The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[rossum]

How do genes which have on/off switches work in the development of the human species?

All of our cells contain all of our genes. The cells in our big toes contain all of the genes needed to make eyes. The cells in our eyes contain the all the genes needed to make toenails. The eye genes are switched on in our eyes and are switched off in our toes. The genes for toenails are switched on in our toes and switched off in our eyes.

The switching is controlled by other genes such as Hox genes and Pax genes. This is well covered by Neil Shubin’s book “Your Inner Fish”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Thank you for the corrected scale explanation Granymh. Of course Rossum et al. are in a state of denial regarding C-14 dating of dinosaur bone collagen etc in the range of 23,000- 33,000 C-14 years. His latest demand is that C-14 dates must agree with Ar/Ar dates and other methods that are “absolute ages.”

My latest demand is that Phillipp be consistent. He quotes me a site which says that C-14 dates are not reliable over 50,000 years ago and then expects me to accept a C-14 date from rock Ar-Ar dated to 1.3 million years old. There is obviously a problem with his argument.

Test for C-14 content of some meteorites containing carbon.

This is useless for dating. C-14 dating can only date organic carbon that was part of a living organism within the last 50,000 years; it cannot date inorganic carbon. All you will be testing is how much other radioactive material the meteorite has been in contact with and how much Earthbound contamination is has undergone. Neither is a basis for a reliable date.

Some meteorites are also reported to contain organic compounds like has been reported for the moon Titan. So maybe we don’t have to wait to test for C-14 in the hydrocarbons of Titan. The problem will be to convince the scientists of the repositories for these meteorites that the experiment would add to the knowledge of science. Of course if they have the mind-set of some folks on this thread the experiments will never happen.

We know that organic compounds can form naturally in space and on lifeless planets - as with the Miller-Urey experiment. Even if those organic compounds are from living organisms on Titan we do not have the correct calibration curves for Titan to get reliable dates. All our calibration curves are for Earth, not Titan.

Of course the C-14 content, if any, would be at or near the sensitiivty of the equipment so the specific equipment that was used to C-14 date earthly diamonds in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 C-14 years should be employed.

Again, diamonds are inorganic carbon, not organic carbon. Most diamonds fall outside the 50,000 year range of reliable C-14 dating anyway.

If all you ever use to weigh things is a set of kitchen scales then everything you weigh will come in at 10 Kg or less. Just do not expect people to pay much attention to you when you tell them that you found an adult elephant weighing 10 Kg.

rossum

 

[hugh_r.miller]

My latest demand is that Phillipp be consistent. He quotes me a site which says that C-14 dates are not reliable over 50,000 years ago and then expects me to accept a C-14 date from rock Ar-Ar dated to 1.3 million years old. There is obviously a problem with his argument.

This is useless for dating. C-14 dating can only date organic carbon that was part of a living organism within the last 50,000 years; it cannot date inorganic carbon. All you will be testing is how much other radioactive material the meteorite has been in contact with and how much Earthbound contamination is has undergone. Neither is a basis for a reliable date.

We know that organic compounds can form naturally in space and on lifeless planets - as with the Miller-Urey experiment. Even if those organic compounds are from living organisms on Titan we do not have the correct calibration curves for Titan to get reliable dates. All our calibration curves are for Earth, not Titan.

Again, diamonds are inorganic carbon, not organic carbon. Most diamonds fall outside the 50,000 year range of reliable C-14 dating anyway.

If all you ever use to weigh things is a set of kitchen scales then everything you weigh will come in at 10 Kg or less. Just do not expect people to pay much attention to you when you tell them that you found an adult elephant weighing 10 Kg.

rossum

Better recalibrate your balance as it can’t can seem to differentiate 25,000 years for dinosaur bone collagen from 50,000 years the maximum sensitivity for some AMS equipment. Also the word concordance within a sample whether organic material or inorganic source material seems not to be in your vocabulary. From a Catholic perspective all the elements were created in-situ in some concentration why not C-14?

---

Big Jack Horner sat in a corner**
scraping a dinosaur bone.**
Some soft tissue appeared
And he said, "Just what I feared!
Evolution’s long ages are gone!"

 

[Rsiewell]

Well, what if God created the earth in an advanced state? That is, he created the Earth as though it had existed physically for a long time.

Some Lutheran Churches (LCMS & WELS) have official statements of creationism, but it’s not an impediment to simply be a member.

As a matter of Science, I believe in evolution. As a matter of Faith, I believe in creationism.

