Posted on 04/14/2007 10:18:48 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[Wow, you are dramatically oversimplifying the rationale for an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. Unsurprising.]
Lol- ‘oversimplifying’ lol- of course ‘Dinos evolved into birds’ isn’t based on oversimplified sketchy similarities. Here’s a thought- Dinos and birds had similiar designs- that’s it. A wolf and lion have similiar designs too.
[Please review the process of chemical degradation that occurs in fossilization and provide a scientific explanation why such preservation is impossible (review Schweitzer’s recent work]
I never claimed it was impossible, I stated that most evidence for ‘old specimens’ shows clearly that tissue can not be preserved for millions of years. Tissue that has survived has two possible explanations- either they are not as old as we’re told, or there is a miraculous preservation system at play.
[nor how much genetic change is allowed to occur within a kind]
You never did address the other thread in which I explained macro-evolution includes ‘creation’ of new organs needed for KINDS to become other KINDS. Yuo say you left creationism, for what? For assumptions of evolution devoid of evidence?
[I was disappointed in college as it became more and more clear to me that creationist apologetics were not about putting together a coherent model that fits the evidence]
That ‘fit the evidence? Don’t you mean ‘that fit the evolution assumptions and apologetics’? Tell me again how amino acids became protiens, or how DNA ‘evolved’ without first having evolved DNA repair genes? or how the process of evolution was so perfect that left hand amino acids wouldn’t contaminate right hand amino acids and kill them off before they could move on in their million year scenario to make the impossible leap to protiens? ‘Nitpicking’? Call it what you want- but the truth is, these are serious problems, as are the built in protection levels at the molecular level that prevent perversion beyond species specific caps. To think that ‘an accumulation of small mutations’ could ‘result in macro-evolution’ is nothing but unscientificly supported apologetics.
[In the same manner, you are attempting to say that preservation of this sort means that this T. rex can’t possibly be 68 million years old]
No sir, that is a misrepresentation of what I’m saying- I’m suggesting that it is however strong support for the plausibility that dinos might not be as old as we’re told. Did you know that webbing between dino’s toes have been found intact? Or that skin has been found?
[Why has every dinosaur fossil examined shown poor molecular preservation?]
Why? Because even Susan’s mentor told her to ‘try to disprove’ the fact that cells were present. Even secular scientists opposed Susan (Yet incredibly, she only whined about the big bad creationists who raised concerns lol) Why? Because as you well know, scientists never looked for the molecular material because of the faith bound beleif that bones simply could not contain molecular material. (Despite creationists discovering material from many locations and presenting it to hostile reviews- now however, they’ll have to take a SERIOUS look at the evidences now that one of their own has come out with like-mannered material. Bias in the scientific comunity? Oh heck no- must be just our imagination)
[For creationists it should be more important to provide positive explanations supporting a young earth than to try to chip holes in evolutionary theory.]
Oh we do- yet the incredible bias that believes in old earth poo poo’s anything proposed. Radio-Halos have stood up to scrutiny for over 15 years now, yet there is fierce vehemence toward Gish and others who have declared that they show a valid plausibility for a young earth. Seems when the evidence is strong, the messengers character gets attacked rather than the evidence. “Chip holes’? I’m sorry- but pointing out obvious biological impossibilities that get covered up isn’t ‘chipping holes’, it’s demanding a less subjective- one-sided science.
Coyote- Ah- so the fact that they aren’t your field means they must be invalid along with all the other scientific material presented simply because the scientists have opinions. Perfectly reasonable- sigh.
My response to most of these is "So what?" It's more nitpicking. AiG is like a jackdaw leaping with alacrity on any shiny object that catches its eye. No real attempt is made to fit any elements together reasonably. I get the impression they are just disagreeing here for the sake of disagreeing, like (one can never have too many similes) a sullen toddler.
Regarding what scientists' think, we aren't fixated on the numbers because they don't tell the whole story--not even close. Scientists are interested in what genes are the same but more importantly in what genes are different. Scientists are interested in the types of chromosome remodelling (which should be illegal according to most young earth creationists) that have occurred and what effects these might have. We are interested in which transposable elements were favored in which species, and when these stopped propagating. AiG is just interested in the sparkly numbers.
The chimp genome is 12% larger than the human genome.
So what?
Only 2.4 billion bases have been aligned between the two genomes, leaving a maximum similarity of 68–77%.
No source, sadly, but that's par for the course. Both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome have been sequenced, and the similarity is in the mid to upper 90%'s, depending on what you are looking at.
In many areas of the genome, it appears major rearrangements of DNA sequences have occurred, accounting for another 10–20% dissimilarity.
I'm amused they acknowledged that rearrangements occurred. Besides my amusement, my reaction is "So what?" and a note of the arbitrary percentages (gee, it would be nice if they explained how they are calculating this--looks like they want everything lined up exactly in the same order in order to acknowledge it's identical).
