Cristina Rad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nTnjx-JRzE
- I 1:30
- - what traits will be passed on to the next generation ... characteristics ... over a very long period ...
DNA is not a computer game where you can wysiwig desired traits.
Someone has a blue eyed mutation. That someone gets married. Will the next generation be blue eyed? If both parents are blue eyed, yes. If other one is pure brown eyed, no, none in next generation will be blue eyed. It is not the trait that is passed on. It's the gene. And that gene is recessive and will not show until it gets into a genome where the other chromosome also has the blue eyed gene.
In other cases, certain genes are linked to more than one trait, and certain traits are dependent on a combination of genes.
No, even sexual selection is not chosing what traits will be passed on, not directly. It is making a move in the dark towards it, but not actually effectuating it directly. - II 2:34
- homology?
OK, what about similar structures in very different organisms or which for quite another reason have no possibility of having a common ancestor.
Coffee and tea and Maté and Chocolate all produce caffeine. They are not related.
Or - according to Evolutionists - as far off as potatoes and grapes. - III 3:35
- some of the ancestral traits in embryos are not so.
"Gills" of human embryos are not gills, they do develop into something else. - IV 4:38
- and put them in very precise periods of time?
Well, depends on what method you use. If Triassic biotope type once was world wide, then world wide succeeded by Jurassic type, then world wide succeeded by Cretaceous type of biotopes ... and Cretaceous by extinction event and extinction event by Palaeocene ... all these world wide ... sure, then the strata one on top of the other would be telling a story of succession of biotope types.
I wrote a letter to a mayor in Roumania. I was asking whether the Cretaceous there was purely a Cretaceous find - or sth else below and above. I have gotten no answer, but I do not think there were Permian fossils straight below or Palaeocene fossils straight above.
The evidence of the fossil record is compatible with another type of precise dating: Cretaceous etc. biotopes all come from the time when Noah was in the Ark, and are not different because they were globally successive stages of life, but because they were globally varied biotopes of life. - V
- Reptilian features of Archaeopteryx - also explainable by misguided fetal development, perhaps in genetic or similar experimentation done by Nephelim or Nodian experts in sinning against the kinds that God created (in our day known as Transgenics.)
- VI 5:46
- - a More detailed discussion of Tiktaalik:
CMI : Is the famous fish-fossil finished?
Tiktaalik, the transitional star, faces an evolutionary dead-end
By Tas Walker
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished - VII 6:28
- while some of the traits are blended, many are not.
A one locus trait may have as many variations as there are alleles, plus if these are by identical alleles in both chromosomes, again as many as there are combinations of alleles for that locus.
A two locus trait - with a different chromosome pair involved - or perhaps even a three locus trait ... I think that is how skin colour works.
But the fact remains, even if a gene may very well surface later identically, it also may very well dive down into recessive position, favouring expression of dominant allele in other chromosome, before recombining with itself and expressing itself.
This also means that a mutant never has the new trait in a double chromosome form.
It cannot even show how the gene will express when it recombines with itself, by offspring inheriting it mating or [in the case of man] marrying. - VIII
- Genetics explain how the new traits appear.
Well, what genetics shows is: Rearranging, Removing, Ruining any genetic information is very easy. Creating new has not been shown unequivocally.
CMI argues that resistant to antibiotics bacteria actually have less genetic information, they have a ruined digestion system and cannot take in antibiotics fast enough to get killed. - IX 9:13
- Not one piece of evidence found that contradicts evolution?
Here again, chromosome numbers of mammals:
Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html
[wonder how much of debate under PZM's post that I linked to also is visible now ...?]
["again"? where is the other comment I had made before this one, and where I had mentioned it? XII? ] - X
- You referred to Richard Dawkins calling creationists history deniers?
Well, he made kind of a challenge on knowing the past, I answered it and tried to forward to him, but have neard nothing, zilch, nada from him about it.
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Dawkins made a challenge, on knowing the past
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2012/05/dawkins-made-challenge-on-knowing-past.html - XI
55:35:53 - Seeing picture.
I see a clear rupture between E and F. A less clear one between C and D.
That's maybe just my impression, but I think anything from Homo ergaster on to Homo sapiens modern is same kind. So, F to L are all descendants of Adam and of Eve, whatever the case be with D and E.
I was actually a little expert on development of man acc. to Darwinism before giving up the "evolution" part of it.