How about you pick one cuz you dont get to believe in both seperately

 

[grannymh]

If all you ever use to weigh things is a set of kitchen scales then everything you weigh will come in at 10 Kg or less. Just do not expect people to pay much attention to you when you tell them that you found an adult elephant weighing 10 Kg.

rossum

I am neither a YEC nor a really long, long age earth person. The drifting of the volcanic ash seems to me a good example of how volatile the earth still is, which to me would make dating difficult.

If I may, the emphasis in the kitchen scale scenario should not be placed on the adult elephant or any item being weighed. What should be emphasized is the difference between 10 Kg (50,000 years) and any number less than 10Kg. It is the difference which indicates the correctness of dating.

Any weight less than 10Kg or age less then 50,000 years can be assumed correct.
What does ring bells that something may be wrong is when the weight registers 10Kg or 50,000 years. A salt block could easily weigh 10Kg and an elephant could easily weigh sorry, but the mental picture of an elephant trying to stand on a kitchen scale is too funny. The point is that it is the number registered on the scale which is the key issue, not what is being weighed.

However, as I try to read the information about dating, it seems to me that there is a lot more to determining the date than what first appears. As I have said before regarding other issues of scientific research, in my humble opinion it is methods, how objects are handled and prepared, and materials, including equipment, which are key.

Note: I may be laughing but the size of an elephant would be appropriate when thinking long, long ages.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is the answer to the question --Is there a future?

 

[StAnastasia]

How about you pick one cuz you dont get to believe in both seperately

That’s not true: I both believe in creation and accept an ancient, dynamic, and evolving cosmos.

 

[itinerant1]

** From a Catholic perspective all the elements were created in-situ in some concentration why not C-14?**

So that I do not misinterpret the foregoing statement, please elaborate on your intended meaning.

 

[buffalo]

NO NO NO! It DOES have to be. 10 million species and they ALL fit perfectly in to nested hierarchies. I WILL NOT let you avoid the question! If you do not believe we evolved then please provide me one example out of the 10 MILLION species that violates the nested sets, or explain to me why god did, or had to, create all life in a nested set of hierarchies.

Nested hierarchies are hallmarks of design.

 

[rossum]

Better recalibrate your balance as it can’t can seem to differentiate 25,000 years for dinosaur bone collagen from 50,000 years the maximum sensitivity for some AMS equipment.

Different equipment has different sensitivity. For example, contamination from previously measured samples left in the equipment.

Most scientific dates are confirmed by making two or more measurements using different methods. Have you done that with your dinosaur fossils? You will not convince any scientists with low C-14 dates. If you can produce a matching low Argon-Argon date or a matching low Uranium-Lead date then the scientific community will take more notice of your claims.

Also the word concordance within a sample whether organic material or inorganic source material seems not to be in your vocabulary.

C-14 dating is only reliable for carbonaceous material that was once alive. Inorganic source material does not take in carbon as either food or the raw material for photosynthesis – only living organisms do this, and it is this process which is the basic starting point for C-14 dating. Diamonds do not eat and they do not photosynthesise.

From a Catholic perspective all the elements were created in-situ in some concentration why not C-14?

Why not C-14? Theodosius Dobzhansky says it far more eloquently than me:One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos (“the Navel”). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now - a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for.

Source: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

Nested hierarchies are hallmarks of design.

So, what does it mean, specifically, to say “Nested hierarchies are hallmarks of design”?

Evolution, as science, predicts that living things will be related to one another in what are called to as nested hierarchies. It is so much evidence for common descent.

Philosophically, (and not scientifically) we discern design in the process. And design itself presupposes intelligence, which is why the expression “intelligent design” is redundant. In fact, it is what is called a neoplasm.

From the fact of nested hierarchies, there can be no specifically “scientific” evidence for an intelligence that designed nested hierarchies, precisely because intelligence cannot be observed or measured.

An ID theorist will agree to the fact of common descent but will also claim that the designer (i.e. God) intervenes countless times in the evolutionary process to provide all the novel forces necessary for the production of new species and/or IC systems.

Hence, even in regard to nested hierarchies, the problem still remains as to whether God works in nature the way ID theorists claim, and whether the infinite intelligence at work in nature can be observed and measured by the methods of science.

The answer is still, that God does not intervene and design in nature in the manner in which ID theory and creationists claim, and that intelligence cannot be measured or observed, nested hierarchies notwithstanding,

Additionally, what is the sources of your claim “The “core” is the 500 or so genes that all forms of life share.”?

 

[buffalo]

So, what does it mean, specifically, to say “Nested hierarchies are hallmarks of design”?

