Biological classification vs 'Kind'

quote:

---

(discussion on convergent evolution regarding bats and dolphins omitted for brevity

---

We have another thread going for this topic now, so I won't respond here.

quote:

---

Common ancestry is not an assumption. Every time you see a family walking down the street, the tall ones are the common ancestors of the short ones. We all know from personal experience that all people trace back to common ancestors, even creationists who believe that the two principle common ancestors were Adam and Eve . We all agree about common ancestry - it is not an assumption.

​

What you're actually arguing is that common ancestry does not continue infinitely back in time. You believe that at some point in the past all the species were created in independent acts of creation, and that the original individuals of each species were the common ancestors for multiple lines of descent leading to the modern species of today. That's your hypothesis. Now all you need is evidence.

---

Yes, of course. I've tried to be clear about this. I was using the term "common ancestry" as short-hand to indicate "common ancestry of all life forms".

quote:

---

The real world doesn't really care what you believe, it carries on just the same. Mutations can both create and destroy information.

---

Of course....but my belief is based on the evidence. If I were to see evidence demonstrating mutationally created new usable information in the genome I would revise my belief accordingly.The closest I've seen so far was a study done on E. Coli (I believe - sorry I can't find the link right now) in a nutrient-deficient environment. A mutation in a gene caused the breakdown of the coded protein that allowed the bacteria to synthesize the nutrients in the solution. However, this was simply the result of a deterioration in an existing protein, and not the creation of a new mechanism. I may be unintentionally mis-representing this study slightly, as it's been a while since I read it and I can't find the link.If you have evidence suggesting the evolution of new features I'd love to review it.

quote:

---

Uh, okay. And you think unfalsifiable and unevidenced ideas are science?

---

Yes, unfalsifiable hypothesis are science. Evolution is one. A rabbit in the pre-cambrian would not suddenly cause the scientific community to abandon darwinistic evolution - mainstream scientists (due to their inherant bias toward their 'dogma') would expand the theory to explain this phenomena, or find some means to rationalize away the evidence. The statement that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be valid is bologna (and interestingly is unfalsifiable itself).Unevidenced hypothesis can also be valid (though should obviously be tested) - though I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion that YEC is unevidenced.

quote:

---

If you falsify common ancestry for chimps and humans then all you've done is falsified common ancestry for chimps and humans. Maybe orangutans and humans share a common ancestor

---

Of course....could we please avoid arguments that pick at the semantics of my statements instead of addressing the obvious intent of the message?

quote:

---

When Michelson/Morley falsified the ether it didn't prove the Biblical account. When geologists falsified static continents it didn't prove the Biblical account. So when you falsify evolution that doesn't prove anything about the Bible or ID. You need evidence *for* ID.

---

I've seen plenty such evidence....and again - I wasn't born yesterday here. I understand that falsifying evolution doesn't prove YEC - but that really had nothing to do with my statement. You asked a question: What would falsify Baraminology? I responded with a possible falsification test.

quote:

---

If you'd like to try to use Mr. Wile's unevidenced arguments about dating then please first see rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines (stay on topic) and also rule 5 ("Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided").

---

I have made a good faith effort to avoid straying off-topic - including dropping lines of conversation and starting (or suggesting the start of) new threads when the topic veered too far.I have also not posted any bare links without discussion. The links I have posted are contextual to the discussion at hand and used to support the arguments and positions I have made (as Rule 5 requests).

quote:

---

Well, I guess when you have no evidence you have to believe this. Can we expect you to next argue that "evidenced assumptions" are no better than actual assumptions?

​

I think what you're actually thinking of, and what you're confusing with assumptions, is tentativity. We all agree that science is tentative and that good theory can only be displaced by better theory that explains more of the evidence. But underpinning all theory in science is evidence, and if you believe that ID is science than you need evidence *for* ID.

