PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     A genetic bottleneck
       problematic for a world wide flood

Topic Jump
« Back
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I want to chat a bit about genetic bottlenecks and how that impacts the world wide flood myth.

First of, what is a genetic bottleneck ?


A genetic bottleneck happens when a species gets close to dying out and then recovers at a certain point.. If you look at cheetahs for example, they are in a bottleneck at the moment and because of that, the genetic data on any individual cheetah is nearly identical to another cheetah. This is caused by the fact that the cheetah population has to grow up from only a few species, decreasing the genetic diversity and increasing inbreeding.. Which in turn makes it very visibly to genetic research.

If you look at other species, like the bat for instance, there's literally thousands of bat species and genetically there's a lot more variation because bats haven't gone through a bottleneck.

Now its logical that the longer ago a bottleneck was of a species, the more variation has happened between then and now. Mutations are an observed phenomenon and it is this that causes these variations and its logical that in a longer period of time, more variation develops because theres more mutation over a longer time period.


The flood event as described in the bible, explains that only a certain amount of animals were taken aboard, to quote the passages in the bible:
Genesis 6:

Quote
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

Genesis 7:

Quote
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.


And just to be sure, we'll add in the parts that explain what all dies as well:

Genesis 6


Quote
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."


Genesis 7


Quote
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."


Now lets use genesis 7 for the first, its pretty clear that that gives the largest diversity but you realize that thats still a very small diversity.. It won't take 14 lions very long to turn to inbreeding for instance and through a few generations it would definitely show(in comparison, there are around 9000 - 14000 and that is already called a bottleneck and raises a genetic flag).


So we are dealing with a world wide flood that according to a literal explenation happened around 4000 years ago. So at that point, all life apart from the creatures on the ark, were killed in the flood, meaning that the genetic makeup we would see now would come exclusively from the creatures that were on the ark.

This means that we won't just see a bottleneck on cheetahs, or just lions.. No, we would see a genetic bottleneck on ALL living creatures in the world, and when calculated using the differences.. These bottlenecks would all calculate to 4000 years ago.

We do not find this. And its not something that could be overlooked either, if the cheetahs with ther 9000 - 14000 numbers already showed up in the genetic data, then a bottleneck of a mere 14 individuals of a "kind"  would definitely show off, it would be a red flag right there, and then imagine EVERY kind that exists giving the exact same red flag.. It would be like the biggest brightest neon sign in existence pointing to 4000 years ago and going "SOMETHING HAPPENED HERE !"

But we don't find that.. Why don't we find that ?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 06:02 AM on April 23, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is any creationist going to answer this one and tell me why there is no bottleneck ?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 12:44 AM on April 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They have managed to answer that there were much less mutational loads back then, or something like that.

I argued that alleles are not mutational load, and that even if a pair of animals possessed four alleles for a locus it was unlikely that the four survived up to this day, let alone MORE THAN FOUR.

Where do the alleles come from?

No answer.

I hope you now know a little more of their arguments. The pairs on the ark had super duper sets of DNA.

Hum... Now that i think about it, they've said that beneficial mutations (in which they don't believe, but of which they strangely give account) are God's foresight, manifested in the (super?)natural variability of a species.

Like nylon digesting bacteria.
They had no beneficial mutations, but their beneficial mutations were planed by God.

I hope i made no strawmen. That's, more or less, what i think they said.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:52 AM on April 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now that i think about it, even if they manage to believe that the animals in the ark had such cool sets of DNA (and that, weirdly, mutations started to happen after the ark, or that they sped up)... What about the rest of the animals?
The aquatic ones, i mean.

Bottleneck or no bottleneck, we should expect some fundamental differences in species that were decimated to two individuals, from species that never had less than hundreds of thousands of individuals.





Right?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:00 AM on April 27, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The point is though, that the numbers on the ark are tiny, if you only have a few animals and those "magically" managed to mutate at a rate much larger then evolutionary theory says is possible.. Then WHY are there cheetahs which show a bottleneck, and why are there other animals that show the same bottleneck even though their numbers are greater then basicaly all creatures on the ark combined.

It doesn't make sense.. In a scientific sense, it is unexplainable because you can't just invoke "amazing mutational ability" and then end up losing that when its convenient.

I have heard the argument before though, and that is why I added the cheetahs in there, they're the control basically.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 02:48 AM on April 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps (you can never know for sure) they might say that the cheetahs were already too mutated/devolved.
They had many deleterious mutations, whereas the animals in the ark didn't.

But, again, how did the animals in the ark mutate to catch up with the animals outside the ark, so there's no apparent distinction?

And where is the fantastic rate of mutation that gave us the cheetahs, lions, panthers and domestic cats from a pair of felines in the ark?
Why has it vanished from the historical AND the fossil record?

Why is it that the animals that happen to be mentioned in the Bible don't mutate as hard as to change their names?

My folks actually laugh at me for wasting time in those questions. They laugh at me for speaking to creationists.
We don't have many in Argentina.