Evolution, as science, predicts that living things will be related to one another in what are called to as nested hierarchies. It is so much evidence for common descent.

Philosophically, (and not scientifically) we discern design in the process. And design itself presupposes intelligence, which is why the expression “intelligent design” is redundant. In fact, it is what is called a neoplasm.

From the fact of nested hierarchies, there can be no specifically “scientific” evidence for an intelligence that designed nested hierarchies, precisely because intelligence cannot be observed or measured.

An ID theorist will agree to the fact of common descent but will also claim that the designer (i.e. God) intervenes countless times in the evolutionary process to provide all the novel forces necessary for the production of new species and/or IC systems.

Hence, even in regard to nested hierarchies, the problem still remains as to whether God works in nature the way ID theorists claim, and whether the infinite intelligence at work in nature can be observed and measured by the methods of science.

The answer is still, that God does not intervene and design in nature in the manner in which ID theory and creationists claim, and that intelligence cannot be measured or observed, nested hierarchies notwithstanding,

Additionally, what is the sources of your claim “The “core” is the 500 or so genes that all forms of life share.”?

Let’s examine this from the IDvolution perspective.

God breathed the language of DNA into the kinds.

All organisms share around 500 or so “immortal” genes. I call these the core. The core is capable of producing great variation. As life forms “spread” from the core they naturally would form nested hierarchies.

We have an embryo - we have a switch that is turned on for a leg a wing or what have you. We have another embryo that has another switch turned on for a fin, etc.

However they all share the same core components and circuitry. (this could be the basic kinds) What makes them a fish or a fly? The mother’s cell. The core processe are conserved and the changes (adaptations) come from the regulatory processes. The core processes can be linked together in different ways to produce new features.

It operates sort of like an erector set. Many new combinations can be built with just a few pieces.

Going further with the erector set analogy one can see that sub-components can be built. As they are used for different functions we can see the nested hierarchies. Now what is really neat is that we can could see a project built for a specific purpose put together in different ways. We now know that several novel features have “evolved” more than once, which is not predicted by evo. It is by IDvolution. It is evidence for common design.

IDvolution does not require God to intervene at steps along the way. This innate capability gives rise to tremendous adaptation and diversity.

St Thomas is happy, St Augustine is happy, the Pope is happy, I am happy and soon you will be too.

 

[itinerant1]

Let’s examine this from the IDvolution perspective.

God breathed the language of DNA into the kinds.

All organisms share around 500 or so “immortal” genes. I call these the core. The core is capable of producing great variation. As life forms “spread” from the core they naturally would form nested hierarchies.

We have an embryo - we have a switch that is turned on for a leg a wing or what have you. We have another embryo that has another switch turned on for a fin, etc.

However they all share the same core components and circuitry. (this could be the basic kinds) What makes them a fish or a fly? The mother’s cell. The core processe are conserved and the changes (adaptations) come from the regulatory processes. The core processes can be linked together in different ways to produce new features.

It operates sort of like an erector set. Many new combinations can be built with just a few pieces.

Going further with the erector set analogy one can see that sub-components can be built. As they are used for different functions we can see the nested hierarchies. Now what is really neat is that we can could see a project built for a specific purpose put together in different ways. We now know that several novel features have “evolved” more than once, which is not predicted by evo. It is by IDvolution. It is evidence for common design.

IDvolution does not require God to intervene at steps along the way. This innate capability gives rise to tremendous adaptation and diversity.

St Thomas is happy, St Augustine is happy, the Pope is happy, I am happy and soon you will be too.

I guess it is fairly easy for you to imagine that all is well just so long as you continue in your refusal to answer any critical questions about your hypothesis.
:juggle:

 

[grannymh]

So, what does it mean, specifically, to say “Nested hierarchies are hallmarks of design”?

Evolution, as science, predicts that living things will be related to one another in what are called to as nested hierarchies. It is so much evidence for common descent.

Philosophically, (and not scientifically) we discern design in the process. And design itself presupposes intelligence, which is why the expression “intelligent design” is redundant. In fact, it is what is called a neoplasm.

From the fact of nested hierarchies, there can be no specifically “scientific” evidence for an intelligence that designed nested hierarchies, precisely because intelligence cannot be observed or measured.

An ID theorist will agree to the fact of common descent but will also claim that the designer (i.e. God) intervenes countless times in the evolutionary process to provide all the novel forces necessary for the production of new species and/or IC systems.

