Science Museums Adapt in Struggle against Creationist Revisionism

[[Actually dogs and wolves are extremely similar genetically speaking.]]

And? The dog is still inferior. not sure why you’d mention the simlarities as it goes right along with what I was saying

[[A much bigger difference exists between wolves/dogs and foxes (which can not interbreed). So unless you care to claim that foxes were artificially created by man you don’t get out of the dilemma that your “microevolution” is occurring hundreds of times faster then what science accepts and therefore there is more then enough time in 3,500,000,000 years to account for all the diversity of life.]]

again speciation is not a problem for microevolution- You missed the point- please reread what I wrote.

[[Please exclaim the exact mechanism of this thing that you claim exists. How does it do what you claim it does, that is, how does it limit evolution to changes what you call micro evolutionary changes.]]

Egads- read the fruitfly experiments it explains it fine. as well as other experiements

[[Please post your mathematical proof (math does have proofs :).]]

Chicago symposium- mathematics will find it for you.

[[How are you defining improvement. Coyotes exists in places wolves do not exactly because they are better adapted to that environment. They survive in drier climates on less food.]]

Yup they do, they are still a degredation from the original species no matter the survival rates. This is another favorite symantics game for evos trying to show how a particular species is more adapted for their environement and thus are ‘more advanced’ when infact they have degraded from the original species.

[[Seriously deleterious mutations are generally culled as they appear. You are clearly not understanding natural selection.]]

Yes, NDT- I’m an ignoramus- clearly, as I don’t understand that the overwhelming deleterious mutations far far outnumber the ‘neutral’ ones and severely hinder any attempts at new organ creation especially in light of of the biological parameter limits which prevent such from occuring & would thusly stymie natural selection working on the few ‘neutrals’ trying it’s best to move them along toward the lofty goal of macroevolution. Species have a hard enough time dealing with minor mutational mistakes en mass, let alone have to deal with major species kind altering ones even if it were possible-

[[Are you the least bit concerned that you might miss your 72 virgins? I think not.]]

No, and I’ll tell you why- because of hte personal relationship with The True God who is True to His word and takes personal interest in each of His own children- Muhammahd’s God doesn’t as they ignore God’s directive to accept Salvation through His Son which is a very real, Holy spirit confirming event should you decide to take the leap of faith.

[[OK, are starfish and urchins the same KIND? How about jellyfish and siphonophores, are they the same KIND? What about bacteria and archaea, same kind or not?]]

I’m not al lthat familiar with all the obscure classifications of Baraminology, and would need to take a long time looking all those up- tracing down lineages etc- if you want to know, please do the work yourself unless you are leading up to a relevent point and need the answers?

[[KIND s a useless word because it gives no rules by which it can be applied. It is a weasel word that lets you change the definition to fit your argument.]]

Oh really? Didn’t read any of that link provided Eh? No rules? lol- it’s nothing BUT rules- but you and coyote can scoff at it if you like- meanwhile I’ll scoff at the equally problem riddled Phylogentic classification system and call it all kinds of ugly names and accuse anyone who beleives in it because it supports their particular dogma driven opinions in return, fair enough?

‘’The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973’’

Gosh, what a whiny ignorant little fella. nothing He said is factual- but by golly, the vitriol in his lame imature statements really tickles ye old funny bone eh?

[[In other words, “kinds” is a purely religious term with no relation to science.]]

You really haven’t got a clue do you? Baramin is a much deeper classification system than the pathetic attempt at deriding it by you suggests, and if you aren’t going to be honest and are going to deceive, then again- don’t post-

Since you decide to be dishonest- I’ll point out your dishonesty and post the following FACTS about baraminology so that others can see for themselves that you just patently lied!

-—”In baraminology the primary term is holobaramin from the Greek holos for whole. The holobaramin is all and only those known living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship. It is an entire group believed to be related by common ancestry.” Etc etc.

-—”The second term used in baraminology is monobaramin (mono, from the Greek for single or one). The term monobaramin is defined by ReMine (1993, p. 444) as:

a group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. (A group comprising one entire holobaramin or a portion thereof).

