. 1995). The highest estimate so far has 10,000 females of reproductive age as the minimum (ref. Ambrose S.H.. 1998). Even if the highest estimate is accepted, we are talking about the entire human race numbering no more than the population of one small country town today


d_p_m: I notice your source very carefully leaves out a few key bits of information, hoping to deceive readers about the referenced event:


"YTT[1]) was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia). It is recognized as one of the Earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter and possibly an additional 1,000-year cooling episode. This change in temperature resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution."


-- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_t...


d_p_m: You do realize that your source is trying to use an event from 70,000 years ago to prove a 6,000 year old earth, don't you?



iama:  You need to realize that when the evolution paradigm dates are used, the biblical creationist only uses those dates as relative to the 6,000 year-old-Earth as per The Bible.  Proportional / using the dates are indicating relative ages according to the evolution paradigm and thinking of ratios is done.  So, 70,000 years ago according to the evolution paradigm thinking, would be brought into the biblical creation time-scale as being at The Flood time-parameter.  Long-ages are necessary for the evolution paradigm's impossible presupposition of "goo to zoo to you" scenario.  The biblical creation paradigm does not require long-ages, because The Bible does not.


d_p_m: And that there is an enormous difference between 1,000 breeding pairs 70,000 years ago and 4 breeding pairs 4,000 years ago?



iama: Yes, but, again, it is the evolution paradigm speaking and not the biblical creation DATA given in The Bible.  The highly loaded genomes which were, originally, created by our supernatural Creator-God, even those taken on board The Ark, were well endowed to rapidly reproduce having great variation potential mechanisms already present in each of their genomes.


d_p_m: And that that difference would be immediately detected in the human genome, if your claims were correct?


The only logical conclusion is that the biblical flood story is a myth.



iama:  No myth, because the original genomes of all life-forms, originally created by our Creator-God, were fitted with variation producing mechanisms already built in to their genomes.  Our Creator-God created genomes such that they would succeed as KINDs in the various environments / habitats / climates / etc., which would result post-The Flood.



.

Flag iamachildofhis November 4, 2011 4:27 AM EDT

Nov 2, 2011 -- 11:57AM, d_p_m wrote:



iama's quote:


Bottleneck Effect - Evolution paradigm concept


"Any form of temporary restriction to the population drastically reduces the genetic diversity of the species. Genetic diversity is a crucial factor that ensures longevity and adaptability of any particular species in a particular environment. Reduced genetic diversity leads to genetic drift in a population and may result in poor adaptability towards the changing trends of climates and gradually, may lead to extinction of a generation."


iama:  The, above, "bottleneck effect" is a speculation belonging to the evolution paradigm.  What, actually, happens / happened throughout life-form-history, is that there is a great amount of genetic information which was, originally, contained in the original pair of KINDs of life-forms, that great variation is reproduced within each of the KINDs of life-forms, plants, animals and humans.


d_p_m: That's like saying that the later encyclopedias were all contained in the first encyclopedia. And that later encyclopedias just result from losing information from the original template. There are a couple of problems with that.


1. There isn't enough room for all that information in the original (encyclopedia, genome)



iama: If you read the article on Facilitated Variation, you will glean that the two biologists are reporting that the variation causing entities are found in the non-coding information DNA as "switches," which turn on and off, the existing "conserved DNA coding" information.


Facilitated Variation


d_p_m: 2. There is no mechanism for removing all the information except for what is required for a later (encyclopedia, genome).



iama:  Again, it is done by switching existing DNA coding information on or off.  Make sure that you read the above article where the information is given to that effect.


d_p_m: 3. The claims do not and cannot result in the nested hierarchies we see in the observed (encyclopedias, genomes).



iama:  Because our Creator-God, originally, chose to create all life-forms using the one and only DNA coding and non-coding information system, similar organs are reproduced by similar information coding in the various different KIND's genomes.  That is the only reason as to WHY you are able to make your claim of "nested hierarchies."



.

Flag McAtheist November 4, 2011 9:29 AM EDT

iam: Long-ages are necessary for the evolution paradigm's impossible presupposition of "goo to zoo to you" scenario.  The biblical creation paradigm does not require long-ages, because The Bible does not.


REAL scientists don't invent unsupported paradigms; REAL scientists follow the evidence.  The vast preponderance of evidence from astronomy, geology, biology, etc. clearly shows that the Earth and the universe are billions of years old; NO evidence shows that the Earth is a few thousand years old.


In order to force this real-world data to fit their stories, YECs invent all sorts of completely unsubstantiated magical events, but  there is no more reason to assume the YEC magical events actually occurred than there is to assume that fairies with magic wands stepped in to change how the world works. There is no evidence that the Earth vomited up the asteroid belt or that glaciers sped up a million times or that erosion sped up a million times, etc.


What YECs never get is that real science follows the data; that's why mainstream science accepts that the Earth is millions and millions of years old. Evolution doesn't force this conclusion on science --- the EVIDENCE forces this conclusion on science.


Just one more way YECism isn't now and never has been science.  YECism fails.

Flag McAtheist November 4, 2011 9:38 AM EDT

Iam,


Ok, the YEC hypothesis is that the ark kinds were super-variable or stuffed with extra genetic information and then "devolution" created today's modern species through information loss.


The NEXT step in the scientific method calls for testing the hypothesis. 


What set of modern species have YEC researchers genetically traced back to their ark ancestors?  What mechanisms did those researchers find that caused the rapid loss of information?  What specific information was lost?  Why did these less robust creatures out-perform the very robust ark kind? Why did this magical devolution stop as soon as humans began to record the world around them in art and history --- why don't we see similar "devolution" among species bred for generations in zoos?


In short, what ACTUAL EVIDENCE is there that the YEC hypothesis CAN happen and DID happen? 


You are aware that there is more to science than just inventing "mighta-maybe" stories, right?


So, let's see the evidence and research that supports this aspect of the YEC "model."

Flag Ridcully November 4, 2011 1:04 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 3:42AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama:  The "bottleneck effect" is demonstrated mathematically, or by computer simulations, and is not the same as scientific observations of such happening.  What is demonstrated / observed by scientists, today, is extinctions / near extinctions.




Genetic bottlenecks have been observed.   For instance, in the case of greater prairie chicken  we have pre and post bottleneck measurements of the genetic make-up of the animals.


If there were an event in the near past the reduced the population of all or most animals, such as a global flood, then we would see evidence of it in the genetic make-up of most or all animals.  This is not observed.  Hence such a cataclysmic  event in the near past can be ruled out.  

Flag d_p_m November 4, 2011 1:34 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 3:42AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama:  The "bottleneck effect" is demonstrated mathematically, or by computer simulations, and is not the same as scientific observations of such happening.  What is demonstrated / observed by scientists, today, is extinctions / near extinctions.




We have observed genetic bottlenecks in a number of populations. The fact that you do math to calculate when one occurred does not invalidate the science any more than having to calculate the velocity of a falling body invalidates gravity.

Flag wohali November 4, 2011 1:37 PM EDT

Iamachildofhis, you really shouldn't try to argue things that you don't understand.

Flag d_p_m November 4, 2011 1:39 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 3:30AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


According to the biblical creationist paradigm, The Complete Geologic Table, comprised of sedimentary layers of rocks, containing fossilized remains of all life-form KINDs, COMPRISES THE "ONE LAYER" which you are asking for!


When you / when geologists reach the craton of the continent, they have reached that portion of The Original Creation rocks which were NOT eroded by The Flood.  All of the sedimentary layers which exist above the foundation-craton, are your "one layer" deposited by The Flood of Noah's time.  Your "one layer" is evidenced as the evolution-paradigm's Geologic Table.




All right. Do you have an experiment that shows water at any even reasonable velocity (falling at terminal velocity for a raindrop, flowing at 50 kph) can erode all igneous rocks at 15 cm/hr?


If not, your model fails... and it should be a simple enough test, so where is the 'creation science' experiment proving this?


Flag iamachildofhis November 4, 2011 6:11 PM EDT

Nov 2, 2011 -- 11:48AM, d_p_m wrote:



iama


Your "three things" are evidences that indicate that you don't know what you are talking about with respect to The Flood year and following!


Blu: Odd, then, that you still haven't identified any relevant points I may be ignorant of.  Come, let us reason together.

If there was a Genesis flood then it must have left a HUGE flood layer in the geological record and that flood layer must exist as a single thing everywhere in the world and date to 2348 BCE.  Why is there no sign of that layer?


iama:  Your "single flood layer" is bogus!  A sedimentary layer composed of particles of rock, were originally eroded at their source, and then, deposited where ever the water carried the sediments from that erosion.  Since there are so many different types of rock particles, evident in sedimentary rocks, their sources must, also, have been, originally, larger bodies of those materials.  The Flood eroded all rocks which were there, and deposited them where ever and how ever The Flood's currents and the underlying land surface affected the fallout of those eroded materials.


d_p_m: Blu did not say a 'uniform' flood layer, he said a 'single' flood layer. And he's right. You have one year in which to deposit all the sediment you claim came from the flood, or your claims fail. It doesn't matter what sediment is deposited where, they all have to be deposited at essentially the same time. They also have to dry out at the same time, when a billion cubic km of water or more vanishes from the earth.



iama:  The biblical creation paradigm, from biblical references, indicates that the ocean basins lowered, during the final stages of The Flood year, and the mountains rose up (and are, actually, still rising).


Psa 104:6           
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: 1)  the waters stood above the mountains. 2) At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 3) They go up by the mountains; 4) they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 5) Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth."


The sequence, above, is:


1. The Flood waters are ABOVE the sedimentary layers which were, during the initial RISING, PREVAILING and ASSUAGING Stages of The Flood, eroding and depositing sediments,


2. underneath the Flood Waters, during the Receding Stage of the year-long-Flood, the mountains are beginning to rise, both from elevation forces from beneath, and by volcanic mountain building via lava: seamounts,


3. as the mountains are rising, The Flood waters are running off of the landforms as they break the water's surfaces, and as the ocean currents erode away the submerged sediments,


4.  once the sedimentary layers are emerging above The Flood waters' surfaces, these waters begin to carve away the sedimentary layers into our present day landforms:


----- mountain peaks and valleys


----- rounded boulders


----- water-formed ripples


----- bentonites, metabentonites, and tonsteins depositions


----- turbidity current depositions


----- sheet movement of waters


----- basins forming and filling with sediments


----- canyons carved out


----- large rivers channels form following sheet flow


----- caves and rock bridges


----- redeposition of fossils as sedimentary layers are eroded


----- faulting and folding of sedimentary layers as mountains rise


----- continental uplift and ocean basins sank


----- eroded escarpments


----- cobbles and boulders catastrophically transported long distances


----- anticlines uplifting and eroding


----- eroded escarpments


----- metamorphic heat and pressures changing sediments to metamorphic rock layers


5. The oceans are depressed to contain The Flood waters as they run off of the rising sedimentary layers of the rising mountain ranges


d_p_m: The particles also have to be eroded in the same time period of a year or less. How fast does water erode rock? That's one test you can easily do. Take water, accelerate it to terminal velocity for a raindrop, and spray it on basalt and granite. If the basalt and granite do not erode at a minimum of about 3 m/day, you've got a problem. You can't get the requisite sedimentary particles in the time you've got. You can claim that ocean currents did the eroding - but then you have to get 3m/day erosion by sending water through a basalt or granite trough at around 60 km per hour, which I recall was the range of speed given in one of those bogus papers you cited. It's even a fairly fast test - 3 m/day is about 15 cm/hr or about 1 cm in 4 minutes. If you can't erode of every major type of igneous rock at 15 cm an hour, your claims fail. Even with setup times, you could easily test two or three types of rock a day. How come the Creationist 'scientists' haven't presented us with this proof of rapid hydraulic erosion?



iama: You are talking "rain drops" whereas the biblical creation paradigm focuses upon the oceanic movements / currents created by the rotation of The Earth, especially upon the continental surfaces. Did you read the article which I previously posted?


PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD


We, biblically, don't know what types of soil / rock types were present as a result of The initial Creation.  Genesis 2 does speak of gold and precious stones existing in The Garden of Eden region:


Gen 2:11           
"The name of the first [is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where [there is] gold; And the gold of that land [is] good: there [is] bdellium and the onyx stone."


The Flood conditions were such that there is NOTHING, currently happening upon The Earth, which would equal them.



.

Flag farragut November 4, 2011 6:24 PM EDT

Where did that worldful of water go?

Flag d_p_m November 4, 2011 6:58 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 6:11PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


The sequence, above, is:


1. The Flood waters are ABOVE the sedimentary layers which were, during the initial RISING, PREVAILING and ASSUAGING Stages of The Flood, eroding and depositing sediments,




Let's look at what your assumptions require. The sediments were laid down in the global flood, made from material eroded by that flood, in the course of something less than a year.


In order to have sediments, you have to erode other rock to get the initial material. If the earth averages 2 km of sediments over all (almost certainly a low estimate) you need to erode about 2 km of igneous rock.


Even if the erosion took place over the entire duration of the flood (less than a year) you would have to erode about 6 m of rock a day, averaged over the entire surface of the earth. That means you have to erode 25 cm of rock an hour, minimum.


It is easily possible to investigate the erosion of rock by water, with nothing more than a high pressure hose, a trough, a means of moving water throught the trough quickly, a clock and a tool for measuring the depth of the erosion.


There are two possible sources of erosion - falling water (40 days of rain) and flowing water (rivers, currents, etc). For checking erosion from rain, all yoiu have to do is spray water on a rock at the terminal velocity of falling rain. For checking erosion from rivers/currents, you place a piece of rock inset into the bottom of a trough, and let water flow through at any conceivably possible speed - maybe 50 kph. After 12 minutes, you should see about 5 cm of erosion.


If the observed erosion is markedly less - say .5 cm in 12 minutes, your 'model' has been falsified.


This sort of experiment can be easily done by 'creation scientists' or even interested laymen.


So, we should be seeing peer reviewed papers on hyper-accelerated hydraulic erosion. Where are they?


Personally, I would be astounded by a rate of erosion that is measurable in an hour, let alone 25 cm of it!

Flag MMarcoe November 4, 2011 7:55 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 6:11PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Psa 104:6           
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: 1)  the waters stood above the mountains. 2) At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 3) They go up by the mountains; 4) they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 5) Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth."




If the waters stood above the mountains, then they were above Mt. Everest. Nothing in this passage supports the idea of tall mountains not existing yet.


You are adding to scripture, which is forbidden. Why do you keep doing this and therefore risk hellfire?

Flag iamachildofhis November 4, 2011 9:19 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 1:34PM, d_p_m wrote:



iama:  The "bottleneck effect" is demonstrated mathematically, or by computer simulations, and is not the same as scientific observations of such happening.  What is demonstrated / observed by scientists, today, is extinctions / near extinctions.


d_p_m: We have observed genetic bottlenecks in a number of populations. The fact that you do math to calculate when one occurred does not invalidate the science any more than having to calculate the velocity of a falling body invalidates gravity.



iama:  Good success on you, if you attempt to mathematically work your way back from, for example, all of the current cattle / bovine to the aurochs, and then, back to the original 7 pairs which were on The Ark!