Hence, even in regard to nested hierarchies, the problem still remains as to whether God works in nature the way ID theorists claim, and whether the infinite intelligence at work in nature can be observed and measured by the methods of science.

The answer is still, that God does not intervene and design in nature in the manner in which ID theory and creationists claim, and that intelligence cannot be measured or observed, nested hierarchies notwithstanding,

Additionally, what is the sources of your claim “The “core” is the 500 or so genes that all forms of life share.”?

 

[grannymh]

So, what does it mean, specifically, to say “Nested hierarchies are hallmarks of design”?

Evolution, as science, predicts that living things will be related to one another in what are called to as nested hierarchies. It is so much evidence for common descent.

Take a look at the current diagrams for the clade system used to trace ancestral relationships. It is interestingly clever. Every classification system has a particular design.

Philosophically, (and not scientifically) we discern design in the process. And design itself presupposes intelligence, which is why the expression “intelligent design” is redundant. In fact, it is what is called a neoplasm.

So, what is the neo-Thomistic expression for any kind of design in nature?

From the fact of nested hierarchies, there can be no specifically “scientific” evidence for an intelligence that designed nested hierarchies, precisely because intelligence cannot be observed or measured.

Interesting thought. Check out how clades are designed to reflect the place of living organisms. A human with intelligence had to figure this out in order to draw it on paper. Seems to me that intelligence is being observed. Or maybe a better way to say it is that human intelligence is reflecting the original intelligence. Isn’t there a Thomistic expression or explanation for this – maybe in the five ways.

An ID theorist will agree to the fact of common descent but will also claim that the designer (i.e. God) intervenes countless times in the evolutionary process to provide all the novel forces necessary for the production of new species and/or IC systems.

Do all ID theorists really and truly believe in the god of the gaps theory?

Hence, even in regard to nested hierarchies, the problem still remains as to whether God works in nature the way ID theorists claim, and whether the infinite intelligence at work in nature can be observed and measured by the methods of science.

What do the neo-Thomists actually say about the concept of clades or nested hierarchies?

The answer is still, that God does not intervene and design in nature in the manner in which ID theory and creationists claim, and that intelligence cannot be measured or observed, nested hierarchies notwithstanding,

I didn’t think that ID claims were the same as the creationist’s.

Note: Instead of confusing me about ID, how about talking about how Thomists would tackle all of the above.
What positive position is it that you are promoting?

Blessings,
granny

Spring is the answer to the question --Is there a future?

 

[itinerant1]

Take a look at the current diagrams for the clade system used to trace ancestral relationships. It is interestingly clever. Every classification system has a particular design.

So, what is the neo-Thomistic expression for any kind of design in nature?

I am already familiar with cladistics. And I have already explained the Thomistic views in regard to “design” many times.

Interesting thought. Check out how clades are designed to reflect the place of living organisms. A human with intelligence had to figure this out in order to draw it on paper. Seems to me that intelligence is being observed. Or maybe a better way to say it is that human intelligence is reflecting the original intelligence. Isn’t there a Thomistic expression or explanation for this – maybe in the five ways.

Not in the five ways.

Do all ID theorists really and truly believe in the god of the gaps theory?

Sure, that is what ID theory is — a god (intelligent designer) of those gaps that allegedly cannot be explained by natural processes.

What do the neo-Thomists actually say about the concept of clades or nested hierarchies?

They would say well and good if that is what the science can show.

I didn’t think that ID claims were the same as the creationist’s.

They are not the same, except that certain folks in this thread, if you have not noticed, combine the worst of both worlds and thereby imagine they are providing some kind of legitimate explanation of origins both of the biological and non-biological realms.

Note: Instead of confusing me about ID, how about talking about how Thomists would tackle all of the above.
What positive position is it that you are promoting?

The idea of clades is not new. I don’t have anything interesting to add.

And I don’t have a simple position or overview of creation and evolution that will fit into a nutshell, so I can say here it is.

Creationists, on the other hand, require a simplistic view that is small enough of a view that they can hold it in their hand and say, “Here is how it is.” There is psychological security in having such an extremely simplistic view of the world, even if not much about it is true.

 

[grannymh]

I am already familiar with cladistics. And I have already explained the Thomistic views in regard to “design” many times.

Not in the five ways.

Sure, that is what ID theory is — a god (intelligent designer) of those gaps that allegedly cannot be explained by natural processes.

They would say well and good if that is what the science can show.

They are not the same, except that certain folks in this thread, if you have not noticed, combine the worst of both worlds and thereby imagine they are providing some kind of legitimate explanation of origins both of the biological and non-biological realms.

