Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
as pointed out before, our planet shows that when you go from the most current biota (say, what we have today) to those getting older, the differences become greater suggesting that ALL organisms have been evolving. We know that organisms will evolve over time. Is there any reason that our lineage should be any different? Early biologists proposed that we shared ancestry with the great apes (gorillas, chimps) and we've found many fossils that show organisms with the types of features that we might expect to be intermediate. While we may never find the actual ancestors to us we find things that belong to lineages that are obvious relatives.

I know that apes have been classified by species, such as defined types of breeds, such as almost every animal on the planet at least the ones we know of. They are still apes. Darwin suggested a multitude of transitional fossils but where are they? I would agree that evolution has taken the world without a fight but it appears that what you call obvious isn't. What you see as supporting Darwin, I see as supporting extinct varieties.

Indeed, but what was that difference 50%? nope, 25%? nope, 10%? nope, 5%? nope, but less than a 2% difference.

From the Nature article:

However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in Nature1 that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes".
The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity.
In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome. "We already knew that at the DNA level we are similar to chimpanzees," says Taylor. "But we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated."
Chromosome 22 makes up only 1% of the genome, so in total there could be thousands of genes that significantly differ between humans and chimps, says Jean Weissenbach from France's National Sequencing Centre in Evry. This could make it much harder than scientists had hoped to find the key changes that made us human.

5% is what they are saying the difference is. That is alot more than less than 2%. Are there any other species that close or closer to humans?

I don't think so at all. Heck, an Archaeopteryx was misclassified as a dinosaur for years and years. Maybe you can point to the salient differences between dromeosaurs and birds?

If you get me the funding I will do it.
Is this the one you meant?(See picture)

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Here is another picture of a dromaeosaur

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Which version are you talking about?

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Since evolution and natural selection are continuous processes, show me which species are alive today that are currently evolving into other completely different species today. I am assuming that it can still be possible to show me modern transitional phases of species today.

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

II am discussing intelligent design and I thought you were defending the scientific theory of evolution.

This thread started with someone posting the press release about CSI and Coral Ridge and their 4000 year old mammoth. We seem to have gone a bit afield from that.

In any event--other than looking at something as it now exists and asking "How did this get here? Oh, must be like finding a watch in the woods, there must be a watch-maker somewhere." What is the evidence for ID? Seems to me that it always comes down to "This seems much too complicated for it to have evolved"

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Does that include the creationists that are studying DNA and genomes?

In response to my request for more info on this you provided a cite with a list of scientists from the Discovery Institute. Is it your claim that all these people are both creationists and studying DNA and the genome?

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Pick the appropriate ones: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

Hmm, there might be a couple in there. Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Project Steve?

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Natural selection proves natural selection?

Nope, natural selection is simply differential survival and reproduction within the members of a population. Nothing is said about why some individuals leave more offspring than others. They may be more attractive to prospective mates, even if they are less well adapted to their environment.

And when you're talking science, you should rarely if ever be using the word "prove." That's a math term.

Originally posted by Agent Smith

You guys are trying to help me understand a common ancestor. Which specie of ape is our closest decendant and where is the evidence?

So where is the physical evidence from between Lucy and man today?

Isn't your ape bit on a different thread? I'll be happy if you understand the general concept of common ancestry. If you don't understand the general concepts, how can you expect to interpret specific case studies?

Originally posted by Agent Smith

I thought that was over. Scientists can't agree on common definitions for their own terms .

Maybe, but we're better at it than anyone else!

Originally posted by Agent Smith

If you want to dicuss creationism, looks like a new thread. I am discussing intelligent design and I thought you were defending the scientific theory of evolution.

Actually, as Jukia pointed out, this thread was originally about the merging of two creationist organizations, so technically a discussion about intelligent design would belong in a new thread. But no problem, since you haven't been discussing intelligent design at all, you've been complaining about evolution. Believe it or not, those aren't the same thing! For one thing, since when is intelligent design incompatible with evolution? ID suggests that you can infer the existence of a supernatural entity from patterns in the natural world. Evolutionary theory does not assume there is no such entity; rather, it makes no assumption one way or the other. As I've noted before, making no assumption about A is not the same as assuming A does not exist. ID and evolutionary theory address completely different issues.

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Yes, abiogenesis, also known as spontaneous generation to some biologists. If there were multiple mass extinctions, then plant and/or animal life had to start over each time correct?

