At last, evolutionists admit a hole!

[TenDimensions]

For all you Creationists out there who are convinced evolutionists keep ignoring the big "hole" everyone thinks exists in biological evolution, a quote from the March 2003 issue of Scientific American, "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?" page 86:


The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties - structures that have no clear antecendents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergance of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.


<sarcasm on> Oh my goodness! Could it be possible? Could a popular science magazine be admitting a hole in biological evolution? How can this be? Aren't all scientists and their publications supposed to be part of the giant Materialistic Conspiracy? <sarcasm off>

Well, the truth is (as most evolutionary biologists have been saying all along) there are still specific aspects of biological evolution that are still mysterious. There are competing theories and this article goes into one of the leading contenders regarding how feathers may have evolved.

Everyone admits that physically witnessing the arrival of a completely new trait such as digits, limbs, eyes, and feathers in one person's lifetime (or even 20 people's lifetimes) is impossible due to the drastic number of years such things take to emerge. So then, if that's the case, why do scientists all over the world who are working in various different fields and come from a wide range of religious backgrounds accept and do their work under the idea that biological evolution is real and the planet is 4.6 billion years old?

Simple: Because there is enough evidence to make biological evolution an overwhelming first choice among scientists as an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. At the very same time biologists know there are still aspects of evolutionary biology that still need to be worked out and that's what they're working on.

Just because physicists have predicted the graviton as the cause of gravity, but have been unable to prove its existence does not mean it isn't a valid scientific theory. Real scientists who understand the value of scientific inquiry will not stop just because they think it might be hard to detect a graviton and they wouldn't throw their hands up in the air and say "We're never going to prove this because it's irreducibly complex and since I already believe in the existence of God, let's just say that."

So why should it be any different for scientists studying life on this planet if all the evidence points to an old Earth and there are tons of direct and circumstantial evidential data points that point to the principles of evolution governing genetics, but the catch is that it's a little trickier to observe it over the course of one million years?

Creation Scientists may claim that using irreducible complexity as one of the major pieces of evidence upholding their Intelligent Design theory does not end scientific inquiry, but it does. Sure, no one can say if further investigation into the origin of the species will lead to new medical advances, new cures, or new understandings of how genetics work. All that work could presumably be done by scientists not accepting the prevailing theories of biological evolution just as well as someone who does...probably. I can honestly say, though, that I'd rather put the fate of medicine and medical breakthroughs in the hands of serious inquirers of genetics and biology over those who would come across a puzzle that seemingly can't be divided any further, who then throw their hands in the air declaring God did it.

[Socrates]

10D mentions the Scientific American article as if it's news, and reveals his FAITH in naturalism in the face of the evidence. AiG published a response ages ago www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp

[Socratism]

Everyone admits that physically witnessing the arrival of a completely new trait such as digits, limbs, eyes, and feathers in one person's lifetime (or even 20 people's lifetimes) is impossible due to the drastic number of years such things take to emerge. So then, if that's the case, why do scientists all over the world who are working in various different fields and come from a wide range of religious backgrounds accept and do their work under the idea that biological evolution is real and the planet is 4.6 billion years old?

In my opinion our society takes excessive pride in the gadgets we have invented. This causes people to puff themselves up and feel that they are so greatly superior to people of the past (even though the vast majority have played little or no part in scientific progress). This contempt for the intelligence of past humans spills over into a contempt for the "mythological" stories in the Bible and causes many to nitpick in an attempt to "prove" how primitive ancient peoples were and how wonderful we have become today.


Just because physicists have predicted the graviton as the cause of gravity, but have been unable to prove its existence does not mean it isn't a valid scientific theory. Real scientists who understand the value of scientific inquiry will not stop just because they think it might be hard to detect a graviton and they wouldn't throw their hands up in the air and say "We're never going to prove this because it's irreducibly complex and since I already believe in the existence of God, let's just say that."

So why should it be any different for scientists studying life on this planet if all the evidence points to an old Earth and there are tons of direct and circumstantial evidential data points that point to the principles of evolution governing genetics, but the catch is that it's a little trickier to observe it over the course of one million years?

First, it is a misnomer to believe that creationists object to science.

Second, it is misleading to compare research on gravity, however speculative it is, to research on past events that have profound philosophical and theological implications.

Biological speculation today is used in an attempt to discredit the foundation of Christian belief, the Bible. If the Bible is not a true account of the past then belief in Jesus Christ is seriously weakened if not destroyed.

It is no accident that the vast majority of leading evolutionary biologists are atheists, for evolutionary theory and the Biblical account are in direct opposition to one another.

People can still go to church and be superficially labeled "devout Christians" without actually believing that Jesus Christ was literally God in the flesh. A leading bishop of the Episcopalian Church (Spong) has written that the only part of the Apostles Creed he believes is that Jesus Christ lived. He considers the rest to be mythology. Yet many would say he is a "devout" Christian.

I imagine that Jesus might note, "With friends like that who needs enemies?"

[Saxonella]

Today @ 01:43 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43612#post43612)
Socratism:



In my opinion our society takes excessive pride in the gadgets we have invented. This causes people to puff themselves up and feel that they are so greatly superior to people of the past (even though the vast majority have played little or no part in scientific progress). This contempt for the intelligence of past humans spills over into a contempt for the &quot;mythological&quot; stories in the Bible and causes many to nitpick in an attempt to &quot;prove&quot; how primitive ancient peoples were and how wonderful we have become today.

I agree that most probably people today tend to think that we live in the best and most advanced age there ever was, but Westerners have thought this since at least the Industrial Revolution, so it's not a surprising attitude.

However, I have taken a large number of anthropology and archaeology courses, and I have yet to encounter any "contempt" for the intelligence of past humans you seem to think exists. Perhaps you are confusing the limited and very generalized knowledge of the average layperson with what is known in more professional circles. Certainly no archaeologist or anthropologist today who studies human cultures from the past 10,000 years thinks people were any "dumber" then than they are now. So if any "nitpicking" of Bible stories goes on, I doubt that is the motivation, at least among people who know better.


First, it is a misnomer to believe that creationists object to science.

Second, it is misleading to compare research on gravity, however speculative it is, to research on past events that have profound philosophical and theological implications.

No, this is wrong. Science is science. Any theological or moral implications of any area of scientific research are post hoc impositions by a minority. A vast number of individuals have no difficulty at all with research into the history and diversity of life on earth. There are no inherent theological implications of evolution; there are only the ones people think they see because of certain pre-existing beliefs and worldviews those people have.



Biological speculation today is used in an attempt to discredit the foundation of Christian belief, the Bible. If the Bible is not a true account of the past then belief in Jesus Christ is seriously weakened if not destroyed.

This sounds like nothing but propaganda. I have never encountered any serious biologist who was aiming to "discredit" the Bible; in fact, a great many biological scientists are quite firmly Christian. And this includes evolutionary biologists. So I doubt that people like the evolutionist and Christian Kenneth Miller (for example) are interested in "weakening" the authority of Jesus.


It is no accident that the vast majority of leading evolutionary biologists are atheists, for evolutionary theory and the Biblical account are in direct opposition to one another.

People can still go to church and be superficially labeled &quot;devout Christians&quot; without actually believing that Jesus Christ was literally God in the flesh. A leading bishop of the Episcopalian Church (Spong) has written that the only part of the Apostles Creed he believes is that Jesus Christ lived. He considers the rest to be mythology. Yet many would say he is a &quot;devout&quot; Christian.

I imagine that Jesus might note, &quot;With friends like that who needs enemies?&quot;

This sounds like more propaganda. First you make an unsupported assertion about the beliefs (or lack thereof) of "the majority" of evolutionary biologists (I suspect that you actually have no idea whatsoever what the numbers are), and then a fairly blatant attempt to dismiss those who do not believe like you do by questioning their Christianity. There is a word for people who do that. It is not up to you or me to decide who is Christian or not. Of course, none of this has anything at all to do with the reality of evolution.

[Socrates]

Socratism wrote:


Biological speculation today is used in an attempt to discredit the foundation of Christian belief, the Bible. If the Bible is not a true account of the past then belief in Jesus Christ is seriously weakened if not destroyed.

Saxonella replied:
This sounds like nothing but propaganda. Your plrey is nothing but propaganda. I have never encountered any serious biologist who was aiming to "discredit" the Bible;Are you serious? Have you never read Dawkins' books, where he makes it abundantly clear that Darwinism "makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. ... in fact, a great many biological scientists are quite firmly Christian.I know, like the creationist Ph.D. biologists Drs Batten (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp), Catchpoole (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_catchpoole.asp) and Jerlström (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/p_jerlstrom.asp) who now work at AiG, as well as one of Australias leading molecular biologists, Dr Ian Macreadie (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/i_macreadie.asp). And this includes evolutionary biologists. So I doubt that people like the evolutionist and Christian Kenneth Miller (for example) are interested in "weakening" the authority of Jesus. Yes he is, because he explicitly attacks the authority of Scripture, which Jesus said "cannot be broken". See this review (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n3_miller.asp)


Socratism:

It is no accident that the vast majority of leading evolutionary biologists are atheists, for evolutionary theory and the Biblical account are in direct opposition to one another.


Too right -- see this Who's Who of Evolutionist who are devout atheists -- www.answersingenesis.org/docs/378.asp. This demolishes Saxonella's bald assertion to the contrary. Also, the National Academy of Sciences, which puts out evolutionary propaganda, is largely populated by atheists, as shown by a publication in Nature -- see www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp. The authors of the study noted the duplicity of the NAS President who claimed that there was no conflict between Christianity and evolution.


Socratism:

People can still go to church and be superficially labeled "devout Christians" without actually believing that Jesus Christ was literally God in the flesh. A leading bishop of the Episcopalian Church (Spong) has written that the only part of the Apostles Creed he believes is that Jesus Christ lived. He considers the rest to be mythology. Yet many would say he is a "devout" Christian.

I imagine that Jesus might note, "With friends like that who needs enemies?"

Again, Socratism is completely right. And for the benefit of people like QED, I deny that Spong is a Christian because he denies the boldily resurrection of Christ -- see www.answersingenesis.org/spong. But once more, his unbelief is explicitly founded on evolutionary dogma.

Saxonella:
then a fairly blatant attempt to dismiss those who do not believe like you do by questioning their Christianity. There is a word for people who do that.Yes, discernment -- of wolves in sheep's clothing. It is not up to you or me to decide who is Christian or not. Indeed not, because what matters is how they line up with the Bible. It's merely our duty to point this out. Note that Jesus condemned only hypocritical judgement, but commanded that we should not judge by appearance (including whether someone merely attends church) "but judge righteous judgment " (John 7:24). Of course, none of this has anything at all to do with the reality of evolution. But it has everything to do with showing that there's bias on both sides.

[Saxonella]

Today @ 03:23 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43642#post43642)
Socrates:

Are you serious? Have you never read Dawkins' books, where he makes it abundantly clear that Darwinism &quot;makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Indeed, Dawkins is an unfortunate example of someone who seems unable to distinguish between science and religion. It is too bad; he is able to explain many complex evolutionary concepts, but then taints those explanations with inappropriate personal opinion. He has not the best reputation among serious biologists because of that. It really is not necessary to impugn faith while explaining biology.

I had more in mind all those workaday biologists who go about their business and publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.



Yes he is, because he explicitly attacks the authority of Scripture, which Jesus said &quot;cannot be broken&quot;. See this review (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n3_miller.asp)

I find no value in debating the level of faith of self-professed believing individuals. You are entitled to your opinion.


Too right -- see this Who's Who of Evolutionist who are devout atheists -- www.answersingenesis.org/docs/378.asp. This demolishes Saxonella's bald assertion to the contrary. Also, the National Academy of Sciences, which puts out evolutionary propaganda, is largely populated by atheists, as shown by a publication in Nature -- see www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp. The authors of the study noted the duplicity of the NAS President who claimed that there was no conflict between Christianity and evolution.

I'm afraid I cannot comment, since your links lead nowhere. My point, however, was that *unsupported assertion*, as per Socratism's original post, is unconvincing and meaningless as a form of argument.


Again, Socratism is completely right. And for the benefit of people like QED, I deny that Spong is a Christian because he denies the boldily resurrection of Christ -- see www.answersingenesis.org/spong. But once more, his unbelief is explicitly founded on evolutionary dogma.

And again, you are entitled to your opinion. What you or I think of him is completely irrelevant.


(snippage)It's merely our duty to point this out. Note that Jesus condemned only hypocritical judgement, but commanded that we should not judge by appearance (including whether someone merely attends church) &quot;but judge righteous judgment &quot; (John 7:24). Of course, none of this has anything at all to do with the reality of evolution. But it has everything to do with showing that there's bias on both sides.

