Genetic Mutation since the Flood

Here is a very good blog post talking about genetic mutation and why the genetic variation we see in humans today is far too great to have occurred in the short period of time that a literal biblical flood requires.

http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/the-flood-and-mutation-rates/

Now, I’ll be honest in that my understanding on genetics is such that I can’t make any serious contribution to the subject, either for or against. However, as a layman, the concepts discussed and the time periods required make sense and so I trust that what has been written is true.

I find it interesting that something so basic as the huge variety of human genetics and the time it takes for variations to appear, is such that it renders a literal interpretation of the bible impossible.

About these ads

103 thoughts on “Genetic Mutation since the Flood

  1. The author of that article is totally clueless wrt genetics. He does not understand genetic recombination nor the power of a genetic algorithm.

    There is a book titled “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study”- read it and you will be prepared to take on nonsense like that.

    • How do I know that you’re not totally clueless wrt genetics?

      You come onto my blog and the very first comment is to insult the intelligence of another blogger, how about a well reasoned argument and explanation as to why you might be right. I notice that on your own blog you take the same tone towards the same blogger.

      To be blunt, I am struggling to find a reason why I should even consider what you say to be valid and worthwhile.

      However, I did give you a little bit of benefit and found this article which reviews the book you mention; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html, and on the back of that I’m not very impressed with what the book can offer.

      • All you have to do is read a genetics book. Recombination during meiosis is a well-known phenomenon.

        BTW that other blogger is a known misrepresenter. He has lied about me, ID and Creation. You can belive hom if you want to but I suggest you do some research.

        And talk origins isn’t the most honest site to get a review from.

    • I work in the recombination field and yes it can generate new alleles sometimes but largely meitoic recombination works to make sure you get a mix of alleles from each of your parents that you will then pass on through your sperm or eggs.

      • Thanks- we would only need it occasionaly as there aren’t billions of different alleles. We have that, intragenic recombination, insertions, inversions, point mutations and stress-induced mutagenesis.

        I would think those are more than enough to account for the variation starting from 8 people.

          • Yep. In fact, we have an example. The cheetah (mentioned elsewhere in this thread). We know that a massive genetic bottleneck occurred somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.

            Since that bottleneck, Cheetahs are still so similar that subspecies on different continents can exchange skin grafts with a better than 95% acceptance rate. They are, effectively, the same genetically. Sure, they are beginning to develop some differences and variety (neatly defeating the creationist argument that mutations are always harmful and always degrade the genome), but in the same amount of time that a YEC thinks that the planet has existed, cheetahs have developed very little diversity.

            This tells us that it takes a long time to develop diversity after a major bottleneck (which the flood event would be). It also shows that the Flood didn’t happen, since no (or very few) other species show a similar bottleneck at the same time.

            Isn’t it amazing how just one example can utterly destroy years of careful apologetic thinking?

  2. Hi, thanks for the kind words. Just for the record, I will NOT be engaging JoeG. But I thought I would comment on genetic recombination… it’s not what JoeG thinks it is… and a cursory glance at any proper science website would show that. For example

    Recombination is a common method of DNA repair in both bacteria and eukaryotes. In eukaryotes, recombination also occurs in meiosis, where it facilitates chromosomal crossover. The crossover process leads to offspring’s having different combinations of genes from those of their parents, and can occasionally produce new chimeric alleles. In organisms with an adaptive immune system, a type of genetic recombination called V(D)J recombination helps immune cells rapidly diversify to recognize and adapt to new pathogens. The shuffling of genes brought about by genetic recombination is thought to have many advantages, as it is a major engine of genetic variation and also allows sexually reproducing organisms to avoid Muller’s ratchet, in which the genomes of an asexual population accumulate deleterious mutations in an irreversible manner.

    So, recombination is a repair method. It can occasionally result in new alleles, but is most often just a mixing of already present alleles in the offspring.

    Think of it this way… When meiosis occurs, the gamete will get one of the two chromosomes from the parent. Each parent has two, one of which will go into each gamete. Recombination allows the alleles on the chromosomes to be shuffled. Much like you would take a deck of cards and cut them before dealing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_over (remember wikipedia isn’t an authoritative source… read the references and other links!)

    Again, these are not new alleles, merely the shuffling of already present alleles. Recombination cannot produce new alleles via point mutation, only via frameshift.

    I’d like to also point out that recombination tends to allow organisms to get rid of deleterious mutations over time… neatly defeating the creationist argument of mutations always result in a degradation of the genome.

    I hope that helps.

    • Thanks for that link.

      I do recall the debate as I was following your blog already by then. I’d forgotten about it, so it was nice to be reminded of it and to browse it again.

