Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

[Gup20]

Regarding the Nylon Bug -

In order for 'molecules to man' evolution to work, you have to have an information gaining process. That is to say - a cell must increase in specified complexity (information). For example, if you have the word 'superman' and you re-arrange (mutate) it to say 'sldnsesl', you have not increased the information, you have changed the sequence. The resulting string does not represent anything specific - it is a decrease in information.

Evolutionists claim that the nylon bug is an increase in genetic information and therefore an example of evolution. They say that the bacterium generates novel (new) genes in oder to metabolize the nylon. This must be a new gene because nylon was only invented several decades ago.

However, it does not show that any new information arises. Let me explain. The changed genes that allow the bacteria the appearant novel ability to consume nylon is actually not on the bateria's DNA main genomic structure. The change is actually in one of the bacterium's plasmids (the main DNA of the bacteria remains unchanged). Furthermore, the plasmids on which we see this appearantly novel ability is most likely designed to adapt the bacteria to new food sources. The evidence of this is that these plasmids are not activated by the bacterium unless it is under considerable strain or pressure. This suggests that it is the function of these plasmids to adapt the bacterium to new environments. Also, it is important to note that the way, the plasmid does this with the nylon eating is by a frame shift which removes the information telling the bacteria what not to eat. It is the equivalent to putting a blind fold on, and plugging your nose as someone puts food in front of you to eat. Your indicators telling you if it is real food or not have been disabled, so you consume away. This is certainly a decrease in specified complexity, and a loss of information. In this case, the loss of information is beneficial to the bacterium. It is a very common misconception that creationists (I refer to those who do not believe in evolution) believe that all mutations and all losses of information are harmful to an organism.

Information is specified complexity. Something can be complex, but if it specifies nothing it isn't information. For example, a bag of sand is complex, but it specifies nothing. No where in nature we we ever see information gaining mutation. Mutation is either neutral to information or a loss of information. As in the case of the nylon bacteria, loosing the ability to distinguish properly it's normal diet, while still a loss of information, is beneficial. The point here is, that this is exactly the opposite directional change for 'molecules to man' evolution. In order for 'molecules to man' we have to gain information, not loose it.

So how then do we explain the many varieties of animals on the earth today? How could Adam and Eve possibly have contained so many 'alleles' or so much genetic information as to give rise to the diversity we see today?

Well there must be a Biblical answer to that question. The Bible says that God created man and saw that His creation was 'good'. Why would God call something full of mutations, vestigial genes, and 'junk dna' good? Man was in fact created genetically perfect without any flaws. Mutation and natural selection have since 'made a mess' out of our genes.

Think about this - who would Adam's son's marry? They would have to marry their sisters! Wouldn't this cause severe problems? No. But why? The reason that we see severe problems when close relations have children is because close relations have the same genetic defects (mutations). There is no outside source of DNA to override a bad gene. Most severe problems are caused when the gene from the father and the gene from the mother are both defective. Chances are that someone outside your family will not have the same genetic flaws, and the good gene proviced by one of the parents will override the bad or defective gene. The closer to Adam you get, the fewer mutations you have at all. Adam and Eve were created without any mutations or defects. It wasn't until the days of Moses that laws about close relations marrying came to be.

But that still doesn't explain the diversity we see today. For example - we have black people white people and everything in between. How did Adam and Eve have genes for all the skin color we see today?

Well, we all pretty much have the same skin color - a black or white person is that way because of the ammount of melanin in the skin. Was adam & eve black or white? Well - they were probably neither. Their melanin producing cells operated properly without an overproduction or underproduction. They were probably a medium shade. With mutations in either the regulatory genes, or the melanin producing genes themselves eventually there was a loss of the information for the correct operation and expression. There began to be distinc groups born as 'black' or 'white'. We were probably originally designed to have a wide degree of possible change depending on our environment. Losses in this information has most likely lead to the distinct people groups we see today. Really - when you look at it from the Biblical perspective - there is only 1 race - Adam's race. The distinctions of people groups we see today are a result of isolated breeding. That's powerful evidence against racism, if you ask me.

 

[Gup20]

Light from the rest of the universe would appear to be highly shifted in frequency towards the blue end of the spectrum.

I was reading recently another article that said something almost opposite of that - how the redshifts were part of strong evidence supporting Humphrey's cosmology. I will try to find that and post the relevant portions here.

 

[Gup20]

Here are some articles on Red Shift I have found -

Hubble Trouble


Also see this Article on Red Shifts

From that 2nd link:

Cosmology
Arp suggests that the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of conformal gravity can be used to synthesise the observations he has presented. He explains that this is more general than the ‘normally used’ theory in that particle masses can vary in space and time. Applied to quasars ejected by galaxies, the idea is that new matter emerges into our universe in active galactic nuclei, where Arp suggests there may be white holes rather than black holes. This does not appear to be creatio ex nihilo in the biblical sense, but rather the transformation of energy into matter.8 The postulated new matter has zero mass and very high redshift. It is then ejected, and increases in mass and decreases in redshift. Arp suggests that redshift quantization might have a natural explanation in terms of this approach.

No mathematical detail is given, and important aspects of the theory as described by Arp remain unclear. His theoretical ideas are more fully developed in Seeing Red.

Arp summarises the problem of following up research of the kind he has described thus (p. 162):

‘Since the people who make these kinds of observations have now been excluded from regular observations on the [Palomar 200-inch] telescope … how can one measure the magnitudes and redshifts [of new quasars] and obtain complete area surveys which are so useful and necessary? … It is clear there is a vested political interest in suppressing these kinds of observing projects.’

...

What can creationists learn from Arp’s work? Arp writes of cosmic time scales measured in billions of years. Humphreys does too,4,17 but also suggests how, by means of a bounded-universe and white hole cosmology with the earth at the centre, this could be consistent with a young earth. Humphreys’ idea of the universe emerging from a white hole bears similarities to Arp’s deduction that galaxies evolve from quasars, which were initially ejected as highly redshifted material from white holes in galactic nuclei. Redshifting here means that clock rates for the ejected material would initially be very slow, as in the centre of Humphreys’ universe. Redshift quantization will doubtless be an important feature of any successful cosmological model. We suggest that there are many possibilities worth exploring, starting perhaps with the observations which Arp has courageously set before us. All of Arp’s findings could be accommodated into a 6,000-year framework, with the stars made on the fourth 24-hour day of Creation week. One would have to argue for a much faster cascade of the development from quasars to galaxies (using possibly Humphreys’ ideas from GR concerning differential clocks between the location of earth near the massive centre, and locations of quasars/galaxies at a great distance away).

The value of these books lies in their detailed observations, which question the assumption that redshift is necessarily due to Hubble expansion, and lay an excellent alternative basis for considering the origin of heavenly bodies, quasars in particular. He has made accessible to the layman the significance of key observations which, within a creationist framework, have profound implications, and are relevant to the creationist cosmology being developed by Russell Humphreys and others.

 

[Gup20]

As it pertains to animals and variety -

The Bible says that God created animals (and plants) to reproduce 'after it's own kind'. Insted of fish to amphibians, then amphibians to reptiles as evolutonists claim, the Biblical model of Kinds would say that reptiles produce reptiles... fish produce fish... etc etc etc.

But what about all the 'so called' transitional fossils? Well, for one thing, I don't see any transitional fossils. Evolutionists claim that animals gained informaion by mutation. They say that genes duplicated, and one set stayed the same as the other set was free to mutate. If this were true, we would see billions of clear transitions. We would see a blue shark, for example... then we would see a blue shark with back legs... then we would see a blue shark with front legs... then we would see a blue shark with lungs and gills. Then we would see blue sharks on land.... on and on. Why would we see this type of fossil record? Because the evolutionist model relies on the animal keeping it's existing genes while gaining new operational ones. Besides the fact that legs and lungs are multi-part systems that could not possibly have mutationally develped all parts of the multi-part system at the same time, we don't see blue sharks with legs... the blue sharks with lungs. All the so-called transitions that we see go from one creature to a very different creature in giant leaps. There are no gradual point by point transitions until you get to transitions within kinds (such as equine evolution - transforming from one horse type to another - or K9 evolution... speciating wolves, dogs, coyotees, etc between each other). This suggests that they are, in fact, not transitional at all, but that God created a continuum of DISCREET animals for a continuum of environments. That is to say - within a 'kind' we have varieties for every environment.

So what did happen? What creationist predictions can we see that are supported by the fossil record?

This website describes this very well, and in a very understandable mannor.

First, I assume that in the original creation, organisms were created for a variety of different environments. Since there is a continuum of environments, we should also expect to see a continuum of organisms. However, since there were only a finite number of different kinds of organisms at the creation, this continuum should be composed of a finite set of discrete organisms.

