Posted on 04/09/2010 11:35:22 AM PDT by lasereye
Only what the evidence supports.
That is science.
Contorting the evidence so it supports what you already supposedly ‘know’ about Biblical floods and ‘kinds’ is not science, it is apologetics.
So evolution only happens after great floods, where it happens at thousands of times the pace ever proposed by evolutionary biology, but only within set limits that have never been defined.
So what is going to stop a 2% genetic DNA difference between humans and chimps after six million years if creatures are capable of much greater changes after only six thousand?
In the sense that understanding what I read and describing it accurately is my field of expertise, yes.
I admire your chutzpah in citing Brian Thomas, MS articles to argue against my contention that Brian Thomas, MS is a deceitful writer. "He's not lying--see, he says so himself!" Oh well, Brian cites his own articles in his references all the time, I guess you might as well too.
It's also amusing that you cite an excerpt with a scientist saying "we really don't understand decay" in support of your assertion about the "current understanding of collagen rate of decay."
I can't follow Brian's references in the second excerpt because they're behind paywalls. I've followed many of them before, though, and I've usually found that he's misrepresented their content. You'd be better off not accepting his representations at face value.
There's a number of other articles along these lines at the ICR website.
Oh, I know. Blyin' and I go way back.
What evidence did she cite?
Contorting the evidence so it supports what you already supposedly ‘know’ about Biblical floods and ‘kinds’ is not science
What evidence did I contort?
So what is going to stop a 2% genetic DNA difference between humans and chimps after six million years if creatures are capable of much greater changes after only six thousand?
I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be assuming ape to man evolution and then saying the differences between apes and humans should be much greater than between elephants 6000 years ago and today. They don't have the DNA of the elephants that have existed 6000 years ago to compare to today's elephants, so even if we assume evolution your question doesn't make any sense.
The articles quote other sources, or are his summary of those sources.
This is just a quote from an article:
“in bones, hydrolysis [breakdown] of the main protein component, collagen, is even more rapid and little intact collagen remains after only 1-3x104 [10,000 to 30,000] years, except in bones in cool or dry depositional environmnents.”
You have yet to demonstrate where he’s deceitful on his contention about the decay of collagen in the first place. So you’ve got it backwards. It’s “he’s lying because I say so” or “just assume he’s lying”.
The scientist wasn’t saying there’s no scientific estimates of collagen decay. That would mean no research had ever been done, which is obviously wrong. What he obviously meant was that the estimates must be wrong. That’s obviously an ASSUMPTION that he’s making.
Give me examples of where he’s misrepresented content. Chances are they’re like your current contention. You make some assumptions or misrepresent something yourself.
Contorting evidence on fossilization to fit some preconceived notion of a biblical flood is what you contorted.
You have no idea what I am talking about? Probably because you don't really understand the subject.
There is only a 2% genetic difference between humans and chimp.
If the “limits” you propose on evolutionary change are constrained somehow to less than a 2% genetic difference, it would be impossible for all species of animals to have evolved from those that could fit on a boat of known dimensions within the last few thousand years.
The evolution you propose would be thousands of times more rapid than ever proposed by an evolutionary biologist, and it would exceed the change of 2% in genetic DNA that would separate humans and chimps for those species.
So if an animal, fresh off the Ark, can change over the next few thousand years to become many different species over the Earth, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change; what is to stop a human population from diverging from a chimp population and accumulating a 2% genetic DNA difference over some six million years?
How do you reconcile your belief in massive evolutionary change in a short time, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change (while somehow limited to staying within a “kind”), while simultaneously deny that slow incremental evolutionary change over millions of years can derive a 2% genetic difference?
Is that simple enough for you? If not I don't really know how to dumb it down any further to make it understandable to you.
Tell me where she did that.
Contorting evidence on fossilization to fit some preconceived notion of a biblical flood is what you contorted.
Give me the quote where I contorted evidence.
How do you reconcile your belief in massive evolutionary change in a short time, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change
As I said, THEY DON'T HAVE THE DNA from those elephant fossils (that I know of) ago to compare current elephants to. You make some assumption about what the DNA difference is. You keep making unwarranted assertions that are based on an assumption of evolution, i.e. circular reasoning.
So how do you reconcile your belief in massive evolutionary change in a short time, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change (while somehow limited to staying within a “kind”), while simultaneously deny that slow incremental evolutionary change over millions of years can derive a 2% genetic difference?
I should add that your whole argument assumes apes evolved to humans. Another circular element. It’s “since we know apes evolved to humans over millions of years, therefore something that evolved in much shorter time should have less of a DNA difference”. Then you ALSO assume that the elephants have a large DNA difference, even though we don’t have the DNA.
One need not assume ape to human evolution to note that there is only a 2% genetic DNA difference between humans and chimps.
Why is it acceptable to you that an animal fresh off the Ark can, over a few thousand years, become many different species all over the Earth accumulating DNA differences far in excess of a 2% difference, but absolutely unacceptable that a slow incremental change over six million years could accumulate a similar 2% genetic DNA difference between humans and chimps?
Yes, I know. I have read many of Brian's articles and usually read his sources when I can. I have found that he regularly misrepresents what the original source said.
This is just a quote from an article:...You have yet to demonstrate where he’s deceitful on his contention about the decay of collagen in the first place.
The deceit here is subtle. He quotes a scientist saying "little intact collagen remains after 10-30,000 years." He then turns that into "[collagen has] a lifespan of 30,000 or so years." That's not what the scientist said--Brian just ignores that important adjective "little" (in other words, "some") and completely blows by the rest of the sentence, "except in bones in cool or dry depositional environments." Let's rewrite that statement a little: "some intact collagen can remain after 30,000 years, esecially in bones in cool or dry depositional environments." That kind of blows his conclusion apart, and an honest writer would have attempted to account for it.
Give me examples of where he’s misrepresented content.
I don't have time to go on that hunt right now. It's time-consuming: I have to read Brian's stuff, then follow his references, many of which are behind paywalls, then read the references I can get to to figure out what they're really saying, then compare that to Brian's version. I've done this a lot over the past few years, and I'm sure I'll do it again--but not today. Gotta go earn some money.
Would you agree that camels are all one “kind”?
There was then, just one pair of camels on the Ark?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.