To save money and time, the chimp genome was assembled using the human genome as a template (because of the presupposition that humans evolved from the same line as chimps); it is currently unknown if the pieces of the chimp genome “puzzle” were put together properly.”
Baloney. In one method this was used as an aid, but stringent guidelines were followed to make sure errors did not occur. Later attempts did not use this.
Or perhaps the following tackling the FALSE assumption of evolution advocates that ‘vestigial organs’ are useless left-over organs resulting from evolving structures and no longer needed:
Oh, if only that were the evolutionists' position! But slay that straw man!
[Regarding what scientists’ think, we aren’t fixated on the numbers because they don’t tell the whole story—not even close.]
Boy howdy I’ll say- “mutation rate catastrophe” no need to fixate on the numbers such as deleterious mutations outnumbering ‘benificial’ (used in the loosest of terms as I know very loose terms are needed for evolution) and creating a quagmire that end up negating the few ‘benificial’ mutations to the point of species collapse. No need to go there. Better to simply propose that nature ‘overcame the hurdles’ by being ‘robust’ enough to transcend these obvious limitations to the theory of evolution. Mutational load calculations were such a problem that Darwinists tried to tackle the problem, yet in the end had to declare ‘a ‘robust system’ must have been inplace to overcome the hurdles.’ Let’s also not forget that species have an amazing ability to correct errors over time- couple this with the deleterious mutational build-up, and we’ve got us one life-sn\uffing proposition. Being that mutational ‘progress’ is not a ‘dirtected event’ and not guided, the rates of ‘benificial’ to deleterious mutations would have reamined a constant. Besides, all this is is an attempt at ‘explaining’ a tree when a forrest of improbabilities surround that one sapling. The idea of slow accumulating (or even faster accumulating (I know you folk like to assume conditions could have sped up mutations) mutations couldjoin hands and ‘evolve’ new organs and move a species into another KIND altogether is a swell proposition, but the biological evidence is so vastly against such a proposal as to make it an irrational wish I’m afraid.
To think that evolution saved every blessed hail Mary in the process, until finally, all the perfect combinations formed to create new organs is unsupported in the evidence and nothing but a hopeful assumption built upon the idea that problems along the way only amount to a response worthy of ‘so what’. Numbers numbers, who needs em? It’s ‘just argumentative’ and ‘nitpicking’- Recombination has never been shown to prevent runaway mutational problems, but at best, only to delay the inevitable in a few cases.
[Both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome have been sequenced, and the similarity is in the mid to upper 90%’s, depending on what you are looking at.]
Ah, and the disimilarities are how large again? Billions? Numbers, numbers- who needs em?
[I’m amused they acknowledged that rearrangements occurred.]
If this amuses you then you obviously aren’t well versed in what creation/id scientists beleive.
[Besides my amusement, my reaction is “So what?”]
So what? We’re told that we’re ‘up to’ 98% similiar to chimps and ‘therefore must be related’ because of the powerful evidence of similarities, yet when the equally powerful disimiliarities are pointed out that seperate us from lower species, the reaction is ‘so what’? Wow!
[Oh, if only that were the evolutionists’ position!]
Oh but it was (and continues to be in most less reputable evo-science writings and publications) Straw-man indeed.
Alas, I just wrote a humongously long response to your other post and then accidentally killed it. But that’s ok, since in reading your latest post I am completely convinced that you avoid thinking as much as possible and rely exclusively on straw men. I guess they’re comfy, like bean-bag chairs. And reading this post, I see you could make a mountain of them. Saves on furniture!
Evolution = Using intelligently design models in an attempt to discredit intelligent design.
ahahaha- yeah- gosh- talk about handwaving. The magic wand of dismissal works for evolutionists I guess. Let’s see- serious problems with evolution = strawmen, creationists who bring up the problems = pseudo (fill in the blank), evidence that contradicts the evolution model in any way = silliness, pointing out biological impossibilities and serious problems = “argumentative” Have I vcovered everything?
Tech tip “CTRL+Z” will sometimes repost what is lost.
I can see why you left creationism, that shiny ‘dismissal wand’ was just too tempting. Anyway- that CTRL+Z tip- just click in the empty posting box if you accidently losde something, and hitr CTRL+Z- sometimes this works sometimes not I’ve even had it work when I hit post, and noticed that the whole post was lost- then hit the back button and CTRL+Z’d but not always.
I apologize- I shouldn;t have made the craqck about hte dismissal wand, I just find it convenient that when folks point out problems that the problems are waved away as being ‘argumentative’ or ‘strawmen’. I’ve read some of your work and note that you are a fairly annalytical person, yet I also note that innevitably sniping does crop up- However, I’ll try to keep the discussion civil and refrain from sniping on evos and making cracks. No promisses though as I can only take just so many ‘creation science is nothign but apologietics and no valid science’ comments though.
