Posted on 07/03/2006 10:05:56 AM PDT by doc30
We humans customarily assume that our visual system sits atop a pinnacle of evolutionary success. It enables us to appreciate space in three dimensions, to detect objects from a distance and to move about safely. We are exquisitely able to recognize other individuals and to read their emotions from mere glimpses of their faces. In fact, we are such visual animals that we have difficulty imagining the sensory worlds of creatures whose capacities extend to other realms--a night-hunting bat, for example, that finds small insects by listening to the echoes of its own high-pitched call. Our knowledge of color vision is, quite naturally, based primarily on what humans see: researchers can easily perform experiments on cooperative human subjects to discover, say, what mixtures of colors look the same or different. Although scientists have obtained supporting information from a variety of other species by recording the firing of neurons, we remained unaware until the early 1970s that many vertebrates, mostly animals other than mammals, see colors in a part of the spectrum that is invisible to humans: the near ultraviolet. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
The evidence for the fish to amphibian evolution, *including the development of legs* is well documented in the fossil record.
The process of developing novel features through gene duplication and/or modification of regulatory genes has been reproduced in the lab.
"If you cannot see degradation in the loss of leg function, then it is no surprise that you merely require a complete absence before you accept degradation. Stopping early is a loss of the information necessary to complete the formation.
Wasn't it you that was complaining about the use of DNA to explain all features and functions? Now you invoke the dreaded 'information' canard? Try to be more consistent.
Could you please describe the rigorous methodology we could use to identify a supernatural cause?
And all the while ignoring mophology.
"Why don't you address those arguments instead of whining about a 'moving bar'. Perhaps you never understood where the bar was in the first place?
Your argument was predicated on our inability to test the ability of a long extinct population to breed successfully with an extant population. Your argument is based on a false concept of evolution, a false concept of speciation, a false concept of genomic evidence and a false concept of common descent.
"Efforts to re-define the Linnaean structure according to the Biblical kind framework is proceeding in the context of baraminology.
They are attempting to classify organisms based almost exclusively on differences. This will lead to completely arbitrary classes (baramins).
Introductory Baraminology.
The first major scientific advancement to occur in science in the last 100 years in science has recently been developed. This advancement is called baraminolgy, an advanced method of taxonomy (scientific classification) of earthly organisms. Its been known for many years that the evolutionary approach to taxonomic division of organisms is fraught with potential confusions. The systematic approach to classification, called phyletic systematics, used by evolutionists has grave difficulty placing numerous borderline organisms, organisms which superficially appear to contain features that span more than one species (A basic phyletic classification) eg. platypus. The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) commonly known as the duckbilled platypus is an animal that has webbed feet, flat tail (much like a featherless bird's), a duck's bill and lays eggs for reproduction. Because the evolutionary method (EM) uses similarities to place organisms this animal is generally placed taxonomically with mammals, simply because its feathers resemble fur. This is just one example of a poorly placed organism, there are many more.
Further more, EM is prone to pre-judgements because of the application of the evolutionary theory. Evolutionary Theory requires that certain organisms be placed in specific groups to 'prove' that it (evolution) is a viable theory. This means that there is a tendency to 'fudge' the interpretation of features. Because there is an associated theory and it has difficulty placing certain organisms EM needed to be replaced by a theory-free scientific method of classification, thus the develpment of Baraminology.
Baraminology is not based on any theory; therefore creation scientists will have no pre-conceptions of where to place an organism, as EM does, and uses a system of selection designed to more accurately place those organisms. The system of selection Baraminology uses is called 'Discontinuity Systematics' (DS). The combination of the two is referred to as 'Baraminic Systems' (BS). With BS there is no gray area between classes of organisms, each organism can be placed relatively easily into its proper class, thus preserving the obvious gaps between classes. It also becomes obvious that using BS enables us to correctly place humans outside the class that contains apes.
Since EM's clades are visually represented by a tree with a single trunk containing many branches it fails to show the multiple kinds originally created by god. It would seem that the correct non-theory based scientifically designed visual representation of god's creation should be a forest of trunks filled with branches. This is exactly what happens when BS is used.
Unfortunately the word 'kinds' has a bad connotation in scientific circles so the term Baramins was developed.
HOLOBARAMIN
The basic grouping of organisms is the Holobaramin which roughly conforms to EM's class/family. The holobaramin consists of all the organisms in a god created grouping. A good example would be humans, Homo sapiens. The holobaramin containing humans would not contain any apes - gorillas, chimpanzees or any other monkey. The holobaramin containing gorillas would contain the different species of gorillas and chimpanzees.
MONOBARAMIN
Holobaramins can be further broken down into Monobaramins. Using the previous example, each race of human would be placed in its own monobaramin. Each genetically variant type of gorilla would be placed into its own monobaramin. The same applies to chimpanzees. It must be noted that chimpanzee placement is not yet finalized; they may eventually be placed in their own monobaramin. To facilitate the division of organisms into their correct monobaramin, two more baramins have been developed, the Apobaramin and the Polybaramin.