Giant cattle to be bred back from extinction



Cattle


The domesticated form of the aurochs (Bos primigenius) that was probably tamed in a number of different places independently, defined as Bos taurus but probably the same species as the wild form and separable only in terms of size. The earliest evidence for the domestication of cattle is from Çatal Hüyük, Turkey, Turkey, and other sites in northern Greece. A number of different breeds have been recognized including Bos longifrons in Europe and southwest Asia, and Bos indica in India.




Aurochs


Three wild subspecies of aurochs are recognized. Only the Eurasian subspecies survived until recent times.:

  • The Eurasian subspecies (Bos primigenius primigenius) once ranged across the steppes and taigas of Europe, Siberia, and Central Asia. It is part of the famous Pleistocene megafauna, and declined in numbers along with other megafauna species by the end of Pleistocene. The Eurasian aurochs were domesticated into modern taurine cattle breeds around the 6th millennium BC, in the Middle East, and possibly also at about the same time in the Far East. Aurochs were still widespread in Europe by the time of the Roman Empire, when they were widely popular as a battle beast in Roman arenas, and excessive hunting began and continued until it was nearly extinct. By the 13th century, aurochs existed only in low numbers in Eastern Europe, and hunting of aurochs became a privilege of nobles, and later royal households. The decreased hunting did not save the aurochs from extinction, and the last recorded live aurochs, a female, died in 1627 in the Jaktorów Forest, Poland from natural causes.




Heck Female


Heck Bull


Heck Cattle



iama: So, today, we have cattle varieties represented in different nations, worldwide, and human records of Auroch extinctions recently, and cattle-fossils, destroyed by The Flood.  Being designated as "clean animals," those to provide meat, milk, skins, and for sacrifices, etc., for human consumption and use, there would have been seven pairs of the orignal cattle on The Ark. 


Note the attempt, above, to replicate the Aurochs, and their partial successes with the Heck / Nazis cattle.


Genetic material, is presumably available, still, in the cattle, currently, existing, but the assumption seems to be that the genetic information for size, at least is missing.



According to the biblical creationist's paradigm, the original genome information was gradually separated away from the original The Ark pairs, and is, now, basically, scattered among current descendants.  The "extinction" of the Auroch seems to have depleated the genome, such that attempts to "bring back" the Aurochs will fall short of the originals.


Because The Earth post-The Flood had many, many environmental regions / habitats / climates / etc., to fill, great variation is, now, visible in the world's cattle populations. There aren't more variation types available in the cattle genome which originally left The Ark. There is always a limit to the variation potential available in each of the original The Ark KINDs. We aren't seeing more dog breeds, more hog breeds, more cat breeds, more elephant breeds, more horse breeds, etc.



.

Flag d_p_m November 4, 2011 9:41 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 9:19PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Nov 4, 2011 -- 1:34PM, d_p_m wrote:


Nov 4, 2011 -- 9:19PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

iama:  The "bottleneck effect" is demonstrated mathematically, or by computer simulations, and is not the same as scientific observations of such happening.  What is demonstrated / observed by scientists, today, is extinctions / near extinctions.



d_p_m: We have observed genetic bottlenecks in a number of populations. The fact that you do math to calculate when one occurred does not invalidate the science any more than having to calculate the velocity of a falling body invalidates gravity.



iama:  Good success on you, if you attempt to mathematically work your way back from, for example, all of the current cattle / bovine to the aurochs, and then, back to the original 7 pairs which were on The Ark!



You missed the point, entirely.


There were no original 7 pairs. If there had been there would be a very marked genetic bottleneck in all cattle. There is not.


There was no ark. If there had been, there would be genetic bottlenecks in all species, dating to about 4,300 years ago. There are not.


There are some bottlenecks - older ones dating back more than 10,000 years, and newer ones measured in decades, but no universal 4,000 year bottlenecks.


There was no global flood. The genes prove it.

Flag iamachildofhis November 4, 2011 9:51 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 7:55PM, MMarcoe wrote:



iama:


Psa 104:6           
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: 1)  the waters stood above the mountains. 2) At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 3) They go up by the mountains; 4) they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 5) Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth."


MMarcoe: If the waters stood above the mountains, then they were above Mt. Everest. Nothing in this passage supports the idea of tall mountains not existing yet.


You are adding to scripture, which is forbidden. Why do you keep doing this and therefore risk hellfire?



iama: It all depends upon what the Hebrew word "har" refers to.  It could, also, be referring to a "hill" or a "mount." Of course, the sedimentary layers laid down by The Flood would have been flat!  So, as the mountains that we know of, today, began, they would have been under the surface of The Flood waters.


As for "adding to Scripture," I just read and reported, exactly, what it said.  The "mountains" began under The Flood waters, rose up, and The Flood waters, then, began to carve the valleys as The Flood waters flowed from off of the rising "mountains" flowing to the place "prepared" for them.


Strong's H2022 - har


1) hill, mountain, hill country, mount


AVmountain 261, mount 224, hill 59, hill country 1, promotion 1


A shortened form of הַר (H2042)


Strong's H2042 - harar


From an unused root meaning to loom up


1) mountain, hill, hill country, mount


AVmountain 10, hill 2, mount 1




Gen 7:19     
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills2022, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered ."

Gen 7:20     
"Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail ; and the mountains2022 were covered."

Gen 8:4     
"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains2022 of Ararat."

Gen 8:5     
"And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains2022 seen ."

 Psa 104:6     
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains2022.

Psa 104:8     
"They go up by the mountains2022; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them."



.

Flag iamachildofhis November 4, 2011 10:08 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 9:41PM, d_p_m wrote:



iama:  The "bottleneck effect" is demonstrated mathematically, or by computer simulations, and is not the same as scientific observations of such happening.  What is demonstrated / observed by scientists, today, is extinctions / near extinctions.


d_p_m: We have observed genetic bottlenecks in a number of populations. The fact that you do math to calculate when one occurred does not invalidate the science any more than having to calculate the velocity of a falling body invalidates gravity.


iama:  Good success on you, if you attempt to mathematically work your way back from, for example, all of the current cattle / bovine to the aurochs, and then, back to the original 7 pairs which were on The Ark!


d_p_m: You missed the point, entirely.


There were no original 7 pairs. If there had been there would be a very marked genetic bottleneck in all cattle. There is not.


There was no ark. If there had been, there would be genetic bottlenecks in all species, dating to about 4,300 years ago. There are not.


There are some bottlenecks - older ones dating back more than 10,000 years, and newer ones measured in decades, but no universal 4,000 year bottlenecks.


There was no global flood. The genes prove it.



iama: You missed my point.


Biological research, currently, referring to the Facilitated Variation article, indicates that the DNA coding Information system is conserved, and the DNA non-coding information supplies "genetic switches," which are responsible for the reproduction of variation.


So, the conserved DNA coding information systems maintain the KIND, and the non-coding system is responsible for the variations.  So, just two, the male and the female, coming off of The Ark, contained within their genomes, all that was required to reproduce "after their / his KIND," up until this present day. 


The "bottleneck" concept is a bogus evolutionary construct.



.

Flag Ridcully November 4, 2011 10:29 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 10:08PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Biological research, currently, referring to the Facilitated Variation article, indicates that the DNA coding Information system is conserved, and the DNA non-coding information supplies "genetic switches," which are responsible for the reproduction of variation. 



Some parts of the genetic code tend to be conserved (e.g., Hox genes), but other regions of DNA tend not to be conserved.  The regions that are conserved tend to be those genes that when modified results in nonviable organisms.  There are also regulatory genes that affect the expression of other genes (and some of these tend to be conserved, and some not so much),.  However, the idea that one can assign genes to "kind preservation" or "kind variation" makes no sense biologically.  Your source for such notions  should be viewed with the highest skepticism. 


Also, as I mentioned before, genetics bottlenecks have been observed.  It is not a bogus concept, but a verified natural phenomena. 


Flag Ridcully November 4, 2011 10:33 PM EDT

To hammer the nail in on this, even without any geological evidence (which, btw, demonstrates that there was no worldwide flood in the last 10,000 years), the genetic evidence conclusively shows that the majority of organisms did not undergo a near extinction within that timeframe as well.  Creationism is shown to be wrong by the rocks beneath your feet, and the bunnies hoping around your backyard.

Flag MMarcoe November 4, 2011 11:21 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 9:51PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Nov 4, 2011 -- 7:55PM, MMarcoe wrote:



iama:


Psa 104:6           
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: 1)  the waters stood above the mountains. 2) At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 3) They go up by the mountains; 4) they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 5) Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth."


MMarcoe: If the waters stood above the mountains, then they were above Mt. Everest. Nothing in this passage supports the idea of tall mountains not existing yet.


You are adding to scripture, which is forbidden. Why do you keep doing this and therefore risk hellfire?



iama: It all depends upon what the Hebrew word "har" refers to.  It could, also, be referring to a "hill" or a "mount." Of course, the sedimentary layers laid down by The Flood would have been flat!  So, as the mountains that we know of, today, began, they would have been under the surface of The Flood waters.


As for "adding to Scripture," I just read and reported, exactly, what it said.  The "mountains" began under The Flood waters, rose up, and The Flood waters, then, began to carve the valleys as The Flood waters flowed from off of the rising "mountains" flowing to the place "prepared" for them.


Strong's H2022 - har


1) hill, mountain, hill country, mount


AVmountain 261, mount 224, hill 59, hill country 1, promotion 1


A shortened form of הַר (H2042)


Strong's H2042 - harar


From an unused root meaning to loom up


1) mountain, hill, hill country, mount


AVmountain 10, hill 2, mount 1




Gen 7:19     
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills2022, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered ."

Gen 7:20     
"Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail ; and the mountains2022 were covered."

Gen 8:4     
"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains2022 of Ararat."

Gen 8:5     
"And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains2022 seen ."

 Psa 104:6     
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains2022.

Psa 104:8     
"They go up by the mountains2022; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them."



.






You know, you have quite way of weaseling out of an argument. You did not report exactly what the passage said, despite claiming to. The passage said nothing about that. It said nothing about mountains rising up and valleys being carved by water.


Nothing. Nothing at all. Do you see that? Once again, I am telling you that you are adding to scripture. Where do you get the idea that it's okay for you to do that?


You have this idea in your head that you can read the minds of those who wrote the Bible. You think that you can add to their text and it'll all be okay.


Are you aware of this blasphemy of yours?


If you bother to answer this accusation of mine, I just know that you will dance around it and dream up some more scriptural additions.

Flag MMarcoe November 4, 2011 11:24 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 10:08PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


The "bottleneck" concept is a bogus evolutionary construct.





Bottlenecks would exist even under the YEC model. If a population is reduced to just two individuals (or seven), there will STILL be a bottleneck. Those few individuals would leave their influence on future generations.

Flag MMarcoe November 4, 2011 11:26 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 10:29PM, Ridcully wrote:


Some parts of the genetic code tend to be conserved (e.g., Hox genes), but other regions of DNA tend not to be conserved.  The regions that are conserved tend to be those genes that when modified results in nonviable organisms.  There are also regulatory genes that affect the expression of other genes (and some of these tend to be conserved, and some not so much),.  However, the idea that one can assign genes to "kind preservation" or "kind variation" makes no sense biologically.  Your source for such notions  should be viewed with the highest skepticism. 




That article that Iama keeps promoting seems to me to equate kinds with the phylum level of modern biological classification. Which, unfortunately, doesn't do YEC any good.



 

Flag McAtheist November 5, 2011 12:04 AM EDT

iam: The "bottleneck" concept is a bogus evolutionary construct.


I have corrected you on this before, Iam --- you are wrong, flat-out and inescapably wrong, because this "concept" has been OBSERVED!  Wikipedia:


"Wisent, also called European bison (Bison bonasus), faced extinction in the early 20th century. The animals living today are all descended from 12 individuals and they have extremely low genetic variation, which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls (Luenser et al., 2005). The population of American bison (Bison bison) fell due to overhunting, nearly leading to extinction around the year 1890, though it has since begun to recover. 

"A classic example of a population bottleneck is that of the northern elephant seal, whose population fell to about 30 in the 1890s. Although it now numbers in the hundreds of thousands, the potential for bottlenecks within colonies remains. Dominant bulls are able to mate with the largest number of females — sometimes as many as 100. With so much of a colony's offspring descended from just one dominant male, genetic diversity is limited making the species more vulnerable to diseases and genetic mutations. The golden hamster is a similarly bottlenecked species, with the vast majority descended from a single litter found in the Syrian desert around 1930. "


There are four examples where the severe reduction in population and its effects were observed.  What science do you YECs have to counter this?  Nothing? Then give up the argument as a very very lost cause.


Flag d_p_m November 5, 2011 2:41 AM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 10:08PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Nov 4, 2011 -- 9:41PM, d_p_m wrote:



iama:  The "bottleneck effect" is demonstrated mathematically, or by computer simulations, and is not the same as scientific observations of such happening.  What is demonstrated / observed by scientists, today, is extinctions / near extinctions.


d_p_m: We have observed genetic bottlenecks in a number of populations. The fact that you do math to calculate when one occurred does not invalidate the science any more than having to calculate the velocity of a falling body invalidates gravity.


iama:  Good success on you, if you attempt to mathematically work your way back from, for example, all of the current cattle / bovine to the aurochs, and then, back to the original 7 pairs which were on The Ark!


d_p_m: You missed the point, entirely.


There were no original 7 pairs. If there had been there would be a very marked genetic bottleneck in all cattle. There is not.


There was no ark. If there had been, there would be genetic bottlenecks in all species, dating to about 4,300 years ago. There are not.


There are some bottlenecks - older ones dating back more than 10,000 years, and newer ones measured in decades, but no universal 4,000 year bottlenecks.


There was no global flood. The genes prove it.



iama: You missed my point.


Biological research, currently, referring to the Facilitated Variation article, indicates that the DNA coding Information system is conserved, and the DNA non-coding information supplies "genetic switches," which are responsible for the reproduction of variation.


So, the conserved DNA coding information systems maintain the KIND, and the non-coding system is responsible for the variations.  So, just two, the male and the female, coming off of The Ark, contained within their genomes, all that was required to reproduce "after their / his KIND," up until this present day. 


The "bottleneck" concept is a bogus evolutionary construct.




I did not miss your point, I realized it was completely wrong.


You can't just handwave a claim that noncoding DNA will somehow introduce variation in traits the same way coding DNA does.


If there are ten different alleles for a given gene, then that is the variation you have for that gene. Some genes act to turn others on or off, they do not substitute a different coding. And the most variation you can have in two individuals is four alleles. Many populations show far more alleles than that - and as we know, mutations are not that common. In 4300 years you cannot explain the amount of variation observed in most species' genomes.


Furthermore, as McAtheist has pointed out, genetic bottlenecks are an observed fact - and we see them over periods of decades (scientifically observed in the present, directly) and detect them over millenia (through examination of DNA). We have observed bottlnecks of various degrees at least back 40,000 years... but not in most species.


Therefore, there was no ark, and no global flood. QED.

Flag iamachildofhis November 5, 2011 3:34 PM EDT

Nov 4, 2011 -- 11:21PM, MMarcoe wrote:



iama:


Psa 104:6           
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: 1)  the waters stood above the mountains. 2) At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 3) They go up by the mountains; 4) they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 5) Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth."