I am not denying the skulls. I am very definitely denying their purported ages. - XII 7:24
- telomeres and centromeres are hardly genetic markers, are they?
They do have a function in chromosome structure.
It seems the more people have looked into the evidence the less evidence and more gaps is there with the human chromosome 2.
Reputed telomere region is not telomeres and contains genes.
Disactivated centromere cannot be proven to have been a centromere.
More details in these articles on CMI:
http://ppt.li/vl [= CMI : The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence
by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins
http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1]
http://ppt.li/vm [= CMI : The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data
by Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman
http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2] - With debate:
- XIII 1:53
- a microbe with resistance.
You might want to check this one up with Carl Wieland - a medical doctor who is now a Creationist writer and speaker at CMI - their url is http://creation.com
While we are on microbes, some strands have been breeding by now for tens of thousands of generations. A new generation per 30 minutes, you know.
Escherichia coli has been breeding the longest.
It has in one change approached itself a bit to Salmonella - two microbes pretty close [to start with].
But it remains a coccus type bacterium, it has not shown signs of becoming a bacillus type or a spirillus type bacterium, nor of turning into an amoeba, nor of inventing a new type.
So much for the "adding up to very dramatic changes".
Adding up to Salmonella or to resistance against antibiotics is of course medically dramatic, but it is not at all typologically dramatic. It means one has to change the treatment, but hardly the label in a microbe zoo, a k a test tubes with nutritive solutions.
- Robert Buck
- Hans-Georg Lundahl, I viewed your suggested site, Carl Wieland - a medical doctor should have his medical license suspended. I've WITNESSED MUTATIONS (EVOLUTION) in a laboratory setting. If the doctor refuses to accept empirical data, don't let him operate on you.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Robert Buck, nowhere on his site does he suggest bacteria do not mutate.
Besides, he is no longer a practitioner.
However, if you are in medicine, I hope you stay out of psychiatry.
Misrepresenting Carl Wieland is fair game in a debate. Misrepresenting a patient is malpractise (one too often committed).
[not "fair game" as honest or fair play, but "fair game" as non-criminal]
Here is what Carl Wieland is actually saying about microbes on site:
CMI : Superbugs not super after all
by Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all - XIV 8:55
- Each new discovery is supporting evolution?
Each new discovery is formulated and interpreted so as to support evolution - or hushed down. Alternative interpretations are also hushed down.
- MadNotAngry
- Hush, Hans.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Ha, trying to be funny.
- XV 3:07
- common ancestor OR creator
- Aaron Watson
- Yeah, unless that creator intended to decieve us in the most despicable of ways
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- foreseeing how a certain scientific community with a certain ideology would interpret things (wrongly) does not amount to deceiving all men that way.
- XVI 3:50
- why do we have a muscle to move a tail, if we don't have a tail?
You might want to check that one with doctors who have seen this muscle harmed, and how easy it is to sit after that.
- Doktor Antitheist [previously a k a Sweeney Todd, I think]
- You do realize that your argument is obviously against "intelligent design", right?
Why would a "designer/creator" make us with the musculature to move a tail, if we don't have one?
On the one hand we can think that god fucked up (which, if we believe in the god of the bible, it isn't that far of a stretch to believe because, well, the bible is filled with his fuck-ups).
Or, on the other hand, we can think of the muscles as vestigial, left over from evolution.
Occam's Razor, my friend. Occam's Razor. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I cited her argument before refuting it. Here is, once again, my refutation:
You might want to check that one with doctors who have seen this muscle harmed, and how easy it is to sit after that. - Doktor Antitheist
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ok, so.... show us this medical evidence, please. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Take it away and patients complain; indeed the operation for its removal has time and again fallen into disrepute, only to be revived by some naive surgeon who really believes what the biologists have told him about this useless ‘rudiment."
Ref: Shute, Evan, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, Craig Press 1961, page 40; cited in Ref. 7, page 34
Ref 7 = Bergman, J. and Howe, G., “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional, pages 32–34, Creation Research Society Books, 1990
CMI / UK Store : Product not found!
http://ukstore.creation.com/catalog/product_info.php?sku=10-3-032
"Product not found!"
First quote and all references via:
CMI : Human tails and fairy tales Have there really been people with functioning tails, and if so, are they vestigial? Feedback archive → Feedback 2007
http://creation.com/human-tails-and-fairy-tales- Doktor Antitheist
- For future reference, sir, when someone asks you to provide evidence they mean from a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.
