:mock: 'fraidy-dog.
Evolution... Do we believe?
- Thread starter PopeFrancieLXIX
- Start date
:mock: 'fraidy-dog.
Genetics confirms a roughly 6000 year old universe? Citations to the literature please.
But the death of Jesus, according to Christian theology, was necessary, correct?
And Jeffrey has a degree in agronomy (growing plants) so he knows more about genetics than the geneticists who actually wrote the research and saw nothing in it that confirmed the creationist revision of Genesis.
In fact, the results suggest the opposite conclusion:
We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes....Furthermore, European Americans had an excess of deleterious variants in essential and Mendelian disease genes compared to African Americans, consistent with weaker purifying selection due to the Out-of-Africa dispersal. Our results better delimit the historical details of human protein-coding variation, show the profound effect of recent human history on the burden of deleterious SNVs segregating in contemporary populations, and provide important practical information that can be used to prioritize variants in disease-gene discovery.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7431/full/nature11690.html
I notice that Jeffrey has, on Creationwiki, claimed that his degree is in Genetics, but his alma mater says it's in growing crops.
The problem is that there are many, many alleles for each human gene locus. If they all evolved by mutation, then there is not enough time on the creationist belief for all of them to have formed.
Here's Robert's argument:
That one percent DNA difference is easily explained by originally created "alleles," or genetic differences between two original sets of chromosomes, in Adam. Mutations in subsequent generations have added to those original differences. Biologist Robert Carter generated distributions of human DNA differences using Bible-based assumptions: Adam and Eve had many (~10 million) alleles, mutations have been accumulating for 6,000 years, and humanity experienced rapid population growth after Adam, after the Flood, and in various places after the dispersion from Babel.
http://www.icr.org/article/christian-professor-claims-genetics/
This is based on a major misconception about genetics. Robert thinks that Adam and Eve could have all of the dozens of alleles present today for each gene locus. But we only have two chromosomes. Which means that Adam and Eve could have had at most, four different alleles between them. The dozens or even hundreds of others must have evolved. Even 50,000 years would be entirely too short a time for that to have happened.
Georgia has another issue. "Mitochondrial Eve" wouldn't be the first woman. She would be the oldest woman to be the ancestor of all living humans. And the evidence Georgia is talking about says that this Eve lived about 200,000 years ago. Ooops.
And John Sanford thinks simple denial is O.K. as a scientific process...
He did. It's just that none of these people approve of the way He did it.
This is why the "see all the scientists who are creationists" argument is such a loser. Fortunately for us... Science is not about majority opinion...as creationists like to think.
In general, science works by consensus. Because the evidence points a certain way. Further investigation may change the consensus but it often takes a while. The original consensus in western science was creationism and a young earth. Geology in the 1800's provided evidence that changed the consensus. After Darwin and Mendel there was great discussion about the mechanism of genetics. Lots of scientists thought the mechanism was based on proteins--life is complex, they are often complex; Linus Pauling went down this rabbit hole. Watson and Crick (and Rosalind Franklin) showed us a simpler molecule, DNA, was the mechanism and changed the consensus.
Ages ago the consensus was that the earth was the center of the solar system. Copernicus and Galileo provided evidence that changed the consensus. Wegener and then Bruce Heezen and Marie Tharp provided the evidence that changed the consensus about mountain building, plate tectonics, etc.
Currently, the consensus is the universe is 13-14 billions of years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Based on astronomical red shifts and radiometric dating.
Currently, the consensus is that evolution, as outlined in general by Darwin, is the mechanism by which life adapts and leads to new forms of living things.
Currently the consensus is that humans evolved from earlier apes.
Want to change the consensus---go for it. Get the great fundamentalist universities to fund the work and get it published. It'll be tough, it is hard to change the scientific consensus, change the paradigm but go for it.
The real world is waiting, Nobels are there for the taking.
And what do we get from some here---we get Dr. Stripe who is afraid to answer the tough questions and Professor 6 who just loves to quote his particular Holy Book.