When a holobaramin is represented by a tree, one or more branches of that tree would be a monobaramin. For example, among humans, the caucasians would be a monobaramin” etc etc

-—”A third baraminic term is apobaramin (Greek apo, away from), which “is a group consisting of the entirety of at least one holobaramin” (Wise, 1999-2000). It may contain a single holobaramin or more than one holobaramins. “But it must contain the entirety of each of the one or more holobaramins within it”. No member organism of a holobaramin within an apobaramin shares ancestry with any organism outside of its own holobaramin (this being based upon the definition of holobaramin).”

Anythign in there sound like ‘purely religious classifications’ Coyoteman? No? Didn’t think so- but you just keep right on spilling your little vitriolic deriding crap- meanwhile, I’ll keep pointing out the lies you’re telling!

Contrary to Coyote’s lame accusations, Baraminology does NOT rely on religion for it’s classification system, and for those hwo might be interested in the truth, Kurt P. Wise, who introduced the term Baraminology in hte 90’s doesn’t even think the bible can be used because it soesn’t much relevant taxonomic information and “ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.”

While the scripture’s record of created kinds does factor in as it fits with the genetic as well as other criteria for classifications that we see in species, the scriptures are not even the driving factors for conciderations between the many different branch categories in Baraminology classifications for obvious reasons as stated above. Several scientific classification criteria are needed for the system and are infact utilized in other classification systems-

“Hybridization. Historically Marsh and others have placed this criterion second only to the Bible; for if viable offspring could be obtained from a cross between two different forms, this would be definitive of their monobaraminic status. However, we realize today that the lack of known hybridization between two members from different populations of organisms does not necessarily by itself mean that they are unrelated. The hybridization criterion probably will retain validity, but it is being reconsidered in the light of modern genetics.

Ontogeny, namely the development of an individual from embryo to adult. Hartwig-Scherer (1998) suggested that comparative ontogeny followed hybridization in importance as a criterion for membership in a particular type.

Lineage. Is there evidence of a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.

Structure (morphology) and physiology (function). Structures may be macroscopic (large entities such as body organs), microscopic (small, and observed using magnification), and molecular (chemical) configurations.

Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments.

Ecology. It is important to comprehend an organism’s niche, that is to say the region where it lives and how it interacts with the environment including other living things.

In order to determine baraminic distances among types of organisms it is important to utilize the most significant data. For instance, molecular studies with mitochondrial DNA and RNA were useful with some turtles, but the author questioned the baraminic utility of ecologic criterions (Robinson, 1997). In a baraminic study of human with non-human primates, the morphological (form) features such as teeth and bones as well as ecological characters including feeding and habitats were more valuable than chromosomal or molecular (hemoglobin and RNA) information (Robinson and Cavanaugh, 1998a). Also see Garcia-Pozuelo-Ramos, 1997; 1998; 1999. However, baraminic research on a broad spectrum of felids has revealed that ecological data were least reliable, and chromosomal data of low reliability, The morphological and molecular (protein and RNA) information were most important (Robinson and Cavanaugh, 1998b). For ongoing studies Cavanaugh (1999-2000) recently has emphasized that: “

Baraminology - I had to look that one up. LOL. I hate to tell you, but making up words meant to sound vaguely scientific and defining them in order to fit whatever “theory” one advocates really doesn’t qualify as science. You may want to do a little research on taxonomy or cladistics, they may provide you with a more supportable position.

You can’t seriously buy this, can you? I had to reread it, and it really sounds like something Tom Cruise would get behind.

“Historically Marsh and others have placed this criterion second only to the Bible...”

Is this talking about O. C. Marsh, the 19th century bone collector whose uncle George Peabody bought him a professorship at Yale?

“In order to determine baraminic distances among types of organisms it is important to utilize the most significant data.”

Ah, here’s the problem. You see in science, all the data is significant. You don’t get to cherry pick that which supports your hypothesis.