Indeed: however, since determining reality through science depends upon evidence and not rhetoric, science does have ways of minimizing bias. They may not be perfect, but they work better than anything else I have seen since they do not depend upon the words or work of any specific individual, but on intense critical scrutiny and often painfully-arrived-at consensus.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 08:08 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43605#post43605)
Socrates:

10D mentions the Scientific American article as if it's news, and reveals his FAITH in naturalism in the face of the evidence. AiG published a response ages ago www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp

This being March 24th and AiG's response being published eleven days ago I would not characterize the response as being published "ages ago". Another ad hominem attack simply trying to make an atheist look foolish rather than actually contemplate what he's saying. Funny how both AiG and yourself seem to ignore the fact that real scientists openly talk about areas of their theories that still need better explaining. Instead you jump on it as if the entire theory is somehow collapsing around our ears - well, I've got news for you, Creationists have been claiming that since the day after Origin of the Species was published.

But I read through it and will respond to it when I have more time on my hands.

[tgamble]

First, it is a misnomer to believe that creationists object to science.[/QUOTE[

Rubbish! They attack science all the time. Astronomy, cosomology, biology, geology etc.

[QUOTE]Second, it is misleading to compare research on gravity, however speculative it is, to research on past events that have profound philosophical and theological implications.


No, it's misleading to pretend that science isn't really science just because you don't agree with it.


Biological speculation

Typical of creationist to dismiss research and facts as "speculation". Just another bit of dishonesty!


I know, like the creationist Ph.D. biologists Drs Batten, Catchpoole and Jerlström who now work at AiG, as well as one of Australias leading molecular biologists, Dr Ian Macreadie.

How sad to see educated people abandon reason and the knowlege they learned in favor of myths purely due to blind faith.


today is used in an attempt to discredit the foundation of Christian belief, the Bible.
[QUOTE]

Rubbish! There are loads of scientists who are Christians doing research in evolution. Discrediting the bible has nothing to do with it. If research nad test results conflict with the bible, it's merely because the Bible is an ignorant book written by ignorant people. Get over it.

[QUOTE]If the Bible is not a true account of the past then belief in Jesus Christ is seriously weakened if not destroyed.

So much for that personal relationship and all that alleged independent evidence for the ressurection.


It is no accident that the vast majority of leading evolutionary biologists are atheists, for evolutionary theory and the Biblical account are in direct opposition to one another.


Completely irrelevent. You have stats to prove this?


Again, Socratism is completely right. And for the benefit of people like QED, I deny that Spong is a Christian because he denies the boldily resurrection of Christ -- see www.answersingenesis.org/spong. But once more, his unbelief is explicitly founded on evolutionary dogma.

Do you have ANY idea how pathetically stupid you sound? Blaming acceptance of evolution for rejecting a ressurection of Jesus? The two are totally unrelated!


Indeed not, because what matters is how they line up with the Bible. It's merely our duty to point this out.

A self granted duty of course.

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:43 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43704#post43704)
Saxonella:

Indeed: however, since determining reality through science depends upon evidence and not rhetoric, science does have ways of minimizing bias. They may not be perfect, but they work better than anything else I have seen since they do not depend upon the words or work of any specific individual, but on intense critical scrutiny and often painfully-arrived-at consensus.

You do not seem to understand that the evidence is not where evolutionists and creations disagree, but in the interpretation of the evidence. It is in the interpretation where the bias is to be found. For example, the assumption that since science can only deal with events in the natural world that consideration of the Genesis account of supernatural creation of the universe/life is considered "out of bounds".

I agree that supernatural creation of the universe/life can not be investigated but I do not agree that this means we can safety discount it.

As far as atheistic bias it is a fact that biology is dominated by the 95% of leading biologists who do not profess (by their own admission) a belief in God. Thus, we find most textbooks and teachers implying that "evolution is a fact". This is not scientific teaching, it is pure propaganda.

Appended Post:


Do you have ANY idea how pathetically stupid you sound? Blaming acceptance of evolution for rejecting a ressurection of Jesus? The two are totally unrelated!

They are totally related at almost the 100% level.

Essentially all atheists reject the bodily resurrection of Christ and the creation of the universe/life by God.

Obviously if the Bible is true then mankind did not evolve from the "lower" animals. People who try to combine Christianity and evolution in their philosophy are tragectly in error.

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 07:34 PM
You do not seem to understand that the evidence is not where evolutionists and creations disagree, but in the interpretation of the evidence.

Simply untrue of course. Creationists deny the evidence and cling to archaic myths, twisting, distorting or ignoring the facts as they do so.


It is in the interpretation where the bias is to be found.

Such as a statement of faith with dictated conclusions that can NEVER EVER be questioned!


For example, the assumption that since science can only deal with events in the natural world that consideration of the Genesis account of supernatural creation of the universe/life is considered &quot;out of bounds&quot;.

That's not an assumption, it's an obvious fact.

Your claims about it (ie. young earth) were considered and they were rejected because the evidence doesn't support a young earth. The order in Genesis is all wrong for starters. This is true regardless and independent of evolution.


I agree that supernatural creation of the universe/life can not be investigated but I do not agree that this means we can safety discount it.

You can't discount magical fairies creating the world last Thursday either.


As far as atheistic bias it is a fact that biology is dominated by the 95% of leading biologists who do not profess (by their own admission) a belief in God.

Can't refute the evidence, resort to personal attacks. How typical. Of course, you deny that any Christian who accepts evolution is really a Christian....


Thus, we find most textbooks and teachers implying that &quot;evolution is a fact&quot;. This is not scientific teaching, it is pure propaganda.

Actually it is scientific teaching since evolution IS a fact. It's completely irrelevent if most biologists are atheists or not. The evidence still shows that evolution is a fact.

[Socratism]

A self granted duty of course.

Not if people who are Christians read what their duties are in God's Word instead of talk.origins.

Appended Post:


Actually it is scientific teaching since evolution IS a fact. It's completely irrelevent if most biologists are atheists or not. The evidence still shows that evolution is a fact.

Interpretations do not magically transform raw evidence into fact.

It is sad that our educational system yields people who do not understand that a fact is not the same as something concluded by human beings by a process of inference (the field of pure mathematics excluded of course).

[Tycho]

Today @ 06:43 AM Socratism:
First, it is a misnomer to believe that creationists object to science.
Is it?


Socrates:
10D mentions the Scientific American article as if it's news, and reveals his FAITH in naturalism in the face of the evidence.
Gee, that sounded like an objection to science. And gosh, who was it from--a creationist? Wow!

[tgamble]

Not if people who are Christians read what their duties are in God's Word instead of talk.origins.

At least talk.origins is reliable and factual.

Talk.origins, obviously, says nothing at all about the duties of Christians. It merely provides scientific responses to creationist misinformation.


Interpretations do not magically transform raw evidence into fact.

Except, of course, when it's AIG doing the interpreting.....

The fact that the raw evidence clearly supports evolution and refutes creationism (ie. young earth, global flood) is something you simply ignore.


It is sad that our educational system yields people who do not understand that a fact is not the same as something concluded by human beings by a process of inference (the field of pure mathematics excluded of course).

It's sad that people think an archaic myth is the absolute truth and dedicate their lives to fighting science and misinforming anyone willing to listen to their antiscience ravings.

[Tycho]

Today @ 12:57 PM Socratism:
Not if people who are Christians read what their duties are in God's Word instead of talk.origins.
For the Christians here: which one of God's creations would you trust: the universe itself, or a historically inaccurate book that's been edited, translated, and interpretted over the course of millenia?


Interpretations do not magically transform raw evidence into fact.
Is this to say that you don't accept that allele frequencies in a population can change over time? That you don't believe in speciation? Please help us out here--your diatribes against science are always so ambiguous!


It is sad that our educational system yields people who do not understand that a fact is not the same as something concluded by human beings by a process of inference (the field of pure mathematics excluded of course).
The Earth and the Sun orbit about a common center of gravity: fact or an untrustworthy conclusion made by humans using a process of inference?

[Saxonella]

Today @ 07:42 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43813#post43813)
Socratism:

You do not seem to understand that the evidence is not where evolutionists and creations disagree, but in the interpretation of the evidence. It is in the interpretation where the bias is to be found. For example, the assumption that since science can only deal with events in the natural world that consideration of the Genesis account of supernatural creation of the universe/life is considered &quot;out of bounds&quot;.

I understand perfectly well. Evidence often must be interpreted, and it must be interpreted within a certain framework. However, while the scientific framework does minimize bias because it has a number of built-in checks and balances, I have not found evidence of anything adequate in the creation "science" interpretive framework. Among the scientific checks and balances are the requirements i) that any assumptions that underlay the interpretation of any set of data can and will be examined by one's peers and reviewers, and ii) the fact that one simply is not permitted to ignore or discard data that are inconvenient, unexpected, or do not conform to predictions. Alas, these are not features that I have seen in creation "science" research, where all too often inconvenient facts are ignored, new data are "interpreted" by forgetting about previous knowledge, and evidence is simply discarded or handwaved away when results using it do not conform to desired results. I can give many examples of this, including work published in CRSQ, the closest thing creationists have to a "peer-reviewed" non-popular journal. It seems that the "interpretive framework" of creationism is not very well equipped to deal with the bias inherent in the creationist worldview. I see no advantage to it over normal science.


I agree that supernatural creation of the universe/life can not be investigated but I do not agree that this means we can safety discount it.

This makes no sense. Science is a method for investigating, interpreting, predicting, and controlling the natural world using naturalistic means. Therefore, any supernatural causes and effects are by definition entirely outside the ability of science to deal with them. I do not see why you are trying to indict science for being unable to account for something we both agree it cannot by definition account for. What was your point, then?


As far as atheistic bias it is a fact that biology is dominated by the 95% of leading biologists who do not profess (by their own admission) a belief in God. Thus, we find most textbooks and teachers implying that &quot;evolution is a fact&quot;. This is not scientific teaching, it is pure propaganda.

Once again, you make an unsupported assertion; the addition of some percentage does not make the assertion any more meaningful than it was before. It is also unclear what you mean by "leading biologists", and "dominated" -- are you trying to claim that some small subset of practicing biologists somehow dictate what gets studied and/or published? If not, what do you mean.

Additionally, even if you could somehow demonstrate that the majority of practicing biologists were indeed atheists, it does not follow that the personal beliefs (or lack thereof) of individuals somehow means that evolution is not true. The factuality or not of any scientific hypothesis must be demonstrated by reference to data and analysis, not the personality flaws of the investigators.

[Woman]

It is clear to me that the current problem facing YEC's and fundamentalist, Biblical inerrancy proponents is a straight-forward one.

1. There is a certain personality/cultural type which is not comfortable with ambiguity. They are the black-and-white, right-or-wrong folks who have created a world-view to support their needs. This world view is typically regimented and uncritical of its own narrowness. The dogma which becomes imbedded in such people/groups provides a sense of comfort and purpose, but because it is inflexible and generally dependent on very specific beliefs which are not questioned - there is also a built in weakness. Any challenge to their adamant beliefs, because it is perceived as a threat to their intellectual and emotional existence, is met with the strongest resistance. Thus, any world views which are significantly at odds with theirs, any person or group advocating contradictory evidence or philosophy is seen as "the enemy."

We see this manifested in different ways around the world. Perhaps the most extreme example is religious fanaticism.

2. The chief problem with such groups, aside from the toll they may take on society, is that once the dogma is fully embraced and internalized, the potential for its long-term success shrinks. The ability to adapt is necessary for survival. Once this ability is no longer an option, the entity is at risk. This is true whether we are considering plants, animals, individuals, groups or cultures.

3. Today's YEC's and Biblical inerrant advocates have painted themselves into a corner which grows ever tighter and more uncomfortable. Because the all or nothing mentality prevails, they must find ways to defend not just their core beliefs, but every description and detail thereof. Thus their entire belief system may rest on a literal interpretation of a few sentences. Needless to say, this puts them in a precarious position.

4. As science discovers more and more about our universe and our past, it is evident that some previously held ideas were simply wrong. For the vast majority of people, new information is exciting and illuminating. We know now that our universe and our own living cells are far more complex and amazing than ever suspected. Our awe and appreciation of life is enhanced. Atheists are as awed by this magnificence as are people who believe that intelligent design is self-evident in the world around us. Christians who have allowed that their faith is not based on nit-picking details are not threatened by science.

5. However, for a minority who have the idea that volumes of scripture, from oral tradition, written by many hands over hundreds of years in multiple languages must have NO errors or their belief system will collapse, these are dark times. The possibility that the Bible may have some inaccurate information and that the NT writers may have used a liberal hand in setting down events, (in order to explain or justify certain scenes) is simply too horrific to contemplate. There's the rub.

