Age of the Earth.

[painted wolf]

I hope i'm not completely derailing the thread, but i have one i always wondered about. How did sexual reproduction develop? How did we end up with two sexes, y'know?

I tell you what... I'll start a new thread on the subject.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/94931-ask-biologist.html#post1932529

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Unfortunately not today. I've been busy with schoolwork recently and I don't have as much time as I would like. And yes, I have looked at much of the "overwhelming" evidence for evolution. I am by no means an expert, but I think I understand it well enough.

Really? That's so interesting. Can you explain how, for example the pattern of psuedogenes is NOT evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution? (ToE)

 

[IndieVisible]

It makes me sad that this is even a debate.

Anyone with a weeks learning in geology will know that the earth is at least, bare minimum, 1 billion years old ignoring more advanced geological topics.

Sad but true. It's certainly a lot older then 6000 years old, or even 13k years old. Traditionalists, literalists, or what ever you want to call them, do not understand what they read so how can they understand science? I imagine they are still looking out for wolves in sheeps clothing, literally!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Sad but true. It's certainly a lot older then 6000 years old, or even 13k years old. Traditionalists, literalists, or what ever you want to call them, do not understand what they read so how can they understand science? I imagine they are still looking out for wolves in sheeps clothing, literally!

Not so sure about the literal wolves in sheep's clothing, but you make a good point with it.

It is not traditionalists on their own, or literalists on their own, but we can want to call them the same as Jesus called them. At Matthew chapter 23 Jesus exposes the false clergy class and pronounces many 'woes' against them and his reasons why. Jesus called them hypocrites, blind guides, even vipers.

The grievous wolves of Acts 20:29,30 are the clergy class in sheep's clothing [2 Thess 2:3-10] they do not have love of the truth or facts.
Like the clergy of Jesus day [Mark 7:7,13] they teach the flock not Scripture but their own tradition or customs outside of Scripture. They use their false opinions and shove it into the mouth of God, so to speak, like they are some kind of holy ventriloquist that can put word's in God's mouth instead of listening to the words that came out of his mouth, so to speak, as recorded in Scripture.

The trusting flock, or those that just want religious leaders to 'tickle their ears' [2nd Tim 4:3] are Not like the people of Acts 17:11 who examined Scripture daily to see if what they are hearing is really what the Bible teaches.

There is nothing in Genesis that is out of harmony with CMBR [cosmic microwave background radiation] accuracy in dating.

 

[darkendless]

Sad but true. It's certainly a lot older then 6000 years old, or even 13k years old. Traditionalists, literalists, or what ever you want to call them, do not understand what they read so how can they understand science? I imagine they are still looking out for wolves in sheeps clothing, literally!

It is true, i would almost expect the older generations to be Gof-fearing literalists but it is quite shocking to see younger generations with the same lack of knowledge and given that science is so hard to ignore these days.

 

[RedOne77]

Really? That's so interesting. Can you explain how, for example the pattern of psuedogenes is NOT evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution? (ToE)

It's only evidence for evolution if you already accept the Darwinian paradigm. For example, the enolase pseudogene is similar with the baboon (and 3 other primates); only problem is that according to your model we diverged from old world monkeys (like the baboon) 30 million years ago. Yet, the same scientific community says that according to standard pseudogene mutation rates, the gene should only be 14 million years ago. Their cop-out, the pseudogene mutates twice as slow as normal pseudogenes. So pseudogenes can and are forced/skewed into the evolutionary world view.

 

[painted wolf]

Why would an intelligent designer add pseudogenes? Just to be a joker?

And it is feasible for one pseudogene to mutate more slowly than another, depending on it's placement in the genome. If it is close to a highly conserved area then that proximity would link it and prevent it from changing as quickly as a gene in a low conservation area.

It's not shoehorning, it's basic genetics. I'd have to read more about this particular gene to say that is the cause though.

wa:do

 

[IndieVisible]

Why would an intelligent designer add pseudogenes? Just to be a joker?

And it is feasible for one pseudogene to mutate more slowly than another, depending on it's placement in the genome. If it is close to a highly conserved area then that proximity would link it and prevent it from changing as quickly as a gene in a low conservation area.

It's not shoehorning, it's basic genetics. I'd have to read more about this particular gene to say that is the cause though.

wa:do

I wouldn't discount pseudogenes, I find DNA the most fascinating of all I dare say signs that suggest ID.

