YECs are closet macro evolutionists because of Noah's Ark

A forum for discussion and criticism of specialized topics relevant (pro and con) to Creation Science - fossil dating, flood geology, C14, K/Ar, radio metric dating, diffusion dating, racemization dating, DNA dating, stellar and planetary evolution, erosion dating, fast stratification, interpretations of the geological column, baraminology, distant starlight problem, Y-chromosomal Adam/Noah/Aaron/Abraham, mitochondrial Eve, Tower of Babel, Proton-21 laboratory, Sodom and Gomorrah, OEC,YEC, Progressive creation, white hole cosmology, Carmeli cosmology, VSL theories, alternate electrodynamics, mantle plume theories, folding rock theories, RATE work, planetary magnetism, faint young sun paradox, moon recession, ocean mineral saturation, astrometry and proper motion surveys, very long baseline interferometry, CMBR, moon evolution, cosmological vs. non-cosmological red shifts, polonium halos, Hydro Plates and Castastrophic Plates, varves, tree rings, noah's ark, over thrusts, lithification, hydrologic sorting, canopy theory, crater theory, planetary heating, ancient civilizations, Atlantis, trophical trees in the arctic, woolly mammoths and tropical trees in Siberia, UFOs and creationism, comets and orbital mechanics, planet satellite capture problems, planetary rings, origin of folded rocks, the Grand Canyon, the Green River valley, the Three Sisters, mountain formation, seafloor formation, tectonics, etc.

YECs are closet macro evolutionists because of Noah's Ark

Postby stcordova » Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:55 pm

Here is something written by a Christian Darwinists in my denomination (PCA). I don't agree with his final conclusion, but he has stated a legitimate problem that may take a long time to resolve in the YEC community. It points to something I've said, "YECs are closet macro evolutionists" because of the problem of fitting creatures onto the ARK. Many YECs don't use the word, "macro evolution", but some of the scale of change needed to fit all the animals on the ark are approaching high speed macroevolution evolution. I don't think this problem will be solved anytime soon:

Invoking Super-Speed Evolution: How to Squeeze 10,000+ Bird Species onto Noah’s Ark

It would be a great research project for a YEC that is open to novel kinds of evolution. I'm posting it here on the forum so I don't forget where I found the information.
stcordova
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Re: YECs are closet macro evolutionists because of Noah's Ar

Postby Robert Byers » Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:53 pm

AMEN from a YEC.!!
Figuring out how to squeeze creatures into as few KINDS as possible for the Ark and other reasons IS a topic on conversation amongst YEC thinkers.
The bible says after its KIND, Clean 7 pairs, unclean 2 pairs,
A dove and crow were mentioned and so there is these kinds of birds so birds are not just a single kind. The snake lost their legs at the fall and so all snakes are one kind and so only one kind was on the ark. All the rest later were adaptations from the original ark pair.
Yes YEC needs to squeeze greatly things down.
I say bears , seals, dogs, are from the same kind and marsupials are just placentals with pouches. Thus the true reason why having perfect sameness in the bodies for many. not convergent evolution.
I say all marine mammals were on the ark and only afterwards adapted to the seas.

Other mechanisms, as shown by peoples colours and shapes, are there to bring quick change to biology.
Biology is very complicated and glorious.
Robert Byers
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:57 pm

Re: YECs are closet macro evolutionists because of Noah's Ar

Postby johnspenn » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:27 pm

I'm not quite as extreme as Mr. Byers regarding the speciation events post-flood. For instance, I believe whales and dolphins and other sea-going mammals were created on the fifth creation day, along with the fish and etc.

However, the speciation that did occur was NOT macroevolution as it is popularly understood. It was adaptation according to pre-loaded genetic plasticity placed there by an all knowing God who told all the living things he created to "Be fruitful, and multiply" and fill both the land and the seas with life.

Not random, not mutation. The fittest arrived because the programming in the original genetic code made radical adaptation possible.
johnspenn
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: YECs are closet macro evolutionists because of Noah's Ar

Postby Thorton » Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:05 pm

johnspenn wrote:I'm not quite as extreme as Mr. Byers regarding the speciation events post-flood. For instance, I believe whales and dolphins and other sea-going mammals were created on the fifth creation day, along with the fish and etc.