You're joking, right? Have you ever read anything about mass extinctions? Never once has anyone ever suggested that a mass extinction annihilated all life on the planet. Even the Noachian flood left a boatload of survivors! A mass extinction is when we observe extinction rates significantly higher than normal background extinction rates, usually over a (geologically) short period of time. "Significantly higher than normal" does not mean "total"!

I don't mean to be disrespectful, Agent Smith, but in your recent posts you don't seem to be trying to listen, learn, or even make sense. At the least, you need to gain a little stronger background in these topics (preferably not from creationist sources, since as I've noted before they don't actually provide much positive content, they simply yell about evolution's purported deficiencies).

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

6 or 7? How old do you think the earth is?

The best estimates place the age of the earth at 4.5-4.6 billion years old. That estimate has held for about 55 years, and is based on extremely solid data. I would refer you to
_Age of the earth_ by G. Brent Dalrymple for details. There is no reason currently to doubt this evidence.

What evidence proves it happened at least 6 times?

In a word, it is obvious based on the fossil record. The designation that geologists use to represent the relative ages of the earth are based on the flora and fauna present in the fossil record. Some of the boundaries between the geologic ages represent such huge reductions in the numbers of species that the designation "mass extinction" is applied.

Yes, abiogenesis, also known as spontaneous generation to some biologists.

Sorry, but abiogensis is a modern class of theory that is grounded in chemistry. Spontaneous generation, on the other hand, was a nonscientific hypothesis that was based ultimately on the phrase in Genesis where God is quoted as saying "let the earth bring forth life".

If there were multiple mass extinctions, then plant and/or animal life had to start over each time correct?

There is evidence for that right?

I believe that you are misunderstanding the term "mass extinction". At no time in the geologic record is there evidence that *all* life was extingished in mass extinction events. What is seen in the fossil record in each of these events is a relatively rapid reduction in the number of species.

The geologic ages that follow see the rise of new species, all of which are apparently decended from the relatively few species that survived the preceeding mass extinction.

How does the RNA know which sequence to be in to make one of over 30,000 proteins? Where did RNA get the genetic information from if there is no DNA to take it from?

RNA, itself, can perform the same functions as DNA. It is not merely a messenger. As is well known from laborary experiments, RNA can undergo natural selection to produce a vast collection of complex chemicals, including proteins.

This technique has become a standard for the production of new drugs.

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

So show me the evidence that proves you can get that single cell out of the primorial soup.

There is nothing in a cell that is not chemistry. That is proof that the idea is possible. The number of potential chemical pathways to do this is so large, that the idea has not been fully tested. What scientists do have are a host of chemical pathways to get from base chemicals to the constituents of nucleic acids. Furthermore, it has been shown by experiment that relatively long chains of nucleic acids can be generated via the use of clay minerals as a template.

Furthremore, it has been shown that it is possible to induce RNA to undergo natural selection in the absense of anything like a cell structure. Moreover RNA can act the same way enzymes do to generate proteins.

Chemical structures that are similar to cell walls (though vastly simpler) are easily generated from a collection of chemical processes.

So, more pieces are there. Maybe in 20-30 years, we will see the picture more clearly.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aharvey

Hmm, there might be a couple in there. Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Project Steve? No but I did open your link and saw that it supported evolution in public schools and that I could buy a t-shirt.

Nope, natural selection is simply differential survival and reproduction within the members of a population. Nothing is said about why some individuals leave more offspring than others. They may be more attractive to prospective mates, even if they are less well adapted to their environment.

From this part of your reply it seems natural selection isn't getting the best of the best of the gene pool.

And when you're talking science, you should rarely if ever be using the word "prove." That's a math term.

A specifically mathematics term? You guys will just have to make a list of terms that I can't use when trying to discuss science. I thought the whole english language was at my disposal.

Isn't your ape bit on a different thread? I'll be happy if you understand the general concept of common ancestry. If you don't understand the general concepts, how can you expect to interpret specific case studies?

I do understand the general concept of common ancestry. I just don't believe it. But my understanding of the general concept doesn't bring forth evidence of evolution. Are you saying that your understanding of that same concept helps you interpret specific case studies? Good guess work.

Maybe, but we're better at it than anyone else!

And that is what would make you a much more successful politician.