So we should expect to find reptiles and amphibians, each adapted for a different environment. Since there are environments in between, we should also expect to find organisms having some characteristics of reptiles and some characteristics of amphibians. Thus we should expect to find sequences of organisms A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H where A is a reptile and H is an amphibian, and the characteristics of the organisms gradually become more amphibian-like and less reptile-like. However, there will not be any links between A and B, or between B and C, et cetera, because these are a finite set of discrete organisms.

In addition, since these organisms were all created at about the same time, and did not evolve from one another, we should not expect to find any clear ancestor-descendent relationship between different organisms in the fossil record. In fact, it should be very difficult to construct reasonable and convincing phylogenies of organisms. Furthermore, we should not expect living creatures to have a clear hierarchical relationship, in most respects, since they were created for a continuum of environments.

Now, since the basic organisms were created recently, we should expect all of the descendents of a created kind to be very similar. They should generally have the same number of chromosomes, and the same genes at the same locations on corresponding chromosomes. They also should often be able to interbreed, which should make tracing their evolutionary relationships fairly complex. In addition, their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA should be fairly similar. However, between different created kinds, we should generally expect to find greater differences in the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA.

In fact, we should be able to quantify how much genetic diversity there is within a species. The genetic diversity measures the probability that a corresponding base pair of DNA will differ between two randomly chosen individuals. If the genetic diversity is 1/100, this means that two randomly chosen individuals will differ in about 1/100 of their DNA. We predict that the amount of genetic diversity should be consistent with the theory of neutral evolution and an origin about 6,000 years ago. We choose the theory of neutral evolution because one would expect created beings to be optimal in some sense, so that very few mutations would be beneficial. Thus the great majority of mutations should be neutral or slightly harmful.

Thus if we know the rate r of mutation per generation, which is the percent change in DNA per generation, and the generation time g in years, then the genetic (nucleotide) diversity should be about 2(6000/g)r, since there will be 6000/g generations since the creation and each one will tend to contribute 2r to the genetic diversity. Or it could be less, for species originating more recently. This means that for organisms with similar rates of mutation, we should expect the genetic diversity to be inversely proportional to the generation time. It is reasonable to assume, for example, that most of the mammals have similar rates of mutation, since many of the mammals are very similar genetically. This implies that the genetic diversity of mammal species should generally be inversely proportional to their generation times. Similar comments apply to the amount of genetic difference between species that have diverged from a created kind since the creation.

The hypervariable parts of the mitochondrial DNA control regions appear to mutate at a rate of about one percent every 200 to 300 generations in humans, and this seems to be a reasonable figure for any organism having about the same number of cell divisions in the female germ line (24) as man. So for this part of the mitochondrial DNA, we can let r be about 1/20,000, and our above formula gives a genetic diversity of 2(6000/g)(1/20,000) or 0.6/g. Thus with a generation time of 20 years for humans we should expect a diversity of 0.6/20 or 0.03 in the hypervariable regions of the mitochondrial DNA. For organisms with a one year generation time, and about 20 cell divisions in the female germ line, we should expect a diversity of about 60 percent. Of course, as one approaches the limit of 75 percent, these estimates of genetic diversity have to be reduced to some extent, because there will be many repeated mutations at the same base pair.

A similar calculation can be done on the nuclear DNA, assuming that most of it is non-functional. However, this calculation should be based on mutation rates that are directly observed as differences in DNA sequences from one generation to the next, and not based on evolutionary assumptions.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Gup20:
Regarding the Nylon Bug -

In order for 'molecules to man' evolution to work, you have to have an information gaining process. That is to say - a cell must increase in specified complexity (information).

Are you stating that the definition of specified complexity is information? I have been under the impression it referred to more, that is, it referred to complexity that could not be achieved one step at a time through naturalistic evolution but would require an advance planning of several steps at once to achieve the observed result.

For example, if you have the word 'superman' and you re-arrange (mutate) it to say 'sldnsesl', you have not increased the information, you have changed the sequence. The resulting string does not represent anything specific - it is a decrease in information.

It is the same amount of information, but it does not carry the same amount of meaning. But that's just a quibble.

Evolutionists claim that the nylon bug is an increase in genetic information and therefore an example of evolution. . . .
However, it does not show that any new information arises. Let me explain.

The ability to digest something its ancestors could not digest should qualify as having learned something new in anybody's book! This had better be good!

The changed genes that allow the bacteria the appearant novel ability to consume nylon is actually not on the bateria's DNA main genomic structure. The change is actually in one of the bacterium's plasmids (the main DNA of the bacteria remains unchanged). Furthermore, the plasmids on which we see this appearantly novel ability is most likely designed to adapt the bacteria to new food sources. The evidence of this is that these plasmids are not activated by the bacterium unless it is under considerable strain or pressure. This suggests that it is the function of these plasmids to adapt the bacterium to new environments.

So some bacteria are prepared to make evolution go faster when they are stressed. And this is part of an argument against evolution?

Also, it is important to note that the way, the plasmid does this with the nylon eating is by a frame shift which removes the information telling the bacteria what not to eat. It is the equivalent to putting a blind fold on, and plugging your nose as someone puts food in front of you to eat. Your indicators telling you if it is real food or not have been disabled, so you consume away.

Check again. It is an increase in the ability to crack the nylon molecule and use it for energy.

This is certainly a decrease in specified complexity, and a loss of information. In this case, the loss of information is beneficial to the bacterium.

The information amount in a frame shift is the same. The information meaning has increased. Suddenly the microbe can handle nylon where before it could not. This is not being made more stupid, this is being made more smart.

Let me go over with you how TOE predicts information can increase in living organisms.

Postulate a population of living organisms with genome G. G contains the information needed to seed the next generation.

Modify G with a few mutations, randomly generated. Nobody can tell in advance what a given mutation will do (except God of course) so its not a specification, it is a random process at this point. We have, then, a degredation of information so far.

BUT - now we let the organisms with the several varieties of G live out their lives and lo, some of the genetic alterations turn out to harm them. Guess what - on the average those harmed individuals reproduce with more difficulty, that is less, and this tends to take away from the popululatino those "bad" genes.

ON THE OTHER HAND, those few that actually help them - maybe making it possible to eat nylon, maybe making it possible to live in an environment laced with penicillin - become more frequent with time.

This amplification of some and suppression of other genes becomes (gasp) information. It becomes the specification as to which genes were helpful and which genes were not. This specification arises naturally and qualifies completely as new information.

What a wonderful world the Creator has made, that can have such wonders within it!

 

[Gup20]

Yet amazingly the main genome of the bacteria still remains unchanged. The bacteria has not become more than it was before. When deactivated the plasmid goes back to it's original state.

The random benefit of the mutation doesn't actually increase the information of the genome after all. It never did. The bacteria were able to adapt to it's environment without changing the essence of what it was. The bacteria is still a bacteria. It continues to be a bacteria, with it's primary genetic structure intact and unchanged.

I feel that perhaps I didn't do a very good job in explaining information. Information is defined as 'specified complexity'. In the example, 'superman' and 'sidledja' do not contain the same specified complexity. While sidledja is complex and it 'specifies' nothing. If you have a book, that book has information. If you duplicate the book, you don't have twice as much information - you have twice the quantity of the same information.

The information you are referring to is the Shannon model of information. This Link goes into the difference of information theory between the Shannon model, and the creationist model that I was referring to. Here is a snippet:

Information: a statistical study
With his (1948) paper entitled ‘A Mathematical Theory of Communication’, Claude E. Shannon was the first to devise a mathematical definition of the concept of information. His measure of information which is given in bits (binary digits), possessed the advantage of allowing quantitative statements to be made about relationships that had previously defied precise mathematical description. This method has an evident drawback, however: information according to Shannon does not relate to the qualitative nature of the data, but confines itself to one particular aspect that is of special significance for its technological transmission and storage. Shannon completely ignores whether a text is meaningful, comprehensible, correct, incorrect or meaningless. Equally excluded are the important questions as to where the information comes from (transmitter) and for whom it is intended (receiver). As far as Shannon’s concept of information is concerned, it is entirely irrelevant whether a series of letters represents an exceptionally significant and meaningful text or whether it has come about by throwing dice. Yes, paradoxical though it may sound, considered from the point of view of information theory, a random sequence of letters possesses the maximum information content, whereas a text of equal length, although linguistically meaningful, is assigned a lower value.

The definition of information according to Shannon is limited to just one aspect of information, namely its property of expressing something new: information content is defined in terms of newness. This does not mean a new idea, a new thought or a new item of information—that would involve a semantic aspect—but relates merely to the greater surprise effect that is caused by a less common symbol. Information thus becomes a measure of the improbability of an event. A very improbable symbol is therefore assigned correspondingly high information content.