However, the speciation that did occur was NOT macroevolution as it is popularly understood. It was adaptation according to pre-loaded genetic plasticity placed there by an all knowing God who told all the living things he created to "Be fruitful, and multiply" and fill both the land and the seas with life.

Not random, not mutation. The fittest arrived because the programming in the original genetic code made radical adaptation possible.


Unfortunately for you that claim is contradicted by literally tens of thousands of studies we have on the fossil and genetic evidence for the evolution of cetaceans over the last 40 million years.

The Evolution of Whales

Research on the Origin and Early Evolution of Whales (Cetacea)

Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and Character Evolution

Genome-Wide Scans for Candidate Genes Involved in the Aquatic Adaptation of Dolphins

Vestibular evidence for the evolution of aquatic behaviour in early cetaceans

Development and evolution of the unique cetacean dentition.

Of course no evidence of your supposed "pre-loaded genetic plasticity" shows up in the genomes of the extant marine mammals whose genomes we've sequenced to date. What has shown up however is the genetic evidence of how the cetaceans lost their hind limbs.

Developmental basis for hind-limb loss in dolphins and origin of the cetacean bodyplan
Thewissen et al
PNAS vol. 103 no. 22 8414–8418 May 2006

Abstract: Among mammals, modern cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) are unusual in the absence of hind limbs. However, cetacean embryos do initiate hind-limb bud development. In dolphins, the bud arrests and degenerates around the fifth gestational week. Initial limb outgrowth in amniotes is maintained by two signaling centers, the apical ectodermal ridge (AER) and the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA). Our data indicate that the cetacean hind-limb bud forms an AER and that this structure expresses Fgf8 initially, but that neither the AER nor Fgf8 expression is maintained. Moreover, Sonic hedgehog (Shh), which mediates the signaling activity of the ZPA, is absent from the dolphin hind-limb bud. We find that failure to establish a ZPA is associated with the absence of Hand2, an upstream regulator of Shh. Interpreting our results in the context of both the cetacean fossil record and the known functions of Shh suggests that reduction of Shh expression may have occurred ≈41 million years ago and led to the loss of distal limb elements. The total loss of Shh expression may account for the further loss of hind-limb elements that occurred near the origin of the modern suborders of cetaceans ≈34 million years ago. Integration of paleontological and developmental data suggests that hind-limb size was reduced by gradually operating microevolutionary changes. Long after locomotor function was totally lost, modulation of developmental control genes eliminated most of the hind-limb skeleton. Hence, macroevolutionary changes in gene expression did not drive the initial reduction in hind-limb size.


Sorry john but you get an "F" on your understanding of the evolutionary biology of cetaceans. :D
Thorton
 

Re: YECs are closet macro evolutionists because of Noah's Ar

Postby sterusjon » Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:31 pm

The use of the adjective "macro" is a mischaracterization of the problem. "Macro" evolution is an aspect of evolutionary theory that refers, as I understand it, to the appearance of new organs and capabilities by the accumulation of host of minor genetic and epigenetic changes to create new types of organisms. By types, I mean kingdoms from first life, phyla from kingdoms, orders from phyla, classes from orders etc. (The classification system is off the top of my head so forgive me if I messed it up a bit, but I think you get my point.) That is definitely not what the YECist means in the Noachian Flood context. In that context all the characteristics that define a "kind" were present in the pairs that left the ark. No "macro" evolution required. If you wish to characterize the problem as one of "hyper-micro" evolution then I will agree with that characterization. I do not see the problem of rearranging, segregating and loosing genetic and epigenetic content quickly nearly as large a problem as acquiring it in the first place. Speaking of "macro" evolution is, in my opinion, a red herring.

