[_ Old Earth _] Evolution 101

[jwu]

Researchers from Texas A&M and Berkeley claim they have solid evidence of human footprints in Mexico created 1.3 million years ago

The Calico Site (Including Louis Leaky), in California, claim solid evidence of
human occupation at > than 200,000 years.

Interesting...where can i read up on that?

According to textbook representations of human evolution, "modern"
humans evolved in Africa 120,000 years ago.
Apparently some very reputable scientists disagree, and have
solid evidence to back their claim.

Homo Sapiens, that is - but e.g. Homo Erectus (with very similar feet) can very well have migrated around and left such footprints way earlier than 120.000 ago.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie:

Why wouldn't ERV's be designed into mammal's genomes. Their fetus's
wouldn't survive without them. It would be ridiculous to design mammals
without them. Same would apply for certain other "parasite/ host "
relationships.

jwu:
Only one particular ERV sequence, HERV-W, is known to be utilized by the cell. It still has the typical genes 5' - gag - pol - env - 3' in that sequence flanked by LTR, which indicates that it wasn't always part of the genome, but got inserted by a virus. That shouldn't be there if it was designed that way from the start. Furthermore, there is no parasite host relationship as the cell does not produce any of these viruses - the insertion went wrong, which saved the cell in first instance.

Hmmmm....there's alot of speculation in your point.

One could just as easily say they been here from the beginning. The

genome sequence may be similar to virus activity, because it has a similar

function...immunity.

Peace

 

[jwu]

What part of it is speculation? That sequence is characteristic for viruses. Furthermore, most ERV sequences are not used for anything, they are inactive.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie:

Some Evolutionists hypothesize ERV's are just old viral infections that have lost their ability to leave the host cell and infect other cells, at the same time in which the overall organism has evolved to require the evolved virus.

This an example of coevolution, which hypothesizes two distinct organisms
evolving at the same time, in a way that is mutually dependent.

jwu:

Source?
The cells do not produce the viruses, else they'd blow up and release them at one time. There is no symbiotic relationship, and with the exception of HERV-W i am not aware of any such sequence which is actually used by the organism for own purposes either.

The mammalian chromosome presents an especially interesting case of accumulation of 'parasitic' DNA. All placental species have unique LINE elements present at very high abundance as well as other related and even more abundant elements, such as the SINES or primate specific alu elements (see (70) for references). Yet there appears to be no common progenitor to these elements. All these elements appear to be products of reverse transcription of cellular RNA's however, there is no explanation for the conservation to RT activity in mammals.


Although endogenous retroviruses are found in most organisms prior to mammalian radiation, the levels of these genomic agents is relatively low in non-mammals and the nature of retroposons seems distinct form that in mammalian. Mammalian LINES, for example lack a precise 5' end, have no poly-A 3' end, and lack RT coding regions that are characteristic of all LINE elements as opposed to avian or other retroposon elements of vertebrates that do not have these features. Why are mammalian (eutherian) chromosomes especially so full of these RT derived agents? What selects for their generation or retention?


A genomic retrovirus: essential for placentals? In a proposal published in 1997, I raised the issue of endogenous retrovirus and proposed that these viruses are essential to the biology of Eutherians. Viviparous mammals confront an immunological dilemma in that mammals which have highly adaptive immune systems fail to recognize their own allogenic embryos (58). The relationship of mammalian mother to her fetus resembles that of a parasite and host in that the fetus 'parasite' must be able to suppress the immune response of the 'host' mother in order to survive. As viviparous mammals are also noteworthy for having genomes that are highly infected with endogenous retroviruses and as retroviruses are generally immunosuppressive, the possible participation of endogenous retroviruses in the immunosuppression by the embryo was then considered. In addition, it was considered if such endogenous viruses might be more broadly involved in the evolution of their host and the resulting host genome that now appear to have many derivatives (such retrotransposons and as LINE elements) of such genomic viruses. This grant application seeks support to do an experimental evaluation in a mouse model of the proposed involvement of endogenous retroviruses in the immunologically escape by the embryo in the mother. I argue that endogenous retrovirus is hence essential for the biology of non-egg laying placental mammals. This study could provide evidence of the biological function of endogenous retroviruses and also address the broader issues concerning the possible contribution of genomic virus to host genome evolution.

http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/vill ... ental.html

Again, alot of speculation. Instead of seeing it as coevolution, why couldn't

this coding have been designed into the mammalian DNA because of it's

immunosuppression function. Just substitute "infected with endogenous

retroviruses" to "designed with ETV's".