    • Yes you should find taht debate inetersting. What is interesting is that Kevin never supports his claims. He even says he will take the word of the ID leaders but when I presented their words he choked on them.

  3. 1- There isn’t any Creationist argument that mutations always degrade the genome. As I said Kevin misrepresents his opponents. Notice that he did not provide a reference.

    2- The recombination that produces the new alleles in the Creation scenario would be driven by a genetic algorithm- again Kevin refuses to grasp that.

  4. You need to watch Joe G. He’s an internet stalker who has been chasing OgreMkv around the web from blog to blog harassing him, making physical threats and posting Ogre’s personal information.

    Joe G has been banned from quite a few other blogs for that behavior. Allow him here at your own risk.

  5. Rather than reply to individual comments I’ll put a general comment here.

    I see Joe and Ogre already have a history and I don’t want to be responsible for stirring up stuff than not necessary. I also see there in that history there is disagreement over semantics, that’s my reading anyway, and it appears to me that that is also the source of some of the conflicting information provided by each in their posts above.

    Given that I am a former YEC and now embrace evolution its not going to take a genius to work out which side of this particular discussion I fall.

    If I am ever again going to take seriously YEC claims seriously, they will need to be more convincing than the comments made by Joe. Even if Joe is correct about genetics, there are still many more issues surrounding the Genesis Flood story that need to be resolved (http://confessionsofayec.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/noah%E2%80%99s-ark-gilgamesh-or-just-a-story/)

    • Look I am not a YEC. However I do understand their position and I know when people are misrepresenting it.

      Also the time-line for the Flood is NOT set in stone.

      • In that case I apologise for implying you were a YEC. Sometimes the lines between YEC and OEC gets a little blurred, especially with ID to contend with as well. Its not always easy to tell where any given person falls on the scale.

        I thought post flood genealogies gave a reasonable bracket of time within which the flood must have happened. Either end of which creates significant problems for the vast diversification we see around us.

        • Look if the diversification is the result of a genetic algorithm, as opposed to waiting around for the right mutations, then that speeds it up quite a bit.

    • From a quick browse of a couple of scientific papers I have determined that it creates genetic diversity more rapidly than random mutation (how much more rapidly does not seem to be specified). Since random mutation isn’t especially quick anyway, IR being quicker does not mean its fast.

      Also, in SOME circumstances it seems IR can generate new “allecic variation at a locus”. I don’t know if that’s the same as a new allel or not.

      I am still struggling to see how your claim that the variation we see today can be achieved post flood is valid, given current genetic knowledge.

      • Umm our “current knowledge” does NOT allow for a genetic algorithm controlling the variation.

        IOW you are stuck in a box and refuse to think outside of it.

        Geez if you strat with 8 people and get to over 6 billion that is quite a bit of reproduction going on. And in every generation all you neen is a little variation.

        BTW given our current genetic knowledge universal common descent is impossible.

        • Geez if you strat with 8 people and get to over 6 billion that is quite a bit of reproduction going on. And in every generation all you neen is a little variation.

          Variation that is too rapid and exceeds current observed variation rates. The only valid conclusion is that there were more than 8 modern humans 10,000 years ago.

          BTW given our current genetic knowledge universal common descent is impossible.

          You are going to have to expand on that because I am not clear on what it is you are trying to explain.

          • Umm we know mutation rates increase under certain circumstances, like when a new niche opens up.

            And guess what? After the flood there would be many new niches.

            Also observed mutation rates need not apply as we are not talking about now.

            As for the last there isn’t any genetic evidence that supoorts universal common descent- no way to even test the claim.

            • As for the last there isn’t any genetic evidence that supoorts universal common descent- no way to even test the claim.

              You mean matching DNA patterns that are common across species that enable scientists to trace animal roots. You know, like how they know how similar humans and chimps are and how they know that the hippo is closely related to the whale. Stff like that.

              • Genetic similarities can be accounted for by a common design.

                Ya see your position needs evidemnce that the transformations required are possible- and it doesn’t have that.

                • Another Joe G Bingo match!

                  “common design explains it” is one of Joe’s favorite cowardly avoidance lines.

                  In reality “common design” doesn’t explain anything. No mechanism, no timeline, no process, NOTHING. He might as well claim “the FSM poofed it into existence”.

                  Go ahead Joe, follow up with your second favorite meaningless cowardly hand wave:

                  “design is a mechanism!”

                  • Except, Behe stated in a court of law that there is no mechanism for design at the biological level.

                    And I’m pretty sure that nothing has been done in the 6 years since the Kitzmiller trial. I’m sure that if some work had actually been done, then ID proponents wouldn’t be able to shut up about it.