---

Sigh...No, evidenced assumptions take precedence over unevidenced assumptions. No, I'm not confusing anything - call it whatever you'd like. My point is that any scientific conclusion is not 100% certain. Therefore a certain measure of certainty must be assumed in order to use that conclusion to advance further hypotheses. When an earlier conclusion is found to be errant, all subsequent hypotheses based upon that conclusion must be re-evaluated.I've stated this multiple times now...can we move on?

quote:

---

You forgot the most important principle of baraminology: when transitional fossils are found, simply declare that they're not transitional.

---

Yeah, it's like the darwinistic principle: when a ape or human fossil with unusual features is found, declare it a human ancestor. Look we can both take accusational potshots at the other's viewpoint.Percy, the quality of your responses have seemed to deteriorate a bit. Could we get back to discussion of the evidence?

quote:

---

Again, you need evidence *for* ID, not against evolution. If you think there's an absence of evidence for evolution then one would have thought that you'd find the absence of evidence for ID even more stunning. Let's say you're right, that there's no evidence for evolution. Since there's also no evidence for ID, on what basis are you forming an opinion? The Bible? Would that be science? Wouldn't a scientist withhold judgement in the absence of evidence?

---

I have already seen adequate evidence to convince me of a YEC model - if I hadn't I would still be an old-earth creationist or theistic evolutionist as I was many years ago.I do however realize that both YEC and darwinian evolution cannot both be true. They are incompatable theories. Therefore, if you wish to convince me of a viewpoint other than YEC I need to see data that either discredits YEC or supports darwinian evolution.

quote:

---

You mean there's been an evolution in thinking in baraminology? Don't they still take the Bible as their basis rather than evidence from the natural world?

---

They take an interpretation of the Bible as their hypothesis and test it against the evidence of the natural world. How is this not science?

quote:

---

There you go again, stating your preference for stories over evidence.

---

You entirely missed the point. A naturalistic origin of life is unevidenced (and moreover rather discredited). Do you prefer that story instead?

quote:

---

No one's ruling out the supernatural a priori. What we're ruling out is the incorporation of ideas into our thinking that are not supported by evidence. If evidence for the supernatural somehow enters into your thinking on kinds then we'd like to hear about your evidence.

---

But that is exactly what has happened. Mainstream atheistic scientists have ruled out an intelligent supernatural Creator as "unevidenced" and yet advanced abiogenesis through chemical evolution - a hypothesis with striking evidence against it. The only logical explanation for such behavior is a bias toward their atheistic darwinistic 'religious' dogma.

quote:

---

Hi Bob, thanks for having the courage to reply, seems the other creationists don't want to have a bar of defining kind.

---

Glad to have this discussion! Courage is not required - I have nothing to fear. Either my beliefs are correct or they are in error and need to be corrected.

quote:

---

You seem like an educated person, so you must have heard of the Urey-Miller experiment. Can you explain how this experiment failed to provide even the slightest evidence for abiogenesis?

​

Or to put it more bluntly (and I'm not trying to be nasty here), If you conclude that there is no evidence for abiogenesis, why is it that when scientists recreate an environment predicted by science that would closely support abiogenesis, that a black tea pot isn't created instead of amino acids (the very molecule that is critical for life as we know it)?

---

If anything the Miller-Uray experiment demonstrates the absurdity of abiogenesis. Miller-Uray and subsequent ilk have at best been able to produce a few amino acids and other compounds that contribute to the formation of more advanced organic molecules. The most successful of experiments to model abiogenesis (unless there is one I am unaware of) was able to produce only one of the four nucleotides required for DNA formation.Keep in mind too that these experiments are conducted using highly artificial environments supposedly based upon the atmospheric composition of the earth several billion years ago. However, this supposed mixture has been revised and revised in an effort to get better results from origin of life experiments.Here's some of the steps that still must be overcome before abiogenesis is evidenced:
1. All four nucleotides must be produced at the same time
2. nucleotides must be organized into a coherent DNA or RNA molecule
3. A genetic code must be established - one that not only codes proteins but also provides serves the many other functions of the current genetic code in parallel
4. The complex mechanism for unzipping and replicating DNA must be duplicated.
5. A simple cellular body must be devised to contain the genome
6. animo acids need some mechanism to be stitched together to form functional proteins
7. Only left handed optical isomers must be createdOnce you get to that point, then you have to figure out how to generate the complex machinery of a eukaryotic cell - for which there is no clear evolutionary pathway - and that's just the first of many hurdles to cross once you've got a live cell on your hands.Taken from another perspective - do we see any evidence of complex intelligent (or even semi-intelligent) organization in nature apart from living organisms? Surely if such organization were possible from a pool of goo then we would see other evidence of inorganic materials forming semi-intelligent organized systems?

quote:

---

Do you think advancements in astronomy would be severely retarded if we seriously considered the possibility and implications of astrology?