6. Forced to defend their faith which rests on shaky ground, through their own stubborn insistence, they resort to extreme measures. Thus, instead of concentrating on their interpretation of scripture and what it might mean in light of new information, they fight tooth and nail to deny the new data and re-interpret the Bible to also deny it. Simultaneously, they attack the source of their angst, the perceived enemy...science. This takes many forms, the most recent a desperate attempt to highjack the methods and terms of science itself. So we have "creation science." This is a most puzzling term to the scientific community, a veritable oxy-moron. Scientific method demands specific steps which include unbiased gathering of information before putting forth a supposition to be tested. This testing must continue until the idea is either falsified or eventually attains the status of theory. But YEC's have no real desire to gather new information because their conclusion has sprung fully formed without any scientific data at all. God created the world in 6 days. The world is about 6,000 years old. Modern man and animals are all descend from survivors of a global flood. Evolution is a dirty word, unless you only mean that "kinds" have changed and adapted from their original forms and that in no way are you suggesting anything that could potentially conflict with Genesis. Well. That eliminates any chance for exercising scientific method and it renders the term "creation science" as meaningless as "Christian atheist."

[tgamble]

Excellent points. You've summed it up very nicely.


Today @ 09:48 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43897#post43897)
Woman:

It is clear to me that the current problem facing YEC's and fundamentalist, Biblical inerrancy proponents is a straight-forward one.

1. There is a certain personality/cultural type which is not comfortable with ambiguity. They are the black-and-white, right-or-wrong folks who have created a world-view to support their needs. This world view is typically regimented and uncritical of its own narrowness. The dogma which becomes imbedded in such people/groups provides a sense of comfort and purpose, but because it is inflexible and generally dependent on very specific beliefs which are not questioned - there is also a built in weakness. Any challenge to their adamant beliefs, because it is perceived as a threat to their intellectual and emotional existence, is met with the strongest resistance. Thus, any world views which are significantly at odds with theirs, any person or group advocating contradictory evidence or philosophy is seen as &quot;the enemy.&quot;

We see this manifested in different ways around the world. Perhaps the most extreme example is religious fanaticism.

2. The chief problem with such groups, aside from the toll they may take on society, is that once the dogma is fully embraced and internalized, the potential for its long-term success shrinks. The ability to adapt is necessary for survival. Once this ability is no longer an option, the entity is at risk. This is true whether we are considering plants, animals, individuals, groups or cultures.

3. Today's YEC's and Biblical inerrant advocates have painted themselves into a corner which grows ever tighter and more uncomfortable. Because the all or nothing mentality prevails, they must find ways to defend not just their core beliefs, but every description and detail thereof. Thus their entire belief system may rest on a literal interpretation of a few sentences. Needless to say, this puts them in a precarious position.

4. As science discovers more and more about our universe and our past, it is evident that some previously held ideas were simply wrong. For the vast majority of people, new information is exciting and illuminating. We know now that our universe and our own living cells are far more complex and amazing than ever suspected. Our awe and appreciation of life is enhanced. Atheists are as awed by this magnificence as are people who believe that intelligent design is self-evident in the world around us. Christians who have allowed that their faith is not based on nit-picking details are not threatened by science.

5. However, for a minority who have the idea that volumes of scripture, from oral tradition, written by many hands over hundreds of years in multiple languages must have NO errors or their belief system will collapse, these are dark times. The possibility that the Bible may have some inaccurate information and that the NT writers may have used a liberal hand in setting down events, (in order to explain or justify certain scenes) is simply too horrific to contemplate. There's the rub.

6. Forced to defend their faith which rests on shaky ground, through their own stubborn insistence, they resort to extreme measures. Thus, instead of concentrating on their interpretation of scripture and what it might mean in light of new information, they fight tooth and nail to deny the new data and re-interpret the Bible to also deny it. Simultaneously, they attack the source of their angst, the perceived enemy...science. This takes many forms, the most recent a desperate attempt to highjack the methods and terms of science itself. So we have &quot;creation science.&quot; This is a most puzzling term to the scientific community, a veritable oxy-moron. Scientific method demands specific steps which include unbiased gathering of information before putting forth a supposition to be tested. This testing must continue until the idea is either falsified or eventually attains the status of theory. But YEC's have no real desire to gather new information because their conclusion has sprung fully formed without any scientific data at all. God created the world in 6 days. The world is about 6,000 years old. Modern man and animals are all descend from survivors of a global flood. Evolution is a dirty word, unless you only mean that &quot;kinds&quot; have changed and adapted from their original forms and that in no way are you suggesting anything that could potentially conflict with Genesis. Well. That eliminates any chance for exercising scientific method and it renders the term &quot;creation science&quot; as meaningless as &quot;Christian atheist.&quot;

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 07:30 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43590#post43590)
TenDimensions:

For all you Creationists out there who are convinced evolutionists keep ignoring the big &quot;hole&quot; everyone thinks exists in biological evolution, a quote from the March 2003 issue of Scientific American, &quot;Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?&quot; page 86:


The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties - structures that have no clear antecendents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergance of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.




This quote is misleading since feathers do have antecendents: scutes.

From the article itself.

Creationists and other evolutionary skeptics have long pointed to feathers as a favorite example of the insufficiency of evolutionary theory. There were no transitional forms between scales and feathers, they have argued. Further, they asked why natural selection for flight would first divide an elongate scale and then evolve an elaborate new mechanism to weave it back together. Now, in an ironic about-face, feathers offer a sterling example of how we can best study the origin of an evolutionary novelty: focus on understanding those features that are truly new and examine how they form during development in modern organisms. This new paradigm in evolutionary biology is certain to penetrate many more mysteries. Let our minds take wing.

[Socratism]

feathers do have antecendents: scutes.

Tell us more.

[tgamble]

Today @ 01:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44040#post44040)
Socratism:

Tell us more.

Why? Nothing RA can say is going to change what the bible says so why would you even care? Just curious.

[Socratism]

Today @ 08:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44050#post44050)
tgamble:
Why? Nothing RA can say is going to change what the bible says so why would you even care? Just curious.

And I was merely curious why growing feathers in a different place on a creature that already has coding for feathers in normal places shows anything about how scales on a non-feathered creature can be morphed into feathers.

I would have thought that fruit fly experiments have already showed that dittlling with DNA can generate all sorts of monstrosities and misplaced features but nothing not already coded someplace in the fruit fly DNA.

This again demonstrates how desperate evolutionists are to find evidence to support their transformational fantasies and how they typically jump to conclusions on rather fragmentary evidence. This is probably why they must run hard to just stay in the same place because they have to discard what they said just a few years ago as evidence falsifies it, only to see them propose some new idea that will eventually also end up in the ash heap of history. Don't they think anyone notices this? (I do)

[Socrates]

Woman wrote:
It is clear to me that the current problem facing YEC's and fundamentalist, Biblical inerrancy proponents is a straight-forward one. ... [Rest of verbose fact-free ramblings deleted. No wonder gamble liked it.]

[Socrates]

I wrote:


I know, like the creationist Ph.D. biologists Drs Batten, Catchpoole and Jerlström who now work at AiG, as well as one of Australia's leading molecular biologists, Dr Ian Macreadie.

gamble spouted:
How sad to see educated people abandon reason and the knowlege they learned in favor of myths purely due to blind faith.Another ipse dixit from gamble, whose biological knowledge is so limited that he wouldn't be fit to tie the shoes of these guys.


Again, Socratism is completely right. And for the benefit of people like QED, I deny that Spong is a Christian because he denies the boldily resurrection of Christ -- see www.answersingenesis.org/spong. But once more, his unbelief is explicitly founded on evolutionary dogma.

Do you have ANY idea how pathetically stupid you sound? Blaming acceptance of evolution for rejecting a ressurection of Jesus? The two are totally unrelated! Do you have ANY idea how pathetically stupid you sound? Blame SPONG not me!!

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 08:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44040#post44040)
Socratism:

Tell us more.

The scientific american article does go into this somewhat, I suggest that you go to your local library and take the time to read it.

Scutes are found on all archaeosaurs, including birds, crocidillians, and dinosaurs. The same proteins used in making scutes are also used in making feathers. It is also possible for developmental mutations to turn scutes into feathers in birds, as seen in Feather Leg Bantums (http://klpoultryfarm.safeshopper.com/111/cat111.htm?374).

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 02:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43813#post43813)
Socratism:
For example, the assumption that since science can only deal with events in the natural world that consideration of the Genesis account of supernatural creation of the universe/life is considered &quot;out of bounds&quot;.

Out of bounds for science! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

Please, oh please, explain to me how a Creation story can be scientific in any way, shape, or form. It's a very wonderful story and you can believe in it all you want - but it's not science and it never will be.

Why is it so important to you that it must be science?

[Socratism]

Today @ 04:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43897#post43897)
Woman:
It is clear to me that the current problem facing YEC's and fundamentalist, Biblical inerrancy proponents is a straight-forward one.

1. There is a certain personality/cultural type which is not comfortable with ambiguity.They are the black-and-white, right-or-wrong folks who have created a world-view to support their needs. ...

Ah yes, but remember that I am a recovered evolutionist and my evaluation is that your points 1 and 2 can be applied equally to diehards in that field as well. In addition you seem to think that people like myself are opposed to science. Actually I was always known for my love for science. My problem with evolution is that in its extreme form (extrapolation back to a single primordial replicating molecule) it is a bastardization of the science that I have always loved and will continue to do so in the future.


3. Today's YEC's and Biblical inerrant advocates have painted themselves into a corner which grows ever tighter and more uncomfortable. Because the all or nothing mentality prevails, they must find ways to defend not just their core beliefs, but every description and detail thereof. Thus their entire belief system may rest on a literal interpretation of a few sentences. Needless to say, this puts them in a precarious position.

I see it completely differently for time is on our side and the tide is flowing away from evolutionary excesses. Every new finding in biology, particularly in DNA makes it even more visibly preposterous that the clever mechanis,ms being discovered are the result of "copying errors". It is almost unbelievable that intelligent people can not see this.


4. As science discovers more and more about our universe and our past, it is evident that some previously held ideas were simply wrong. For the vast majority of people, new information is exciting and illuminating. We know now that our universe and our own living cells are far more complex and amazing than ever suspected. Our awe and appreciation of life is enhanced.

You bet and that is why ideas advanced at the time of the US Civil War must be discarded as being hopelessly inadequate to explain what is being discovered.


Atheists are as awed by this magnificence as are people who believe that intelligent design is self-evident in the world around us. Christians who have allowed that their faith is not based on nit-picking details are not threatened by science.

Here we go again. We went to the moon and invented computers so evolution must be true. I have news for you. Evolution or even the Big Bang is not operational science but more like uncontrolled and untestable speculation, which is why I oppose teaching it as though it is fact.


5. However, for a minority who have the idea that volumes of scripture, from oral tradition, written by many hands over hundreds of years in multiple languages must have NO errors or their belief system will collapse, these are dark times.

I will gladly debate you on that old canard of "oral traition", how it got started and why it has been shown by archeology to be somewhat overstated and speculative if not downright false.


The possibility that the Bible may have some inaccurate information and that the NT writers may have used a liberal hand in setting down events, (in order to explain or justify certain scenes) is simply too horrific to contemplate. There's the rub.

The rub seems to be that people like yourself suck up speculative theories by liberal scholars without asking how such ideas can be supported by real evidence. The history in this area is similar to the evolutionary one where old ideas are discarded as new evidence shows they are false, but are then rapidly replaced by new ideas that are equally speculative.

BTW, in the future please debate your points one at a time. I hate long posts and this one is costing me 2 spam points. Thanks.

[Woman]

Socratism,

Actually "people like me" do look for support in their views. It's when we find none that belief fades. Now, I am not an abiogenesis supporter either. I happen to think there is more to it. But Genesis isn't it.

You know, the idea that life arises on its own was once believed by even the most fundamental Christian. Although back then they called it "spontaneous generation" and it only applied to maggots. It seems that it's not so much that there's an objection to Life ex nihilo as there is to "something that might be related to ME"

BTW - I appreciate the civil tone of your extensive reply.

[Socrates]

RA:
Scutes are found on all archaeosaurs, including birds, crocidillians, and dinosaurs. The same proteins used in making scutes are also used in making feathers. It is also possible for developmental mutations to turn scutes into feathers in birds, as seen in Feather Leg Bantums. Yeah, by turning on genes for feathers that are ALREADY PRESENT!! Now, if you could turn scutes ON A REPTILE to feathers, then you'd really have something!

Note also, feathers are made from a different type of keratin to scales. A major point of the Sci. Am. article was to concede that creationists were right to deny that feathers evolved from scales. Instead, they presented another evolutionary idea that's equally fallacious.