No, not a convertible, but I think his window was open some. Nevertheless, I agree, likely a direct strike would have killed him, or done much worse damage than it did.

I ended up having to drive through a severe thunderstorm once; the storm got really bad after I got in it. The lightning was constant, like a strobe light, and the strikes were CLOSE. The only reason I kept going was that I figured I wasn’t any safer by stopping and I’d be better off getting out of it than waiting. I was never so scared in my life.

Exactly. Entropy can decrease in one place as long as it is increasing in another. For instance, protein folding is an organizational process that is entropically driven because the exclusion of water from the surface of the peptide increases those water molecules' degrees of freedom and thus increases their entropy (recap of "the resulting increase in entropy of these water molecules gives rise to a large positive D S causing the D G of folding to be negative i.e. thermodynamically favourable"). The entropy of the protein goes down, but the entropy of the surrounding water goes up even more.

“Life obviously evolved to BELIEVE IN GOD..
unless life didn’t speciate at all..
Darwin and Dawkins missed that..
Belief in God is a high level evolution of mentality..
Lack of belief in God or not caring is a low level mentality..
Purely logically speaking of course..”

Or, said life simply found a way to make the unanswerable and mysterious easier to explain by attributing all mystery to what ever god they may worship. The ability to worship a god doesn’t show an advanced mentality, it’s an example of explaining away anything not understood to a higher power.

I fail to see how it is even possible to get a Ph.D. in chemistry and have such a simplistic understanding of thermodynamics. Please tell me it was an obscure college somewhere that awarded your degree and you’re in something like analytical chemistry and not physical or organic chemistry.

Alas, my first post got killed when Answers in Genesis crashed my browser. If I weren't so boring I would suspect sabotage!

I noticed you were cranky and thought I'd give you something else to be cranky about. As you know, not only does biology directly contradict a recent creation, but so does, well, every other field of science. I've been reading recently about the formation of the earth and am amazed by the amount of evidence that the creationists ignore. For instance, scientists have been able to determine the position and structures of continents going back through hundreds of millions of years. In the earliest times it becomes difficult because most of the crust is missing, but science marches on!