MMarcoe: If the waters stood above the mountains, then they were above Mt. Everest. Nothing in this passage supports the idea of tall mountains not existing yet.


You are adding to scripture, which is forbidden. Why do you keep doing this and therefore risk hellfire?


iama: It all depends upon what the Hebrew word "har" refers to.  It could, also, be referring to a "hill" or a "mount." Of course, the sedimentary layers laid down by The Flood would have been flat!  So, as the mountains that we know of, today, began, they would have been under the surface of The Flood waters.


As for "adding to Scripture," I just read and reported, exactly, what it said.  The "mountains" began under The Flood waters, rose up, and The Flood waters, then, began to carve the valleys as The Flood waters flowed from off of the rising "mountains" flowing to the place "prepared" for them.


Strong's H2022 - har


1) hill, mountain, hill country, mount


AVmountain 261, mount 224, hill 59, hill country 1, promotion 1


A shortened form of הַר (H2042)


Strong's H2042 - harar


From an unused root meaning to loom up


1) mountain, hill, hill country, mount


AVmountain 10, hill 2, mount 1




Gen 7:19     
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills2022, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered ."

Gen 7:20     
"Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail ; and the mountains2022 were covered."

Gen 8:4     
"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains2022 of Ararat."

Gen 8:5     
"And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains2022 seen ."

 Psa 104:6     
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains2022.

Psa 104:8     
"They go up by the mountains2022; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them."


MMarcoe: You know, you have quite way of weaseling out of an argument. You did not report exactly what the passage said, despite claiming to. The passage said nothing about that. It said nothing about mountains rising up and valleys being carved by water.



iama:  The following Psalm 104 text is speaking about "the waters."  I have given to you the Strong's Concordance definitions for you to check out. 


Psa 104:6           


1) You covered it (The Earth) with the deep8415 () as [with] a garment:


h8415 תהום tĕhowm - the deep


1) deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea


a) deep (of subterranean waters)


b) deep, sea, abysses (of sea)


c) primeval ocean, deep


d) deep, depth (of river)


e) abyss, the grave


iama: "The waters" up from out of "the deep" / subterranean waters, covered The Earth.



2)  the waters stood5975 above the mountains.


Strong's H5975 - `amad- remain, stood


1) to stand, remain, endure, take one's stand


iama: The waters remained covering the high hills - the seamounts / mountains are beginning to rise.



3) At Your rebuke they (the waters) fled; at the voice of Your thunder they (the waters) hasted away.


iama:  God spoke and "the waters" "fled" and "hasted away" from the rising land.



4) They (the waters) go up (h5927 עלה `alah) by the mountains;


iama: "The waters" ascend up, because of the "to go up, go up over, rise (of natural phenomenon" of the rising land / sediments / "mounts."



5) they (the waters) go down by the valleys unto the place (rivers, lakes, oceans) which You have founded (deepening ocean basins) for them (the waters).


iama: So far, "the waters" were covering The Earth, the land-surface / "mounts" are beginning to rise, God commanded "the waters" to "flee," "haste away" from the rising land / mounts, "the waters," rise with the "mounts" until the "mounts" rise above "the waters," and then, "the waters" "flee" "haste" down the "mounts," eroding the "mounts" into valleys as "the waters" "flee" "haste" downward, into "the place," eventually the deepening ocean basins of The Earth.


6) You have set a bound that they (the waters) may not pass over; that they (the waters) turn not again to cover the earth."


iama: Our Creator-God formed the ocean's coastlines, so that "the waters" in the ocean basins would not, again, "cover The Earth."



Read the Scripture passage in the following translation.  Use the "pull down" at the top of the chapter to change the translation:


Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


Psalm 104:5-9



.

Flag d_p_m November 5, 2011 3:52 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 3:34PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama: So far, "the waters" were covering The Earth, the land-surface / "mounts" are beginning to rise, God commanded "the waters" to "flee," "haste away" from the rising land / mounts, "the waters," rise with the "mounts" until the "mounts" rise above "the waters," and then, "the waters" "flee" "haste" down the "mounts," eroding the "mounts" into valleys as "the waters" "flee" "haste" downward, into "the place," eventually the deepening ocean basins of The Earth.




So, have you come up with proof that running water can erode 25 cm of igneous rock an hour yet?


Until you do, the above account is clearly nonsense.

Flag iamachildofhis November 5, 2011 5:12 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 2:41AM, d_p_m wrote:



iama:  The "bottleneck effect" is demonstrated mathematically, or by computer simulations, and is not the same as scientific observations of such happening.  What is demonstrated / observed by scientists, today, is extinctions / near extinctions.


d_p_m: We have observed genetic bottlenecks in a number of populations. The fact that you do math to calculate when one occurred does not invalidate the science any more than having to calculate the velocity of a falling body invalidates gravity.


iama:  Good success on you, if you attempt to mathematically work your way back from, for example, all of the current cattle / bovine to the aurochs, and then, back to the original 7 pairs which were on The Ark!


d_p_m: You missed the point, entirely.


There were no original 7 pairs. If there had been there would be a very marked genetic bottleneck in all cattle. There is not.


There was no ark. If there had been, there would be genetic bottlenecks in all species, dating to about 4,300 years ago. There are not.


There are some bottlenecks - older ones dating back more than 10,000 years, and newer ones measured in decades, but no universal 4,000 year bottlenecks.


There was no global flood. The genes prove it.


iama: You missed my point.


Biological research, currently, referring to the Facilitated Variation article, indicates that the DNA coding Information system is conserved, and the DNA non-coding information supplies "genetic switches," which are responsible for the reproduction of variation.


So, the conserved DNA coding information systems maintain the KIND, and the non-coding system is responsible for the variations.  So, just two, the male and the female, coming off of The Ark, contained within their genomes, all that was required to reproduce "after their / his KIND," up until this present day. 


The "bottleneck" concept is a bogus evolutionary construct.


d_p_m: I did not miss your point, I realized it was completely wrong.


You can't just handwave a claim that noncoding DNA will somehow introduce variation in traits the same way coding DNA does.



iama:  The article Facilitated Variation addresses your concern. 



"...the summary model of how life works as given by Kirschner and Gerhart (I shall refer to it as the KG model). They identify two major components:

  • conserved core processes of cell structure, function, and body plans;
  • core processes are regulated in modular ways (like ® Lego blocks) that can be easily rearranged into new combinations, to be used in new times, places and amounts to generate variable offspring.

Evolvability (iama: read CHANGE / VARIATION within the KIND) is thus built-in. The existing modular structure and its regulatory systems facilitates the incorporation of changes in DNA sequences (produced by recombinations and mutations) into functionally viable offspring that can adapt to new environments. KG theory is claimed to be a largely complete molecular explanation for how natural variation and natural selection produce all the variety of life on Earth..."


iama: The scientists authoring this report are NOT understanding their scientifically collected DATA from the biblical creation scientist's presuppositions of "goo to zoo to you" evolution, but of "evolution" / CHANGE / VARIATION, existing within each of the originally created KINDs, offspring.  As you read the KG author's report, evolution paradigm proponents will be reading the DATA from their evolution point of view, while the biblical creation paradigm proponents will be reading the same DATA from their "after their / his KIND" biblical creation point of view.


Alex Williams comments upon the article:


"A new view of heredity


Neo-Darwinists view heredity as being all about genetics. For example, the official journal of the Genetics Society is called Heredity. But genetics is all about change and we have discovered so many ways in which organisms can change that we are now faced with a huge unanswered question: how do they manage to stay (approximately) the same, generation after generation? As the late Stephen Jay Gould maintained throughout his career in paleontology—stasis, not change, is the major feature of natural history.5


Neo-Darwinism has no answer to this challenge for two reasons: (a) genes and chromosomes can be mutated at any and every position so there is no limit to the potential for change, and (b) the agents of change (mutations and environment) are beyond the organism’s control.










Evolution


(iama: read CHANGE / VARIATION within the KINDs)


occurs not primarily by changing DNA sequences, as neo-Darwinists assume, but by rearrangement of switching circuits.










But KG theory does give us an answer—the conserved core processes remain the same during reproduction. When a mother passes on an egg cell to its offspring, that cell contains everything required by the offspring in its architecture and machinery. The DNA sequences provide for the manufacture of more raw materials for the embryo to go through its development process, but the actual architecture and machinery itself is provided by the mother. The new outer membrane of the embryo is just that of the mother’s cell extended with more of the same material. The new cytoskeleton is just the mother’s cytoskeleton extended with new material. The new organelles are the mother’s organelles that replicate independently of the chromosomes. The new membranes are the mother’s membranes extended with more of the same material.


During the early stages of embryogenesis, the new chromosome set is entirely shut down and all the groundwork of the embryo is laid by thousands of different RNA types supplied by the mother. Only after this groundwork is laid does the new chromosome set become active and the mother’s RNAs are degraded and recycled."


iama:  The "bottleneck" hypothesis belongs to the evolution paradigm, which claims that the genome, itself, is lacking in variation mechanisms, and not as with the biblical creation paradigm, seen as CREATED, originally, by our / their Creator-God "In the beginning God..."


Therefore, the "bottleneck" speculation CANNOT account for the rapid increase in variation which exists, today, thousands of years since The Flood.  According to The Flood / the bibilical creationist paradigm, there is MUCH variation "machinery" housed within each KIND's genome, and that those genetic / replication-mechanisms were responsible, post-The Flood's environmental and geographical conditions ( in the years, immediately after The Flood) for the emergence WITHIN each of the KINDs which left The Ark, of the initial variations which can be identified, worldwide.  The cattle / bovine KIND is an example. There is not an unlimited amount of variation / change possible for each KIND.  That is why there isn't much rapid change / variation taking place, today.


d_p_m: If there are ten different alleles for a given gene, then that is the variation you have for that gene. Some genes act to turn others on or off, they do not substitute a different coding. And the most variation you can have in two individuals is four alleles. Many populations show far more alleles than that - and as we know, mutations are not that common. In 4300 years you cannot explain the amount of variation observed in most species' genomes.



iama: This article Facilitated Variation was authored by scientists presuppositioned by the evolution paradigm.  Therefore, there is NO concept of HOW the life-forms cells, originally, formed.  The scientists speak of two genome portions:


----- the conserved / stasis portion,


----- the variation "switches" mechanisms 


The biblical creationist scientists, holding to the biblical creation presuppositions, view / understand the term "evolution" not to mean "goo to zoo to you," but variation, only, within each of the originally created KINDs.


From the article:


"The variability that is built-in to this heredity process is the modular gene regulation and signaling networks."


Conserved core processes


Chapter 7 of Kirschner and Gerhart’s book summarizes this subject so I (Alex Williams) will simply quote selectively from it. My (AW's) additions or summaries are in square brackets:



‘Conserved core processes [typically consist of] several protein components [on average about 5, maximum probably about 300], conserved in their [amino acid] sequence. Their function is to generate the phenotype from the genotype. These processes arose historically in a few intermittent waves of innovation (iama: the KG authors presuppose "goo to zoo to you" evolution).


‘On the lineage towards humans, these innovations include:

  • the processes in the first bacteria [all the machinery in a bacterial cell],
  • [the processes in] the first eukaryotes [all the machinery in a eukaryote cell],
  • [the processes in] the first multi-cellular organisms [cooperation between cells, specialization of structure and function of different cells, and integration of specialized cell complexes into functional organs and organisms],
  • [the processes in] large bilateral body plans in metazoans (including chordates and vertebrates),
  • [the processes in] neural crest cells in vertebrates [which allow diversification of the head region],
  • [the processes in] limbs in the first land animals,
  • [the processes in] the neocortex [the key region of brain development].

‘Most evolutionary change in the metazoa [multi-celled animals] since the Cambrian has come not from changes of the core processes themselves or from new processes, but from regulatory changes affecting the deployment of the core processes. These regulatory changes alter the time, place, circumstance and amount of gene expression … (iama: this is evolutionary presuppositions speculation, "goo to zoo to you")


‘The core processes are built in special ways to allow them to be easily linked together in new combinations … these special properties include:


(a) Weak linkage, a property particularly of signal transduction [detection and response] and transcription [copying]. … the response is maximally prepared and ready to be triggered [by a GO or STOP signal].


(b) Exploratory behavior, a property of [cellular processes and populations of organisms] … the capacity to generate an unlimited number of outcome states [which are] built to be receptive to the [selective] agent [that will serve] as a stabilizing force, selecting one state among the large number of states generated.


(c) Compartmentation, a property of embryonic spatial organization and cell type control. [Compartmentation has] facilitated a large increase in the complexity of anatomy and physiology without a corresponding increase in the complexity of the conserved core processes (iama: biblical creation scientists read KINDs).



‘Generation of variation is facilitated principally by:

  • reducing the lethality of mutations,
  • reducing the number of mutations (iama: how is mutation defined, here?) needed to produce novelty, and
  • increasing the genetic diversity in the population by suppressing lethality [and thus allowing the mutations to be stored and inherited].

‘Robustness [is] at the centre of our theory … the conserved core processes (iama: biblical creation scientists read: KINDs conserved) are built [robustly] to give sufficient outputs despite altered conditions and inputs. [The properties] of robustness, flexibility and versatility are [needed] to enable the core processes to work together … the organism as a whole is … a poised response system … It responds to mutation by making changes it is largely prepared in advance to make. … Genetic variation or mutation does not have to be creative; it only needs to trigger the creativity built into the conserved mechanisms.

‘All the special properties of the conserved core processes had to evolve (iama: biblical creation scientists read: were created individually as KINDs) before regulatory evolution could escalate, for if the components of different processes were to interfere with one another in the new combinations, such expression would afford no benefit.

Facilitated variation assumes the availability of [the conserved core processes] (iama: biblical creation scientists read: KINDs were created having "conserved core processes."). The evolution of these processes and properties would seem to be the primary events of evolution, requiring high novelty. … Once the conserved processes were available (iama: read: once created, they were always available within each KIND of life-form), though, the possibility of variation by regulatory shuffling and gating of these processes was unleashed, and shuffling and gating were much simpler than inventing the processes (iama: they were originally created as individual KINDs of life-forms).

The main accomplishment of the theory of facilitated variation is to see the organism as playing a central role in determining the nature and degree of variationWe think the organism is so constituted that its own random genetic variation can evoke complex phenotypic change.’

Further relevant comments from Chapter 8 include:


‘ … evolvability (iama: read: change / variation)… is the greatest adaptation of all … Variation is facilitated largely because so much novelty is available in what is already possessed by the organism’ (pp. 252, 273).

The theory of facilitated variation opens up a new set of questions about the origins of the conserved core processes … [they] may have emerged together as a suite, for we know of no organism today that lacks any part of the suite.


The most obscure origination of a core process is the creation of the first prokaryotic cell. The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world of today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved’ (pp. 253, 256).




d_p_m: Furthermore, as McAtheist has pointed out, genetic bottlenecks are an observed fact - and we see them over periods of decades (scientifically observed in the present, directly) and detect them over millenia (through examination of DNA). We have observed bottlnecks of various degrees at least back 40,000 years... but not in most species.


Therefore, there was no ark, and no global flood. QED.



iama:  There are two kinds of "bottlenecks" being discussed, here:


1. the evolution-paradigm-definition of "bottleneck"


2. the reality-paradigm-definition of "bottleneck."