                    ID doesn’t mean anything, it doesn’t do anything. Modern evolutionary theory does. It’s explanatory, predictive, and verified. ID isn’t. end

  6. What rates are we talking about? reference please…

    If the flood date is variable, then there is very little point in even discussing it. You might want to talk to your fellow creationists about it. Either you accept the reality of the Biblical Flood or you do not.

    Even for an Old Earth Creationist, you are very limited in the possible dates for the Biblical Flood. You are limited to the existence of the modern people in the eastern Mediterranean with access to complex tools. That pretty much means, within the last (very generous) 10,000 years. In any way shape or form then, it is still too fast.

    We also have to ask the question what changed between the ‘diversification period’ when (for example) HLA-A alleles were massively increasing in number and the ‘removal period’ when all the debris from all these massive diversification is disappearing.

    Interestingly, the two articles I can find (both paywalled) indicate that intragneic recombination is on the same order of magnitude as the natural mutation rate… so no help there. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5695/abs/277383a0.html

    Recombination AND mutation are effectively random. There is no way that every recombination event will happen in the HLA-A allele (and the HLA-B, HLA-C, etc). So you still have to have a massively huge increase in the presumed mutation rate that will be totally unacceptable to biologists to result in the massive variation.

    • In a design or Creation scenario recombination and mutation would NOT be random- IOW you are totally clueless, just as I have been saying.

      As for talking to creationists about theoir position, I have. They say the date is flexible- they say the date for the origin of the earth is also flexible, ie 6,000-12,000 years ago.

      And going from 8 people to over 6 billion is more than enough opportunity to get the variation observed.

      So we have Kevin putting hos position’s mechanisms into Creation, never even realizing that won’t work, and then blathering on from there.

      Nice job ace.

          • I don’t think I am misrepresenting creationism at all Joe. What is clear is that what I believed, as a YEC, was different to what you believe now. But you state you are not a YEC, so there should be no surprise that what I believed is different.

            What I can confidently say, is that what you believe now and what I believed then are both wrong.

            The evidence for an old earth and for the evolution of all species over many millions of years is solid and the more than gets discovered the more its become apparent that there is no active designer.

          • LOL! “Cartoon version of Creation”. Good one Joe.

            If all the animals in the world today are descendent from the pairs on the Ark, why don’t we see evidence of genetic bottlenecks in the DNA of every species?

            When the animals left the Ark, what did they eat? According to YECs the Earth was covered with a miles thick layer of freshly laid mud. What did the elephants eat on the way from Ararat to Africa and India? What did the pandas eat on the way to China? When the kangaroos, emus, and wallabies were swimming to Australia, did they catch fish on the way?

            How about the big cats Joe? All felines carry a mutation that requires then to get a specific amino acid (taurine) that only comes from fresh meat. Without a steady supply they sicken and die. How did they survive on the Ark for a year without eating meat?

            Go ahead Joe, give us the “real” version of Biblical Creation.

          • limey,

            Just a quick check of the creationists websites says you are misrepresenting them.

            I don’t know who you learned Creationism from but it is a safe bet you didn’t learn it from the people who know it the best.

          • thorton,

            Read “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study”- or do your own research. Geez the information is out there.

            BTW with recombination we wouldn’t expect to see a bottle-neck thousands of generations after the fact.

          • Just a quick check of the creationists websites says you are misrepresenting them.

            Specifics please.

            I want to a creationist claim I have made and a link to a creationist page that shows my claim is wrong.

          • I have read it Joe. It doesn’t answer the questions I asked. Why can’t you give me the simple answers?

            Woodmorrappe’s folly also doesn’t cover all of Creation, just the Flood. I want you to summarize for me the REAL Creation story, not the cartoon one. Why do you hesitate?

            BTW, with Noah’s Flood as 2400BC and 20 years per human generation we get 220 generations since Noah, not “thousands”. By everything we know about genetics there should be the signature of a massive bottleneck, but it’s not there. Elephants have a generation time of 25 years, so there’s only 175 generation of elephants since the pair supposedly got off the Ark, and they don’t show any bottleneck. There are no genetic bottlenecks 4200 years ago noted in ANY species. Why not Joe? Sexual recombination only mixes existing genes, it doesn’t create hundreds of new ones every generation. It won’t erase evidence for a population bottleneck IF one happened.

            Why doesn’t your story match the physical evidence Joe?

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v21/n3/flood

            footnote 2

            2.Note that the Bible talks about mountains rising (in connection with God’s rainbow promise, so after the Flood): see CEN Technical Journal 12(3):312–313, 1998. Everest has marine fossils at its peak. Therefore, the mountains before the Flood are not those of today. There is enough water in the oceans so that, if all the surface features of the earth were evened out, water would cover the earth to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). This is not enough to cover mountains the height of Everest, but it shows that the pre-Flood mountains could have been several kilometers high and still be covered.