Archean cratons¹ are complex fragments of pre-2.5 Ga crust with, commonly, genetically linked upper mantle. Hence, their study requires a multidisciplinary approach at the lithospheric scale. Perhaps it is less obvious that this endeavor should be global in scope as most cratons show rifted or faulted margins and hence are merely fragments of larger ancestral landmasses (Williams et al., 1991). Individual cratons, now generally embedded as exotic bits in Proterozoic or younger collages (e.g., Laurentia, Hoffman, 1988, 1989), are in most cases too small to preserve the full complexity of the tectonic systems that led to their formation. Earth’s major tectonic systems are typically developed at scales larger than 500 km or even 1000 km. Important examples are diffuse continental rift zones; complete subduction systems including an accretionary prism, arc, back-arc basin, and remnant arc; oceanic plateaus; collision zones with their associated sedimentary basins; and igneous provinces resulting from mantle plume impact or lithospheric delamination. The scale of these systems thus determines that our understanding of the tectonic settings in which individual cratons formed will remain underconstrained unless we are able to reconstruct the larger landmasses from which they originated. In other words, the diagnostic features that determined the tectonic evolution of one craton may no longer be preserved within its own realm, but could well be preserved within another craton that has since rifted off and drifted around the globe. This limitation is equally true for understanding the crustal geology of Archean cratons as it is for understanding the architecture of their lithospheric mantle keels.
. . .
The Slave craton is clearly one of these independent fragments, as it appears to have broken out of its postulated ancestral supercraton Sclavia between 2.2 and 2.0 Ga based on the ages of marginal dyke swarms (LeCheminant et al., 1997) and marginal sedimentary sequences (Fig. 2). It probably drifted independently for ca. 200 million years prior to being amalgamated into the rapidly growing landmass of Laurentia (Hoffman, 1989) by 2.0–1.8 Ga, which forms the core to present-day North America. To answer the question posed above, today’s highly fragmented state of the global Archean record (Fig. 3) is only a partial guide. Many additional fragments were created relatively recently by the break-up of the late Paleozoic supercontinent Pangaea. For instance, opening of the Atlantic Ocean separated the Sa?o Francisco craton in Brazil from Archean components in the Congo craton of central Africa (e.g., Hurley and Rand, 1969). Similarly, the Lewisian gneiss complex of western Scotland is merely an eastern fragment of the Nain craton, which underlies south–central Greenland (e.g., Park, 1995). Ancient gneisses in Labrador are a western fragment of the same craton left behind in North America with the aborted opening of the Labrador Sea. Hence, in any pre-Pangaea reconstructions these recently separated siblings should be combined and regarded as a single craton.
. . .
Based on the first-order differences between some of the best known cratons, I suggest there are at least three distinct ‘‘clans’’ of cratons, each exemplified by a type craton: a Slave-like clan, a Superior-like clan, and a Kaapvaal clan. Each clan likely traces its ancestry to a different supercraton (Table 1; Fig. 6). An important difference between these three clans is their relative age of cratonization. Granite–greenstone terrains of the Slave craton were cratonized after a terminal ‘‘granite bloom’’ that is dated at ca. 2600–2580 Ma across the craton (van Breemen et al., 1992; Davis and Bleeker, 1999; Davis et al., 2003). In contrast, much of the Superior craton (Card, 1990) experienced late stage granite plutonism between 2680 and 2640 Ma and hence was cratonized at least ca. 50 million years prior to the Slave craton. The Kaapvaal and Pilbara cratons were largely cratonized by 3.0 Ga (e.g., Moser et al., 2001). Other fundamental differences between these type cratons (or their clans) are the chronology of mafic dyke swarm events and the stratigraphy and chronology of Paleoproterozoic cover sequences. For instance, the Superior craton is intruded by the large Matachewan dyke swarm, which fans from a focal point along its southern margin. Dykes of this swarm have been dated at 2473 and 2446 Ma (Heaman, 1997). The significance of the two discrete ages is presently unknown but it seems likely that the composite swarm is associated with rifting along the southern margin of the Superior craton and deposition of the rift and passive margin sequence of the Huronian Supergroup (Young, 1973; Young et al., 2001).An important feature of the Huronian Supergroup is that it contains ca. 2.2–2.4 Ga glaciogenic deposits (e.g., Young et al., 2001). On the other hand, there is no indication of 2.47–2.44 Ma mafic dykes in the Slave craton, nor for marginal Proterozoic sequences of the right age to have recorded the 2.2–2.4 Ga glaciation events. Instead, the Slave craton appears to have broken out of its Sclavia supercraton starting at ca. 2.2 Ga (Fig. 2). In contrast with both the Superior and Slave cratons, the Kaapvaal and Pilbara are overlain by extensive Paleoproterozoic cover sequences of the Transvaal and Hamersley basins with important carbonate and banded iron formation deposits (e.g., Cheney, 1996). Rifting of these two cratons, or rather of their ancestral supercraton Vaalbara (Fig. 6), may have occurred as early as 2775 Ma with the onset of voluminous mafic volcanism of the Fortescue Group (Wingate, 1998, 1999; Strik et al., 2001).

Bleeker, W. "The late Archean record: a puzzle in ca. 35 pieces." Lithos 2003, 71, 99-134.

(Gee, and look, he got 35 pages out of it. How come I never see creation "science" papers covering hard data to that extent?)

The existence of Archean crust causes multiple problems for creationism.

