Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

[UTEOTW]

"Further, fossils of late equines aren't found immediately on top of supposed ancestors."

Is your objection that all of the fossils in the horse series are not all buried on top of one another? Well neither are my grandparents buried directly above my great grandparents either. But we do have dating techniques that allow us to detwermine when in time an organism lived.

Is your objection that there is overlap between the creatures in the series? In this case, I will refer you back to the whole discussion about the word "gradual" from before. Much speciation occurs when a population becomes divided. One part of the population can evolve into something else while another stays the same or even evolves into yet something else also. The smaller the population, the more likely it is to change rapidly.

These observed trends are the basis for PE.

Or was your objection something else entirely?

"Finally, much of the speculation of how old a fossil is comes full circle to where evolutionists decide to place it in the tree. If the fossil isn't found in the right layer or place then it is presumed to have migrated to where it was found."

Why is migration a problem? We observe migration today.

Studies have also shown that the relationship of fossils based on morphology has a statistically significant relationship with the order of the layers in which the fossils were found. Now because of overlap due to branching, it is far from perfect. But it is a real phenomenon.

"Nothing in the observed fossil record precludes most species from having been contemporaries. They may not have been but that cannot be concluded from the fossil record."

I disagree.

The groupings of which fossils are found together is pretty specific. There are whole ranges of organisms which are never found together. Even organisms which shared the same kind of environment and would be very likely to be found together if they had been contemporaries.

There simply is no evidence that all of life has always been contemporary with each other.

"And this is well documented circular reasoning. 'The rocks are old. How do you know? Because of the fossils they contain. How do you know how old the fossils are? Because they are found in old rocks.'"

No, you have been misinformed.

If you look at layers, some will be able to be dated by direct means and some will not. But even those that cannot be dated directly will have layers above or below them which can be. Usually. This allows one to at least bracket the age.

As far as fossils, we have observed that when particular mixes of fossils are found together, if the layer can be dated directly, it always dates to the same age. If it can be bracketed by other layers, the age always agrees. It is not a huge stretch to say that if whenever you date a layer containing a particular combination of fossils you get the same age, then when that same mix is found in an otherwise undatable layer that you can use the age from the layers that can be dated directly.

Now you can argue whether or not it is a good assumption, but it most certainly is not circular. Similar techniques are used by archeologists where a site may be dated by what kind of art or pottery was being used there. It is not as exact as a direct dating method, but it has been shown to be useful.

"But what happens when fossils don't appear where they should? They are called anomalies and disregarded."

Serious charge. Do we have examples of such items that were discarded without a good reason?

 

[UTEOTW]

Now, getting back to the retroviruses. I do appreciate you having examined the reference and I welcome the discussion of said reference.

Look back at the study again. What you need to be looking for if you wish to make headway against the idea of retroviral inserts being a good indication of common descent is for studies that show that specific viruses repeatedly targt only a single insertion site. This is what is observed in the various species. The same insertion at the same location.

Now in the paper that we have both now cited you see the results of a particular retrovirus. The authors concluded that "most or all regions of the TEF genome are accessible to ALV retroviral integration." So the insertions could occur at any location.

Now the part that got you excited was that while all parts were accesible, some were more accessible than others. This really does not get you what you need. Let's go for a closely related analogy.

I think that most folks would agree that mutations are random. But, even though they are random, there are places which are a bit more likely to have a mutation and some which are less likely. There are differences in the strength of the various bonds making up DNA and I think it may also be affected by how everything folds.

Same thing here. The whole genome is capable of getting an insert. There are some types of areas which are more or less likely than average. But there is absolutely no indication that the virus targets a specific location.

The targeting of a specific location every time by a virus is what you need to find to give credence to your assertion that the various psecies all reacte in the same way to the virus. THus far, there is no such indication that this is the case.

"If these inserts are truly markers of common ancestory then it isn't good enough any more to say that chimps and humans evolved from the same species... which gives evolution more plausibility by numerical chance. They must have eventually descended from the exact same breeding pair. That also strips you of a key mechanical supposition... population spread which provides strength to natural selection."