            • So AiG can’t even agree with itself?

              Next you’ll be telling me that the rivers mentioned pre-flood are not the same rivers mentioned post flood, despite their names being the same.

  7. The funny, in a sad way, part of all this is that none of you think that the entity that created DNA and living organisms would have the knowledge to write a genetic algorithm to be able to create specified variations.

    • When were these “genetic algorithms in DNA” written Joe? Less that 12,000 years ago as you claim above?

      How did these algorithms handle extreme catastrophic input like the K/T asteroid impact, or the Permian extinction event that killed 95% of the species on the planet?

      Please enlighten us Joe.

      • Umm I didn’t make any claim as to when the GAs were written. Obvioulsy you still have reading comprehension issues.

        As for the alleged KT impact- why isn’t there many fossils IN that layer or on right on top of it? THAT is what we would expect to see if the impact caused a mass extinction, yet we do NOT.

        As for the 95% species wiped out, umm we ARE talking about the Flood. Man are you dense…

        • Evasions and non-answers by Joe G noted.

          You claimed Creation happened 6-12K years ago Joe, not me.

          Are you now claiming the K/T impact didn’t happen? Please explain the distribution of fossils below and above the layer.

          Your ‘FLOOD’ was suppose to wipe out ALL life on the planet except for that on Noah’s Ark, not 95% of all species as the fossil record shows. Why the big discrepancy?

          When will you be giving us the “real” version of Biblical creation?

          • Umm that does not mean that is when the GAs were written.

            As for the K/T I explained it. Respond to what I said.

            Also you are sadly mistaken about the Flood. and again do your own research.

            Or better yet actually support YOUR sad position.

          • More evasions and non-answers by Joe.

            When were these supposed GAs written Joe?

            You didn’t explain a thing about the K/T event, or the Permian extinction distribution of fossils.

            Since you can’t answer the simplest questions it’s clear that you have no answers. Of course we both know this but it’s always nice to demonstrate your ineptitude to the lurkers.

        • As for the alleged KT impact- why isn’t there many fossils IN that layer or on right on top of it? THAT is what we would expect to see if the impact caused a mass extinction, yet we do NOT.

          Alleged impact? The KT impact is an example of extremely good science. The KT layer around the world has evidence within it that can only be explained by a large impact. The varying thickness is consistent with the discovered location of the impact.

          There are fossils of ferns within the KT. Ferns that are known to grow soonest when there is a mass destruction of all other living entities.

          In a global impact, such as the KT, you would expect large animal fossils to be just below and the KT boundary and none above. That is what is found.

    • Hey Kevin- TRY to follow along.

      YOU said something was impossible, obviously without giving it any thought.

      As for the evidence for design, well I and others have provided that.

      OTOH you cannot produce any positive evidence for your position. Start there and you won’t have to worry about Creation nor Intelligent Design.

      • Joe,

        One of the ways in which scientific claims are tested is that a prediction is made, based on observations, and when further evidence comes up, the prediction is tested against that evidence.

        One famous example of such a prediction is the long tongued moth, predicted by Darwin.

        No such prediction for a designer has been made or confirmed.

        • Those of us who follow the Joe G traveling circus as he trolls various C/E boards like to play “Joe G Bingo”. Joe never makes coherent arguments but has a collection of inane one-lines he uses for every occasion, i.e.

          “Nature operating freely”
          “ID isn’t anti-evolution”
          “Design is a mechanism”
          “Your position has no evidence”
          “Your position has no testable hypotheses”
          “Your ignorance isn’t a refutation of ID”
          “Cause and effect proves ID”
          “blind, undirected chemical processes can’t construct multi-part systems.”
          “Earth is a privileged planet”
          “Blind watchmaker processes”
          “The evidence supports baraminology”

          I see he’s already tossed out a few of them here. Of course there’s also Joe’s ever popular threat to “meet and teach you a lesson in person”, that he always runs from when people call his bluff.

          Too funny!

          • That’s very easy to say after the event when the existence is already known. Retrospectively applying a design scenario is not science.

            You need to show a prediction.

            • Again his was NOT a prediction based on any mechanism.

              It was a prediction based on the flower- the flower existed so there must be an insect that could pollunate it.

              That you cannot understand that tells me quite a bit.

              • You are right, to a point, and you also misunderstood what I was implying.

                The point is, for that flower to evolve, a pollinator must also have evolved with it.

                • Again ID is not anti-evolution and neither is YEC- as both accept that change occurs.

                  Darwin’s prediction did not have anything to do with his proposed mechanisms.

  8. JoeG, I merely asking of you the same thing you demanded of me. You made a claim (that intragenetic recombination) could do all the things that I said were needed to do.

