My latest understanding on the formation of the diversity of life

[angellous_evangellous]

The good doctor has disappeared.

 

[McBell]

The good doctor has disappeared.

Um...
Reckon he ran out of patience?

Get it?
Ha ha.
Patients.

Sometimes I just slay me....

 

[McBell]

Incidentally, I found intact pottery from Corinth dated 5200 BCE.

R. J. Hopper, “Ancient Corinth,” Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Feb., 1955), 4 [2-15].

[sarcasm]
Well, since it is an obvious fact that there was no civilizations before 4500 years ago, what you found was some of the false evidence that god planted to test your faith.
Seems you have failed said test.

Let us pray...
[/sarcasm]

 

[painted wolf]

The good doctor has disappeared.

Darn it! I actually found him (from what little I was able to interact with him) very refreshing for the YEC crowd. :beach:

Perhaps it was having so much thrown against his claim to be a doctor? I found the focus on attacking his claims to "doctor-hood" to be misplaced and overly abusive so early on. There is no reason he could not become a Physician (or just about any other PhD) while being a YEC.
It has happened many times in many fields.
People should have focused more on the quality of his arguments than his claimed qualifications. After all, I have no way of proving my qualifications to anyone here short of breaking my anonymity... which I will not do save to a few. :sarcastic
We all rely on our acquired reputations.... he wasn't afforded that opportunity.

Anyway, rant over.... I'm still sad I'll never get a response to my question about rodents.

wa:do

 

[Gunfingers]

He actually said something about being on-call for the weekend and that he'd be back, didn't he?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is no reason he could not become a Physician (or just about any other PhD) while being a YEC.
It has happened many times in many fields.

Actually, there is. I find it highly unlikely that a medical school would graduate someone like "Doc." The reason is that evolutionary theory is used to create treatments and medications, and if he doesn't understand how diseases change, then he doesn't know which treatment is appropriate.

It's not just YEC, but a denial of speciation that would cause him to reject treatments that have worked on monkeys, rats, and even pigs, refusing to assent to our shared ancestory.

A Ph.D. in any field that utilizes a scientific method would require the student to work within the evolutionary theory. Given the repeated demonstration of the value of the method, I don't think that a YEC person could be intellectually honest enough to make it through a Ph.D. program. What they can do, and I've seen it done, is oprerate within the appropriate perameters while in school, and then come out as a YEC when they don't want a career in their field.

 

[Christian Doc]

Hello all.

I think patience is a virtue that a few people here could do with. As Gunfingers correctly pointed out I have been busy with work the past couple days and a lot of time and energy was also spent trying to get my broadband sorted - long story and still haven't got it! (Delivery issues when I'm not at home due to work etc)


Anyway, the last few posts will be ignored because it is the usual tripe that is unnecessarily attacking me as a person in terms of my integrity (why would I bother lying about being a doctor?) and my qualifications.

Painted wolf

Now, I have told you I am a doctor of medicine - not biology so I am a little rusty on the classification process.

However, I am aware that different species of rat could be so called a different species even if they were genetically identical because they are geographically separate.

Therefore, not an enormous amount of mutations would have to take place for that - they just have to go there separate ways.

As I said, I'm not familiar with rodents so have just had a quick search and gone here Rodent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for a brief outline.

It seems reasonable to me to think that they could have started as a pair of rodent kind in the garden of Eden. They could have diversified to the point of the flood. At this point, they could have been classed as a few separate kinds.

Not sure really to be honest. I don't think it would be fair of me to say much more because I don't have the breadth of knowledge to go down this line.

However, I would be quite happy to adopt what Evolutionists have said about the evolution of the rodent family. If they conclude that the rodent common ancestor branched off to form 5 main kinds - I would happy to say that Noah could have taken 5 pairs (to correspond with the 5 main kinds). I suspect, for example, they could suggest - the 5 suborders that they postulated. I haven't done enough research into it but these are first few thoughts!

Mestemia

Sadly I will never run out of patients because I am doing elderly care! One of the necessary qualities of being an elderly care physician is patience - I am known as being patient with patients.