Not really. FOr a variety of reasons.

First off, it is not necessary to have descended from the same breeding pair but just the same individual. And studies of populations make this much more likely than you would expect.

For example, studies have shown that the last common ancestor of all humans alive lived about 3000 years ago in Asia. You can do such studies for any population you wish to select. BUt here is the more interesting part. Once you get back to that last common ancestor, population mathematics shows that if you go back a relatively few additional generations that any individual alive then has about an 80% chance of being a direct ancestor of everyone alive today.

Think about that for a moment.

So gene flow does allow for such things to spread through the population. Let me know if you want me to try and dig out some references on that. This was from memory.

"Further, if these inserts were a sign of common ancestory followed by divergent evolution then they really shouldn't be the same. It is speculative at best to say that the one sequence containing an insert would have been the one not not to have been subject to the literally billions of evolutionary meaningful mutations necessary under the theory. IOW's, the fact that these inserts can be found and recognized is evidence against, not for, the idea that chimps and humans evolved from common ancestors."

No, no.

GO back up and look at the three paragraphs I quoted. The pattern of accumulated mutations is an important part of the analysis. And since they are junk, they accumulate mutations fairly quickly.

"Finally, in our discussion, we are talking about the chance that two completely separate species would randomly share retroviral inserts. That is not a one in billions chance as you have suggested. The insert only needs to be retained in one gene then be reproduced and eventually passed on."

But since there are billions of base pairs for the insert to go between, it really is billions.

Not only that, but there are many such inserts so it multiplies real quick to much larger numbers.

 

[Scott J]

Here's something I found while looking for something else:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?s=e27da51dc508774f7c56bf0e1aef2b9c&p=139923&postcount=1

Enjoy.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


" That is also speculative. The model geologic column as proposed by evolutionists does not exist anywhere in nature."

Nope. There are at least 32 places in the world where the entire column is found in one locale.

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco
The Essaouira Basin in Morocco(Broughton and Trepanier, 1993)
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota (Haimla et al, 1990, p. 517)
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia (above this basin sources are Roberston Group, 1989)
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta(Trendall 1990)
The Parana Basin North, Paraguay and Brazil( (Wiens, 1995, p. 192)
The Cape Karroo Basin (Tankard, 1995, p. 21)
The Argentina Precordillera Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 136)
The Chilean Antofagosta Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 134)
The Pricaspian Basin (Volozh et al, 2003)
Golden Valley formation, North Dakota

As found in the text books? All of it?

Please cite the source for this information.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
" No. They simply aren't descendents of the same kind."

Then what do you mean by "all of today's animals are literally descedants of earlier more complex, more adaptable creatures"?

That they were. I don't know how much plainer I can make it. Both are descendents of earilier creatures. Both have adapted and possibly speciated from those creatures. However, the two creatures in question do not share a common ancestor. They came from two distinct created animals.

Where can we observe that fossils in the past were more complex than what we have today? How do you quantifiably measure said complexity?

I am proposing it for the genetic level. These earlier creatures would be more complex in the sense that they possessed greater ability to adapt than their descendants did/do.

Gould himself however acknowledged the complexity of Cambrian forms. These forms either suddenly appeared due to evolution up from simpler forms by the accummulation of beneficial mutations and natural selection. Or, they evolved down from more genetically pristine and complex creatures due to negative mutations, atrophy, and a progressive loss of the ability to adapt (speciation).

" That is also speculative. The model geologic column as proposed by evolutionists does not exist anywhere in nature."

Nope. There are at least 32 places in the world where the entire column is found in one locale.

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco
The Essaouira Basin in Morocco(Broughton and Trepanier, 1993)
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota (Haimla et al, 1990, p. 517)
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia (above this basin sources are Roberston Group, 1989)
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta(Trendall 1990)
The Parana Basin North, Paraguay and Brazil( (Wiens, 1995, p. 192)
The Cape Karroo Basin (Tankard, 1995, p. 21)
The Argentina Precordillera Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 136)
The Chilean Antofagosta Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 134)
The Pricaspian Basin (Volozh et al, 2003)
Golden Valley formation, North Dakota [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
" No. They simply aren't descendents of the same kind."

