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

quote:

---

This is why, the next time TOE comes into a court room, it will be a long and drawn out case, because TOE cannot stand in a court of law. And if TOE cannot stand in a court of law by objectivity, then it does not stand outside of a court of law by objectivity to those who have no emotional attatchment to it.

---

Absolutely correct. Funny thing is, all legitimate scientific theories CAN be established in a court of law. ToE cannot. Unfortunately, ToE won't submit itself to objective inquiry in a court of law (never has btw), so you will need a legal theory alleging a cause of action to get yourself there. In the United States, the time is ripe for a constitutional challenge to the teaching of evolution in public schools since it directly contradicts the creationist religions in gross violation of the 1st amendment. This issue has never been visited upon the courts.But if you really want to have some fun, ask an evolutionist to define "evidence"!! Their attempts at responding will only demonstrate how subjective the alleged evidence for evolution is.ToE does claim to have some meager circumstantial evidence, however, but it falls far short of excluding every other reasonable hypothesis of creation. Indeed, ToE has neither circumstantial nor direct evidence for abiogenesis and, more important, there is ZERO direct evidence for macroevolution (the evos just love that word!). So what makes their assumption of abiogenesis more valid than the next? I submit it is for most the a priori commitment to atheism or agnosticism. No human being is bias free, especially those who have built their whole careers on the evolution canard.The biggest problem with the alleged circumstantial evidence for evolution is that it is not relevant at all, only conditionally relevant (if that). Problem is, ToE can't provide either direct or circumstantial evidence of the conditions! Therefore, one must conclude that the whole theory is irrelevant to science and has been utterly worthless to mankind; it certainly has had no relevant application ever to any meaningful advancement of real science.Anyway, have fun. I'm gonna get the popcorn.

Arguments from probability hold little water. There's a number of reasons that the odds are irrelavant.1. Just because we observe one kind of genetic code (DNA) doesn't mean that's the only way it could work. I'm sure chemists could postulate any number of self-assembling, inheritable genetic code structures.2. While you could have any number of "trials" (i.e. situations that would produce DNA-like systems at random), it only has to be succesful once. Once the system is up and running it presrves itself through reproduction.With those two points taken together, consider this analogy. The odds of specifically you (representing one specific DNA-like system) winning the lottery are pretty low. So low that if you did win, you might say "this is so unlikely, God must have had a hand in it." But consider the situation from the lottery board. If a million people buy tickets (the million possibilities for DNA-like systems), the odds that one of them will win is nearly certain.If there's any number of concievable, equivalent DNA-like systems that could exist, the odds that one of them actually exists is pretty good.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

Buz,

quote:

---

IMO, much better to do the geometry thing rather than to begin theorizing up ideas with the unknown. Better to assemble the known and work to determine the unknown from that.

---

That is, as Mister Pamboli observes, exactly what I describe. It seems creationists are happy to let the rest of science proceed in this fashion, but evolution for some reason isn't allowed.

quote:

---

IMO, there ought to be billions of observable transitionary fossils to warrant a move toward TOE.

---

If you can support your opinion, you'll have a point. Please provide evidence, at least as good as you accept for evolution, that taphonomy suggests that there should be billions of transitional fossils.What do you think the member organisms in a cladogram represent?Am I to understand that you accept there are transitional fossils, just not enough, if so, how are these transitional fossils to be interpreted? After all, if a theory is tested by it's predictions, even a single transitional is informative, non? According to cxreationists there should be no transitionals at all at the macroevolutionary level.

quote:

---

BTW, I listened to a study on the odds of DNA existing without intelligent design and it is impossible. I don't remember the details, but the this's n that's of the formation of DNA all must be timed by exact senarios with odds beyond anything possible.

---

I'll bet a penny to a pound it was a strawman. The odds of what happening exactly?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-29-2003]

zenapplesai:
"But if you really want to have some fun, ask an evolutionist to define "evidence"!!"Try to get the definition monger itself to provide a definition. It cannot do so.It is irrelevant what the definition monger thinks.

Scott,In fact, I did offer a definition of evidence back before apple toast metamorphosed, Percy has done it since over here. The only side of the argument that hasn't offered a definition is Zephan."Kettle", says Pot, "you absorb all visible frequencies."Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hi Zephan, As you already know, your participation in discussion of this issue is restricted to the Zephan: What is Evidence? thread.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

[This off-topic post has been moved to Message 26 of the Zephan: What is Evidence? thread. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-29-2003]

[This off-topic post has been moved to Message 27 of the Zephan: What is Evidence? thread. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-29-2003]

Hi Convince-me,Since this thread was straying of topic I will help the mediators a bit and try to drag it back on track.You say:
I stopped believing in a very young earth because of the differences in DNA between different animals. Dogs and wolves are horribly similar in their DNA. When they differ about 0,5% the coyote differ from both of them with 7% in the same DNA-region. And it was a long time ago since dogs split from wolves. Other wild canines differ even more. Its hard to believe in created kinds because cats are more similar to dogs and bears than they are with elephant in their DNA.
Could any created kind-believing creationist explain this to me. Otherwise I will continue to believe that God controlled an evolution and copied a chimp cell to make man.PB:
So, in fact you ask for a theory that can explain fast 'evolutionary changes'. A close up look of DNA tells however a complete different story. First, it is highly dependent on the DNA region one studies. For instance, a sequence involved in immunological defence will vary much more than for instance the histon genes. For obvious functionality reasons. In general, considering the evolutionary time scale we have to conclude that functional DNA elements over time are very very stable: once a functional DNA element is present it does not change a lot. This is particularly true within species.
The genetic differences you describe for dog and coyote (please also provide a reference, so I can have a look whether the genetic regions involve nonrandom mutaions) are most likely inferred from fast changing DNA regions, probably the mtDNA, that is where mutations are allowed and not only allowed but most likely they are introduced there through a mechanism.
If you have a close up look in the mtDNA of ancient humans and compare the genetic changes to chimp and neanderthaler you will have to conclude that chimp and neanderthaler and man have a common ancestor around 150.000 years ago. One can only explain such observations assuming that evolutionary 'science' is founded on the wrong assumptions. Similar findings have been observed in Drosophila's 1g5 gene. For detailed discusions:http://EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1) -->EvC Forum: molecular genetic proof against random mutation (1)andhttp://EvC Forum: Doe the climate direct mutations towards the ATP6 gene? -->EvC Forum: Doe the climate direct mutations towards the ATP6 gene?You say:
If a creation moment have caused the differences we see and if morphology is correlated to DNA-sequence, why is the gorilla further from the chimpanzee than chimps are to us. And why is the orangutang further from the gorilla and chimp than these are to us.PB: It simply depends on the sequences you study. The evo-trick is not to show and/or emphasise data that are not in accord with their theory. (Like not showing all cytochrome c sequences on evolutionary sites on internet). In addition, I discussed the completely stable ZFX region (no differences between any primate tested) and the ZFY region on this forum. Both have not solution in the evolutionary paradigm. It still is a thorn in the eyes of evo's.If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.Best wishes,
Peter

I don't understand why this is contrary to expectations of evolutionary models. Wouldn't we expect to see similarities between primates genetically if all primates are the decendants of a common ancestor?Also, I'm no molecular biologist (simply a layman who likes to think about things) but just because the locations of mutations along the chromosome are statistically non-random, I don't see that it follows that the mutations themselves are non-random and the result of a guiding force. By analogy, in a casino, random events (gambling) occus only in specific areas of the floor, i.e. gaming tables. But simply because the roulette wheel is in the same place every turn doesn't mean that the wheel result itself ceases to be random. (Although if you can find a reason why that isn't so you could make a fortune!)In fact, it would seem that a mechanism that allowed mutation to occur only at specific sites would provide an evolutionary advantage because it would generate a greater percentage of mutations with actual phenotypic change. For better or worse, of course, but such a mechanism would make for a very adaptable organism.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

quote:

---

: buz:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO, there ought to be billions of observable transitionary fossils to warrant a move toward TOE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pamboli:
Why?

---

Why not, since there's so many of the present forms. The more mobile and intelligent the creature, the fewer fossils, simply because more of these were more likely to seek high ground or float on debris, if the disaster were a flood, so as not to be suddenly buried to become fossilized. Sudden burial and fossilization on such a massive scale as is observed implies a flood.

quote:

---

The more mobile and intelligent the creature, the fewer fossils, simply because more of these were more likely to seek high ground or float on debris, if the disaster were a flood, so as not to be suddenly buried to become fossilized. Sudden burial and fossilization on such a massive scale as is observed implies a flood.

---

Curious. Therefore the distribution of fossils should reflect mobility and intelligence? Does the fossil record support this? Where would you expect moles to appear in the fossil record, or other slow moving mammals?Where would you expect sick and injured animals to appear in the fossil record? Do you have examples which would support your hypothesis here?How do you explain the distribution of flowering plants in the fossil record?

quote:

---

Science works like this: An observation is made that makes someone inductively derive a hypothesis. They basically go ?hmmm, I wonder if this larger idea I have explains the observation X?? They then go on to make predictions, data that should be discovered if the hypothesis is indeed true.

---

This kind of thinking, imo is what leads evolutionists rediculous extremes like constructing an alleged ape-man transitionary from a tooth or a jawbone. Wouldn't it be more scientific and sensible to observe and consider the impossible odds of so many billions of random formations of complex things like dna, cells, human brains and trees to say "Hmmm, the odds here are highly indicative that some intelligent entity had to do all this?"

quote:

---

There is no doubt that DNA is far to complex to have arisen by itself!

---

...and you know this how? That's just an Argument from Personal Incredulity. You see it as amazingly compley, therefore god must have been responsible.That's what Behe said about the bloodclotting cascade, and look what happened?

quote:

---

But if there was a sudden creation of different kinds, humans could have some genes most similar to the elephants corresponding genes and some of the genes most similar to a perch than to other mammals.

---

What is the definition of "kind"? Specifically, I'd like to know what method or rule to use to tell the different kinds apart. Are domestic cats and Siberian tigers the same "kind"? Are chimps and humans the sam "kind"?

quote:

---

And God would have created a very small DNA-variation in humans and there would have been a wolf-dog kind and a coyote kind with slightly another variation.

---

So, there is a wolf-dog kind, and a seperate coyote kind? Why do cuyotes get there own kind and wolves and dogs are lumped together?

quote:

---

If chimps and gorillas started from the same point, then almost all of the human-like alleles went to chimps and non-human-like alleles went to the gorilla just by chance.

---

LOL! Except that gorillas and humans still share quite a bit of identical DNA; just not as much as chimps and humans.

quote:

---

The differences does not show that there was a big allelic variation in certain created kinds. It looks like an evolution of the genes.

---

I'd still really like that method of determining what a "kind" is and how to tell one from another.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

How do you explain the distribution of flowering plants in the fossil record?

---

Yes!I'd like to know how all of those flowering plants were able to run for high ground!