I became interested in creationism a couple of years ago. I saw a couple of jokes on the Internet. And i thought to myself "How cruel for them to pick on such an easy target. To mock this poor ignorant illiterate human beings."
I had no idea that they could read, use a computer, post hoax videos on YouTube, and lobby to get creationism taught in public schools!!!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:18 AM on April 27, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My thoughts exactly, I'm from the Netherlands and al though intelligent design has been seen around here and there, it isn't openly and I haven't seen it in more then simple discussions.

I got interested at a christian festival where I saw someone speak on intelligent design and back then thought it sounded really logical. I looked into it though and found more and more bullshit on it and decided to jump into the fray.

You make some very good points, and someone from talkorigins actually explains the points more clearly:

http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2009_02.html

It only makes the argument even wider, giving more and support for the fact that any alternative method (or problem to the original method) can't produce all the results we find as clearly as we find them.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 06:49 AM on April 27, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

zucadragon
Is any creationist going to answer this one and tell me why there is no bottleneck ?


Perhaps a little research on our part is in order. This is indeed an excellent observation which in my estimation deserves a well reasoned reply.

Not many are as gifted as wisp at answering "off the cuff" as it were.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 08:38 AM on April 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know i posted jokingly, and even mockingly (that's my style). But i haven't made any strawmen, have i?

If i have, i'll take it back on the spot.

For what it's worth, if i mock your position it's because i give you more credit than those i would never mock. You don't happen to be the ignorant hillbillies that i used to believe.

Cheers.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:10 AM on April 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Zucadragon at 06:49 AM on April 27, 2009 :
My thoughts exactly, I'm from the Netherlands and al though intelligent design has been seen around here and there, it isn't openly and I haven't seen it in more then simple discussions.



Unfortunately, a large part of American society is not as academically and culturally advanced as the general populations in other countries.  We still have a large segment of our population that believes in UFO's, ghosts, astrology, and a literal interpetation of the Bible.  It really pretty embarrassing.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:51 PM on April 27, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wonder if the creationists are still going to reply to this.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 04:04 AM on May 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

At least they have made some attempt of an answer about this subject in the past.

Not one that stands, but one that tried.

I'm still waiting to get a useful reply to taxonomy, apes and information.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:25 AM on May 7, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

and what about all the species-specific diseases that would have had to be included on the ark?   who had time to do all that reproducing and mutating after the flood?  these creatures would have been WAY too busy dying from the plagues and pestilence that hitched a ride...
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 11:13 AM on May 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

and what about all the species-specific diseases that would have had to be included on the ark?
Yeah. We have gonorrhea, for instance.

Yahweh chose from the human population of the entire world... and couldn't or wouldn't get rid of that...

who had time to do all that reproducing and mutating after the flood?
Indeed. They didn't have enough alleles to fight any disease, or to evolve into the variety of, say, the felines we have today. They should have bred (and died, of course) in huge numbers to cover for the lack of alleles (and that assuming that they didn't carry any deleterious mutations into the ark).

Just a couple of individuals who would not make a viable population gave birth to dozens of species, in a period of 4k years, spreading from a single spot, leaving no evidence (genetic, fossils, anything) behind...

And they managed to do all that WITHOUT EVOLUTION!!

Perhaps they had many sets of intelligently designed chromosomes, and randomly devolved into two.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:55 AM on May 12, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 08:38 AM on April 27, 2009 :
zucadragon
Is any creationist going to answer this one and tell me why there is no bottleneck ?


Perhaps a little research on our part is in order. This is indeed an excellent observation which in my estimation deserves a well reasoned reply.

Not many are as gifted as wisp at answering "off the cuff" as it were.



Sure taking a long time, and no other responses from creationists either.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 02:17 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, they've got 'research'* to do...


Of note, some creationists have published a computer program that they claim more accurately represents population/evolutionary genetics than any other program out there,and, amazingly, when they run scenarios they always end in extinction, thus, evolution must be false.

Well, the default variables they use have been shown to be very questinable, but of real interest is that they haveyet to run THEIR preferred scenario throuugh it - starting with a single breeding pair and running it for a simulated 6,000 years...  Wonder why...

In fact, they made their program so you CANNOT start with a singloe breeding pair!

But they are open-minded truth seekers....






*research means searching YEC websites for pre-fabricated rhetorical bluffs, so it seems...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:40 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 10:40 AM on July 28, 2009 :
Of note, some creationists have published a computer program that ...


That's hilarious.  Back in medieval times, aka known as student days, I wrote a rather simple genetic algorithm computer program just to play around and explore some ideas.  Anyway, my populations all turned into carnivores eventually regardless of starting parameters.  I thought it was funny, and luckily, it was just something I did for kicks over a Christmas break once.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 12:38 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is one genetic bottleneck that I'm aware of: the cheetah. The bottleneck is so thin that any cheetah can get a skin graph from any other cheetah without it rejecting the graph! This is scary, as the cheetah doesn't have the necessary genetic variability to withstand any fatal disease, and soon incest will become a problem if it isn't already. If Noah's flood is true than we should see every animal with such limited gene pools, and ultimately the end of life on Earth very soon due to infertility and disease.  


