[_ Old Earth _] The genes have it

[Charlie Hatchett]

It took me a while to completely understand what you were saying Heidi.

But now I see your arguement:


1. we are not animals

2. primates are animals

3. therefore we cannot be primates

Did I follow that correctly?

Peace

 

[Heidi]

Humans are primates, so yes.

And do you understand that "primates" is a term for a group of species? That there is more than one species of primates just like there is more than one species of vertebrates, or quadrupeds, or felines or mammals and so on? Yes or no.

So since humans and primates are one in the same, then humans came from humans which I agree with. And since evolution never claims to address how the first primate (human) got here, then you're back to square one, my friend. God created the universe and all living things.

 

[jwu]

Heidi, you still don't get it.

For the xth time, primate is a name for a group of species.

Humans are primates. But that does not mean that humans and primates are "one and the same". That'd mean that these are equivalent terms, that all humans are primates and all primates are humans. That's not so. All humans are primates, but not all primates are humans.

Just like all Texans are Americans, but not all Americans are Texans.
You wouldn't say that because every Texan is an American, Texans and Americans are "one and the same" either, would you?

What part of that do you have difficulties with?

 

[Heidi]

Heidi, you still don't get it.

For the xth time, primate is a name for a group of species.

Humans are primates. But that does not mean that humans and primates are "one and the same". That'd mean that these are equivalent terms, that all humans are primates and all primates are humans. That's not so. All humans are primates, but not all primates are humans.

Just like all Texans are Americans, but not all Americans are Texans.
You wouldn't say that because every Texan is an American, Texans and Americans are "one and the same" either, would you?

What part of that do you have difficulties with?

So can humans breed with primates? :o If not, then how could primates be our ancestors? Sorry, but your doubletalk is again avoiding the main fact that all descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors and that is a fact. So what is the point of claiming that humans came from wild animals? :o

 

[protos]

Of course you claimed that humans are primates! That's what you claim the first humans were, did you not? Or are you you're changing your story again? Unfortuately, you're counting on your doubletalk to try bamboozle us, friend. Sorry, but it doesn't work because of your contradictions. It would be nice if you could make one statement without taking it back.

Yes, i said that humans are primates. That means that humans belong to the group of species called primates. In order for it to mean how you apparently understood it i would have had to say "all primates are humans", but that's not the case as there are non-human primates. Hence i did not say that.

Just like saying that "Jake is a politician" makes him a member of the group of persons that is called "politicians". But it does not in any way imply that he is the only politician, the only member of that group.

Yes, and you can call anyone anything, by your standards.

You have to understand that THE ONLY WAY evolution can work, is if new information is created in the genome.

Why this cannot happen:

1) The genome has limited space. The casing of the base pairs is a set amount, and all insertions (type of genetic mutation) have only limited space, and thus cannot make information[quote:923f9]Limited space? I'd like to see a source for this. Where is the limit of the human genome, measured in base pairs? How about observed instances of the length of the genome increasing?
And besides, i don't think you will deny that any species that is alive can hold its own genome - where in the past did it require a longer genome than it evidently can "hold" because we see it having such a genome today?

[/quote:923f9]

The genome in general cannot lengthen, because that would 1) Require the spontaneous increase of coating around the bases. This cannot arise, and even if it somehow does as you suggest with your alleged genome increasing instances, over millions of years degeneration will completely overturn ANY POSSIBLE information 'creation' by natural causes. First of all, until you cite an experiment that has shown such genomic increases, I suggest you don't post senselessly. Second of all, in the 1960's, the fruit fly experiments multiplied natural genetic mutations by THE TRILLIONS. No information arose. 90% were detrimental and the rest were neutral mutations. The human genome is 12% larger than the chimp genome. The information in DNA needs more space in order to have more information. Maybe you need to do a little more research.