​

Do you think advancements in medicine would be severely retarded if we seriously considered the possibility and implications of ancient demon possession?

---

Severly retarded? No. Potentially crippled? Yes. Obviously there are a lot of unevidenced hypotheses out there - and there is certainly no point in wasting time on most such theories. I understand why atheistic darwinists would have every reason to ignore the supernatural as a possible theory - why look for something that you don't believe exists if there is no observable evidence for it? However, as a Christian who not only believes in God but has experienced circumstantial spiritual evidence of his existence - why would I have any reason to ignore a scientific hypothesis that assumed his intervention?

quote:

---

What about deceit? Is that one of the creator's attributes? Because he sure seems to have worked hard at making the planet look old and life look evolved.

---

Of course not...many young-earth creationists consider this a broad falsification test for the YEC model. A God of truth would not create a young-world that was deliberately deceptive to look like an old-world. Either the data matches a young-earth, or the YEC model is wrong. I don't think you'll get much argument from creationists on this point.

quote:

---

A desire for order alone is not enough to explain the pattern of nested hierarchy. After all, any kind of order could have been imposed. Organisms could show similarity based only on size, habitat or location.

---

Agree.

quote:

---

In actual fact, whatever level you examine life at, it looks as though it evolved. A simple desire for order is not enough to explain things like ERVs in our genome, shared genes between humans and chimps, biogeography, fossil stratigraphy, etc. because all of these things, had they been designed, were clearly designed to look as evolved as possible.

---

Disagree - based upon the evidence I have reviewed.

quote:

---

Yes, you have indeed linked to Dr Wile many times before. Despite the fact that he is an ignoramus. Wile's claim that there are "NO FEATHER IMPRESSIONS preserved" is flat wrong for example. He is either unfamiliar with the relevant evidence or he has chosen to ignore it.

---

If you'd like to prove Dr. Wile wrong feel free to point me to evidence to the contrary. I'm certainly more than willing to examine it.

quote:

---

It also seems odd that you should use the opinions of evolutionist researchers to bolster your claims. Feduccia and Ruben are not creationists. They believe that dinosaurs evolved, albeit from different reptile ancestors to those favoured by most researchers. Do you believe that birds evolved from reptiles? If not, why cite Feduccia or Ruben? If your only intent was to show that there are minority opinions in biology, you are making a non-point; there are always minority opinions in science, that's how science works.

---

My point was to demonstrate that like many factors of darwinian evolution there not only are minority opinions, but the majority opinion frequently shifts in an effort to force the theory to fit new data. To some extent, this isn't a problem (and is indeed good science), but at a certain point the theory is stretched to fit so many failed predictions that its validity as a whole comes into question. Here's a great paper on Darwin's failed predictions that helps demonstrate this point.

quote:

---

It's a problem because one could use that argument to justify anything. Feathered mammals? That's because God wanted it that way. No feathered mammals? That's because God didn't want them. Literally anything could be justified using this kind of post hoc excuse. An answer that can be equally applied to everything is no kind of answer at all.

---

Yes and no. A simple answer like that - if not testable and falsifiable can still be valid - but certainly doesn't help much. However, there are some tests that we can use. Since the YEC model is based upon the Bible, and the Bible reveals to us the character and attributes of God, we know that God would not design that which does not within His character. The Bible also provides other constraints which can be formed into tests - such as the size of Noah's Ark, descriptions of animals, etc.

quote:

---

As has been pointed out many times already, the Theory of Evolution isn't supposed to tell us how life arose. It would be equally true whatever the actual origins of life. Further, I see no problem with assuming that life began somehow. We know this. Life exists after all, it must have begun somehow, at some point. All that remains to be seen is how life arose, a question that would be better settled by sober analysis of the evidence, not by asserting supernatural causes.