    I asked for evidence supporting that claim. You didn’t provide any, so I went out and found some. It is not sufficient for what you need.

    Then you made a claim that the designer was continually active during this period. I asked you for evidence. You can’t provide and we both know it. You and your ilk have never provided it. You, as the record amply demonstrates, tend to start yelling at how stupid we are and you’ve already done it… yet continually fail to provide links to the evidence.

    As far as the ‘why don’t you support your theory’ BS, mine is fully supported with hundreds of years of evidence. The fact that you don’t like the conclusions resulting from this evidence doesn’t mean that the evidence isn’t there.

    Thank you for, once again, showing how utterly useless ID and its adherents are.

    Good-bye

  9. Kevin, funny that you never provide any answers for teh things I ask of you.

    Now you say what I said is not sufficient yet that is all you do- declare it, without evidence.

    Also I never made the claim the designer was contonually active, obviously you lack thinking capabilities. A well wrtten genetic algorithm means you do not need to be an active participant. Again that demonstrates how little you know or understand.

    Your position isn’t supported by anything but imagination. There still isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates a multi-part system can arise via accumulations of random mutations- you can’t even test the claim!

    You are so gullible that you really believe your position has the evidence yet when push comes to shove you cannot produce it.

    But there is a problem- you still think that ID is anti-evolution when all the experts say otherwise.

    So here we have Kevin getting caught in his strawman and then bloviating in the hope no one notices.

    • Wow!

      “your ignorance isn’t a refutation”
      “your position has no evidence”
      “multi-part system can’t arise through random genetic accidents”
      “ID isn’t anti-evolution”

      Four “Joe G Bingo” points in one post!

  10. As far as the ‘why don’t you support your theory’ BS, mine is fully supported with hundreds of years of evidence.

    Strange that there isn’t any evidence in peer-review that demonstrates a population without a flagellum can evolve one via accumulations of random mutations.

    As a matter of fact there isn’t any way to test the claim that random mutations/ random variations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to the diversity of life starting from some unknown population(s) of prokaryotes.

    So where can one find this alleged evidence that you speak of? It ain’t in textbooks and it ain’t in the journals, is it in some top-secret vault?

    • Three more “Joe G Bingo” points!

      “your position has no evidence”
      “multi-part system can’t arise through random genetic accidents”
      “your position has no evidence”

      …although two of them are repeats from above.

  11. The evotard substance and evidence-free points are adding up.

    Darwin predicted a moth so that means “stochasticprocessesdidit”

    Joe asks for evidence and gets spewage.

    Kevin misrepresents Creation and gets kudos. Then falls back on the nonsensical claim “My position has hundreds of years of evidence”, yet strange taht it cannot get published.

    Merry, merry Chistmas

    • The part you always avoid is that Noah’s Biblical world-destroying Flood is a fictional event. It never happened, just like the rest of a literal Genesis never happened Mr. “I’m not a YEC”.

      Feel free to provide your positive evidence of an entire-globe-covering mega-flood less than 5K years ago if you have any Joe.

      • Dude, whether or not it is fictional is not the point. The point is there are mechanisms available to produce the variation observed in a few thousand years.

        As for positive evidence, well the world is waiting for your position to produce some. Have at it you coward. Or are you going to hide behind “we have hundreds of years of evidence” yet still can’t support the claims of your position.

        And one more time- just because I am intelligent enough to understand another person’s position does not mean I advocate it. OTOH you are so stupid that you can’t even support your own position.

        BTW I understand taht you are still upset with me for exposing your ignorance and many occasions but perhaps you should get an education and that wouldn’t happen.

        • LOL! No Joe, that the Flood is fictional IS the point. You can’t provide any evidence of such an event, because no such evidence exists. I however can provide plenty of examples of things that couldn’t possibly exist if such a world destroying Flood (with the fictional Noah’s Ark too) had happened.

          There are also no known mechanisms that can account for our present day biodiversity starting from individual pairs of animals less than 5K years ago. You have no way to account for the no genetic bottlenecks no matter how much you wave those hands. You have no way to account for how the post-Flood animals survived and dispersed when the entire ecosystem of the planet had been obliterated.

          Watching you lie about your YEC beliefs is one of the biggest jokes on the web Joe. Do you think no one realizes your little game to avoid responsibility for the YEC stupidity you post? Talk about being a coward.

          • Yes there are plenty of known mechanisms that can generate the diversity required.

            That you are too ignorant to understnad that is a reflection on you, not me.

            BTW the fictional scenario is your sorry-ass, evidence-free position. You have no way to account for anything except to imagine it, attack people and drool on your keyboard.

            Thanks for the entertainment though.