 

[johnhanks]

It's only evidence for evolution if you already accept the Darwinian paradigm. For example, the enolase pseudogene is similar with the baboon (and 3 other primates); only problem is that according to your model we diverged from old world monkeys (like the baboon) 30 million years ago. Yet, the same scientific community says that according to standard pseudogene mutation rates, the gene should only be 14 million years ago. Their cop-out, the pseudogene mutates twice as slow as normal pseudogenes. So pseudogenes can and are forced/skewed into the evolutionary world view.

No cop-out involved. Your phrase 'standard pseudogene mutation rates' is misleading: because for the most part mutations in pseudogenes impose no penalty, they tend to accumulate at more or less steady rates; but there is no requirement that all pseudogenes must mutate at the same rate, for reasons such as the one painted wolf has given.

You show the usual creationist's approach to evidence relating to evolution: ignore the mountain, and insist that an apparently unusual pebble is what really matters.

 

[painted wolf]

I wouldn't discount pseudogenes, I find DNA the most fascinating of all I dare say signs that suggest ID.

I don't discount them... As a biologist I find DNA the best evidence against ID.

It suggests either the designer is lazy or deceitful.

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I wouldn't discount pseudogenes, I find DNA the most fascinating of all I dare say signs that suggest ID.

Much as I find spoons to be signs that suggest astrology.

 

[RedOne77]

Why would an intelligent designer add pseudogenes? Just to be a joker?

When God made everything, it was good/perfect. When His creation rebelled against Him, He banished it outside of the garden of Eden. When this happened we began to accumulate random genetic changes, one of the by-products being pseudogenes.

I also believe that the devil can physically change our genes, to make it look like evolution occurred. After all, evolution is a great tool to evangelize the masses to atheism and or reject the word of God.

And it is feasible for one pseudogene to mutate more slowly than another, depending on it's placement in the genome. If it is close to a highly conserved area then that proximity would link it and prevent it from changing as quickly as a gene in a low conservation area.

Sadly to say, I don't know if the enolase gene is close to a conservative or liberal locus.

It's not shoehorning, it's basic genetics. I'd have to read more about this particular gene to say that is the cause though.

Much of science is shoehorning (in a way) when using deductive reasoning. Hypotheses use inductive reasoning, and from those experiments they apply it to everything, and everything must then co-inside with that inductive reasoning. It is truly amazing how people idolize science as the epitome of knowledge and understanding, yet most don't know anything about it.

 

[Autodidact]

It's only evidence for evolution if you already accept the Darwinian paradigm. For example, the enolase pseudogene is similar with the baboon (and 3 other primates); only problem is that according to your model we diverged from old world monkeys (like the baboon) 30 million years ago. Yet, the same scientific community says that according to standard pseudogene mutation rates, the gene should only be 14 million years ago. Their cop-out, the pseudogene mutates twice as slow as normal pseudogenes. So pseudogenes can and are forced/skewed into the evolutionary world view.

Please read the question over. How does the existence and specific pattern of psuedo-genes NOT support the Theory of Evolution? That is, what alternative explanation for diversity of species better explains the existence and pattern of psuedo-genes?

I'm assuming that your competing hypothesis is magic poofing; is that correct?

 

[Autodidact]

When God made everything, it was good/perfect. When His creation rebelled against Him, He banished it outside of the garden of Eden. When this happened we began to accumulate random genetic changes, one of the by-products being pseudogenes.

I also believe that the devil can physically change our genes, to make it look like evolution occurred. After all, evolution is a great tool to evangelize the masses to atheism and or reject the word of God.



Sadly to say, I don't know if the enolase gene is close to a conservative or liberal locus.



Much of science is shoehorning (in a way) when using deductive reasoning. Hypotheses use inductive reasoning, and from those experiments they apply it to everything, and everything must then co-inside with that inductive reasoning. It is truly amazing how people idolize science as the epitome of knowledge and understanding, yet most don't know anything about it.

So if I understand you correctly:

(1) ToE is correct, but only after "the fall?"
(2) The devil plants false clues, so science is impossible. Basically the devil has planted psuedo-genes, fossils, nested hierarchy, homologies, vestigial organs, geographical distribution of species, and a lot of other evidence, so that science will only fool us into being mistaken, and we should give it up, it will only lead to false answers?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I also believe that the devil can physically change our genes, to make it look like evolution occurred. After all, evolution is a great tool to evangelize the masses to atheism and or reject the word of God.