This concept of information is incomplete. That Link goes on to speak more about the 'complete picture of information'. Shannon's theories scratch the surface, but are incomplete. His theory talks about information as a purely statistical processes.

Dr. Werner Gitt concludes his remarks with the follwoing:

"The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ.

We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."

 

[UTEOTW]

Gup20

First let me say Hello and Welcome. You seem to have thrown yourself immediately into one of the contentious areas of the BB. There are some other topics around here that also stir the passions, but I usually stay out of those. I don't know if you have been lurking for a while or not. We may argue a good bit, but we all remain brothers. Enjoy. BTW, it is customary for new members to go introduce themselves up in the Welcome forum. I don't know if you have and you don't have to, but it is a way to get to know a few people and to let others know about you.

I am going to skip the Dr. Humphreys stuff for the moment. I have some objections, but they require a bit of thought given the complexity of relativity.

"They say that the bacterium generates novel (new) genes in oder to metabolize the nylon. This must be a new gene because nylon was only invented several decades ago...Also, it is important to note that the way, the plasmid does this with the nylon eating is by a frame shift which removes the information telling the bacteria what not to eat. It is the equivalent to putting a blind fold on, and plugging your nose as someone puts food in front of you to eat. Your indicators telling you if it is real food or not have been disabled, so you consume away."

Now something does not add up here. First you say, correctly, that the bacterium acquired the ability to metabolize nylon. Then you say, incorrectly, that it was only a change in which it quit not ingesting nylon. Now these two statements contradict one another.

"The change is actually in one of the bacterium's plasmids (the main DNA of the bacteria remains unchanged). Furthermore, the plasmids on which we see this appearantly novel ability is most likely designed to adapt the bacteria to new food sources."

First, it does not matter if it was nuclear DNA or not. Its genome was changed. Second, here you admit the ability of the bacterium to adapt. That sounds like evolution to me.

"Also, it is important to note that the way, the plasmid does this with the nylon eating is by a frame shift which removes the information telling the bacteria what not to eat."

So every mutation, by your definition, is a loss of information. You have tried to define evolution away. Fortunately, this does not work. So let's look at what happened. A frame shift mutation. Simply put, a section of the DNA was copied to a different place. A new gene was created, a new trait was acquired. Now, this new gene contains "information" that was not there before. The "information" codes for a new and useful protein. So it meets your definition of "specified complexity." YOu can try and define this away as something else, but the fact of the matter is that a mutation has lead to a new gene and a new trait. You can call it whatever you wish, but the bacterium has evolved. If you try and create definitons that make this something else, you undermine your own cause because you are showing that real evolution does not follow the strawman you have created for it.

"No where in nature we we ever see information gaining mutation."

Then what do you make of these?

Franceschini G, et al. (1980) "A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family." J Clin Invest. 66, 892-900 The abstract can be read at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430351&dopt=Abstract

Francis, J. E., and P. E. Hansche, 1972. Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics 70: 59-73.

Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel, 1980. Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.

Boraas, M. E., 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 64: 1102.

Lin, E. C. C., and T. T. Wu, 1984. Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in Escherichia coli. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 135-164) Plenum, New York.

Hartley, B. S., 1984. Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 23-54) Plenum, New York.

[snip discussion of genetic diversity]

You failed to answer the key part. Where did all these functional genes come from? Because of the bottleneck in your scenario, there would only be a small number of variations. You insist that no new "information" can come about. Yet you also seem to take the position that "kinds" are defined somewhere around the family level in taxonomy. There would not be ANY of the diversity necessary for all the various traits in all the various species to come about without not only evolution, but lots of evolution and at a pace that would make even someone like Gould spin his head around a few times. The animals could have been as perfect genetically as you wish, but you still are only starting with four alleles of a given gene in the pair.

But it gets much worse. You said "Why would God call something full of mutations, vestigial genes, and 'junk dna' good?" Let's look at some of this "junk DNA." I think (This is from memory, I may be off a bit.) that about 5% of the human DNA is jung in the form of what are called endogenous retroviral long term repeats. This is where a virus has inserted a section of its DNA into the genome. Now you have said man would not have been created with this junk. That means that all of these LTRs have been inserted in a very short period of time. Now, if this were the case, you would expect there to be wide differences between human beings in which LTRs they had. In fact, what we see is very little difference if any difference between humans, quite contrary to the predictions of a young earth. It gets even worse. Humans share several LTRs with the other apes. This fits common descent perfectly. You would be forced to hypothesize that not only were a human and an example of all the ape "kinds" infected with the same virus and also that the virus inserted the exact same sequence of DNA into all of these animals and also that the insertion was at the exact same place in the genome of all these animals and also that these insertions was passed through breeding to ALL members of each "kind" and humans and also that this was repeated for each sequence.

You have further tried to explain away the differences we see in humans. You ignore that these differences are specific adaptations to certain conditions. It is not just the amount of pigment in the skin. It is not that in the past the pigmentation genes "operated properly without an overproduction or underproduction." The different levels of pigmentation are adaptations to specific conditions not examples off problems. Did the original gene somehow code for the perfect amount of skin pigmentation and loss of information somehow allows for both more and less pigmentation? What about adaptations to temperature? People in hot regions have tall, lean bodies that provide more surface area to shed heat. People in colder climates have shorter, stockier bodies that provide less surface area and more insulation to retain heat. They have noses adapted to warm the incoming air. These are all adaptations, examples of evolution. If you define it away, you are just calling evolution something else. You have no evidence to support your assertion that all this can be done by loss of "information" from some perfect state. A rose by any other name...

 

[UTEOTW]

"Well, for one thing, I don't see any transitional fossils."

Just because you are not well versed in paleontology does not mean that transitional fossils do not exist. BUt we'll get back to that.

"Evolutionists claim that animals gained informaion by mutation. They say that genes duplicated, and one set stayed the same as the other set was free to mutate."

Well, I gave you a list of several examples of new traits through mutation above. The second statement is one of the ways to get new genes. It is possible to simply mutate the existing genes. That many genes for widely varying fuctions have very similar structure is cause to suppose that many new traits do come from what you said, though. One copy maintains the function while the other is free to mutate and possibly come up with an improved or new function.

Did you know that the genome seems evolved to, well, evolve? As it turns out, the different combinations or three "letters" that code for the various amino acids have a curious property. Mistakes in one of the three letters is very like to substitute a similar amino acid, or even the same one in cases, to the one specified by the original code. This means the single point mutations, instead of disabling a gene, will instead lead to a similar but slightly different function. In this way, small changes give the organism new traits which can be acted upon by natural selection to choose the best adaptations to the environment.

"If this were true, we would see billions of clear transitions. We would see a blue shark, for example... then we would see a blue shark with back legs..." [snip the rest]

You give a nice strawman here but one that is not what we actually see in the fossil record. Since you have fish growing legs, let's talk about what we do see in getting fish onto land. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are two of the key transitionals. We start with lobe finned fish. Then we see lobe finned fish that have varying degrees of transformation in their lobes. The bones begin to look like little legs. Even by the time you get to Acanthostega you have a creature that is undeniably a fish. It still has the tail and several other fish traits. But is also has legs. Complete with the three long bones, a weak pelvis, and eight little fingers / toes on each leg. Now, the physiology of this creature tells us it would not have been able to support itself on land, so any trips out of the water would have been short indeed. But even short trips where your predators cannot go is a distinct advantage. The environemt of these creatures show that they lived in shallow, murky water. So the legs conferred an advantage to scurrying around on the bottom where the water helped support the creature. Ichthyostega is more amphibian like. Anyhow, as you go through the transition to amphibians, you see a gradual change. Legs grow. Creatures that can support themselves on land but which still maintain fish like traits such as a lateral line. Different combinations of gills and lungs. The problem with your strawman is that it supposes that changes happen in discrete steps in a particular direction and in isolation. None of this is what we actually see. Each of these creatures had to be adapted to the actual environment in which it lived. Else it would have been selected against. Some fish was not born one day with legs and decided that they might be useful on the surface. The systems change together. And in a way that makes the individual better adapted to where it lives. Look again at the fishes to amphibians. Acanthostega lived in shallow murky water. Where legs an advantage to getting around in such a locale? Do you see fish today who live in murky water who have the ability to breathe a little air if needed? Do you not think this would have been likely with Acanthostega too? Once you have legs and the ability to breathe some air, do you think there is an advantage to being able to go on the land where you have no predators? Do you think that a "fish" that could get around slightly better on land or that could breath air slightly more efficiently would have an advantage that would get selected for?