APOBARAMIN
The apobaramin is comprised of any number of holobaramins and is used during the separation process. This makes it easier to compare two or more baramin.
POLYBARAMIN
The polybaramin is comprised of any grouping of organisms, holobaramins and monobaramin and/or apobaramins.
SELECTION PROCESS
The process proceeds as follows:First a polybaramin is created containing any number of classified and unclassified organisms. Each one is compared using DS and roughly assigned a holobaramin within the polybaramin. Once all the loose organisms are assigned to a holobaramin a group of holobaramins are placed in an apobaramin for further study. They are analysed for differences to verify that all the organisms are placed correctly. If they pass the inspection each holobaramin is examined to determine the correctness of organisms within each monobaramin. This guarantees that there are no borderline or amorphous organisms such as can occur when using EM.
The method used to place each organism into its monobaramin is called discontinuity systematics (DS). Rather than using comparative methods which are based on similarities of DNA and other observations, DS uses a method which uses the relative difference between organisms. Generally computer programs are used to give 1D, 2D or 3D visual representations of the differences between the genetic code of organisms. The greater the visual difference, the farther apart the two organisms. This is quite reliable in discerning the original group god created. Determination of correct baramin is based on strict scientific guidelines as follows:
1. Scripture claims. This has priority over all other guidelines.
2. Hybridization. Judged by viable offspring obtained from a cross of two different forms.
3. Ontogeny. Development of an individual as it matures.
4. Lineage. Direct observed or inferred between extinct and extant forms.
5. Morphology and physiology.
6. Stratigraphic arrangement of fossils.
7. Ecology.
Talk about modifying evidence to fit a theory. This is a far from science as you can possibly go.
Just as a note to all:Linnaean taxonomy was developed long before Darwin released 'The Origin of Species' (more than 100 years) and before the Theory of Evolution was proposed. It could not possibly be based on Evolution.
Just one more creationist source of misinformation.
Its not drivel
I do my best.
Its drivel, you can't prove science with faith.
I think you have misrepresented Isaac Newton if you imply that those statements mean that he (and man) must reject creation. Are you even rational anymore?
It's an illogical position and will not return a correct answer if the question is supernatural creation vs naturalism.
That's not that difficult to understand. That you continue to insist on naturalism and a guaranteed wrong answer shows how strong your beliefs are. To the point of irrationality.
You can't change evidence. Evidence is what it is. That you think you can change evidence is a good indicator that you have a poor understanding of the process behind science.
No problem on agreeing that evolution is directionless. It means nothing except 'change' and that is perfectly consistent w/ creation. That's the point.
Variation of allele frequencies is consistent with a population that accumulating deleterious mutations to the point of extinction. While evolution was forced to accomodate that position because that is the evidence, the fact that it still claims a 'goo to you' result is inconsistent with that evidence. Unless you think that the goo had all the necessary information to form you.
Course, the theory doesn't really mean anything anyway. No direction, incorporates decline just fine, que sera sera.
The appeal to 'benefit' is common, yet it is also not unique to evolution. Why would a designer create a biology that did not 'benefit' itself in different environments? No problem and no uniqueness for evolution.
Again, you *assume* that the loss of legs has allowed snakes to survive for 'millions of years'. If YEC is not falsified, then you can't bring that claim in as evidence. It isn't, it is a deduction. You catchin on here?
Fine, we agree that the genome does not control. Do we also agree that the genome is constrained? Degenerative?
Do you understand what that means?
And while feedback systems are ubiquitous in the natural world, that does *not* mean that they 'evolved'. You merely *assume* that they evolved because they exist. You gettin a clue here?
Computer models are intelligently-designed. You want to use intelligently-designed systems to model life, great. You merely support my position.
And no, your learning is not based on incredulity, it is based on credulity. You will accept anything as long as it denies creation.
Well, the evidence isn't consistent. Where it isn't, the metaphysical claim is that it developed after the organisms split. Nothing methodological or natural about that.
And if you think that creation requires that the creator continuously interfere with out biological world, all it shows is that you don't understand creation.
The fossil record is a time sequence imposed on the evidence by men.
Fossil 'reworking', missing layers and 'overthrusting' are regularly invoked to explain anomalous fossils and strata appearing where they shouldn't.
And 'gene duplication' and 'regulatory gene modification' produces only freaks that would be eliminated from the population, not new more fit creatures.
If the DNA information is corrupted such that the cell cannot use it to proceed in the development, it is loss of information. No inconsistency, just a lack of understanding on your part.
So we have finally reached the point where you require a naturally rigorous method to identify a supernatural cause. That's good because it finally illustrates where you are in the debate.
