Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?

Buz,Given complexity has been observed to evolve at the molecular level in a lab when we were looking (Hall 82). A lac operon was eliminated, a new functional enzyme evolved, an expression control system, & an associated permease. I could argue that if you eliminated the enzyme the other two would be functionless, meaning irreducible complexity evolved under lab conditions.Given that to be true, why is "too much complexity" a problem for evolution?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I think that buzsaw ought to address the subject directly.Even if the complexity of biological systems indicates intelligent designers in action, that in no way demonstrates an all-at-once creation ~10,000 years ago.The most that one would get out of it is intelligently-designed evolution over the last 4 billion years.

quote:

---

The more complex we find things like cells and DNA to be, the more the creationist can observe the evidence and conclude that these didn't assmble and progress without intelligent design. Too many
timely senarios are required for everything to happen by accident.

---

I've been arguing that complexity is evidebce against design
in the intelligent design thread discussing 'software & evolution'.As to your last statement, personal incredulity is surely a
poor basis for a line of reasoning.

Phospho,Post 72, when you have time, please.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

The evolutionary model is inferred from a vast weight of separate data points.

---

True, however, those data points lose their explanatory power...which is what science is all about, when all of those points entail the grand assumption and not one gives the evidential standing on its own merit that TOE needs.

quote:

---

I don't understand what you mean by ToE having no mechanism for itself. The mechanisms are simple: heritable variation and natural selection. These two mechanisms are all that is needed to produce the diversity of life on Earth from a single ancestor.

---

I would like to answer this in detail, since it is the main contention, but it has to do with genetics and this string concerns similarity. I will start a new string and call it "The Nature of Mutations"...see you there.

quote:

---

Consider that an organism is grown from scratch as part of its pre-natal development.

---

This is not accurate. Organisms are not grown from "scratch", they are built following specific directional instructions. The change that you referred to is not haphazard nor due to chance.

quote:

---

Again, how do you know? If the limbs are growing in that way to begin with (evolutionary biologists conclude that evolution in gross body plan is linked to the genes that control body development during gestation), why would anything have to be severed? If you would only look you would find that biologists have models for these scenarios.

---

I have looked, and I have found none. The closest that I have found is "such and such organism modified into such and such organism, but we can't say exact ancestor-descendant relationship, only group to group relationships". That tells me nothing. When I want to know how you turn a fish into an amphibian, and an amphibian into a reptile, regardless of similarity, but having everything to do with development, I am not enlightened at all by "evolution found a way."

quote:

---

The details have been largely postulated. But they may not make sense to you (they only barely do to me) without a better grounding in both genetic and developmental biology. Potentially, hing legs could be made useless (and therefore out of the way, an advantage for a water-living organism) with changes to a few control genes.

---

Yes, changes have been postulated, but they cannot be codified (solidifying of such statements through experimentation in discovering the facts/truth of the matter...gravity has been codified for example). Think about what you just said...hind legs could be made useless...then they are not an advantage to a land dwelling creature, then it would have the anti-thesis of fitness, it would not survive. If the creature was living in the water before such a change (which is against all common sense) then it would not be environmentally fit, still having only legs. The scenarios are only just-so stories, having no common sense logic behind it. They are made up because aquatic mammals present a problem for TOE. But, because TOE theorists are committed more to their paradigm than they are to discovering truth...no matter where that investigation leads them...they will continue to give birth to such ludicrous stories that cannot be verified nor even worked out on paper without throwing away common sense logic.Have a nice day!

quote:

---

The rest of your post makes it quite clear that you really did mean that you deny the evidence for evolution on the grounds that you refuse to accept evolution as a possibility.

---

This is incorrect, and an argumentative ploy on your part. Like I have said before, if you can provide evidence that does not rest on the grand assumption, that is not backed by peripheral evidence resting on the grand assumption, etc, then I can consider it a viable theory. Until solid evidence can be provided by means of a good investigation of the facts without being totally overshadowed by bias, then we do not have good ground for even considering it as a possibility...just as Darwin should not have until he had some solid evidence, which he didn't.

quote:

---

THat means that your original claim that the evidence for evolution rquired assumign evolution was false and misleading. Yet you seem prepared to make accusation of deception against others with no more basis than the fact that you refuse to accept that evolution is possible.