Wait... so you're saying that since the beginning of life on Earth, the Devil has been manipulating the DNA of living organisms to make it falsely appear that we evolved, all for the express purpose of leading humans astray on the off chance that we would one day develop the technology to examine DNA and the scientific paradigm of evolution to examine the evidence? Really?

This brings two things to my mind:

- this says to me that you freely admit that the DNA evidence itself points to the truth of evolution. You've got an alternate explanation for how it came to be, but I think you're suggesting that on its face, the evidence we have points to the theory of evolution being correct.

- I think you'd have to have a very high opinion of yourself to assume that an insanely powerful supernatural being would go to all this trouble just to try to mislead you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if I understand you correctly:

(1) ToE is correct, but only after "the fall?"
(2) The devil plants false clues, so science is impossible. Basically the devil has planted psuedo-genes, fossils, nested hierarchy, homologies, vestigial organs, geographical distribution of species, and a lot of other evidence, so that science will only fool us into being mistaken, and we should give it up, it will only lead to false answers?

Something else occurs to me: a Devil who's capable of planting false evidence in the genetic code of humanity (in effect tampering with "the image of God") would be more than capable of tampering with other things... religious scriptures, for instance.

RedOne's argument doesn't just imply that science is unreliable; it implies that everything is unreliable... even the sources of information and belief that he considers most sacred.

 

[RedOne77]

So if I understand you correctly:

(1) ToE is correct, but only after "the fall?"

It depends on what you mean by "evolution". Before the fall there was sexual recombination and such, but no speciation, IMO. After the fall, nature fell from godliness and were subject to mutation.

(2) The devil plants false clues, so science is impossible. Basically the devil has planted psuedo-genes, fossils, nested hierarchy, homologies, vestigial organs, geographical distribution of species, and a lot of other evidence, so that science will only fool us into being mistaken, and we should give it up, it will only lead to false answers?

I'm not saying that science is impossible, only that we have to be careful about deceit.

 

[RedOne77]

Wait... so you're saying that since the beginning of life on Earth, the Devil has been manipulating the DNA of living organisms to make it falsely appear that we evolved, all for the express purpose of leading humans astray on the off chance that we would one day develop the technology to examine DNA and the scientific paradigm of evolution to examine the evidence? Really?

No. We have mutations because of copying errors and our system for detecting and correcting those errors are not full-proof. Since pseudogenes don't affect an organisms survival, any tampering wouldn't really affect them, and once we started to look at the genomes, it is possible that the devil could have manipulated the genomes.

This brings two things to my mind:

- this says to me that you freely admit that the DNA evidence itself points to the truth of evolution. You've got an alternate explanation for how it came to be, but I think you're suggesting that on its face, the evidence we have points to the theory of evolution being correct.

Some of it can, but it doesn't prove evolution.

- I think you'd have to have a very high opinion of yourself to assume that an insanely powerful supernatural being would go to all this trouble just to try to mislead you.

Not just me, the entire human race! I'm not so vain as to think such an entity would do all this for me. This is nothing but a straw-man, perhaps you're just projecting, or falsely stereotyping me into some creationist label that is made up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. We have mutations because of copying errors and our system for detecting and correcting those errors are not full-proof. Since pseudogenes don't affect an organisms survival, any tampering wouldn't really affect them, and once we started to look at the genomes, it is possible that the devil could have manipulated the genomes.

Okay... so the deception could've been just recent instead of over the entire history of life. Still, it'd be a lot of work.

Some of it can, but it doesn't prove evolution.

But my point is that you don't dispute that the evidence exists or what it suggests, right?

When you say that the evidence was fabricated or altered to make it seem like it supports evolution, this implies that the evidence seems to support evolution.

Not just me, the entire human race! I'm not so vain as to think such an entity would do all this for me. This is nothing but a straw-man, perhaps you're just projecting, or falsely stereotyping me into some creationist label that is made up.

Even at the level of the human race, there's still a certain chauvinism in what you're suggesting: out of the entire universe, the Devil's going to dedicate this much effort to us?

 

[Autodidact]

It depends on what you mean by "evolution". Before the fall there was sexual recombination and such, but no speciation, IMO. After the fall, nature fell from godliness and were subject to mutation.

So, just to be clear about your position, you agree that new species arise from existing species by descent with modification plus natural selection? Is that right?

I'm not saying that science is impossible, only that we have to be careful about deceit.

And exactly what procedures should scientists institute to detect when the devil is deceiving them?