"All the so-called transitions that we see go from one creature to a very different creature in giant leaps. There are no gradual point by point transitions until you get to transitions within kinds"

Not true as I have shown you in a general way. Feel free to Google if you want more information. Or ask. But you see this over and over. The reptile to mammal transition is very long and shows a wide variety of features changing together. Birds are a great example. You start off with the theropod dinosaurs. Some evolve into small, fast hunters like velociraptor. There are changes going on. The bones show that some of these creatures were likely warm blooded. This fits in with the active lifestyle implied by the bones. If you think about some of the large theropods, like T. rex, you will be able to picture in your mind their short, stubby arms. Well, as some grew smaller, their arms lengthened and began to be used to seize prey according to the function from their bones. The amazing thing is this. The motion that you get from the bones that would be used to seize prey is exactly the same motion that birds use in the upstroke of flying. As the creatures bodies adapted to be able to better seize prey they were developing the same traits that would be useful later in flight. Another example of evolution later making use of something that was developed for a different purpose. Not an obvious direction. Another curious coincidence, as the bones begin to show warm blooded characteristics, you begin to see some theropods covered in warm, downy feathers. Feathers were not devolped with flight as a goal, there were developed to conserve heat in concert with other traits needed for warm bloodedness. Again, in contrast to your strawman. You begin to get to creatures such as Caudipteryx and Sinosauropteryx, creatures who are obviously still dinosaurs but who are now covered with long feathers, including tail feathers. Now, these feathers are symetrical and would not be useful for flight at all. But, they would look very much like a bird if you saw one. Then you get to Microraptor. This is a small dinosaur who has a new trick. He has assymetrical feathers on both his front arms and rear legs. Now, his skelton tells us he was not capable of powered flight, but there is only one reason to have flight feathers. He was capable of gliding flight. Then look at Archaeopteryx. Here is a creature capable of powered flight. With feet for grasping on limbs to land. But also a creature who has dozens on individual traits that are outside the range of any bird but that are within the common range of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. This is why it is considered such a fine example of a transitional.

I also happen to like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon.

"First, I assume that in the original creation, organisms were created for a variety of different environments. Since there is a continuum of environments, we should also expect to see a continuum of organisms. However, since there were only a finite number of different kinds of organisms at the creation, this continuum should be composed of a finite set of discrete organisms. So we should expect to find reptiles and amphibians, each adapted for a different environment. Since there are environments in between, we should also expect to find organisms having some characteristics of reptiles and some characteristics of amphibians. Thus we should expect to find sequences of organisms A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H where A is a reptile and H is an amphibian, and the characteristics of the organisms gradually become more amphibian-like and less reptile-like. However, there will not be any links between A and B, or between B and C, et cetera, because these are a finite set of discrete organisms."

Your source starts off with an assuption which he has not supported. Indeed, he makes the prediction that creatures between reptiles and amphibians will be found not on any factual basis. Instead, it is a tacit admission that such fossils exist showing transitions which he must deny.

Now, there is a way to demonstrate his error. According to him, ALL "kinds" were alive at one time. A logical prediction of this is that all "kinds" should be found together, at least in the lowest levels of the fossil record before extinction had a chance to work. But this is not what we see at all. Each layer of the fossil record contains only a narrow slice of life. You will never find a whale in Cambrian deposits nor an ape with dinosaur remains. This is an important prediction that recently created "kinds" fails completely.

There is another mistake. You said "There are no gradual point by point transitions until you get to transitions within kinds."

In reality, We find the opposite. Gould said in one of his books something to the effect that we have very few transitional series at the species level but abundant transitional series and higher levels. This is the whole basis for puncuated equilibrium and is direct evidence opposite from what you claim.

YOur source also said "Furthermore, we should not expect living creatures to have a clear hierarchical relationship." But he apparently has not heard of the twin nested heirarchy. That we can construct very similar trees using physiology to the ones we construct using genetic evidence contradicts what he claims and is powerful evidence for common descent.

[snip information of demonstrating kinds]

Well, since he and I agree that it should be possible to draw those clear cut lines between "kinds," why has nobody yet been able to quantitatively show us what the kinds are and to show the big genetic differences between the kinds? Maybe because it cannot be done?

 

[Gup20]

Speaking to the thread TOPIC - does evolutionary doctrine protect the Bible.

I would conclude that, no, evolutionary doctrine does not protect the Bible. Moreover it weakens the Bible and promotes a humanistic worldview.

Genesis is the foundation of the Bible. Without it, the 'story' or focus of the Bible does not make sense. Genesis is like the foundation upon which the rest of the Bible is built. Take away genesis and Christianity becomes a fluffy religous practice with no basis in the 'real world', and no authority either. If Geneis is not literal, and we evolved to this point by naturalistic processes, that means that the story of creation is not literal. If Genesis is some sort of poetic verse representing some mythical fabel, then how can we trust that Man has fallen? This would also have to be figurative rather than literal. If that is the case that would seem to indicate that there is no literal heaven or hell. This can lead one to believe that there is no real need for a savior. The Reason Jesus came to die for us is because of what Adam gave up at the fall.

Look at Romans Chapter 5.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come

Why are we here? Why were we created? We were created to glorify God and be Stewards over his creation. We were created to rule and reign with Christ and have dominion over the earth.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Our purpose here seems clear. One could even say this is the very commissioning of Science. We are to subdue the earth and rule it as Stewards for God.

However, Adam gave up the right for dominion of this world to Satan when he partook of the apple and disobeyed God (disobeying God is the only true 'sin'). Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

We all inherit the sin of Adam as we are all offspring and genetic heirs of Adam. All except for Jesus - he was born of a virgin. He was literally the only one who could attone and 'win back' for us our place in creation.

Jhn 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

Satan is the prince of this world because Adam gave him the right to be so. This is why we need a 'Savior' in Jesus Christ to redeem us from the curse of the law (disobedience to God) which is death.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If you undermine the authority of Genesis, you undermine the need for a savior. Genesis sets up the 'legal' reasoning to the universe for death and salvation. If this is not true, then there is no need for Christ to die on the cross for us... no need for redemption. This is a HUMANISTIC view - that we are not responsible to (legally bound by the laws of the universe and God) to God. Humanism says that we evolved and are not the result of God's direct influence, therefore we do not have to be accountable to Him or His Word.

How do I know it's humanism? How do I know that humanism is the enemy of christianity - moreover the enemy of mankind?

Because it is the first weapon fashioned by Satan to decieve and corrupt man. It was the very mechanism that the Devil used to take Man's rightful place in creation away from him.

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Satan comes and the first thing he does is question God's command - "hath God said?" He plants a seed of doubt in our minds - 'is this really God's word?' 'Is Genesis really literal?'

The next thing Satan does is directly contradict God and his commandments with a lie - "ye shall surely not die". Once we allow ourselves to quetion the word of God, contradiction to God's Word is not far behind.

Finally, Satan lures man with power "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Here is a question - was this statement a lie? No! This was not a direct lie. Satan ommitted the fact that Man would usher death and corruption into creation, and that he would give away his dominion, but man did in fact begin to know the difference between right and wrong. What is Humanism but an extension of that promise? For us to 'be as gods' and 'know right from wrong'. For us to 'determine our own destiny' abcent the Word of God. We are accountabel to ourselves instead of being accountable to God. It was Humanism that decieved man in the Garden of Eden. It is humanism that is the root of Evolution.

How many christians believe in some form of evolution? You have the full blown ToE... you have Theistic Evolution and you have Progressive Creationism. Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creation are basically the same... the thought is that God made the Big Bang happen and everything happened naturalisticly since then.

Now answer this - How many who proclaim to be humanists believe in Evolution? 100%! As a matter of fact, Darwin was a humanist. One of the biggest holidays and celebrations on the Humanist calendar is the Darwin Day celebration. Darwin wanted to attempt to explain the world in a natrualistic way.

So then - to the question - does the evolutionary doctrine hurt the church? Take a look at ANY other humanistic view that has infected the church. Look at homosexuality, for example. The Bible clearly indicates homosexuality is wrong. Genesis gives us a very clear model of 'marriage' being between Adam and Eve. God ordains and creates the institution of Marriage - yet we see some denominations ordaining homosexual priests and ministers with the blessing of 'the church'. How does this happen? It starts with a question - it leads to a lie and a contradiction of scripture - and ultimately Humanism reigns supreme as man decides for himself what is right or wrong.

The same is true with Genesis, and creation. If God's Word is not strictly adhered to, it leads to the crumbling of the foundation of truth. It opens the door to humanistic influence (instead of Godly influence). It undermines the whole of scripture. Humanism is, and has always been, the greatest threat to humanity.

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

When we do what 'seems right in our own eyes' the end result is always death.