Since I have already explained that requiring natural methodologies to explain a supernatural event will guarantee a wrong answer, then I can see that you want the wrong answer.
Congratulations, you have it.
Again, you cannot modify evidence to fit a theory. You only modify interpretations of evidence.
That you believe that you can modify evidence shows that you do not understand the difference between evidence and extrapolation.
Newton's words speak for themselves. I added nothing.
(Sentis, sorry I'm speaking for you again, but I'm apparently the only one who can understand Sentisese.)
Sentis is aware that there are Christians on the right who are tolerant of other Non-Christian conservatives. He has no problem with those people.
The particular Christians Sentis was complaining about are the ones who ARE NOT tolerant of other non-Christian conservatives. They are not a large group, thankfully, but they DO exist, even on this forum. I've been confronted by them before.
This statement is trivially false.
But please, if you disagree, explain clearly to me how a gene duplication event, independent of gene product or expression level, will always lead to a reduction in fitness.
Where did I say that observations can be changed? I simply questioned your statement which implied that changing a theory to incorporate observations is unacceptable.
"No problem on agreeing that evolution is directionless. It means nothing except 'change' and that is perfectly consistent w/ creation. That's the point.
Your previous statements disagree with this one.
The 'evolution has no direction' claim is a compromise to get the theory to match the evidence. This allows 'loss of function' (which is easily observed) to be passed off as 'evolution' instead of the decline that it actually represents. The little evos never know the difference.[Emphasis mine]
You will note that in the above quote you explicitly state that 'loss of function' is not part of evolution but is instead 'decline'. For this statement to be logically true then you must implicitly declare evolution to have a direction which does not include 'loss of function'.
As for your point that directionless change supports special creation I have too little information about the Bible to agree or disagree. That said, Evolution is much more than just directionless change, that change is determined by the impact the environment has on the cost/benefit ratio. How the Biblical 'kinds' can be incorporated into this is questionable. It appears to me that the Biblical Noachian flood produced a rate of change that is far higher than anything Evolution would predict. This raise a question: during this extremely rapid evolution, what were the mechanisms that prevented organisms from stepping over the putative 'kind' barrier?
"Variation of allele frequencies is consistent with a population that accumulating deleterious mutations to the point of extinction. While evolution was forced to accomodate that position because that is the evidence, the fact that it still claims a 'goo to you' result is inconsistent with that evidence. Unless you think that the goo had all the necessary information to form you.
It appears you want to include Abiogenesis in Evolution. That is an error. The SToE contains specific mechanisms that apply and are limited to living organisms.
Your question is inappropriate, Evolution does not imply that the original life forms had the 'information' to produce organisms as complex as modern apes; it was simply unnecessary. The human genome is the result of progressive addition of nucleotides.
Your attempt to paint all mutations, the source of allelic variation, as primarily deleterious does not agree with the evidence. The evidence is that the vast majority of mutations are neutral in the given environment, a small portion are deleterious, and an even smaller portion are beneficial. Those that are deleterious seldom fix in a population, instead they are weeded out by selection. By definition those mutations that reduce the number of successful offspring are deleterious. Those that are beneficial are by definition mutations that increase the number of successful offspring.
The amount of 'information' has little to do with it, a loss of 'information' such as a deleted based or a switched off gene can be beneficial. As I showed in a previous post, the number of bases, the number of chromosomes or the number of genes do not provide a one to one correlation between amount of information and complexity. In fact the whole reification of 'information' theory presents nothing but a red herring.
Whether you use Shannon IT or K-C IT, information can be introduced through the simple addition or modification of a single base. Codons, genes, even entire chromosomes have been duplicated.
There have been observed many instances of added 'information' by just about any definition of information that can be remotely applied to biology. However as explained above, an increase in information is not necessary to increase an organism's ability to produce successful offspring.
"Course, the theory doesn't really mean anything anyway. No direction, incorporates decline just fine, que sera sera.
Your definition of 'decline' in this context is spurious. In fact you use it as a strawman. What is important is the affect change has on the number of successful offspring.
"The appeal to 'benefit' is common, yet it is also not unique to evolution. Why would a designer create a biology that did not 'benefit' itself in different environments? No problem and no uniqueness for evolution.
If the cost/benefit ratio was all that supported Evolution I would agree, ID explains it equally as well, however Evolution has more than just the cost/benefit ratio. There are indicators in the genome and during ontogeny that a competent designer would not produce. There are viral 'markers' that indicate relationship between extant organisms. There are modified genes that indicate relationship between organisms. There are genomic errors that indicate relationship between organisms. Any one of them is good evidence of a common heritage, taken together they are quite conclusive.
"Again, you *assume* that the loss of legs has allowed snakes to survive for 'millions of years'. If YEC is not falsified, then you can't bring that claim in as evidence. It isn't, it is a deduction. You catchin on here?