[Socrates]

Woman:
You know, the idea that life arises on its own was once believed by even the most fundamental Christian.Any examples? Although back then they called it "spontaneous generation" and it only applied to maggots. Spontaneous generation was a teaching of the pagan Aristotle. It was opposed by creationist scientists on the grounds that God has FINISHED creating things, and decreed that they should reproduce "after their kinds". Now SG has been revived against all the evidence by modern materialists, and called "chemical evolution" or "abiogenesis".

[Socratism]

Woman's last point.


6. Forced to defend their faith which rests on shaky ground, through their own stubborn insistence, they resort to extreme measures. Thus, instead of concentrating on their interpretation of scripture and what it might mean in light of new information, they fight tooth and nail to deny the new data and re-interpret the Bible to also deny it.

Actually we embrace new data from archeology because it always falsifies the speculations of the liberal scholars.

Yes, Moses could have written the Torah because it was shown that writing had indeed been invented by then (despite prior speculative liberal statements to the contrary)

Yes, there really was a King David ((despite prior speculative liberal statements to the contrary)

Yes, Paul really did go to the places he said and got the names of the governors right (despite prior speculative liberal statements to the contrary)

and on and on for the past 50 years or more.


Simultaneously, they attack the source of their angst, the perceived enemy...science.

Baloney. The enemy is evolution and no wrapping it in the mantle of legitimate science can hide its imperfections.


This takes many forms, the most recent a desperate attempt to highjack the methods and terms of science itself. So we have &quot;creation science.&quot; This is a most puzzling term to the scientific community, a veritable oxy-moron. Scientific method demands specific steps which include unbiased gathering of information before putting forth a supposition to be tested.

Unbiased gathering indeed. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is the rallying cry for all evolutionists. That is why they screwed up in analyzing why microbes become immune to antibiotics. Belief in evolution actually inhibits scientific progress as this example illustrates.


This testing must continue until the idea is either falsified or eventually attains the status of theory.

The "testing" of evolutionary ideas is so bogus it should be a scandal. If descent is ruled out then similarity must be "convergence". Some test.


But YEC's have no real desire to gather new information because their conclusion has sprung fully formed without any scientific data at all. God created the world in 6 days. The world is about 6,000 years old. Modern man and animals are all descend from survivors of a global flood.

A gracious God gave special revelation so that those who trust Him would not be lured into a trap for the unwary. The 95% of leading biologists who process their disbelief in God have fallen into a trap to their eternal ****ation.


Evolution is a dirty word, unless you only mean that &quot;kinds&quot; have changed and adapted from their original forms and that in no way are you suggesting anything that could potentially conflict with Genesis.

I am glad you recognize that words like evolution, species etc. are so ill defined that they are typically disingenuously used by evolutionists.


Well. That eliminates any chance for exercising scientific method and it renders the term &quot;creation science&quot; as meaningless as &quot;Christian atheist.&quot;

Apparently you are under the mistaken notion that the scientific method is used in extrapolating back to a single replicating (hypothetical) molecule. Speculating about past events is one of the areas of science where use of the scientific method is quite limited.

This idea that Origins research is akin to other areas of science where experiments can be designed and carefully controlled to truly test the validity of theories is probably the greatest deception fostered by evolutionary enthusiasts.

[Woman]

Socrates:

Yeah, by turning on genes for feathers that are ALREADY PRESENT!! Now, if you could turn scutes ON A REPTILE to feathers, then you'd really have something!

It's called archaeopteryx!! Which for all intents and purposes is a reptile. But you (creationists) have insisted on calling a BIRD because it has feathers and darn it - reptiles can't have them.

Apart from the feathers, however, Archaeopteryx exhibits a number of characteristics which are not birdlike at all, but are shared by the therapod dinosaurs--and some of these are found in no other group of animals. Among the dinosaurian characteristics exhibited by Archaeopteryx are: simple concave articulation points on the cervical vertebrae, rather than the elongated saddle-shaped articulation found in birds; vertebrae in the trunk region which are free and mobile, rather than fused together as in birds; the presence of gastralia, or abdominal ribs, which are found in reptiles and therapods but not in birds; a rib cage which lacks uncinate processes and does not articulate with the sternum, rather than the strutlike uncinates and sternum articulations found in all birds; a sacrum consisting of only 6 vertebrae, rather than the 11-23 found in birds; mobile joints in the bones of the elbow, wrist and fingers, rather than the fused joints found in birds; a shoulder socket that faces downward like a therapod's, rather than outward like a bird's; solid bones which lack pneumatic sacs, rather than the hollow air-permeated bones found in birds; and a long bony tail with free vertebrae, rather than the short fused pygostile found in birds;

The Archaeopteryx skull is also typically reptilian in structure, exhibiting: a number of openings or "fenestrae" in the skull, arranged as in therapod dinosaurs and not birds; a heavy but short quadratic bone which is inclined forward as in reptiles; a bend in the jawbones behind the tooth row; a long retro-articular process, which is found in reptiles but not in birds; a thin straight jugal bone as in reptiles; a preorbital bar separating the anteorbital fenestra and the eye socket (a reptilian characteristic); an occipital condyle and foramen magnum that are located above the dorsal end of the quadrate bone as in therapods, rather than below the quadrate as in all other birds; and a brain structure which exhibits elongated and slender cerebral hemispheres which do not overlap the midbrain (in birds, the cerebral hemispheres are heavy and extend over top of the midbrain).

This is part of an article you can read on http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/archie.htm

It is already over seven years old and I believe there have been even more astounding fossils of archaeopteryx found since!

[Socrates]

Socrates:


Yeah, by turning on genes for feathers that are ALREADY PRESENT!! Now, if you could turn scutes ON A REPTILE to feathers, then you'd really have something!

Woman replied:It's called archaeopteryx!! Which for all intents and purposes is a reptile. But you (creationists) have insisted on calling a BIRD because it has feathers and darn it - reptiles can't have them.This is a completely different issue. My point was that RA did not demonstrate that feathers evolved from skutes, but he would have gone a long way to support it if he could have shown that skutes on a reptile could be turned into feathers.

As for Archaeopteryx, it is NOT just a reptile with feathers. It already had: Fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds).
Classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds.
Large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.
Typical avian brain with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. A movable maxilla (upper jaw).
Claw for perching, showing that it was a perching bird not a feathered dinosaur.
Avian flow-through lung system with air sacs and pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis.Also, it is "dated" millions of years OLDER than its alleged "feathered dinosaur" ancestors. Even Confuciusornis, a beaked bird, is "older" than those "feathered dinos".

I see that you edited after I posted. No matter -- the above points are enough to show that your claim that Archie was just a reptile is simplistic.

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44263#post44263)
Woman:

Socratism,

Actually &quot;people like me&quot; do look for support in their views. It's when we find none that belief fades.

Perhaps like women in a bar you are looking in all the wrong places.


Now, I am not an abiogenesis supporter either. I happen to think there is more to it. But Genesis isn't it.

I can understand that. When I believed in evolution I had a disdain for Genesis (actually the whole OT) as well. It is interesting how my attitude slowly changed once I discovered that evolution could not possibly be true.


You know, the idea that life arises on its own was once believed by even the most fundamental Christian.Although back then they called it &quot;spontaneous generation&quot; and it only applied to maggots.


They were probably confused by scientists of that day who claimed it was a "fact". Hence they had to believe it.


It seems that it's not so much that there's an objection to Life ex nihilo as there is to &quot;something that might be related to ME&quot;
BTW - I appreciate the civil tone of your extensive reply.

I'm trying my best but I do get peeved at falsehoods that have been known to be false for many years snaring more victims who repeat them on these forums.

In my day I was taught to believe that evolution was a fact, and when I see that happening today, even though scientific advances continue to make the concept less and less credible, it raises my blood pressure.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 11:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44265#post44265)
Socrates:

Yeah, by turning on genes for feathers that are ALREADY PRESENT!!

So what? The fact that feathers can replace scutes by a simple developmental mutation is evidence for their relationship. The Scientific American article is all about what the development of feathers can tell us about their evolutionary history. How about you read it?


Note also, feathers are made from a different type of keratin to scales.

Who said anything about scales? We're talking about scutes.

[Tycho]

Today @ 09:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44286#post44286)
Socratism:
I can understand that. When I believed in evolution I had a disdain for Genesis (actually the whole OT) as well. It is interesting how my attitude slowly changed once I discovered that evolution could not possibly be true.
It's truly amazing how every time you post here, the magnitude of my respect for you just continues to increase!


They were probably confused by scientists of that day who claimed it was a &quot;fact&quot;. Hence they had to believe it.
Please elaborate. Just who claimed that spontaneous generation was an absolute fact, and what evidence did they site?


I'm trying my best but I do get peeved at falsehoods that have been known to be false for many years snaring more victims who repeat them on these forums.
Like these falsehoods?

> But for positive evidence, we have
> the best of all—a reliable Eye-witness
> to the event who has provided a
> written record, which overrules any
> circumstantial evidence! And even if
> we grant evolutionary/uniformitarian
> assumptions, there are oodles of
> processes pointing to an age far
> younger than billions of years—see
> Young Earth Evidence

> As I've said elsewhere, said written
> account is unambiguous that the
> Earth is about 6000 years old.

> No we [Christians] are not, because
> our presuppositions are both
> internally consistent and externally
> consistent in that they provide a
> rational framwork to make sense of
> the world.

> Au contraire, isochrons are
> measurements of isotopic ratios that
> are interpreted as long age. But
> other processes are known to
> produce beautiful “isochron” plots —
> AiG's Dr Tas Walker has shown that
> in his own first-class honors thesis.

> Rather, challenge the right of
> so-called “science”, which is not the
> true operfational science but really
> uniformitarian interpretions of data
> by fallible scientists who weren't
> there, to overturn the clear
> propositional teaching of the infallible
> God who was there.

> And whenever a rabid misotheist like
> you sends an article like that, I use
> this as yet another example of how
> anti-Christian bigots use such
> compromising churchians as Wien as
> "useful idiots", to borrow Lenin's
> term. And I just throw back the
> articles here.

> By "misinformation", you mean
> anything that disagrees with
> billions-of-years dogma, since you are
> incapable of refuting it.

> Actually, they DO censor Creationist
> work, or at least anything that
> challenges the so-called science of
> evolution. I recall a certain
> evolutionist uncovering human bones
> at a strata where there aren't
> supposed to be any humans! He was
> immediately censored; science
> journals have vehemently refused to
> publish his works. I cannot remember
> his name at the moment, but I will
> follow up once I get the information
> from a colleague of mine.
>
> Keep up the great work Socrates,
> you are showing why evolutionism is
> immersed in faulty logic and
> presuppositions... thankfully the
> proponents are as misguided as the
> supposed evolutionary process :-)

> They [evolutionists] admit that
> science does not have all the
> answers yet, but then chastise
> creationists when there are still
> problems to be solved in the
> creationist hypothesis.
>
> This behavior strikes me as
> hypocritical.

>> and would you please tell me what >> is "the creationist hypothesis"?
>
> Even though it's obvious you need
> spoonfeeding , I won't. So I'll just
> refer you to one of the many web
> articles available, and to which I've
> already referred people a number of
> times, e.g. here.


In my day I was taught to believe that evolution was a fact, and when I see that happening today, even though scientific advances continue to make the concept less and less credible, it raises my blood pressure.
To what are referring? Scientific advances in genetics? Oops! That's the strongest evidence for evolution! Well, maybe you mean scientific advances in paleontology? Oops! That still constitutes evidence for evolution. Gee, I guess you can only mean scientific advances in geology. Oops! It still provides a framework in which evolution works.

Pray tell, just what scientific advances are you thinking of?

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 11:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44271#post44271)
Socrates:

Now SG has been revived against all the evidence by modern materialists, and called &quot;chemical evolution&quot; or &quot;abiogenesis&quot;.

A typical creationist lie. Spontaneous generation is not the same thing as abiogenesis, as any decent introductory biology text can tell you.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

Yeah, by turning on genes for feathers that are ALREADY PRESENT!!
RA:
So what? The fact that feathers can replace scutes by a simple developmental mutation is evidence for their relationship. Not at all, any more than antennae and legs are related because of a monstrsoty called antennapedia, where a leg grows where an antenna should grow. Here again, the already existing genetic information for legs is expressed in the wrong place. That scute-to-feather transition is the same principle. As I say, you could convince many people of their relationship if you could induce feathers to form from REPTILE scutes.

The Scientific American article is all about what the development of feathers can tell us about their evolutionary history. How about you read it?Have you read it yourself? I sure have. And I've read the critique at www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp . The new evo-devo theory has nothing to do with scales or anything similar.


Note also, feathers are made from a different type of keratin to scales.

Who said anything about scales? We're talking about scutes.And according to www.Dictionary.com, a scute is "(Zo["o]l.) A bony scale of a reptile or fish; a large horny scale on the leg of a bird, or on the belly of a snake."