Actually, as Jukia pointed out, this thread was originally about the merging of two creationist organizations, so technically a discussion about intelligent design would belong in a new thread. But no problem, since you haven't been discussing intelligent design at all, you've been complaining about evolution. Believe it or not, those aren't the same thing! For one thing, since when is intelligent design incompatible with evolution? ID suggests that you can infer the existence of a supernatural entity from patterns in the natural world. Evolutionary theory does not assume there is no such entity; rather, it makes no assumption one way or the other. As I've noted before, making no assumption about A is not the same as assuming A does not exist. ID and evolutionary theory address completely different issues.

Ok, start a new thread and I will join it if I am up for it.

You're joking, right? Have you ever read anything about mass extinctions? Never once has anyone ever suggested that a mass extinction annihilated all life on the planet. Even the Noachian flood left a boatload of survivors! A mass extinction is when we observe extinction rates significantly higher than normal background extinction rates, usually over a (geologically) short period of time. "Significantly higher than normal" does not mean "total"!

John2001 said it happened at least six or seven times that has been proven. He entered this thread a couple pages back and that is where I got some of my information.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, Agent Smith, but in your recent posts you don't seem to be trying to listen, learn, or even make sense. At the least, you need to gain a little stronger background in these topics (preferably not from creationist sources, since as I've noted before they don't actually provide much positive content, they simply yell about evolution's purported deficiencies).

While I do believe in Creationism over evolution, I don't read only material from the Creationists. It was a scientist in Nature magazine who said "it seems the more we study DNA, the farther we are from apes".

Since you say that creationists don't provide much positive content, then maybe you can answer this question and give me solid proof of your answer:

Where does the information in DNA come from in nature so that every protein, amino acid, DNA and RNA knows their function?

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Funny evolution still hasn't found the right fossils to prove itself.

This sort of statement ignores the fact that evolution is the basis of biology. Hence, evolution is a "fact" in laymen's terms.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by john2001

The best estimates place the age of the earth at 4.5-4.6 billion years old. That estimate has held for about 55 years, and is based on extremely solid data. I would refer you to
_Age of the earth_ by G. Brent Dalrymple for details. There is no reason currently to doubt this evidence.

There are over 40 types of raiometric dating. Which ones does he prefer? And does he take into account the higher levels of radiation beyond out atmosphere?

In a word, it is obvious based on the fossil record. The designation that geologists use to represent the relative ages of the earth are based on the flora and fauna present in the fossil record. Some of the boundaries between the geologic ages represent such huge reductions in the numbers of species that the designation "mass extinction" is applied.

You gave me the faunal succession and I returned with faunal extinction. It seems you don't agree with the definition of faunal extinction.

Sorry, but abiogensis is a modern class of theory that is grounded in chemistry. Spontaneous generation, on the other hand, was a nonscientific hypothesis that was based ultimately on the phrase in Genesis where God is quoted as saying "let the earth bring forth life". I used the dictionary from Mcgraw-Hill for Scientific and Technological Terms. It was their wording that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation were the same thing by bringing life from non-life like in Darwin's primordial soup.

I believe that you are misunderstanding the term "mass extinction". At no time in the geologic record is there evidence that *all* life was extingished in mass extinction events. What is seen in the fossil record in each of these events is a relatively rapid reduction in the number of species.

Again, I was using the definition of faunal extinction.

The geologic ages that follow see the rise of new species, all of which are apparently decended from the relatively few species that survived the preceeding mass extinction.

New species? Well, I haven't seen any evidence that suggest that dogs(general) come fom anything but dogs(general), or humans come from anything but humans, birds from birds, etc.,... If there were at least 6 or 7 mass extinctions then there should be transitional fossils abounding in the labs by the tons. But they aren't. But wouldn't at least 6 or 7 mass extinctions hinder the scientific theory of evolution by limiting its access to vast amounts of genetic material by mass extinction?

RNA, itself, can perform the same functions as DNA. It is not merely a messenger. As is well known from laborary experiments, RNA can undergo natural selection to produce a vast collection of complex chemicals, including proteins.

The only thing I could find about RNA and evolution had to do with an experiment using mouse hepatitis virus strain A59 (MHV-A59, but I didn't see a purpose in it.
Anyway where does the RNA get it's coded information from? How did they evolve to encode proteins?

This technique has become a standard for the production of new drugs.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by john2001

This sort of statement ignores the fact that evolution is the basis of biology. Hence, evolution is a "fact" in laymen's terms.

