Temujin
Well-known member
Not quite true. They fit them into the Biblical model by saying "These observations don't fit the Biblical model. Therefore they should be ignored."
Soft Tissue from Dinosaurs
- Thread starter The Pixie
- Start date
CrowCross
Well-known member
The first possibility is very simple and there is logical Biblical and scientific support for this scenario. From the beginning, Adam and Eve were not created with a biochemical pathway for making vitamin C and were dependent on eating fruit, the best source of vitamin C. We know they were instructed to eat any fruit in the Garden of Eden except fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and yet had access to the Tree of Life. Adam and Eve lived in an environment with many similarities to heaven. However, unlike those in heaven, Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and produce little Adams and Eves. Human reproduction would require nutrients to build tissues for the child during and after pregnancy, an indication that Adam and Eve had to eat to provide for their developing children and also for the maintenance of their own bodies. Furthermore, today nutritionists recommend a diet high in fruit and vegetables as being the healthiest source of nutrients, which is consistent with what God instructed Adam and Eve to eat. It is possible that God made Adam and Eve (and us) dependent on fruit as a source of vitamin C as a reminder that they were dependent on Him for food that must be eaten to stay healthy. Feel free to visit the article in it's entirety.
Why is that a problem?
There is much to be said on this subject...feel free to visit this site.
What is discussed?
Helium Diffusion—Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, PI
Nuclear Decay Theory—Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, PI
Radiohalos—Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, PI
Isochron Discordance—Dr. Steven A. Austin, PI
Case Studies in Rock Dating—Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, PI
Significant Amounts of 14C in Deep Strata—Dr. John R. Baumgardner, PI
The basic conclusion of this research is that conventional radioisotopic dating methods are unreliable. The chief reason is that uniformitarianism is not a legitimate model of earth history. Observational evidence supports the recent occurrence of a global catastrophic Flood. Because the earth has suffered a major tectonic catastrophe corresponding to the Genesis Flood, the uniformitarian assumptions that are applied to obtain age estimates from radioisotopic data are simply not true. Intermediate results from RATE support a young-earth, catastrophic, creationist model.
Not quite sure what you're getting at...as you only tried to impress us with bullet points and absolutly no explanation.
DNA, that is the code with in it...causes atoms to form molecules within a living body.
The DNA codes for the molecules to group and form amino acids.
The amino acids join together and form proteins according to the direction of the DNA.
The proteins are instructed by DNA how to precisely fold, group together with other folded proteins and create organelle.
Atoms-----> molecules-----> amino acids-----> proteins-----> organelle
This process happens within a cell numerous times. In some cases the organelle form an assembly line coded for by the DNA. This multiple stage series process must all work in harmony with the previous and next stage for the desired outcome to happen.
Many times the product of one assembly line is joined precisely with the product of another assembly line to achieve a purpose.
One mistake in the DNA's programming of the molecule....
One mistake in the DNA's programming of the amino acids....
One mistake in the DNA's programming of the protein ....
One mistake in the DNA's programming of the protein fold....
One mistake in the DNA's programming of the organelle....
One mistake in the DNA's programming of the organelle assembly line....
One mistake in the DNA's programming of the joining of the assembly line product....
....and the end result is a failure.
How does evolution account for the information within the DNA code to gradually evolve through a process of natural selection and random chance and form extremely complex systems contained within a cell?
Now lets uses these cells to make tissue...and tissue to make bones... all programmed by the DNA
Oh how ignorant Opine Pixie is. But, as long as he thinks the lights are out in the creation research buildings...Opine Pixe presents absolutly no problem.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Psalms 104 explains a lot.
Is it truly your opinion that a mountain can't move from one place to another?
Temujin
Well-known member
Have you never heard of plate tectonics? Mountains are constantly moving. Just very slowly.
Temujin
Well-known member
Does this also apply to Guinea pigs? I have a vision of an entire parallel religious universe, with a guinea pig Trinity, a guinea pig catechism guinea pig heaven and hell, all based on the God provided inability to metabolise vitamin C. It sounds just as plausible as the Bible.
CrowCross
Well-known member
You evo-minded claim the mountains can move at rapid speeds.
Temujin
Well-known member
Depends what you mean by "rapid". 4 billion years is plenty of time.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Your uniformatarian friends tell us mountains can move 100Km...they suggest the max velocity was 767 Mph
Temujin
Well-known member
Link please. Mountains, indeed whole continents, have moved that far. The speed seems unlikely. Why the different units? Or are you making this up?
Temujin
Well-known member
And the speed? Or were you making that up?
rossum
Well-known member
No. The end result is a mutation. Albinism is the result of one mistake, and a living human being is the outcome.
Other mutations are also not fatal, though they may be deleterious. There is a reasonable scope for errors in the assembly line. Some are fatal while others are not.
Most errors are neutral. The system is a lot sloppier and error-tolerant than Discovery Institute videos make it appear.
Thanks for at least having a stab at this. let us see what you have.
The article does address pseudogenes, but ultimately just falls back on We do not know for sure, so we can still pretend it was God
There is nothing about how the pseudogene is distributed between species in the article.
Creationism fails again.
So how does a young-Earth hypothesis explain why the amount of argon-40 is a function of how deep in the geological column the rock is? Remember that the geological column is a construct, and the actually depth of the rock in a layer v aries hugely across the globe.
Creationism fails again.