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 04:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43897#post43897)
Woman:

It is clear to me that the current problem facing YEC's and fundamentalist, Biblical inerrancy proponents is a straight-forward one.


Excellent post! :cheers: :thumb:

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 10:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44164#post44164)
Socratism:
This again demonstrates how desperate evolutionists are to find evidence to support their transformational fantasies and how they typically jump to conclusions on rather fragmentary evidence. This is probably why they must run hard to just stay in the same place because they have to discard what they said just a few years ago as evidence falsifies it, only to see them propose some new idea that will eventually also end up in the ash heap of history. Don't they think anyone notices this? (I do)

You do realize that if somehow the particular aspect of evolution that you have a problem with is proven wrong by the majority of scientists they aren't going to suddenly turn to ID theory, right? That's simply just not a valid scientific theory - it will be replaced by something just as naturalistic as what exists today.

If you can't understand that - then I'm comfortable saying that you really don't understand how science works.

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 10:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44184#post44184)
Socrates:
Woman wrote:
It is clear to me that the current problem facing YEC's and fundamentalist, Biblical inerrancy proponents is a straight-forward one. ... [Rest of verbose fact-free ramblings deleted. No wonder gamble liked it.]

Actually, Socrates, she made some very good points of opinion. How come you don't feel the need to respond? While she wasn't exactly talking about hard science she was making some very good points regarding the psychosis...erm...I mean psychology behind YEC... :smile: Oh... I'm just kidding... :tongue:

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 11:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44274#post44274)
Socratism:
Unbiased gathering indeed. &quot;Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution&quot; is the rallying cry for all evolutionists. That is why they screwed up in analyzing why microbes become immune to antibiotics. Belief in evolution actually inhibits scientific progress as this example illustrates.

What?!? :huh: Could you please explain that one?? How exactly did we not predict the impending immunity to antibiotics?

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 11:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44286#post44286)
Socratism:
They were probably confused by scientists of that day who claimed it was a &quot;fact&quot;. Hence they had to believe it.


I'm sure you're just joking here - otherwise you need to learn some history: The scientists of the day were Christians. Generally monks or priests, the most learned people of the day.

[Socrates]

10D asks Socratism:How exactly did we not predict the impending immunity to antibiotics?Actually, the PBS propaganda series on evolution supports Socratism. They reported that medical experts as late as 1969 thought that ‘infectious diseases were a thing of the past’. This implies that it was NOT a prediction of evolution, but rather the phenomenon took them by surprised and they tacked on an evolutionary explanation. However, there is a perfectly good creationist explanation, as explained in the AiG rebuttal to this episode http://before you ask, YES I did see the series -- it's been on the Australian TV channel SBS two or three times.

[Socratism]

Today @ 07:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44478#post44478)
TenDimensions:
What?!? :huh: Could you please explain that one?? How exactly did we not predict the impending immunity to antibiotics?

The error was in asuming that "mutations plus natural selection" dunnit. The fact is that there are always some bacteria that are resistent so that when you kill off the ones that aren't resistent, the remaining ones, who are normally less fit, are free to take over the population. Conversely, when the antibiotic is removed from their environment for a sufficient period of time, the situation returns to the normal state.

This whole thing should be obvious because if evolution takes lots of time to generate new features then creatures would not be able to rapidly adapt to changing environments. Most adaptation is obviously due to varieties that already have characteristics allowing them to survive in a changed environment.

Lesson 1: use antibiotics only for short periods when a person's natural immune system is compromised: don't overuse antibiotics.

Lesson 2: don't jump to conclusions by believing too literally in evolution, particularly large scale transformation type evolution.

Lesson 3: don't be a sucker and confuse adaptation with generation of new features through some dubious process like mutation.

[Saxonella]

A recent article on feathers. It may provide some insights into the kinds of questions that are asked, and the kinds of research that are undertaken, when "big" questions, like "origin of feathers" are asked.


Yu et al. 2002. The morphogenesis of feathers. Nature 420:308-312.

ABSTRACT Feathers are highly ordered, hierarchical branched structures that confer birds with the ability of flight. Discoveries of fossilized dinosaurs from China bearing 'feather-like' structures have prompted interest in the origin and evolution of feathers. However, there is uncertainty about whether the irregularly branched integumentary fibres on dinosaurs such as Sinornithosaurus are truly feathers, and whether an integumentary appendage with a major central shaft and notched edges is a non-avian feather or a proto-feather. Here, we use a developmental approach to analyse molecular mechanisms of feather-branching morphogenesis. We have used the replication-competent avian sarcoma retrovirus to deliver exogenous genes to regenerating flight feather follicles of chickens. We show that the antagonistic balance between noggin and bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4) has a critical role for feather branching, with BMP4 promoting rachis formation and barb fusion, and noggin enhancing rachis and barb branching. Furthermore, we show that sonic hedgehog (Shh) is essential for inducing apoptosis of the marginal plate epithelia, which results in spaces between the barbs. Our analysis identifies the molecular pathways underlying the topological transformation of feathers from cylindrical epithelia to the hierarchical branched structures, and provide insights on the possible developmental mechanisms in the evolution of feather forms.

[Socratism]

Today @ 07:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44475#post44475)
TenDimensions:
You do realize that if somehow the particular aspect of evolution that you have a problem with is proven wrong by the majority of scientists they aren't going to suddenly turn to ID theory, right? That's simply just not a valid scientific theory - it will be replaced by something just as naturalistic as what exists today.

If you can't understand that - then I'm comfortable saying that you really don't understand how science works.

I think I understand how science works far better than you do.

The normal process of science works fine for the vast majority of operational situations, because there really is a natural solution to how things work in the natural world.

The problem arises when we start talking about ultimate origins: creation of the universe and creation of life forms. Here the solution may not be natural but instead supernatural.

In these two cases it is intellectual suicide to persist in the belief that science must assume a natural explanation, for if these things were supernatural events then science would automatically fail to detect this.

The assumption that science must assume a natural origin for the universe and first life is a very clever lie that has sucked many people in.

[Saxonella]

Today @ 03:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44164#post44164)
Socratism:



And I was merely curious why growing feathers in a different place on a creature that already has coding for feathers in normal places shows anything about how scales on a non-feathered creature can be morphed into feathers.

I would have thought that fruit fly experiments have already showed that dittlling with DNA can generate all sorts of monstrosities and misplaced features but nothing not already coded someplace in the fruit fly DNA.

Are you implying that all features of every organism were somehow "coded" into that organisms DNA "from the beginning"? If so, then you must be claiming that the ability of a certain Japanese bacterum to digest nylon (a polymer that did not exist before 1935) was present in that bacterium's genome since "the beginning".

Please elaborate on this. I find it fascinating.

(I hope you realize that scientists have discovered and described the mutation that led to this ability....)

(unhelpful editorializing on the motives of evolutionists snipped)

[Socrates]

Saxonella:
Are you implying that all features of every organism were somehow "coded" into that organisms DNA "from the beginning"? Be more specific. We were arguing that causing feathers to grow in unusual places ON BIRDS proves nothing. Doing that on REPTILES would be a different matter.If so, then you must be claiming that the ability of a certain Japanese bacterum to digest nylon (a polymer that did not exist before 1935) was present in that bacterium's genome since "the beginning".
Most skeptical of this. This seems to be from a New Mexico atheism site, and AiG has some ideas (and they seem to anticipate the alleged refutation by the atheist site) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp (unhelpful editorializing on the motives of evolutionists snipped)And of course, you would never editorialize on the motives of creationists, would you?

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 09:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44517#post44517)
Socratism:
The normal process of science works fine for the vast majority of operational situations, because there really is a natural solution to how things work in the natural world.

Agreed, although I would expand that to discuss all operational situations, but fine.


The problem arises when we start talking about ultimate origins: creation of the universe and creation of life forms. Here the solution may not be natural but instead supernatural.

You're ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT! Science could not possibly be used to explain an origin IF that origin turned out to be supernatural in any way shape or form.


In these two cases it is intellectual suicide to persist in the belief that science must assume a natural explanation, for if these things were supernatural events then science would automatically fail to detect this.

Right again! So maybe you do understand science. But what you're failing to realize is that science can ONLY assume naturalistic causes for anything. This is a pretty basic concept. How exactly would you like the scientific method to apply to anything that is claimed to be supernatural? It's a matter of faith. What's so wrong with that? Why is it so important to you that you need to be able to explain your religion in scientific terms?

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 03:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44422#post44422)
Socrates:

Socrates:

Not at all, any more than antennae and legs are related because of a monstrsoty called antennapedia, where a leg grows where an antenna should grow.

Good thing to see you concede my point, since antennae and legs are developementally related too.


That scute-to-feather transition is the same principle. As I say, you could convince many people of their relationship if you could induce feathers to form from REPTILE scutes.

That what the featherleg mutation does. :argh:


Have you read it yourself?
Of course.


I sure have.
Then you should read it again, since you obviously didn't pay attention the first time through. As evidenced by the following statement.


The new evo-devo theory has nothing to do with scales or anything similar.

There is no new "evo-devo theory." Evo-devo refers to using the evidence from development to inform us about evolutionary history.


And according to www.Dictionary.com, a scute is &quot;(Zo[&quot;o]l.) A bony scale of a reptile or fish; a large horny scale on the leg of a bird, or on the belly of a snake.&quot;

As you see a scute is a scale but a scale is not always a scute. Your appeal to the differences between feathers and "scales" is badly formed since "scales" refers to multiple different things. However, archaeosaur scutes and feathers are both made of Beta-keratins. Thus whatever source told you they were different was probably not comparing archaeosaur scutes and feathers.

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44538#post44538)
Saxonella:

Are you implying that all features of every organism were somehow &quot;coded&quot; into that organisms DNA &quot;from the beginning&quot;?

I made no such generalization since the natural world has trillions of special cases of which I am only aware of a limited number. No, I was merely commenting on how easily a person with preconceived ideas leaps to a conclusion that may not be true.


If so, then you must be claiming that the ability of a certain Japanese bacterum to digest nylon (a polymer that did not exist before 1935) was present in that bacterium's genome since &quot;the beginning&quot;.

I obviously do not know but I think it unwise to rule out such a possibility prematurely.


Please elaborate on this. I find it fascinating. (I hope you realize that scientists have discovered and described the mutation that led to this ability....)

Evolutionary oriented biologists frequently jump to conclusions based on their faith in "mutations plus natural selection". I prefer to wait on the verdict of history for in many cases initial conclusions are overturned by further research.

I think it is sad how evolutionary bias stunts biological understanding because of the siren song of "mutations dunnit".

My position is that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't, and each case should be decided on its own merits free of preconceived viewpoints.

[Saxonella]

Today @ 03:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44543#post44543)
Socrates:

Be more specific. We were arguing that causing feathers to grow in unusual places ON BIRDS proves nothing. Doing that on REPTILES would be a different matter.

I believe that was an issue you brought up in a different post. I am asking Socratism to expand on a specific claim that was made in his (her?) post. Perhaps you would be good enough to let Socratism comment if he or she cares to.


Most skeptical of this. This seems to be from a New Mexico atheism site, and AiG has some ideas (and they seem to anticipate the alleged refutation by the atheist site) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp

I see no indication that AiG questions the ability of certain bacteria to break down the oligomers of a polymer that did not exist prior to about 1935. Even if the enzyme exists on plasmids, my initial question still pertains: are you (or Socratism, or AiG) claiming that the ability to break down a substance that had not yet been invented was present in plasmid DNA "from the beginning"?


And of course, you would never editorialize on the motives of creationists., would you?

I have been reading your posts, and I note that you seem anxious to indulge in sarcasm and innuendo. I am uncertain why you think that adds anything of value to the discussion.

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44592#post44592)
Saxonella:
I am asking Socratism to expand on a specific claim that was made in his (her?) post.

Please remind me of what you think I "claimed". BTW, I am a "he".


I see no indication that AiG questions the ability of certain bacteria to break down the oligomers of a polymer that did not exist prior to about 1935. Even if the enzyme exists on plasmids, my initial question still pertains: are you (or Socratism, or AiG) claiming that the ability to break down a substance that had not yet been invented was present in plasmid DNA &quot;from the beginning&quot;?

I would think that this would be hard (impossible?) to determine one way or another. Why would this be important in the creation/evolution debate?

Certainly we know that antibiotic resistence was present in certain bacteria prior to the invention of antibiotics. This is strange but nature is filled with strange oddities like this.

You aren't one of those evolutionists who are under the false impression that creationists do not think mutations and change happens are you?

[Saxonella]

Today @ 04:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44591#post44591)
Socratism:

I made no such generalization since the natural world has trillions of special cases of which I am only aware of a limited number. No, I was merely commenting on how easily a person with preconceived ideas leaps to a conclusion that may not be true.