In terms of evidence of human civilisation. I think it is very telling that actually written history goes back to around 4,000 years and then abruptly stops around the world.

Beyond this time period we rely on dating methods, which I have some reservations.

For example, Chinese history can date back to around 2100BC with the Xia dynasty. No information known of previous dynasties. For a civilisation that prides itself on genealogies and histories, this is interesting evidence for a YEC.


In terms of the Egyptians, well as mentioned before there are many problems interpreting the Egyptian history but I suspect that they can reliably dated back to 2200BC, beyond that I think that we are in to the realms of dating and fitting into where we think it may be.

I think you will find that this article here does have merit in it. I know you don't like AIG but, well, here it is!

Chapter 28: A Correct Chronology - Answers in Genesis

Amill

In terms of dog/wolf kind evolution. Well, actually I think it is an excellent example of how selection of phenotypes can give rise to a lot of animals that look very different but actually are still genetically compatible.

For example, as diverse as the wolf/dog kind are you can still mate a dog with a wolf. Because the wolf is of a purer breed (I suspect less mutations due to more vigorous selection pressures - domesticated animals can gather more mutations because humans shelter them from environmental pressures) the wolf-dog is healthier than normal dogs.

This actually a great example of how the YEC propose the diversity we see. There is mutations that result in the diversity but there is also the difference in expressions of genes that results in the difference we see.



I suspect that in many groups of animals, there is genetic compatibility but the species is defined by geography or mating isolation.

Angellous

your posts are very confusing. You are not medically qualified (from reading your blog) yet you are trying to speak with authority in the area of medicine. This is almost the definition of arrogance, is it not?

I suggest that you back off and if you want to discuss issues with me then do so. But the continous abuse is unnecessary. I could quite easily have walked away because of the abuse that I am getting here.

However, I want to stay because I am refining my thought processes, learning useful information and I think I am putting forward the YEC position in a reasonable fashion.

Your posts are making it more difficult to do this. So, please stop posting on my threads or start to be polite. Thank you.

 

[Gunfingers]

GunfingerS

I am plural.

 

[Smoke]

Actually, there is. I find it highly unlikely that a medical school would graduate someone like "Doc."

They do it all the time. Most MDs don't function as scientists; a substantial percentage of them work mainly as diagnosticians, surgeons, trauma docs, psychiatrists, or what are in effect skilled technicians. Unless you work in research or (sometimes) in a rapidly-changing specialty, you can pass your whole career without actually doing any serious science or having to think very seriously about evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually, there is. I find it highly unlikely that a medical school would graduate someone like "Doc." The reason is that evolutionary theory is used to create treatments and medications, and if he doesn't understand how diseases change, then he doesn't know which treatment is appropriate.

Actually, YEC's have become doctors... Knowing that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics does not prohibit one from believing that this is due to "the fall".

And I agree about appropriate treatments. The first heart transplant surgery was done by a YEC surgeon... and it killed the child because the donor species chosen was not properly thought through. He has done several more successful heart transplants since then.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Now, I have told you I am a doctor of medicine - not biology so I am a little rusty on the classification process.

However, I am aware that different species of rat could be so called a different species even if they were genetically identical because they are geographically separate.

Therefore, not an enormous amount of mutations would have to take place for that - they just have to go there separate ways.

As I said, I'm not familiar with rodents so have just had a quick search and gone here Rodent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for a brief outline.

It seems reasonable to me to think that they could have started as a pair of rodent kind in the garden of Eden. They could have diversified to the point of the flood. At this point, they could have been classed as a few separate kinds.

Not sure really to be honest. I don't think it would be fair of me to say much more because I don't have the breadth of knowledge to go down this line.

However, I would be quite happy to adopt what Evolutionists have said about the evolution of the rodent family. If they conclude that the rodent common ancestor branched off to form 5 main kinds - I would happy to say that Noah could have taken 5 pairs (to correspond with the 5 main kinds). I suspect, for example, they could suggest - the 5 suborders that they postulated. I haven't done enough research into it but these are first few thoughts!

