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.

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

Postby Thorton » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:28 pm

Robert Byers wrote:Thorton
This yEC does insist marine mammals, so whales, did become sea creatures only after the flood/ark.


How long ago was that? What you insist and what you can support with scientific evidence are two very different things.

There is no biological scientific evidence for whale evolution.


All the genetic data I provided is biological scientific evidence for whale evolution. I can provide lots more if need be.
Thorton
 

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

Postby johnspenn » Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:47 am

A note on what I meant by "pre-loaded" information:

I will look to the dog as my example. From a wolf, we have all the varied breeds of domesticated dogs today, from the Chihuahua to the Golden Retriever to the St. Bernard.

The the different breeds were intensively bred over time to enhance certain qualities while also diminishing unwanted qualities.

We have, in one case gone from a Wolf to a Chihuahua. The wolf's genome contained enough plasticity to accomplish this transformation.

However, due to the selection process, the Chihuahua no longer has the required information to "revert to form" and be bred back into a wolf. (Using pure bred Chihuahuas only.) I freely admit this is a supposition on my part, but I have no awareness of it ever being scientifically negated.

So, the genomes we see in the species that exist today would not contain ALL of the information that was pre-loaded prior to their transformations. Dogs and cats are prime examples. Lions and tigers can interbreed indicating a very close relation and most likely a common ancestor. That common ancestor had information sufficient to account for both the lion and the tiger. However, all the information contained in that common ancestor is no longer available in the genome of either the lion or the tiger.

Sal, to me this is also a plausible answer to your OP that started this thread. I don't know enough about birds to come up with a number of "original" ancestor species, but I have an idea that it was nowhere near the 10,000 or so that was cited in the article you referenced.
johnspenn
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:27 pm

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

Postby Tragic Mishap » Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:10 am

Definitions:

Micro-evolution: What can, did and does happen.

Macro-evolution: What cannot, did not and never will happen.

Unless anyone has better definitions.
Tragic Mishap
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:57 pm

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

Postby sterusjon » Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:25 am

Thorton

You stated the following to my request for substantiation of the claim of "literally tens of thousands of studies"

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.


Well I went to Google Scholar and did as you suggested. I turned off the citations, since they don't count as studies, and got 23,300 hits. Then I scrolled to the last entry in the list and found that there were only 991 entries. How can that be? You see, there is a horrendous amount of duplication in the list. At the the end of each entry you will note a phrase such as "All 6 versions" or "all 4 versions" or "All 17 versions" So, it seems, that the number "over 24,000" is just not true by any stretch of the imagination. And I have not even addressed the number of those listed articles that are irrelevant to the discussion of how cetaceans evolved, which, after all was the point being discussed.

I must conclude you have failed to substantiate the claim of "literally tens of thousands of studies" and that you have made a literature bluff. You do not hold yourself to the same standard of precision as you do those of a different opinion.


You further criticized my understanding of macro evolution. You quoted me as stating
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.
Accurate as far as it goes. I went on to clarify, however, with
By types, I mean kingdoms from first life, phyla from kingdoms, orders from phyla, classes from orders etc.
You proceeded to provide a definition of macroevolution as
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

How, might I inquire, is the definition you gave, substantially different than my statement along with my clarification?

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

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

Postby stcordova » Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:34 am

I should have clarified a bit and this would have prevented so much confusion. The title of the thread was "YEC are closet macro evolutionists...", I was presuming since most people know me as a YEC, that it was evident I was using the word figuratively. If I had just added a one sentence clarification, I could have stopped so much confusion.

I do believe snakes had legs! What is amazing is that snakes now have a different mode of propulsion.

It's not just the ark that may have involved rapid evolution, but also the fall from grace. It almost seems a lot of not-so-nice features of the world may have started to get expressed, and it seems malicious design might have been front loaded into the genomes which God switched on after the fall. That idea was promoted by YEC biologist Gordon Wilson.

When I look at the stages of a butterfly, we see a land type creature become a flying creature in the same lifetime. :shock: It certainly seems possible that genomes cold be front loaded to evolve incredible forms which might not ever be able to interbreed again.

Where we can definitely draw the boundaries of macro evolution is looking at the days of creation and the major kinds are described there.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”



So clearly if one accept a literal reading, plants and animals do not share a common ancestor. There won't be any macro evolution there.
stcordova
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

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

Postby Thorton » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:52 am

johnspenn wrote:However, due to the selection process, the Chihuahua no longer has the required information to "revert to form" and be bred back into a wolf. (Using pure bred Chihuahuas only.) I freely admit this is a supposition on my part, but I have no awareness of it ever being scientifically negated.