Not all laymen would accept that as fact.

I will agree with biology that adaptation occurs within a species. I won't agree that an ape can evolve into a human or that a reptile evolves into a bird. Biology has never shown this to happen.

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by Agent Smith
While I do believe in Creationism over evolution, I don't read only material from the Creationists. It was a scientist in Nature magazine who said "it seems the more we study DNA, the farther we are from apes".

And this somehow refutes evolution?

And can you give me a cite to that Nature article, thanks

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

No but I did open your link and saw that it supported evolution in public schools and that I could buy a t-shirt.

So you didn't investigate further? Click on the Project Steve button on the left of that main page.

Originally posted by Agent Smith

From this part of your reply it seems natural selection isn't getting the best of the best of the gene pool.

Now we've gone full circle: "Natural selection tends to favor those individuals that are best adapted their environment." Do you get it now?

Originally posted by Agent Smith

A specifically mathematics term? You guys will just have to make a list of terms that I can't use when trying to discuss science. I thought the whole english language was at my disposal.

It is, but you need to know how to use it correctly! You ask for "proof" from a branch of knowledge that explicitly does not "prove" things. Unless by proof you mean evidence!

Originally posted by Agent Smith

I do understand the general concept of common ancestry. I just don't believe it.

Then you don't understand it as well as you think you do. Click here. Tell me at what point you think common ancestry no longer applies.

Originally posted by Agent Smith

But my understanding of the general concept doesn't bring forth evidence of evolution.

Understanding a concept doesn't bring forth evidence for that concept. These are two different tasks.

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Are you saying that your understanding of that same concept helps you interpret specific case studies?

Yes, of course. What's the alternative? Interpreting specific evidence with no background in the material? Well, okay, that's what you're attempting here, but it's just not going to work. Without the background understanding, it can never be more than guesswork.

Originally posted by Agent Smith

And that is what would make you a much more successful politician.

That's funny. Scientists are poorly suited to be politicians. Since we know we can never prove anything, we always hedge our bets (when's the last time GWB did that?). Since our conclusions are evidence-based, we are prone to change them in the light of new evidence (when's the last time GWB did that?). Whenever we enter the public arena, we are constantly making the mistake that people want us to provide our expert opinion, when all they really want is for us to reinforce their pre-existing mindset. Plus there's the whole social skills thing. That's why so many of our presidents, senators, and other elected officials have been scientists!

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Ok, start a new thread and I will join it if I am up for it.

None for me, thanks. I came here to learn from YECs. There are other forums out there devoted to ID.

Originally posted by Agent Smith

John2001 said it happened at least six or seven times that has been proven. He entered this thread a couple pages back and that is where I got some of my information.

Yes, but he didn't say that "mass extinction" means "all life on earth is exterminated," now, did he? And did he really say they were proven?

Originally posted by Agent Smith

While I do believe in Creationism over evolution, I don't read only material from the Creationists. It was a scientist in Nature magazine who said "it seems the more we study DNA, the farther we are from apes".

That's a direct quote from the original article in Nature, eh? How similar would our DNA have to be in order for you to think it possible that we have a common ancestor?

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Since you say that creationists don't provide much positive content, then maybe you can answer this question and give me solid proof of your answer:

Where does the information in DNA come from in nature so that every protein, amino acid, DNA and RNA knows their function?

1) Sorry, no proofs today.
2) Let me get this straight: your response to my comment about creationists always complaining about evidence collected by scientists, and never collecting any of their own, is to repeat this sad scenario yet again?
3) Proteins, amino acids, DNA, and RNA all lack brains, and self-awareness as far as I can tell, so they do not "know their function." That was easy!

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Not all laymen would accept that as fact.

Only laymen who are not knowledgeable in the subject have a problem with this.

I will agree with biology that adaptation occurs within a species. I won't agree that an ape can evolve into a human or that a reptile evolves into a bird. Biology has never shown this to happen.

Evolution tells us that humans and apes share common ancestry. What we see when we look in the fossil record are an absence of both humans and apes, but rather organisms that share traits in common with both apes and humans.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

I don't mind you and Stratnerd pointing fingers and letting me know that I'm not a scientist but it seems you guys keep forgetting that I am one of the laymen you guys don't like talking to.

I'm going to try to answer to multiple people in this post.