Furthermore, this journal has to be reputable, i.e.: accepted by the scientific community.
Creationist website do not count (this goes for the other thread re: chickens with teeth), neither does scripture or any "doctor" who earned their "degree" from a degree mill (i.e.: people like "Dr. Dino").
No one will ever take you seriously in a scientific debate when you rely wholly oncreation scienceshit.
Once again, for the record, good day, sir.
[chickens with teeth see below]
[Yep, it's Sweeney Todd, he spells creation science with a strike through:creation science- btw, sorry for not reproducing his emphases meticulously by remaking them in html, but it becomes a bit tiring to me. I have at least copied all the words.] - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Dr Carl Wieland was a Dr med, not a Ph D, and he was a prectising physician.
Your demand is as if I were discussing the Bible with a Russellian and they demanded I had to support any interpretation of a passage where we agree on the text but differ on the interpretation by a reference from Watchtower or Awake! - XVII 4:12
- - first of all, occur is not pronounced like ohcure. More like uh-kerr.
Then, if the reason is "ancestral" gene being "still" present, this means the gene in question has a function in the organism, other than the supposed ancestral one.
Remember what Dawkins said about DNA not being a "blue print" but a "recipe"?
Any genome for multicellular animals is like a recipy that bakes itself. This means something which is in one of the "recipes" meant to be final may in another one be meant to be a preparation.
Teeth in chicken embryos are a preparation for the ridge in the beak.
- Doktor Antitheist
- The fact that you saw fit to correct her pronunciation of one word here is pathetic.
Way to go, you put a non-native speaker of English in her place. Well done! - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I am a non native speaker. I am also a Grammar Nazi. One favourite kind of Nazi with me. Hope she doesn't mind. Btw, it was the only grammar fault she made in all of the video.
However, the fact that you only complained about my grammar fascism suggests you had little to say against my argument as such. - Doktor Antitheist
- I didn't see an argument so much as an assertion. Yes, DNA can be described as a "recipe", a set of instructions on how to build an organism, but even then, unless one is a molecular biologist, that is a very layman's way of putting it.
I would opine that the teeth in chicken embryos, which research suggest are due to a lethal recessive gene, are simply remnants of their reptilian past millions of years ago. Birds are more closely related to reptiles than mammals, and evolutionary lineage suggest they are (to put it very simply) modern-day dinosaur descendants. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Evolutionary lineage" presupposes that Evolution is a proven fact. As it is not, the lineage is not a fact either.
Your opinion on chicken embryonic teeth for one thing is indebted - heavily - to your ideology, and for another is simply side-stepping the fact that embryonic development of chicken is a harmonic whole leading to a biologically harmonic creature, fully fit as it is for life. - Doktor Antitheist
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually, we know for fact that the gene which causes teeth to form is lethal, because chicken embryos with this recessive gene activated do not survive the hatching phase.
Evolution does not presuppose anything, it's a scientific theory which is supported by all evidence gathered independently. Are you even sure that you know what evolutionary theory is?
But it's good to see that you don't seem to have an argument for the vast evidence which supports the fact that birds are descendants of dinosaurs. Congratulations, you just accepted evolutionary lineage.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Have a good day, sir. Will be muting this thread. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- No, I did not.
Your claim that chicken "with the gene activated" do not survive hatching might be wrong. There was one fifty years ago born with lots of malformations, and supposedly also teeth AS LATE AS hatching. But that might be due to disactivation of other gene levelling out earlier teeth to a ridge. Hence my reference to "recipé". OR, one can take the approach of Dr Wieland, chickens were created so as to have teeth or not with a certain adaptability which was alter lost by natural selection:
CMI : Chickens with teeth
Carl Wieland
25 July 2006
http://creation.com/chickens-with-teeth - Doktor Antitheist
- For future reference, sir, when someone asks you to provide evidence they mean from a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.
Furthermore, this journal has to be reputable, i.e.: accepted by the scientific community.
Creationist website do not count (this goes for the other thread re: human tail bones), neither does scripture or any "doctor" who earned their "degree" from a degree mill (i.e.: people like "Dr. Dino").
No one will ever take you seriously in a scientific debate when you rely wholly on creation science shit.
Once again, for the record, good day, sir. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Ah, you did publish that comment identically under two threads!
Now, as I said under the other one, you are compareable to someone in a Theological debate requiring that any argument from non-members of their sect be backed up by articles in Watchtower or Awake! - XVIII 8:50
- 4.5 billions of years is plenty of time? Well, how do you prove that kind of time scale?
