DNA against Evolution

[frankbaginski]

The YEC comes in all forms. I have to agree that most YEC have not considered all of the available data and come up with theories that I see through quickly. God bless them for their effort but they should stick to other subjects.

Hard evidence of man goes back to around 3200 BC. This does not use atomic dating methods. Before this we suspect that a few buildings in Egypt may have survived the flood. Very hard to tell because the region was prone to local floods.

The age of the universe takes a little more investigation. We see light from distant galaxies 15 billion light years away which on the face would mean that the universe is al least that old. The problem with that age is the assumption that light travels the same speed today as it did in the beginning. The Bible tells us that God stretched out the heavens, that space is like a tent cloth, and other verses which we can take as an expansion of the fabric of space. Without going into details space-time tells us that stretching space can lead to time distortion. It may be that the edge of the universe is indeed 15 billion years old and the earth is but 7700 years old. We still have the problem with light needing all of that time to get here. However light going thru stretched space (see ZPE) goes much faster, in fact millions of times faster. One of the byproducts of stretched space is light emitted by atoms shift their frequency. This occurs in steps at a quantum level. Evidence of this is the redshift found by Hubble. What Hubble did not see because he was not looking for it was that the redshift is in quantum steps. Hubble assumed that the redshift was due to motion (the doppler effect) so we have an expanding universe in his eyes. Oh by the way the stretching of space also affects radioactive decay. It changes its rate like light changes its speed.

One has to wonder why God chose to say He stretched out the heavens so many times in scripture.

[frankbaginski]

BGoodForGoodSake,

You are right I did not address this issue about the fish separated by land. Using my time line the fish were separated around 2900 BC when the single continent split apart. But lets just accept that the fish are different enough to be called different species. Now, what is the advantage of one species over the other. If we use natural selection one of these groups should have an advantage over the other. Has anyone figured out what one came first? If you combine them together do they drift back to one type? These pockets of mutated species have been seen before but when they get back together they go back to the original form.

I am not saying that mutations don't happen. I just want someone to show me where a mutation took over an existing population and the mutation made the species more able to compete in nature.

If the species in one group were different just because they lacked a complete set of gene combinations (inbreeding) due to a small population then this is not a new species. When someone breeds a dog they may get long hair, no tail, big ears,etc. They will never get a cat.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

BGoodForGoodSake,

You are right I did not address this issue about the fish separated by land. Using my time line the fish were separated around 2900 BC when the single continent split apart. But lets just accept that the fish are different enough to be called different species. Now, what is the advantage of one species over the other. If we use natural selection one of these groups should have an advantage over the other. Has anyone figured out what one came first? If you combine them together do they drift back to one type? These pockets of mutated species have been seen before but when they get back together they go back to the original form.

You missed the point once again.
One does not need to have an advantage over the other because they no longer compete. Isolation by definition keeps them separate.
Thus natural selection works separately with each population.
But none the less the populations are distinct genetically, even though without a doubt both groups are descended from the same population.

In case this discussion continues, let us use the proper term for paired species such as these fish and invertebrates. Geminate species are pairs of species which scientists propose arose due to isolation created by the introduction of some sort of barrier.

Without a doubt many of these geminate (sister species) could become a single species if the ithsmus were somehow taken away. But the real question is why are they distinct from each other? Why does each population have distinct genotypes(genetic diversity)?

The following information may provide a clue. Each of us is born with many more variations than can be accounted for in the maternal and paternal DNA. This means that in every single cell in every one of us there are mutations which are different and new to the family.

[frankbaginski]

About the fish population. If you take a species and subdivide it again and again you end up with less room for the species and the population shrinks. Since random mutation requires large populations to work and vast time you get diminishing returns. Now there are people who declare that evolution takes place in small populations and then at some later point that new species takes over the old population. Again the numbers don't add up. This is used to explain the fossil record which does not show a drift in species. The fossil record from an evolution stand point is in direct conflict with what Darwin predicted. The theory of punctuated equilibrium has no evidence in the fossil record and it assumes that the small population gets all of the mutations. It fails on all accounts.

[Himantolophus]

It looks like you are a Darwinist from your post. You parrot back out of the song book and call it proof. I am sorry to say that unless you can prove a mechanism to do all of these wonderful things you describe then I can't take you seriously.

wow, isn't that a great example of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm going to ignore the Anti-Darwinist rant and move on to the substance. Attacking someone's beliefs immediately decredits what you have to say. Creationists go on a book and nothing else and call that evidence... bla!