I'm sure you've guessed by now, I don't care

for the highly suggestive name for these coding regions. For clarity sake,

I've gone along with the nomenclature.

I apply the same reasoning for the twin nested heiarchy: Why wouldn't one

expect to see a designers similiarities in coding for simliar structures?

I cut and paste coding regions all the time...why reinvent the wheel?

Peace

 

[jwu]

That's the HERV-W that i mentioned. Again, it's one of the cases in which ERV material is used by cells.
Most other sequences very clearly are not. They are dormant bits of broken viral genes.

I note that you did not back up the claim that they are infections "which just cannot leave the cell anymore", and that there is a symbioti relationship.

I apply the same reasoning for the twin nested heiarchy: Why wouldn't one expect to see a designers similiarities in coding for simliar structures?
I cut and paste coding regions all the time...why reinvent the wheel?

But when one does that, no twin nested hierarchy has to occur.

Reusing designs is all nice for a common designer, it doesn't have to produce a twin nested hierarchy. Instead one would expect to find certain features scattered all over the flora and fauna, there is no reason why there should be a pattern of distribution which suggests a phylogenic tree based on speciation events. E.g. why don't we see facet eyes on other species than insects?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie:

Now, you talk about faith...buying that this could actually occur naturally and randomly requires much more faith than just buying into the Creation as presented in Genesis 1.

jwu:

This requires no faith at all, as with common descent nothing unlikely is involved. it's exactly what one would expect to see with common descent! A literal interpretation of genesis however requires one to discard plenty of evidence against it.

Common Decent is a huge speculation to start with. It assumes a self

replicating molecule, by random chance, continued to organize into higher

and higher levels of complexity. Yet this would violate The Second Law of

thermodynamics. The energy would be available for such work, but how

about the programing necessary for converting this raw energy into

work. The only examples of this programming existing, to allow temporary

reversals in entropy, are contained in living organisms.


It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately

break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more

complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the

expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, coupled with a program

to direct that energy into work).

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life."

Duane Gish, Ph.D, Biochemistry, University of California at Berkeley

Peace

 

[jwu]

Common Decent is a huge speculation to start with. It assumes a self
replicating molecule, by random chance, continued to organize into higher
and higher levels of complexity

Chemistry and selection are not random. And by the time when we're dealing with replicating molecules, that's not even biological evolution yet. The business of the theory of evolution begins at the first living cell.

Yet this would violate The Second Law of
thermodynamics. The energy would be available for such work, but how
about the programing necessary for converting this raw energy into
work. The only examples of this programming existing, to allow temporary
reversals in entropy, are contained in living organisms.

Where exactly does the 2ndLoT mention a need for "programming", and that an at least as high increase of entropy elsewhere isn't sufficient? Please be specific, quote an accepted version of it and show me where exactly that is included in that law.

It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, coupled with a program to direct that energy into work).

How about observed formation of amino acids and other complex molecules?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:

...Some Evolutionists hypothesize ERV's are just old viral infections that

have llost their ability to leave the host cell and infect other cells, at the

sametime in which the overall organism has evolved to require the evolved

virus.

...This an example of coevolution, which hypothesizes two distinct organisms

evolving at the same time, in a way that is mutually dependent...



Now, you talk about faith...buying that this could actually occur naturally and

randomly requires much more faith than just buying into the Creation as

presented in Genesis 1.

Of course neither can be believed through purely

scientific deduction. Neither can be observed. Also, there is no

repeatability.

We can pretty much see viruses infecting cells today, retroviruses are even used to inject gene strands by geneticists in their experiments, if i recall correctly. And new ERV sequences are being discovered, so it is repeatable.

The evolutionary link between viruses and "ERV's" is highly speculative at

best, so to use that as an observational evidence is not valid.

Are you aware of a peer reviewed paper that documents actual observations

of viruses injecting the host's genome with coding, and then the host

retaining this coding in it's genome, and then passing it along to it's

offspring. That' would be a minimal requirement for observability. Then

repeatability would be established by observing this same process over a

wide spectrum of species.

The injecting of code into a genome using RT by scientists in a controlled

enviroment is equivalent to an intelligent force encoding "ETV's" into the

genome originally.

Peace

 

[jwu]

The evolutionary link between viruses and "ERV's" is highly speculative at best, so to use that as an observational evidence is not valid.
Are you aware of a peer reviewed paper that documents actual observations
of viruses injecting the host's genome with coding, and then the host
retaining this coding in it's genome, and then passing it along to it's
offspring. That' would be a minimal requirement for observability. Then
repeatability would be established by observing this same process over a
wide spectrum of species.