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 4:13 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 4:13 PM on July 28, 2009 :
If Noah's flood is true than we should see every animal with such limited gene pools, and ultimately the end of life on Earth very soon due to infertility and disease.  


Sure but, you know, the YEC has a ready-made post hoc rationalization/cop-out - miracle.

Whenever the YEC is presented with fact-based devastations of their mythololgy, they hide behind magic.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:47 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 7:47 PM on July 28, 2009 :
Sure but, you know, the YEC has a ready-made post hoc rationalization/cop-out - miracle.

Whenever the YEC is presented with fact-based devastations of their mythololgy, they hide behind magic.


I wish I could hide behind magic, it would make my world view so much more simple. I wouldn't have to think and I could just let my brain atrophy into a blissful state of incoherent ideas chanting 'God did it'. Unfortunately for them I aspire to a more fitting theology and education than the limited mindset of the creationist.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 05:33 AM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Zucadragon at 06:49 AM on April 27, 2009 :
My thoughts exactly, I'm from the Netherlands and al though intelligent design has been seen around here and there, it isn't openly and I haven't seen it in more then simple discussions.


Then welcome to... America! Land of the free and home of the creationist museum! Inside you can see Jesus cradling a baby rappter in His arms, and little kids playing with dinosaurs. And don't forget the squeamish depiction of Earth as it falls into SIN because of, LIBERALS, SCIENTISTS, ATHEISTS, HOMOSEXUALS, TEENAGERS, MODERN SOCIETY, and EVILUTIONISTS!


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 05:54 AM on July 29, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The poster is using hard genetic evidence to make an inductive and not to mention flawed case.

Let's consider the two situations  in the last 4000 years.  

First and foremost,  cheetahs were bred by man for hunting. The gene pool is narrowed in breeding. This is a monumental oversight in your reasoning.

Second, cheetahs are predators and invasive to man. That is man has competed for resources with cheetahs i.e livestock, and wild game.  Cheetahs being a threat to man, the population was probably never allowed to get out of control.  They were probably, as at present, kept in isolated populations for the last 4000 years.

Bats, unlike cheetahs, are ubiquitous, living in all kinds of habitats.  They eat insects and are helpful in pollination of flowers.  So their habitat and resources are world wide--not isolated.  It would be expected that they would have a large gene pool and diversity in their genome.

You might need to start with another premise.

As for the ark and flood.  The book of Genesis does not cater to modern scientific thought.  It can be a general scientific model, just like the geologic timescale is for evolutionist.

Being a model then, there is room for theory and hypotheses within it.  Speciation and variation have occurred since the ark.  The animals that came on the ark were not modern animals but ancestors, so it was not necessary to have 1100 species of bat on the ark.  Two bats came to Noah and they speciated into the variety we see today.  The same with horses, zebras, and donkeys--two ancestors.

As for feeding, excrement removal and ventilation.   God is not stupid.  Hibernation would solve this problem completely.  

Finally, if you remove all supernatural possibility, then your methodology of obtaining knowledge is insufficient to obtain truth.  It is beyond question that supernatural evidence exist.




(Edited by AFJ 7/29/2009 at 10:22 AM).

(Edited by AFJ 7/29/2009 at 10:25 AM).

(Edited by AFJ 7/29/2009 at 10:26 AM).

(Edited by AFJ 7/29/2009 at 10:33 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:17 AM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 10:17 AM on July 29, 2009 :
If you look at other species, like the bat for instance, there's literally thousands of bat species and genetically there's a lot more variation because bats haven't gone through a bottleneck.


As for the ark and flood... Two bats came to Noah and they speciated to today's modern animals.  The same with horses, zebras, and donkeys--two ancestors.


First, welcome AFJ. From everything you've said I take it you're a YEC (young earth creationist)?

From your first post you implied that Noah and the flood happened around 4K yrs. ago, and all the animals we see today came from two of every animal. The original question proposed is why don't we see genetic bottlenecks of every species, or kind, pointing 4K yrs. ago? Or how did two bats make 1,100 different species in 4K yrs?

Finally, if you remove all supernatural possibility, then your methodology of obtaining knowledge is insufficient to obtain truth.


In principle I would agree, but in science you must discount any supernatural possibility and focus on the observable, natural phenomenon. Supernatural ideas are best left in the hands of theologians to be explained by religion and philosophy.

In terms of quoting, when you want to start a quote use this (but not spaced): [ quote ] and when you want to end a quote use this: [ quote / ] Just make sure you have an equal number of both, otherwise freaky stuff happens to the code.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:59 AM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 10:17 AM on July 29, 2009 :
The poster is using hard genetic evidence to make an inductive and not to mention flawed case.

Let's consider the two situations  in the last 4000 years.  