#1 is purely speculation based re: the evolution paradigm's non-variation-mechanism-genome's "bottleneck".  The evolution-presuppositions re: the genome's variation-mechanisms, are limited to beneficial mutations being naturally selected upon.  That speculation is false.


#2 is the "bottleneck" which is used when discussing endangered, extinct, etc., life-forms, which are / can be exhibited scientifically / by observation, from recorded history or fossils, etc.



.

Flag amcolph November 5, 2011 5:28 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 5:12PM, iamachildofhis wrote:



iama:  There are two kinds of "bottlenecks" being discussed, here:


1. the evolution-paradigm-definition of "bottleneck"


2. the reality-paradigm-definition of "bottleneck."






So now you are calling your magic Bible paradigm the "reality paradigm?"

Flag MMarcoe November 5, 2011 5:51 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 3:34PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Nov 4, 2011 -- 11:21PM, MMarcoe wrote:



iama:


Psa 104:6           
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: 1)  the waters stood above the mountains. 2) At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 3) They go up by the mountains; 4) they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 5) Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth."


MMarcoe: If the waters stood above the mountains, then they were above Mt. Everest. Nothing in this passage supports the idea of tall mountains not existing yet.


You are adding to scripture, which is forbidden. Why do you keep doing this and therefore risk hellfire?


iama: It all depends upon what the Hebrew word "har" refers to.  It could, also, be referring to a "hill" or a "mount." Of course, the sedimentary layers laid down by The Flood would have been flat!  So, as the mountains that we know of, today, began, they would have been under the surface of The Flood waters.


As for "adding to Scripture," I just read and reported, exactly, what it said.  The "mountains" began under The Flood waters, rose up, and The Flood waters, then, began to carve the valleys as The Flood waters flowed from off of the rising "mountains" flowing to the place "prepared" for them.


Strong's H2022 - har


1) hill, mountain, hill country, mount


AVmountain 261, mount 224, hill 59, hill country 1, promotion 1


A shortened form of הַר (H2042)


Strong's H2042 - harar


From an unused root meaning to loom up


1) mountain, hill, hill country, mount


AVmountain 10, hill 2, mount 1




Gen 7:19     
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills2022, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered ."

Gen 7:20     
"Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail ; and the mountains2022 were covered."

Gen 8:4     
"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains2022 of Ararat."

Gen 8:5     
"And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains2022 seen ."

 Psa 104:6     
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains2022.

Psa 104:8     
"They go up by the mountains2022; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them."


MMarcoe: You know, you have quite way of weaseling out of an argument. You did not report exactly what the passage said, despite claiming to. The passage said nothing about that. It said nothing about mountains rising up and valleys being carved by water.



iama:  The following Psalm 104 text is speaking about "the waters."  I have given to you the Strong's Concordance definitions for you to check out. 


Psa 104:6           


1) You covered it (The Earth) with the deep8415 () as [with] a garment:


h8415 תהום tĕhowm - the deep


1) deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea


a) deep (of subterranean waters)


b) deep, sea, abysses (of sea)


c) primeval ocean, deep


d) deep, depth (of river)


e) abyss, the grave


iama: "The waters" up from out of "the deep" / subterranean waters, covered The Earth.



2)  the waters stood5975 above the mountains.


Strong's H5975 - `amad- remain, stood


1) to stand, remain, endure, take one's stand


iama: The waters remained covering the high hills - the seamounts / mountains are beginning to rise.


MMarcoe: Where in your passage does it say the mountains are beginning to rise?



3) At Your rebuke they (the waters) fled; at the voice of Your thunder they (the waters) hasted away.


iama:  God spoke and "the waters" "fled" and "hasted away" from the rising land.



4) They (the waters) go up (h5927 עלה `alah) by the mountains;


iama: "The waters" ascend up, because of the "to go up, go up over, rise (of natural phenomenon" of the rising land / sediments / "mounts."



5) they (the waters) go down by the valleys unto the place (rivers, lakes, oceans) which You have founded (deepening ocean basins) for them (the waters).


iama: So far, "the waters" were covering The Earth, the land-surface / "mounts" are beginning to rise, God commanded "the waters" to "flee," "haste away" from the rising land / mounts, "the waters," rise with the "mounts" until the "mounts" rise above "the waters," and then, "the waters" "flee" "haste" down the "mounts," eroding the "mounts" into valleys as "the waters" "flee" "haste" downward, into "the place," eventually the deepening ocean basins of The Earth.


MMarcoe: Where in your passage does it say that valleys are being CARVED by water?


6) You have set a bound that they (the waters) may not pass over; that they (the waters) turn not again to cover the earth."


iama: Our Creator-God formed the ocean's coastlines, so that "the waters" in the ocean basins would not, again, "cover The Earth."



Read the Scripture passage in the following translation.  Use the "pull down" at the top of the chapter to change the translation:


Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


Psalm 104:5-9



.





I keep waiting, and you keep avoiding my questions.

 

Flag McAtheist November 5, 2011 5:52 PM EDT

iama:  There are two kinds of "bottlenecks" being discussed, here:


#1 is purely speculation based re: the evolution paradigm's non-variation-mechanism-genome's "bottleneck".  The evolution-presuppositions re: the genome's variation-mechanisms, are limited to beneficial mutations being naturally selected upon.  That speculation is false.

#2 is the "bottleneck" which is used when discussing endangered, extinct, etc., life-forms, which are / can be exhibited scientifically / by observation, from recorded history or fossils, etc.


No, there is only bottleneck being discussed here --- the one where a population drops to such a minimal level that the genetic diversity of the population is compromised.  And that kind of bottleneck is exactly what Noah's story claims happened.


If you are going to claim that those ark pairs were magically genetically robust, the DOCUMENT your claim with evidence; if you can't  produce any evidence, then the only rational assumption is that these animals were just like any other animals on Earth and so the genetic diversity of their kinds was reduced post-flood.


It's just like the whole Adam living to 900 thing; if you can't document a major deviation in everything we know about human mortality, then it is nonsensical and non-scientific to assume such a deviation occurred. 


Severe population drops result in an observable decline genetic diversity --- if no such decline can be found, the population was never restricted in that fashion.


So either you can document your claim that the ark kind were significantly --- indeed, magically --- different than any animals we have ever observed or the lack of evidence of a bottleneck is itself strong evidence against Noah's story being true.


So --- do you have any actual evidence, Iam?

Flag iamachildofhis November 5, 2011 5:58 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 3:52PM, d_p_m wrote:



iama: So far, "the waters" were covering The Earth, the land-surface / "mounts" are beginning to rise, God commanded "the waters" to "flee," "haste away" from the rising land / mounts, "the waters," rise with the "mounts" until the "mounts" rise above "the waters," and then, "the waters" "flee" "haste" down the "mounts," eroding the "mounts" into valleys as "the waters" "flee" "haste" downward, into "the place," eventually the deepening ocean basins of The Earth.


d_p_m: So, have you come up with proof that running water can erode 25 cm of igneous rock an hour yet?


Until you do, the above account is clearly nonsense.



iama:  Actually, the worldwide sedimentary layers comprised of "igneous" rock particles, is scientifically observed evidence worldwide.  All of those various types of rocks, existing, today, in the sedimentary rocks, had to have been, at one time, rock formations.


Here is a reply to a correspondent which addresses your question:


CMI presents geological ‘misinformation’?



.


Flag iamachildofhis November 5, 2011 6:20 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 5:51PM, MMarcoe wrote:


iama:


Psa 104:6           
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: 1)  the waters stood above the mountains. 2) At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 3) They go up by the mountains; 4) they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 5) Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth."


MMarcoe: If the waters stood above the mountains, then they were above Mt. Everest. Nothing in this passage supports the idea of tall mountains not existing yet.


You are adding to scripture, which is forbidden. Why do you keep doing this and therefore risk hellfire?


iama: It all depends upon what the Hebrew word "har" refers to.  It could, also, be referring to a "hill" or a "mount." Of course, the sedimentary layers laid down by The Flood would have been flat!  So, as the mountains that we know of, today, began, they would have been under the surface of The Flood waters.


As for "adding to Scripture," I just read and reported, exactly, what it said.  The "mountains" began under The Flood waters, rose up, and The Flood waters, then, began to carve the valleys as The Flood waters flowed from off of the rising "mountains" flowing to the place "prepared" for them.


Strong's H2022 - har


1) hill, mountain, hill country, mount


AVmountain 261, mount 224, hill 59, hill country 1, promotion 1


A shortened form of הַר (H2042)


Strong's H2042 - harar


From an unused root meaning to loom up


1) mountain, hill, hill country, mount


AVmountain 10, hill 2, mount 1




Gen 7:19     
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills2022, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered ."

Gen 7:20     
"Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail ; and the mountains2022 were covered."

Gen 8:4     
"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains2022 of Ararat."

Gen 8:5     
"And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains2022 seen ."

 Psa 104:6     
"Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains2022.

Psa 104:8     
"They go up by the mountains2022; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them."


MMarcoe: You know, you have quite way of weaseling out of an argument. You did not report exactly what the passage said, despite claiming to. The passage said nothing about that. It said nothing about mountains rising up and valleys being carved by water.



iama:  The following Psalm 104 text is speaking about "the waters."  I have given to you the Strong's Concordance definitions for you to check out. 


Psa 104:6           


1) You covered it (The Earth) with the deep8415 () as [with] a garment:


h8415 תהום tĕhowm - the deep


1) deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea


a) deep (of subterranean waters)


b) deep, sea, abysses (of sea)


c) primeval ocean, deep


d) deep, depth (of river)


e) abyss, the grave


iama: "The waters" up from out of "the deep" / subterranean waters, covered The Earth.



2)  the waters stood5975 above the mountains.


Strong's H5975 - `amad- remain, stood


1) to stand, remain, endure, take one's stand


iama: The waters remained covering the high hills - the seamounts / mountains are beginning to rise.


MMarcoe: Where in your passage does it say the mountains are beginning to rise?



iama:  These Scriptures are referring to The Flood.  To begin with The Earth is covered by "the waters which were derived 'from the deep,'" and therefore, once The Flood's sediments had all been deposited in what secular geologists call The Geologic Time Chart of layers, the surface of The Earth would have been ~flat, or undulating, so, picturing the "~level" Earth's surface, according to the, above Scripture, "mounts" are beginning to emerge beneath "the waters."


3) At Your rebuke they (the waters) fled; at the voice of Your thunder they (the waters) hasted away.


iama:  God spoke and "the waters" "fled" and "hasted away" from the rising land.



4) They (the waters) go up (h5927 עלה `alah) by the mountains;


iama: "The waters" ascend up, because of the "to go up, go up over, rise (of natural phenomenon" of the rising land / sediments / "mounts."



5) they (the waters) go down by the valleys unto the place (rivers, lakes, oceans) which You have founded (deepening ocean basins) for them (the waters).


iama: So far, "the waters" were covering The Earth, the land-surface / "mounts" are beginning to rise, God commanded "the waters" to "flee," "haste away" from the rising land / mounts, "the waters," rise with the "mounts" until the "mounts" rise above "the waters," and then, "the waters" "flee" "haste" down the "mounts," eroding the "mounts" into valleys as "the waters" "flee" "haste" downward, into "the place," eventually the deepening ocean basins of The Earth.


MMarcoe: Where in your passage does it say that valleys are being CARVED by water?



iama:  The Scripture which we began with, has the "~level" "garment" covering "the waters" with "mounts" beneath the surface of "the waters." At that point there would be NO VALLEYS. Once the "mounts" have broken through "the waters" and are continuing to rise up, then, the receding "the waters" will be accomplishing what "the waters" flowing gravitationally downward always do in such a circumstance: carve valleys.


"The waters go DOWN BY THE VALLEYS." "The waters," naturally, carve out their courses, which become valleys when mountains are rising out of "the waters."


6) You have set a bound that they (the waters) may not pass over; that they (the waters) turn not again to cover the earth."


iama: Our Creator-God formed the ocean's coastlines, so that "the waters" in the ocean basins would not, again, "cover The Earth."



Read the Scripture passage in the following translation.  Use the "pull down" at the top of the chapter to change the translation:


Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


Psalm 104:5-9


MMarcoe: I keep waiting, and you keep avoiding my questions.



iama:  Sorry!



.

Flag Blü November 5, 2011 6:59 PM EDT

iama


According to the biblical creationist paradigm, The Complete Geologic Table, comprised of sedimentary layers of rocks, containing fossilized remains of all life-form KINDs, COMPRISES THE "ONE LAYER" which you are asking for!


Then all you have to do is demonstrate that this is a correct statement about reality.

But you can't do that.  Every single relevant bit of real science - everything we know by exploring reality - is against you.

So the 'biblical creationist paradigm' may provide you with hours of fun, but it simply has no truth.

Flag iamachildofhis November 5, 2011 7:17 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 5:52PM, McAtheist wrote:



iama:  There are two kinds of "bottlenecks" being discussed, here:


#1 is purely speculation based re: the evolution paradigm's non-variation-mechanism-genome's "bottleneck".  The evolution-presuppositions re: the genome's variation-mechanisms, are limited to beneficial mutations being naturally selected upon.  That speculation is false.

#2 is the "bottleneck" which is used when discussing endangered, extinct, etc., life-forms, which are / can be exhibited scientifically / by observation, from recorded history or fossils, etc.


McAtheist: No, there is only bottleneck being discussed here --- the one where a population drops to such a minimal level that the genetic diversity of the population is compromised.  And that kind of bottleneck is exactly what Noah's story claims happened.



iama: You are insisting upon our discussing your chosen paradigm's "bottleneck."


The Genesis Flood account states that "pairs" and "by sevens" entered into The Ark, and that they were not gathered up by Noah, but that our Creator-God "brought them" to Noah / The Ark.


That tells me that our / their Creator-God, KNOWING the genetic DNA coding and non-coding INFORMATION existing within EACH of the KINDs of animal life-forms alive AT THAT TIME, chose each of the "2" un-clean animals or "14" clean animals (7X2) males and females, according to their genetic compositions / potentials.


According to what is recorded by KG in the Facilitated Variation article, all of the variation potential, exhibited, today in the collective KIND representatives, would have / could have been reproductively reproduced from the "2" individuals or the "14" individuals.  The "14" individuals were going to be sources of human food and sacrifices, so that is why there were more clean animals. The "cattle of the field" / the wild animals which were / are eaten by both humans and carnivorous animals, would, also, have been on The Ark in "14s."


McAtheist: If you are going to claim that those ark pairs were magically genetically robust, then DOCUMENT your claim with evidence; if you can't  produce any evidence, then the only rational assumption is that these animals were just like any other animals on Earth and so the genetic diversity of their kinds was reduced post-flood.



iama: How long do you consider that humans would have to breed POODLES, ONLY, before a Great Dane dog would be reproductively reproduced? Why would it take a short or long time period, or could it happen at all?  What if you were to breed wolves in captivity, and you were going to select offspring for re-breeding with the intention of having a POODLE reproduced. How long would it take?  Would it be possible? Why? or Why not?