What do you think of the fantastic speed at which species would have to appear to account for modern "kinds"?

Are all modern species found in the fossil record also Ark passengers? What about extinct species?

ps... this is untrue

However, I am aware that different species of rat could be so called a different species even if they were genetically identical because they are geographically separate.

if they are genetically identical they would be classified as the same species. That is why the European and American populations of Red Fox, Moose, Elk, Wolf (except perhaps the Eastern Timber Wolf, which is genetically distinct) Mallard Duck... and so on are not separate species.

wa:do

 

[Christian Doc]

A useful table regarding antibiotic resistance

[SIZE=+1]Antibiotic[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Phenotype Providing Resistance[/SIZE]
Actinonin - Loss of enzyme activity
Ampicillin - SOS response halting cell division
Azithromycin - Loss of a regulatory protein
Chloramphenicol - Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
Ciprofloxacin - Loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein
Erythromycin - Reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein
Fluoroquinolones - Loss of affinity to gyrase
Imioenem - Reduced formation of a porin
Kanamycin - Reduced formation of a transport protein
Nalidixic Acid - Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein
Rifampin - Loss of affinity to RNA polymerase
Streptomycin - Reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity
Tetracycline - Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
Zittermicin A - Loss of proton motive force
Taken from - Is Bacterial Resistance an Example of Evolutionary Change? -- TrueOrigin Archive

This is in keeping with my understanding of the diversity of life that I have outlined previously.

You may have noticed that my theory is fleshing out slowly as I think it through more.


So thank you very much for pushing me on these areas.

 

[Noaidi]

ChristianDoc
For what it's worth, all 3 of my local GPs are christians, and are firm proponents of Intelligent Design and creationism. I fundamentally disagree with them on points of evolution, but their ability to do their job doesn't seem to be compromised. They have patched me up a number of times...

I'm not accepting your stance on YEC, by the way - I'm just saying that it's possible to be a good doctor and have differing views on evolution. However, if you were involved in medical research, then not accepting evolution could be a problem.

 

[painted wolf]

A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.

your source has a deeply flawed understanding of evolution. Why does a change in cellular activity = lack of evolution?
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. How does anything on your list refute that?

Creationists seem to think that evolution is moving toward a goal or perfection. I'll repeat: Evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies over time. Longer time = larger accumulation of changes. Such change does not have to be adaptive or "good", it is simply change.

wa:do

 

[angellous_evangellous]

your posts are very confusing. You are not medically qualified (from reading your blog) yet you are trying to speak with authority in the area of medicine. This is almost the definition of arrogance, is it not?

I suggest that you back off and if you want to discuss issues with me then do so. But the continous abuse is unnecessary. I could quite easily have walked away because of the abuse that I am getting here.

However, I want to stay because I am refining my thought processes, learning useful information and I think I am putting forward the YEC position in a reasonable fashion.

Your posts are making it more difficult to do this. So, please stop posting on my threads or start to be polite. Thank you.

You're claiming to be a "doc" and have no understanding of science, which is essential to your career.

You're using AiG to "prove" your case.

On top of that, you're waxing idiotic about some things that I happen to know pretty well - the history of ancient civilizations and biblical interpretation - you're failing pretty miserably at talking intelligently on both these topics.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

They do it all the time. Most MDs don't function as scientists; a substantial percentage of them work mainly as diagnosticians, surgeons, trauma docs, psychiatrists, or what are in effect skilled technicians. Unless you work in research or (sometimes) in a rapidly-changing specialty, you can pass your whole career without actually doing any serious science or having to think very seriously about evolution.

Yes, but pre-med requirements do include human physiology, biology, and chemistry.

Even out here in the bible belt, it's hard to get a recommendation to med school without knowing something about the human body.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Christian Doc,

Your usage of TalkOrigins and AiG demomstrates quite clearly your unwillingness to think through the "evidence."

Both of these sites, as is your understanding of "creationism," are a combination of poor biblical interpretation mixed with even worse interpretation of nature.

