[_ Old Earth _] Creation and Evolution Presentation

[Sparkey]

When we go into a parking lot, let's say it's at the nearby Wal-Mart, and if we want to categorize the variety of vehicles there we may sort them by the many options available to us.

Hmmmm.... let's go from the lightest shades of color and advance toward the darkest shades, shall we?
Or let's shuffle the deck and arrange from the smallest to the largest with the tiny metro vehicle near the sport cars and the RV's on the other end.
Or we could become fascinated by age or rust spots, the size of their mirrors, how many doors... it's almost endless, right? How many vehicles have empty twix bar candy wrappers inside?

Lots of options. Do any add clarity to the question of origin?
Well, if we considered emblems and marks that designated manufacture, we could list in alphabetical order, Alpha Romero, BMW, Cadillac (yeah, I know... hush), Datsun and etc.
We might struggle with this concept when we look carefully at the insides though. Certain links could be associated for vehicles with leather seats as opposed to those with pleather.
What sparkplugs are used? Is there clarity here? How does this 'evidence' relate to origin?
And what about current ownership. If we looked at the registration slips and saw, for instance, that 'John Smith' owned several vehicles, what would that imply? What might we conclude?

Rabbit trails all.

 

[turnorburn]

Evolution is an attempt to make a monkey out of our saviour, call it what you will and you have; its blaspheme where i come from..

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

She instructed us to consider the things found by evidence common to currency, counting, calendars, time tracking, all the while citing from a related source book documenting African Fractals.

As a teacher, I find that a difficult math concept becomes much more accessible to students if I use money as an illustration. For example, a sixth-grader may have a difficult time dividing one by four. But she has no trouble at all, if I ask her how to divide a dollar's worth of change among four people.

It works for higher-level math, too. Every teacher knows this. It's like "if you want to get the class's attention back, talk about food." Tricks of the trade.

 

[Barbarian]

Just a little bit more about brain size:

Absolute size isn't the issue. It's what happens to the different centers when the brain grows. Hence, we see only rudimentary language ability in apes, with rather small and undeveloped Broca's and Warnicke's areas. But ours work a lot better. So a child, with great plasticity of function (which we retain to a degree as adults, even into old age) can remodel their brains to accomodate losses. Adults who have a slow degradation of Broca's area, for example, retain speech; the functions are gradually transferred to another part of the brain.

There is also the discovery that humans have a mutation that greatly increases the number of connections in neurons. So the quality is also better due to that particular mutation.

 

[Vaccine]

Just a little bit more about brain size:

Thanks a lot sparrow ;), here I though was a story about language and it was a touching story about a girl. Seriously, that story was absolutely amazing! That she learned to walk and run even just blew me away. I'm surprised they didn't even mention speech therapy, I'm thinking it wasn't an issue. Auto-immune disorders are fascinating.

 

[Sparkey]

There is also the discovery that humans have a mutation that greatly increases the number of connections in neurons. So the quality is also better due to that particular mutation.

Interesting view presented from one discipline --- interdisciplinary studies aside, thank you.

 

[Barbarian]

Mutation helped human brain evolve
These mutations are incomplete meaning that if the product of SRGAP2A combined with SRGAP2B/C to form a protein (remember, this protein is formed by two copies of the amino acids produced by the gene fusing together) then that protein would have lost some functionality. This loss of functionality appears to stop the SsrGAP2 protein working properly.

This loss of function means it can’t regulate spine growth properly. As a result they grow for longer, resulting in much denser spines. Preliminary research suggests that thicker spines can receive information from more neurons. This would enable more neurons to connect to each other, enhancing brain connectivity and intelligence. However, this conclusion should be taken with a grain of salt since the results are, as I just said (pay attention), preliminary.

More rigorous tests have revealed that by loosing functionality SsrGAP2 makes neurons create fewer branches ahead of them. Since these branches slow the neurons down as they move around the brain, this mutation would result in faster migration. This would speed up the development of the brain.
http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/mutation-brain-evolve/

 

[Vaccine]

To his credit he did say preliminary. I assume the reason he said that is duplication and mutation is an assumption. The genes exist on separate regions of the genome and are unique in their structure and function. There is no precedent genes can jump to the chromosome’s centromere, let alone mutate there. They are located on one of the stablest, mutation free regions of the genome.