---

Another argumentative tactic. My claim is not false and misleading, it is according to common sense logical deduction in positive investigation of raised evidence. In my crime lab, you need more than just "hear-say" circumstantial evidence in order to say someone is guilty...even though you may KNOW that he is, you first have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. TOE does not, because it has not. If you are going to stand by TOE as a true believer, then you owe it to yourself to investigate it to its fulness, laying aside any strong bias that you have. It doesn't matter how much you may be emotionally attatched to this idea, if it doesn't pan out in true scientific investigation, then it is only an idea held to with no basis in reality.

quote:

---

Let me correct some of your other errors. Evolution does not rely solely on point mutations. You have not truly considered the evolution of whales - nor how developmental biology works. You have not even considered the fact that whales are descended from ungulates, not dogs!

---

You speak from what you do not know, and only assume. First, since point mutations can lead to frame shift mutations, and other types of mutations, this is correct. It was a generalized statement. For more discussion on this subject, see the thread that I started on mutations. Second, I have considered developmental biology, and it is run according to directional information (DNA), not happens chance. Third, I have not considered the "fact" of whale evolution because that would be putting the cart before the horse, don't you think?Until you can prove that evolution IS a fact, without assumption (because once a statement has been discovered to be true and factual it no longer requires the assumption that began the investigation), then you have no scientific reason to consider whale evolution. To date, all evolutionary theses remain in the realm of holding to the grand assumption, not one aspect of it stands investigation on it's own feet without that assumption.

quote:

---

Could you give some details of the facts that you are referring to?

​

I think there are also a number of facts which are taken as being in support of ToE. Are there any important one which you think are not factual?

---

Sure, see the new thread that I started on mutations.

quote:

---

then you have no scientific reason to consider whale evolution.

---

Just exactly what would you need to "consider" whale evolution?

This is all just empty prattle. It's full of phrases like this: if you can provide evidence that does not rest on the grand assumption, that is not backed by peripheral evidence resting on the grand assumption, etc, then I can consider it a viable theory.Sounds good, huh? Yet not one iota of detail is provided to the support the contention that any of the evidence presented does "rest on the grand assumption." No attempt to identify what "solid evidence" consists in. No indication whatsoever that the writer has the slightest means of objectively identifying or eliminating the bias in others so repeatedly claimed.Look at this phrase: My claim is not false and misleading, it is according to common sense logical deduction in positive investigation of raised evidence. Not a jot of detail to indicate what the logical deduction is! But as a logical deduction this should be easy enough to do!Then there's the hilarious reference to "my crime lab." Maybe it's hidden in the basement like Dexter's laboratory in the cartoon? It's just as believable. Looks like we have another here trying to impress us with some claimed, but otherwise undetectable, special skill in handling evidence or argument.And finally we read To date, all evolutionary theses remain in the realm of holding to the grand assumption, not one aspect of it stands investigation on it's own feet without that assumption. Well it should be easy enough to demonstrate these assumptions at work, with clear examples from the literature and carefully spelled out deductions. I don't think we'll be seeing many of these however. I expect just another spate of unsupported assertions about "underlying assumptions."If you think back to the original topic of this thread - how does creationism explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation - you will see Phospho's problem and why they have to take this tack. Nothing could be based on a grander assumption than creationism, precisely because it posits a process which is by definition beyond the limits of natural science. Creationism has to assume the existence of god, assume his creative power and assume the truth of the Biblical account.As every choolchild learns, the easiest (if most cowardly) way of diverting attention from your own failings, is to loudly accuse another of the very same thing.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-12-2003]

Phospho,Post 72 please.Evolution, like all science is based on an inductively derived hypothesis that makes predictions. See post 72 for a working example. The assumptions are independent of the hypothesis under test. The data is predicted, or not. Your objection is moot.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-12-2003]

quote:

---

Yes, changes have been postulated, but they cannot be codified (solidifying of such statements through experimentation in discovering the facts/truth of the matter...gravity has been codified for example). Think about what you just said...hind legs could be made useless...then they are not an advantage to a land dwelling creature, then it would have the anti-thesis of fitness, it would not survive. If the creature was living in the water before such a change (which is against all common sense) then it would not be environmentally fit, still having only legs. The scenarios are only just-so stories, having no common sense logic behind it. They are made up because aquatic mammals present a problem for TOE. But, because TOE theorists are committed more to their paradigm than they are to discovering truth...no matter where that investigation leads them...they will continue to give birth to such ludicrous stories that cannot be verified nor even worked out on paper without throwing away common sense logic.

---

OK, lets see what marine mammals do to the theory of separate creation...Whales live underwater, yet they must surface every once in a while. The designer decided to burden this creature with its air-breathing apparatus, while he could have made gills just like his other creations, fish & clams & co.Ambulocetus the walking whale lived before true whales. Rodhocetus the swimming whale with legs lived after Ambulocetus and before legless whales. Basilosaurus the almost legless whale have vestigial legs but with a knee, which apparently cannot be used for walking. No, they were not related. They were separately created in such a sequence that almost look as if they were members of a continuing lineage.What do you think?

Firstly I note that you have had evidence of evolution that does not rely on assuming evolution. If the evidence is best explained by evolution then it fits the bill - as is the case with whale evolution where we have a good array of transitional fossils and genetic evidence. The only way to rule it out is - as I said - to assume that evolution is not even a possible explanation.And that is exactly what you tried to do with the following :

quote:

---

Shifting the hip from canine position to modern whale position would require massive make-overs. This would change and destroy at the same time spinal attachments, nerve endings, muscluar structure, etc. The hind legs would eventually become useless, and how many thousands of amino acid substitutions would be necessary for such a feat? No one knows, but do you know why? Because evolutionary theorists give us only the just-so stories of how a whale came to be from a canine-like ancestor but never work out the details in how such a feat could even be a possibility.

---

But this rests on anignorance of developmental biology (perhaps you would like to consider how the variations within species are possible if your claims were true ?)Therefore the assertions you call "argumentative tacitics" are in fact true. And your are using dishonest argumentative tactics yourself.As to your last-but-one paragraph it appears that you are the one who knows little. Start with insertions, deletions and transposons to consider how genes may change in addition to point mutations. Secondly consider that development and growth is not a simple matter of reading a blueprint in the DNA as you seem to think.

This is simply nonsensical. Science doesn't work like this. Individual, singular observations can't be used to infer a hypothesis because by definition, a hypothesis is a conjecture to generalize and explain a great many observations! It's like trying to define a line with only one point. There's just not enough information to do it.It'd be like trying to infer a theory of gravity from one single observation of an object falling. It's not enough data. You can't prove universal gravitation with one object, and you can't infer an evolutionary model with only one datum.But taken in total, a weight of observations suggests a hypothesis that generalizes and explains all of them. If you expect science to work differently you don't understand how science works. Thanks, you've made my point for me. Because prenatal development follows specific directional instructions, a small number of mutational changes to those instructions can effect great morphological change in the organism.(By way of defending my word use, it's still "scratch" if you're following a recipe. Haven't you ever made biscuits?)------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

quote:

---

(because once a statement has been discovered to be true and
factual it no longer requires the assumption that began the investigation),

---

I thought you were saying that an interpretation of data based upon
an assumption was invalid.But above you are saying that one starts with an assumption,
collects data, and if the data fits the assumption we claim
the assumption as fact and proceed.Apart from the obvious point that scientists never claim to have
outright proved something, it sounds like you are arguing
from two different world-views simultaneously.In one you say it is invalid to conduct an investigation with
a starting assumption and in the other you say that that is
exactly what you do.If you beleive in sudden creation perhaps you could answer the
thread question and state what you would expect to see in
DNA seqeunces for different animals if sudden creation were
what happened.