Evolution and common genetics

UTEOTW said,

"I must make the assumption that God would not have created life one way and choose to make it look like He used a different way."

Well, everybody knows what happens when you ASSUME.

First, God can do anything he chooses.

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

We also cannot understand why God does some things that he does.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So, we must realize that some things that God performs does not seem reasonable or make sense to us. That does not mean God is wrong. We simply are not able to comprehend some of his actions.

Almost everyone has asked why if there is a loving God he would allow war, or famine, or disease, or why God would allow little children to die.

I cannot always understand these things either. But we must trust that God has a good purpose.

In addition, what you fail to realize is your own predisposition to see evidence that fits your belief and ignore evidence against it.

You and others have said you believe the Universe looks old. Why would God make the Universe look old if it is young you ask?

For instance, many people believe the craters on the Moon, planets, and moons of planets show that the Universe is very old. It was thought meteorites strike at a steady and predictable rate and thus can be used as a gage. The more craters, the older the planet or moon.

But new evidence has shown that most craters are secondary craters caused by the impact of a large meteor. Supposedly, a large meteor struck Mars leaving a large crater. But scientists estimate that this impact also called over 10 MILLION secondary craters. This fact has thrown the dating method into doubt. Many now say that this method of counting craters has been shown useless.

This also shows that the Universe can be very young, but appear old.

You have to be open to that.

Planets and Moons Suddenly Got Much Younger 10/20/2005

A planet or moon covered with craters just looks old, doesn’t it? Planetary geologists have long relied on crater counts to estimate the absolute ages of surfaces, such as on the moon, Mars, Europa, and every other solid body. Lots of craters meant old. Few craters meant young. Presumably, impacting bodies came in like clockwork and left their marks over the eons. An uncomfortable fact has come to light that disturbs this simple picture like a bolide: most of the craters are secondary impacts.
Picture a big meteor hitting Mars. Did you know that it could toss up enough debris to create 10 million more craters – all from a single event? That’s one of several shocking facts presented by Clark R. Chapman and two colleagues in a Letter to Nature.1 (see also summary on Space.com). Believe it or not, they calculate that some 95% of small craters (1 km in diameter and under) are secondaries, and many of the moderate size craters probably are, too. This means that only a few impactors could quickly saturate a body with craters. It also means that estimating surface ages via crater counts is a lost art, because it just lost its credibility:
Surface ages can be derived from the spatial density of craters, but this association presumes that the craters are made by interplanetary impactors, arriving randomly in time and location across the surface. Secondary craters cause confusion because they contaminate the primary cratering record by emplacing large numbers of craters, episodically, in random and non-random locations on the surface. The number and spatial extent of secondary craters generated by a primary impact has been a significant research issue. If many or most small craters on a surface are secondaries, but are mistakenly identified as primaries, derived surface ages or characteristics of the impacting population size-frequency distribution (SFD) will be in error. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
Their mathematical analysis yielded the 95% figure for secondaries. The production of secondary craters on Europa, they found, was “unexpectedly efficient.” Although secondary crater formation on icy bodies was so, they feel that similar secondary crater production occurs on rocky bodies like the Moon and Mars, and granted that, has a ripple effect casting the entire method into doubt:
Our work raises doubts regarding methods that use the lunar small-crater distribution to calibrate other inner Solar System surface ages (for example, Mars). If, as on Europa, lunar and martian secondaries are 95% of the small crater (less than a few kilometres) population, the error bars (and thus derived surface ages) on any residual primary crater population become large (uncertainties are 20 times the measured density value). This uncertainty applies to both the measured population on a martian surface unit and the lunar SFD that supposedly represents absolute age. We emphasize that traditional age-dating analyses still derive robust ages when using large craters (greater than a few kilometres diameter), which are less likely to be secondaries. However, the technique becomes increasingly unreliable when applied to dating tiny geographical units using small craters, which may be mostly secondaries.
As a result, they conclude that “any attempt” to age-date surfaces or characterize the population of impactors may suffer “a significant and perhaps uncorrectable bias” due to the contribution from secondaries. They ended with that case of the single Martian impact that generated 10 million secondaries from 10 to 100 meters in diameter.
Speaking of Mars, the Mars Global Surveyor recently took a sharp image captioned “secondary craters.” Click here for a look.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Bierhaus, Chapman and Merline, “Secondary craters on Europa and implications for cratered surfaces,” Nature 437, 1125-1127 (20 October 2005) | doi: 10.1038/nature04069.

What you fail to see is that you SEE WHAT YOU WISH TO SEE.

Several have pointed that out to you, but just like evidence against evolution, you choose to simply deny it, or ignore it.