The idea of clades is not new. I don’t have anything interesting to add.

And I don’t have a simple position or overview of creation and evolution that will fit into a nutshell, so I can say here it is.

Creationists, on the other hand, require a simplistic view that is small enough of a view that they can hold it in their hand and say, “Here is how it is.” There is psychological security in having such an extremely simplistic view of the world, even if not much about it is true.

My apology for bothering you.

 

[hugh_r.miller]

Let’s examine this from the IDvolution perspective.

God breathed the language of DNA into the kinds.

All organisms share around 500 or so “immortal” genes. I call these the core. The core is capable of producing great variation. As life forms “spread” from the core they naturally would form nested hierarchies.

We have an embryo - we have a switch that is turned on for a leg a wing or what have you. We have another embryo that has another switch turned on for a fin, etc.

However they all share the same core components and circuitry. (this could be the basic kinds) What makes them a fish or a fly? The mother’s cell. The core processe are conserved and the changes (adaptations) come from the regulatory processes. The core processes can be linked together in different ways to produce new features.

It operates sort of like an erector set. Many new combinations can be built with just a few pieces.

Going further with the erector set analogy one can see that sub-components can be built. As they are used for different functions we can see the nested hierarchies. Now what is really neat is that we can could see a project built for a specific purpose put together in different ways. We now know that several novel features have “evolved” more than once, which is not predicted by evo. It is by IDvolution. It is evidence for common design.

IDvolution does not require God to intervene at steps along the way. This innate capability gives rise to tremendous adaptation and diversity.

St Thomas is happy, St Augustine is happy, the Pope is happy, I am happy and soon you will be too.

The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) began with the domestication of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) several tens of thousands of years ago. Domesticated dogs provided early humans with a guard animal, a source of food, fur, and a beast of burden. The process continues to this day, as the intentional cross-breeding of dogs continues, to create the so called “designer dogs”.

All one has to do is to visit the zoo to see possible several types of wolves and a dog show to see “designer dogs”. Each breed of dog has certain qualities that appeal to us as pets, sheep herders, and hunting dogs etc. I suspect IDvolution could be used to describe the diversity of dogs on this planet. Does that make sense?

Darwin’s finches are perhaps another example as are the black and white moths in England. I think we can all agree that the survival of the fittest brings out the best in all of us when things get tough. When the trees were blackened from the use of coal the white moths became les than the black ones. When the trees returned to their natural coloration the white ones began to reappear again as the birds saw the black as well as the white ones.

The basic core was there from the get go that allowed man to make use of dogs for his own needs and whims; and for the Finches to survive by variation for different size beaks. Population genetics as Dr. Maciej Geirtych explained earlier allows for such variation within a kind. IDevolution better fits what we actually see than the word evolution.

 

[StAnastasia]

IDevolution better fits what we actually see than the word evolution.

If that is the case, why is “IDvolution” unknown by virtually all working scientists?

 

[itinerant1]

There is no evidence to indicate that the “kinds” were the originally created organisms, nor the earliest forms in natural history.

 

[itinerant1]

The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) began with the domestication of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) several tens of thousands of years ago. Domesticated dogs provided early humans with a guard animal, a source of food, fur, and a beast of burden. The process continues to this day, as the intentional cross-breeding of dogs continues, to create the so called “designer dogs”.

All one has to do is to visit the zoo to see possible several types of wolves and a dog show to see “designer dogs”. Each breed of dog has certain qualities that appeal to us as pets, sheep herders, and hunting dogs etc. I suspect IDvolution could be used to describe the diversity of dogs on this planet. Does that make sense?

Darwin’s finches are perhaps another example as are the black and white moths in England. I think we can all agree that the survival of the fittest brings out the best in all of us when things get tough. When the trees were blackened from the use of coal the white moths became les than the black ones. When the trees returned to their natural coloration the white ones began to reappear again as the birds saw the black as well as the white ones.

The basic core was there from the get go that allowed man to make use of dogs for his own needs and whims; and for the Finches to survive by variation for different size beaks. Population genetics as Dr. Maciej Geirtych explained earlier allows for such variation within a kind. IDevolution better fits what we actually see than the word evolution.

You have tersely described the extensively studied phenomena of variation under domestication and variation in nature. And then you merely add that “IDevolution” can explain variation within a kind. Oh?

One is then left to wonder what your main point is supposed to be because you don’t really seem to make one. That is, there is no point with supporting facts or argument whatsoever. Perhaps you would like to continue by fleshing out what you were trying to say.