So - if man's ways are death, what do we have then? We have the Word of God. If we always adhere to a literal interpretation of the Word of God, we argue not from the opinion of fallible man, but from the authority of scripture. If the scripture is indeed authoritative and true (as a christian would by faith believe is the case) then arguing what the Word says is to argue truth. Evolutionary thought has flip-flopped on so many issues over the last 150 years. Theories come and go - revisions are constant. God never changes. He and his Word are one. Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. God's word never changes. If we argue literal creation as is written in the Word, then we argue TRUTH. If we argue truth, then we cannot be embarrased as the truth will always reign in the end.

It must always fit with the Word of God. It must always line up with 'truth'. If it doesn't then we must dismiss it, no matter how compelling it may seem.

Consider this - by definition Evolution is exclusionary to the supernatural. By definition the process of evolution is naturalistic. How then, can evolution be considered a fair judge between supernatural creation and naturalistic evolution? If by definition it is exclusionary to the supernatural, then the only logical conclusion to the evolutionary paradigm will also be exclusionary to the supernatural. As such, the validity of special creation (because it is a supernatural event) cannot be decided on the basis of evolutionary thought, as the evolutionary paradigm is not objective to a supernatural conclusion. By definition the possibility is excluded.

 

[UTEOTW]

Another thing, I think you need to do some work to even establish the link between informational theory and genetics. I do not see how the two are connected. We keep going over examples of ne traits and genes that you say adds nothing in the sense of informational theory. It is to a "So what" stage now. If you can get new adaptations, new traits, and all without conforming to whatever application of information theory you are trying to make, why is it relevent?

 

[UTEOTW]

BTW, you can read up closer to the top of the thread to see my statements related to the subject line of the thread.

 

[UTEOTW]

I am just going to repost the same reply I made to a similar reference to Humphreys' claims about a month back. The jist is that he shows that he does not understand relativity, not unusual since I do not believe he has any formal training in the matter, and that no experts in relativity support his claims.

I think it is also very telling that he is going to great lengths to fit the obviously ancient universe into his young earth philosophy. With enough knowledge of astronomy, the ancient age of the universe can no longer be denied. Occam's razor would tell us that we should just accept this rather than twist the pretzel until it breals trying to fit it into something else. Of course the more you learn about geology the more likely you are to understand the great age of the earth and the more you learn about biology the more likely you are to see the truth about evolution.

----------------------------------------------

Regarding Humphreys' claims, I am just going to quote few things rather than put it in my own words. I ahte to, but it is the easiest way here.

from

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

A Christian sourse, BTW.

The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians.
...
To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory12. Despite the lack of expert corroboration of his work, Humphreys continues to insist on the validity of his demonstrably false theory. Unfortunately, most of the major young-earth organizations13 are continuing to follow Humphreys and are ignoring the demonstrations of the falsity of his theory which have arisen from both inside and outside the young-earth movement.
...
In his latest attempt to defend Starlight and Time11, Humphreys actually quietly abandons it. The three central arguments of the original Starlight and Time proposal were:

The alleged physical significance of the Schwarzschild time coordinate of the Klein metric. This is so important in the original Starlight and Time argument that Humphreys called it "the essence" of his new cosmological model19.
The gravitational time dilation effects of differences of gravitational potential in a bounded universe which, it was alleged, do not occur in an unbounded universe. Again, this is essential to the original argument.
The alleged profound effects of event horizons in a bounded universe. In Starlight and Time, Humphreys attributed most of the effects of 1 and 2 above to the action of an event horizon, which he claimed would cause Earth clocks to be static while billions of years of time elapsed on clocks in the distant universe.
It has been shown in a number of articles10 17 that all three of these claims are manifestly false. In particular,
1) the Schwarzschild time coordinate has no physical significance at all for the behavior of physical clocks in a bounded universe, 2) the pattern of gravitational field and potential differences is manifestly identical for bounded and unbounded universes (this is sufficiently important and sufficiently simple that we will revisit it below) and physical clock behaviors are manifestly identical for both cases, and 3) the event horizon of a bounded universe has absolutely no effect on the passage of time on physical clocks in such a universe.

In his most recent defense of this theory, "New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics11", Humphreys gives up so much ground on each of these three central arguments that one can fairly say that he has abandoned the original formulation of his hypothesis.
...
Four years after the original publication of Starlight and Time, Humphreys has abandoned all the central arguments of that hypothesis. All that remains is a skeleton, consisting of the idea of a bounded universe and a phrase, "gravitational time dilation." The disproof of the original central arguments of Starlight and Time is not difficult. Dr. Humphreys' recent abandonment of the central physical arguments of his original proposal shows that these physical arguments were not well-thought out and were not adequately reviewed by experts in relativity theory and cosmology prior to their dissemination in the church.
...
One of the errors of the original Starlight and Time proposal which remains in Humphreys' reconstruction of his argument, is the claim that gravity is radically different in a bounded and an unbounded universe. The falsity of this claim is obvious to people familiar with relativity theory and cosmology and is easily explainable to non-specialists.
...
the only significant physical claim which Humphreys preserves from the original version of Starlight and Time is the assertion that there are no gravitational fields in an unbounded universe. This assertion has been repeatedly disproven7,10,17, but Humphreys persists in affirming it. It is easy to see that there must be gravitational fields in an unbounded universe. We present a brief demonstration here, and an elaborate demonstration in supplementary materials which are in preparation.

If Humphreys' claim that there are no gravitational fields in an unbounded universe were valid, then it would be impossible for the expansion of such universes to decelerate: no unbounded universe model could decelerate as it expanded25. This is inescapable, for gravity is the only force which acts in such models; in the absence of any gravitational field, there can be no relative acceleration of different parts of the universe. Thus, Humphreys' reasoning requires that, while bounded universes can decelerate, so that their expansion slows with time, unbounded universes cannot. If Humphreys' reasoning were correct, general relativity would predict that unbounded universes do not decelerate. However, general relativity in fact, predicts that unbounded universes do decelerate, and in exactly the same way as bounded universes with the same interior properties. Since gravity is the only operative force in these models, the identical deceleration of bounded and unbounded universes means that the gravitational field of such universes must be identical.
...
A pattern which has become evident over the past few years is that each attempt by Humphreys to defend Starlight and Time from competent analysis leads to the unveiling of new, and usually more serious, misunderstandings of relativity physics as well as the repeating of old ones.
...
For example, Humphreys:

ignores the massive body of evidence from time-keeping phenomena throughout the universe (such as the periods of Cepheid variable stars, the eruption time spans of novae and supernovae, star formation time spans, stellar burning rates, galaxy rotation periods, etc.) and in the Solar System (such as the dynamical aging of the asteroid belt) that clocks everywhere in the universe run at the same rate and that long periods of time, far in excess of the brief span permitted by young-earth interpretation of the Bible, have elapsed not only in the distant universe but also in nearby regions of our Galaxy and even in the Solar System. Humphreys also ignores astronomers’ measurements of the expansion rate of the cosmos and the temperature of the cosmic background radiation at different look-back times in the history of the cosmos. That these two sets of undisputed observations made his cosmic models impossible was pointed out to Humphreys in three letters from one of us (HR) sent in 1992 and 1993, see appendices. These evidences, which will be expanded on in a subsequent article, shows that the whole objective of Starlight and Time/New Vistas, which is to make the distant universe "old" while claiming that the nearby universe is "young", is contradicted by the observed properties of the universe.
continues to overlook the evidence from the dynamics of the standard unbounded cosmological models (briefly discussed above) that these models have identical gravitational properties to his bounded models.
makes absurd claims that unbounded models cannot possess spherical symmetry. Such models in fact are spherically symmetric about each and every point, contrary to Humphreys' claim that they are spherically symmetric about no point. The physical and mathematical concept of spherical symmetry is an elementary concept, and Humphreys' claims that standard Big Bang models do not possess spherical symmetry are incomprehensible.29
claims that the Robertson-Walker metric cannot be applied to a bounded locally homogeneous and isotropic universe, reversing his own previous use of this metric30 and contradicting numerous textbooks and published research articles which deal with the question. The literature which Humphreys cites to justify his reversal does not support his claim.
seriously misinterprets the published literature on metric signature change.
ignores the extensive supplementary critique of Starlight and Time (ref. 17, which was furnished to him in 1997 as part of the CEN Tech. J. review process). This supplementary material demonstrates the mistaken character not only of the original Starlight and Time proposal, but also of the New Vistas proposal.
continues to avoid the central mathematical issue of how the time elapsed on physical clocks is computed in general relativity. This is the central, elementary mathematical issue which has been, and continues to be, at the heart of the errors of Starlight and Time/New Vistas. Humphreys has never followed the mathematical "rules" of general relativity which prescribe how the metric is used to compute the passage of time in the universe. This calculation is straightforward and is performed in the Supplement17, clearly demonstrating the falsity of both Starlight and Time and New Vistas, but Humphreys has ignored and continues to ignore this demonstration of the falsity of his proposals.
ignores the demonstration in Starlight and Time is the Big Bang that the Klein representation of the metric of locally homogeneous and isotropic spacetime can be applied to unbounded models. This demonstrates the falsity of Humphreys' claims that the Robertson-Walker is appropriate only to unbounded models, while the Klein metric is appropriate for bounded models. In fact, both representations of the metric can be applied to both classes of model. The distinction between the Klein and Robertson-Walker metrics is central to New Vistas, but Humphreys misses the fact that these two forms of the metric are simply different coordinate representations of the same underlying spacetime geometry, the geometry of locally homogeneous and isotropic spacetime.
continues to misinterpret the mathematical and physical meaning of the Schwarzschild time coordinate tSchwarzschild. In particular, Humphreys erroneously imagines that dtSchwarzschild along Earth's spacetime trajectory is an arbitrary real quantity, and that the Earth proper time dt Earth is imaginary in the "Euclidean region" of the Klein metric. This notion is mistaken. The Schwarzschild time interval along Earth's spacetime trajectory dtSchwarzschild, Earth is manifestly a derived quantity given by the transformation relation between comoving and Schwarzschild coordinates. There is no evidence that Humphreys has ever made the mathematical effort to calculate what dtSchwarzschild actually is for the Earth (such a calculation makes manifest the falsity of his most recent claims), and his New Vistas reply further obscures the issue by not even presenting the equation from which dtSchwarzschild could be derived. As is obvious from the discussion in the Supplement17 and as is pointed out in a letter to the Editor of CENTJ31 dtSchwarzschild, Earth is purely imaginary in the "Euclidean region", which has the consequence that dtEarth is real. This analysis applies to every other comoving trajectory which intersects the "Euclidean region", so that there is no "timeless region" at all in the Klein metric (just as there is no such region in the Robertson-Walker metric, from which the Klein metric is derived). This observation overthrows the entire "New Vistas" argument, and shows that this latest version in the theory is at root, like the earlier version, founded on misunderstandings about the meaning of the Klein coordinate system and about the general relativity mathematical rules for how to compute the passage of physical time on physical clocks.