6days
New member
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus... The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus....There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." - Michael Crichton
In the beginning, God created...
6days
New member
John Sanford: Genetic Entropy
John C. Sanford He went to the University of Wisconsin–Madison where he received an MSc in 1978 and a PhD in 1980 in plant breeding/plant genetics. Between 1980 and 1986 Sanford was an assistant professor of Horticultural Sciences at Cornell University, and from 1986 to 1998 he was an associate professor of Horticultural Science. Although retiring in 1998, Sanford continues at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor. He held an honorary Adjunct Associate Professor of Botany at Duke University. Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals.
Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun". He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford
Genetics DOES help confirm the truth in God's Word
6days
New member
Wrong... You are talking about the evolutionist interpreting the results within their belief system of millions of years when the results indicated that 'protein-coding and deleterious SNVs' arose very recently.Barbarian said:
Dr. Tompkins You mean? Would you agree that attacking the person, or trying to discredit their education, rather than attack their argument is ad hominem?Barbarian said:
Ad hominem
"An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence"
Urban dictionary
"He has a PhD in genetics"... according even to atheist 'Rationalwiki'.
The "problem" is your lack of understanding of genetics, coupled with your rejection of "For in six days, the Lord created the heavens and the earth, and everything in them"Barbarian said:
You are trying to read to fast again.... Dr. Purdom is discussing how genetics supports God's Word of the BIBLICAL Eve.Barbarian said:
Barbarian said:
Ah, another quote mine.
Nonetheless, science does work by consensus until someone changes it, in that manner Crichton is correct. So, get your "greatest creation scientists" to get cracking and change the consensus.
How long do you think it will take, 6, until one of your boys overturns the current general consensus about:
1. the age of the universe and age of the earth?
2. the basics of evolution?
3. the basics of radiometric dating?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Dr Ross shows that while there were hominids developing, there is a huge explosion of creativity and intelligence about 30-40K ago that defies the existing trajectory of hominids. It is that which he believes is the 6 days of creation.
CREATION AND TIME
reasonstobelieve.com
CREATION AND TIME
reasonstobelieve.com
6days
New member
Haaa Funny...
As a Biblical creationist... I love to call a hostile witness to the stand.
Evolutionists hate it when one of their own contradicts what they have just said. (As with consensus)
The evolutionist then typically cries "quote mining" although they never back up their claim.
Quote mining is a logical fallacy of quoting out of context... it was not taken out of context.
6days
New member
Yes... that is what Dr. Ross attempts to show. But God tells us He created humans intelligent from the beginning.
Science is the practice of testing ideas to falsify them. Consensus has no role to play.
The consensus is changed by people — usually creationists — who reject the consensus. As usual, evolutionists are desperate to remain in the game and popularity is their major play.
Wake us up when you're willing to discuss the evidence. :yawn:
Can you give one example of a creationist who changed a consensus?
:darwinsm:
alwight
New member
Except that peer review is generally how a scientific consensus or correction comes about, but being corrected by creationists however isn't.
Jose Fly
New member
??????????
How bizarre are creationists?
Creationist: "Trees and fish are different kinds."
Me: How do you know?
Creationist: "By looking at them. It's obvious."
Me: What are you looking for and how is it obvious?
Creationist: "They can't interbreed."
Me: So is the inability to interbreed the criterion for "kinds"?
Creationist: "Where did you get that idea?"
Me: How do you know?
Creationist: "By looking at them. It's obvious."
Me: What are you looking for and how is it obvious?
Creationist: "They can't interbreed."
Me: So is the inability to interbreed the criterion for "kinds"?
Creationist: "Where did you get that idea?"
There's something fundamentally wrong with you 6days.
Jose Fly
New member
So creationism doesn't include "Then God said..."?
Then what in the world was this post from you about?
"Genetic similarities between trees and fish have nothing to do with common descent, *and everything to do with .......
"Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:*seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds..."
"Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:*seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds..."
Again, there's something fundamentally wrong with you.
Jose Fly
New member
Not according to Stripe and some other creationists here.