Yes, we have discussed the problem of "bias". Alas you have failed to provide any indication that creationist sources of information are any less prone to bias than scientific sources are, and you have given me no idea of what methods creationists use to detect and mitigate anti-evolutionary bias in their reportage. FHow do you prevent yourself from leaping to a conclusion that may not be true? How do you come to any sort of conclusions involving scientific issues?


I obviously do not know but I think it unwise to rule out such a possibility prematurely.

Evolutionary oriented biologists frequently jump to conclusions based on their faith in &quot;mutations plus natural selection&quot;. I prefer to wait on the verdict of history for in many cases initial conclusions are overturned by further research.

What sort of research would convince you? How do you discover that research? I ask only because I have spent the past hour or so scrolling through the scientific literature on both the nylon bug and feather development, and this literature is easily accessible through search engines such as PubMed and SCIRUS. Would the fact that scientists have discovered the actual mutation responsible for the nylon enzyme and have reproduced it help convince you that "mutation plus natural selection" may actually be true in this case?

I apologize for the proliferation of questions, but I am trying to get a sense of your position. So far, it is not entirely clear.

[tgamble]

<<Ah yes, but remember that I am a recovered evolutionist and my evaluation is that your points 1 and 2 can be applied equally to diehards in that field as well. In addition you seem to think that people like myself are opposed to science.>.

You are. That's obvious

>>My problem with evolution is that in its extreme form (extrapolation back to a single primordial replicating molecule) it is a bastardization of the science that I have always loved and will continue to do so in the future. >>

Which is a bastardization of what real science is.

<<Every new finding in biology, particularly in DNA makes it even more visibly preposterous that the clever mechanis,ms being discovered are the result of "copying errors". It is almost unbelievable that intelligent people can not see this.<<

They can't see it BECAUSE they are intelligent people and know better.

Actually, every new finding in DNA supports evolution and brings true the predictions made by evolution.

<<You bet and that is why ideas advanced at the time of the US Civil War must be discarded as being hopelessly inadequate to explain what is being discovered.<<

LOL! To be replaced with ideas advanced thousands of years ago! ROTFL!

Actually, there's no reason to discard evolution, the last 140 years have only added to Darwin's theory and confirmed it.

<<I have news for you. Evolution or even the Big Bang is not operational science but more like uncontrolled and untestable speculation, which is why I oppose teaching it as though it is fact. >>

Because you are ignorant of how science works. We already know that.
Your ignorance of how science works is pathetic.

Both evolution and the Big Bang are testable which you would know if you read some science instead of AIG propaganda.

>>But you (creationists) have insisted on calling a BIRD because it has feathers and darn it - reptiles can't have them.<<

Actually, some creationists make the (false) claim that the feathers were fake and it was a 100% reptile.

All the bird features vanish....

AIG calls it a bird.

All the reptillian features vanish...

Intelligent people call it a transitiaonal fossil. All features present and accounted for!

>>Also, it is "dated" millions of years OLDER than its alleged "feathered dinosaur" ancestors. <<

Which is a problem HOW exactly? Obviously it isn't.

>>We were arguing that causing feathers to grow in unusual places ON BIRDS proves nothing. Doing that on REPTILES would be a different matter.>>

No it wouldn't. You'd just call it a bird because of the feathers. It's what you do NOW.

>>Certainly we know that antibiotic resistence was present in certain bacteria prior to the invention of antibiotics.>>

Actually, such resistence evolved which is why newer and more effective drugs are being developed. The resistence EVOLVED to the older drugs.

Incidently, you haven't explained why God would create bacteria (only a few in a population of course) with resistence to bacteria which causes so many problems. Why not give ALL bacteria this benefit? Better yet, why give ANY of em the ability when they cause problems in his alleged prize and special creation: humans. As well as most other animals.

You can't explain it of course. But evolution can and does and that's just one more reason why your attacks against science are pointless. Evolution is still a fact.

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44623#post44623)
tgamble:

{snip} gamble drivel

Incidently, you haven't explained why God would create bacteria (only a few in a population of course) with resistence to bacteria which causes so many problems. Why not give ALL bacteria this benefit? Better yet, why give ANY of em the ability when they cause problems in his alleged prize and special creation: humans. As well as most other animals.

You can't explain it of course. But evolution can and does and that's just one more reason why your attacks against science are pointless. Evolution is still a fact.

Actually bacteria started out as absolutely necessary to support other forms of life. However, mutations have over time caused some of those original beneficial bacteria to become pathogenic.

As the genomes of these organisms are decoded it becomes increasing evident that it doesn't take that many deleterious mutations to turn a "good" strain of bacteria into a "bad" one.

The same thing is true of the human race which was undobtedly once much better physically than today. The discovery of a tremendous number of genetic dieases (and the list is growing) is one of the major findings of the Human Genome Project.

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44671#post44671)
Socratism:
Actually bacteria started out as absolutely necessary to support other forms of life. However, mutations have over time caused some of those original beneficial bacteria to become pathogenic.


And this your dismiss as merely "variation"?! You still deny that new information is there?


As the genomes of these organisms are decoded it becomes increasing evident that it doesn't take that many deleterious mutations to turn a &quot;good&quot; strain of bacteria into a &quot;bad&quot; one.

Poor design that!


The same thing is true of the human race which was undobtedly once much better physically than today.

Well, they didn't have Mcdonalds and got more exercise but they also had a shorter lifespan than we do now.


The discovery of a tremendous number of genetic dieases (and the list is growing) is one of the major findings of the Human Genome Project.

Another one is that Darwin was right.

[Woman]

:whip:
Okay, listen up Socrates! I see I'm going to have to thrash you soundly regarding the archaeopteryx! Stay tuned!

Ten Dimensions - THANKS! :thumb:

Socratism - I'm having trouble understanding just how you became a Christian who believes in a literal Genesis due to, because of, or following your decision that evolution didn't exist.

Now, I CAN understand how, with a huge amount of data, I might abandon a scientific theory that I had formerly believed. But I assure you, my reaction would not be to grab the Bible in order to replace the science with theology. That's really quite amazing!

[Socrates]

I wonder when RA, gamble or anyone else is going to demonstrate that a mutation or any stimulant can turn scutes ON A REPTILE into feathers. I've already said that this would be fair support of their relatedness. Merely expressing feather information in BIRD cells in places where this information is not expressed normally just doesn't cut it. I.e. it explains nothing about how this information arose.

And again, antennapedia is merely expressing leg information in insect cells in a place where an antenna should grow. It does NOTHING to explain how this information arose in the first place.

And there are plenty of ways where a LOSS of information can make a bacterium become pathogenic. E.g. the loss of chemotaxis—the ability to move in response to changes in chemical concentrations—will ‘markedly increase infectivity in an infant mouse model of cholera.’ [Merrell, D.S. et al., Host-induced epidemic spread of the cholera bacterium, Nature 417(6889):642–644, 6 June 2002].

An information loss can confer antibiotic resistance too. E.g., the antibiotic streptomycin works by attaching onto a precisely matching site on the surface of a bacterium’s ribosome, where decoding of DNA information to proteins occurs. When the streptomycin attaches, it stops this machinery from producing the right proteins, and the bacterium dies. Resistance to the drug can be caused by an information-losing mutation that degrades the surface of a bacterium’s ribosome, which reduces the binding ability of the drug to the ribosome, preventing it from ruining the protein manufacturing machinery.

So if anyone can demonstrate that any antibiotic resistance arises by information GAIN, then we'd all be pleased to know.

Also, resistance to HIV can be conferred by information loss. According to the PBS Evolution propaganda series, it has been conferred by the loss of certain receptors on the immune cells, which prevents the HIV from docking on them.

[Woman]

Socrates: As for Archaeopteryx, it is NOT just a reptile with feathers.

How right you are, Soc, ol' man!!! This critter is a true puzzlement. Neither fully reptile nor fully avian. I will not use the word "LINK" but...

For years, two archaeopteryx fossils were thought to be therapods (a small dinosaur species) until faint feather impressions were detected. In the last decade more examples have been found, some of them in excellent condition with amazing detail.

"Birds are defined as any organism that has feathers, and Archaeopteryx undoubtedly has feathers. But classifying Archaeopteryx along with the birds does not in the least detract from its reptilian characteristics--there simply is no classification method which allows us to place Archie as a "half-reptile, half-bird". Our classification schema forces us to put it in one category or the other, and since feathers define a bird, the class Aves is where Archaeopteryx is placed."


Socrates says: It already had:
Claw for perching, showing that it was a perching bird not a feathered dinosaur.
I commend you for stating this much acurately (claw for perching). Gish tries to get by with saying it had "perching feet."

There are some features present in Archaeopteryx which are present in primitive form in the therapods (small dinosaurs) but in more advanced form in the birds. In the therapods, for instance, the hallux, or big toe, is located on the back of the foot and forms a short claw that doesn't reach the ground. In birds, this toe is greatly elongated and is used for perching. In Archaeopteryx, the hallux is reversed, but is elongated to an extent midway between the therapods and the birds.

Socrates also claims it has a "A movable maxilla (upper jaw)."

And it did. But he failed to mention that it also had a full set of upper and lower socketed teeth!

"In therapods, the fingers of the front arms are long; in birds, the fingers are reduced to tiny nubbins. Archaeopteryx is midway between these conditions, In birds, the wings are supported by the furcula, or wishbone, which is composed of the two fused clavicles, and Archaeopteryx also possesses a fused furcula (though not as strong as that in modern birds). A few of the therapods had clavicles, including such birdlike species as Velociraptor. And a therapod species known as Oviraptor is believed to have possessed a fused furcula, as in birds.


If the creationists are to argue that Archaeopteryx is really just a bird, (note: Socrates did NOT, he stated correctly that it was not simply a reptile) and not a transitional between therapods and birds, they must explain all of the obviously reptilian characteristics which appear in the skeleton. Some of the reptilian characteristics found in Archaeopteryx are also found in primitive extinct birds such as Hesperornis and Icthyornis; other reptilian characteristics of the Archaeopteryx skeleton are not found in any other species of bird, living or extinct. Archaeopteryx had, for example, a full set of socketed teeth, which were typical of those found in therapod dinosaurs. While the primitive Hesperornis also possessed socketed teeth, they are no longer present in any modern bird, and according to paleontologists, these reptilian teeth were lost by the ancient birds as the avian bill began to develop. The creationists, however, are at a loss to explain why, if birds did not descend from reptiles, these primitive birds had typical reptilian teeth which later disappeared."

It is thus apparent that Archaeopteryx, although it possessed feathers and must therefore be considered to be a bird, nevertheless demonstrated many more characteristics which were unique to therapod reptiles, and must be viewed as an evolutionary transitional from therapod dinosaur to birds. And how do the creationists deal with this fossil which exhibits clear characteristics which are unique to two different 'kinds'?"

**Paragraphs enclosed in simple "quotation marks" also from the referenced article here**

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanave...2437/archie.htm

[Socrates]

Woman displays her exquisite copy-pasting skills. Pity they are wasted on some Geocities website. And they fail to answer the fact that Archie had many fully avian characteristics as I pointed out, and that it's "dated" older than its alleged "feathered dino" ancestors!For years, two archaeopteryx fossils were thought to be therapods (a small dinosaur species) until faint feather impressions were detected. In the last decade more examples have been found, some of them in excellent condition with amazing detail.It's "therOpods", and they are NOT a small dinosaur SPECIES but a SUBORDER which included HUMUNGOUS creatures like T. rex, Spinosaurus and Giganotosaurus. I have to say that Woman's lack of understanding here doesn't give cause for confidence that she understands the rest of what she's citing.

Anyway, the International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstätt, Germany, in 1984, comprising scientists who specialize in bird evolution. Although they disagreed on most things, almost all of them agreed Archie was a bird, and only a few of them thought it was a small, lightly built coelurosaur (a type of theropod).

Woman continued:There are some features present in Archaeopteryx which are present in primitive form in the therapods (small dinosaurs) but in more advanced form in the birds. In the therapods, for instance, the hallux, or big toe, is located on the back of the foot and forms a short claw that doesn't reach the ground. In birds, this toe is greatly elongated and is used for perching. In Archaeopteryx, the hallux is reversed, but is elongated to an extent midway between the therapods and the birds.Leading bird expert Dr Alan Feduccia, who published the work on Archie’s perching claw [‘Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx’, Science 259:790–793], said:


‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that.’ [cited in V. Morell, ‘Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms’, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February, 1993]
Socrates also claims it has a "A movable maxilla (upper jaw)."

And it did. But he failed to mention that it also had a full set of upper and lower socketed teeth!I thought you would have known that, so there was no need for me to explain. But teeth are hardly diagnostic. Some other fossil birds had teeth, some didn’t. But then, some reptiles don't have teeth either. For that matter, some mammals have teeth and some don’t. Furthermore, the beaked bird Confuciusornis is STILL "dated" millions of years older than its alleged dinosaur ancestors.