---

And as I pointed out many times darwinistic evolution is inseparable from the origin of life. Life must exist in order for common-ancestry evolution to run its course - so some origin of life must be assumed. They may be distinct concepts but attempting to separate them leads me to suspect you're trying to sweep the nasty problem of abiogenesis under the rug.

quote:

---

But even if these events had a supernatural cause, they would still have left detectable evidence for their occurrence. Just because the cause is supernatural, doesn't mean that it would not leave evidence of the actual event itself. The flood for instance would have left vast swathes of evidence of its passing. The Babel event would be detectable in the archaeological record. Neither can be found.

---

The geological record supports the concept of a global flood rather well (sediment layers laid down rapidly during a catastrophic event instead of over long periods of time) - I have seen considerable research from creationists on this issue. If you disagree perhaps you'd like to show me evidence to the contrary?

quote:

---

If life has a supernatural origin then, sadly, science will be forever unable to address it and the fledgling field of abiogenesis is doomed to permanent frustration. However, I think it's a little early to give up and resort to God-of-the-gaps explanations yet.

---

Your first sentence here summarizes rather well the point I've been trying to make regarding the inherent flaw in naturalistic science.

quote:

---

You have already been shown such evidence and you have hand-waved it away. The problem here is that with most animal species, the definition of baramin is loose enough to allow a little wiggle room. Bird/dinosaur fossils can be explained away by simply decreeing one to be a bird, one a dinosaur. Fish/amphibian fossils can be hand-waved away with "That's just a fish" or, if preferred, "That's just an amphibian". The only reason creationists can't play this game with humans and chimps is because you are unable to accept this particular example of common ancestry no matter what.

---

I'm not hand-waving anything away - I base my conclusions upon the evidence I have reviewed (and I hope by now I have demonstrated a willingness to review any data - within the limits of my time). As I stated before, a detailed analysis of the supposed common ancestry between chimps and humans seems beyond the scope of this topic - but if you wish to start another topic for it I'd happily participate as my time allows.Common descent applies within baramins - so DNA evidence should aid in placing a creature within a baramin as all creatures within the same baramin would share a common ancestor. It's nowhere near as arbitrary and vague as you make it out to be.

quote:

---

assuming that there are no intermediate steps between raw chemicals in solution and something extremely complex, such as a cell.

---

As I pointed out in a previous post there are MANY intermediate steps that must be overcome. I don't think anyone suggests that if abiogenesis were true that a cell suddenly "poofed" into existence from non-organized inorganic material. However, the sheer number and complexity of these intermediate steps makes abiogenesis all the more unlikely.

quote:

---

assuming that there is only one way to get life - the way we happen to have it

---

Yes, life could exist in other forms - precursors to life as we know it today. I'm familiar with the RNA World theory. The big problem here is that its an unevidenced assumption - we don't see life existing in these other forms (at least not any forms that would demonstrate a clear evolutionary pathway to DNA-based life). As everyone here has tried to tell me over and over again, I thought 'real scientists' didn't bother with unevidenced assumptions?

quote:

---

If you make these assumptions you can indeed get astrononical numbers, but scientists don't do that. Creationists do.

---

Creationists do not make the first assumption (at least any creationist willing to seriously examine the issue) - and as I've demonstrated darwinists make the inverse of the second assumption despite having any supporting evidence.

quote:

---

But even if there were no experimental evidence, a supernatural assumption is not reasonable. This is because not a single phenomenon that has been understood proves to have a supernatural explanation. The track record of naturalistic explanations is superb. The track record for the supernatural is non-existent. The supernatural has been removed from many domains by science.