The found sequences show a very high degree of homology to today's viruses - among the typical genes which i mentioned earlier there is 75-99% homology. No other mechanism that produces such sequences is known.
Do you seriously suggest that nothing can go wrong when a retrovirus infects a gamete?

The injecting of code into a genome using RT by scientists in a controlled
enviroment is equivalent to an intelligent force encoding "ETV's" into the
genome originally.

No, it's equivalent to an intelligent force injecting the sequences by means of retroviruses, which doesn't change its status as evidence for common descent.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie:

Researchers from Texas A&M and Berkeley claim they have solid evidence of human footprints in Mexico created 1.3 million years ago.

jwu:

Interesting...where can i read up on that?

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... 0_fp.shtml

http://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/

Charlie:

According to textbook representations of human evolution, "modern"
humans evolved in Africa 120,000 years ago.
Apparently some very reputable scientists disagree, and have
solid evidence to back their claim.

jwu:

Homo Sapiens, that is - but e.g. Homo Erectus (with very similar feet) can very well have migrated around and left such footprints way earlier than 120.000 ago.

In addition to the Mexico finds (1.3 million years A/A method), recent dating

techniques applied to earlier finds in Java and the Caucasus mountains

indicate dates much earlier than that and would place Homo erectus in Asia

over 2 million years ago.

Such early dates would, if proven accurate, dramatically overturn the

currently accepted chronology of early human development.


Peace

 

[jwu]

In addition to the Mexico finds (1.3 million years A/A method), recent dating

techniques applied to earlier finds in Java and the Caucasus mountains

indicate dates much earlier than that and would place Homo erectus in Asia

over 2 million years ago.

Such early dates would, if proven accurate, dramatically overturn the

currently accepted chronology of early human development.

The implications are mostly on the migration pattern - homo erectus already was around 2 million years ago.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Some encouragement just in from http://www.crosswalk.com:-


In presenting their case, proponents of ID often point to recent scientific
research in three areas:

(1) The inner working of cells: Scientists are learning that living cells
are like a complex assembly line in which each part serves a perfectly
timed, specific purpose. If the whole system is not complete and
functioning flawlessly, it cannot perform at all. ID proponents argue that
this kind of irreducible complexity is clear evidence of a designer.

(2) The origin of the universe: ID proponents say that life is only
possible when thousands of variants such as gravitational, nuclear and
electromagnetic forces are meticulously set and balanced. Again, they claim
this is the perfect working of a designer's plan.

(3) The architecture of DNA: DNA is seen as the most convincing evidence of
the work of design. It is often described as remarkably computer-like, with
the DNA code analogous to software that directs the DNA molecule
(hardware). This information is embedded in the DNA molecule, but is
separate from the matter that makes up the molecule itself. The question
becomes: "Where did the information come from?" Answer: an intelligent
designer.

Winner Take All

What's at stake in the debate? In short, everything. "Whatever a culture
adopts as its creation story shapes everything else," Pearcey writes.

If evolution continues as our culture's official orthodoxy, Christians can
only expect the complete secularization in all areas from education to
entertainment, from philosophy to politics. And with the natural
implications that human beings are neither accountable nor responsible, the
future is likely to be one in which raw power rules.

But don't give up too quickly. Although it faces an uphill battle,
acceptance of ID as a viable theory of origins is growing. At a minimum
that could result in the re-establishment of the discarded idea that human
life has inherent meaning and purpose. And that could change everything.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Dr Adrian Snelling & Prof Phil Johnson put it, in their UK tour, "Darwin Revisited"

'Neo Darwinism is a house of cards

'If it were subjected to the same rigourous investigation as true science is, it would be rejected out of hand'

Must go!

 

[Vanaka]

Gravity doesn't explain everything too, should that be thrown out? [quote:f3a3c]

Accually, Gravity does explain everything....were it applies anyway, Its just we cant explain gravity completly

[/quote:f3a3c]

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:

The evolutionary link between viruses and "ERV's" is highly speculative at best, so to use that as an observational evidence is not valid.
Are you aware of a peer reviewed paper that documents actual observations
of viruses injecting the host's genome with coding, and then the host
retaining this coding in it's genome, and then passing it along to it's
offspring. That' would be a minimal requirement for observability. Then
repeatability would be established by observing this same process over a
wide spectrum of species.

jwu:

The found sequences show a very high degree of homology to today's viruses - among the typical genes which i mentioned earlier there is 75-99% homology. No other mechanism that produces such sequences is known.
Do you seriously suggest that nothing can go wrong when a retrovirus infects a gamete?