The Archean crust cannot be pre-made at creation, because it contains bacterial fossils.
The Archean crust dates back to about 3.8 billion years at the earliest, aligning with the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment by examination of lunar rocks and craters.
There is very little Archean crust still remaining. The largest extent is exposed in Greenland, with other large areas in Canada and Australia. The remnant are small slices scattered about. The paper identifies cratons in Zimbabwe, India, and Wisconsin as compositionally so similar to the Slave craton as to indicate these cratons were close neighbors in the Archean.
Requiring these cratons to have fragmented and moved around to their modern places during or after the Flood 4000 years ago would require such rapid continental plate movement and subduction that the oceans would be boiled away and the Flood survivers steamed alive.
In addition, compiling the modern complement of crust would require massive amounts of crust destruction and synthesis, producing even more heat and expelling large amounts of pollutants into the air, rendering the planet uninhabitable. Not to mention that the Flood survivers would have to constantly RUN!!! to get off of subducting crust and onto new (OW! OW! MY FEET, IT'S HOT!) crust.

Conclusion:

Creationism has no explanation for why crust becomes increasingly rare as radiometric dating shows increasing age.
Creationism has no sensible explanation for how the continents reached their current positions and why their cratonic composition is as it is.
In fact, so impossible are these things to explain from a young-earth perspective that you will never even see them mentioned except in a quick "ZIP!-let's-move-on-now" flyby.

...holobaramin ... monobaramin ... apobaramin ... Anythign in there sound like ‘purely religious classifications’ Coyoteman?

You left out polybaramin.

The following is from What are the Genesis “kinds”? Baraminology—classification of created organisms by Wayne Frair.

Guidelines
In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2).

You ask, "Anythign in there sound like ‘purely religious classifications’"

Well, yes. If scripture claims have priority over all other considerations, as this article states, it does sound like religion to me. And it should to you too. Even the name means classification of created kinds.

Give it up. Baraminology is strictly religious in origin and everybody knows it.

"And? The dog is still inferior. not sure why you’d mention the simlarities as it goes right along with what I was saying"

How so? Dogs are much more successful then wolves. They have us humans running around catering to their needs by the millions. How is that inferior. You continue to make unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim. Just like KIND, unless you care to define superior and inferior your comment is meaningless.

"again speciation is not a problem for microevolution- You missed the point- please reread what I wrote."

Actually we are talking about different genera. So if you accept that foxes and dogs and wolves are the same "ilk" then you accept that evolution can produce different genera.

This is not a surprise since you already admitted to accepting that evolution can produce all the diversity of an entire family (bacteria).

"Yup they do, they are still a degredation from the original species no matter the survival rates."

That is another meaningless statement. There is nothing degraded between a wolf and coyote.

"I’m an ignoramus- I don’t understand that the overwhelming deleterious mutations far far outnumber the ‘neutral’ ones and severely hinder any attempts at new organ creation especially in light of of the"

I don't think you are an ignoramus, I think you are willfully ignoring the facts. You did it again by utterly ignoring my entire point about natural selection removing seriously deleterious mutations.

You pretend to respond and instead just repeat the same flawed argument.

"I’m not al lthat familiar with all the obscure classifications of Baraminology, and would need to take a long time looking all those up- tracing down lineages"

How would you even start? There is nothing in Baraminology that provides a rule for how to apply it.

[.. The ability to worship a god doesn’t show an advanced mentality, it’s an example of explaining away anything not understood to a higher power. ..]

That would be true ((IF)) there were no God..
No Judeo-christian God..

If true then the Hindus have it right.. you are your OWN God..
Basically the Gospel of Satan.. (Genesis Ch 1-3)

Thats what human life is all about.. making that choice..
I do not deny you that choice.. I advocate it..
"Water seeks its own level"..

Thats what human life is all about.. making that choice..

Indeed, it is the most important choice a mortal will ever make.

This is not a surprise since you already admitted to accepting that evolution can produce all the diversity of an entire family (bacteria).

Heck, that's an entire domain in some schemes.

I like to think the tune is “Thick As A Brick”.

Evidently you suppose that where scripture accounts of classes can and SHOULD be factrored into ONE aspect of the classification system, that it amounts ot hte WHOKE system being a ‘religious’ classification when infact it is anything but as anyone with half an iota of common sense can tell for themselves it is not a ‘religious classification ‘ sysyem as CLEARLY explained by the myriad of evidneces to the contrary