Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Thief]

But, evolution is dependent on an extremely long timescale. So, what's your point?

God is eternal....and there's not much to entertain Him

 

[leibowde84]

God is eternal....and there's not much to entertain Him

limits to how much change can happen right now?....of course there is.

I apologize, I was referring to this claim by you. Time is obviously not a problem, as evolution admits and requires an extremely large timescale. Can you explain why your comment here is relevant, supportive of your argument.

 

[Thief]

I apologize, I was referring to this claim by you. Time is obviously not a problem, as evolution admits and requires an extremely large timescale. Can you explain why your comment here is relevant, supportive of your argument.

time does not exist....I mention increments so the words can flow

note the op title

 

[leibowde84]

time does not exist....I mention increments so the words can flow

note the op title

You didn't address my question. If time is not an issue (or "increments"), why is it relevant that only a certain amount of change can happen in one increment?

 

[Thief]

You didn't address my question. If time is not an issue (or "increments"), why is it relevant that only a certain amount of change can happen in one increment?

such is evolution
too much too soon....that item will die

 

[leibowde84]

such is evolution
too much too soon....that item will die

Evolution allows for plenty of time, so that is not an issue. So, I ask again, what are you attempting to say?

 

[McBell]

Before I go on, here is what the creation scientists originally had listed as the "classes" of animals.

creeping things of the ground
birds of the sky
clean animals
cattle
beasts of the earth

From there, they are defining these different classes of animals.

So when you say "class" you are meaning the "class" as defined above and not the currently accepted scientific classification of class?
One wonders why this was not mentioned earlier when you stated "kind" meant "class"?

 

[james bond]

Remarkable. Ouroboros asks you to explain "how these fixed limits work", and you respond with a huge cut-and-paste of other people's words, none of which address the question at all.

Evolution involves change in populations' gene pools over time, that is changes in the sequence and arrangement of long chains of ATCG base pairs in their DNA. Since we know that such changes occur, and that the only salient difference between a zygote that will develop into (say) a cat and one that will develop a dog is in the base sequence of their genome, what is to prevent the base sequence of a cat population changing, over a long enough period, into that of a dog? (No, I am not suggesting dogs actually evolved from cats, or vice versa: both probably emerged from ancestral miacid populations.) If you wish to defend the idea that such a change is impossible, you must explain what it is that puts a limit on how far genomes can change. Without such a limit (and none has so far been detected) evolutionary change is assured.

PS: it is amusing that the best 'authority' you could cut-and-paste on whale evolution manages to write such a huge screed without once mentioning Ambulocetus.

I do not think we're getting into gene pools at this time as there aren't any differences I could find with CS. I could not find any creation science that goes against population genetics and do not think there is any difference as to natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow.

To address Ouroboros' question: First, here is the basics of evo science.

An introduction to evolution

Leaves on trees change color and fall over several weeks. Mountain ranges erode over millions of years.

A genealogy illustrates change with inheritance over a small number of years. Over a large number of years, evolution produces tremendous diversity in forms of life.

The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

Creation science has no argument with small-scale evolution, but with large-scale evolution.

In terms of fixed limits, instead of a common ancestor, CS states small-scale evo led to diversification of the kinds into numerous related species, but changes occurred only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals. Thus, one kind could not develop into another kind. For example, man and apes have separate ancestry and do not belong to the same created kind.

Evo:

The history of life: looking at the patterns

The central ideas of evolution are that life has a history — it has changed over time — and that different species share common ancestors.

Here, you can explore how evolutionary change and evolutionary relationships are represented in "family trees," how these trees are constructed, and how this knowledge affects biological classification. You will also find a timeline of evolutionary history and information on some specific events in the history of life: human evolution and the origin of life.

CS:
Instead of it all starting out from a single cell, we have various starting points from fully mature classes of plants and animals. In the case of cats, it started with a cat. In the case of a dog, it started with a dog. The limits are they stay within their class. A cat does not become a dog and vice versa. A dog does not become a pig.