If the evidence against YEC consisted solely of a legged snake I would agree with you. As it stands the evidence against YEC comes from Geology, Geophysics, Astronomy, Physics, Cosmology, Archeology, Genomics and Biology. YEC *has* been soundly falsified.
"Fine, we agree that the genome does not control. Do we also agree that the genome is constrained? Degenerative? Do you understand what that means?
The genome is constrained by physics and contingency. The genome is not exclusively degenerative, observations of genome/chromosome/gene/codon/nucleotide duplication show that it is also generative.
"And while feedback systems are ubiquitous in the natural world, that does *not* mean that they 'evolved'. You merely *assume* that they evolved because they exist. You gettin a clue here?
Feedback systems occur whenever a complex system approaches chaos, they aren't exclusive to biology. Unless you are suggesting that all feedback systems are the result of ID or that biological feedback systems are in some way different, we can safely conclude that feedback systems can occur in biological systems independently of any ID.
"Computer models are intelligently-designed. You want to use intelligently-designed systems to model life, great. You merely support my position.
Computer models are intelligently designed to test evolutionary mechanisms and processes through the use of rather large dollops of random numbers. What is important are the affects evolutionary algorithms have within the program, what is not important is the manner of its design. Part of our superior intelligence is the ability to design tests that emulate natural processes with few artifacts. If this wasn't so you would have to claim that all lab tests are not tests of the tested processes but of our ability as designers. Evolutionary algorithms have often produced results that were completely unexpected. If the 'designer' was as influential in the outcome as you seem to be claiming, those results would have been quite expected.
"And no, your learning is not based on incredulity, it is based on credulity. You will accept anything as long as it denies creation.
The evidence from a fair number of sciences provides evidence counter to special creation. My acceptance of evolution is based on science, your denial of evolution is not, it is based on a religious text and the mutterings of a few who desperately desire to see God in everything.
The relative order of the strata fossils are found in was known long before Darwin proposed the ToE. In an undisturbed formation, the oldest rock is on the bottom and the newest rock is on the top. This is necessarily so. Throughout the time humans have been studying geological formations, we have discovered many instances of geological disturbance that can change the order the layers are in, in most cases the inversion is quite obvious.
Since that time we have developed dating techniques that can accurately date many types of layers. The sequence of those dates closely matches the relative sequence previously determined for most of those strata. You will note this can be done without referencing the fossils.
"Fossil 'reworking', missing layers and 'overthrusting' are regularly invoked to explain anomalous fossils and strata appearing where they shouldn't.
I take it you believe there is a huge evil conspiracy of geologists, geophysicists, archaeologists, and paleontologists all determined to lie about the age of the Earth and fossils?
BTW, groups of strata frequently produce a 'bar code' uniqueness.
"And 'gene duplication' and 'regulatory gene modification' produces only freaks that would be eliminated from the population, not new more fit creatures.
Really? Ever heard of polyploidy?
Or how about...
Gene duplication followed by an indel can create a modified version of a feature. An example of this is the 125 million year old gene duplication event in the common ancestor of Arabidopsis thaliana (mustard plant) and the Antirrhinum majus (snapdragon) in which the AG gene in the A. thaliana and the PLE gene in the A. majus have both diverged from the copy and each other.
"If the DNA information is corrupted such that the cell cannot use it to proceed in the development, it is loss of information. No inconsistency, just a lack of understanding on your part.
Yes, of course...
Science is an attempt to gain the clearest and most accurate vision of the natural world around us. To do that it needs a rigorous approach and the assurance that the data will not be affected by some supernatural entity.
You seem to be arguing that we should just claim that goddit and leave it at that.
When I speak of evidence in this context I am including both the data and the interpretation.
"That you believe that you can modify evidence shows that you do not understand the difference between evidence and extrapolation.
I am not talking about modifying the physical data, I am talking about modifying the collected data points and/or it's interpretation.
Those that are active in developing baraminology are primarily interested in making the classification of organisms fit the Biblical account whether or not the morphology of the organisms indicate otherwise. Following the evidence entails allowing the evidence to determine the interpretation; this is in conflict with the stated goals of the Baraminologists.
If two species have numerous morphological similarities and few differences, baraminologists will place the two in separate baramines if the Bible so dictates. In this case, whales would be placed in with fish rather than with mammals even though whales are distinctly mammals. The evidence is that whales are mammals - they have far more in common with mammals (they share diagnostic features with mammals) than with fish -, yet baraminologists can ignore that evidence and focus on the fact that whales and fish both live in the water and are classed as fish by the Bible, then decide to place them together in a single baramine. Selectively ignoring part of the data is an example of modifying the evidence to fit the theory.
I have never suggested that the physical data be modified.
The more I know people, the better I like dogs.
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.