McAtheist: It's just like the whole Adam living to 900 thing; if you can't document a major deviation in everything we know about human mortality, then it is nonsensical and non-scientific to assume such a deviation occurred.



iama: Adam was, originally, created to live, spirit, soul, AND body, forever.  The Fall introduced the enemy, DEATH, into Adam's cells. 930 years living in this physical realm, certainly, isn't "forever," but it does indicate that Adam had a super-duper-perfectly engineered physical body, prior to the introduction of DEATH into his body's cells.  Post-The Flood, Noah lived another another ~300 years.  But, Shem's age at death was only 600 years, and could have known Abraham and Isaac.  Up to the time of The Tower of Babel confusion of languages and the beginnings of nations, The Bible records ages in the 400s. Post Babel, the recorded ages drop to the 200s and below.  The "secular" Sumerian King List is presented here:


The antediluvian patriarchs
and the Sumerian King List



McAtheist: Severe population drops result in an observable decline (in) genetic diversity --- if no such decline can be found, the population was never restricted in that fashion.


So either you can document your claim that the ark kind were significantly --- indeed, magically --- different than any animals we have ever observed or the lack of evidence of a bottleneck is itself strong evidence against Noah's story being true.


So --- do you have any actual evidence, Iam?



iama:  I presented the Aurochs / cattle / bovine KIND of life-form as an example of genetic diversity. The three instances of attempts to retrieve the Auroch variation of the bovine life-form, gives observational evidence of LOSS of genetic information resulting in, SIZE, for one parameter lost.


We just considered what happened at The Tower of Babel dispersion of Noah's 16 grandsons moving out and away North, East, South, and West from Babylon ~200 years post-The Flood year.  Like the Aurochs, do you consider that human "breeding" experiments could ever combine the world's dispersed human, genetic information into one couple? the three couples, Noah's sons and their wives? 


All you have to do is look at the human phenotypes represented world wide regarding all of the variations observable and found in the human genome data, and they would all / each relate to variations like: size, facial shape, eye spacing, eye color, ear shape, hair color, skin color, nose shape, oxygen-waste efficiency in cells, length of fingers, type of walk, length of foot, size of lungs, size of teeth, hair swirl, shape of chin, etc.


I don't think that "robust" is the most appropriate term to use for Adam and Eve's genome, or Noah's three sons and their wives.  "Robust" has the idea of fighting strength.  Today, DEATH has more of a claim, physically, if you discount modern medicines, etc., today.


The Adam and Eve, Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives' genomes, basically, contained MORE POTENTIAL FOR VARIATION, than do the genomes scattered worldwide in their national-variations of humans.


The same would be true for the bears scattered world wide, vs the original 2 on The Ark.


Bears across the world …



.



.

Flag d_p_m November 5, 2011 7:19 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 5:58PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Nov 5, 2011 -- 3:52PM, d_p_m wrote:


Nov 5, 2011 -- 5:58PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

iama: So far, "the waters" were covering The Earth, the land-surface / "mounts" are beginning to rise, God commanded "the waters" to "flee," "haste away" from the rising land / mounts, "the waters," rise with the "mounts" until the "mounts" rise above "the waters," and then, "the waters" "flee" "haste" down the "mounts," eroding the "mounts" into valleys as "the waters" "flee" "haste" downward, into "the place," eventually the deepening ocean basins of The Earth.



d_p_m: So, have you come up with proof that running water can erode 25 cm of igneous rock an hour yet?


Until you do, the above account is clearly nonsense.



iama:  Actually, the worldwide sedimentary layers comprised of "igneous" rock particles, is scientifically observed evidence worldwide.  All of those various types of rocks, existing, today, in the sedimentary rocks, had to have been, at one time, rock formations.


Here is a reply to a correspondent which addresses your question:


CMI presents geological ‘misinformation’?




No, it doesn't. In no way is the need for hyper-erosion of igneous rocks addressed anywhere in the nonsense Walker and Sarafati were spouting.


If you are going to get kilometers of sedimentary rocks laid down in less than a year, you need to erode kilometers of igneous rock to provide the particles. Conservatively estimating that you need at least 2 km of sedimetary rock to explain current observed quantities, you need to erode about 2 km of igneous rock in less than a year. That's at least 25 cm of rock an hour.


Until you can show flowing water eroding igneous rocks (basalt, granite, etc) at the rate of 25 cm an hour or more, any claim that a 'year long global flood' laid down existing sedimentary rocks must be regarded as an error.

Flag d_p_m November 5, 2011 7:27 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 7:17PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


According to what is recorded by KG in the Facilitated Variation article, all of the variation potential, exhibited, today in the collective KIND representatives, would have / could have been reproductively reproduced from the "2" individuals or the "14" individuals.



The claim by KG is bullshit. There is no genetic combination that could produce the current observed degree of genetic variation in 4300 years from a single breeding pair.


Furthermore, if this weird claim were true, we wouldn't see any genetic bottlenecks, in any species on the 'ark'. But we do, for example, see a 13,000 to 17,000 year old bottleneck in cheetahs... and a less severe one, 40,000 years ago, in humans. Simple observations of existing genetic material proves the KG claim is totally false.

Flag d_p_m November 5, 2011 7:31 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 7:17PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama:  I presented the Aurochs / cattle / bovine KIND of life-form as an example of genetic diversity. The three instances of attempts to retrieve the Auroch variation of the bovine life-form, gives observational evidence of LOSS of genetic information resulting in, SIZE, for one parameter lost.




Huh?


Are you claiming that a specification of size=70 cm contains more information than a specification of size=30 cm?

Flag d_p_m November 5, 2011 7:37 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 7:17PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama:  I presented the Aurochs / cattle / bovine KIND of life-form as an example of genetic diversity.




Oh, and that Aurochs you are talking about while trying to justify your flood myth? You might want to remember how long it has been around...


"According to the Paleontologisk Museum, University of Oslo, aurochs evolved in India some two million years ago, migrated into the Middle East and further into Asia, and reached Europe about 250,000 years ago".


-- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs


Flag MMarcoe November 5, 2011 9:58 PM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 6:20PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


MMarcoe: Where in your passage does it say the mountains are beginning to rise?



iama:  These Scriptures are referring to The Flood.  To begin with The Earth is covered by "the waters which were derived 'from the deep,'" and therefore, once The Flood's sediments had all been deposited in what secular geologists call The Geologic Time Chart of layers, the surface of The Earth would have been ~flat, or undulating, so, picturing the "~level" Earth's surface, according to the, above Scripture, "mounts" are beginning to emerge beneath "the waters."


MMarcoe: Mounts are beginning to emerge from the waters because that's what happens when water drains away. Where do you get the idea that the mounts are actually pushing upward? Where does it say that?


-------


MMarcoe: Where in your passage does it say that valleys are being CARVED by water?



iama:  The Scripture which we began with, has the "~level" "garment" covering "the waters" with "mounts" beneath the surface of "the waters." At that point there would be NO VALLEYS. Once the "mounts" have broken through "the waters" and are continuing to rise up, then, the receding "the waters" will be accomplishing what "the waters" flowing gravitationally downward always do in such a circumstance: carve valleys.


MMarcoe: So water is draining and that is how the valleys are being carved? Where's the support for this claim in the text? If that's what really happened, it would have been noted in the text. So where is it?


You are adding to scripture once again.





Flag McAtheist November 5, 2011 11:15 PM EDT

iama: You are insisting upon our discussing your chosen paradigm's "bottleneck."


There's only one kind of genetic bottleneck, the kind that happens when you reduce a population to just a few animals and which results in a detectable loss of genetic diversity.  I gave you 4 examples of observed instances of this that you can research at will, so you can not plead ignorance of the topic.  We are both talking about exactly the same kind of bottleneck and it has NOTHING to do with an evolutionary paradigm. And it is precisely what happened to your ark kinds.

iam: That tells me that our / their Creator-God, KNOWING the genetic DNA coding and non-coding INFORMATION existing within EACH of the KINDs of animal life-forms alive AT THAT TIME, chose each of the "2" un-clean animals or "14" clean animals (7X2) males and females, according to their genetic compositions / potentials.


Are you implying that these animals were magically robust genetically, more robust that could be explained by nature?  If you are, then you can either DOCUMENT that claim with evidence or you can admit that this is storytelling and not science --- your choice.  If you are saying that these animals fell with normal parameters for animals, then the bottleneck problem still applies.


So, were they normal or magical, and if they were magical, then you either have evidence or this is must more mythology. 


Spell out your position for us; let's not hide the discussion behind ambiguities and vagueness.

iam: According to what is recorded by KG in the Facilitated Variation article, all of the variation potential, exhibited, today in the collective KIND representatives, would have / could have been reproductively reproduced from the "2" individuals or the "14" individuals. 


First, patently not true --- see the discussion of Adam and Eve below.


Second, how exactly does this change the observed fact that any population that is reduced to a handful reveals that reduction in a reduction of genetic variability?  All species were reduced to a handful of animals and you have provided no reason why an examination of their genetics shouldn't reveal that fact.


iama: Adam was, originally, created to live, spirit, soul, AND body, forever.  The Fall introduced the enemy, DEATH, into Adam's cells. 930 years living in this physical realm, certainly, isn't "forever," but it does indicate that Adam had a super-duper-perfectly engineered physical body, prior to the introduction of DEATH into his body's cells. 


No, a completely UNSUBSTANTIATED story about some dude living 900 years doesn't tell us anything about anything, except that people like stories.  Every single piece of physical evidence we have about human mortality says no one has ever lived that long --- you YECs just ignore every single piece of data that contradicts your myth.  And Iam: IGNORING MILLIONS OF PIECES OF DATA JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT IS THE ANTITHESIS OF SCIENCE.


How can you claim to have the slightest understanding of science and its methodology and then continue to produce this unsubstantiated tripe as fact?

iama:  The Adam and Eve, Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives' genomes, basically, contained MORE POTENTIAL FOR VARIATION, than do the genomes scattered worldwide in their national-variations of humans.


And how exactly do the YEC biological geniuses assume that happened?


For instance, many of the gene loci in the HLA gene family have multiple alleles, more than 100 for some.  Since Adam could contribute exactly 2 alleles and Even could contribute exactly 2 alleles, how did they contain the variation to produce the other 96?


If you meant Noah and not Adam, now we are talking 8 people for a total of 16 possible alleles, so you are still 84 alleles short.


Let's see the science that supports this very dubious claim.


Flag iamachildofhis November 6, 2011 12:23 AM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 5:28PM, amcolph wrote:



iama:  There are two kinds of "bottlenecks" being discussed, here:


1. the evolution-paradigm-definition of "bottleneck"


2. the reality-paradigm-definition of "bottleneck."


amcolph: So now you are calling your magic Bible paradigm the "reality paradigm?"



iama:  Where did I state that?



.

Flag iamachildofhis November 6, 2011 12:33 AM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 7:37PM, d_p_m wrote:



iama:  I presented the Aurochs / cattle / bovine KIND of life-form as an example of genetic diversity.


d_p_m: Oh, and that Aurochs you are talking about while trying to justify your flood myth? You might want to remember how long it has been around...


"According to the Paleontologisk Museum, University of Oslo, aurochs evolved in India some two million years ago, migrated into the Middle East and further into Asia, and reached Europe about 250,000 years ago".


-- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs



iama:  Sorry, the biblical creation paradigm does not include long-ages of time. < 10,000 years ago, so all of the evolution-paradigm's long-ages are relative to each other, and are placed within the confines of the biblical time frame.  The Geologic Time Chart gets fitted into the one year long Flood+, and the years following have been a gradual lessening of the tectonic activities related to The Flood year. All of the changes in the "cattle" genotype and related phenotypes took place post-The Flood year.


When you are not needing to make room for the evolution-speculation's long-required-ages, <10,000 years works just fine.



.

Flag McAtheist November 6, 2011 1:17 AM EDT

iam: When you are not needing to make room for the evolution-speculation's long-required-ages, <10,000 years works just fine.


Then you should have no trouble explaining how to compress the advance and retreat of the glaciers during the last glacial period into the time between the ark landing and the establishment of humans in the New World.  Post the evidence and science that supports your explanation.


You should also have no trouble explaining how 2 big cat kind produced all the different big cat varieties in the 200 years or so before lions and tigers showed up in human art and history. Keep in mind those 2 big cat kinds had to produce all the "variations" of MHC genes.  Post the evidence and science that supports your explanation.


I would rephrase your post to say "when you don't need to make room for reality or accomodate any contradictory evidence, <10,000 years works just fine.

Flag iamachildofhis November 6, 2011 1:52 AM EDT

Nov 5, 2011 -- 11:15PM, McAtheist wrote:



iama: You are insisting upon our discussing your chosen paradigm's "bottleneck."


McAtheist: There's only one kind of genetic bottleneck, the kind that happens when you reduce a population to just a few animals and which results in a detectable loss of genetic diversity.  I gave you 4 examples of observed instances of this that you can research at will, so you can not plead ignorance of the topic.  We are both talking about exactly the same kind of bottleneck and it has NOTHING to do with an evolutionary paradigm. And it is precisely what happened to your ark kinds.



iama: No! There is what is speculated, and there is what actually happened.


Ruminate your way through this article where the HapMap data is used to support current variation from Adam and Eve / Noah / 8 genomes, in only ~6,000 years.


The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve!


iam: That tells me that our / their Creator-God, KNOWING the genetic DNA coding and non-coding INFORMATION existing within EACH of the KINDs of animal life-forms alive AT THAT TIME, chose each of the "2" un-clean animals or "14" clean animals (7X2) males and females, according to their genetic compositions / potentials.


McAtheist: Are you implying that these animals were magically robust genetically, more robust that could be explained by nature?  If you are, then you can either DOCUMENT that claim with evidence or you can admit that this is storytelling and not science --- your choice.  If you are saying that these animals fell with normal parameters for animals, then the bottleneck problem still applies.



iama:  Adam, created having two alelle pairs and Eve a clone of Adam, gives 4 possible combinations.  You agree, I assume, that none of Adam and Eve's offspring would have had identical genomes to their parents.  Each pairing of Adam and Eve's offspring, would have resulted in further differences from Adam and Eve's genomes.  When the 8 human genomes on The Ark are represented at The Tower of Babel ~200 years post-The Flood, and the 16 grandson groupings moved away / out from Babylon, each of those 16 human founding national genomes would have lost some of the Adam and Eve variation potential.  Not "robust" in health / power / etc., but diluted or dispersed among the 16 founding nations from Babel's population resulting from the 8 humans on The Ark.


The "bottleneck" problem is of the evolution-paradigm's making.  Variation within the population does not depend upon evolution-paradigm-presuppositions, but upon what was discovered by the Facilitated Variation KG scientists: "genetic switches."


McAtheist: So, were they normal or magical, and if they were magical, then you either have evidence or this is must more mythology.



iama: Normal, just like us, only they, being closer to Adam and Eve, were less "diluted" / dispersed "genetically."


McAtheist: Spell out your position for us; let's not hide the discussion behind ambiguities and vagueness.



iama: The above article should do the job.

iam: According to what is recorded by KG in the Facilitated Variation article, all of the variation potential, exhibited, today in the collective KIND representatives, would have / could have been reproductively reproduced from the "2" individuals or the "14" individuals. 


McAtheist: First, patently not true --- see the discussion of Adam and Eve below.