Then what do you mean by "all of today's animals are literally descedants of earlier more complex, more adaptable creatures"?

That they were. I don't know how much plainer I can make it. Both are descendents of earilier creatures. Both have adapted and possibly speciated from those creatures. However, the two creatures in question do not share a common ancestor. They came from two distinct created animals.

Where can we observe that fossils in the past were more complex than what we have today? How do you quantifiably measure said complexity?

I am proposing it for the genetic level. These earlier creatures would be more complex in the sense that they possessed greater ability to adapt than their descendants did/do.

Gould himself however acknowledged the complexity of Cambrian forms. These forms either suddenly appeared due to evolution up from simpler forms by the accummulation of beneficial mutations and natural selection. Or, they evolved down from more genetically pristine and complex creatures due to negative mutations, atrophy, and a progressive loss of the ability to adapt (speciation).

 

[JWI]

Here is an excellent article that has caused quite a stir in science. It deals with the very subject at hand.

I know you evolutionists will enjoy this article.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Now, getting back to the retroviruses. I do appreciate you having examined the reference and I welcome the discussion of said reference.

Look back at the study again. What you need to be looking for if you wish to make headway against the idea of retroviral inserts being a good indication of common descent is for studies that show that specific viruses repeatedly targt only a single insertion site. This is what is observed in the various species. The same insertion at the same location.

No. I don't think so. The authors specifically cite the structure as being determinate and not accessibility. Further, they didn't even address whether some viruses might be more likely to leave such an insertion at a certain favorable site.

This would seem not only possible but probable considering that viruses that infect across species will cause similar damage.

Now in the paper that we have both now cited you see the results of a particular retrovirus. The authors concluded that "most or all regions of the TEF genome are accessible to ALV retroviral integration." So the insertions could occur at any location.

Could... but apparently won't.

Now the part that got you excited was that while all parts were accesible, some were more accessible than others. This really does not get you what you need. Let's go for a closely related analogy.

I think that most folks would agree that mutations are random. But, even though they are random, there are places which are a bit more likely to have a mutation and some which are less likely. There are differences in the strength of the various bonds making up DNA and I think it may also be affected by how everything folds.

Same thing here. The whole genome is capable of getting an insert. There are some types of areas which are more or less likely than average. But there is absolutely no indication that the virus targets a specific location.

The facts as we know them:

1) Genes are widely accessible to RVI.
2) Some areas are more likely to receive inserts than others.
3) Many RVI's are not shared in a single location.
4) A few RVI's are shared.

Your conclusion, which is possible though I find it highly unlikely, is that these inserts were passed down from a common ancestor and the unshared inserts point to divergence in the evolutionary tree.

My conclusion is that (knowing that some areas of the genome are more likely to receive inserts) when viruses infect across species we would expect some inserts to not show up in the same place but while some do. We would expect some viruses to "stick" in a small range of places while some attack more broadly.

Even if we agree that these are purely random events, the law of probabilities decidedly allows that the insertions could have been left at the same place. I however have significant doubts seemingly supported by the few raw facts found in this article that "random" is a very accurate description.

The targeting of a specific location every time by a virus is what you need to find to give credence to your assertion that the various psecies all reacte in the same way to the virus.

I don't really think so. Men and apes share some common design features. Modern apes descended from a smaller group of earlier apes. So we are really talking about RVI's occurring at the same place in early man and early ape a few times but in different places much more often.

First off, it is not necessary to have descended from the same breeding pair but just the same individual. And studies of populations make this much more likely than you would expect.

That's inconsequential to my point.

For example, studies have shown that the last common ancestor of all humans alive lived about 3000 years ago in Asia. You can do such studies for any population you wish to select. BUt here is the more interesting part. Once you get back to that last common ancestor, population mathematics shows that if you go back a relatively few additional generations that any individual alive then has about an 80% chance of being a direct ancestor of everyone alive today.

That's within a species... and notably presumes a progressively smaller population as you go back.

I am referring to distinct species that you say are related. It is highly unlikely that the mutations that would eventually lead to man and chimp started with the same pair or individual within a population of animals. It is even more unlikely that communication and interbreeding between those animals would have approximated that of modern man.

Even in the best case, you require that all of these species arose within a very small geographical area sufficiently separated from the larger population to prevent the mutations from being lost while preserving these inserts. It is possible. Just not likely.

So gene flow does allow for such things to spread through the population. Let me know if you want me to try and dig out some references on that. This was from memory.

Not necessary at all. Though I would like to know what you mean by "relatively few generations".

Not only that, but there are many such inserts so it multiplies real quick to much larger numbers.

Right. And only a few are shared.

 

[UTEOTW]

Well, we appear to have reached page twenty and I am willing to make the bold prediction that this party is about to get wound down in the form of a closed thread. I must say it has been interesting.

"As found in the text books? All of it?

Please cite the source for this information."

Several of the ones listed have the sources for the information listed with them.

" No. I don't think so. The authors specifically cite the structure as being determinate and not accessibility. Further, they didn't even address whether some viruses might be more likely to leave such an insertion at a certain favorable site."

We disagree on what the authors were saying.

From my reading, they found that the insertions could occur at any point but that some points were a little more or a little less likely than others. They did not find that the viruses repeatedly targeted a single location for insertion. That is what you need to mount an effective counter.

" I don't really think so. Men and apes share some common design features. Modern apes descended from a smaller group of earlier apes. So we are really talking about RVI's occurring at the same place in early man and early ape a few times but in different places much more often. "

"Right. And only a few are shared."

I am confused about where you are getting the idea that very few of the inserts are shared and most are not.

A few percent of the genome is such inserts and, if I remember correctly, there are only in the range of about 2 or 3 which are not shared between, say, humans and chinps.

Maybe you can enlighten me.

"I am referring to distinct species that you say are related. It is highly unlikely that the mutations that would eventually lead to man and chimp started with the same pair or individual within a population of animals. It is even more unlikely that communication and interbreeding between those animals would have approximated that of modern man."

I think that something is not getting communicated here and I am not sure where it is being missed.

It is not that all mutations started with a single individual. That is the point for pointing out that once you get back past the last common ancestor that you likely have ancestry with the majority of the population from any given time. Selective processes can chose beneficial alleles from the entire gene pool and not necessarily just a lucky individual. Varius processes are continuously making offspring which have a different combination of the genes in the gene pool and selecting the package of genes that work best within the framework of all the genes.

" Not necessary at all. Though I would like to know what you mean by 'relatively few generations'."

I am referring to work by Joseph T. Chang and he calculates that if you go back 22 generations from the most recent common ancestor of all humans, that 80% of the humans alive will be ancestors of everyone alive today.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by JWI:
Here is an excellent article that has caused quite a stir in science. It deals with the very subject at hand.

I know you evolutionists will enjoy this article.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

And I am sure you will enjoy a response.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW

That is fair. I read the article. But I disagree with the author.

"Meyer’s paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized “intelligent design” since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation."

What is wrong with this?

At present, there are only two widely held possible explanations to explain life on this planet. Evolution and Creationism.

So therefore, LOGICALLY, any proof against evolution is an argument for creationism.

And the reverse would be true as well. If you could scientifically prove that creation was false, this would be an argument that supports evolution.

If these are the ONLY two possible explanations for life, then this must be so.

The Cambrian Explosion (which you have said does not TRULY exist at one time), does not give creationism one little problem. If the Bible account is true and God created life pretty much as we see it today, then we would expect to see the very sudden appearance of fossils without transitional forms. And that is exactly what the record shows.

Creationism has not had to come up with additional theories to explain this. It is not a problem for creationism.

But it has been a big problem for evolutionists. To deny that is too be either willingly ignorant or dishonest. Or both. Evolution has had to add additional theories to attempt to explain this problem.

This adding on of additional theories violates Occam's Razor.

And these additional theories simply accomodate the known evidence.

1)Punk Eek expects gaps in the fossil record
2)The fossil record shows gaps (known BEFORE the theory by the way)
3)Therefore Punk Eek is true

Circular reasoning. Look, creation is just as valid.

1)Creation expects gaps in the fossil record
2)The fossil record shows gaps (known well AFTER the theory by the way)
3)Therefore Creation is true

This is the silly reasoning evolutionists use. It argues just as well for Creationism.

Only problem is that Punk Eek is an additional theory on top of Evolution. Creation stands on it's own.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by JWI:


"Meyer’s paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized “intelligent design” since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation."

What is wrong with this?

mere denial without reason is not sufficient in science. Mere assertion without reason is not sufficient in science. Merely saying a process is "irreducibly complex" while ignoring proposed non-complex solutions is not science.

At present, there are only two widely held possible explanations to explain life on this planet. Evolution and Creationism.

So therefore, LOGICALLY, any proof against evolution is an argument for creationism.

Sorry. Misses the point that mere popularity is not evidence. At once time only a very small percentage of people believed the earth rotates as the cause of day and night and then the evidence persuaded more and more. See, it takes EVIDENCE. There is a third possibility you have completely ignored - the one where you say "I don't know". There are many alternative creation myths. So any purported evidence "against" evolution does NOT automatically support creationism . . . .

And the reverse would be true as well. If you could scientifically prove that creation was false, this would be an argument that supports evolution.

Well, creation a mere 6000 or 10,000 years ago has been proven false. Common descent of all DNA driven life has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. So that means . . . ?

The Cambrian Explosion (which you have said does not TRULY exist at one time), does not give creationism one little problem.

You are aware that the "cambrian explosion" consists of nothing but very primitive sea creatures, aren't you? Not one land dwelling guy?
You are aware that there are many many fossils now from before that period? sponges, things like that?

If the Bible account is true and God created life pretty much as we see it today, then we would expect to see the very sudden appearance of fossils without transitional forms. And that is exactly what the record shows.

So is it your contention that nobody ever mentions a transitional species? Where have you been?

Creationism has not had to come up with additional theories to explain this. It is not a problem for creationism.

Actually, creationism has had to come up with the theory of evolution for various species just not beyond the boundary of kinds. This is a change from the original historic creationist view that no species ever changed from one to another. Creaionists were dragged that far by the evidence they could no longer deny.

But it has been a big problem for evolutionists. To deny that is too be either willingly ignorant or dishonest.

Lessee. You were wrong to say there are no transitional fossils. You were wrong to say the cambrian fossils all came at once with nothing before. Seems to me you basically just make up non existant problems for evolution and then say evoluion has no answer. Well you'll never lose that way - in your own mind - but it doesn't work to simply ignore whats really out there for the rest of us.

Evolution has had to add additional theories to attempt to explain this problem.

This adding on of additional theories violates Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor says to not complicate things more than necessary to explain the evidence. It is perfectly all right to complicate things enough to explain the evidence. No scientist will ever fail to admit that theories are extended, revised, enlarged, added to to explain new evidence. What's wrong with that? You have something against learning new things?

1)Punk Eek expects gaps in the fossil record
2)The fossil record shows gaps (known BEFORE the theory by the way)
3)Therefore Punk Eek is true

Circular reasoning. Look, creation is just as valid.

Sorry, I don't see the circle. Punk Eek is invented to explain the gaps, so it works to explain the gaps, of course, but so what? What's circular about that?

1)Creation expects gaps in the fossil record
2)The fossil record shows gaps (known well AFTER the theory by the way)
3)Therefore Creation is true

What, you think gaps is the only evidence for evolution and punk eek? What about vestiges, ability to form one tree of life, finding that tree confirmed at the molecular level, finding that tree confirmed by genetic mistakes, retroviral inserts and so forth?

Only problem is that Punk Eek is an additional theory on top of Evolution. Creation stands on it's own.

Seperate kind creation fails to account for shared retroviral insertions, the tree of life, the vestiges, and the deep time fossil record showing species coming and going over millions and millions of years.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by JWI:
The Cambrian Explosion (which you have said does not TRULY exist at one time), does not give creationism one little problem. If the Bible account is true and God created life pretty much as we see it today, then we would expect to see the very sudden appearance of fossils without transitional forms. And that is exactly what the record shows.

JWI, how do you deal with the fact that the organisms found in the Cambrian are totally unlike the organisms alive today? Not one mammal, bird, reptile or insect. The fish I think were jawless and totally different from modern fish. Not a single plant.

How is this evidence for the creation of kinds in pretty much their present form? How do the relatively simple and typically small creatures of the Cambrian support the idea that the kinds became less complex over time? How does the fact that this "explosion" took at least five to ten million years support young-earth time frames? If you reject the dating, why talk about the Cambrian era at all?

More details can be found [here].

 

[Scott J]

From my reading, they found that the insertions could occur at any point but that some points were a little more or a little less likely than others. They did not find that the viruses repeatedly targeted a single location for insertion. That is what you need to mount an effective counter.

No it isn't.

If someone shoots at a target and hits the same hole to the degree that no measuring device can differentiate the shots... there are several ways it might have occurred.

One is that the person who shot was an excellent marksman- targeted. Which you wrongly insist is the only way my suggestion can be true.

Second is simply the random probability that it can happen on any two shots within the limits of a target. Which is to say that the second shot being independent of the first is no less likely to hit any particular spot than any other. This becomes more likely since you have even agreed that some areas for insertion are closer to the aiming point than others.

Third- at least one of the shots was with a shotgun. IOW's, out of many RVI's amongst creatures that share common design in their DNA it should be completely expected that a few of the inserts would be in the same place. Especially since we agree that the shotgun was somewhat aimed... meaning that some areas are more probable for a "hit" than others.

 

[UTEOTW]

"If someone shoots at a target and hits the same hole to the degree that no measuring device can differentiate the shots... there are several ways it might have occurred."

But if you go back to the abstract, that is not what they found.

Let's remind ourselves of what the study was doing. They took a bunch of fetal turkey cells and exposed them to a particular avian retrovirus and then examined which cells had insertions and where.

They found that the whole genome was available for insertion. They found that all regions received insertions when looking at all of the cells studied. And they found that while any specific spot can receive an insertion, that some spots are more likely and some are less likely than others.

What you need to be looking for are studies where a given virus always chooses the exact same spot for integration, not studies where any spot is a possibility.

"Third- at least one of the shots was with a shotgun. IOW's, out of many RVI's amongst creatures that share common design in their DNA it should be completely expected that a few of the inserts would be in the same place. Especially since we agree that the shotgun was somewhat aimed... meaning that some areas are more probable for a "hit" than others."

I am still trying to understand what you mean.

When you look at, say, humans and chimps, you find that almost every single insertion is shared. It is not simply that there are a lot of insertions and a few are shared as you seem to be implying. It is that they all, almost, are shared.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Mercury:
JWI, how do you deal with the fact that the organisms found in the Cambrian are totally unlike the organisms alive today?

I'm not JWI so pardon me for butting in with my view... which JWI may or may not share.

First, implicit in your question is the idea that creationists believe that God created all of the 'species' that would ever exist. That is a very old and unfounded accusation- I am surprised that someone who has interacted in this debate very much would even suggest it. Most creationists I know of agree that animals change and speciate over time.

Second, you have also assumed that the fossil record is a perfect picture of natural history... but no one argues that.

Third, if I am not mistaken your claim that no species have survived unchanged since then is over stated. And the notion that they are "totally unlike" today's species is completely off the mark.

Not one mammal, bird, reptile or insect. The fish I think were jawless and totally different from modern fish. Not a single plant.

The question is a) how did those species come into existence and b) how did we get from the Cambrian animals to today's animals?... Not whether we have or not.

How is this evidence for the creation of kinds in pretty much their present form?

Who said that? I propose that the creatures existing at the fall were significantly different than today's creatures. I don't know that we can imagine the cellular processes of creatures that weren't corrupt and weren't dying.

A close approximation might be the NT promise that we will receive a glorified body someday... in this earthly realm.

It stands to reason that very complex, pristine creatures suddenly exposed to a radical shift in environment would adapt wildly in many different directions. An explosion so to speak.

How do the relatively simple and typically small creatures of the Cambrian support the idea that the kinds became less complex over time?

There is an assumption made in this question. You assume the evolutionary model for that period. You assume that the smaller creatures are older ancestors of the larger creatures. The whole period occurs in a "short" time span per evolutionists. That means that fossils are more likely than even normal to be speculated into a certain age by where they should fit in the evolutionary tree... and not by even the slightly less speculative means of geologic or chemical dating.

IOW's, these creatures that evolution assumes were not contemporaries could have easily been contemporaries. Its only when you assume evolution that it becomes necessary to read the record as showing smaller, simpler creatures as older.

How does the fact that this "explosion" took at least five to ten million years support young-earth time frames?

Simply put- the explosion only took that long if you assume the starting points and mechanisms assumed by evolutionists.

Start with a small group of highly adaptable animals with a very large genome. Expose them to sudden and near catastrophic environmental shifts. And what you find is what we find even today in special breeding. A significant change will occur in the group that results in a net loss of genetic information and adaptability but does answer environmental needs.

If you reject the dating, why talk about the Cambrian era at all?

Because it is a common term that identifies a point in the past characterized by plants and animals. I don't doubt that there was an explosion of speciation... I just believe that it is beyond ridiculous to say that all that information and change came from any mechanism proposed by naturalists. Once you introduce a Creator/Designer/Programmer... you no longer need those long ages for the changes to take place.

 

[UTEOTW]

"First, implicit in your question is the idea that creationists believe that God created all of the 'species' that would ever exist. That is a very old and unfounded accusation- I am surprised that someone who has interacted in this debate very much would even suggest it. Most creationists I know of agree that animals change and speciate over time. "

Yes, but the usual charge about the Cambrian from YEers is that all existing phyla, usually phrased as something like "body plans", came into existance in a relatively short period of time and they equate this to being the same as a sudden creation.

Now you bring in your statement that "[m]ost creationists I know of agree that animals change and speciate over time."

The problem is just as Mercury asked. There are no mammals in the Cambrian. No insects. No birds. No amphibians. No angiosperms. No reptiles. No gymnosperms. And only the most primitive of fish.

If you are willing to accept that all of these groups are just change and speciation from the forms that are found in the Cambrian, then our positions are much closer than either of us thought.

So the diversification that we see in the Cambrian is nothing like the rapid creation which you advocate.

"Third, if I am not mistaken your claim that no species have survived unchanged since then is over stated. And the notion that they are "totally unlike" today's species is completely off the mark."

I would be more likely to agree with Merc here.

The Cambrian fauna really are nothing like what we find today and if you extend this into the pre-Cambrian, things become even more strange. (And I would insist on exdending it into the pre-Cambrian. Many of the YE assertions about the Cambrian evaporate if you do. We have recently begun to find examples of pre-Cambrian fauna and they aloow us to show that some of the fauna they were once thought to have rapidly appeared in the Cambrian actually have their origin much earlier. This allows us to stretch out period of diversification from a few tens of millions of years to several tens of millions of years.)

You might be able to give a few examples of organisms which are superficially similar. Bacteria and algae existed then and now, but most likely not the same species, if you can even define "species" for asexual organisms. Some worms might be superficially similar. Maybe something like amphioxus.

" The question is a) how did those species come into existence "

Through speciation, just like today.

One problem when dealing with the Cambrian is the matter of definitions. And phyla is a big one.

Today, the differences in the phyla are huge. But just like any other taxonomic classification, the intial difference was a simple speciation event. Allow me an example.

The bilateral animals are divided into two great phylum. One of the defining characteristics is whether the nerve trunk is dorsal or ventral. The differences today between the two phyla are enormous. But at the time, it would have been as simple a matter as a speciation event where one species began to move with what had been its top side previously now facing down.

A biologists of the day would have not have classified them as separate phyla. He likely would have put them in the same genus. And those are the kinds of differences we see when we talk about the number of phyla that appear in the cambrian or just before. The differences then were often nothing more than the differences between species or genera or families today. It is only now that their descendents have diverged so far. There are even examples of organisms intermediate between phyla from this period.

And we have modern examples of just this sort of thing happening. There is a catfish in the Nile, Synodontis nigriventris, which does just this. As do brine shrimp. The possibility exists that the reason that we have not seen new phyla arise in the meantime is because speciation events since then have not had sufficient time to diverge into what would be recognized as distinct phyla.

"b) how did we get from the Cambrian animals to today's animals?"

Again, speciation. Would you like for someone to step through a selection of transitionals from the primitive fish of the cambrian to maybe the mammals of today?

"It stands to reason that very complex, pristine creatures suddenly exposed to a radical shift in environment would adapt wildly in many different directions. An explosion so to speak."

Just as long as you understand the degree of change that would be required to get from the Cambrian fauna to the modern fauna.

 

[Scott J]

Couple of NIH articles that mitigate against the level of confidence you place in RVI's.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=DisplayFiltered&DB=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1790730&dopt=Abstract

It would seem from these articles that even now retroviruses are more selective as to where they integrate than you indicate. That doesn't even begin to address whether the genetic condition of the host and the structure of the virus were substantially different at some time in the past.

These articles also add a little bit of indirect weight to my argument that the insert locations may have had much to do with common reactions to a mass infection among creatures with common design elements.

 

[Scott J]

" I don't really think so. Men and apes share some common design features. Modern apes descended from a smaller group of earlier apes. So we are really talking about RVI's occurring at the same place in early man and early ape a few times but in different places much more often. "

"Right. And only a few are shared."

I am confused about where you are getting the idea that very few of the inserts are shared and most are not.

A few percent of the genome is such inserts and, if I remember correctly, there are only in the range of about 2 or 3 which are not shared between, say, humans and chinps.

Maybe you can enlighten me.

I apologize if I misread you... but this understanding came from reading your posts.

I have not been able to find a resource independent of you on the net that confirms or contradicts the amount of sharing between humans and other species.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Couple of NIH articles that mitigate against the level of confidence you place in RVI's."

I must say that we are now at the point where most of the jargon is going over my head.

But trying to read in context, it seems that they start by saying what I have been saying all along. "Retroviruses have the ability to integrate into the genome of their host, in many cases with little apparent sequence or site specificity."

They then seem to be saying that they were looking for what effects the integrations of the viral DNA had on the chromosomes. They give some characteristics of different regions that they looked at and they talk a bit about how the DNA is transcribed into RNA at different rates in different places. They said that they expected them to be transcribed more often in areas with a lot of Alu sequences which makes sense since Alu elements can easily mutate into the stop codons of exons.

I fail to see where they say anything that would lead one to believe that they found that the viruses tend to each target a specific spot in the genome in the host.

The last sentence should also have given you pause, but for a different reason. "Each host genome may utilize these elements for contrary, and possibly beneficial functions." This is one way, a minor way, in which evolution can produce the genetic diversity that it needs. I even have an example of such an insert mutating into a useful protein in humans.

"Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis," Mi S, Lee X, Li X, Veldman GM, Finnerty H, Racie L, LaVallie E, Tang XY, Edouard P, Howes S, Keith JC Jr, McCoy JM, Nature 2000 Feb 17;403(6771):785-9.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=20155476&dopt=Abstract