That is enough. Too much. Read the full story at the above link.

 

[Gup20]

Gup20

First let me say Hello and Welcome. You seem to have thrown yourself immediately into one of the contentious areas of the BB. There are some other topics around here that also stir the passions, but I usually stay out of those. I don't know if you have been lurking for a while or not. We may argue a good bit, but we all remain brothers. Enjoy. BTW, it is customary for new members to go introduce themselves up in the Welcome forum...

Thank you for the welcome, and no, I have not been lurking. I was invited to come here by our mutual friend, Bob, who saw me posting on a secular Creation VS Evolution forum. To tell you the truth, I would MUCH rather argue creation VS evolution with believers as the basis if YEC (young earth creationism) is the Bible - which is most usually scoffed at by secularists.

First, it does not matter if it was nuclear DNA or not. Its genome was changed. Second, here you admit the ability of the bacterium to adapt. That sounds like evolution to me.

I will address the 2nd first - to me, Adaptation does not mean evolution took place. It is, however, strong evidence that the bacterium has some seriously wonderful design. It was designed for a wide range of environments as well as with the ability to adapt to new situations.

Would you agree that God designed the bacteria? Do you think that God created Bacteria discreetly as he did Adam?

Again - newness is not the measure of information - that only applies to statistical information. Biological information is far more complex.

Secondly, (to address your 1st point) I would argue that nuclear DNA is what is most important. In the evolutionary transition from amphibian to reptile, changes in nuclear DNA are required - therefore I would say that for any creature to increase in information from a lower to a higher life form, changes in nuclear DNA would be necessary.

This would seem to be strong evidence that creatures are free to vary within 'kind', but not outside of it.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Here we see God creating creatures and commanding them to reproduce after their own kind. If God says he creates every living creature in the sea after it's own kind, and then says he creates everything that creapeth on the earth after it's own kind - clearly these are two separate kinds that do not flow or overlap into each other. How can we presume that a sea creature would reproduce after it's kind to give birth to a land animal?

what do you make of these

While I don't have time to go through each of those examples... it will have to suffice for now that the answers are generally the same. I will deal with the first one - the apoprotein.

Again, this makes the assumption that beneficial mutations go against the creationist model or idea of information. This is not the case. Beneficial mutations do happen, however it is a loss of specified complexity. In this case an ammino acid is replaced with a cysteine residue for a protein that removes cholesterol from arteries. The mutated gene doesn't do it's intended function very well anymore, but one effect of the mutation is that it now acts as an antioxident (because of the cysteine) which is good for keeping the arteries from hardening. Up to 70% of the original cholesterol fighting capability of the gene is hindered, but the reaming 30% still try to perform their function. One part that is left is the targeting information - so the gene is able to perform it's function as an antioxidant rather that it's intended functionality. In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred. You can read the AiG description (which I have borrowed from) here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0221.asp

It sums up nicely: Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information. This is exactly as we would expect with a random change.

So again we can see that this is the wrong directional change needed by evolution. It is a loss in information (specified complexity). Perhaps a new ability is gained, but at a cost. This goes to demonstrate the concept that I was trying to convey earlier. Adam had all the human genes in perfect condition (unmutated) and mutation has lessened the information level in the human genome since then. Therefore inbreeding would not have been, nor caused, a problem for the first few thousand years.

You failed to answer the key part. Where did all these functional genes come from? Because of the bottleneck in your scenario, there would only be a small number of variations.

Well, in the example of skin 'color' and melanin... All that would be required is a loss in the genes for adaptation to solar environments. If some information is lost, for example, in the genes that make the skin color dynamic, what would result? Well - you would still have the genes for skin color and creating melanin - they would still function. Without a control signal to say 'how much' they would have to plug in 'something'. It's like a manual override in electronics. If a spectrum device with a range goes out of order, the device defaults to a binary solution at the two extremes. For example - if you have one of those lights that you can gradually increase or decrease the brightness of - and it malfunctions, the result is often a 'full on' or 'full off' bipole. So then, the offspring, in the absence of the genes for dynamic operation, would be polarized. From there, we can work with Mendel and Punnet's prediction formulas for which traits will be inherited and expressed.

This is hypothetical of course, as no one to my knowledge has run DNA mapping/testing on Adam. However, theoretically it should be possible.

The animals could have been as perfect genetically as you wish, but you still are only starting with four alleles of a given gene in the pair.

Ah, but again, this uses the unifomitarian concept that we can interpret the past by what we observe in the present (the thought that things are now as they have always been). It may very well be that, as I have indicated, there were many functions which were not polar, but dynamic and mutation and 'micro-evolution' (sometimes called speciation by creationists) is acceptable within the creationist paradigm.

Let's look at some of this "junk DNA." I think (This is from memory, I may be off a bit.) that about 5% of the human DNA is jung in the form of what are called endogenous retroviral long term repeats.

A few decades ago researchers noted that the human genome served as a template for the synthesis of proteins. Researchers soon determined that only a small fraction of it (less than 3%) appeared to perform this role, leading them to suspect that the other 97% (non-coding DNA) was a useless evolutionary leftover. Hence, Junk DNA was coined.

However, over the years more and more stretches of non-coding DNA have been found to be functional.

I get the following from TJ18(1) 2004:

A variety of previously unsuspected types of RNA have been discovered in recent years. most of these appear to have some regulatory functions and a large fraction of them are embedded in intron sequences:
'Although many introns degrade, some contain active elements such as microRNAs that can exploit the "RNA interference" effect to control other genes.'
In other words the ncRNA (noncoding RNA) may inactivate the mRNA transcribed by a gene, thereby regulating the expression of the gene. One means by which this can be achieved is through the formation of dsRNA (double stranded RNA) complexes between mRNA and it's complementary antisense RNA> This process effectively binds the mRNA molecule, preventing it from being translated.
It turns out that ncRNA can be transcribed from an unexpected part of the DNA molecule. The DNA molecule normally occurs as a union of two strands, the sense stand and the antisense strand. Normally, only one of the two strands (called the sense strand) of the DNA molecule is transcribed into RNA, and the other strand (called the antisense strand) is not used for this purpose. However, recent discoveries have demonstrated that antisense transcription, long thought to be very rare, is actually quite common in the human genome. The sequences of ncRNAs tend to be sort. This at least partly explains why they, and the noncoding DNA sequences responsible for their transcription have eluded detection for so long. Moreover, they are probably common in the genome. For every protein encoding gene in the human genome, there may be at least one usually-short DNA sequence that codes for ncRNA.