Some evolutionists realise that Archie isn't transitional in the sense of showing a true gradual transition in type, but claim it is a mosaic with some fully avian parts and other reptilian parts. But as I've shown, the alleged reptilian parts are not actually diagnostic of reptiles. Oh, speaking of mosaics, Woman might like to try the fully Greek-derived "Gynecopteryx" for her catchphrase rather than the present mosaic of English and Greek :rofl:

[Saxonella]

Yesterday @ 04:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44604#post44604)
Socratism:

Please remind me of what you think I &quot;claimed&quot;. BTW, I am a &quot;he&quot;.

In an earlier post, you said this:

I would have thought that fruit fly experiments have already showed that dittlling with DNA can generate all sorts of monstrosities and misplaced features but nothing not already coded someplace in the fruit fly DNA.

You appear to be saying that whatever appears as a feature must be already coded in the DNA. That means that the coding must have been there from the "beginning", right?

If that is not what you meant, could you explain? It seems to me that there are only two alternatives: either the information was there from the get-go, or it appeared later.


I would think that this would be hard (impossible?) to determine one way or another. Why would this be important in the creation/evolution debate?

I never said it was--I am simply trying to clarify what you actually believe and know/don't know about evolution. Your statements tend to be rather light on actual details.


Certainly we know that antibiotic resistence was present in certain bacteria prior to the invention of antibiotics. This is strange but nature is filled with strange oddities like this.

Not strange at all--in fact, it is the very BASIS of how we know that evolution occurs. I am surprised that you could make this statement in the face of your prior and continued claims that you were once an "evolutionist".

What you have described is simply populational variation, one of the cornerstones of evolutionary theory. Some of the variations within bacterial populations confer resistance to certain classes of molecules. Before the usage of antibiotics on the massive scale that is common today, this was probably a relatively neutral mutation: that is, if natural antibiotics existed, they probably didn't make much of an impact on bacterial populations, at least, not enough to change allele frequencies. But the sudden and wholesale application of antibiotics (and especially their misapplication) constituted a "change in environment" (another of the cornerstones of evolutionary theory), and this previously neutral variation became exceedingly beneficial (to the bacteria, of course). I mean, goodness: the rise of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a textbook example of evolution in action! I have to wonder just how much of an "evolutionist" you really were if you do not recognize this.


You aren't one of those evolutionists who are under the false impression that creationists do not think mutations and change happens are you?

In my experience creationists are a motley lot; individual creationists believe different things. You might be surprised at some of the claims I've encountered from them. But all I'm trying to do here is establish *your* knowledge set, so that I don't misunderstand you or assume the wrong things about what you know or don't know.

I will admit though that I have a strong suspicion about how you will respond, but I'll wait until you say it.



:smile:

[Socratism]

Today @ 09:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45300#post45300)
Saxonella:
In an earlier post, you said this:

I would have thought that fruit fly experiments have already showed that dittlling with DNA can generate all sorts of monstrosities and misplaced features but nothing not already coded someplace in the fruit fly DNA.

You appear to be saying that whatever appears as a feature must be already coded in the DNA. That means that the coding must have been there from the &quot;beginning&quot;, right?

Not necessarily, for it depends on what you mean by the word "feature". In the case of the feather I would say yes. In the case of the leg of a fruit fly, again yes.


If that is not what you meant, could you explain? It seems to me that there are only two alternatives: either the information was there from the get-go, or it appeared later.

I think you are ruling out variation, which I don't.


I never said it was--I am simply trying to clarify what you actually believe and know/don't know about evolution. Your statements tend to be rather light on actual details.

I think that is perfectly understandable since nature is so varied it is hard to say anything without encountering "exceptions to the rule".


Not strange at all--in fact, it is the very BASIS of how we know that evolution occurs. I am surprised that you could make this statement in the face of your prior and continued claims that you were once an &quot;evolutionist&quot;.

Many people are evolutionists without really thinking very critically about the validity of its foundations. When I finally did this it was apparent that the foundations were either totally inadequate or missing .


What you have described is simply populational variation, one of the cornerstones of evolutionary theory.

I consider the fact that populations vary to be obvious. If that is what you mean by evolution then "evolution" is obviously true. Unfortunately that is only one of the definitions of evolution. The one that is false is that all life descended from a single ancient replicating molecule. I consider it shameful and anti-science that some biologists deceptively use variation to "prove" evolution.


Some of the variations within bacterial populations confer resistance to certain classes of molecules. Before the usage of antibiotics on the massive scale that is common today, this was probably a relatively neutral mutation: that is, if natural antibiotics existed, they probably didn't make much of an impact on bacterial populations, at least, not enough to change allele frequencies. But the sudden and wholesale application of antibiotics (and especially their misapplication) constituted a &quot;change in environment&quot; (another of the cornerstones of evolutionary theory), and this previously neutral variation became exceedingly beneficial (to the bacteria, of course). I mean, goodness: the rise of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a textbook example of evolution in action!

You are being very deceptive in using such minor variation to "prove" evolution. Shame on you..


I have to wonder just how much of an &quot;evolutionist&quot; you really were if you do not recognize this.

I wasn't much of an evolutionist, that is true. I suppose that is why when I realized what it was all about that I was able to recognize what a con game it really was: the classic "bait and switch".

[tgamble]

Today @ 08:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45210#post45210)
Socrates:

I wonder when RA, gamble or anyone else is going to demonstrate that a mutation or any stimulant can turn scutes ON A REPTILE into feathers. I've already said that this would be fair support of their relatedness.

Why don't I believe you?


So if anyone can demonstrate that any antibiotic resistance arises by information GAIN, then we'd all be pleased to know.


yawn. Been there, done that.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/new_info.html


Also, resistance to HIV can be conferred by information loss. According to the PBS Evolution propaganda series, it has been conferred by the loss of certain receptors on the immune cells, which prevents the HIV from docking on them.

What's your point? Why do you believe AIG propaganda that evolution REQUIRES new information?

[tgamble]

Woman displays her exquisite copy-pasting skills. Pity they are wasted on some Geocities website.

What a brilliant rebuttal. The LOCATION of a webpage.


And they fail to answer the fact that Archie had many fully avian characteristics as I pointed out,

They do nothing of the sort. It's a transitianal form of of cousre it had avian features.


and that it's "dated" older than its alleged "feathered dino" ancestors!

Suddenly, ancestor species can descendent species can't coexist. Is this the Twilight Zone?


Leading bird expert Dr Alan Feduccia, who published the work on Archie’s perching claw [‘Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx’, Science 259:790–793], said:


Ah yes, the usual out of context quoting and distortion of views. A favorite tactic of creationists!

In an email to me he states:

"" If you go back in time, the context for this quote (with my first name misspelled), is from the Bakker period, when in 1975 he published that, "Archaeopteryx is an earthbound, predatory, feathered dinosaur that could not fly." (or something like that). Not even Bakker believes that any more, but most paleontological depictions even today show Archae. as an terrestrial, feathered, predatory dinosaur. Certainly, Archaeopteryx is a transitional form from reptile to bird, but the question is: what type of reptile?"

So Feduccia rejects the creationists denial and accepts that Archie is a transitional form. No surprise there!




Probably reffering to Gould here.

[QUOTE]

"In a somewhat similar fashion, Archaeopteryx, although unquestionably a bird, was a mosaic which included some features that are usually termed 'reptilian.' In this respect, it is interesting to note the comment of Steven Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, both Ardent anticreationists. They state that, 'At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)' (Gould & Eldredge 1977, p. 147). There are several important aspects of this statement, each of which seriously damages the credibility of evolutionary theory." (p.114-115)

There certainly are important aspects to the statement of Eldredge and Gould, as used by Dr. Gish, but the damage is to the credibility of creationists. The article in question is a discussion of punctuated equilibrium and how the evidence from the fossil record does not support a purely gradualistic evolutionary model. Eldredge and Gould point out that intermediates, for the most part, do not exhibit such smooth evolution, but that features evolve at differing rates. In this they were following the ideas put forward by de Beer (1969, p. 133-134; first published as de Beer 1954), who suggested that, "the statement that the animal was intermediate might mean that it was a mixture and that the transition affected some parts of the animal and not others, with the result that some parts were similar to those of one type, other parts similar to another type, and few or no parts intermediate in structure. In such a case the animal might be regarded as a mosaic in which the pieces could be replaced independently one by one, so that the transitional stages were a jumble of characters, some of them similar to those of the class from which the animal evolved, others similar to those of the class in which the animal was evolving. If now it be asked what kind of transition is shown by Archaeopteryx, the answer is perfectly clear. It is a mosaic in which some characters are perfectly reptilian and others no less perfectly avian."

Thus being a "mosaic" does not disqualify a form from being an intermediate, merely a smooth intermediate.

"Not only is it impossible at this level to find a smooth series of intermediates in the fossil record, it is impossible to imagine what such intermediates may have looked like (for example, try to imagine am emergent Pteranodon with half a jaw and half a wing!). Finally, note that Gould and Eldredge specifically exclude Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, terming it, as is the duck-billed platypus, a strange mosaic that doesn't count. So much for Archaeopteryx as an intermediate!" (p.115)

This represents a clear misrepresentation of Gould and Eldredge This probably ranks as the most famous case of the misrepresentation of scientists by a creationist author. From the previous discussion, it is obvious that Eldredge and Gould did not "specifically exclude Archaeopteryx as a transitional form", but merely as an example of a smooth transitional form. This kind of misrepresentation has led Gould to clarify his position. On transitional forms in general, he states, "since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups." (Gould 1983, p. 260). More specifically, Gould (1991, p. 144-145) states that "Archaeopteryx, the first bird, is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find." Strange words from someone who "specifically exclude[s] Archaeopteryx as an intermediate"!


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html

[Socratism]

Why do you believe AIG propaganda that evolution REQUIRES new information?

The level of intelligence of the evolutionary fringe element is quite remarkable.

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 03:24 PM
The level of intelligence of the evolutionary fringe element is quite remarkable.

Thank you.

Now please answer the question.

[Saxonella]

Today @ 02:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45321#post45321)
Socratism:

Not necessarily, for it depends on what you mean by the word &quot;feature&quot;. In the case of the feather I would say yes. In the case of the leg of a fruit fly, again yes.

A feature is an attribute of an organism. Is an enzyme's ability to catalyze a reaction that breaks down nylon any less an attribute of a bacterium than is a leg an attribute of a fly? If you think there are somehow differing classes of attributes, I'd be interested in hearing how you define them.


I think you are ruling out variation, which I don't.

I think, given what I posted about bacterial resistance, that we both know I do nothing of the sort. The issue is: where does this variation come from? What significance does it have?

The question becomes even more interesting given the idea of a global flood which wiped out everything save selected numbers of organisms. This means that former populational variation, irrespective of how it came to be, was essentially wiped out, since the *most* genetic variation any individual animal can have is two alleles per locus. In a population that consists of a pair (as most did immediately after the Flood, according to the Bible), that is 4 alleles per locus. That is a major genetic bottleneck that should be detectable by molecular studies, especially if said bottleneck only occured around 4000 or so years ago. I would think that all those creationist biologists would be eager to conduct research into this, since it would definitely consititute evidence for something interesting. Are you aware of any such research?


I think that is perfectly understandable since nature is so varied it is hard to say anything without encountering &quot;exceptions to the rule&quot;.

Many people are evolutionists without really thinking very critically about the validity of its foundations. When I finally did this it was apparent that the foundations were either totally inadequate or missing .

I agree with you, actually. I was once like that myself, too--evolution was true, because everyone said so. But then I discovered that creationists were making claims about evolution and how it could not be true because of this or that, and I found that I did not know enough about evolution to be able to evaluate their comments. Did evolutionary theory really have such profound difficulties? I didn't know, but I decided to find out.

The more I learned about science and evolutionary biology, the weaker and weaker the creationist objections became, until I realized that there was not one--not a single solitary objection that I ever did encounter--that was not fundamentally flawed, either in its initial assumptions, or because it misstated a scientific position, or because it ignored or dismissed crucial data, or just because of plain ignorance of important explanatory mechanisms. I am *still* looking for that objection that does not fail at some level. After about a quarter century, I have a pretty firm suspicion that none exist. I'm always interested in hearing them, though....


I consider the fact that populations vary to be obvious. If that is what you mean by evolution then &quot;evolution&quot; is obviously true. Unfortunately that is only one of the definitions of evolution. The one that is false is that all life descended from a single ancient replicating molecule. I consider it shameful and anti-science that some biologists deceptively use variation to &quot;prove&quot; evolution.

You are being very deceptive in using such minor variation to &quot;prove&quot; evolution. Shame on you..