            • Joe, there are settlements in Jiahu China that show continuous occupation for well over 9000 years. Artifacts at the site have been dated by at least four independent dating methods that all agree and all indicate occupation prior to 6000BC.

              Tell us Joe, how did those Chinese manage to live right through without noticing the Global Flood that supposedly destroyed the entire world?

  12. Several HUNDRED alleles out of several BILLION attempts would seem easily achieved given known mechanisms of genetic recombination, inragenic recombination, insertions, deletions, inversions and stress-induced mutagenesis.

    • What things SEEM like to a scientifically untrained and ignorant bumbler like you don’t really matter to science Joe.

      Unless you have some scientific studies that show the rate of change in genetic diversity those mechanisms can produce in less than 5K years is sufficient to support your YEC claims you got nothing.

      You don’t have such evidence Joe, because it doesn’t exist.

      You also still have the rather large problem that the Noah’s Flood never happened. But we already know you scream and run every time you’re asked for evidence of that.

        • Ah Joe, you’re such a predictable coward.

          Joe, what’s your YEC explanation for Otzi the iceman? His body has been dated to 2300 BC, or just after your claimed Flood. But DNA analysis show his genome is virtually identical to humans living today. In fact, researchers were able to identify the specific region he came from because people in that region still have the same genetic markers.

          How did he happen to evolve modern blood from the ‘superNoah’ clan only a few generations after the Flood?

          Go ahead Joe, wave those hands for us

  13. I will repeat my long held hypothesis on intelligent design.

    Most ID advocates would be perfectly OK with evolution if scientists just said it was caused and controlled by God.

    There is, in many ways, absolutely no difference between evolution and some of the versions of ID that are out there. Behe, for example, is perfectly happy with an old Earth, and common descent, and mutation and natural selection being the cause of diversity, and everything else… except he wants there to be a designer (of which no one still has any evidence for).

  14. Most ID advocates would be perfectly OK with evolution if scientists just said it was caused and controlled by God.

    Evidence please.

    There is, in many ways, absolutely no difference between evolution and some of the versions of ID that are out there.

    That all depends on what type of evolution you are talking about.

    Behe, for example, is perfectly happy with an old Earth, and common descent, and mutation and natural selection being the cause of diversity

    Reference please- ya see he has said he does NOT accept that natural selection can construct multi-protein systems.

    As for no evidence, well that would be your position. Ya see if your position had evidence then ID would be a non-starter.

  15. Intelligent Design is OK with an old earth and common descent.

    ID claims that it occurred by design, ie via genetic algorithms directing mutations to achieve a pre-specified result.

    Ya see saying it occurred via accumulations of random mutations is untestable and besides that there isn’t any evidence to support it.

    Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”

  16. joe said:

    “BTW that other blogger is a known misrepresenter. He has lied about me, ID and Creation.”

    joe, the only liar and “misrepresenter” here is you.

    “Ya see if your position had evidence then ID would be a non-starter.”

    ID is a non-starter and so are all the religious creation stories. You just haven’t figured that out yet. There is an enormous amount of peer reviewed, published, positive evidence that supports natural evolution, and more evidence is being gathered, researched, tested, and explained on a daily basis. There is no evidence that supports ID or religious creation and no one is doing any scientific gathering, researching, testing, or explaining of any ID evidence, because there isn’t any. All you ID pushers do is dishonestly attack scientific evidence, research, and explanations and baldly assert your non-scientific, non-evidential, ridiculous religious beliefs.

    “Intelligent Design is OK with an old earth and common descent.”

    ID is “OK” with anything, as long as it fits with the ID pushers religious beliefs and isn’t a naturalistic explanation of evolution. By the way joe, would you please make up your mind about whether ID is “OK” with common descent? You regularly argue that common design is the correct explanation but you also regularly say that ID is “OK” with common descent.

    “ID claims that it occurred by design, ie via genetic algorithms directing
    mutations to achieve a pre-specified result.”

    You ID pushers claim a lot of things that aren’t supported by evidence. You can’t just say it joe, you have to show it. (Do those words look familiar?)

    “Ya see saying it occurred via accumulations of random mutations is untestable and besides that there isn’t any evidence to support it.”

    You should know better than to say that joe. There’s a lot more to the ToE than just random mutations and there is plenty of evidence that random mutations do occur and that they are an important part of evolution. All you’re accomplishing here is adding yet another site where you make a gigantic dishonest fool of yourself.

    limey, you seem like a nice guy, and I’m glad that you are paying attention to science. Science isn’t perfect but it is looking for real answers and has already found many. I hope that your interest in science grows and that you will seek out valid information about anything that you may wonder about. I also hope you realize that not everything in science is settled and that there’s much more to be learned. There’s always something new (and real) to learn about nature.

    joe stirs up trouble wherever he goes and just won’t accept that he is wrong or even could be wrong. He and his ilk claim that the ID “movement” is a strictly scientific endeavor but all they’re really determined to do is destroy science and replace it with their religious beliefs. They will stop at nothing to further their dishonest agenda.