 

UTEOTW

Here is a case about judging by appearances. It is called the Pulsar Age Crisis. This is a recent report from Sky & Telescope magazine.

http://www.govertschilling.nl/artikelen/sky_telescope/020701a_st.htm

Note this statement in the very first paragraph.

Now an international team of radio astronomers has discovered a third case of misleading appearances. Clearly, the standard way of estimating pulsar ages is unreliable, with consequences that undermine a seemingly secure corner of astronomy.

See the words "misleading appearances"

It seems to me that evolution's ONLY argument is SIMILARITY.

All of your arguments are how one creature's features are similar to another's, or one creature's genes are similar to another's.

So what??

I just do not understand why similarity means so much to evolutionists.

Can you name anything that is not similar to something else in some way?

And this seems to be your only argument.

And it is all perspective. You can also see differences in everything. Of course, this doesn't support evolution, so it is largely ignored.

 

JWI

A couple of questions.

First off, we have had some intense discussions over your use of quote mining. Your last round of posts used a couple of more out of context quotes. In these two cases, we have direct responses from the persons being quoted indicating their opinion that they were taken out of context plus quotes by both individuals from other places showing that the way the quotes were presented was inconsistent with their stated opinions.

In one case, you quoted Patterson as if he said that ther are no transistionals when he in fact said that you could not distinguish between an actual ancestor and a closely related side branch. You quoted Fedducia as if he claimed that Archy was not a transitional when what he was really addressing was a claim that it was a ground based dinosaur only. He went on to call Archy the best estample possible of an intermediate species.

Could I please get a response to these refutations? You want to claim that quoting is a good way to go. Please support your quotes here or please formally withdraw them.

Second, could you explain to me just how these two cases you have linked here are evidence for a young earth? The first shows that we need to be careful in estimating surface ages by counting small craters (but not larger ones) to account for the possibility of secondary impacts. Your second post only shows that there is more variability in the intial speeds and the rate of slowdown of new pulsars.

Neither of this address common genetics or even evolution at all. Neither casts doubt on dating techniques. You must have a reliable way to date these things to know that the method being criticized was off! SO what is the relevance of these two articles and just how do you think they support a young earth?

 

And I really want to hear your response to the refutation of your latest quote mining since you have continued to defend and use the practice in the face of devestating attacks on its honesty and accuracy.

 

No answer tonight. Well please respond to the questions about your latest round of quote mining when you get back. Avoiding the question will do no good because I am holding your feet to the fire this time.

"UTEOTW said,

'I must make the assumption that God would not have created life one way and choose to make it look like He used a different way.'

Well, everybody knows what happens when you ASSUME.

First, God can do anything he chooses. "

I have no doubt that God can do what He chooses.

But I will make you the same offer as others who take this path. If you wish to concede that the observations of the creation really do show evolution and then try and make a case that you think that it is consistent with what we know about God to have recently created all life but to have carefully endowed life with all the characteristics one would expect if it had instead been the product of evolution, well be my guest.

"I just do not understand why similarity means so much to evolutionists.

Can you name anything that is not similar to something else in some way?

And this seems to be your only argument."

And you still willingly fail to grasp the concept. It is not mere similarities. It is the very details of the similarities that count. For example, it is not just that human DNA is a lot like chimp DNA, it is that a few percent of both genomes are made up of randomly inserted bits of viral DNA and the two share almost every single sequence right down to the individual "letters" in exactly the same locations.

To give one tiny example from the numerous types of similarities between the two.

So, what about that last set of quotes of yours? What do you think of the responses from the very people quoted responding to the very misquotes you supplied showing how they were dishonesty taken out of context and that they do not hold the opinions that are implied by the way the quotes are presented? Do you think you could make a case that the quotes were not dishonest? Or do you think that you should withdraw and disavow the quotes.

Here were your original quotes.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/8.html#000109
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/8.html#000113

And here is where they where shredded.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/9.html#000122
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/9.html#000124

 

UTEOTW

I brought up Feduccia because many evolutionists claim birds are decended from dinosaurs. But Feduccia and others have strong evidence against it. But many evolutionists continue to claim that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur. Feduccia says it was simply a bird. He is an expert on birds writting over 150 books. He is also a paleobiologist Here are two articles.

http://www.4woman.gov/News/english/528434.htm

http://www.msnbc.com/news/118914.asp?cp1=1

This is hardly dishonest. Feduccia has been very outspoken on this matter.

Now, Feduccia is an evolutionist. He has made statements that he believes the bird evolved. However he has been honest and says he cannot tell where the bird decended from. PERHAPS a common ancestor with the dinorsaurs. But perhaps not. He is not sure. I like that. He is honest.

I could probably handle evolutionists if they were honest like Feduccia. He states the facts, not what he WISHES to believe.