I highlighted the part that ends the conversation. The part that shows me you don't understand scientific methodology even a little.

In science you don't get to make outlandish claims then demand that science disprove them. In science you propose a hypothesis then design experiments to test the hypothesis and provide the positive supporting evidence for your idea the research provided.

I'm sure you don't follow mainstream scientific research but the genomes of wolves have been sequenced. Guess what - there was no evidence that wolf genomes were "front loaded" with all the genetic variations we see in extant domestic dogs today. Just the opposite was found. Most domestic dog lineages are the result of interbreeding after dog domestication, not a direct line of descent from wolves.

Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs
Freedman et al
PLOS Genetics, 10(1): e1004016 Jan 2014

Abstract: To identify genetic changes underlying dog domestication and reconstruct their early evolutionary history, we generated high-quality genome sequences from three gray wolves, one from each of the three putative centers of dog domestication, two basal dog lineages (Basenji and Dingo) and a golden jackal as an outgroup. Analysis of these sequences supports a demographic model in which dogs and wolves diverged through a dynamic process involving population bottlenecks in both lineages and post-divergence gene flow. In dogs, the domestication bottleneck involved at least a 16-fold reduction in population size, a much more severe bottleneck than estimated previously. A sharp bottleneck in wolves occurred soon after their divergence from dogs, implying that the pool of diversity from which dogs arose was substantially larger than represented by modern wolf populations. We narrow the plausible range for the date of initial dog domestication to an interval spanning 11–16 thousand years ago, predating the rise of agriculture. In light of this finding, we expand upon previous work regarding the increase in copy number of the amylase gene (AMY2B) in dogs, which is believed to have aided digestion of starch in agricultural refuse. We find standing variation for amylase copy number variation in wolves and little or no copy number increase in the Dingo and Husky lineages. In conjunction with the estimated timing of dog origins, these results provide additional support to archaeological finds, suggesting the earliest dogs arose alongside hunter-gathers rather than agriculturists. Regarding the geographic origin of dogs, we find that, surprisingly, none of the extant wolf lineages from putative domestication centers is more closely related to dogs, and, instead, the sampled wolves form a sister monophyletic clade. This result, in combination with dog-wolf admixture during the process of domestication, suggests that a re-evaluation of past hypotheses regarding dog origins is necessary.


Let me know when you or your Creationist buddies ever get around to testing and supporting your 'front-loading" claims.
Thorton
 

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

Postby Thorton » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:55 am

I note with some amusement but zero surprise that sterusjon is unwilling and unable to discuss the actual work on cetacean evolution I posted.

Gotta love the YEC approach to science. When the discussion gets tough, the tough YECs get going - going the other way as fast as they can scurry. :lol:
Thorton
 

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

Postby stcordova » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:07 pm

Thornton,

You're banned from this thread according to forum rules. You may post a link to a dissenting discussion according to forum rules.

Your behavior stinks so badly, many of the threads I start will have you banned up front. Your voice is not suppressed in this forum, but people don't have to deal with your garbage if they don't want to. Start your own thread and troll yourself to your hearts delight and rail against YECs all you want, just not in this thread any more.
Last edited by stcordova on Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stcordova
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

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

Postby stcordova » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:09 pm

FORUM RULE EXPERT

an excluded participant is allowed to post one reply with a link to a website or a new thread expressing his dissenting views. The form of his parting reply must be essentially:

This is my final post on this thread, and I will host further discussion here:
[url]link to further discussion[/url]



It must follow this form or will be subject to getting edited in order to conform, and a warning will be issued, and repeat offenders will be banned. This is to prevent rude parting shots by the excluded participant.

stcordova
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

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

Postby Thorton » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:17 pm

LOL! Good old Sal always reverts to form. Ban all those scientifically knowledgeable enough to call YECs on their "scientific" horse manure.

We both knew it would only be a matter of time, didn't we Sal. :D Creationism can only exist in a heavily defended echo chamber.

Rest easily, secure in the knowledge YECs like yourself are as big a laughingstock in the scientific community now as you ever were. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Thorton
 

PreviousNext

Return to Creation Science

cron