The distribution of the vitamin C pseudogene
Humans cannot make vitamin C, we lack the gene to do so. However, there is a pseudogene. In evolutionary terms, this is what remains after a mutation broke the gene. What makes this especially interesting is that all primates have this same pseudogene. We all have a broken gene for vitamin C, and it is all broken in the same way. There are other clades with a broken vitamin C gene, but they are broken each in their own way. So how does creationist explain how this pseudogene is distributed between species?None of that even addresses why we have the pseudogene, let alone how that is distributed among different species.
The article does address pseudogenes, but ultimately just falls back on We do not know for sure, so we can still pretend it was God
"Thousands of human pseudogenes have been catalogued, but in spite of the similarities to functional genes, the exact role of pseudogene sequences in the genome are not known by any scientist."
There is nothing about how the pseudogene is distributed between species in the article.
Creationism fails again.
The distribution of radio isotopes in geological column
As an example of this, one way rocks are dated is with the ratio of potassium-40 to argon-40 in the rock. From an old earth perspective, the ratio is a function of the age of the rock; the more argon-40 the older the rock. This ties up very neatly with the placement of the rock in the geological column. The depth in the column is a simple function of the ratio. The lower in the column the rock is found, the older the rock is, and hence the more argon-40 will be there.So how does a young-Earth hypothesis explain why the amount of argon-40 is a function of how deep in the geological column the rock is? Remember that the geological column is a construct, and the actually depth of the rock in a layer v aries hugely across the globe.
Nothing about the distribution of radio isotopes in geological column. I have been debating creationism for years, and have never seen a creationist address this evidence. It disagrees with their model, so they ignore, just as is happening here.
Creationism fails again.
The distribution of amino acid sequence variation
An example of this is the pattern of differences in the sequence of amino acids in cytochrome-c. Cytochrome-c is present across most organisms, and the sequence of amino acids is about 70% the same across them all. The other 30% varies between different species. What is interesting is that the amount of variation is a function of how distantly related the species are. Human and chimp have the same sequence, humans and monkeys a bit more, while humans and yeast have very different. How does creationism explain this?For more details see here:
Rate variation during molecular evolution: creationism and the cytochrome c molecular clock - Evolution: Education and Outreach
Molecular clocks based upon amino acid sequences in proteins have played a major role in the clarification of evolutionary phylogenies. Creationist criticisms of these methods sometimes rely upon data that might initially seem to be paradoxical. For example, human cytochrome c differs from that...
evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com
For an earlier thread - which was duly ignored by creationists - see here:
? - Do-While Jones and the Pattern of Differences in Cytochrome-C
Not quite Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.. A guy who insists he is an IDist and not a creationism (like there is a difference) is citing a paper by Do-While Jones to refute evolution, and more specifically the evidence from cytochrome amino acids sequences, when comparing differences...
forums.carm.org
I am not a biochemist, so must admit I am not sure, but this looks wrong to me. Out of those four claims, only the third is right - DNA does determine how the amino acids are assembled to make a protein.
You seem to think molecules are made in the body from atoms, which is not true. Molecules are made by transforming and combining other molecules.
All amino acids are synthesized from intermediates in glycolysis, the citric acid cycle, or the pentose phosphate pathway. Nitrogen is provided by glutamate and glutamine. Amino acid synthesis depends on the formation of the appropriate alpha-keto acid, which is then transaminated to form an amino acid.
5.14A: Amino Acid Synthesis
Organisms vary in their ability to synthesize the 20 common amino acids, but most bacteria and plants can synthesize all 20.
bio.libretexts.org
Protein folding is determined by electrostatic forces in the molecule (plus sulfur-sulfur bonding, though they might just hold it once has already folded). How that happens is determined by the sequence of amino acids, which is in turn determined by the DNA, but it is not true to say the DNA instructs the protein to fold a certain way.
This is again mostly wrong. A mistake in the DNA will potentially lead to a different amino acid sequence, but there is some variation between sequences, so that may or may not be an issue.
Random mutation and natural selection. The last bit is vital, and, therefore, invariably absent from creationist models of evolution.
However, the take away from all this is that creationism cannot explain the distribution of amino acid sequence variation
Creationism fails again.
Who is opining?
I am not sure why you feel the need to append "Opine" to my name all the time, but I am guessing this is projection? You have a track record of presenting your opinion as fact, and then failing to support it.
? - CrowCross claims YE paleontologists have proved old Earth wrong
CrowCross said this, and I thought I would do the ferengi thing and start a new thread where I demand evidence for it. Young earth paleontologist have demonstrated that those dates presented by OE paleontologist are in error. Unlike ferengi, I will say from the start that in this thread links...
forums.carm.org
Can you provide evidence of when I do that?
In fact, here is a great example. You say I "opine" - let us see if that is merely you presenting your uninformed opinion as fact. I say you are projecting, and I have already provided the evidence to substantiate that.
Apparently there is some truth in it. The mountain is believed to have moved 62 miles in about thirty minutes. not as fast as CrowCross claims, but in that ball park.
The mountain that broke the speed limit
LiveScience: A mountain near the Montana-Wyoming border once moved 62 miles in a half-hour, in a catastrophic scenario that could be repeated elsewhere, scientists say.
www.nbcnews.com
Temujin
Well-known member
That's interesting. Reality is so much more fun than creationism can ever be.Apparently there is some truth in it. The mountain is believed to have moved 62 miles in about thirty minutes. not as fast as CrowCross claims, but in that ball park.
The mountain that broke the speed limit
LiveScience: A mountain near the Montana-Wyoming border once moved 62 miles in a half-hour, in a catastrophic scenario that could be repeated elsewhere, scientists say.