2) The rate of decay (natural genetic mutations) of the genome outpace any possible (and by possible I mean 1 in a google) information "creation" by processes.
[quote:923f9]Define "information". How much information, a precise number please, is in the human genome?

[/quote:923f9]

The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs. The DNA is encoated in protein to the very last base pair sequence. There is no space for extra information to be formed, let alone it be formed. There are only 4 types of genetic mutations - insertions, deletions, missense, and nonsense. Insertions add a base pair sequence in the PROVIDED SPACE already. Deletions take one away. Missense switches two, and nonsense is when two are switched across.

Turtles haven't evolved on the evolutionist timescale for 240 million years. According to them this is because they've reached their "optimum" for their environment.
[quote:923f9]What is the problem with that explaination? Stable niches result in stable species.

[/quote:923f9]

Yes, of course, that must be convincing proof for you, whereas alleged human evolution took place in only 4 million years. Don't you ever question what you're fed? Or do you believe everything someone tells you, or a textbook prints that claims it is in the name of science? You think turtles are in stable niches? They have to lay eggs on land, out of which 99% are eaten. Have you ever turned a turtle on its back? It dies within an hour.

[quote:923f9]The fossil record has unconnectable gaps. Darwin postulated (one of many things) that these gaps would be filled in the future. They haven't. This has led evolutionist Jay Gould to postulate punctuated equilibrium.

There are plenty transitionals (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html), and considering the rarity of fossilization one cannot expect a complete reconstruction of all ancestral lines down to a high level of detail. Many nice series are found though.[/quote:923f9]

So, someone lunches out a bunch of names, without pictures, and you're ready to believe them? The fossil record has not been defended by evolutionists, and those alleged links are nothing but wishful thinking on the part of the talkorigins site. If you think homology has any value, then why don't you think about this:

The bat wing, dolphin flipper and human hand are all controlled by different genes. Looks like 'looks' can be deceptive.

More on your preconcieved notions:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

There are plenty transitionals (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html), and considering the rarity of fossilization one cannot expect a complete reconstruction of all ancestral lines down to a high level of detail. Many nice series are found though.

Is there any evidence that fossils have formed quickly?

I'd further like to ask: Is there any evidence that fossils have formed

slowly?


Fossil development necessitates quick depositional processes..



I've got several clam fossils at my parents house from when I was a kid that

have the soft tissue preserved very nicely (reddish/pink color).

Similarly, an obvious indicator of catastrophism is the existence of fossils in the sedimentary rocks. The depositional processes must have been rapid, or fossils could not have been preserved in them.

"To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."5

The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils.

"The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time-scale for relative age determinations and for world-wide correlation of rocks."6

Thus, the existence and identification of distinctive geologic ages is based on fossils in the sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is prima facie evidence that each such fossiliferous rock was formed by aqueous catastrophism. The one question, therefore, is whether the rocks were formed by a great multiplicity of local catastrophes scattered through many ages, or by a great complex of local catastrophes all conjoined contemporaneously in one single age, terminated by the cataclysm.

The latter is the most likely. Each distinctive stratum was laid down quickly, since it obviously represents a uniform set of water flow conditions, and such uniformity never persists very long. Each set of strata in a given formation must also have been deposited in rapid succession, or there would be evidence of unconformityâ€â€that is, periods of uplift and erosionâ€â€at the various interfaces.

Where unconformity does exist, say at the top of a formation, there may well have been an interval of uplift or tilting, at that location. followed by either sub-aerial or sub-marine erosion for a time. However, since such formations invariably grade laterally into other formations (no unconformity, is worldwide), sooner or later one will come to a location where there is a conformable relationship between this formation and the one above it. Thus, each formation is succeeded somewhere by another one which was deposited rapidly after the first one ... and so on throughout the entire geologic column.

Thus, there is no room anywhere for long ages. Each formation must have been produced rapidly, as evidenced by both its fossils and its depositional characteristics, and each formation must have been followed rapidly by another one, which was also formed rapidly! The whole sequence, therefore, must have been formed rapidly, exactly as the Flood model postulates.