First and foremost,  cheetahs were bred by man for hunting. The gene pool is narrowed in breeding. This is a monumental oversight in your reasoning.

Second, cheetahs are predators and invasive to man. That is man has competed for resources with cheetahs i.e livestock, and wild game.  Cheetahs being a threat to man, the population was probably never allowed to get out of control.  They were probably, as at present, kept in isolated populations for the last 4000 years.

Bats, unlike cheetahs, are ubiquitous, living in all kinds of habitats.  They eat insects and are helpful in pollination of flowers.  So their habitat and resources are world wide--not isolated.  It would be expected that they would have a large gene pool and diversity in their genome.

You might need to start with another premise.

As for the ark and flood.  The book of Genesis does not cater to modern scientific thought.  It can be a general scientific model, just like the geologic timescale is for evolutionist.

Being a model then, there is room for theory and hypotheses within it.  Speciation and variation have occurred since the ark.  The animals that came on the ark were not modern animals but ancestors, so it was not necessary to have 1100 species of bat on the ark.  Two bats came to Noah and they speciated into the variety we see today.  The same with horses, zebras, and donkeys--two ancestors.

As for feeding, excrement removal and ventilation.   God is not stupid.  Hibernation would solve this problem completely.  

Finally, if you remove all supernatural possibility, then your methodology of obtaining knowledge is insufficient to obtain truth.  It is beyond question that supernatural evidence exist.




(Edited by AFJ 7/29/2009 at 10:22 AM).

(Edited by AFJ 7/29/2009 at 10:25 AM).

(Edited by AFJ 7/29/2009 at 10:26 AM).

(Edited by AFJ 7/29/2009 at 10:33 AM).


You would've made a good case if it weren't for the fact that cheetah is simply an example.

There's a lot more other species that are either in a bottleneck, or have just passed a bottleneck.

Bottleneck Data

But the problem with the creationist model isn't about "how" a species got into the bottleneck.

Let me explain for instance, using your own bat, you're saying that in the span of 4000 years, two bats multiplied and diversified into about 1100 different species. (known species).

That is a new species roughly each year. And there's a lot lot lot of differences in bat species out there.

BUT, at the same time  9000 - 12000 cheetahs can only manage to inbreed in reality.

Do you see the scale of what you're proposing?


Cheetahs, 9000 individuals cannot stop imbreeding and do not produce enough genetic.

You have to explain why 9000 individuals can only seem to inbreed, yet 2 individuals do not face this problem and can produce a huge diversity of species within a short period of time.

That is the real issue. Not the inbreeding itself.

Before you go, let us focus for instance on genetic diversity. Let's pick humans for this one, to make it easier.

One bat will have 2 alleles of every gene, meaning that the maximum difference that every bat has, is those 2 alleles. (for instance, one bat can have an allele for eye color green and one for blue, but not a third one for brown).

So if there were two bats on the ark, that effectively gives them 4 alleles to diversify from.
4 different alleles is nothing.

But you are proposing that these two bats, with only four alleles could mutate fast enough to produce 1100 different species with a vast range of alleles.

But the cheetahs, who easily have more allele difference than 4, and with an amount of 9000.

Cannot mutate fast enough?

Again, you need to explain this, how come?




 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 12:25 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the welcome fencer.  I hope I didn't come on like a bull in a china shop.  Have not been able to get on my regular forum.  I suspect the moderator, however I have no proof.

I am a science student/ enthusiast and personally a creationist.  I also make a distinction between scientific format and religious format.  However, in this case we're speaking of 1)historical science.  

Current evidence can be used to make inductive conclusions--which is the realm of possibilities--not conclusive fact.  Deductive conclusions can be used in operational science such as chemistry, or hydrology.

We are also talking about 2)origins.  This is touchy, logically, philosophically, ethically, socially and theologically.  The lines can be drawn and understood mentally about the rules of empirical science, but because the logic of only natural means for something we did not cause, and can not create ourselves enters into the thought process, there are other lines of thinking outside empirical science that will naturally enter in.

Notice that no one questions seriously the findings of scientific research when they go through the scientific method.  It is centrally the interpretations of evidence concerning origins that are questioned.

(Edited by AFJ 7/29/2009 at 12:36 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:32 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh and welcome as well
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 12:39 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer,
I understand your questions. I am not a geneticist, so give me a little time to research this.  I'm going away on vacation so it may be a while but I will get back.  I like doing this because that helps me to learn also.  AFJ
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:41 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AFJ,
Have fun on vacation, it's summer so relax. I rarely do research for forums, so good luck on that front, you'll probably do much better than I ever would.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 1:28 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Fencer,

Just a prelim b4 I go.  Got a chance for a read.  To start here's a link (not yec) on rapid speciation in butterflies.  According to one video, most modern dog species came from a handful of dog varieties in the 16th century, and a number of them were not a result of breeding.

I may have been wrong about 2 ancestors, maybe there were 4 ancestors of bats.  There are megabats and microbats.  The primary difference is that megas do not have radar.  Seems like two different lines.  