And this was the point. MOST evolutionists look only for evidence that supports what they believe and ignore evidence against it.

As for the articles on impact craters,I was trying to point out that many methods used for dating have problems. I could show you many articles that show radiocarbon dating and other methods have serious problems.

I could show you many evidences of a young earth and universe.

I saw the statement where the writer said "traditional" methods used on large craters still show old ages.

That is not surprising to me at all.

But there is much conflict over the large craters as well. Many say they are volcanic and not impact craters.

But you choose only to listen to evidence that supports evolution and an old earth. You must of course. It the earth is young like 6,000 to 10,000 years, then evolution is false.

And I have purposely chosen articles from evolutionists exposing these weaknesses. If I provided articles from creationists, you would simply claim the math is faulty, the author is dishonest or misrepresents facts, blah, blah ...

The same claims you make against me and every opponent of evolution.

I read somewhere where an evolutionist admitted that they do not have concrete evidence. But said it is the amount of evidence that matters. It is the big picture formed from adding up all the small parts.

Well, that is what I have been trying to show you with quote mining. Many evolutionists, though still believeing in the theory, admit to serious problems. You can find hundreds of such statements.

Why doesn't that add up to you??

I bet if creationists made statements like this, you would be all over it.

It doesn't mean much that these people still believe in evolution. You have been shown much information but still believe.

But that doesn't mean you are correct.

It is no different than religious cults. You can show them many verses from the Bible that contradict their doctrine, but they hold fast to their belief.

Evolutionists are like this. They are like a cult. Gould was honest enough to admit that there are no transitional fossils. He didn't lie, or try to create evidence, he told the truth.

But yet, with all the evidence against evolution and favoring creation, he could not break with his belief.

So he came up with a fantastic theory that is plain ridiculous. There is no scientific evidence for it at all. And it's plain dumb. You cannot argue a lack of evidence as being proof. And that is exactly what Punk Eek does. It is silly. How can you call that science?

And many other evolutionists jumped on the bandwagon. Because deep down inside they knew there was no evidence from transitional fossils as well.

But if evolution is false, there is only one alternative.

And you know what that is.

I do not concede that there is observation showing evolution. There is evidence showing micro-evolution. And anyone can look around and see there are mutations.

But neither mutations or micro-evolution are the type of evolution where one species transforms into another species.

And you know it. It has never been observed. There have been literally hundreds of thousands of experiments in an attempt to create evolution (MACROEVOLUTION) in the lab. It has never been done.

And if it could possibly be done, it would still not prove the Evolution you claim is true. You say it happens through natural and random mutations.

Well, the lab is neither natural or random.

 

UTEOTW

Here is another of my quotes you hate so much.

I know why you hate them too.

"Evolution is not a conclusion drawn from observations. It is an ideology to which observations are applied when convenient and ignored when not." [Professor Maciej Giertych (M.A., Ph.D., D.Sc.) head of the Genetics Department, Polish Academy of Science, at the Institute of Dendrology, Kornik, Poland - in CEN, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1995 p:48]

 

UTEOTW

Here is an article published TODAY from an Austrailian university that fits the creation account in Genesis.

http://info.anu.edu.au/mac/Media/Media_Releases/_2005/_November/_181105harrisoncontinents.asp

Yes, the time is off, but it describes an Earth void and covered with water, then continents arising almost instantaneously, with conditions very similar to today's Earth.

Except for the time estimates, the description fits the creation account in Genesis almost perfectly.

“The simplest explanation of all the evidence is that essentially from its formation, the planet fell into a dynamic regime that has persisted to the present day.”

 

"I brought up Feduccia because many evolutionists claim birds are decended from dinosaurs. But Feduccia and others have strong evidence against it. But many evolutionists continue to claim that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur. Feduccia says it was simply a bird."

Really?

Let's attack your representation from multiple points of view.

First off, why did you really bring up Feduccia? If you go back and look at the thread, everyone will see that Petrel was offering Archy as a transitional. He said

This is to what you were replying when you said

Now it should be plain to see that you were doing more than trying to show that Archy was not a dinosaur. You were going after the very idea that it is a good example of a transitional fossil.

Hold that thought.

It your latest post, you again tell us that Feduccia was saying that Arhcy was "simply a bird."

Now, let's return to what Feduccia himself says about this bit of quote mining.

So you should now see that you were doing more than denying that birds are living dinosaurs, you were in addition using the quote to cast doubt upon Archy as a transitional. Furthermore, you also use the quote to say that it was just a bird and nothing else.

However, the commentary on the quote from Feduccia himself shows that you have misrepresented his quote on both accounts.