 

[Christian Doc]

"What do you think of the fantastic speed at which species would have to appear to account for modern "kinds"?

Are all modern species found in the fossil record also Ark passengers? What about extinct species?"

I find the speed at which species would need to appear rather quick. However, I think that it is possible. I do understand why there is such fascination on how many animals could fit on the ark and the number of kinds. I do not think we can be 100% sure on these things.

But I would say that the entire debate around this topic are surrounding areas that we can never be 100% sure. We can never be sure of the past that we do not have eye witness evidence for.


Your second question is easier to answer. I think that every animal on earth has a common ancestor represented on the ark.
I think every fossilised animal would have had a representative on the ark. It does not mean that a couple from every species found in the fossil record would be on the ark but merely one couple from that "kind".

Regarding animals that are extinct. Well I think there have been a number of animals that were considered extinct due to where they were in the fossil record who have living representatives. Just because they are fossilised in the fossil record, does not mean that they became extinct then.

There are many species that we see only the fossil record and we might assume that they became extinct there because we see evidence of them currently. However, based on the evidence that we see other "extinct" animals living now it is not such as jump to think that they could have existed after the fossil record was laid down but then became extinct later.


In other words, I think that every kind of animal was represented on the ark and saved from the flood. The reason we do not see every kind of animal that is in the fossil record living around us today is that they became extinct between the flood and now.


I hope that this is clear.



Angellous - I think you should reflect on how you have responded to my posts. You have contributed nothing to the discussions except for slander. Until you are more civilised I shall not respond to your posts. I think that I have been very patient and tolerant. It has diverted my attention from responding to the genuine posts on the various threads to responding to your tedious posts.

Therefore, good bye and may God bless you in your studies.

 

[Autodidact]

I find the speed at which species would need to appear rather quick. However, I think that it is possible.

It's not possible and more importantly, it's not actual. That is, we do not in fact observe new species emerging in the number of generations that have passed since that date.

I do understand why there is such fascination on how many animals could fit on the ark and the number of kinds.

For the same reason. It's mathematically impossible to fit that number of organisms on a wooden boat. That's just one of the many ways we know it's a myth.

I do not think we can be 100% sure on these things.

Science is never 100% sure of anything, and we're not asking for 100%. More than 50% would be a start.

But I would say that the entire debate around this topic are surrounding areas that we can never be 100% sure. We can never be sure of the past that we do not have eye witness evidence for.

We can be as sure as science allows, which is sure enough that to deny it would be foolish.

Your second question is easier to answer. I think that every animal on earth has a common ancestor represented on the ark.
I think every fossilised animal would have had a representative on the ark. It does not mean that a couple from every species found in the fossil record would be on the ark but merely one couple from that "kind".

Look, there's millions of known species, millions more not yet named, and millions and millions more extinct. Either way, they don't fit on the ark. Either you had a boat the size of Australia, or you have speciation at a rate where we would be observing new species popping up daily. We don't. Therefore your hypothesis fails.

Regarding animals that are extinct. Well I think there have been a number of animals that were considered extinct due to where they were in the fossil record who have living representatives. Just because they are fossilised in the fossil record, does not mean that they became extinct then.

We know that animals are extinct not because they left fossils, but because we don't see them around any more. Duh.

There are many species that we see only the fossil record and we might assume that they became extinct there because we see evidence of them currently. However, based on the evidence that we see other "extinct" animals living now it is not such as jump to think that they could have existed after the fossil record was laid down but then became extinct later.

O.K. So what?

Do you think paleontologists are really dumb, and haven't thought of these things?

In other words, I think that every kind of animal was represented on the ark and saved from the flood. The reason we do not see every kind of animal that is in the fossil record living around us today is that they became extinct between the flood and now.

Again--numbers? At what rate would this have organisms going extinct, one per minute? There are probably over a hundred million extinct organisms.

 

[McBell]

...You have contributed nothing to the discussions except for slander...

Perhaps you needs look up the definition of the word "slander"...