As for your comments on limited alleles in eye color, creationist have long asserted a loss of information through mutation and speciation (since the flood).  The genomes of animals on the ark have been theorized to have much more information.  

There is no way to research a bat genome 4300 years ago.  But baraminological studies are studying hybrids to determine the original kinds.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:18 PM on July 29, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 9:18 PM on July 29, 2009 :
Hey Fencer,

Just a prelim b4 I go.  Got a chance for a read.  To start here's a link (not yec) on rapid speciation in butterflies.  According to one video, most modern dog species came from a handful of dog varieties in the 16th century, and a number of them were not a result of breeding.

I may have been wrong about 2 ancestors, maybe there were 4 ancestors of bats.  There are megabats and microbats.  The primary difference is that megas do not have radar.  Seems like two different lines.  

As for your comments on limited alleles in eye color, creationist have long asserted a loss of information through mutation and speciation (since the flood).  The genomes of animals on the ark have been theorized to have much more information.  

There is no way to research a bat genome 4300 years ago.  But baraminological studies are studying hybrids to determine the original kinds.


That link isn't on rapid speciation in butterflies, that link is on rapid mutation and adaption to a new environment (namely one with a pathogen). It is something completely different.

Speciation deals with the inability of a species to mate, for instance, speciation would be:

Butterfly species seperates in two large groups, one in europe, one in afrika. After 3000 years of evolution, they return to find that they can't mate with eachother anymore, which in turn classifies them as two seperate species.


I'm going to leave the "now there's 4" bats argument alone, basically you're saying: (I cannot explain 2 bats, so lets make it 4) eventhough the problem still remains, 4 bats have 8 alleles for a specific gene, and this still isn't enough to evolve all the variation we see.


But lets get to the crux of your argument, the "supergenome" basically, which is the idea that people started out with a lot more information, a lot more alleles, and it all vanished over time, leaving us with what we have now.

You say it correctly when you say "creationists have long asserted a loss of information since the flood"

But now you have to actually provide evidence for this, because such a wild assertion definitely needs evidence.

I on the same hand, am going to counter the assertion by showing you nylonase.

Nylonase wiki

It clearly shows the addition of something completely new in recent times. Nylon doesn't exist in any natural form and I can look it up, but I remember it having a specific link that also doesn't exist naturally.

This makes the evolution of nylonase a completely unique event that produces completely new information, information that did not exist before the creation of the non-natural nylon.

If you disagree, then I want to first know what information is, because otherwise we'll be playing a game of defining information in every possible way that doesn't correlate with anything evolutionary.

So yeah, in a way, that is a question, looking at it genetically, according to you, what is information?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 02:51 AM on July 30, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can you tell me how to use this quote function.  It's different than what I'm use to.

Zucadragon,
Hi.  I should have put "rapid evolution" or "potential rapid speciation."  The article deals more with NS than speciation.  

Yes, I realize that speciation isn't going to happen in 2 years.  But we were talking in context of bottlenecks and they are caused when a species becomes endangered by low population.    The butterflies were becoming endangered because 90% of the males had died.  There are varying degrees of bottlenecks.

According to evolutionary doctrine, genetic bottlenecks cause genetic drift.  (1 )You have to have drift to speciate.  I understand isolation in speciation.  There are also theories of speciation without complete isolation, though I am not so keen on them (parapatric and sympatric).  

The point is that there cases of speciation within families of animals in recent history.  Creationists do not need millions or billions of years for their model.  We start with fully formed ancestors, not microorganisms.

As for the bat alleles.  I believe you are using present evidence for the past.  Today 4 bats don't have many alleles for eye color? That is today.  No one can say how much information has been lost.  We have only started mapping the genome of organisms,  and don't know many of the mechanisms for genetics.  

I was also was not being dogmatic on 4 bats, no one could say.  It is a hypothesis within a model.

(Edited by AFJ 7/30/2009 at 08:54 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 08:48 AM on July 30, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Use commands to make quotes, for instance:  [ quote]  text [ /quote]  (without the spaces) will give you

text


Now back to your argumentation, it falls down to this point:

As for the bat alleles.  I believe you are using present evidence for the past.  Today 4 bats don't have many alleles for eye color? That is today.  No one can say how much information has been lost.  We have only started mapping the genome of organisms,  and don't know many of the mechanisms for genetics.  


Sadly enough, again, this does not explain anything.

All animals have two alleles for a given genes.. ALL ANIMALS.
For this idea to have any merit, you're basically saying "but in the past, they could have more, so those two bats (or 6, or 16 or whatever) from the ark, could have more alleles.

Your argument is that "information has only been lost"

But I need you to support that with sound reasoning or better yet, evidence, and that requires some work, because first of all.

You need to explain what information means in a biological context, so you have to give a definition of information, a definition that fits reality.