- Doktor Antitheist
- How do you prove an hour?
How do you prove a century?
See how ridiculous your question is? - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Not at all.
I prove a century easiest. Days and years are experienced and recollected by lots of PEOPLE who keep record. That is proof enough for me.
An hour is less easy to prove. Easiest way is day time and clear weather, at equinox, with a sundial calibrated so that first and last line do coincide with solar positions at sunrise and sunset - or rather not coincide with them, but oppose to them and coincide with shadow of the standing fixed pointer. Then the dial itself must also be divided into twelve equal parts. When the sunshadow has passed from one such line to the next, an hour is proven to have passed.
In less ideal conditions, I settle for watches and note that a man waking up each morning can see the clocks at same hour, there is no decalation so the 24 hours do not match the solar nychthemeron ("day and night" or "night and day" in Classical Greek).
Due to that very certain calibration, made through PEOPLE being in place when sunshadow strikes first and last lines at sundial, or due to PEOPLE verifying watches basically match the 24 hours for the astronomic phenomena of day and night, sundials at equinox and watches are valid proof of hours passing.
What about sundials outside equinox?
In Classical times, an hour was the twelfth subdivision of a DAY, from sunrise to sunset. Outside equatorial and polar regions this means hours vary in length because days do so. This means at winter solstice one had to take another calibration with a shorter arc subdivided, and at summer solstice yet another, with a longer arc subdivided. Meaning, if you looked at wrong calibration (fortunately they tended to be distinct also through length of shadows) you might, outside midday, get the wrong hour. Also, a sundial must be made for local divergence of hours and is useless at other latitudes (did I get it right), and even bad at right latitude if set at wrong angle.
In Late Antiquity or early Middle Ages, monastic rules implied a need to measure hours also at night. Methods were invented that measured equinoctial hours outside sundials used at equinox day time. Some had been used earlier in courts to give each side equal speaking time.
[Btw, I read a book preview from "Seven lies about the Middle Ages" about a class teacher making Middle Ages look goofy by referring to no time except sundials - book author objects to inaccuracy, so do I, but on top of that, a man not knowing the exact time because he lived in a society without watches was hardly goofy. He lived under conditions where it was irrelevant. I live under conditions where it is so seldom relevant, except when obvious - the breakfast shelter for the homeless closes at 8:30 and that is when the University Library where I access computers opens a few stations away - for which I am thankful. When it is needed without it being obvious, I can often ask.]
Another way is to do an activity which takes an hour. I used to say the Rosary slower and make 15 mysteries last 45 minutes.
In clear nights, if a constellation you recognise (even I can spot Orion) moves at an angle of 15° (24*15=360), you know an hour has gone. Or actually a bit less. Stars circle earth not "once every 24 hours" but "once every 23 h 55 minutes" (or something). But that bit less is irrelevant for the measuring of "one hour". How do you get 15°? Stretch out your arm towards the two items (like where Orion was last time and where it is), measure with spread out hand - cannot recall exactly how much spread out, but think it was really spread out.
That is how you prove a century and an hour. Your turn. - Doktor Antitheist
- So then, I don't see what the problem is for not being able to understand how scientists can prove (science doesn't prove anything, proofs move into the realm of mathematics) support the claim with evidence that the Earth is between 4.4 Ga and 4.6 Ga, or how we know that the universe is ~13.77 Ga.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- If science gives us any fact, it is either through direct observation (in largest sense, including introspective experience of ourselves) or through proof.
Those are the only ways in which knowledge of fact can be had.
I was not claiming "I cannot understand how science could know, etc." But I was asking HOW exactly, so as to get to grips with the flaws in your arguments. You studiously avoid to be as detailed about that as I was about century or hour.
However, the short answer is, the supposed date of 4 point 4 Giga-annum ago or 13 point 7 Giga-annum ago are dates for which no people are supposed to have been around, able to check the factors relevant for calibration of the supposed "clocks" giving those supposed dates. For both hour and century the proving of a certain timespan was related to observation by people, that is why I capitalised the word.
Try again. - Doktor Antitheist
- Once again, science doesn't prove anything, proofs are reserved for mathematics and courts of law. The highest order achievable in science is theory; theories are substantiated based on evidences which support hypotheses.
So you're using the "how do you know, were you there" argument flaunted so idiotically by the likes of Ken Ham and Eric Hovind, I see?