I would also like to point out that the Biblical account of the flood distinctly informs us that the animals that were taken aboard were brought to the ark by God. They were undoubtedly selected for their suitability for repopulating the post flood world. The pairs did not need to be of the same "species." They could have been from widely different "species" that were none-the-less inter-fertile, thereby causing the first litters to be quite a mixed bag.

I believe the post-flood era was a time of extreme stress with weather extremes and rapid climate changes and extensive volcanism. I believe it was sometime before the various weather patterns and ocean currents became stabilized. It appears, from some of the more recent research, that stress causes programmed "genetic experimentation" by inducing mutations at "hot spots" and other genetic modifications as well as the epigenetic factors that are just now being uncovered. Could this not account for some of the "hyper-micro" evolution?

I am not quite as radical as Mr. Byers seems to be, but I do not discount the plausibility of a mechanism for bringing about a "conversion" of many/most/all of the placentals within a region to a marsupial version. (I have a possible mechanism in mind from another "pseudo" scientific field.) Just how different are placentals from marsupials? What would need to be changed to convert one to the other? Was the convertibility present at one time but lost after or because of the conversion? These are questions that are not even broached by modern evolution-minded researchers. From their perspective, they are silly questions for us to ask. That view is dictated by their paradigm. They evaluate the YEC/Noachian Flood paradigm from within their own and inevitably misjudge it.

Stephen
sterusjon
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:37 pm

Re: YECs are closet macro evolutionists because of Noah's Ar

Postby sterusjon » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:00 pm

Thorton,

Since, in the your prior post, you use the word "literally" when you say "literally tens of thousands of studies", you are evidently not engaging in hyperbole. I would like for you to substantiate your declaration. Otherwise, I feel justified in considering your statement a literature bluff.

The abstract you quoted indicates that the paper itself does a good job of exposing how it is that hind legs do not develop in dolphins and whales. Bravo! It, also, indicates that the authors have some personal opinions on what "may" have happened 34 and 41 million years ago. The abstract, and I presume the paper, does nothing to counter the idea that the ancestors of whales and dolphins were not "pre-loaded" with capabilities, hind leg, in particular, some of which were subsequently lost. Maybe you do not understand what johnspenn had in mind when he said "pre-loaded.".

Stephen
sterusjon
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:37 pm

Re: YECs are closet macro evolutionists because of Noah's Ar

Postby Thorton » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:03 pm

sterusjon wrote:The use of the adjective "macro" is a mischaracterization of the problem. "Macro" evolution is an aspect of evolutionary theory that refers, as I understand it, to the appearance of new organs and capabilities by the accumulation of host of minor genetic and epigenetic changes to create new types of organisms.


Er, no. In the real scientific community macroevolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level.

Biology Online: Macroevolution

macroevolution

noun, plural: macroevolutions

Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.

Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.


Heaven only knows what sort of mangled definitions Creationists have come up with.
Thorton
 

Re: YECs are closet macro evolutionists because of Noah's Ar

Postby Thorton » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:15 pm

sterusjon wrote:Thorton,

Since, in the your prior post, you use the word "literally" when you say "literally tens of thousands of studies", you are evidently not engaging in hyperbole. I would like for you to substantiate your declaration. Otherwise, I feel justified in considering your statement a literature bluff.


A Google Scholar search on "cetacean evolution" returns over 24,000 scholarly papers and articles. Granted there may be some duplication in their listings but the claim is well supported enough.

Would you like to discuss any of the papers in the sampling I posted above on cetacean evolution?

The abstract, and I presume the paper, does nothing to counter the idea that the ancestors of whales and dolphins were not "pre-loaded" with capabilities, hind leg, in particular, some of which were subsequently lost. Maybe you do not understand what johnspenn had in mind when he said "pre-loaded."


Why don't you explain it then. Are you saying all the marine mammals taken on the Ark had legs, including the whales, and all subsequent evolutionary change of limb loss happened in the last 4800 years?

BTW it's not science's job to disprove johnspenn's most remarkable claim of "genetic front-loading".. It's up to him or you to support it with scientific positive evidence from genetic studies.