On top of that though, I need you to explain how, how much, who what where. I need you to explain to me where creationists believe this information was, how it was there and by what mechanism it was "lost"

If you don't do that, it's just making up a story to fit the other story. All animals today with all DNA today, works under the same rules, if you want us to believe it worked differently than today, then you have to make a case for it.

Assuming it, doesn't make it true.



(Edited by Zucadragon 7/30/2009 at 3:06 PM).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 12:18 PM on July 30, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sadly enough, again, this does not explain anything.

All animals have two alleles for a given genes.. ALL ANIMALS.
For this idea to have any merit, you're basically saying "but in the past, they could have more, so those two bats (or 6, or 16 or whatever) from the ark, could have more alleles.

Your argument is that "information has only been lost"

But I need you to support that with sound reasoning or better yet, evidence, and that requires some work, because first of all.

You need to explain what information means in a biological context, so you have to give a definition of information, a definition that fits reality.

On top of that though, I need you to explain how, how much, who what where. I need you to explain to me where creationists believe this information was, how it was there and by what mechanism it was "lost"

If you don't do that, it's just making up a story to fit the other story. All animals today with all DNA today, works under the same rules, if you want us to believe it worked differently than today, then you have to make a case for it.


Just thought id jump in on this thread. Why cant mutations account for the variety of DNA we see today? Sorry if i missed the answer earlier.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:26 AM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 02:26 AM on July 31, 2009 :
Sadly enough, again, this does not explain anything.

All animals have two alleles for a given genes.. ALL ANIMALS.
For this idea to have any merit, you're basically saying "but in the past, they could have more, so those two bats (or 6, or 16 or whatever) from the ark, could have more alleles.

Your argument is that "information has only been lost"

But I need you to support that with sound reasoning or better yet, evidence, and that requires some work, because first of all.

You need to explain what information means in a biological context, so you have to give a definition of information, a definition that fits reality.

On top of that though, I need you to explain how, how much, who what where. I need you to explain to me where creationists believe this information was, how it was there and by what mechanism it was "lost"

If you don't do that, it's just making up a story to fit the other story. All animals today with all DNA today, works under the same rules, if you want us to believe it worked differently than today, then you have to make a case for it.


Just thought id jump in on this thread. Why cant mutations account for the variety of DNA we see today? Sorry if i missed the answer earlier.


It can, but not in the creationist model. The creationist model asserts that all todays species mutated from either a single pair of animals, or 7 animals (as talked about in the bible). And that rate of mutation is simply impossible.

The evolution theory explains that these changes happened over millions of years.



(Edited by Zucadragon 7/31/2009 at 03:53 AM).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 03:43 AM on July 31, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It can, but not in the creationist model. The creationist model asserts that all todays species mutated from either a single pair of animals, or 7 animals (as talked about in the bible). And that rate of mutation is simply impossible.

The evolution theory explains that these changes happened over millions of years.


If a pair of every major species (like two dogs, not two of every breed of dogs) were put in the ark, the species we see now could have arisen. As was pointed out, the breeds of dogs have come about in a relatively short period of time. This could have happened with the other animals too.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 01:09 AM on August 1, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If a pair of every major species (like two dogs, not two of every breed of dogs) were put in the ark, the species we see now could have arisen. As was pointed out, the breeds of dogs have come about in a relatively short period of time. This could have happened with the other animals too.

No, it couldn't.  The evidence is out there, why do you avoid it so desperately?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:47 AM on August 1, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:47 AM on August 1, 2009 :
If a pair of every major species (like two dogs, not two of every breed of dogs) were put in the ark, the species we see now could have arisen. As was pointed out, the breeds of dogs have come about in a relatively short period of time. This could have happened with the other animals too.

No, it couldn't.  The evidence is out there, why do you avoid it so desperately?



As noted in the initial post, if all animal descended from just a few members of their species within the last few thousands years, then we should see genetic bottlenecks in all them.  We don't.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 1:40 PM on August 1, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 01:09 AM on August 1, 2009 :
It can, but not in the creationist model. The creationist model asserts that all todays species mutated from either a single pair of animals, or 7 animals (as talked about in the bible). And that rate of mutation is simply impossible.

The evolution theory explains that these changes happened over millions of years.


If a pair of every major species (like two dogs, not two of every breed of dogs) were put in the ark, the species we see now could have arisen. As was pointed out, the breeds of dogs have come about in a relatively short period of time. This could have happened with the other animals too.


You say this, but you need to explain how this can occur. Dog breeding dates back as far as 15000 years ago, thats 11000 more years then the creationist flood idea.

But lets assume you are right. Then all evidence would still point towards a common ancestor who survived the flood. These "red flags" I spoke off would be visible in all species alive this day, because literally all species would be descendants from the twos on the ark.

We have two scenario's now:

One requires you to explain why there aren't any genetic flags bouncing up in every species alive, because they're all descendants from two parents on the ark.

Idea Two requires you to explain what would somehow work differently genetically to allow such gigantic rates of mutation. Because what you propose requires rates that are hundreds times faster then todays.