Name one, just one, any one, any bird, at any time during the last two hundred years

Macroevolution is not observable in that short amount of time. The fish I mention have been around for 3.5 millions years and they are still almost identical. Unless you can provide me with a time machine I cannot provide an example. Do do observe microevolution which IS EVOLUTION. Since these animals breed so rapidly and there are so many of them, we can observe evolution on a small scale. If evolution exists at the level of fruit flys and bacteria, who's to say that macroevolution isn't occurring on a different timescale?

A single neucleotide defect requires a billion host, a two neucleotide defect requires a trillion. The changes you are talking about require thousands if not millions of changes to the nuecleotides of the animals. If you want to be taken seriously then tell me how to build a species from another step by step using defects. Just name one step, from any species. Oh by the way each step must benefit the host or natural selection can't be used to make the next step. I know you can't. You will fall back on the tried old Darwin junk of waving your hands and saying the montra, millions and millions of years. It won't work any longer. That day is gone.

luck, luck, billions, trillions, bla bla bla. This is spewed by YEC's all the time. Instead of trying to disporve evolution, try and explain what we see in the world today by any other explanation. No one knows how speciation progressed because it happened before any scientist. We can only go on what is preserved. So no, I can't answer the question on how long it took for species A to turn into species B and what nucleotide changes were bebeficial, neutral, or negative. I don't think anyone can, creationist and evolutionist. I can ask you the same question: try and prove this "devolution" that creationists think occurred since Creation.
And the "Darwinists" (which is an annoying moniker) base their montra on scientific research. They didn't just pull this stuff out of their arses. You act like science has nothing better to do then disprove God. Far from it!

So it would be difficult to change my worldview with any new release of scientific data.

so if we found life on Mars or Europa, or discovered an alien civilization, this wouldn't change anything? Or you'd make up a new story supposedly found in Genesis?

Another false report came from Korea where a scientist reported great results from embryonic stem cells. It was known to be false. Some false reports take years to uncover, take Piltdown man. The vast amount of scientific data can never be examined by any one individual. So we are left with having the "experts" look at it for us.

I'd say they are more expert than any of us, unless you have a phD in archaeology, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc. Out of the millions of scientific discoveries, you name a few that were mistakes. That's right, throw it all out because a few people got it wrong! Progress is the beauty of science, the fact that it is able to change makes it great. We aren't stuck with archaeic ideas and backwards theories. Notice that alot of the proposed mechanisms of evolution (inheritance of acquired characteristics for example) have been refuted and abandoned.

That is a tough question. We are to teach our kids that science has changed over the years and this years answers will be on the discard pile soon enough. We are to develope faith in what matters which is not man. We are supposed to help our fellow man in his quest for the true meaning of life. We are to be amazed at God's creation and thank Him for our existence.

That's why faith and science should be taught separately. The Bible is a moral and spiritual guide. It is too ambiguous and open to varied interpretations to be a science book. The fact that science changes is GOOD. That's why they update the textbooks every few years. I'd be willing to teach kids both creation and evolution and let them debate it.

I only came to this conclusion a few years ago after a major search of science

was this before or after you "found Jesus".

As for the comment about being accepted. In history we find many people who were rejected and killed for their words.

this goes both ways... Galileo and Copernicus were tortured and killed for their beliefs too. The Church was scared that their long-held belief system was false so they tried to silence the critics. Not the same situation today. You are part of a dying breed holding onto a archaeic Pre-Renaissance theory that has been bypassed by modern science.

The YEC comes in all forms. I have to agree that most YEC have not considered all of the available data and come up with theories that I see through quickly. God bless them for their effort but they should stick to other subjects.

that's what I say for YEC's and science, which would most likely get rid of them alltogether You'd think if YEC's knew what they were talking about that they'd at least have their theories straight and share them. There are like 3-4 different theories out there for the origin and retreat of the Flood ALONE!!

Hard evidence of man goes back to around 3200 BC. This does not use atomic dating methods. Before this we suspect that a few buildings in Egypt may have survived the flood. Very hard to tell because the region was prone to local floods.

This is awfully "man-centric". Man only appears at the very top of the geologic column. It is naive to say that 99.9% of the rest of Earth's history fits into <1000 years. You say 3200BC, so thats 6200 years ao so according to creationists you have to fit pre-civilization man and all the prehistoric animals into 300-1500 years before the rise of Egypt/Mesopotamia.