But, then. what about the geologic ages? Remember that the only means of identifying these ages is by fossils and fossils speak of rapid formation. Even assuming a very slow formation of these beds, however, how can fossils tell the age of a rock?

Obviously, fossils could be distinctive time markers only if the various kinds each had lived in different ages. But how can we know which fossils lived in which ages? No scientists were there to observe them, and true science requires observation. Furthermore, by analogy with the present (and uniformitarianism is supposed to be able to decipher the past in terms of the present), many different kinds of plants and animals are living in the present world, including even the "primitive" one-celled organisms with which evolution is supposed to have begun. Why, therefore, isn’t it better to assume that all major kinds also lived together in past ages as well? Some kinds, such as the dinosaurs, have become extinct, but practically all present-day kinds of organisms are also found in the fossil world.

The only reason for thinking that different fossils should represent different ages is the assumption of evolution. If evolution is really true, then of course fossils should provide an excellent means for identifying the various ages, an "unambiguous time-scale," as Schindewolf put it. Hedberg says:

"Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely-separated regions."7

The use of fossils as time-markers thus depends completely on "their record of evolution." But, then, how do we know that evolution is true? Why, because of the fossil record!

"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."8

So the only proof of evolution is based on the assumption of evolution! The system of evolution arranges the fossils, the fossils date the rocks, and the resulting system of fossil-dated rocks proves evolution. Around and around we go.

Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Hydraulic Engineering

President, ICR (Died Recently...see separate post)

Peace

 

[protos]

Excellent point!

That's exactly why bones such as the Kanapoi fossils in Kenya dating back to 4.4 million years ago, Skull 1470 which was 'too modern' to be 2.9 million years old thus was assigned over bitter disputes in 10 years to 1.9million, the disregarding of modern and fossil footprints of alleged links being the same such as

Russell Tuttle at the University of Chicago investigated a tribe of people in Peru, who go habitually barefoot. He demonstrated with casts that their footprints are identical with those in Laetoli. And in an amazing statement, he not only denies that a 'Lucy' made these footprints, he says there was living at that time, as a contemporary with Lucy, another 'unknown primate' that made those footprints. Well, we believe that the 'unknown primate' was man, disregarding the evolutionary age, of course.

There are fossils such as the Kanapoi hominid in Kenya, virtually identical to modern humans, going back 4.4 million years on their time-scale, and so that would rule out any transition from australopithecine to human after that point. In fact, most evolutionists say that these would be called modern humans if not for the time-scale. Therefore, any fossils found suggesting a sequence toward humans after that point have already been ruled out. I throw out a challenge: I say that my thinking can be falsified if they find a sequence from earlier australopithecines to human before 4.4 million years. Of course, there the fossil record is virtually blank.

 

[Heidi]

Excellent point!

That's exactly why bones such as the Kanapoi fossils in Kenya dating back to 4.4 million years ago, Skull 1470 which was 'too modern' to be 2.9 million years old thus was assigned over bitter disputes in 10 years to 1.9million, the disregarding of modern and fossil footprints of alleged links being the same such as

Russell Tuttle at the University of Chicago investigated a tribe of people in Peru, who go habitually barefoot. He demonstrated with casts that their footprints are identical with those in Laetoli. And in an amazing statement, he not only denies that a 'Lucy' made these footprints, he says there was living at that time, as a contemporary with Lucy, another 'unknown primate' that made those footprints. Well, we believe that the 'unknown primate' was man, disregarding the evolutionary age, of course.

[quote="http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/bones.asp":cedd2]There are fossils such as the Kanapoi hominid in Kenya, virtually identical to modern humans, going back 4.4 million years on their time-scale, and so that would rule out any transition from australopithecine to human after that point. In fact, most evolutionists say that these would be called modern humans if not for the time-scale. Therefore, any fossils found suggesting a sequence toward humans after that point have already been ruled out. I throw out a challenge: I say that my thinking can be falsified if they find a sequence from earlier australopithecines to human before 4.4 million years. Of course, there the fossil record is virtually blank.