Finally, there is one more problem. You have already gone to the Feduccia well once before. Of course you do so in a picking and choosing style, throwing out the tiny sliver you like and ignoring the rest. Feduccia says that birds evolved from reptiles, but you don't seem to notice that as you pick and choose.

Anyhow, the things that Feduccia cites as showing the birds and dinosaurs have a common ancestor, rather than dinosaurs being the actual ancestors, have been dealt with for several years in the literature. And when you plagarized a write up mentioning several of these items, I responded with research that shows him to be simply wrong.

Of course you never responded. You never come back and support your assertions, you just throw new ones out as your olds have been laid waste by the real data. Or, as we see here, you will simple reassert the same ideas without even addressing the concerns that have been raised.

But once again, here is the response to these items from the last time around that block. Do you have any intentipn of responding to the concerns this time, or can I just expect silence from you until you want to reassert the same discredited positions again?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3194/17.html#000242

So, we will get round two on your justifications for misquoting Feduccia? Perhaps you might even decide to do the honorable thing and to withdraw the quote since it does nothing to support your position and everything to undermine it when put into the proper context.

If not withdrawn, then I will take it that you recognize the expertice of Feduccia and that you accept his opinion that birds evolved from reptiles and that Archy is a wonderful example of a transitional form.

 

Just how do you plan on connecting the counting of small craters to roughly data the surface of solar system objects to any other form of dating? How do you think that they were even able to determine that the method was flawed?

This does not even reflect poorly upon using larger craters to roughly date solar system surfaces, much less any other forms of dating.

Do you have any positive evidence for a young earth? Any at all?

All of your "evidence" to this point seems to consist of discredited arguments against an old earth and out of context quotes. To think that such negative evidence, even if true, supports your position is to commit the fallacy of the false dilemma. Just because you show another idea is wrong does not show that yours is correct.

But you have not even managed to come up with any "problems" for evolution that survice that least bit of scrutiny.

Yes, thank you for reminding me of this.

This is yet another bit of misprepresentation that you perpetuate despite overwhelming evidence being presented against your position. Evidence which you always fail to address before reasserting.

In this post I showed how PE was postulated based on real evidence and not any lack of evidence. YOu have failed to address my claims and yet you dishonestly reassert the same thing.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/8.html#000119

Could you please try and address why you falsely keep asserting that PE is based on a lack of evidence rather than the fact that it is based on observed evidence?

I'll even help you out. Here is the original paper by Eldredge and Gould in its entirety. Why don't you examine it and show how it fits your assertions about it.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

 

Picking and choosing again?

Let's start off with that quote since you have a history of being unreliable.

What does that quote mean in the context of the subect matter? Well, if you look, you will see that the article discusses how this is evidence that the earth formed continents rather quickly which then fell into the process of plate tectonics that we see today. It even discusses how we can see the recycling of the crust through the mantle in various samples. So that is "dynamic regime" that we see continuing today.

I am not sure how you feel that the quote even supports your position.

For that matter, I am not even sure that you have adequately explained how this whole deal even supports your position.

Part of your problem likely stems from having to rely upon this news report instead of the more detailed writings from the original researchers. It just so happens that I began reading such a work back on... let's see...I think it was Wednesday. I am not finished yet. The guy's name is Valley and what I am reading is something he wrote called "A Cool Early Earth."

Here is a link to his webpage where you will find what appears to be at least 2 dozen papers on the subject as references. Most of the papers listed have handy dandy links to follow to read the original paper.

http://info.anu.edu.au/mac/Media/Media_Releases/_2005/_November/_181105harrisoncontinents.asp

In any case, here you are picking and choosing again. Since you reject dating methods, then I guess you must right off reject the dating of the zircons that show that they were from the early earth. Since you doubt dating methods, you have no way of telling us if these zircons really are from the early earth of if they are from the last century.

So in your paradigm, these zircons tells us nothing about the early earth. You are being hypocritical to try and sneak in the use of dating methods that you yourself do not believe.

Second, I think that you are misrepresenting (surprise) what the authors mean when they discuss a "cool" early earth. (In this case, I'll let you off the hook a little because I think that your problem stem from a lack of knowledge on the subject beyond this one article rather than a deliberate act.) All they mean is that is was cool enough for liquid water to form, not that "conditions [were] very similar to today's Earth."

Finally, you are ignoring all the other implications of the work. One is the implication mentioned above about the action of plate techtonics. Another is not mentioned in the article, but is important. The oldest zircons contained bits of quartz which shows that by the time they had formed that there was already a relatively long history of crustal recycling. The first rocks to have formed would not have contained quartz, it would have come later.

Thermodynamic calculations have suggested long ago that these are just the results that we should have expected were we to find such old material. The calcs show that it would have only taken about 10 million years to form a crust.

These results again do nothing to support oyur position and everything to undermine them.