Second, how exactly does this change the observed fact that any population that is reduced to a handful reveals that reduction in a reduction of genetic variability?  All species were reduced to a handful of animals and you have provided no reason why an examination of their genetics shouldn't reveal that fact.



iama:  Just like the POODLE, current isolated / national groups have been highly "diluted" / are a long ways away from The Ark's 8 human genomes.  When breeders of POODLES breed for POODLES, the reject anything which is not exhibiting POODLENESS. So, POODLE genomes are lacking in genetic information which would reproduce non-POODLENESS.


iama: Adam was, originally, created to live, spirit, soul, AND body, forever.  The Fall introduced the enemy, DEATH, into Adam's cells. 930 years living in this physical realm, certainly, isn't "forever," but it does indicate that Adam had a super-duper-perfectly engineered physical body, prior to the introduction of DEATH into his body's cells. 


McAtheist: No, a completely UNSUBSTANTIATED story about some dude living 900 years doesn't tell us anything about anything, except that people like stories.  Every single piece of physical evidence we have about human mortality says no one has ever lived that long --- you YECs just ignore every single piece of data that contradicts your myth.  And Iam: IGNORING MILLIONS OF PIECES OF DATA JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT IS THE ANTITHESIS OF SCIENCE.



iama:  The Bible has been investigated and documented by those who set out to disprove its historical accuracy.  The only human mortality evidence which you have is post-The Flood DATA, and mostly, recent.  So, you really don't have DATA reaching back to pre-The Flood or shortly after The Flood.  None of your "millions of pieces of data" is from the biblical long-aged human being's life-times.


McAtheist: How can you claim to have the slightest understanding of science and its methodology and then continue to produce this unsubstantiated tripe as fact?



iama:  You are supporting the evolution speculation, which has no substantiated data, but is continually speculated, but presented as scientifically evidenced facts!  The Bible's historical, etc., DATA will never be found to be false, once all of the DATA is finally in!

iama:  The Adam and Eve, Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives' genomes, basically, contained MORE POTENTIAL FOR VARIATION, than do the genomes scattered worldwide in their national-variations of humans.


McAtheist: And how exactly do the YEC biological geniuses assume that happened?


For instance, many of the gene loci in the HLA gene family have multiple alleles, more than 100 for some.  Since Adam could contribute exactly 2 alleles and Eve could contribute exactly 2 alleles, how did they contain the variation to produce the other 96?


If you meant Noah and not Adam, now we are talking 8 people for a total of 16 possible alleles, so you are still 84 alleles short.


Let's see the science that supports this very dubious claim.



iama: I am suspecting that you DID NOT read and understand the Faciltated Variation article.


The "conserved DNA" is NOT responsible for the variations expressed, according to the article's scientist, and that is why their findings were spoken of as "a new paradigm."



.


Flag Ridcully November 6, 2011 1:32 AM EST

Nov 5, 2011 -- 7:17PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Nov 5, 2011 -- 5:52PM, McAtheist wrote:



iama:  There are two kinds of "bottlenecks" being discussed, here:


#1 is purely speculation based re: the evolution paradigm's non-variation-mechanism-genome's "bottleneck".  The evolution-presuppositions re: the genome's variation-mechanisms, are limited to beneficial mutations being naturally selected upon.  That speculation is false.

#2 is the "bottleneck" which is used when discussing endangered, extinct, etc., life-forms, which are / can be exhibited scientifically / by observation, from recorded history or fossils, etc.


McAtheist: No, there is only bottleneck being discussed here --- the one where a population drops to such a minimal level that the genetic diversity of the population is compromised.  And that kind of bottleneck is exactly what Noah's story claims happened.



iama: You are insisting upon our discussing your chosen paradigm's "bottleneck."


The Genesis Flood account states that "pairs" and "by sevens" entered into The Ark, and that they were not gathered up by Noah, but that our Creator-God "brought them" to Noah / The Ark.




Iama, what you and Williams (the facilitated variation article author) are doing is taking some basic, laymen level explanation of evo-devo stuff and force fitting your creationist ideas on top of it in a manner that is nonsensical. 


As has repeatedly been mentioned, when a population is drastically reduced in size, but is able to recover, there is a measureable decrease in the genetic variation of that population.  There is no paradigm involved in such measurement any more that there is a paradigm involved in measuring the frequency of different color light.   


Notice in your post, you immediately jump to talking about a Biblical story as evidence/support for the same story you are attempting to defend here. However, we can all tell it's just a bit of furious hand waving to avoid the obvious problem that genetic bottlenecks are not found across the majority of animals and plants that point to a near extinction event within the last 10,000 years.


No wide spread, recent genetic bottlenecks = no recent world wide extinct event  = no world wide flood in the last 10,000 years.


Flag Ridcully November 6, 2011 1:43 AM EST

Nov 6, 2011 -- 1:52AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Nov 5, 2011 -- 11:15PM, McAtheist wrote:



iama: You are insisting upon our discussing your chosen paradigm's "bottleneck."


McAtheist: There's only one kind of genetic bottleneck, the kind that happens when you reduce a population to just a few animals and which results in a detectable loss of genetic diversity.  I gave you 4 examples of observed instances of this that you can research at will, so you can not plead ignorance of the topic.  We are both talking about exactly the same kind of bottleneck and it has NOTHING to do with an evolutionary paradigm. And it is precisely what happened to your ark kinds.



iama: No! There is what is speculated, and there is what actually happened.


Ruminate your way through this article where the HapMap data is used to support current variation from Adam and Eve / Noah / 8 genomes, in only ~6,000 years.


The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve!




Much ado about nothing...the guy simply states he doesn't like the conclusions that folks who study evolution and genetics come to.  He then waves his hands a bit, and throws in the infamous and busted creationist program Mendel's Accountant to support is silliness.  I have the impression he knows what he's doing, but like a drowning person is grasping at any little bit of wood, even if it's imaginary. 


Flag Ridcully November 6, 2011 1:47 AM EST

Nov 6, 2011 -- 1:52AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


The "bottleneck" problem is of the evolution-paradigm's making.  Variation within the population does not depend upon evolution-paradigm-presuppositions, but upon what was discovered by the Facilitated Variation KG scientists: "genetic switches."




No, no, no... K and G did not discover or invent evolutionary developmental biology.  They wrote a layman's book - ironically intended to help folks see that ID is busted.

Flag Slipnish November 6, 2011 5:14 PM EST

Nov 6, 2011 -- 1:52AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Nov 5, 2011 -- 11:15PM, McAtheist wrote:



iama: You are insisting upon our discussing your chosen paradigm's "bottleneck."


McAtheist: There's only one kind of genetic bottleneck, the kind that happens when you reduce a population to just a few animals and which results in a detectable loss of genetic diversity.  I gave you 4 examples of observed instances of this that you can research at will, so you can not plead ignorance of the topic.  We are both talking about exactly the same kind of bottleneck and it has NOTHING to do with an evolutionary paradigm. And it is precisely what happened to your ark kinds.



iama: No! There is what is speculated, and there is what actually happened.


Ruminate your way through this article where the HapMap data is used to support current variation from Adam and Eve / Noah / 8 genomes, in only ~6,000 years.


The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve!





Uhm....  Hey, he's talking about the ark and the animals on it.  YOU are talking about Adam and Eve.



You might try addressing the material at hand.  It makes dialogue easier. 

Flag iamachildofhis November 6, 2011 11:24 PM EST

Nov 6, 2011 -- 5:14PM, Slipnish wrote:



iama: You are insisting upon our discussing your chosen paradigm's "bottleneck."


McAtheist: There's only one kind of genetic bottleneck, the kind that happens when you reduce a population to just a few animals and which results in a detectable loss of genetic diversity.  I gave you 4 examples of observed instances of this that you can research at will, so you can not plead ignorance of the topic.  We are both talking about exactly the same kind of bottleneck and it has NOTHING to do with an evolutionary paradigm. And it is precisely what happened to your ark kinds.


iama: No! There is what is speculated, and there is what actually happened.


Ruminate your way through this article where the HapMap data is used to support current variation from Adam and Eve / Noah / 8 genomes, in only ~6,000 years.


The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve!



Sliphish: Uhm....  Hey, he's talking about the ark and the animals on it.  YOU are talking about Adam and Eve.



You might try addressing the material at hand.  It makes dialogue easier.



iama:  Yes, yes!  But the "bottleneck" which he is referring to, also, happened to humans, according to The Bible.  The genomes of animals and humans, both experienced his concept of a "bottleneck," and both humans and animals have the exact same conserved and variation entities.  If his speculations are true, they will be true for both animal and human genomes.



.

Flag iamachildofhis November 6, 2011 11:26 PM EST

Nov 6, 2011 -- 1:47AM, Ridcully wrote:



iama: The "bottleneck" problem is of the evolution-paradigm's making.  Variation within the population does not depend upon evolution-paradigm-presuppositions, but upon what was discovered by the Facilitated Variation KG scientists: "genetic switches."


Ridcully: No, no, no... K and G did not discover or invent evolutionary developmental biology.  They wrote a layman's book - ironically intended to help folks see that ID is busted.



iama: Documentation for your claim is in order.



.

Flag McAtheist November 7, 2011 12:53 AM EST

iam: Yes, yes!  But the "bottleneck" which he is referring to, also, happened to humans, according to The Bible.  The genomes of animals and humans, both experienced his concept of a "bottleneck," and both humans and animals have the exact same conserved and variation entities.  If his speculations are true, they will be true for both animal and human genomes.


I agree that there should be the "fingerprint" of evidence for a bottleneck in the human genome as well as in the genomes of all the animals species carried on the ark,  if Noah's story was factual.  Since that evidence is missing, the bottleneck didn't occur --- Noah's flood didn't occur.  The geological and archeological data confirms that assessment.


And there is no reason whatsoever why the alleged bottleneck caused by the alleged flood wouldn't show up in the genomes.  The YEC notion that somehow the ark kinds contained enough potential variation to 1.) account for all the variations in the descendent species of the ark kind and 2.) magically erase any evidence of this severe restriction in population obviously fails.  All you need to do is look at the current number of alleles in HLA genes in humans or MHC genes in animals; there are 673 alleles of the HLA-A gene --- obviously, there is no physical way possible for the 8 people on the ark to possess sufficient variation potential to provide more than 16 alleles. So,


1.) if the flood occurred, then more than 650 pieces of new information have been added to the overall human genome in the last 4000 years ON A SINGLE GENE, fully discrediting the whole "mutations can't add information" argument  and


2.) there is no viable biological reason why the evidence of the bottleneck produced by the flood would not be evident in the human genome and the genomes of all the species descended from ark kind.


That adds up to two major YEC failures. 


How many failures does it take before YECs admit that theirs is a position based wholly on faith and not supported by real-world evidence?

Flag Ridcully November 7, 2011 7:27 AM EST

Nov 6, 2011 -- 11:26PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Nov 6, 2011 -- 1:47AM, Ridcully wrote:



iama: The "bottleneck" problem is of the evolution-paradigm's making.  Variation within the population does not depend upon evolution-paradigm-presuppositions, but upon what was discovered by the Facilitated Variation KG scientists: "genetic switches."


Ridcully: No, no, no... K and G did not discover or invent evolutionary developmental biology.  They wrote a layman's book - ironically intended to help folks see that ID is busted.



iama: Documentation for your claim is in order.




Read the book instead of some creationist mangling of the book. While the authors do have their own viewpoint, the field of evo-devo that contributes most of what they are using for their insights is much larger and older than the K&G book. Also, here is the Wiki overview of the subject.



Edited by Rid to add:  Here's an interview with the authors. This bit from the interview is of general relevance here:


For those who disavow evolution, no matter what the evidence and explanations, this book might still be worth reading, to assess whether the old targets in evolutionary theory are now too hardened by modern research and hence new targets must be found. Also, they may want to read it to gauge what their own theories need to match. As Darwinian evolutionary theory closes its gaps and adds more layers of consistent evidence, opponents need to develop their own theories, too, if they seek debates in the educational forum. Theories in science are meant to be useful—to explain and predict. Darwinian theory does both, every day, on the large scale and the small. It pervades biology because it facilitates biological and medical research. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative theories?

Flag d_p_m November 7, 2011 10:55 AM EST


Nov 6, 2011 -- 12:33AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Nov 5, 2011 -- 7:37PM, d_p_m wrote:



iama:  I presented the Aurochs / cattle / bovine KIND of life-form as an example of genetic diversity.


d_p_m: Oh, and that Aurochs you are talking about while trying to justify your flood myth? You might want to remember how long it has been around...


"According to the Paleontologisk Museum, University of Oslo, aurochs evolved in India some two million years ago, migrated into the Middle East and further into Asia, and reached Europe about 250,000 years ago".


-- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs



iama:  Sorry, the biblical creation paradigm does not include long-ages of time. < 10,000 years ago, so all of the evolution-paradigm's long-ages are relative to each other, and are placed within the confines of the biblical time frame.  The Geologic Time Chart gets fitted into the one year long Flood+, and the years following have been a gradual lessening of the tectonic activities related to The Flood year. All of the changes in the "cattle" genotype and related phenotypes took place post-The Flood year.


When you are not needing to make room for the evolution-speculation's long-required-ages, <10,000 years="" works="" just="" fine="" p="">




Really? Where did you get your sediment from to form all that sedimentary rock we find all over the world?


Have you got an experiment yet that shows erosion of basalt and granite at 25 cm/hour thtough the action of running water, at any even remotely plausible speed?


Until you can do that your 'biblical creation paradigm' is completely broken.



Flag wohali November 8, 2011 3:09 PM EST

"When you are not needing to make room for the evolution-speculation's long-required-ages, <10,000 years="" works="" just="" fine="" p="">"


Translation: Ignore evidence and facts and pull stuff out of your ass to make things fit what you think your holy book says..................

Flag Slipnish November 8, 2011 8:22 PM EST

Nov 6, 2011 -- 11:24PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama:  Yes, yes!  But the "bottleneck" which he is referring to, also, happened to humans, according to The Bible.  The genomes of animals and humans, both experienced his concept of a "bottleneck," and both humans and animals have the exact same conserved and variation entities.  If his speculations are true, they will be true for both animal and human genomes.




Your ignorance is showing.  Even IF there were 2 genetic bottlenecks, Adam and Eve AND the Flood, there would be evidence for them both.


As it is, there is NO evidence of ANY bottleneck on a worldwide scale.


Bottom line, you're pulling things out of the air, or as Wo put it, out of your ass, to make things SEEM like they fit in with your religious ideals.


The TRUTH, and that's a word creationists will need to look up, is that they don't.  Period.  Scientists know what they are doing, even if arm chair idiots like Taz Walker and those other idiots at AiG or whatever website you go to, don't.


Sorry Iama, but your argument is crap.

Flag Blü November 9, 2011 5:58 AM EST

iama


As for genetic bottlenecks in the human population, you can read of them here.  It says in part -


[...] our ancestors went through two different phases of population “bottlenecking” (constriction): one occurred about three million years ago, when a large population declined to around 10,000 individuals. [...] The second bottleneck is [...] associated with a reduced population size as humans left Africa.  For the Chinese, Korean, and European genomes, effective population size fell from about 13,500 (at 150,000 years ago) to about 1200 between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago.  Now this is the effective population size, almost certainly an underestimate of census size [...]