---

Agree with your last sentence - but as I've pointed out several times now it is to the detriment of science. It makes sense for many things to have a naturalistic explanation - Put yourself in my shoes for a moment: God is a God of order - if He created the fundamental scientific laws that govern our universe it would make sense for him to allow them to take their course. This however does not mean that God has not supernaturally intervened in His creation - and if he has (for example, by originating life) then naturalistic science will never be able to determine that.Perhaps the track record of naturalistic science is seen as being so superb because it has been successful at finding many of the naturalistic phenomena in our universe. No one doubts however that there are many phenomena we do not yet understand - and as of yet naturalistic science has failed to reveal them. It is quite possible for some subset of these phenomena to be supernatural - and if so naturalistic science will forever be blinded to them.Edited by BobTHJ, : omitted a "the"Edited by BobTHJ, : A few other spelling and grammar mistakes

quote:

---

That's exactly what orthologous ERV's demonstrate:

​

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."--Johnson and Coffin, 1999
Humans and chimps share thousands of orthologous ERV's. Consider kinds falsified.

---

I've done a little more reading since first commenting on ERVs. Dr. Borger has put together a YEC hypothesis that answers the ERV problem (as well as other problems) rather well. I tried to explain this earlier but probably didn't do a good job since I hadn't yet read his paper outlining the hypothesis - only an article about it. To simplify:Baranomes are the set of genomes initially created by God - one for each created kind. Baranomes are incredibly vast - containing dormant material for a variety of variations. Baranomes contain VIGEs (Variation Indicuing Genetic Elements) - what mainstream biologists would call ERVs, transposons, etc. VIGEs modify the genome in an orderly fashion causing rapid adaptation and speciation among kinds. Over time however these VIGEs are disabled or repurposed by mutation leading to the variations of mobile DNA we see today. Some of these VIGEs have lost their controlling functions and now jump around haphazardly - modern retroviruses. Over time mutation and selective pressure eliminate function from the baranome among certain populations resulting in the modern genomes we see today.ERVs similarities between humans and chimps don't post a problem in this hypothesis. Rather than being the result of a retroviral insertion they are instead remnants of VIGEs present in the baranome at creation. Since humans and primates share similar mophological features it logically follows that their initial baranomes would have had much similarity.

quote:

---

The first prediction is:

​

"The difference between two species in the same baramin would be mostly due to transposons."

​

How can you determine this without the ability to construct a baramin?

---

Dr. Borger's articles referenced above give some insight into how to construct a baramin using certain indicator genes like FOXP2 in humans. He doesn't go into this in great detail - so I'm afraid I can't explain it here - I'll search for more information on this subject.

quote:

---

No, you don't. You dismiss ERV's out of hand without even understanding how they operate, how they insert into the genome, or their impact on the host genome. You dismiss a nested hierarchy out of hand, as if common ancestry would not produce a nested hierarchy. You dismiss intermediate fossils. You misrepresent the scientific consensus on the ancestry of modern birds. You misrepresent what is and is not assumed in the science of radiometric dating. I will stop short of calling you a liar, but you have bought a bad bill of goods and the only reason I can think for why this is is due to your religious beliefs. Or do you really think that millions of highly trained physicists, geologists, and biologists wordwide from every culture and religion are wrong while a handful of religiously motivated creationists are right?

---

Not dismissal - simply a different interpretation of the evidence. As I've tried to demonstrate - I am not willing to ignore any evidence. In areas where the YEC argument is weak (such as rapid isotope decay) I have admitted as much. Creation scientists will need to come come up with some reasonable data that supports these hypotheses or abandon them.Creation science (while no doubt a minority) is not the domain of extreme fringe. There are many who scientists who believe in Biblical creation - for reference here's a list and here's another (neither are comprehensive, though there may be some overlap). As I mentioned previously, my religious beliefs would allow me to be a theistic evolutionist (many Christians are) - my only reason for believing the YEC model is because it's a better fit for the data I have reviewed. Please don't insult me by assuming that my religion dictates my scientific beliefs.

quote:

---

Wouldn't it be a good idea to learn the difference between the words "ancestor" and "descendant" before you comment on biology?

---

My use of the word "ancestors" was intentional.

quote:

---

Nectocaris pteryx has just been described as a primitive shell-less cephalopod by researchers on the basis of 91 new specimens. It pre-dates the first known true cephalopods by 30 million years.

---

Because it displays advanced features that shouldn't have existed during that time-frame? No worries though - we'll just shuffle around the clade to make it fit.No need to reply - I'm off topic here. Apologies.

quote:

---

In other words, you pulled the trigger without first loading any ammunition and are unable to answer the question: why do you think convergent evolution is an assumption?

​

After you've got some ammunition why don't you try again.

---

You are most correct. How soundly I am being trounced on the convergent evolution thread indicates this. I went into that argument unloaded - I realize now I need to do considerable more research before I am ready to debate that topic. Apologies.

quote:

---

Well gee, that's wonderful for you, common ancestry has already been falsified. My previous suggestions stand: stop posting bare links with no discusison and bring your evidence and arguments into the thread (rule 5), and provide evidence *for* ID instead of against evolution.

---

Sorry again...that really was a bare link. I'll try and do better.

quote:

---

I don't think you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the material. I'm just noting that you seem unaware of much of the subject material at this point, and I also find your several expressions of wishing to investigate things for yourself at odds with your unquestioning acceptance of articles by Mr. Wile and ICR. You say you disagree with the conclusions scientists draw from the data while giving no indication of any acquaintance with that data yourself. This is why I likened you to those who prefer a good story over evidence.

---

I really am interested in the evidence - and the conversations I've had the last week on this board has led me to do more research on these topics then I ever had before - so I'm learning a lot. Admittedly, a lot of my knowledge comes from the creationist side - and rightfully so. However, I was hoping to (and have been glad to) learn more about the darwinian positions on issues through the links and arguments posted here. Some of those arguments have made a convincing case - some have not.

quote:

---

Did you know that John Woodmorappe is really called Jan Peczkis? I prefer his real name myself.

​

When you get time, could you summarize the argument with the sources? Only I've not found Mr Woodmorappe to be the most reliable source in the past, you see. If I get time, I'll try and wade through it all and figure it out.

---

Sorry, I have to admit I know nothing of Mr. Woodmorappe/Peczkis apart from what is written in that article.I'll do my best to summarize the article:
Evolution predicts that pseudogenes should be more tolerant to mutation since they are non-functional. If this were true, the ratio of synonymous to non-synonymous mutations should be 1:1 in psuedogenes since there is no selective pressure. A low ratio should indicate a functional gene that is being conserved, and a high ratio should indicate a functional gene that is being selected for - ie currently undergoing evolution. Woodmorappe references a study that shows this prediction to be falsified. While pseudogenes do tend to have a higher ratio than functional genes they are in most cases less than 1:1 - and many have similar ratios to functional genes. This demonstrates that psuedogenes likely have function and adhere to the same preservation and conservation methods as functional genes. I believe he makes this point to demonstrate that non-functioning genes are not in most cases free to mutate as you suggest.From there he examines the Uox pseudogene. There are six stop codons disabling this gene in primates. Five of these fit the evolutionary phylogenetic model, but one does not (requiring separate evolution). Humans and sheep also share a stop codon disabling the p2 psuedogene which would require separate evolution. Additionally there is a shared segment in the intron of the Uox that does not fit the clade organization. Finally, he points out that there are six shared segments between chimps and gorillas in the Uox gene - none of which are shared by humans.Finally he addresses the GULO gene. This is where he talks about the 47 shared positions (out of 647 possible) between guinea pigs and humans. These shared positions are spread throughout the exons and include codings for 4 disabling stop codons. These shared mutations if charted would place humans and primates closer to rodents than prosimians. He quotes a source stating the probability of this degree of shared mutation at 1.84*10^-12 based on random mutation.If I understand correctly Woodmorappe's conclusion is this - Since neither creationists nor darwinists would place guinea pigs and humans as closely related then one or both of the following must be true:
1) The similarities indicate common engineering/design.
2) Mutational hotspots - not common ancestry - account for many of the similarities in pseudogenes.

quote:

---

That's an important question: how does barimonlogy give us a deeper understanding of the evidence? I've shown how evolutionary ideas can lead to a deeper understanding of what is going on in two examples. Now it's your turn

---

Your example of the GULO gene gives a flawed understanding of the evidence as demonstrated by the article. While it holds true in some cases it does not in all - and there is not determining factor between the two.I haven't really researched what understandings baraminology can give - but one idea hit me (off the top of my head):If you look at this article by Dr. Borger under the sub-heading "The multiple genomes of Arabidopsis" he describes a study published in Science. 19 strands of Arabidopsis thaliana were collected from a variety of biomes. Despite being closely related they shared significant genetic differences. Since genetic similarity would indicate that these strands all come from the same baranome the functional unique portions of each strand's genome could be used to determine the maxima adaptive capabilities of the species. These sections could also be combined to reconstruct the original (or close) baranome for the kind.That's probably not the best example - so I'll try and think of some better ones - I'll try and get back to you on this.

quote:

---

Indeed they would fail to catch the hypothetical invisible robber. But on the other hand, they won't waste time on every crime they get stuck on looking for supernatural creatures and superpowered criminals. If you think they should - blimey.

​

Anyway - nobody is ruling out a designer. If you want to go looking for a being that has powers to avoid you finding it, be my guest. If you can convince someone to cough up money to pay for your quest, that's awesome. You can't force scientists to perform experiments to falsify or confirm your hypothesis - they've got bills to pay.

​

And don't assume that just because scientists don't tend to look for a Hot Jupiter Orbit Designer to explain why there are so many Hot Jupiters or whatever other unsolved mystery crops up, it's because they aren't being thorough. They are finite beings that don't have time to waste and so they make judgement calls on what funding to apply for to do what experiment. The modern science of bariminology can look for a designer if it wants, though.

---

I agree that darwinists (specifically atheistic darwinists) have no reason to waste time looking for the 'invisible robber'. However, Christian creationists certainly do - and this is where religious beliefs come into play. As a Christian who has experienced circumstantial spiritual evidence of a Creator I have every reason to search for Him in science.

quote:

---

No worries. You seem like a perfectly nice person, and its nice to find someone who is both pleasant and who disagrees with me

---

Modulous - I really appreciate the civil tone of your responses and your willingness to discuss issues without resulting to personal attacks or broad generalizations about your opposition.

quote:

---

And I suggest the opposite, namely that just because something is old, doesn't mean it is better than the new.

​

One of the most important points made by Jesus is in the Sermon on the Mount where he tells the assembled it is their duty to heal the sick and feed the poor. If necessary I can quote chapter and verse.

​

Some reasons why the new is better than the old according to the Sermon on the Mount (look them up in Google if you don't recognize why) are due to:

---

I'm not going to respond point by point because doing so would stray too far off topic. However, to summarize the gist of your argument:
* Jesus said feed the poor and take care of the sick
* The "Christian church" many times in the past 2000 years had dismally failed in this regard (often even working against it)
* Meanwhile scientific advances are feeding the poor and taking care of the sickI agree to some extent with what you have posted. Yes, there have certainly been many evils perpetrated by so-called Chrsitians throughout the history of the church - and yes, many modern scientific advances have benefited the poor and sick. You however have cherry-picked the examples that benefit your telling of history - while ignoring the many examples of the opposite: Christians feeding the poor and helping the sick and science harming them. Continuing this line of discussion however seems unrelated to the topic of this thread.

quote:

---

Granting for the sake of discussion that the 47 shared mistakes between humans and guinea pigs occur at mutational hotspots, why are the mistakes the same? It isn't like copying down coin flips where there's only one way to be wrong. So in an ID context, how did this happen?