    • Thanks for the comment TWT.

      Yes I do realise that science hasn’t answered everything. I enjoy the new things that scientific discovery brings and learning these new things is genuinely exciting.

      I understand what you say about Joe, I used to hold that position myself so I understand the driving force behind his position.

      • limey said:

        “Yes I do realise that science hasn’t answered everything. I enjoy the new things that scientific discovery brings and learning these new things is genuinely exciting.”

        I agree. It is exciting to learn new things, especially about nature. There is SO much to explore, discover, and experience. And just about anyone can contribute to scientific knowledge by sharing their observations. Not everything is done by highly schooled professional scientists in a lab. Many important things are discovered and contributed by ordinary people with a keen eye. Keeping a camera handy is a good idea too.

        “I understand what you say about Joe, I used to hold that position myself so I understand the driving force behind his position.”

        If only joe would open his mind like you have.

        • If only joe would open his mind like you have.

          It wasn’t easy. In fact I already thought that I did have an open mind. Part of the reason for this blog, is to tell that story.

          The move from being a YEC was sometimes painful and involved lots of mental challenges as deeply held beliefs were challenged. Its not something someone makes a concious decision to do, and it doesn’t happen over night.

          As a consequence, there is emotional anguish as one fights against the inevitable.

  17. Something to think about:
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/loftus/2011/12/19/science-based-explanations-vs-faith-based-explanations-2/

    This is kind of what I was getting at in a couple of posts, but John says it better.

    All this explains why we need to apply scientific reasoning to ‘miraculous’ events. It’s a filter. Scientific evidence has always been correct (the conclusions drawn from the evidence, well not always, but that’s is part of the self correcting nature of science).

    Any kid who has been to a zoo, instinctively realizes that there is no way to even fit those animals on the ark, much less all of them. I have seen (recently at AtBC) fascinating reinterpretations of the Bible… in order to support the Bible, but the one thing that the apologist never does is think about what they are saying (a common issue with creationists and IDists).

    They will say something, then have to justify it with a statement. But they never carry that to the next step and realize that they have dug a much larger hole for themselves. Then, to get out of that, they have to modify the Bible to get out of that hole. Then they are in real trouble, because they have denied science and the Bible. Which is bad considering their religion.

    For example, we can science to estimate the date of the genetic bottleneck that appears in Acinonyx jubatus. Through various methods, the estimate is about 10,000 years ago. That’s pretty unfortunate because it’s before the world was created based on YEC claims (and they are the only ones that really matter here).

    But, the apologist says, if we go with something closer to ‘day-age’ YEC, then the flood could have been 10,000 years ago (more or less) and therefore the cheetah is evidence of the flood. [Yes, I've seen this argument used... sigh.]

    To which, the thinking person then replies, “Why haven’t we found a similar bottleneck in ANY OTHER SPECIES?”

    The creationist changes the subject, leaves, or says something about miracles or ‘you don’t even know what ID says’.

  18. Pingback: Confluences of Threads, Posts, and Discussions and the Results Thereof | Cassandra's Tears

  19. Ogre said: “Most ID advocates would be perfectly OK with evolution if scientists just said it was caused and controlled by God.”

    joe said: “Evidence please.”

    The “evidence ” is in your own words, joe. You regularly say that ID has no problem with “evolution” and that it only has a problem with “blind watchmaker evolution”. You say that evolution requires an intelligent designer, and since you ID pushers believe that the alleged designer is your chosen god, Ogre is right.

    • Hey Joe, perhaps you have forgotten what you typed in a post at your own blog just a day or two ago… let’s look…

      Something God, the Creator, Cannot Do?

      EvoTards are such clueless bastards. Now we have Kevin R. McCarthy et al., saying the God, the Creator of DNA and living organisms, would not have had the knowledge to write and insert a genetic algorithm that controls variation.

      Ya see Kevin, et al., think that evolution in a Creation scenario would still proceed via random mutation! That is about as stupid as you can get but Kevin insists he is making a huge contribution to thousands, if not millions, of people.

      Of course he never sez what this alleged huge contribution is. Methinks he is full of shit just as his posts portray.

      http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2011/12/something-god-creator-cannot-do.html

  20. Limey!

    I read part of the thread and skipped down to write. So, if it was already addressed, consider this an extra.

    Three problems exist when trying to date the ‘Earth’ using the Bible. First, the definition of ‘day;’ second the definition of ‘generation;’ and lastly the corpus of the language used.