It may be that the edge of the universe is indeed 15 billion years old and the earth is but 7700 years old.

this is an odd blend of Old Universe and Young Earth but I can;t accept a Universe 1000000000 years old and an Earth that is thousands. It is contrary to the evidence. Also, when you look at something 10 billion light years away, you are seeing it as it looked 10 billion years ago. So if the Universe isn't that old, how are you seeing something that old?

You are right I did not address this issue about the fish separated by land. Using my time line the fish were separated around 2900 BC when the single continent split apart. But lets just accept that the fish are different enough to be called different species. Now, what is the advantage of one species over the other. If we use natural selection one of these groups should have an advantage over the other. Has anyone figured out what one came first? If you combine them together do they drift back to one type? These pockets of mutated species have been seen before but when they get back together they go back to the original form.
I am not saying that mutations don't happen. I just want someone to show me where a mutation took over an existing population and the mutation made the species more able to compete in nature.
If the species in one group were different just because they lacked a complete set of gene combinations (inbreeding) due to a small population then this is not a new species. When someone breeds a dog they may get long hair, no tail, big ears,etc.

First sentence. The fish could not be separated in that matter. If you split apart a continent, aren't you opening up more seaways? How are the fish separated? If this was the case, the fish faunas of all oceans would be very similar since they were all originally in one big ocean. When this rise of the Isthmus of Panama occurred, the Eastern Pacific and Western Atlantic were already isolated from the Indo-Pacific for a long time. Unless you say the continents moved multiple times since the Flood, which isn't in the Bible.
We are assuming the fish are sufficiently different because they are genetically divergent from the ancestral population and are not in contact. This is not saying that they cannot come into contact in the future and introgress. This is not likely to happen in nature anytime soon though.
We are not comparing each fish to it's sister. The competitive advantage of one over the other is not important since they are in different oceans. Now you CAN compare their fitness to other species in the same ocean. The fitness of a particular species is very important for it's survival. When the Isthmus closed, we find fossil evidence of species and even genera that once occurred in the Caribbean but became extinct follwing the Closure. Obviously these species were unable to survive in the Caribbean (there were drastic circulation and temp. changes when this happened). This is also found in the Pacific. Google "Paranthias colonus" and "Paranthias furcifer", and the Porkfishes (Anisotremus virginicus/taeniatus). These species found both oceans to their liking and both have survived to this day. It is clear that they share a common ancestor yet they are different species. None came first, they had the same ancestor.
Your view on mutations is flawed. You don't need drastic mutations to cause speciation. If you separate a population into two, and especially if the split populations are small, you will have genetic drift in which random chance effects the genetic composition of each population. Most mutations will be neutral, but you may have a few inversions, deletions, transferrals during crossing over that modify the genome slightly. And the results, over the course of 3.5 millions years, the geminate species pairs have only slightly changed. This says something for the pace of evolution.

Finally, the cat to dog example is like comparing apples to oranges. They aren't even in the same family! There is plenty of evidence for evolution of species, even some for the origin of new genera. A food example of a modern-day intermediate bewtween two FAMILIES is the False Halfbeak (Oxyporhamphus micropterus). It has characteristics of flyingfish (large pectoral fins and no enlarged lower jaw) but has the body structure of a true halfbeak. In the marine environment you see plenty of transitional forms and they don't require that drastic a genetic change.

[frankbaginski]

Himantolophus,

Yes I am a creationist. I believe that God created the earth and the heavens. I believe He created all of the animals and fishes. I believe He created man in His own image. God gave us a spirit and soul. So from this starting point I look at the world and wonder about all He has done for us. Where you see one thing I see another. God made us all different.

So just what did God create in your mind?

[zoegirl]

Himantolophus...


Please don't dismiss "finding Jesus" because of the few who disregard data. Finding Jesus has no bearing on whether dismisses science. It is the *misunderstanding* that to be a CHristian or to believe the Bible one must throw away all science that ultimatley misleads new CHristians.

I pray that you would examine this web site and pour over its offerings. There are many of us here, like Kuriero said, who are quite willing to discuss things with you. YOu do not have to reject science in order to embrace Christ and His word.

Please stick around to discuss.