No, shame on you. I have made no attempt to "prove" anything. I used bacterial resistance an an example of evolution, and you agreed with me. What you think the motives of other "evolutionists" are is irrelevant to me.

I am perfectly willing to explain any statement or claim that I make, if it is unclear. But please--if you are uncertain of my intent, do not put words in my mouth.

I will clarify one thing though, which, if you really do understand science the way you insist you do, should not need explanation: among mainstream evolutionary biologists, there is no artificial distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, because the mechanisms are exactly the same. Sometimes the term "macroevolution" is used by those who study the historical aspects of evolution (such as paleontologists) as a convenient shorthand that incorporates the concept of the pattern of life over time, but this usage does NOT imply any differing evolutionary mechanisms. The attempts to try and pretend that populational evolution and evolution over time are somehow qualitatively different things is simply an anti-evolutionist strawman.

<end position statement>


I wasn't much of an evolutionist, that is true. I suppose that is why when I realized what it was all about that I was able to recognize what a con game it really was: the classic &quot;bait and switch&quot;.

Well...it seems clear that you weren't "much of an evolutionist". Therefore I fail to see why you keep pointing out that you were one, if if you didn't know much about it to begin with. It rather weakens your point, don't you think?

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 03:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45210#post45210)
Socrates:

I wonder when RA, gamble or anyone else is going to demonstrate that a mutation or any stimulant can turn scutes ON A REPTILE into feathers.

That is exactly what the featherleg mutation does. Or are you laboring under out-dated paraphyletic classifications?


I've already said that this would be fair support of their relatedness. Merely expressing feather information in BIRD cells in places where this information is not expressed normally just doesn't cut it. I.e. it explains nothing about how this information arose.

Actually it does, which you should know after reading the Scientific American Article, which claim to have read.


And again, antennapedia is merely expressing leg information in insect cells in a place where an antenna should grow. It does NOTHING to explain how this information arose in the first place.

The same way all other information arises: mutations.


And there are plenty of ways where a LOSS of information can make a bacterium become pathogenic. E.g. the loss of chemotaxis—the ability to move in response to changes in chemical concentrations—will ‘markedly increase infectivity in an infant mouse model of cholera.’

What loss of information? All I see is a gain of information for the ability to not respond to chemical concentrations. And a gain of information for the ability to infect cells.


An information loss can confer antibiotic resistance too. E.g., the antibiotic streptomycin works by attaching onto a precisely matching site on the surface of a bacterium’s ribosome, where decoding of DNA information to proteins occurs. When the streptomycin attaches, it stops this machinery from producing the right proteins, and the bacterium dies. Resistance to the drug can be caused by an information-losing mutation that degrades the surface of a bacterium’s ribosome, which reduces the binding ability of the drug to the ribosome, preventing it from ruining the protein manufacturing machinery.

Once again, a gain of the information for resistance.


So if anyone can demonstrate that any antibiotic resistance arises by information GAIN, then we'd all be pleased to know.

First define what you mean by information "gain" to prevent any latter shifting of goal posts. Until then I'll repeat what I've said numerous times before about linking information theory to evolution. Last time I posted it you made some assertions that it was inaccurate, but your refusal to support those assertions or even discuss the issue further is very telling about how much support your comments have.

INFORMATION
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. So in linking information theory to evolution, one must consider the information in the population, which creationists do not do. Biologically, information can refer to different things. Pseudogenes, contain information about evolutionary history but not information that can be selected upon. In the context of this discussion, it would be best right now to consider the genetic information underlying traits, with an interest in adaptable traits. It is difficult to determine a way to measure the amount of this information, but one possibility is the size of the proteome. This is the number of unique proteins produced in the population and includes all loci and alleles. Whenever a mutation produces a novel allele, it adds information to the population. In other words, there is a new trait for selection to act upon. Here are two examples of the effects of information in a population.

Jeff knows something about Gina: &quot;Gina is neat.&quot; Thus he has information about Gina. Before he leaves town, Jeff replicates this information by telling it to two people, Nick and Randy. Because neither of them pays attention, they don’t replicate the information exactly. Nick thinks &quot;Gina is sweat,&quot; and Randy thinks &quot;Gina is near.&quot; We can measure the about of information about Gina by the number of non-redundant attributes people ascribe to her. Here, the amount of information about Gina has doubled: from &quot;neat&quot; to &quot;sweat and near.&quot; Clearly when we remember that it is the population that’s important to evolution, it is obvious how mutations can add information for selection to act upon.

Take this example retrieved from LocusLink [1], the only difference occurs in the 7th codon (6th amino acid because the first one, 'm,' gets cut off). The letters refer to amino acids [2].


Human Beta-hemoglobin (HBB)
1 mvhltpeeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh


HBB-S
1 mvhltpveks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh


HBB-C
1 mvhltpkeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh


Each allele does not encode the exact same information since each one produces a distinctly different product. A single point mutation has enough effect on the information contained in the genome that it can determine whether an individual dies from malaria or not. In the presence of malaria, HBB-S is maintained because of heterozygote advantage. However, HBB-C also offers resistance to malaria, but the most fit genotype is the homozygote.[3] It is expected to become the most common allele in parts of Africa if the environment stays the same. These mutations have clearly added new information to the population. Selection then acts on this new information, changing the make up of the population. Thus, evolution happens.

It is important to realize that evolution occurs even if information is lost. It also occurs when information is gained or without any change in the amount of information at all. Thus no-new-information arguments do not actually address evolutionary theory. By focusing on individuals and not populations, no-new-information claims never even get close to disproving evolution. In fact, the actual claim, when applied to biology, is that the information capacity of an individual's genome cannot increase. However, this claim is false because there are known types of mutations that can increase the length of the genome and thus its capacity to hold information. Ernst Mayr discusses this origin of new genes in his latest book:


Bacteria and even the oldest eukaryotes (protists) have a rather small genome. . . . This raises the question: By what process is a new gene produced? This occurs, most frequently, by the doubling of an existing gene and its insertion in the chromosome in tandem next to the parental gene. In due time the new gene may adopt a new function and the ancestral gene with its traditional function will then be referred to as the orthologous gene. It is through orthologous genes that the phylogeny of genes is traced. The derived gene, coexisting with the ancestral gene, is called paralogous. Evolutionary diversification is, to a large extent, effected by the production of paralogous genes. The doubling sometimes affects not merely a single gene, but a whole chromosome set or even an entire genome.[4]

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/LocusLink/
2. http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AminoAcid/AA1n2.html
3. Modiano D. et al. (2001) Haemoglobin C protects against clinical plasmodium falciparum malaria. Nature: 414 pp 305-308
4. Mayr E. (2001) What Evolution Is. Basic Books. [/QUOTE]

[Socratism]

It is important to realize that evolution occurs even if information is lost. It also occurs when information is gained or without any change in the amount of information at all. Thus no-new-information arguments do not actually address evolutionary theory. By focusing on individuals and not populations, no-new-information claims never even get close to disproving evolution.

It is almost unbelievable to me that people can think that you can get from a primitive replicating molecule to a human being without a gain of information.

No amount of cleverly deceptive narrative can hide this lapse of sanity.

[WinAce]

I've yet to see a creationist definition of 'information' that doesn't make the very acquisition of it impossible even if God creates new species. :)

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45441#post45441)
WinAce:

I've yet to see a creationist definition of 'information' that doesn't make the very acquisition of it impossible even if God creates new species. :)

This coming from a person who can not even define "species".

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 06:30 PM
This coming from a person who can not even define &quot;species&quot;.

A species is a reproductivly isolated group that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Breeding with other species is either not possible or produces sterile offspring.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Now, give a definition of information relating to genetics and evolution.

We're waiting!

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 11:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45400#post45400)
Socratism:

It is almost unbelievable to me that people can think that you can get from a primitive replicating molecule to a human being without a gain of information.

Did I ever say that? No. Read the section you quoted again. Note my comments on evolution and information gain.


No amount of cleverly deceptive narrative can hide this lapse of sanity.

Before you start claiming "lapses of sanity," perhaps you should try to understand what I said. I'll be happy to answer any polite and honest question you might have. I'm sure you've got at least a couple.

[Tycho]

Today @ 09:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45400#post45400)
Socratism:
It is almost unbelievable to me that people can think that you can get from a primitive replicating molecule to a human being without a gain of information.
Only the creationists would say such a thing.

"Sure the population might have changed from self-replicating molecules to humans, but that's only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution! Furthermore, there was NO GAIN of information--the organsims simply lost the ability to be primitive self-replicating molecules! See? Evolution never increases information, it always decreases it!"


No amount of cleverly deceptive narrative can hide this lapse of sanity.
I fully agree.

[Socrates]

Winace:I've yet to see a creationist definition of 'information' that doesn't make the very acquisition of it impossible Then you haven't looked very hard. See the AiG rsponses to critics How is information content measured? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10september2001.asp) and That depends on what your definition of “information” is (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp)... even if God creates new species. :)How exactly is it "new information" if a a sub-population can no longer interbreed with a parent population, which is all speciation means? And where in the Bible does it say this can't happen?

[Woman]

Socratism

I wasn't much of an evolutionist, that is true.

Now that you have spent 25 years reading and researching, in your opinion just how old IS the earth?


:hrm:

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 09:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45806#post45806)
Tycho:

It is almost unbelievable to me that people can think that you can get from a primitive replicating molecule to a human being without a gain of information. ”


Only the creationists would say such a thing.


Rufus was honest enough to say (or at least imply) that a human genome contains more informaation than a primitive replicating molecule posesses. If one assumes a continuous line of descent, then it logically follows that information content must have increased along the way.

Some people have implied in previous posts that gain in information was not revelent to the discussion. I must have misunderstood their points and perhaps yours as well.

Do you agree with Rufus (and myself) that information would have to be gained in progressing from a primitive replicating molecule to a human being? A straight yes or no answer would be appreciated by me (and perhaps others).

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 11:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45886#post45886)
Socrates:

How exactly is it &quot;new information&quot; if a a sub-population can no longer interbreed with a parent population, which is all speciation means? And where in the Bible does it say this can't happen?

Because instead of the information for one reproductive system you now how information for two reproductive systems, and two is greater than one.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 11:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46141#post46141)
Socratism:

Rufus was honest enough to say (or at least imply) that a human genome contains more informaation than a primitive replicating molecule posesses. If one assumes a continuous line of descent, then it logically follows that information content must have increased along the way.

Yes, but remember that I can say that since I defined a criterion for information. I didn't leave it an amorphous concept like most people do.


Some people have implied in previous posts that gain in information was not revelent to the discussion. I must have misunderstood their points and perhaps yours as well.

"No-new-information claims" are irreleveant since they are false.

[HRG_new]

03-24-2003 @ 07:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43838#post43838)
Socratism:




Interpretations do not magically transform raw evidence into fact.

And where do you draw the line between "evidence" and "interpretation" ? I capture some photons on my retina and say that they are evidence of the existence of Venus. Fact or interpretation ?


It is sad that our educational system yields people who do not understand that a fact is not the same as something concluded by human beings by a process of inference (the field of pure mathematics excluded of course).

Everything we conclude about the external world is due to a process of inference: from the existence and surface temperature of Sirius to the existence of the W+ boson to a disputed paternity to the existence of a computer screen in front of you (which you infer from a particular pattern of photons interacting with your retina).

The conclusions that the Earth is billion years old and that humans and chimps had a common ancestor are of no different character; all differences are in the length of the inference chain. Some inferences are drawn in our sensory centers without ourselves being consciously aware of them; but that doesn't change their character of being inferences.

Thus your distinction of "fact" and "inference" is arbitrary. I like Gould's definition of a fact as "some proposition so well established that it would be unreasonable to refuse assent". It includes both the existence and magnetic field of a sunspot and common descent.

Regards,
HRG.

[DunnySaze]

03-27-2003 @ 04:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45886#post45886)
Socrates:

Winace:I've yet to see a creationist definition of 'information' that doesn't make the very acquisition of it impossible Then you haven't looked very hard. See the AiG rsponses to critics How is information content measured? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10september2001.asp) and That depends on what your definition of “information” is (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp)... even if God creates new species. :)How exactly is it &quot;new information&quot; if a a sub-population can no longer interbreed with a parent population, which is all speciation means? And where in the Bible does it say this can't happen?


Are you serious?

There is very little in those links one would describe as quantifying information. The first lists 5 parts (of perhaps a total set of several more) that might be used to quantify information in an enzyme. They are :

* Level of catalytic activity
* Specificity with respect to the substrate
* Strength of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation

Of these 5, Spetner only attempts to estimate how information is quantified in 1 of them. Even in that one, Spetner makes an assumption which even he recognizes must be shown to be reasonable rather than simply assumed. Since this assumption is the basis of his entire argument, it doesn't inspire much confidence.

Talk about your pachiderm pitching.