Nothing in 4004 BCE and nothing in 2348 BCE.  But you have to admit the real science is not only derived from real evidence, but is a lot more interesting than bible stories.

Flag Stephen December 29, 2011 5:06 PM EST

To maintain scholarly integrity, one needs to see what the scriptures do say about themselves. My own efforts at this found it to declare that it is a document inspired by a living being who viewed us as worms or grasshoppers, but who wanted to communicate with us, Dr. Dolittle style.


There are specfic instructions for how to do this, which in all my asking around, never fail to work. Thus, the bible is similar to the directions for building the contact machine in Carl Sagan's book and movie, Contact. As in that book, those who build and test the machine have an experience that changes their lives, but which is written off by the rest of the world. This result has been scientifically verified by reseach on NDE's.


The directions themselves include a warning that to take them "literally" (to use them for any other purpose) is fatal. ("the letter kills').


Once one is in an interview with the inspiring Person of the bible, the rest of the scriptures, as well as the rest of His creation, and all of science, become great topics for discussion.


Both the scriptures, and Sagan's Contact, do give instructions for how to handle the skeptics.


Bible Codes studies and theomatics provide ample evidence that this is all true. Of course, skeptics who refuse to spend  time reading the original studies of these topics will fume and sputter in efforts to explain all this away. Anyone betting their life on the opinions of such skeptics deserves what they get. Go to the sources, and find out for yourself, if you want to hold a safe opinion on the matter.

Flag Ken December 29, 2011 5:16 PM EST

Dec 29, 2011 -- 5:06PM, Stephen wrote:


To maintain scholarly integrity, one needs to see what the scriptures do say about themselves. My own efforts at this found it to declare that it is a document inspired by a living being who viewed us as worms or grasshoppers, but who wanted to communicate with us, Dr. Dolittle style.


I have no wish to communicate with a being who regards me as no better than a worm or a grasshopper. I despise such a being.

Flag Stephen December 29, 2011 5:39 PM EST

The worms I have known only wanted to avoid being robin food or bait on a fish-hook, which concerns I appreciated as sensible. But, one biblical ingredient in the building of the Contact machine is free will, the choice for life and survival over, say, "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven." kind of thinking. So, your decision is not unexpected.


But, of course, the God of scriptures is only interested, so he says, in those who accept truth. Realizing one is a worm in His eyes, and communicating anyway only gets the process started. He promises, both in interviews and in scripture, to engage in biological engineering and other transformative works, to turn us worms into sons, in His eyes.

Flag amcolph December 29, 2011 6:20 PM EST

Nov 6, 2011 -- 12:33AM, iamachildofhis wrote:



When you are not needing to make room for the evolution-speculation's long-required-ages, <10,000 years="" works="" just="" fine="" p="">



.




You've got it backwards.  It was, in fact, discovery of the great age of the Earth which came first.  That discovery made consideration of evolution possible and led to the theory of evolution, not the other way around.


You creationists like to put it about that the great age of the Earth was fabricated to accomotate the theory of evolution, but that is--as usual--a lie.


The evidence on which the age of the Earth rests is entirely distinct from that which supports the theory of evolution.  If the theory of evolution were falsified tomorrow, the Earth would still be old.






Flag Ken December 29, 2011 9:32 PM EST

Dec 29, 2011 -- 5:39PM, Stephen wrote:

But, of course, the God of scriptures is only interested, so he says, in those who accept truth. Realizing one is a worm in His eyes, and communicating anyway only gets the process started.



He's only interested in those who suck up to him and say "Oh, what a worm I am compared to great big wonderful You!" It's repulsive.

Flag MMarcoe December 29, 2011 9:41 PM EST

Dec 29, 2011 -- 9:32PM, Ken wrote:


Dec 29, 2011 -- 5:39PM, Stephen wrote:

But, of course, the God of scriptures is only interested, so he says, in those who accept truth. Realizing one is a worm in His eyes, and communicating anyway only gets the process started.



He's only interested in those who suck up to him and say "Oh, what a worm I am compared to great big wonderful You!" It's repulsive.





Lol. That's how the clergy has beaten it into our heads. I heard enough of it on Jimmy Swaggart back in the 80s.


I think what it REALLY means is that finite creatures are too small to compare to something that is infinite. There's a certain mathematical sense to it.


Experiencing your own smallness is a good antidote to egotism.


 

Flag Ken December 29, 2011 10:17 PM EST

Dec 29, 2011 -- 9:41PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Dec 29, 2011 -- 9:32PM, Ken wrote:


Dec 29, 2011 -- 5:39PM, Stephen wrote:

But, of course, the God of scriptures is only interested, so he says, in those who accept truth. Realizing one is a worm in His eyes, and communicating anyway only gets the process started.



He's only interested in those who suck up to him and say "Oh, what a worm I am compared to great big wonderful You!" It's repulsive.



Lol. That's how the clergy has beaten it into our heads. I heard enough of it on Jimmy Swaggart back in the 80s.


I think what it REALLY means is that finite creatures are too small to compare to something that is infinite. There's a certain mathematical sense to it.


Experiencing your own smallness is a good antidote to egotism.



I don't think value has anything to do with size. If I could save the life of a person I loved by snuffing out the entire Andromeda galaxy, I'd do it in a flash.

Flag Sober88 January 28, 2012 4:45 PM EST

Hi,


What is a YECist?

Flag Sober88 January 28, 2012 4:47 PM EST

Nov 8, 2011 -- 3:09PM, wohali wrote:

"When you are not needing to make room for the evolution-speculation's long-required-ages, <10,000 years="" works="" just="" fine="" p="">"


Translation: Ignore evidence and facts and pull stuff out of your ass to make things fit what you think your holy book says..................


Wow, that's as narrow minded as any religious belief.

Flag MMarcoe January 28, 2012 5:35 PM EST

Jan 28, 2012 -- 4:45PM, Sober88 wrote:


Hi,


What is a YECist?





A young-earth creationist.

Flag Midutch January 28, 2012 5:41 PM EST

Jan 28, 2012 -- 4:45PM, Sober88 wrote:

Hi,


What is a YECist?


A [Y]oung [E]arth [C]reationist.


Someone who takes a "literal and inerrant" interpretation of the Bible, especially the first book, Genesis, and claims that the passages contained therein are historically accurate and scientifically valid.


They claim that the Cosmos and Earth were "created" in a literal seven day week some 6-10 thousand years ago (as calculated by Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland James Ussher in 1650), that Adam and Eve were real historical people, that the Garden of Eden was a real historical location, that the eating of the magic fruit of the "tree of good and evil" was the "introduction of sin" into the cosmos and the cause of thermodynamic entropy, that there was a global flood that destroyed all life on Earth except for what was contained on a large wooden vessel built by Noah and his sons, etc..

Flag Midutch January 28, 2012 5:54 PM EST

Jan 28, 2012 -- 4:47PM, Sober88 wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 3:09PM, wohali wrote:

"When you are not needing to make room for the evolution-speculation's long-required-ages, <10,000 years="" works="" just="" fine="" p="">"


Translation: Ignore evidence and facts and pull stuff out of your ass to make things fit what you think your holy book says..................


Wow, that's as narrow minded as any religious belief.


It is not "narrow minded". It is an accurate description of what "fundamentalist christian creationists" have been doing for the past 200 years in response to the fact that science has been producing logic, reason, research and emprical evidence that contradicts their "literal and inerrant" interpretation of the Bible.


"fundamentalist christian creationists" have been an ABYSMAL FAILURE at producing anything in support of their "the Bible is historically and scientifically true" claims, despite 2000+ years worth of "creation science" and have been UNABLE to adequately respond to the VAST amount of research abd empirical evidence that science has been producing that demonstrates that their "literal and inerrant" interpretation of the Bible has NO basis in reality.


Because of this, "fundamentalist christian creationists" have been reduced to IGNORING the vast amount of research and evidence contradicting their world view, rejecting and dismissing everything they do not ignore, denigrating science and scientists, LYING about what science is, does and has discovered over the past 200 years (since it all contradicts what they are so desperate to believe) and LYING about what they have in support of their assertions (nothing).


Anyone who has ever had any dealings with "fundamentalist christian creationists" is well aware of all of this.

Flag Sober88 March 9, 2012 2:46 PM EST

I have no faith in science. It stands by something for years then claims it is no good based on new findings.  What is fact today is disproved in time barring gravity and other constants. Science is a religion that finds answers to deep questions based on what it can see and study. Unfortunately as knowledge increases it only leads to more questions and a need for more answers. Ultimately i cannot rely on science. It is a course students are required to take in school and is as changable as the newspaper.

Flag Oncomintrain March 9, 2012 3:01 PM EST

Mar 9, 2012 -- 2:46PM, Sober88 wrote:


I have no faith in science. It stands by something for years then claims it is no good based on new findings.  What is fact today is disproved in time barring gravity and other constants. Science is a religion that finds answers to deep questions based on what it can see and study. Unfortunately as knowledge increases it only leads to more questions and a need for more answers. Ultimately i cannot rely on science. It is a course students are required to take in school and is as changable as the newspaper.





You just described science's strengths -- its openness to change and grow with new evidence, its ability to open up even more fields of inquiry -- as though they were weaknesses.


Let me put it this way: Science is improving every day. Creationism is still the same bad answer it always was.

Flag rsielin March 9, 2012 3:13 PM EST

Mar 9, 2012 -- 2:46PM, Sober88 wrote:


I have no faith in science. It stands by something for years then claims it is no good based on new findings.  What is fact today is disproved in time barring gravity and other constants. Science is a religion that finds answers to deep questions based on what it can see and study. Unfortunately as knowledge increases it only leads to more questions and a need for more answers. Ultimately i cannot rely on science. It is a course students are required to take in school and is as changable as the newspaper.



It is your own misunderstanding of science that is the source of your fear.  Science very seldom throws anything out and changes its mind.  Science builds upon and extends its current knowledge as more facts become known and measurement instruments become more precise.  It is true that this process very well leads to more questions, not refuting question but more questions that refine and build upon the current knowledge.  But that is how knowledge grows.


I think what is more problematic are those expecting and even demanding fixed unchangeable explanations.  These are the folks who prefer we stay with Bronze Age understanding of our universe yet they readily accept all the technological and medical advances science continues to provide.


Go figure. Creationism certainly is based on one having an very short attention span. 



Flag Ken March 9, 2012 3:49 PM EST

Mar 9, 2012 -- 2:46PM, Sober88 wrote:


I have no faith in science.


You aren't supposed to. Science is based on evidence, not faith.


Ultimately i cannot rely on science.



What would you rather rely on? Science, that constantly strives and succeeds in gaining successively closer approximations of the truth, or the book of Genesis, which was wrong when it was written and hasn't become truer since then? It's just a collection of fossilized error.

Flag wohali March 9, 2012 3:51 PM EST

Sober88:


"I have no faith in science."


That's OK, science isn't something that requires faith. Science is based upon evidence, testing, repeatability and observation.


One of the very cool things about science is that it is self-correcting. As new evidence is presented, science can incorporate that new information.


Holy books, not so much.

Flag iamachildofhis March 9, 2012 6:33 PM EST

Mar 9, 2012 -- 3:51PM, wohali wrote:



Sober88:


"I have no faith in science."


wohali: That's OK, science isn't something that requires faith. Science is based upon evidence, testing, repeatability and observation.


One of the very cool things about science is that it is self-correcting. As new evidence is presented, science can incorporate that new information.


Holy books, not so much.



iama:  Yes! Science is based upon evidence, testing, repeatability and observation.


Therefore, evolution is speculation, and not science.


- no scientifically observed evidence of "goo to zoo to you"


- no scientifically experimental testing along the speculated "goo to zoo to you" historical life-forms


- no scientifically repeatable testings / experiments repeated re: the speculated "goo to zoo to you"


- no historical observation possible from that first speculated life-form cell, through out the speculated continuum of the "goo to zoo to you"


Creationists agree that there has always been great variation within the originally created KIND, so, that isn't what is claimed as evolution.


The evolution speculation requires faith.  It is believed by evolutionists.


.

Flag wohali March 9, 2012 7:05 PM EST

Iama:


"Therefore, evolution is speculation, and not science."


Horseapples!


The Theory of Evolution is one of the most robust, tested and confirmed scientific theories ever. You inability to understand what it really says doesn't change that.


Your trash talk is just tiring............

Flag iamachildofhis March 10, 2012 2:11 AM EST

Mar 9, 2012 -- 7:05PM, wohali wrote:



Iama:


"Therefore, evolution is speculation, and not science."


wohali: Horseapples!


The Theory of Evolution is one of the most robust, tested and confirmed scientific theories ever. You inability to understand what it really says doesn't change that.


Your trash talk is just tiring............



iama: Cow pies!


You cough up a string of speculated evolutionary time, and the scientifically observed entities which are speculated to have occurred, then.



All of the claims which are made for the so-called theory of evolution are speculative interpretations which have been made, based upon current observations made upon today's existing life-forms.  There are no historically, scientifically, observed evidences supporting their speculations! Not a one!


The counterfeit origin of life-forms-paradigm can only be called / described as "one of the most robust, tested and confirmed scientific theories ever," by scientists, because they have glombed on to it, and have foisted upon what actually does exist regarding life-forms, The Creation by our Creator-God.  They get away with it, because the counterfeit appears to fit.


Evolutionists are hanging on with their fingernails, desperately not wanting to drown in the deep waters which they have created for themselves!


.

Flag Ken March 10, 2012 8:54 AM EST

Mar 10, 2012 -- 2:11AM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Mar 9, 2012 -- 7:05PM, wohali wrote:


"Therefore, evolution is speculation, and not science."


Horseapples!


The Theory of Evolution is one of the most robust, tested and confirmed scientific theories ever. You inability to understand what it really says doesn't change that.


Your trash talk is just tiring............



Cow pies!


You don't even know what the Theory of Evolution is. Your opinion of it is worthless. Why don't you stop all that obnoxious shrieking and try to learn something about it?

Flag Midutch March 10, 2012 11:46 AM EST

Mar 10, 2012 -- 2:11AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

You cough up a string of speculated evolutionary time, and the scientifically observed entities which are speculated to have occurred, then.


All of the claims which are made for the so-called theory of evolution are speculative interpretations which have been made, based upon current observations made upon today's existing life-forms.  There are no historically, scientifically, observed evidences supporting their speculations! Not a one!


At the risk of having this post deleted, this would be a lie.


There is a VAST amount of logic, reason, research and empirical evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution.


You (and all other "fundamentalist christian and muslim creationists") simply ignore, reject, dismiss, denigrate and lie about it all.


Mar 10, 2012 -- 2:11AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Evolutionists are hanging on with their fingernails, desperately not wanting to drown in the deep waters which they have created for themselves!


You "creationists" have been saying this for almost 200 years.


The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism


home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Flag MMarcoe March 10, 2012 3:11 PM EST

Mar 9, 2012 -- 2:46PM, Sober88 wrote:


I have no faith in science. It stands by something for years then claims it is no good based on new findings.  What is fact today is disproved in time barring gravity and other constants. Science is a religion that finds answers to deep questions based on what it can see and study. Unfortunately as knowledge increases it only leads to more questions and a need for more answers. Ultimately i cannot rely on science. It is a course students are required to take in school and is as changable as the newspaper.