So to answer the question, which came first the chicken or the egg? The chicken. The oak tree or the acorn. The oak tree. The only baby that I know of is Jesus and His beginning is hard to explain via CS. Can evo science answer that, john hanks?

 

[johnhanks]

The limits are they stay within their class.

And by what mechanisms are these limits imposed?

A cat does not become a dog and vice versa. A dog does not become a pig.

No indeed, and no part of evolutionary theory suggests that they do. A cat population, on the other hand, could very well after many generations become a population of non-cats. What do you claim will prevent it, given that the only change that would have occurred is in the base sequences of the population's gene pool?

 

[james bond]

I think there is a dinosaur by the river. There you go.

 

[james bond]

And by what mechanisms are these limits imposed?
No indeed, and no part of evolutionary theory suggests that they do. A cat population, on the other hand, could very well after many generations become a population of non-cats. What do you claim will prevent it, given that the only change that would have occurred is in the base sequences of the population's gene pool?

As far as I know, the same mechanisms of population genetics. If I find different, I'll let you know.

 

[james bond]

Quoboros, can you tell me how a single cell or cells became an egg?

 

[Ouroboros]

To address Ouroboros' question: First, here is the basics of evo science.

An introduction to evolution

That's funny, because I took Biological Anthropology, including lab

In terms of fixed limits, instead of a common ancestor, CS states small-scale evo led to diversification of the kinds into numerous related species, but changes occurred only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals. Thus, one kind could not develop into another kind. For example, man and apes have separate ancestry and do not belong to the same created kind.

Again... How? Which part of the DNA controls the specie limitations? Where are the codifying elements in the biological system that creates a fixation of the species?

Here, you can explore how evolutionary change and evolutionary relationships are represented in "family trees," how these trees are constructed, and how this knowledge affects biological classification. You will also find a timeline of evolutionary history and information on some specific events in the history of life: human evolution and the origin of life.

That doesn't explain fixations or limits.

The limits that Gish is talking about is that there wasn't any predecessor that we share ancestry with because we're all created according to essentialism. It's the orchard model of creation. There's still no evidence in the DNA to support essentialism.

And you still haven't provided a scientific research paper that support "fixed limits".

CS:
Instead of it all starting out from a single cell, we have various starting points from fully mature classes of plants and animals. In the case of cats, it started with a cat. In the case of a dog, it started with a dog. The limits are they stay within their class. A cat does not become a dog and vice versa. A dog does not become a pig.

A dog becomes many different subspecies of dogs. Wolf became dogs. There were ancestors to wolfs, foxes, cats, etc, that became wolf, fox, cat, etc.

So to answer the question, which came first the chicken or the egg? The chicken. The oak tree or the acorn. The oak tree. The only baby that I know of is Jesus and His beginning is hard to explain via CS. Can evo science answer that, john hanks?

Actually, the egg came first.

Egg laying birds came way before the chicken. Chicken is a domesticated bird from a few thousand years ago. The bird that was domesticated existed before the "domesticated chicken" was bred for farming.

 

[Ouroboros]

Quoboros, can you tell me how a single cell or cells became an egg?

Not sure the significance to the question of what is controlling the limits of evolution.

The point here is that in the context you talked about fixed limits was relating to species. Isn't that correct? So an ancestor to apes and humans didn't evolve into apes and humans because God created some kind of fixed limits or essentials to what a species is. One species can't evolve because God put in limits. Isn't that what you meant?

 

[Ouroboros]

I think there is a dinosaur by the river. There you go.

There's also the top of the head of some asian lady at the bottom right...

 

[McBell]

bbb

There's also the top of the head of some asian lady at the bottom right...

No idea what a picture of painting has to do with the discussion....

 

[johnhanks]

As far as I know, the same mechanisms of population genetics.