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 2:47 PM on August 1, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from zucadragon--One requires you to explain why there aren't any genetic flags bouncing up in every species alive, because they're all descendants from two parents on the ark.

Idea Two requires you to explain what would somehow work differently genetically to allow such gigantic rates of mutation. Because what you propose requires rates that are hundreds times faster then todays.



I'm not really sure what the problem is here.  I'm sure you've heard of mitochondiral Eve.  This is evidence of a "bottleneck" only thousands of years ago in the human race. The mitochondrial DNA is inherited through the mother and is very similar in all races, even though the phenotypes have changed i.e. the races.  

Cheetahs have a low sperm count and flagella problems in the sperm.  Is this what you guys are talking about when you say red flags?  What other supposed evidences of bottleneck are we looking for?

We are talking about little change within the baramin (created kinds), not a baramin change.  Evolution requires major emergence i.e. bacteria to plants and animals.  The creation model requires ancestors of the horse and zebra (change within "kinds").  That is not alot of change.  

Natural selection is actually working to delete information from the DNA, so if there was much more information in the genome in Genesis, then it would match a lower variation mechanism today.

Another thing that can color our thinking is the evolutionary idea of unguided mutation.  Bacteria and plasmids work together to alter their DNA.  This could just as well be a picture of guided mutations.  It is seen that horizontal gene transfer is a mechanism for adaptation in bacteria, but even HGT comes with physiological "tradeoffs" in the phenotype.  The change is limited , and sometimes temporary.

So my questions are...

1)why is it so hard to believe that the God placed mechanisms in the genome at the beginning to produce the diversity we see today?  Which incidentally would be small changes in the phenotypes within the created kinds.

2)What kind of genetic markers do you accept as evidence for bottleneck?

 



(Edited by AFJ 8/2/2009 at 11:16 AM).

(Edited by AFJ 8/2/2009 at 11:17 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 09:49 AM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sure you've heard of mitochondiral Eve.  This is evidence of a "bottleneck" only thousands of years ago in the human race. The mitochondrial DNA is inherited through the mother and is very similar in all races, even though the phenotypes have changed i.e. the races.

Mitochondrial Eve is NOT evidence of a genetic bottle neck, from here:
MItochondrial Eve

"Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has postulated that human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one's mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one's father) show coalescence at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago respectively. In other words, all living humans' female line ancestry trace back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago. Via the male line, all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at around 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.[2]

However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited from either father or mother, thus can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[3] Research on many (but not necessarily most) genes find different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e. a single breeding pair).[4][5]"

So your point is disproven.

Natural selection is actually working to delete information from the DNA, so if there was much more information in the genome in Genesis, then it would match a lower variation mechanism today.

Define information.  And mutation can add information to the DNA so your claim is false.

1)why is it so hard to believe that the God placed mechanisms in the genome at the beginning to produce the diversity we see today?  Which incidentally would be small changes in the phenotypes within the created kinds.

No evidence of god, we see the mechanisms of change and there is no need for a creator.

2)What kind of genetic markers do you accept as evidence for bottleneck?

From here:
BottleNeck

"Knowledge of mutation rates also permits reconstruction of past population sizes. A small number of genetic differences between individuals in a population or species may indicate either a recent origin, or a population bottleneck. Which of these two possible causes is responsible can be determined by measuring the number of so-called pairwise differences (mismatch distributions) in the DNA sequences that occur between individuals. Population expansion times are earlier for populations with higher average pairwise differences. Irregular mismatch distributions indicate long-term populations that have been stable for long times."


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:09 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Define information.  And mutation can add information to the DNA so your claim is false."

No let me context it.  Added information of the sort that would change a phenotype to the proportions that evolution requires is not observed.  Only recombination or deletion of existing genetic material.  

There are beneficial mutations, though most are deleterious.  I realize that modern evolutionary doctrine has added mutation to NS as mechanism for change.

But your premise that my claim is false-- what evidence shows that NS does not delete information and has therefore not had a role in deletion of genetic information?


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:57 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 4:57 PM on August 2, 2009 :
"Define information.  And mutation can add information to the DNA so your claim is false."

No let me context it.  Added information of the sort that would change a phenotype to the proportions that evolution requires is not observed.   


That is incorrect - note the flycatcher story reported here on this forum.

Quote from AFJ at 4:57 PM on August 2, 2009 : There are beneficial mutations, though most are deleterious.  


Most mutations are neutral or harmful, but nevertheless, beneficial mutations can become fixed in a population rather quickly.  





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 7:09 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No let me context it.  Added information of the sort that would change a phenotype to the proportions that evolution requires is not observed.  Only recombination or deletion of existing genetic material.

Untrue.  Mutations to HOX genes can do just that, and this has been observed.  From here:
HOX Genes

"Mutations to homeobox genes can produce easily visible phenotypic changes.

Two examples of homeobox mutations in the above-mentioned fruit fly are legs where the antennae should be (antennapedia), and a second pair of wings.