View attachment 3568

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...37d7e79&pid=1-s2.0-S0092867412004618-main.pdf
This shows the differences between the genes on the left chart, and their location on the genome on the lower right. They don't look like copies, they have unique function and structure. Also, the lack of recombination there suggests the genes didn't jump there. The assumption of a mutation is just unbelievable, why should speckulation replace knowledge? A gene would duplicate itself 3 times AND each copy would reorganize (mutate) to unique functions AND each copy make unprecedented jumps!? What Hoyle said about a tornado a junkyard and a Boeing 747 comes to mind.

 

[felix]

So the evidence is pretty clear. Language is very likely the result of the growth of the brain, in specific areas, using existing functions to a new purpose. And we can show it was a gradual process, since our closest relatives have a more limited set of language abilities, it is very likely that it existed in a modest form in our common ancestor. Darwin would be pleased.

(Num 22:28-30) Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?" And Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!" So the donkey said to Balaam, "[Am] I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since [I became] yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?" And he said, "No."

Language has nothing to do with growth of the brain.

 

[Barbarian]

(Num 22:28-30) Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, [/quote]

The Lord could make a stone speak, if He were so inclined. But a miracle (which is done not out of necessity, but to teach us something) has nothing to do with the way He creates organisms with the ability to use language.

Language has nothing to do with growth of the brain.

As you can see from the evidence posted on this thread, it does.

 

[Barbarian]

To his credit he did say preliminary.

Scientists always use cautious language.

I assume the reason he said that is duplication and mutation is an assumption.

Not if you use "assumption" as it is used in English. Properly speaking, the gene duplication and mutation is a conclusion from evidence.

The genes exist on separate regions of the genome and are unique in their structure and function.

No. They are similar in structure, and of course have closely-related functions.

There is no precedent genes can jump to the chromosome’s centromere, let alone mutate there.

Barbara McClintock got a Nobel for showing that they can.

Click image for larger version Name: SRGAP2a.jpg Views: 3 Size: 128.6 KB ID: 4695

The assumption of a mutation is just unbelievable

As you see, a conclusion from the evidence. And no one can find an alternative explanation that covers all the evidence.

why should speckulation replace knowledge?

It shouldn't. But creationists have nothing else.

A gene would duplicate itself 3 times AND each copy would reorganize (mutate) to unique functions AND each copy make unprecedented jumps!?

Gene duplications are quite common, and transposons are also.

She disproved the popular genetic theory of the time that genes were fixed in their position on a chromosome. McClintock found that genes could not only move, but they could also be turned on or off due to certain environmental conditions or during different stages of cell development.[5] McClintock also showed that gene mutations could be reversed.[6] McClintock presented her report on her findings in 1951, and published an article on her discoveries in Genetics in November 1953 entitled, ″Induction of Instability at Selected Loci in Maize.″[7] Her work would be largely dismissed and ignored until the late 1960s-1970s when it would be rediscovered after TEs were found in bacteria.[8] She was awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology in 1983 for her discovery of TEs, more than thirty years after her research and initial discovery.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon

What Hoyle said about a tornado a junkyard and a Boeing 747 comes to mind.

Possibly the dumbest thing ever said about evolution. Hoyle would have a case, if there were no such thing as natural selection. It came as a complete shock to him, when he heard about it. He didn't get it quite right, however. He later argued that insects are more intelligent than we are, because of natural selection.

He was a better physicist than a biologist, you see. He also argued that Archaeopteryx was a fake, with feathers glued into a fake fossil. He persisted in this, even when he was shown the counterpart fossil, which would have been impossible to exactly fake.

 

[felix]

(Num 22:28-30) Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey,

The Lord could make a stone speak, if He were so inclined. But a miracle (which is done not out of necessity, but to teach us something) has nothing to do with the way He creates organisms with the ability to use language.

Language has nothing to do with growth of the brain.

As you can see from the evidence posted on this thread, it does.

Just to be in context, my presentation is based on the fact that Bible is historically accurate and scientifically correct.

I showed not what the Lord "can do" but "what the Lord actually did" just ~ 3.5 kya without any evolutionary requirements like large heads or millions of years of mutations etc.

 

[Vaccine]

I agree Barbara McClintlock's work demonstrated the stability of the centromere. That was the point I was trying to make, DNA can reconstruct existing genes from there, but moving 3 new mutated genes to the centromere is entirely different.

I'd sure like to see the odds of the same gene being copies 3 times. The odds each of those copies have a gain of function mutation? That's three separate gain of function mutations. And once there has been improbability upon improbability, we add another improbability, that each of those new genes move to the centromere. Then the last improbability, these duplicated, gain of function mutationed genes would then be distributed among 100% of the population of humans. Honestly, it defies all reason and logic. I'm sure that's why he stressed "preliminary."