If that's correct, then I can neither provide you with evidence supporting science's dating methods nor expect you to change your views. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- More ranting about generalities too broad to argue interestingly about, plus more ideology.
Well, let someone else take up my gauntlet then!
[I missed one point, as he will point out] - Doktor Antitheist
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl I refuse to have an intelligent dialogue with someone who won't even admit or deny subscribing to the "How Do You Know, Were You There" ideology.
Do you subscribe to such thinking?
YES or NO
One reason I refuse to do it, is because we need to establish an epistemology within which we can work. If your epistemological structure is creationism, then I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain the vast scientific evidence supporting dating methods, or anything else for that matter.
(Let this then refer to all threads in which you and I have been going back and forth). - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- But yes, "how do you know, where you there, or was any other human there whose acocunt we have?" is a pretty appropriate question about ANY claims to knowledge of ANY past.
It can be bypassed by divine revelation (no human being there yet on day four), but not by science interpreting the evidence material as a certain ideology sees fit.
Proof is available in science, for instance that bacteria reproduce asexually is a proven fact.
Universe 13.5 billion years old is not. Fact or fiction, it lacks proof. - Doktor Antitheist
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, then, sir, I can neither educate nor sway you.
Once again, science does not deal in PROOFS. That realm is left to MATHEMATICS. Science's realm is in supporting or refuting hypotheses (christ on a cross, why is that so hard for you to understand? Elementary school children learn that in science class), which can be done based on performing experiments, gathering evidence, etc.
HYPOTHESES and THEORIES are in science. That's it.
"Divine revelation", scripture, whatever you want to call it, has no place in science. Nowhere in the history of science has divine revelation been used as evidence. As hypothesis, yes, but not as evidence.
Creationists assume the conclusion. Not scientists.
I refuse to continue a dialogue with someone who simply cannot understand this basic concept. Perhaps someone else who is better than me can (I admit my flaw of being impatient and intolerant of stupidity and willful ignorance, which are traits you, sir, exhibit fully).
Good bye. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Science's realm is in supporting or refuting hypotheses"
I have heard that theory of science before. BUT refutation is a kind of proof AND refuting an A may often involve proving a very specific non-A.
Evidence is the kind of evident (hence name)starting points that are used for proof and it is sometimes or pretty often ambiguous.
Saying "there is evidence for B" means "the evidence can (with correct principles of logic) be constructed so as to prove B."
In other words, divorced from all concept of logical proof, evidence neither supports or refutes anything.
Your specific theory of science is that of Bacon and Popper. One doesn't have to agree with them to discuss science. - Wasn't there ...
- a discussion on C14 somewhere here? Has it vanished or was it somewhere else?
- N Campbell
- Radiometric dating, using Uranium 238.
"Atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable and decay over time by shooting off particles at a fixed rate, transmuting the material into a more stable substance. For instance, half the mass of carbon-14, an unstable isotope of carbon, will decay into nitrogen-14 over a period of 5,730 years. The unswerving regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials -- such as remains of Paleolithic campfires -- with a fair degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, which has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth.
Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have attempted to influence the rate of radioactive decay by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay."
Science Daily : Radiometric dating still reliable (again), research shows
Date: September 18, 2010
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100915171534.htm - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Uranium - lead method presupposes that the lead of a certain isotope present beside Uranium is decayed Uranium. There is no way to know how much Uranium there was to start with without tha assumption.
I will give two more links here.
One is concerned with a theoretical difficulty of even measuring half lives as long as that of Uranium 238.
Other one is concerned with epistemology in general.
I do not have a "creationist epistemology" because I share my epistemology or parts of it with creationists. There is no such thing as a "creationist epistemology", if we are to discuss these matters between creationists and evolutionists. There is such a thing as a common sense epistemology. No man was there to measure Uranium content 4.5 billion years ago is a common sense objection, not a specifically creationist one.
Evolutionists may be dividing people into creationists and their own devout flock when trying to answer it, but nevertheless the question as such will come up outside their own devout flock and not just among the devout flocks of Ken Ham.
So here are the links, epistemology being Thomist is first:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : St Thomas' Theory of Our Knowledge of Things - Q 84 in a Nutshell
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/02/st-thomas-theory-of-our-knowledge-of.html
And next is difficulty of accurate measures of very long half lives:
New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/01/quarterlife-is-bad-term.html
No comments:
Post a Comment