[jenna]

Yes, indeed! Very well said, Zoe. You cannot listen to what others say in order to find your own relationship with God and Christ. Stick around for a while.

[Himantolophus]

I get the feeling by the last few posts, that people have suddenly turned on me here I have a lot of experience talking about this subject and I come on storngly sometimes, but I don't mean to (and I don't intend to, it never happens) insult anyone's belief. Debates consists of taking one side and defending it. I figured there would be some theistic evolutionists or at least progressive creationists who can find a compromise that fits both sides. There are a few (Gman) that are trying to have an open mind but the majority seem to be hardcore creationists (who are difficult to debate).

So just what did God create in your mind?

I believe in an Old Earth and Old Universe but I believe God created the Big Bang (or something like it) billions of years ago. He also created all the laws of nature (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) at this time. I also believe He created evolution. The Universe progressed and the Earth formed as science tells us. I believe that God planted the seeds of life on Earth and assisted with the establishment of that life. After that, there was plenty of time for evolution to create the diveristy we see today. I beleive in God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell, and all the rest. I believe in the literal interpretation of most of the Bible (95% I guess) but I feel that God may have used parables to explain things as complex as creation and the Flood. That is why I see these stories as ambiguous and not literal. Who are we to assume that God DIDN'T intend these as a parable? Again, I believe in the rest of the Bible 100% and I don't think you have to believe in literal Genesis to "find Jesus". God will love you no matter what you beleive. If I go before Him on judgement day and he tells me what really happened in the past I will either be validated or humbled. To be perfectly honest, I'd be like "sorry Lord, but you did an excellent job in disguising your work as Old, how can you blame me for seeing something else". I believe a merciful God is not going to send you to Hell for simple human error. I'll take my chances. I will focus on living a moral life and obeying the ten commandments as best I can.

Please don't dismiss "finding Jesus" because of the few who disregard data. Finding Jesus has no bearing on whether dismisses science. It is the *misunderstanding* that to be a CHristian or to believe the Bible one must throw away all science that ultimatley misleads new CHristians.

I'm sorry to broadly generalize Christians in that way. I believe that people can find Jesus and be spiritual and still believe in modern science. If Geneis isn't literally true, who cares? The Bible isn't any less powerful to me. I use the term to refer to the YEC's that say if you "let God in your life", you have to believe in a 100% literal Bible.

I pray that you would examine this web site and pour over its offerings. There are many of us here, like Kuriero said, who are quite willing to discuss things with you. YOu do not have to reject science in order to embrace Christ and His word.

I have not said you have to reject science to believe in God's Word. I've been saying in my posts that there is an alternative explanation that explains what we see in Genesis and also what we see in the real world.

[zoegirl]

Didn't mean to imply that you have rejected Christ, just that I wanted to know that there are friendlies here.
My statement was due to the fact that what tends to be said from YEC proponents is that one Has to reject science. I'm not saying *you* said this. I'm saying don't listen to those that do say this

[Himantolophus]

Didn't mean to imply that you have rejected Christ, just that I wanted to know that there are friendlies here.
My statement was due to the fact that what tends to be said from YEC proponents is that one Has to reject science

no worries... what worries me about the YEC's is not that they reject secular science but that they introduce their own type of science, that is highly theoretical at best, and present it as "truth".

But hey, let the discussion continue

[frankbaginski]

Himantolophus,

I wrote:

"That is a tough question. We are to teach our kids that science has changed over the years and this years answers will be on the discard pile soon enough. We are to develope faith in what matters which is not man. We are supposed to help our fellow man in his quest for the true meaning of life. We are to be amazed at God's creation and thank Him for our existence."

You responded:

"That's why faith and science should be taught separately. The Bible is a moral and spiritual guide. It is too ambiguous and open to varied interpretations to be a science book. The fact that science changes is GOOD. That's why they update the textbooks every few years. I'd be willing to teach kids both creation and evolution and let them debate it."

I wrote:

"I only came to this conclusion a few years ago after a major search of science"

You wrote:

"was this before or after you "found Jesus"."

On the point on teaching our kids: I do not trust the current education system to venture into area's of morals or worldviews. The most important thing you teach your children is that we are spiritual beings that will stay on this earth for a short time. We are to be moral and honor our Maker. I do not want my kids being taught that we are an acident of nature and morals are subjective and collectively we can make them anything we want. The most important decision that your child can make is will they live a spiritual life or a life of flesh. Our school system and science as currently taught does not lead them on the right path.

On the point of finding Jesus:

I studied quantum mechanics and was left with many questions about the nature of reality. I then studied astrophysics and found more questions. I then studied biology and evolution. Yet more questions. Then I studied molecular biology and tossed evolution. I was lost. I started to read the Bible and found Jesus half way through Genesis. You see when I studied those subjects I did not trust any theory. Quantum mechanics broke my believe in science. I was a man brought low. I crawled through science to find answers and found that the data did not fit the theories. I saw misrepresentions everywhere in science. It was as if I was uncovering an ugly hidden lie. The Bible says that smart people have a disadvantage on this earth. Smart people are filled with pride and think of themselves as above the need for God and anything other than themselves. That was me. I get on my kness and thank God that is not me anymore. I hope this answers your question.

[jenna]

To Frank- YES, YES, YES, YES! Everything in your last post (except quantum mechanics ) fits me to a "t". I am so thankful for God and all He has done for me, and that I found Him. God bless you and yours. IN JESUS' NAME, AMEN!

[Himantolophus]

On the point on teaching our kids: I do not trust the current education system to venture into area's of morals or worldviews. The most important thing you teach your children is that we are spiritual beings that will stay on this earth for a short time. We are to be moral and honor our Maker. I do not want my kids being taught that we are an acident of nature and morals are subjective and collectively we can make them anything we want. The most important decision that your child can make is will they live a spiritual life or a life of flesh. Our school system and science as currently taught does not lead them on the right path.

valid points and you are entitled to your opinion. But I don't see how looking at the world from an Old Earth/evolutionary point of view will turn kids toward the devil... It's your parents that are responsible for raising their kids. I was raised with religion AND science, and I think I turned out pretty good. You can believe in Old Earth and evolution AND the Bible and still maintain the uniqueness of Man.

To counter your point, I see a lot of conservative families where the parents raised their kids strict and sent them to Baptist schools for Bible study. These schools have ridiculous rules and teach their kids all the strict literal Bible study. Then, when they go to college or get out of the house, they turn into crazy, rebellious young adults. They go around and have sex and do drugs simply because it is new and different. My opinion is giving your kids a public school education, Sunday Church, and good parents will most likely allow the kids to grow up into moral, well-rounded, intelligent adults.

I studied quantum mechanics and was left with many questions about the nature of reality. I then studied astrophysics and found more questions. I then studied biology and evolution. Yet more questions. Then I studied molecular biology and tossed evolution. I was lost. I started to read the Bible and found Jesus half way through Genesis. You see when I studied those subjects I did not trust any theory. Quantum mechanics broke my believe in science. I was a man brought low. I crawled through science to find answers and found that the data did not fit the theories. I saw misrepresentions everywhere in science. It was as if I was uncovering an ugly hidden lie. The Bible says that smart people have a disadvantage on this earth. Smart people are filled with pride and think of themselves as above the need for God and anything other than themselves. That was me. I get on my kness and thank God that is not me anymore. I hope this answers your question.

Ok, that's fine. I didn't mean to jump to conclusions. I only meant the "finding Jesus" comment as referring to the Bible clouding one's judgement. If you approach science with a non-biased mindset it allows one to make the proper conclusions.

I find the second half of your paragrpah interesting. You have studied all of these things so most liekly you'd consider your self a "smart" person, right? Are you saying that everyone should just blindly follow the Bible? By your smart comment, I get the feeling that you consider secular scientists "smart" as in their "smartness" is a form of hubris. Who's to say that your own "smartness" is hubris? Maybe your devotion to the Lord gives you your own type of hubris, as in "I'm better then everyone else because I'm going to Heaven and they aren't". Hubris goes both ways....

Last point... why would evolution and Old Earth even appear and grow if it was so impossible? There is no Czar of Evolution that requires all scientists pay him off and worship him. If there was evidence out there that refuted evoltion, science would be the first thing to refute it. They have modified and added to the theory if you look at the history of evolutionary theory. Also, why are you a small minority in the scientific community? It seems like most scientists (which are more learned than any of us) are fully accepting of the evolutionary explanation. Scientists are fully accepting of having things that are unknown. Man doesn't know it all. Maybe we'll discover this in the future?

[jenna]

One question I have about all this: How did all aspects of science get created? How did man get the mind to study it? God perhaps?