    I will work quickly in reverse.

    The amount of words used throughout the Old Testament is not much greater than a 4th grader’s vocabulary. It is easy to misunderstand what was truly intended by any of the authors.

    Second, ‘generations’ were not counted in our manner. Several semitic groups around the Israelites ‘removed’ bad Kings from their geneologies, and I have read this practice of removal being used in support to say that the Israelites wrote an error in the Old Testament. I am not sure about the latter. But, Cain could have been Adam’s great, great, great, grandfather …. (& probably is interpreted to have been by someone).

    If I were going that direction, I would expect the insertions to be around Noah, Moses, and Abraham.

    First, and formost …. the “dinosaur in its day” means almost the same thing in English as it does in Biblical Hebrew …. There are fancy word studies to ‘discount’ that meaning. But, they do not change what the readers and listeners to the OT would have heard and read.

    It is not difficult for me to support an OEC view from Scripture. I am YEC, because I have left OEC behind – mainly because of the Big Bang.

    Nor, do I have a problem with OEC Theistic Evolution – as long as the other person doesn’t get silly – BUT, it is difficult to say, “We know this to be true.” All of it was a long time ago. And not too many people claim to be eyewitnesses …..
    ;)

  21. I have to say, some of my atheist friends make sense …. some of the time.

    OK, one of my problems with ‘Science’ are the statements like this one:

    “Unless you have some scientific studies that show [xyz] … [you cannot] support your YEC claims …”

    Logically, that is pretty close to writing, “If you do not have peer-reviewed articles in Scientific Journals, then you cannot prove the Holocaust happened.”

    I have a problem with falacious arguments.

    And as I have written before, one of my Big problems begins with the “Big Bang.”

    Since everyone here has read extinsively, I will make this short. In several different books, (The first three minutes is one of them), there is mention to the initial velocities of the ‘Big Bang.’

    Now, I assume the ‘Scientists’ are at least close on their calculations.

    But, at the initial velocities (1/100th of a second), the UNIVERSE would have filled to its present size in under 20 minutes …..

    I have a problem.

    If YEC can not be scientific, then how in the world do we KNOW we have the mechanism right in front of us to actually DO A 6-DAY CREATION?

    I really am fascinated by the Big Bang. But, I find it odd that no one seems to actually believe in the BIG BANG.

    No one believes in Evolution either.

    Everyone believes in an approximation of what they think it is all about.

    But, when you look at the SCIENCE underlying what people ‘believe,’ I find about a 30% or better support for GENESIS.

    OK, that was on the short side. I find about a 99.9999999999% probability that Genesis is accurate …. I gotta go back and look, but that might be short by 6 “9’s”.

    Ironically, the probability of ‘life’ is rather small as well. But, look at the trillions spent to find life in Space. ‘Scientists’ are spending trillions to go find what we know is a zero chance of success ….

    And no one points at them and says, “Dude. You are crazy. We could feed the world, save the planet, house everyone, and find a cure for Hepatitis (AIDS is a much smaller threat).”

    We should all be pointing at them and saying, “Isn’t there something better you could do with your time than worry about what you call ‘old wive’s tales?”

    Honestly?

    What would finding life on Mars do for us here? 1. Maybe unleash a killer bug we do not already have in our labs. 2. Give the human race hope that the elite would polute Mars instead of Earth?

    But, the search for ET is a Religion. It gives hope to the clueless that there is the remote possibility that God does not exist ….

    A kinda cheap shot. But, if you remove emotion from your reading, you will read that not unlike I have read so many cheap shots at Religion over the years …..

    And someitmes, I have to say, some of my atheist friends make sense …. some of the time. When are we going to move to Science, away from bad logic, and away from mere opinion and superstition?

    Merry Christmas ya’ll!

    Wayne

  22. Hey Wayne, just out of curiosity, what other method has resulted in verifiable knowledge that is used to create processes and products?

    I ask because there isn’t one. If we say that xyz can’t happen in the flood, that is because we are basing it on several billion years of observed history of the entire universe. In the last 11 billions years or so, no measurable change has ever been found in any of the fundamental laws or processes of the entire universe.

    Those same processes today are used to generate things like computers and nuclear power plants.

    On the other hand, we have Biblical miracles… which cannot be seen in the historical record, cannot be seen in the geologic record, cannot be seen in the fossil record, cannot occur because of innumerable parts that break many of the known laws of physics.

    Could a deity have done it? Sure, but it was done in such a way as to leave zero supporting evidence. Considering the outright impossibilities presented in the Bible, then that document is not to be trusted. Science, on the other hand, while there are individuals who are suspect, the rules, except for minor changes that do not fundamentally alter anything, do not change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s