[/quote:cedd2]

And do you think that creationist scientists would identify those fossils as humans? :o Of course not. Only evolutional scientists would. So you need to understand that all archeologists are biased which is why fossils can never be considered proof, my friend. ;-)

 

[jwu]

So can humans breed with primates? If not, then how could primates be our ancestors? Sorry, but your doubletalk is again avoiding the main fact that all descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors and that is a fact. So what is the point of claiming that humans came from wild animals?

Heidi, why don't you answer my question?

Yes, there are primates that humans can breed with. Other humans.

Just like a Texan can accurately be said to have married an American by having married another Texan.

And yes, descendants can always breed with other individuals of their immediate ancestral generation. Evolution does not claim anything else. But that's not equal to being able to breed with individuals of the population as it used to be 10.000 generations ago.

The genome in general cannot lengthen, because that would 1) Require the spontaneous increase of coating around the bases. This cannot arise, and even if it somehow does as you suggest with your alleged genome increasing instances, over millions of years degeneration will completely overturn ANY POSSIBLE information 'creation' by natural causes. First of all, until you cite an experiment that has shown such genomic increases, I suggest you don't post senselessly.

Easily:
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articleren ... rtid=24449
The whole length of the genome was doubled there.
Do you seriously deny things like gene doubling and insertion mutations?

Second of all, in the 1960's, the fruit fly experiments multiplied natural genetic mutations by THE TRILLIONS. No information arose. 90% were detrimental and the rest were neutral mutations. The human genome is 12% larger than the chimp genome. The information in DNA needs more space in order to have more information. Maybe you need to do a little more research.

Perhaps you could actually define what you mean by "information", e.g. how one can quantify it.

The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs. The DNA is encoated in protein to the very last base pair sequence. There is no space for extra information to be formed, let alone it be formed. There are only 4 types of genetic mutations - insertions, deletions, missense, and nonsense. Insertions add a base pair sequence in the PROVIDED SPACE already. Deletions take one away. Missense switches two, and nonsense is when two are switched across.

Your bias is showing..."missense" and "nonsense"...yeah, right.
How many more insertion mutations are possible? If they only can occupy already set space, then it should be easy to say how many more of them can potentially happen, as there should be measurable empty space in that coating. So please come up with an exact number, and back it up with evidence.

Yes, of course, that must be convincing proof for you, whereas alleged human evolution took place in only 4 million years. Don't you ever question what you're fed? Or do you believe everything someone tells you, or a textbook prints that claims it is in the name of science? You think turtles are in stable niches? They have to lay eggs on land, out of which 99% are eaten. Have you ever turned a turtle on its back? It dies within an hour.

Stable niche is not the same as invincibility and invulnerability...e.g, the benefit of the carapace outweighs the problem that one is as good as dead if one becomes turned on the back - that rarely happens after all, and more often is the turtle saved by the carapace.

And if it's such a terrible disadvantage, then how come turtles have not become extinct after 6000 years?

So, someone lunches out a bunch of names, without pictures, and you're ready to believe them? The fossil record has not been defended by evolutionists, and those alleged links are nothing but wishful thinking on the part of the talkorigins site. If you think homology has any value, then why don't you think about this:

Because you say so?

The bat wing, dolphin flipper and human hand are all controlled by different genes. Looks like 'looks' can be deceptive.

Source?
And after a such long time of seperate development into greatly different directions, why should that be surprising?

I'd further like to ask: Is there any evidence that fossils have formed slowly?

Fossil development necessitates quick depositional processes..

I've got several clam fossils at my parents house from when I was a kid that
have the soft tissue preserved very nicely (reddish/pink color).

Any landslide will suffice...it doesn't quite take a global flood (if that is your implication) to bury something.