As far as the article from Nature, for whatever reason, I can't get it to load any longer. Maybe you geniuses can figure that out.
I also had a link to an article that was from National Geographic about the same thing. This link might still work. I don't know. Both articles said that the similarities between ape and man were getting farther apart the more they figured out the genetic codes. They are scientists just as you say you are. Argue their validation with them.

As far as evolving, even with the finches Darwin found on the Galapagos Islands, they evolved within their own kind. Apes are still apes and humans are still humans. You guys are telling me that millions of years ago that my ancestors were apes. Why should I believe that if there are still apes running around?

You (evolutionists) want me to believe that birds came from dinosaurs. Why should I believe that? If apes were supposed to have evolved into humans and apes are still around why couldn't dinosaurs have survived the transition or have evolved themselves back into existence?

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Originally posted by john2001

The best estimates place the age of the earth at 4.5-4.6 billion years old. That estimate has held for about 55 years, and is based on extremely solid data. I would refer you to
_Age of the earth_ by G. Brent Dalrymple for details. There is no reason currently to doubt this evidence.

There are over 40 types of raiometric dating. Which ones does he prefer? And does he take into account the higher levels of radiation beyond out atmosphere?

There are actually more than 200 radiometric dating methods. I would refer you to a recent text on the subject _Radioigenic isotope Geology_ by Alan Dickin for details.

As to the age of the earth type measurements, the methods are related to the U-Pb (uranium-lead) decay sequences. There are a number of approaches to using isochron dates.

As you allude to, to get the age of the formation of the Earth, meteorites play an important role. As to effects of radiation, we are talking about alpha decay, which is not affected by ambient radiation.

The point being: mainstream scientists are neither fools nor liars, so anything that you, an unschooled layman with a chip on his shoulder, might come up with was likely already thought of and dealt with by people who have expertise in the field.

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

Originally written by john2001:

I believe that you are misunderstanding the term "mass extinction". At no time in the geologic record is there evidence that *all* life was extingished in mass extinction events. What is seen in the fossil record in each of these events is a relatively rapid reduction in the number of species.

Again, I was using the definition of faunal extinction.
it seems you don't agree with the definition of faunal extinction.

Basically "faunal extinction" refers to the fact that lines of descent seen in the fossil record
terminate. There is no claim in the scientific community that *all* species became extinct during any of the periods of mass extinction.

New species? Well, I haven't seen any evidence that suggest that dogs(general) come fom anything but dogs(general), or humans come from anything but humans, birds from birds, etc.,... If there were at least 6 or 7 mass extinctions then there should be transitional fossils abounding in the labs by the tons. But they aren't.

The whole fossil record is transitional. It is a myth that there are "no transitionals".

But wouldn't at least 6 or 7 mass extinctions hinder the scientific theory of evolution by limiting its access to vast amounts of genetic material by mass extinction?

There are genetic bottlenecks that occur with each mass extinction. That is why most of biology is vastly different today, than it was millions of years ago. However, there is plenty of new variation that enters the gene pools through mutation and recombinations, so after some millions of years, the diversity of the surviving lines increases.

The only thing I could find about RNA and evolution had to do with an experiment using mouse hepatitis virus strain A59 (MHV-A59, but I didn't see a purpose in it.

Look up RNA world hypothesis. Look up
Andrew Ellington (who has been a major researcher in the problem of generating new drugs via evolution.

Anyway where does the RNA get it's coded information from? How did they evolve to encode proteins?

Random mutation with selection. As to the details, we may never know.

At any rate, none of this has any importance with regard to evolution, which is the origin of species. The only thing that is required for evolution to happen is that life already existed.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by john2001

The point being: mainstream scientists are neither fools nor liars, so anything that you, an unschooled layman with a chip on his shoulder, might come up with was likely already thought of and dealt with by people who have expertise in the field.

I agree, they aren't all fools and liars, I would describe them as dogmatic. When you start with the base assumption to prove that very same assumption there isn't much room left for science.

It's amazing so many are "unschooled" when the very basics have been taught in public school for how long? What's the latest estimate for fed grants to "get the message out" and research? It seems the museums at least might be able to help the "unschooled" but all we get is theory sans evidence.

The established wisdom of yesterday is being challenged by the complexity we see at the cellular level today. Evo is going to have to change it's MO from BOLD CLAIM + No Evidence = science, or suffer losing more ground than it has gained since chuck wrote his book.