Heh, the sniping only occurs after a history with a certain poster. With new posters who are genuinely interested I try to be very solemn.
Part of it is you present things that you see to be problems while I don’t see that they are problematic at all. Such as the chimpanzee genome—it’s been more than 5 million years since our common ancestors diverged, while that’s not a lot of time on a geological timescale, it’s enough for many significant events to occur. The differences that we observe between our genomes are consistent with the expected timeline, and so are the similarities.
I see that you apologized below and apology accepted, but it took years for me to leave young earth creationism and was quite a difficult process.
Anyway- that CTRL+Z tip- just click in the empty posting box if you accidently losde something, and hitr CTRL+Z- sometimes this works sometimes not I’ve even had it work when I hit post, and noticed that the whole post was lost- then hit the back button and CTRL+Z’d but not always.
Thanks for the tip, but unfortunately I quit out of a Acrobat file that I thought was opened with Preview, and instead it was opened with Safari and all of my windows died without even asking "Are you sure?" Oh well!
.....they were warm-blooded...
....or on the flip side, they were not reptillian or amphibian.
I am one of those scientist types you disparage so much.
One part of being a scientist is that I do not feel comfortable arguing the genome as I have little training in that field. Non-scientists such as yourself, with no training in any field, seem not to be bothered by their lack of expertise. A quick trip to AIG and stay at a Holiday Inn Express and you're all set to tell scientists how things really are.
The sections of AIG that I have checked, in my fields, where I can tell good from bad and accurate from inaccurate, are pretty pathetic. Why should I assume that the others are any better?
[I see that you apologized below and apology accepted, but it took years for me to leave young earth creationism and was quite a difficult process.]
I’m surew it was and shouldn’t have made light of your descision, which is why I posted the apology- noty that I agree with your descision, but i do respect that it’s not an easy one to make.
[A quick trip to AIG and stay at a Holiday Inn Express and you’re all set to tell scientists how things really are.]
No coyote- I’m set to point out gaping holes and glaring impossibilities and problematic hurdles with the evolution model. You are correct, I don’t have a ‘scientist’ badge to produce- was too sick to pursue a degree- but that doesn’t mean I haven’t been able to use common sense and to understand that the biolgoy we were spoon fed in school was full of lies and deceitful assertions as well as equally deceitful ommissions meant to keep the full facts from the students because the full facts showed glaring discrepencies to what we were being fed.
[I am one of those scientist types you disparage so much]
I’m sorry- didn’t realize disparaging was exclusive to evo scientists- will have to keep that in mind next time you deride ID’ers.
You’re reflecting.
If you at least cited your claim, I could look into it. If you can’t cite it, retract it.
Oh, OK, you talked me into it, since your so insistant, give me some time and I’ll look for the book when I get home, I’m on vacation right now, I’ll be home in a week or so. I couldn’t possibly retract the truth, now could I?
Gary don’t bother, or at least don’t put too much effort into looking for it- you’re in a no win situation- no matter what you post, there is ‘all bases covered’ answer. Freshly killed seal carcasses dating 1000’s of years old are explained away by ‘Carbon contamination due to increased presence of old carbon in the arctic waters circulating around with new carbon’, when freshly killed snails in the desert are dated to 1000’s of years old, it is explained away by claiming ‘the material dated was contaminated either by human means, or by ‘old or new’ carbon in the atmosphere’ - the all encompassing ‘you can’t carbon date anything under 150 years old’ argument will also be thrown out, yet when an old example of a known material that is older than 150 years, but younger than say a few thousand is dated, and an old age of say 25000 years is given, then again, the claim of contamination is given or the excuse that ‘well it’s not really old enough and we would expect screwey ages as a result of testing’ is given.
Thank you for the info, I appreciate it.
Gary don’t bother, or at least don’t put too much effort into looking for it- you’re in a no win situation- no matter what you post, there is ‘all bases covered’ answer. Freshly killed seal carcasses dating 1000’s of years old are explained away by ‘Carbon contamination due to increased presence of old carbon in the arctic waters circulating around with new carbon’, when freshly killed snails in the desert are dated to 1000’s of years old, it is explained away by claiming ‘the material dated was contaminated either by human means, or by ‘old or new’ carbon in the atmosphere’ - the all encompassing ‘you can’t carbon date anything under 150 years old’ argument will also be thrown out, yet when an old example of a known material that is older than 150 years, but younger than say a few thousand is dated, and an old age of say 25000 years is given, then again, the claim of contamination is given or the excuse that ‘well it’s not really old enough and we would expect screwey ages as a result of testing’ is given.
I guess you aren’t very good with statistics or basic scientific testing methodology then.
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.