 

[Sparkey]

Following along with a thought expressed in POST #41, I've recently been handed this video (by a grandmother here on this forum)...

A little more about brains... This titled "Miracle Hands" is a story about Ben Carson...

Doctor Ben Carson Documentary

I understand that the full documentary is a couple hours long and I've not seen it all. This is only 1/2 hour (30 mins). Well worth a watch, methinks.

Published on YouTube Feb 12, 2013
A must see about an extraordinary American who overcame great odds to become one of the most renown pediatric neurosurgeons in the world.

 

[Barbarian]

Just to be in context, my presentation is based on the fact that Bible is historically accurate and scientifically correct.

It is based on the recent assumption that the Bible is intended to always be literal history and a science text. This is not supported by evidence.

I showed not what the Lord "can do" but "what the Lord actually did" just ~ 3.5 kya without any evolutionary requirements like large heads or millions of years of mutations etc.

Since God was not specific about these things one way or the other, it comes down to evidence. And there is no evidence for your assumption.

 

[Barbarian]

I agree Barbara McClintlock's work demonstrated the stability of the centromere. That was the point I was trying to make, DNA can reconstruct existing genes from there, but moving 3 new mutated genes to the centromere is entirely different.

McClintock's work shows that such things are a normal function of the genome.

I'd sure like to see the odds of the same gene being copies 3 times.

Multiple copies are very common.

Evolution by gene duplication: an update
Jianzhi Zhang
Ecology and Evolution
Volume 18, Issue 6, June 2003, Pages 292–298
Abstract
The importance of gene duplication in supplying raw genetic material to biological evolution has been recognized since the 1930s. Recent genomic sequence data provide substantial evidence for the abundance of duplicated genes in all organisms surveyed. But how do newly duplicated genes survive and acquire novel functions, and what role does gene duplication play in the evolution of genomes and organisms? Detailed molecular characterization of individual gene families, computational analysis of genomic sequences and population genetic modeling can all be used to help us uncover the mechanisms behind the evolution by gene duplication.

Some sequences are more prone to multiple copies than others:
Replication slippage is an error in DNA replication which can produce duplications of short genetic sequences. During replication DNA polymerase begins to copy the DNA. At some point during the replication process, the polymerase dissociates from the DNA and replication stalls. When polymerase reattaches to the DNA strand, it aligns the replicating strand to an incorrect position and incidentally copies the same section more than once. Replication slippage is also often facilitated by repetitive sequence, but requires only a few bases of similarity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

The odds each of those copies have a gain of function mutation?

Notice that only the genes with a new function tend to be preserved. So you're back to drawing a bulls-eye around an arrow stuck in a tree. We don't know how many others were not favorable, and were lost. As you see, the evidence shows that duplication of these sequences provided new material on which mutations would not be lethal to the organism. And hence, the discovery that many favorable mutations are found in duplicated genes.

 

[Sparkey]

As you can see from the evidence posted on this thread, it does.

If by "evidence" you mean the things you've said? Okay, sure.

 

[felix]

Just to be in context, my presentation is based on the fact that Bible is historically accurate and scientifically correct.

It is based on the recent assumption that the Bible is intended to always be literal history and a science text. This is not supported by evidence.

I showed not what the Lord "can do" but "what the Lord actually did" just ~ 3.5 kya without any evolutionary requirements like large heads or millions of years of mutations etc.

Since God was not specific about these things one way or the other, it comes down to evidence. And there is no evidence for your assumption.

My evidence is from God Himself who showed in Scriptures that the donkey not only thinks like humans but can also speak. When God opened the mouth of donkey, it spoke without any evolutionary requirements.

(1 Corinthians 1:21-25) For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

If you believe Bible to be historically accurate, then donkeys can think like humans and can speak like humans except their mouth is not open by God.

 

[Barbarian]

If by "evidence" you mean the things you've said?

Research cited.

 

[Sparkey]

If you believe Bible to be historically accurate, then donkeys can think like humans and can speak like humans except their mouth is not open by God.

Or that was an extraordinary thing where that donkey was given the ability. I don't know that the bible said that all donkeys can speak and/or think as humans do? But I do take your meaning that God is the author of all these things.

Regarding Barbarians view? The 'evidence' that has been introduced so far about size of the brain? I don't see that as conclusive at all. Really? Barb, you can do better. I've seen you do better.