If you have no faith in science, then what are you doing on a computer, using the Internet? Did you think that we developed them without any science?

Flag MMarcoe March 10, 2012 3:15 PM EST

Mar 9, 2012 -- 6:33PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Creationists agree that there has always been great variation within the originally created KIND, so, that isn't what is claimed as evolution.





Creationists only "agree" on this because the theory of evolution first proposed change. You people don't have the honesty to admit that.


The Bible doesn't support your "variation within kinds." You people made it up and imposed it onto the text, as is your wont.


The filth, the lies, the dishonesty that is creationism will come crashing down. It has already begun among your youth. They are freeing you from the prison of your own spiritual rot.

Flag wohali March 11, 2012 3:30 PM EDT

As has been explained to Nancy many times, the Theory of Evolution is core to many scientific fields that we all rely upon, such as:


Virology


Immunology


Animal husbandry


Paleontology


Agriculture


Medicine


Biology


Archaeology


Oncology


Etc.


Nancy's refusal to understand this doesn't affect anything in the least.


 

Flag iamachildofhis March 11, 2012 5:26 PM EDT

Mar 11, 2012 -- 3:30PM, wohali wrote:



wohali: As has been explained to Nancy many times, the Theory of Evolution is core to many scientific fields that we all rely upon, such as:


Virology


Immunology


Animal husbandry


Paleontology


Agriculture


Medicine


Biology


Archaeology


Oncology


Etc.


Nancy's refusal to understand this doesn't affect anything in the least.



iama: If you would / could, wohali, describe for us how evolution "is core" in each of the above fields of science.


Keep in mind that, contrary to Midutch's long list of claims, evolution's parameters HAVE CHANGED recently.  The ORIGINAL evolution / The General Theory of Evolution was "goo to zoo to you," origin of species.


I understand that, recently, it has been modified to be, basically, change...


Make sure that you define "evolution" before you "describe for us how evolution 'is core' in each of the above fields of science."


Remember, the Creation paradigm, includes variation within the originally created KINDs, so that it is bogus to define evolution as just variation being reproduced by parents / species.


Creationists, also, 100% hold to the genome evidences which are being identified by biologists.  What, actually, exists, reenforces The Creation paradigm.


.

Flag Ken March 11, 2012 5:32 PM EDT

Mar 11, 2012 -- 5:26PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Mar 11, 2012 -- 3:30PM, wohali wrote:

As has been explained to Nancy many times, the Theory of Evolution is core to many scientific fields that we all rely upon, such as:


Virology


Immunology


Animal husbandry


Paleontology


Agriculture


Medicine


Biology


Archaeology


Oncology


Etc.


Nancy's refusal to understand this doesn't affect anything in the least.



If you would / could, wohali, describe for us how evolution "is core" in each of the above fields of science.



Why should he? As he pointed out, it has been explained many times, and you have consistently ignored it, just as you consistently ignore anything you don't want to hear. What would be his reward for explaining it again? Would you concede that he's right? Of course not. You'd just start shrieking your damned Bible rubbish again and posting links to creation.com.

Flag wohali March 11, 2012 5:35 PM EDT

Not much point, as Ken so aptly said.


You don't read anything. I guess 'cause you think that you speak for god you don't need to.

Flag iamachildofhis March 11, 2012 9:20 PM EDT

Mar 11, 2012 -- 5:35PM, wohali wrote:



wohali: Not much point, as Ken so aptly said.


You don't read anything. I guess 'cause you think that you speak for god you don't need to.



iama: I consider your response to be a dodge, realizing that your attempt would expose the evolution speculations for what it is.


All scientific fields of investigation could / would function just fine without ever considering the "speculative first life-form cell to zoo to you" evolution.


One could note, of course, that the fields of biology would not have progressed as they have, IF there wasn't the evolutionist's drive to locate the elusive scientific evidence for the evolution speculation.  The scientific knowledge gained / gleaned, of course, has all been valuable.  But, the evolution speculation, remains unscientificall, observationally, unevidenced.


The evolution control mentality which exists in the higher learning research facilities being controlled by the constraints of the evolution paradigm, has set back much investigative "freedom to follow where the research leads."


.

Flag MMarcoe March 12, 2012 11:29 AM EDT

Mar 11, 2012 -- 9:20PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Mar 11, 2012 -- 5:35PM, wohali wrote:



wohali: Not much point, as Ken so aptly said.


You don't read anything. I guess 'cause you think that you speak for god you don't need to.



iama: I consider your response to be a dodge, realizing that your attempt would expose the evolution speculations for what it is.


All scientific fields of investigation could / would function just fine without ever considering the "speculative first life-form cell to zoo to you" evolution.


One could note, of course, that the fields of biology would not have progressed as they have, IF there wasn't the evolutionist's drive to locate the elusive scientific evidence for the evolution speculation.  The scientific knowledge gained / gleaned, of course, has all been valuable.  But, the evolution speculation, remains unscientificall, observationally, unevidenced.


I'm glad that you acknowledge the valuable information provided by evolutionary scientists. But you should recognize that they never would have found all that information if they had been working with a creationist perspective.


The evolution control mentality which exists in the higher learning research facilities being controlled by the constraints of the evolution paradigm, has set back much investigative "freedom to follow where the research leads."


Constraints? That's a lie on your part.


The only "paradigm" being used is methodological naturalism. It's the only one that works in science. Creationists don't use it.


Had scientists been creationists, they would have limited themselves and been unable to see where the evidence truly leads.


 





Flag wohali March 12, 2012 4:38 PM EDT

Isaiah:


14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.


No one has ever seen a cockatrice; there is no evidence of cockatrice ever existing. Science tells us that a cockatrice, a hen's egg fertilized by a serpent, is an impossibility. 


Is this one of Iamachild's inerrant Bible passages? 

Flag lucaspa April 3, 2012 10:37 AM EDT

Mar 12, 2012 -- 11:29AM, MMarcoe wrote:


Had scientists been creationists, they would have limited themselves and been unable to see where the evidence truly leads.[/quote]


Actually, scientists WERE creationists.  All scientists prior to 1790 were YECs. From 1800 -1859 scientists were OECs using progressive creation events.    Lyell in Vol II of his Principles of Geology stated:  "Each species was endowed at the time of its creation, with the attributes of organization by which it is now distinguished. ...been created in succession at such times and in such places as to enable them to multiply and endure for an appointed period, and occupy an appointed place on the globe." 


Iama forgets all this.  Scientists falsified creationism, just as scientists have falsified a huge number of scientific theories.  As you noted, scientists were able to see where the evidence leads, and that evidence lead them to refute creationism and accept evolution.


Iama thinks that "where the evidence truly leads" is atheism.  It's not.  Science is agnostic.  As you noted, one of the things that keeps science agnostic are the limitations imposed by methodological materialism.  MN prevent us from testing this hypothesis:


"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion.


As long as we cannot determine whether or not "what is natural ... presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so", then we are limited to what we can say, as scientists, about God's control of nature:


" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists."  SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge.  Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992. www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_da...


As a person, Richard Dawkins can say that he believes natural happens on its own.  As a person, I say I believe God is necessary for everything "natural" to happen.  But those are our personal beliefs.  Evolution is not atheism.


In the latter half of the 19th century, Biblical scholars began approaching the Bible as all other ancient texts were approached and analyzed.  One of the first conclusions from this was the Documentary Hypothesis, which stated that Moses did not write the first 5 books of the Bible, but that they were instead a compilation from at least 3 (and probably 4) earlier sources and were put together around 600-500 BC.  A subset of Christians was horrified by this and felt very threatened.  They felt that Higher Criticism threatened the "authority" of the Bible on the basic issues of God's existence, God's intervention in human history, the historicity of Jesus' divine actions, and the Resurrection (and thus the entire idea of salvation). They countered with a series of pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals (which you can find online).  2/3 of the pamphlets are directed against Higher Criticism, 1/3 against evolution.  From this was born Fundamentalism, which is a new religion.  Fundamentalism worships a literal, inerrant, "infallible" Bible, not God. You can see that with Iama and other creationists: they defend "The Bible" and not God. Fundamentalism is false idol worship:
www.newreformation.org/
www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm


"One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that nothing is sacred. No thing. No part of creation is God. God is separate from the creation. Creation is only to be respected (made holy) as the handiwork of our God. It is never to be worshiped. This is why western civilization holds nothing sacred. Not king, not country, not flag, not clergy. This is the basis of our freedoms. The first ammendment rights are based on this idea. This is where the founding fathers got this stuff. Fundamentalist evangelicals violate this basic principle every time the put the printed Bible ahead of God, ahead of Christ, or ahead of the Holy Spirit. The belief in the infallability of the printed Bible may be the worst heresy to affect the church today."

Flag Kingdom357 April 3, 2012 8:36 PM EDT

The therory of evolution studied by a botinist called Darwin.  He went around making brand new plant species and thus we have evolution, o.k.  Now scientist obviously decided this theory could really put their names down in history by claiming this as a theory of evolution.  Tried and tested did you say, well if animals are small and eat a good diet and become larger, is that what you call tried and true testing?  This is just the natural way of things.


AS for the big bang, first it was gases now its something else an Adam, I don't think they know anything at this point.  The telescope up to this time was recording the universe and watching the stars and planets through the earths atmosphere.  They only recently put a large telescope into orbit and have a clearer picture but is doesn't go out in space very far.  The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed.  To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness.


 


 


 


 


 


 

Flag Sparky_Spotty April 3, 2012 8:39 PM EDT

Apr 3, 2012 -- 8:36PM, Kingdom357 wrote:


The therory of evolution studied by a botinist called Darwin.  He went around making brand new plant species and thus we have evolution, o.k.  Now scientist obviously decided this theory could really put their names down in history by claiming this as a theory of evolution.  Tried and tested did you say, well if animals are small and eat a good diet and become larger, is that what you call tried and true testing?  This is just the natural way of things.


AS for the big bang, first it was gases now its something else an Adam, I don't think they know anything at this point.  The telescope up to this time was recording the universe and watching the stars and planets through the earths atmosphere.  They only recently put a large telescope into orbit and have a clearer picture but is doesn't go out in space very far.  The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed.  To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness.


 


 


 


 


 


 




What?

Flag amcolph April 3, 2012 9:19 PM EDT

Apr 3, 2012 -- 8:36PM, Kingdom357 wrote:


The therory of evolution studied by a botinist called Darwin.  He went around making brand new plant species and thus we have evolution, o.k.  Now scientist obviously decided this theory could really put their names down in history by claiming this as a theory of evolution.  Tried and tested did you say, well if animals are small and eat a good diet and become larger, is that what you call tried and true testing?  This is just the natural way of things.


AS for the big bang, first it was gases now its something else an Adam, I don't think they know anything at this point.  The telescope up to this time was recording the universe and watching the stars and planets through the earths atmosphere.  They only recently put a large telescope into orbit and have a clearer picture but is doesn't go out in space very far.  The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed.  To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness.


 


 


 


 


 


 




None of that has any relation to the real Theory of Evolution or to the real Big Bang theory.  You ought to find out what science actually says before you try to argue against it.

Flag sadiaali April 5, 2012 3:14 AM EDT

if you don't know deeply in any religion than no discussed them,,,

Flag Midutch April 5, 2012 8:07 AM EDT

Apr 5, 2012 -- 3:14AM, sadiaali wrote:


if you don't know deeply in any religion than no discussed them,,,


If the "deeply religion" would simply keep it to themselves, then there wouldn't be any need to.


However, history has shown that the "deeply religion" ALWAYS want to force their religion onto others who do not share their reigion, either by the sword (as in the past) or (as is the case with "creationists" in the present) by misinformation, propaganda, falsehoods, quote-mines, fakes, frauds, hoaxes, fabrications, apologetics, unsupported assertions, wild speculations, marketing schemes, political strong arm tactics and flat out lies.

Flag wohali April 5, 2012 4:21 PM EDT

Kingdom:


"The therory of evolution studied by a botinist called Darwin.  He went around making brand new plant species and thus we have evolution, o.k."


Nope, not ok. Charles Darwin was a theology student that had training as a naturalist. He didn't went around making brand new plant species. Darwin observed and recorded previously unknown species, he didn't make a single one. As a human being, Darwin was incapable of creating a new species. 


"Now scientist obviously decided this theory could really put their names down in history by claiming this as a theory of evolution."


Sorry, that's not how it worked. The Origin of the Species was initially met with much resistance from the scientific community. As further investigations were carried out, the mounting evidence for the theory established it's creedence.


"Tried and tested did you say, well if animals are small and eat a good diet and become larger, is that what you call tried and true testing?  This is just the natural way of things."


Obviously by your statement, you have no idea whatsoever what evolution entails.


An example is here on the Channel Islands in California. Mammoths living on the islands grew smaller by evolution. Populations of organisms change over time due to environmental pressures.


Do you get a yearly flu shot? The Theory of Evolution makes that possible.


"AS for the big bang, first it was gases now its something else an Adam, I don't think they know anything at this point."


There is a tremendous gap between what you think and what cosmologists know.


"The telescope up to this time was recording the universe and watching the stars and planets through the earths atmosphere.  They only recently put a large telescope into orbit and have a clearer picture but is doesn't go out in space very far.  The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed."


Cosmologists use many other tools besides telescopes to explore the known universe. Higher mathmetics, radio telemetry, radiation measurements, etc.. And just so you know, the Hubble sees back in time.


"To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness."


To argue against something that you have no clue about is rather sad.

Flag Namchuck April 5, 2012 6:13 PM EDT

Apr 3, 2012 -- 8:36PM, Kingdom357 wrote:


The therory of evolution studied by a botinist called Darwin.  He went around making brand new plant species and thus we have evolution, o.k.  Now scientist obviously decided this theory could really put their names down in history by claiming this as a theory of evolution.  Tried and tested did you say, well if animals are small and eat a good diet and become larger, is that what you call tried and true testing?  This is just the natural way of things.


AS for the big bang, first it was gases now its something else an Adam, I don't think they know anything at this point.  The telescope up to this time was recording the universe and watching the stars and planets through the earths atmosphere.  They only recently put a large telescope into orbit and have a clearer picture but is doesn't go out in space very far.  The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed.  To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness.


 


 


 


 


 


 





Silly post.

Flag river8101 April 26, 2012 6:06 PM EDT

Now it's an Adam?   You mean atom?   Good grief, you don't even know how to spell a simple word that has a great deal of meaning.

Flag McAtheist April 26, 2012 9:33 PM EDT

kingdom357: The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed.  To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness.


I agree that there is a huge amount left to be discovered in the world --- in the stars, in life on Earth and in ourselves. And no honest scientist claims otherwise. 


However, the reason scientists claim that evolution is the natural process that shaped life on Earth and that the universe maybe started with the Big Bang is because that is what the evidence suggests.  Evolution, in particular, is the only model that explains everything we find.  Until a better explanation or different evidence comes along, researchers would be dishonest to say otherwise. 


I think you do scientists as a group a disservice by implying that they only accept evolution because "they don't like any other explanation;" they accept evolution because scientifically, it is the best explanation by far.  (Remember that a god could behind the natural processes of evolution; science doesn't have anything to say about that.)


Oh, and welcome to the board!

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook