How is DNA the "Clock" of the Biological World? - Dr. Robert Carter (Is Genesis History?)

The Pixie

Well-known member
He explains it in the 2 min portion.....look at the DNA...look at the difference..and the rate of mutation...then I say, do the math. We humans are young. No past split. 500-600 difference in mitochondrial Y chromosome across the world....This shows we are a few generations old.
In fact if the rate of mutation we would be extinct if we were as old as the Evo's claim.
You some how neglected to support this claim, despite me asking earlier.

Just an oversight, I assume. I would dearly love to know what the mitochondrial Y chromosome is. Do please explain.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Have you? Of course not. But, as is the way of creationist, you hold your own to one standard, and evolutionists to another.
Strawman argument. I'm not a creationist so save your Ad Hominem nonsense for someone who cares.
Creationists make a huge deal about every lie by an evolutionist - and there are very few of them.
And yet the few they do make a big deal about are repeated ad nauseum anyways. Hence, why so many people still believe them.
Compare to the vast literature in peer reviewed journals, it is a drop in the ocean.
When one considers the fact that peer reviewed journals are now failing to generate much trust due to so many of them being proven false is telling.
In contrast, the first two minutes of the video in the OP had two lies. A far, far higher ratio.
Not necessarily. It's pretty easy to spot a lie coming from simpletons, but it takes a bit more concentration to catch them coming from sophists. Just because you're not looking for them doesn't mean they're not there.
You have to go back about 400 years to find an example of the scientific method being ignored - about 200 years before the scientific method was properly established. What do you think that actually shows?
It shows that you're more interested in codification than the fact that science was being ignored. I gave the example of washing hands after coming into contact with blood, feces, corpses, etc. but science couldn't be bothered to look at that because....?
Sure. But when the major proponents do it with such regularity, you have to wonder why. Most likely, because it is a scam.
Well, then given the fact that there are those who will not look at any evidence that could possibly refute the TofE, we can safely come to the same conclusion with science as well. See how that works?
Yes, says me. You think differently? Find an example of an evolutionist lying on CARM.
There has to be someone who actually understands evolution. There are none. Labeling one as an evolutionist doesn't make them one.
Sure. And creationism has millions of them, while evolution has about two.
You accept your priest's lies as readily as any other religionist.
 

Nathan P

Member
Yes. Dr. Carter in the OP is a YEC working for CMI, a YEC outfit.
I wanted to make sure because those yecs have no idea what the bible actually says. Someone needs to tell Dr. Carter that days as we know them did not start until sometime during the fourth day and thus the bible is not talking about 24 hour days.
 

rossum

Well-known member
I wanted to make sure because those yecs have no idea what the bible actually says. Someone needs to tell Dr. Carter that days as we know them did not start until sometime during the fourth day and thus the bible is not talking about 24 hour days.
Indeed. Dr. Carter, and all YECs, would do well to read Origen:

"What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?"​
-- Origen, about 220 AD.​
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Dr. Carter works for CMI, and CMI's What we Believe page includes a literal interpretation of Genesis: six 24-hour days, a global flood and a recent origin of the universe.

This is the usual YEC nonsense which has been often refuted. Whatever Dr. Carter says about DNA, he is working from an incorrect set of assumptions about the age of the universe and of life. Those incorrect assumptions do not give him any scientific credibility at all.
More of your non science nonsense.

What did your Rev MacDaddy Darwin say about DNA?
Oh your cult named after a clueless reverend wannabe.
 

Algor

Active member
My goodness ferengi you are acute. When I said that a 5000 year timespan couldn't account for human genetic diversity, you brilliantly deduced that this MUST imply that I meant that the universe is infinite, and NOW, you have SLAIN the dragon of evolution with your devastating insight. ferengi, I salute you, and I am nominating you for a Nobel Prize in all-round-just-amazing-brilliance. Thank you for gracing us with your presence, and exposing me to a level of argumentation that, I earnestly entreat you to believe, I do not think I have ever, or could ever, encounter elsewhere.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
And yet the few they do make a big deal about are repeated ad nauseum anyways. Hence, why so many people still believe them.
They are repeated ad nauseum by creationists. So what is your point?

When one considers the fact that peer reviewed journals are now failing to generate much trust due to so many of them being proven false is telling.
There are issues with peer review. There is, nevertheless, a huge body of evidence supporting evolution. Do you think that that suggests evolution is false?

Can you point to a lie modern evolutionists promote?

That is what it comes down to. I can - and have - point out lies creationists are telling right now to falsely promote creationism. You say evolutions repeat lies ad nauseum - give an example. Quote a modern evolutionist, say from the last 20 years, and show how the claim is a lie.

Not necessarily. It's pretty easy to spot a lie coming from simpletons, but it takes a bit more concentration to catch them coming from sophists. Just because you're not looking for them doesn't mean they're not there.
So give an example.

It shows that you're more interested in codification than the fact that science was being ignored. I gave the example of washing hands after coming into contact with blood, feces, corpses, etc. but science couldn't be bothered to look at that because....?
Basically because people are reluctant to accept change. Which, frankly, is what creationism is.

Well, then given the fact that there are those who will not look at any evidence that could possibly refute the TofE, we can safely come to the same conclusion with science as well. See how that works?
What evidence?

Disproving evolution would revolutionise science and win you a Nobel prize. The reason no one has done that is that there is no proper evidence.

There has to be someone who actually understands evolution. There are none. Labeling one as an evolutionist doesn't make them one.
I am using the term to refer to someone who advocates evolution.

You accept your priest's lies as readily as any other religionist.
What lies? You keep making this accusation, but keep failing to give a single example. Why is that?

Can you point to a lie modern evolutionists promote?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Anyone care to refute Dr. Carter's assertions?

Here are a couple of relevant articles. Both estimate the mutation rate, but do so from the opposites sides of the issues.

The first measures it directly, looking specifically at the Y chromosome, to give an estimate of mutation rates.

Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.

The second paper, however, does it quite differently. It compares a pseudogene in chimps and humans, and counts the number of mutations, assuming a split a few million years ago. If that assumption is right, then these two papers should similar answers. On the other hand, if Carter is right, they will be several orders of magnitude out.

The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation.

One paper says 100 to 200, the other says 175. That is a pretty good agreement.

It is worth noting that the expansion of the "out of Africa" theory is relatively recent. This paper claims, as recent as 89,000 years ago.


The two scientists have now found 160 DNA substitutions on the Y chromosome. They have catalogued these changes in 1062 men from 21 populations and have concluded that a small group of East Africans (Sudanese and Ethiopians) and Khoisan, from Southern Africa, are the closest present-day relatives of the original ancestral male lineage.

The genetic data also revealed that there were at least two migrations of modern humans into the Americas. People in the first migration traveled to the Americas from Africa via East Asia. The second wave of immigrants traveled from Africa through Central Asia into North America. According to the researchers, the predominant Y chromosomes in Native American populations today are most closely related to individuals in Central Asia.

Here is another interesting article.


And finally, this article collects data from numerous studies, not just Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA, to build a supertree of human populations, and shows how the genetics - and languages - supports the evolution/"out of Africa" theory.

 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Here are a couple of relevant articles. Both estimate the mutation rate, but do so from the opposites sides of the issues.

The first measures it directly, looking specifically at the Y chromosome, to give an estimate of mutation rates.



The second paper, however, does it quite differently. It compares a pseudogene in chimps and humans, and counts the number of mutations, assuming a split a few million years ago. If that assumption is right, then these two papers should similar answers. On the other hand, if Carter is right, they will be several orders of magnitude out.



One paper says 100 to 200, the other says 175. That is a pretty good agreement.

It is worth noting that the expansion of the "out of Africa" theory is relatively recent. This paper claims, as recent as 89,000 years ago.




Here is another interesting article.


And finally, this article collects data from numerous studies, not just Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA, to build a supertree of human populations, and shows how the genetics - and languages - supports the evolution/"out of Africa" theory.

There simply isn't enough mutations...That's been a major problem for evos for a long, long time. The video does an excellent job of presenting this.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
There simply isn't enough mutations...That's been a major problem for evos for a long, long time. The video does an excellent job of presenting this.

Or so says the guy who thinks mitochondria have Y chromosomes!

The fact is that there are enough mutations, as the two papers I linked to show.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
They are repeated ad nauseum by creationists. So what is your point?
I'm pointing out that evolutionist and creationists are both taken from the same mold. They just believe in the dogmas of their own respective religious denominations.
There are issues with peer review. There is, nevertheless, a huge body of evidence supporting evolution. Do you think that that suggests evolution is false?
Not at all. I'm pointing out that they routinely ignore the evidence that refutes their dogmatic theories.
Can you point to a lie modern evolutionists promote?'
Sure. Haekel's fraudulent drawings of embryology, Piltdown man. They claim that the entire process of evolution took place here on earth. From the generation of life from nothing to all forms up to the present. Richard Dawkins is notorious for promoting his atheistic claims exclusively from the theory of Evolution. Modern advocates of evolution are constantly attempting to juxtapose bible thumping fundamentalist Christians with their theory which only spotlights the lie that the two have anything to do with one another.

Quote a modern evolutionist, say from the last 20 years, and show how the claim is a lie.
There is no such thing as "selfish genes", "junk DNA", "an arms race" etc. etc. etc. Yet all evolutionists continue to refer to them as if they actually exist. The enigmatic "Mechanism" of Evolution itself has yet to be presented for inspection as well.
Basically because people are reluctant to accept change.
Exactly! You're making my points for me now.
Which, frankly, is what creationism is.
Don't forget evolution.
Disproving evolution would revolutionise science and win you a Nobel prize. The reason no one has done that is that there is no proper evidence.
Your ignorance of the evidence spotlights your bias. The predecessors to the Cambrian creatures are missing, something that Darwin himself was disturbed by as well. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" fails miserably to discover the origins of any species. Modern evolutionists continue to discover species that simply appear out of nowhere. The TofE offers nothing in the way of explanatory power for any of this data. How many morphological changes does an air breathing land animal need to go through before it can breathe under water? The TofE offers little to nothing in the way of providing anything for engineers to implement. Science doesn't need to be revolutionized, it needs to stop mimicking religion.
I am using the term to refer to someone who advocates evolution.
And I am pointing out that their advocacy is in ignorance.
Refute this:

"Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?

It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20 to the 150th power. In other words, many. 20 to the 150th power roughly equals 10 to the 195th power, and there are only 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe.

What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 10 to the 74th power will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 10 to the 74th power is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 10 to the 77th power.

In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done."
 

Algor

Active member
Refute this:

"Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?

It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20 to the 150th power. In other words, many. 20 to the 150th power roughly equals 10 to the 195th power, and there are only 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe.

What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 10 to the 74th power will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 10 to the 74th power is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 10 to the 77th power.

In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done."

We already went through this:


It is self evident that you need a new shtick.
 

rossum

Well-known member
I'm pointing out that evolutionist and creationists are both taken from the same mold. They just believe in the dogmas of their own respective religious denominations.
Yet another creationist who thinks that science is superior to religion. You are criticising the science of evolution by trying to make it appear as if it was a religion: "dogmas", "religious denominations". That criticism shows that at some level you consider that science is superior to religion.

I find that attitude puzzling in a religious person. It is also not uncommon on the creationist side, where similar criticisms -- "evolution is a religion" -- are often made.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I'm pointing out that evolutionist and creationists are both taken from the same mold. They just believe in the dogmas of their own respective religious denominations.
Wrong.

Creationists believe in creationism because it is in the Bible, and for them, that trumps evidence. Evolutionists believe in evolution because of the evidence.

Evolutionists have all sorts of religious beliefs as well as none at all. To suppose that Christians and atheists both believe evolution is true due to "the dogmas of their own respective religious denominations" is utter nonsense, and when you make statements like this, it really makes me wonder about your claim not to be a creationist.

Not at all. I'm pointing out that they routinely ignore the evidence that refutes their dogmatic theories.
What evidence do evolutionists routinely ignore?

I earlier said:
Can you point to a lie modern evolutionists promote?
Sure. Haekel's fraudulent drawings of embryology, Piltdown man.
When do modern evolutionists promote either of those?

They do not. Your claim is simply not true.

They claim that the entire process of evolution took place here on earth. From the generation of life from nothing to all forms up to the present. Richard Dawkins is notorious for promoting his atheistic claims exclusively from the theory of Evolution.
They claim that because that is what the evidence points to.

For something to be a lie, it has to be false and the person saying it has to know it is false. So yes, Piltdown man is an example of a lie - one that was exposed by evolutionists about 70 years ago, by the way. Dawkins promotes what he believes to be true, and he does so without resorting to lies.

I appreciate most creationists believe creationism is true, but when they promote that by saying lies, as Carter does in the OP video, then that undermines their credibility. Can you point me to any lies Dawkins tells to support his view?

Modern advocates of evolution are constantly attempting to juxtapose bible thumping fundamentalist Christians with their theory which only spotlights the lie that the two have anything to do with one another.
I am not sure what you are saying here. Does "their theory" refer to evolutionists' theory or Christians'? If the former, this is just nonsense. The vast majority of evolution theory is studied without reference to or even thought about creationism or Christianity. I appreciate it may not look that way when we discuss the two, but very few biology articles actually consider creationism at all. The papers I cited earlier would be good examples of that.

There is no such thing as "selfish genes", "junk DNA", "an arms race" etc. etc. etc. Yet all evolutionists continue to refer to them as if they actually exist. The enigmatic "Mechanism" of Evolution itself has yet to be presented for inspection as well.
The evidence indicates that these things are real (as long as you under them properly, genes are not literally "selfish").

It is your opinion - as a creationist, it looks to me - that these things are not true, but that does not make Dawkins a liar when he has the opposite opinion.

Exactly! You're making my points for me now.
Science is not perfect, and change takes time. I will admit that. But it is way better at these things than religion. Science does adopt new ideas, when the evidence warrants it. Religion does not.

Don't forget evolution.
How so?

Your ignorance of the evidence spotlights your bias.
I think that that is more true of you, as your next sentence illustrates:

The predecessors to the Cambrian creatures are missing, something that Darwin himself was disturbed by as well.
You say you are not a creationist, and yet still you fall for these creationist lies. I am not suggesting you are lying, but I m sure the people that promote this idea are fully aware that it is not true. Yes, Darwin was disturbed by the lack of fossils, but it is quite different nowadays.

A good technical overview

This one has pictures.

Another here:
EDITED--TOO MANY LINKS

Here is an article in Nature about one specific mollusc like pre-Cambrian species.
EDITED--TOO MANY LINKS

It turns out that there is a lot of evidence for pre-Cambrians organisms. And it turns out that you are the one ignorant of the evidence, spotlighting your own bias - as a creationist, I believe.

Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" fails miserably to discover the origins of any species.
It proposes a general theory of how all species appear, and such was the power of his theory it is now accepted (broadly) by 99% of biologists. It may lack specifics, but that does not make it wrong.

Modern evolutionists continue to discover species that simply appear out of nowhere.
But you cannot give any examples.

Certainly there are species that are harder to classify, especially if all we have is a small fossil, but lack of data does not in any way suggest evolution is wrong. A real example of "species that simply appear out of nowhere" would be something with a radically different body plan (like a centaur), biochemistry and DNA to anything else. Can you find such an example on any of your creationist web sites?

Of course not, because these things do not exists.

The TofE offers nothing in the way of explanatory power for any of this data. How many morphological changes does an air breathing land animal need to go through before it can breathe under water?
Why should evolution be able to answer that? It has never happened, as far aa I know, and so may not even be possible. The fact that whales cannot breath underwater certainly suggests it is not possible,

The TofE offers little to nothing in the way of providing anything for engineers to implement.
So what? That is not the test of science.

Science doesn't need to be revolutionized, it needs to stop mimicking religion.
Well at least we can agree that using religion as a basis is wrong.

Refute this:

"Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? ...
Evolution has something in it called "natural selection". Can you point out where that is modelled in the above?

I do not think it is. I think you are presenting a straw man version of evolution that simply ignores half the theory. Well, what do you know? If you pretend evolution is just random mutation, and ignore natural selection, then you can "prove" it does not work. Brilliant! I bet you can prove the Wright brothers' plane cannot fly... if you pretend it has no wings.

But maybe I have missed something. You clearly spent a lot of time working out the maths here. It was you, right? You do not credit anyone else, so it must be. Do please talk me through the natural selection part of your model.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top