Do you have any?
Thorton
 

Re: YECs are closet macro evolutionists because of Noah's Ar

Postby Robert Byers » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:18 pm

Thorton
This yEC does insist marine mammals, so whales, did become sea creatures only after the flood/ark.
So mechanism is there to change them enough.
Yet not by mutation being selected etc. not evolutionism.
your links do not show whale evolution etc.
all they show is fossil data points or fossil pieces that are ORGANIZED by evolutionists into a pattern of descent.
There is no biological scientific evidence for whale evolution.
just snapshots of something said to be in descent or assent to a line from start to finish.
Without the geology telling the tale of desposition of the creature that was fossilized there is no hint of evolution.
Therefore its not biology but geology.
Therefore no biology evidence.
your links show no evidence of evolution but only examples of a diversity of creatures at the time of death and deposition.
They all lived together at the same time.
your imagining a line of reasoning or hunch is scientific investigation.
Robert Byers
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:57 pm

Re: YECs are closet macro evolutionists because of Noah's Ar

Postby Robert Byers » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:25 pm

sterusjon wrote:The use of the adjective "macro" is a mischaracterization of the problem. "Macro" evolution is an aspect of evolutionary theory that refers, as I understand it, to the appearance of new organs and capabilities by the accumulation of host of minor genetic and epigenetic changes to create new types of organisms. By types, I mean kingdoms from first life, phyla from kingdoms, orders from phyla, classes from orders etc. (The classification system is off the top of my head so forgive me if I messed it up a bit, but I think you get my point.) That is definitely not what the YECist means in the Noachian Flood context. In that context all the characteristics that define a "kind" were present in the pairs that left the ark. No "macro" evolution required. If you wish to characterize the problem as one of "hyper-micro" evolution then I will agree with that characterization. I do not see the problem of rearranging, segregating and loosing genetic and epigenetic content quickly nearly as large a problem as acquiring it in the first place. Speaking of "macro" evolution is, in my opinion, a red herring.

I would also like to point out that the Biblical account of the flood distinctly informs us that the animals that were taken aboard were brought to the ark by God. They were undoubtedly selected for their suitability for repopulating the post flood world. The pairs did not need to be of the same "species." They could have been from widely different "species" that were none-the-less inter-fertile, thereby causing the first litters to be quite a mixed bag.

I believe the post-flood era was a time of extreme stress with weather extremes and rapid climate changes and extensive volcanism. I believe it was sometime before the various weather patterns and ocean currents became stabilized. It appears, from some of the more recent research, that stress causes programmed "genetic experimentation" by inducing mutations at "hot spots" and other genetic modifications as well as the epigenetic factors that are just now being uncovered. Could this not account for some of the "hyper-micro" evolution?

I am not quite as radical as Mr. Byers seems to be, but I do not discount the plausibility of a mechanism for bringing about a "conversion" of many/most/all of the placentals within a region to a marsupial version. (I have a possible mechanism in mind from another "pseudo" scientific field.) Just how different are placentals from marsupials? What would need to be changed to convert one to the other? Was the convertibility present at one time but lost after or because of the conversion? These are questions that are not even broached by modern evolution-minded researchers. From their perspective, they are silly questions for us to ask. That view is dictated by their paradigm. They evaluate the YEC/Noachian Flood paradigm from within their own and inevitably misjudge it.

Stephen


Very interesting you hint that you think it might possibly be that placentals did change into marsupials.
I wrote an essay on this called "POst flood marsupial migration Explained" by Robert Byers. Just google.
The creatures, example, in australia surely did not migrate as a marsupial mob down there but instead are just the regulat creatures and they changed upon going into those areas.
I suspect it was to increase reproduction while on the road in order to quickly fill the earth before timelines would interfere from earth movements and human migration.
There is on the internet live/still photos of the last marsupial wolf. Just google. Watch it and be persuaded this is just another dumb wolf save having a few differences like a pouch for the girls.
There were many marsupial creatures perfect matches for placentals.
I don't easily meet YEC creationists who allow the option marsupials are just adaptations.
Robert Byers
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:57 pm

Next

Return to Creation Science

cron