Some evolutionists never tire of telling us that the DNA sequence of humans is very similar to that of chimps. To begin with, this degree of similarity has been exaggerated. Moreover the similarities in chimp-human DNA may be of very limited relevance. It turns out that the subtle effects of ncRNA influence on genes, rather than differences between the genes themselves, may actually be the primary cause of the biological differences between humans and chimps. It is thus ironic that the real key to human distinctiveness from other forms of life, from a genomic viewpoint, may thus actually lie in noncoding RNA rather than in protein-encoding DNA.

The same applies to psudogenes - of which we have found many to have function. It would seem that this 'junk' is not junk after all.

You ignore that these differences are specific adaptations to certain conditions.

On the contrary, the YEC view is dependent on good ol' natural selection to arrive at the diversity and variety we have today. Obviously changes occur - we disagree over the direction of the change, but we agree that changes occur. There are many aspects of Evolution that YEC agree with, however, the main beef is that #1 life arose by naturalistic ways and #2 that that information is gained by mutation. We blieve the Bible is true... that God created the animals discreetly and they diversified and speciated through isolation of specific traits.

For example - in people - the greatest divesification/isolation/natual selecive event in our history is the Tower of Babel were genes and people groups were isolated by language.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Gup20:
Regarding the Nylon Bug -

However, it does not show that any new information arises. Let me explain. The changed genes that allow the bacteria the appearant novel ability to consume nylon is actually not on the bateria's DNA main genomic structure. The change is actually in one of the bacterium's plasmids (the main DNA of the bacteria remains unchanged). Furthermore, the plasmids on which we see this appearantly novel ability is most likely designed to adapt the bacteria to new food sources. The evidence of this is that these plasmids are not activated by the bacterium unless it is under considerable strain or pressure. This suggests that it is the function of these plasmids to adapt the bacterium to new environments. Also, it is important to note that the way, the plasmid does this with the nylon eating is by a frame shift which removes the information telling the bacteria what not to eat. It is the equivalent to putting a blind fold on, and plugging your nose as someone puts food in front of you to eat. Your indicators telling you if it is real food or not have been disabled, so you consume away. This is certainly a decrease in specified complexity, and a loss of information. In this case, the loss of information is beneficial to the bacterium. It is a very common misconception that creationists (I refer to those who do not believe in evolution) believe that all mutations and all losses of information are harmful to an organism.

Gup20 - welcome to the board!

Your post was most excellent, compelling, well reasoned and objective. I am not sure that counts for much in some circles but here on this Christian message board it is welcomed and appreciated.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Gup20:
Speaking to the thread TOPIC - does evolutionary doctrine protect the Bible.

I would conclude that, no, evolutionary doctrine does not protect the Bible. Moreover it weakens the Bible and promotes a humanistic worldview.

Genesis is the foundation of the Bible. Without it, the 'story' or focus of the Bible does not make sense. Genesis is like the foundation upon which the rest of the Bible is built. Take away genesis and Christianity becomes a fluffy religous practice with no basis in the 'real world', and no authority either. If Geneis is not literal, and we evolved to this point by naturalistic processes, that means that the story of creation is not literal. If Genesis is some sort of poetic verse representing some mythical fabel, then how can we trust that Man has fallen? This would also have to be figurative rather than literal.

Again - a very well reasoned response.

Interestingly - prominent atheist evolutionist also see this "obvious point" and agree immediately with the intuitive conclusion that you have drawn.

Notable - Richard Dawkings

Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of many books including the international best-sellers "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable."

FROM : http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html
Excerpt –

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

So see! Evolutionists and Christians can agree on something!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Again, from your own quote "And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome."

"Until now..." They have shown how this could be done.

Do you care to give us the date and the context for what Thompson was discussing? Or would that undermine your use a bit?

Still waiting for answers to all those other questions above. Or are you conceeding new "information," and transitionals, and the entropy "problem," and such?

Well now you know - I cheated. I had already read Gup20's devastating responses to the myths that evolutionists try to spin using the Nylon Bug as their example of evolution evolving a species into another higher order species (well evolving at least a little -

) - so I did not immediately explain the "bad science" behind the evolutionist's "story" hoping that Gup20 would come here and post it directly.

What I had hoped for was a modicum of critical thinking on your part when seeing the statement (confession in fact) quoted above --
"And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome."

Here we have a "confession after the fact" that evolutionist had "NOT been able to demonstrate how you could do that (infuse new genetic information into DNA) at the genetic leve with specific instructions IN THE GENOME".

I specifically asked you "Where was that confession BEFORE they came up with this 'story' about the Nylon Bug"?

No answer.

I then pointed out that they went way out on a limb in their efforts to claim "problem solved" by ADMITTING to the problem.

And obviously the risk they took was - in two parts.

#1. It exposes the bad science and bias of those unwilling to admit problems until they have an answer for them (or think they have one).

#2. It exposes them - because when their "story" is shown to be without merrit in making the point they seek (as Gup20 has demonstrated) then tney are "left with nothing but their glaring confession".

Which is in fact - the case.

And now you know - "the rest of the story".

And it all just points out that the shifting sands of evolutionisms "latest story" are a sad place to hang your interpretation of God's Word. Better to just accept it as it reads.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said -- "The argument for mitochondrial eve - as already stated on other threads - is in fact "predicted" by the Creator's account. Those trusting in that account have no awkward facts to "explain away"."

UTEOTW
This again? !SIGH!

I'll do this again for the benfit of those who might be reading. I tire of explaining the same thing over and over.

... Population P1 is the population of the mothers of population P0. Since no one can have more than one mother, P1 can only be equal to or less than P0. That is P1 <= P0. In a real breeding population you will find that P1 < P0 because some females will have more than one daughter. Now you just extrapolate back in time. You will find that P0 > P1 > P2 > ...Pn.

This is a gross fallacy as has already been pointed on in previous posts when this subject came up.

The fallacious aspect is that Evolution's "NEED" a multi-start - multi-eve starting point. They do NOT posit "one lucky single celled organism that spawned all of life" NOR do they posit "ONE lucky human pair spawning all humanity".

Rather "Descent with mofication" also needs "critical mass" established by contemporary "Events". Multiple Eve's ALL contemporary with multiple Adam's and SETS of "lines" of lineage spontaneously emerging UNTIL they have enough mass so that death at childbirth, death through starvation, death through disease, death through predation is over come "at least for some period of time" for many parrallel lines.

THUS in the evolutionists' model you have MANY contemporary starting points occuring rapidly (punctuated equilibrium) as if crossing a genetic evolutionary "milestone".

So "The size gets smaller" UNTIL you reach those STARTING generations at which point it reduces some some number of CONTEMPORARY starting lines. (And not the lucky-number-one).

The math only takes you back to the time of that "punctuated event" where parrallel lines are "emerging" as contemporaries to build critical mass for the "new species".

So what HAPPENS to all those supposed lines that evolutionists "need" to posit?

I.E. What happened to all the OTHER women that were supposedly contemporary to Eve? Why don't we see THEIR population represented here?

Unwittingly the evolutionists of NOVA published the following confession

So what about all of the mtDNA of the other women who lived during "Eve's" time? What happened to it? Simply this: Somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted.

( NOVA Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA By Rick Groleau Jan 2002

Though the analysis of that statement requires a little critical thinking – I think Christians are up to the task.

In other words NOVA said every other strain must somehow die off – this is not a “mathematical certainty” that “all other lines MUST die”.

But in the evolutionary tale – they must conform to the disconfirming data – so yes “miraculously” all other lines die off so that there can “just so happen to be” ONLY ONE population strain left - and thereby conform to “observe” data. Data the the Creator's own "account" predicts without all the hand waiving and dancing that evolutionists must do here - to "pretend" they don't see the problem.

But "sigh" I suppose they never tire of pretending not to see that point.

How much better to just accept the Creator's "Account" and avoid all that evolutionist dancing around the problem.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Gup20 said --
"The change is actually in one of the bacterium's plasmids (the main DNA of the bacteria remains unchanged). Furthermore, the plasmids on which we see this appearantly novel ability is most likely designed to adapt the bacteria to new food sources."

UTEOTW --

First, it does not matter if it was nuclear DNA or not. Its genome was changed. Second, here you admit the ability of the bacterium to adapt. That sounds like evolution to me.

Classic evolutionist tactic is to claim that if someone gets over a cold "evolution is true".

The point Gup20 has made so well is that the design[/] of the plasmid in question appears to be This very function. To inhibit the more complex systems that discriminate for food.