Duplication of homeobox genes can produce new body segments, and such duplications are likely to have been important in the evolution of segmented animals.

Interestingly, there is one insect family, the xyelid sawflies, in which both the antennae and mouthparts are remarkably leg-like in structure. This is not uncommon in arthropods as all arthropod appendages are homologous."

But your premise that my claim is false-- what evidence shows that NS does not delete information and has therefore not had a role in deletion of genetic information?

But your claim wasn't just that NS can delete genetic information, your claim was:

"Natural selection is actually working to delete information from the DNA, so if there was much more information in the genome in Genesis, then it would match a lower variation mechanism today."

So no matter what the amount of information present at the time of Genesis, there is no reason to believe there would be less now.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:41 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


"Two examples of homeobox mutations in the above-mentioned fruit fly are legs where the antennae should be (antennapedia), and a second pair of wings."

These legs do not function.  Theoretically NS will root them out.  Antenna serve a viable purpose and will survive.

Legs are not new---they are old information simply produced in a different place on the anatomy.


Think for a second if evolution is true--at one point in time there was no such thing as legs.
Evolution had to produce a new machine for transport and put it where it was beneficial for survival.

It did all this without a blueprint or even an idea.  It didn't know where it was going--it just finally mutated until the legs were profitable for survival.  


"But your claim wasn't just that NS can delete genetic information, your claim was:

"Natural selection is actually working to delete information from the DNA, so if there was much more information in the genome in Genesis, then it would match a lower variation mechanism today."

So no matter what the amount of information present at the time of Genesis, there is no reason to believe there would be less now."

WHY?  Look at the cambrian explosion and how many extinct phyla there are--whether you interpret in evolutionary context or the flood--there was more phyla and so a great portion of the overall gene pool was lost.  

Perhaps you believe that the evolutionary mutation rate than what NS would delete.  That is why we are calling them theories--they are dealing with the past.

As for dating bottlenecks--this is untestable since no one can observe thousands of years.


(Edited by AFJ 8/2/2009 at 8:41 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:30 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Two examples of homeobox mutations in the above-mentioned fruit fly are legs where the antennae should be (antennapedia), and a second pair of wings."

These legs do not function.  Theoretically NS will root them out.  Antenna serve a viable purpose and will survive.

Legs are not new---they are old information simply produced in a different place on the anatomy.

Think for a second if evolution is true--at one point in time there was no such thing as legs.
Evolution had to produce a new machine for transport and put it where it was beneficial for survival.

It did all this without a blueprint or even an idea.  It didn't know where it was going--it just finally mutated until the legs were profitable for survival.  


ANOTHER QUOTE  I have not figured this thing out yet, if anyone could help me.  

"But your claim wasn't just that NS can delete genetic information, your claim was:

"Natural selection is actually working to delete information from the DNA, so if there was much more information in the genome in Genesis, then it would match a lower variation mechanism today."

So no matter what the amount of information present at the time of Genesis, there is no reason to believe there would be less now."[b/]




WHY?  Look at the cambrian explosion and how many extinct phyla there are--whether you interpret in evolutionary context or the flood--there were more phyla and so a great portion of the overall gene pool was lost.  

Perhaps you believe that the evolutionary mutation rate is faster than what NS would delete.  That is why we are calling them theories--they are dealing with the past.

As for dating bottlenecks--this is untestable since no one can observe thousands of years to confirm these statements.






 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:54 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 7:54 PM on August 2, 2009 :
Legs are not new---they are old information simply produced in a different place on the anatomy.




You need to define what you mean by the use of the word information.  Your comment doesn't make sense if we use the word information to refer to the structural arrangement of nucleotides or something similar.



(Edited by Mustrum 8/2/2009 at 10:13 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:13 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 7:54 PM on August 2, 2009 :
ANOTHER QUOTE  I have not figured this thing out yet, if anyone could help me.  



To quote text type (without spaces) [ quote ] at the beginning of the text, and [ / quote ] at the end of the text.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:15 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 7:54 PM on August 2, 2009 :
WHY?  Look at the cambrian explosion and how many extinct phyla there are--whether you interpret in evolutionary context or the flood--there were more phyla and so a great portion of the overall gene pool was lost.  



There is a much greater variety of life today than during the Cambrian period. Plus, consider that before the Cambrian there was even less variety among life forms.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:20 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 7:54 PM on August 2, 2009 :

Perhaps you believe that the evolutionary mutation rate is faster than what NS would delete.  That is why we are calling them theories--they are dealing with the past.



The notion that natural selection only works to so as to simplify the genetic code is incorrect.  Evolution can work so that the genetic code either increases or decreases in complexity.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:22 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 8:54 PM on August 2, 2009 :
That is why we are calling them theories--they are dealing with the past.


Actually a theory in science is the highest recognition a model can get. No matter how many times any theory is proven correct, it will always be a theory, never a fact, never a law, never truth.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:41 AM on August 3, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.