Within the framework of an ID interpretation, it's very plausible to expect

similar coding for similar functions, and different coding for different

functions.

charlie:

The injecting of code into a genome using RT by scientists in a controlled
enviroment is equivalent to an intelligent force encoding "ETV's" into the
genome originally.

jwu:

No, it's equivalent to an intelligent force injecting the sequences by means of retroviruses, which doesn't change its status as evidence for common descent.

Do you have a link to the study?


Peace

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:


Capable of migrating to other regions they surely were. What particular required ability do you think they were missing? But note that evolution is not a "ladder", as you're implying there.

I don't think they were missing anything, because I think they were

"modern" humans.

So your hypothesis based soley on this topic is certainly plausible.

We disagree on their being a different species from "modern humans".

I think they were just a race of humans. Recent skeletal finds have shown

them to be remarkably "modern" in anatomy.

jwu:

Could you be a bit more specific? Which particular method is calibrated on fossils of "guessed" age? A concrete example would be nice...the only calibration methods that are used which i know about do not do this.
I'm not even keen on radiometric dating other than C14 requiring calibration in first instance, as different to C14 they do not have to bother with fluctuations of the original content of the isotope in question, they work purely on the ratios of isotopes. And C14 is not calibrated on fossils either, but tree rings and river varves. Not just varves from one lake, but several in entirely different regions of the world.

Sorry about the ambiguity.

Radiometric dating techniques such as Uranium

and Argon testing techniques ("long range" dating techniques) are

calibrated based on the ToE interpretation of the geologic column. C-14 is

calibrated based on tree rings, but that too is faulty.

There is the known S-shaped, long-term

radiocarbon dating error. One bend of the curve peaks in the middle of the

first millennium A.D. Radiocarbon ages during this period over estimate

dendrochronological ages by up to a hundred years. The curve switches

direction around 500 B.C., when radiocarbon ages begin to underestimate

supposed dendrochronological ages. The discrepancy grows as we go back

in time, so that by the fifth millennium B.C., radiocarbon dates are too

recent by 800 years.


As the discrepancy between SPR and SDR shows,

the Earth is still in the process of attaining equilibrium. Further, we know

from the radiocarbon dating of tree rings that as we go back in time, we

find less and less carbon-14. If there was less carbon-14 in the past, then

there has been less decay in our samples than the equilibrium model

assumes. And if there has been less decay, then the samples are not as old

as they may seem.

Strata this thick being laid down all at once would require a worldwide flood...but there is plenty of evidence that it did not get laid down all at once.

Can you elaborate.

However, before we get to the details, could you precisely identify which particular strata were supposedly laid down by the flood? Where do the flood strata begin, and where do they end? The cretaceous and tertiary were already mentioned...which others?

The Pleistocene and downward to the Archeon.


Peace

 

[jwu]

Apologies for the delay...i will have two exams on 29th, so right now learning for these is my top priority.

Sorry about the ambiguity.
Radiometric dating techniques such as Uranium
and Argon testing techniques ("long range" dating techniques) are
calibrated based on the ToE interpretation of the geologic column.

Ok, now you've specified one particular method, but i still could not find a single reference of it being calibrated using fossils of supposedly known age. I don't even understand why such a calibration is necessary - different to C14 which has to account for variable amounth og C14 in the atmosphere (which is why it requires calibration), these methods do not depend on anything variable.

radiocarbon dating error. One bend of the curve peaks in the middle of the first millennium A.D. Radiocarbon ages during this period over estimate dendrochronological ages by up to a hundred years. The curve switches direction around 500 B.C., when radiocarbon ages begin to underestimate supposed dendrochronological ages. The discrepancy grows as we go back in time, so that by the fifth millennium B.C., radiocarbon dates are too recent by 800 years.

I don't understand the problem - accounting for exactly that is why it's being calibrated. In what particular way are tree rings flawed, and why is there that correlation of dates with river varves of various places on the earth? Lake Suigetsu in Japan or Lake Gosciaz in Poland or Lake of the Clouds in Minnesota...they all correlate nicely with the C14 datings of things found in the varves. Is this coincidence?

C14 correlation with tree rings:

C14 correlation with Lake Suigetsu

Some variation of the C14 content of the atmosphere is visible there - and since it's known from completely independent measurements, it can be accounted for.