I'm reasonably familiar with population genetics. The part that says "... and this is the mechanism that ensures gene pools can never diverge beyond, er, 'kind'..." has somehow eluded me. Would you like to quote it?

 

[johnhanks]

I do not think we're getting into gene pools at this time...

On the contrary, if we're talking about evolution at all, we're getting into gene pools. They are where evolutionary change happens. Discussing evolution without getting into gene pools would be like discussing what makes cars go without getting into engines.

So to answer the question, which came first the chicken or the egg? The chicken. The oak tree or the acorn. The oak tree. The only baby that I know of is Jesus and His beginning is hard to explain via CS. Can evo science answer that, john hanks?

Sorry, I missed this earlier. You'll need to elaborate: can "evo science" answer what, exactly? The paragraph is just shy of coherence.

 

[james bond]

That's funny, because I took Biological Anthropology, including lab


Again... How? Which part of the DNA controls the specie limitations? Where are the codifying elements in the biological system that creates a fixation of the species?



That doesn't explain fixations or limits.

The limits that Gish is talking about is that there wasn't any predecessor that we share ancestry with because we're all created according to essentialism. It's the orchard model of creation. There's still no evidence in the DNA to support essentialism.

And you still haven't provided a scientific research paper that support "fixed limits".


A dog becomes many different subspecies of dogs. Wolf became dogs. There were ancestors to wolfs, foxes, cats, etc, that became wolf, fox, cat, etc.


Actually, the egg came first.

Egg laying birds came way before the chicken. Chicken is a domesticated bird from a few thousand years ago. The bird that was domesticated existed before the "domesticated chicken" was bred for farming.

I haven't got to the DNA or how the limits are set up. Still trying to sort out creation biology or baraminology.

To the contrary, Duane Gish supported creation biology through DNA. The evos thought protoplasm was the foundation of life as it was plentiful and that theory was proved to be pseudoscience. Gish stated that if, "organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced."

Protein is very difficult to form from basic particles. Naturally, it probably Is impossible? Today, I recognize new proteins were created, but they were designed weren't they?

Gish continues, "In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution."

Gish also said self-replicating DNA molecules were pie in the sky. He stated, "Micromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules. It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids."

I thought you would say the egg came first, but then what creature laid the egg ? The common ancestor theory needs work. Or even a blade of grass. The evos have not created grass nor algae.

 

[james bond]

On the contrary, if we're talking about evolution at all, we're getting into gene pools. They are where evolutionary change happens. Discussing evolution without getting into gene pools would be like discussing what makes cars go without getting into engines.
Sorry, I missed this earlier. You'll need to elaborate: can "evo science" answer what, exactly? The paragraph is just shy of coherence.

You'll have to explain the evolution part. I'm still trying to explain baraminology.

The question is which came first the chicken or the egg?

From the creation scientists side, they say the chicken (and rooster) came first as that is what the cycle started from. It's common sense that the chicken has to sit on the egg for the chick to hatch. They say that the oak tree came first before the acorn. In other words, God created fully mature adult living organisms. There aren't any babies or seedlings. The only exception is Baby Jesus, but even His birth is not the normal birth as we know it.

"‘It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University.

‘The protein had been identified before and it was linked to egg formation but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process,’ he added.

The protein – called ovocledidin-17 (OC-17) – acts as a catalyst to speed up the development of the shell.

Scientists used a super computer called HECToR, based in Edinburgh, to ‘zoom in’ on the formation of an egg.

It showed OC-17 was crucial in kick-starting crystallisation – the early stages of forming a shell.

The protein coverts calcium carbonate into calcite crystals which makes up the egg shell, creating six grammes of shell every 24 hours.

Prof John Harding, also of Sheffield University, said the discovery could have other uses.

‘Understanding how chickens make shells is fascinating in itself but can also give clues towards designing new materials,’ he said."

http://metro.co.uk/2010/07/13/the-chicken-came-first-not-the-egg-scientists-prove-447738/

Ding, ding, ding. Do we have a winner?