---

Based on Borger's baranome hypothesis, VIGEs (Variation Inducing Genetic Elements) would have operated with specific function at the point of creation and thereafter until partially or fully disabled by mutation. These VIGEs (which as mentioned earlier are transposons, insertion sequences, ERVs, etc.) worked to cause rapid adaptation and speciation by activating and deactivating various genes.Since common design is apparent in a YEC model it would make sense that guinea pigs and humans would have a similar if not identical GULO gene at creation. It would also make sense that VIGEs in both kinds would operation in a similar fashion - making similar changes to those genes. Selection then operated to preserve the forms we see today. This also neatly explains the similarity in the GULO genes of humans and other primates.

quote:

---

So there is no mixture of characteristics, either in living or fossil species, that would falsify the YEC model? If not, then how do you explain the nested hierarchy? Other than evolution and common ancestry, what other mechanism would produce such a pattern of shared characteristics preferrentially over other patterns? Why do we see the exact pattern of shared characterstics that we would expect from evolutionary mechanisms if evolution never occurred? Is God trying to trick us into accepting evolution?

---

Not at all. Remember: nested hierarchy does not imply common ancestry. For example, I could build a nested hierarchy of automobiles. In one clade you'd have all the semi-tractors and in a distant clade on another branch you'd have the divergence between 2-door and 4-door sedans. This nested hierarchy could accurately model 95%+ of all automobiles - though there would be exceptions (like, where the heck do you put the El Camino? pickups? cars? maybe it's the result of convergent evolution ). However, just because the ontology could be created doesn't mean that all automobiles had common ancestry: some are Fords, some are GMs, etc.

quote:

---

You may want to check out this thread. I can understand that you are getting in over your head. If you want to discuss ERV's more you can either comment on the thread above or start a new one with questions not covered in the other thread.

---

I'll read up on that thread - thanks for the link. I've also been doing a lot of other reading on this subject as well.

quote:

---

And until such time the conclusions are solid. To bring us back on topic, you need to explain why the non-avian dinosaur baramins are only found beneath rocks with isotope ratios consistent with 65 million years worth of decay. If both evolution and radiometric dating are wrong, how does this happen? How does YEC explain this? Even more, how does the YEC model explain how post-flood survival correlates with the depth of ancestral fossils? For example, we only find trilobites deep in the geologic record and there are no surviving trilobites. Rhinos are found much higher in the fossil record, and they survive today. How does the YEC model explain this? How does depth of burial affect post-flood survival with respect to baramins?

---

The YEC geological model has most sedimentary layers laid down during the global flood. It follows then that simple marine bottom-dwelling animals (such as trilobytes) would be found in the lowest pre-cambrian/cambrian strata as these would be the first to be buried. Larger and/or more advanced creatures would be buried later as they would be better equipped to survive against the rising waters and would survive longer. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the fossil record according to YEC - so I doubt I can answer all your questions satisfactorily - but that is a synopsis.

quote:

---

And what happens when you apply this evolution based algorithm? Very accurate protein function predictions. The theory works. Baraminology doesn't.

---

I'm going to read through the SIFTER research - as I'd like to better understand it. However, my initial reaction is not surprise. Remember - your nested hierarchy is 95%+ accurate at categorizing creatures according to genetic and morphological similarities. It only makes sense then that by looking at proteins of closely grouped creatures you can predict the function of a similarly constructed protein for another creature within the group. This does not require common ancestry.

quote:

---

What features must a fossil have in order to be transitional between non-humans and humans in the YEC model? Or are such conclusions forbidden a priori? How can you claim to be reasonable if a specific conclusion is forbidden before even looking at the fossils?

---

Not forbidden - but since such a fossil would invalidate the model the evidence for transition would need to be very high before being accepted.

quote:

---

I will fully agree that no fossil can be shown to be an ancestor of any living human. Only DNA can show this, and hominid fossils don't have DNA in them. However, if humans did evolve from a common ancestor with other apes shouldn't we see fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features? We should, shouldn't we? Isn't that exactly what we see with these fossils? If apes and humans were created separately then why do we see fossils that have a mixture of human and ape features?

---

Consider in a YEC model that baranomes contain a wide variety of genetic information - far more than modern genomes. Also consider how close primates and humans are morphologically. The baranomes (both pre and post flood) would have caused rapid speciation and variation - some of these species would survive and some would not. It only stands to reason that some primate fossils would be found showing some features more similar to humans than modern primates display. It also stands to reason that some human fossils would be found showing some characteristics closer to primates than modern humans display (neanderthal for one - which creationists successfully predicted to be an extinct race of humans).