As the discrepancy between SPR and SDR shows,
the Earth is still in the process of attaining equilibrium. Further, we know
from the radiocarbon dating of tree rings that as we go back in time, we
find less and less carbon-14. If there was less carbon-14 in the past, then
there has been less decay in our samples than the equilibrium model
assumes. And if there has been less decay, then the samples are not as old
as they may seem.

Ok, but that's not a problem? Fluctuations of the amounth of C14 is exactly what the calibration accounts for. It is just as capable of accounting for an increase of C14 as of any other change.

Can you elaborate.

The Pleistocene and downward to the Archeon.

Thanks!
The flood cannot account for the sorting of fossils and rocks, as well as many other geological features in between these strata, such as exactly the footprints which you brought up earlier. If the strata in which these prints were found had been laid down by the flood, there should not have been any land dwelling animals around at the bottom of said flood to make these footprints.

I think we should get back on this later and keep the issue focused for now, or make a new thread for this one - discussion like several things at once in a single thread just isn't really good.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:

Can you elaborate.

The Pleistocene and downward to the Archeon.

Thanks!
The flood cannot account for the sorting of fossils and rocks, as well as many other geological features in between these strata, such as exactly the footprints which you brought up earlier. If the strata in which these prints were found had been laid down by the flood, there should not have been any land dwelling animals around at the bottom of said flood to make these footprints.

Remember, there were a pair of everything on the ark (according to my

hypothesis).

The prints could have easily been made shortly after the flood or right

before. The dinosaur tracks found all along the Balcones escarpment here in

Central Texas are in limestone, a sedimentary rock. Same with the furnaces

here.

As to the sorting issue, normal depostional order, after everything has

settled, is smallest to largest. Take a glass and put sand, small pebbles,

and larger pebbles, shake them up, and look at the order.

Peace

 

[jwu]

The prints could have easily been made shortly after the flood or right
before.

Definitely not before because then the stratum in question wasn't there yet, and not afterwards because in many case another many (dozens, hundreds) metres of sediment still had to be deposited on top of it.

There is no way that footprints in cretaceous strata could have been made if the strata below and above (including far below and far above) were laid down by the same single flood.

As to the sorting issue, normal depostional order, after everything has

settled, is smallest to largest. Take a glass and put sand, small pebbles,

and larger pebbles, shake them up, and look at the order.

And exactly that is not what the find. There are many independent layers of thick rocks, and things like bones could not have been sorted the way we find them. Why do we not find dino bones above the K/T boundary? Why no grass pollen below a certain threshold? Why are there things like "fossilized" riverbeds?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:

Definitely not before because then the stratum in question wasn't there yet, and not afterwards because in many case another many (dozens, hundreds) metres of sediment still had to be deposited on top of it.

There is no way that footprints in cretaceous strata could have been made if the strata below and above (including far below and far above) were laid down by the same single flood.

Your thinking in uniformitarian terms. Go back and think through the

scenario in catastrophism terms. There's uncomformities all throughout the column.

jwu:


Why do we not find dino bones above the K/T boundary? Why no grass pollen below a certain threshold? Why are there things like "fossilized" riverbeds?

We do, but their redated based on evolutionary assumptions. The fossil

record is always the final say on dating the geologic column in contemporary

geology.

Damn good question. Follow it through, and your eyes will be opened. It's

sad, but also a huge opportunity as a scientist...your not looking through

the lenses that 99.99 % of the field is looking through when using The

Flood Model.. You'll catch stuff like soft tissue in dino bones, human

footprints in dino footprints and ancient preClovis furnaces in North America.

To the evolutionist, this is nonsense, and would never be looking for such

evidence. It's very close minded.





Peace

 

[jwu]

Your thinking in uniformitarian terms. Go back and think through the
scenario in catastrophism terms. There's uncomformities all throughout the column.

Unconformities are well explained by current geology. How does the flood model explain unconformitied like this one?

You didn't answer the question though. How can there be footprints in e.g. cretaceous strata if it was laid down in the late phase of the noachian flood? Nothing should have been alive there...

We do, but their redated based on evolutionary assumptions. The fossil
record is always the final say on dating the geologic column in contemporary
geology.

How the KT boudanry has been dated has nothing to do with dino bones being exclusively found below it. Again, you have yet to explain why that is so.

You'll catch stuff like soft tissue in dino bones, human
footprints in dino footprints and ancient preClovis furnaces in North America.
To the evolutionist, this is nonsense, and would never be looking for such
evidence. It's very close minded.

All of these have been explained, and such footprints (if genuine) shouldn't be there in the flood model either, except in archean strata.