So when evolutionist "try" to spin that story as "new species evolution and new information" they are simply not fully grasping the "design" of the organism - that "remains" the same. Genetically unchanged EVEN at the level of the plasmid whose design allows it to turn OFF complex functions of the Bacteria -
When deactivated the plasmid goes back to it's original state. Thus supporting the claim of Creationists that "mutations are either neutral OR they Suppress/remove information"

Hard to believe the "evidence" is a "plasmid" that RETURNS to its original state when deactivated. And when activated SUPRESSES complex functions of the organism.

And yet - this is chosen as a way to "protect" the Bible by some who feel it is better to contradict the Creator's Account - than accept it - as the way to defend the Bible.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gup20]

UTEOTW: Just because you are not well versed in paleontology does not mean that transitional fossils do not exist. BUt we'll get back to that.

While I wouldn't say I am well versed in paleontology, I would admit that I have taken a long hard look at evolutionary tree of organisms. I would have to say that there is nothing about that demonstrates conclusively that it is not a continuum of discreet creatures, or that it is definately a map of transsitions. In fact, for one to assume that they are an evolutionary ancestor-decendent tree, one would have to discount the creation of distinct creatures in Genesis 1. It says quite clearly that God created sea creatures and then the next day created land animals. It says they were created 'from the dust of the earth'. It doesn't say God took a whale and fashioned a cow.

It is overwhelming clear also that God is talking about literal 1 revolution of the earth days in Genesis 1. If they were indeed literal days, I don't see any room in the scripture (assuming the scripture is true) for evolution to occur as millions of years just aren't there.

Also - I am curious - How do you reconcile Noah's flood? If you believe evolution, do you believe in Noah's flood? If you DON'T believe the floody happened how can you believe anything the Bible says?

UTEOTW: Instead, it is a tacit admission that such fossils exist showing transitions which he must deny

I don't see why he must deny it. He isn't saying that a sea creature turned into a land creature - he is saying that sea creatures have a continuum of species and land creatures have a contnuum of species for the wide range of environments each could face. As long as he doesn't make the leap into assumption that sea creatures turned into land creatures he's doing ok as far as the Bible is concerned.

Since sea creatures and land creatures appeared on this planet within 24 hours of each other, I would say that this is probably not an unrealistic prediction.

UTEOTW: But he apparently has not heard of the twin nested heirarchy. That we can construct very similar trees using physiology to the ones we construct using genetic evidence contradicts what he claims and is powerful evidence for common descent.

All of which have gaps. I would like to see how you justify millions of years within the Bible's time framework, and I would also like to know what mutation rates you think could account for evolution over 6000-10000 years.

UTEOTW: Well, since he and I agree that it should be possible to draw those clear cut lines between "kinds," why has nobody yet been able to quantitatively show us what the kinds are and to show the big genetic differences between the kinds? Maybe because it cannot be done?

Patience, my friend. The work progresses slowly.

See the following info on 'Kinds'

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1254.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1332.asp

Those explain the Kinds system as we understand it. The Last one, is an article on Dawin's Galapagos Island Finches. It describes very well the YEC view on speciation.

Another VERY EXCELLENT link to understanding kinds is Biblical Kinds Contrasted with Species

The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy, tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept.

Here is some good info from that last link:

During the early nineteenth century many people believed that species were fixed and that this was taught by the Bible. Darwin was the naturalist aboard the H.M.S. Beagle for a five-year expedition during the 1830s. During this trip he accumulated evidences that appeared to demonstrate rather forcibly that various animals and plants had evolved into their present, distinct forms from common ancestors. He believed that the natural variation readily evident within any population of plant or animal could, over time, bring about entirely new plants and animals. Throughout The Origin Darwin comments on how these observations made no sense if each species were created separately, but made much sense if due to evolutionary processes. He then asserted that it was unreasonable to attribute the origin of species to the activity of a Creator.


The first chapter of Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible, states that God created various kinds, and that these kinds reproduced after their own kinds. The specific kinds mentioned are grass, herbs, trees, sea creatures, birds, cattle, creeping things, and beasts. Then, as a final, separate act, God created man. Notice, except for the creation of man, these categories are very broad and general. The Bible states that each kind brings forth seed and fruit in accordance with its own kind. Thus, grasses do not become trees, sea creatures do not become birds, and man is the result of original creation.


Notice, though, that the Bible does NOT prohibit grasses from varying somewhat throughout their generations so long as they still remain grasses. Likewise, birds could vary tremendously, but will still be birds.


There is nothing in the Bible which would preclude God from having made one or more master cat-kinds which were ancestor to all or some of our modern cats--lions, tigers, house cats, leopards, etc. Such master-kinds could have had tremendous variability for many different features. As the master cat- kinds spread to different environments, the principle of genetic specialization we looked at in the previous chapter would lead to the development of specialists. As these specialists became adapted to certain environmental niches, they would start losing much of their initial capability for variation. In time, a few choice incidental mutations within a locality could have resulted in speciation; the isolated group would no longer be able to back-breed with the master kind. This whole process could take place very rapidly since it is much easier to lose information than to gain it. Of course, it is not only cats that could have been created as broad master-kinds with lots of potential variation. This could well have been the norm for most of the kinds. I personally believe this broad definition of "kind" to be consistent with both scripture and observations from nature.


Concerning man, the Bible teaches that God originally created one man, Adam, and that we are all descended from him, not from a population of gradually or suddenly changing ancestors. Furthermore, He made us as a being that must give account to Him for our actions, something which is not required of the animals and plants.


Darwin and many of the others of his day assumed that the Biblical kinds were species. Notice, there was absolutely no justification for this from the text of the Bible itself; this was simply a superficial interpretation of the passage and one which, at the time it was made, seemed to be of no particular significance.


However, this misinterpretation ended up having serious consequences. From Darwin's point of view, once it was established that species were not constant, then the Bible was no longer valid and the various forms of life did not owe their origins to a Creator. Once the Creator was eliminated, then evolution was REQUIRED as the only other rational explanation. Darwin never observed any evidence to support general evolution; all of his actual evidence was limited to variations at the lower taxonomic levels. However, his misunderstanding lead him to believe that general evolution was required even though he had no evidence to support it.


Incidentally, not all people believed that kinds and species were synonyms. We mentioned in chapter 2 that Linnaeus, the founder of the taxonomic classification system still used today, was a devout Christian and was motivated in his classification work to determine just what the Biblical kinds may have been. Hence, he did not equate kind to species and Darwin did not really need to do so himself.


I believe that much of what Darwin taught is true. Darwin gives many examples to support his theories; however, they all apply to micro-evolution, which is no big deal, being consistent with the Bible. Darwin's errors come when he extrapolates small-scale changes consistent with micro-evolution into large-scale changes. In these cases he admitted that he didn't have any actual, direct evidence, then glossed over the lack of evidence with various excuses.


So, Darwin did not understand that the definition of the Biblical word kind could be extended legitimately to include genus and family. Had he understood this, he would have been able to maintain a position consistent with his all of his observations and also with what the Bible taught.


Once Darwin moved past commenting on those things which he could observe, such as change in the shape of the beak of a bird, and began to apply his ideas to such large-scale changes as fish to amphibians to birds, he moved into the realm of speculation. People accepted his speculations as having the same legitimacy as those things he actually observed. This in turn has become the source of much of the controversy that has raged and continues to rage over Darwin's work.


Science shows us that theories and laws which are valid over a specific range of observed behaviors do not always maintain their validity outside that range. Thus, Newton's laws of motion, which seem so obvious and reasonable to us, do not work when objects move extremely fast and or are extremely small. Einstein developed his theory of relatively to account for the inadequacy of Newtonian principles at velocities approaching the speed of light. Quantum mechanics was developed to explain behaviors at the atomic level.


I believe that Darwin's principle of natural selection is valid. It worked well when its application was limited to explaining those things Darwin was able to observe, such variation within closely related species. However, his attempt to extrapolate it to a more general case simply did not and does not fit the facts. I would like to think that if Darwin knew what we know today, that he would have greatly reduced the scale of his claims, limiting them to micro-evolutionary processes. That would in no way detract from the greatness of his work in discovering the principle of natural selection. But it might have limited the wild speculation that he so freely offered in The Origin and which has had such a disastrous impact on western civilization.

I hope this helps to see the YEC perspective of Kinds a little more clearly. Like I said... the work moves slowly, but more is coming out all the time to define it further.

 

[Gup20]

If you can get new adaptations, new traits, and all without conforming to whatever application of information theory you are trying to make, why is it relevent?

The point here is that the information level is decreased from creation till now. In order for these 'new' traits to arise, information must be sacrificed. Eventually, if all these new traits keep ariseing there will be nothing left - the animal will go extinct and exhaust the finite level of information it was given at creation. In fact, that is what we see very often with the extinction of thousands of species all the time. This is the opposite that must happen in order for evolution to go from molecules to man.