The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils.

Yes, there already was a timescale worked out before radioactivity, but that doesn't mean that nowadays radiometric dating is not used...it's used to confirm or to correct dates of the older works, and is the reference method for new datings.

The whole sequence, therefore, must have been formed rapidly, exactly as the Flood model postulates.

So all fossils that we find were laid down by the same flood?

There are fossils such as the Kanapoi hominid in Kenya, virtually identical to modern humans, going back 4.4 million years on their time-scale, and so that would rule out any transition from australopithecine to human after that point.

Except that that fossil isn't all that close to a modern human, but is well in range with Australopithecus Anamensis

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

And do you think that creationist scientists would identify those fossils as humans? Of course not. Only evolutional scientists would. So you need to understand that all archeologists are biased which is why fossils can never be considered proof, my friend.

Well, some of the leading archeologist's are actually doing some damn

good science:

1. Dr. Albert Goodyear-Topper Site-South Carolina-Has provided substantial

, peer reviewed, proof that man was in North America at a minimum of

(50,000 rcybp). His dates are limited by the max range of carbon "dating".

Though I don't believe the absolute dating coming from these finds, I find it

interesting and encouraging that well respected archeologists are stepping

out of the box, shedding any preconceived notions, and just doing good,

objective science.

2. The Center for the Study of the First Americans at Texas A&M

University, The Berkeley Geochronology Center and the University of

California, Berkeley, Liverpool's John Moores University, The Mexican

National Institute of Anthropology and History, and The Mexican National

Museum of Anthropology, as part of an investigative team of geologists and

anthropologists from the United States and Mexico, claim they have found

footprints of humans in North America solidly dated at 1.3 million years,

using the Argon/ Argon dating method.

This find completely upsets the whole preconceived notion of how humans

evolved.

Now that the "cat has been let out of the box", I believe we'll see more and

more reports of astoundingly "old" artifacts. It's no longer professional

suicide for archeologists to present data which completely refutes ToE.


Finally!! Real science.

Peace

 

[jwu]

This find completely upsets the whole preconceived notion of how humans

evolved.

How so? Unless the footprints can be identified as homo sapiens instead of e.g. homo erectus, this merely affects the current thoughts about the migration pattern. It's a matter of anthropology, not biology then.

 

[Heidi]

This find completely upsets the whole preconceived notion of how humans

evolved.

How so? Unless the footprints can be identified as homo sapiens instead of e.g. homo erectus, this merely affects the current thoughts about the migration pattern. It's a matter of anthropology, not biology then.

It doesn't appear that any rational argument will convince you of anything, jwu. If you want to continue to believe that humans came from wild animals, then that's your perrogative. You'll simply have to wait until you die to find out how ludicrous that is. But unfortunately, you'll be finding out the hard way.

 

[jwu]

*sigh*

Did you meanwhile understand that the term "primate" describes a group of species? That not every primate has to be able to breed with all other primates?

But unfortunately, you'll be finding out the hard way.

Well, when i'm dead i'll probably ask God how the world came to be...and if the answer is "i poofed it into existence in six days", then my reaction will be something along the lines of "ah ok...i guess you know best. But please tell me, what errors were made when the evidence was evaluated which indicated otherwise?"

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:

Yes, there already was a timescale worked out before radioactivity, but that doesn't mean that nowadays radiometric dating is not used...it's used to confirm or to correct dates of the older works, and is the reference method for new datings.

Problem is, radiometric dating techniques are calibrated by the "geological

sequence", which is based on the fossils contained within them, which is in

turn based on the assumption of evolution. It's circular reasoning.

jwu:


...Unless the footprints can be identified as homo sapiens instead of

e.g. homo erectus, this merely affects the current thoughts about the

migration pattern...

Also screws up the idea that we came from gorillas, unless the gorillas were

here in North America...no fossils to date of which I'm aware. Unless your

suggesting "Homo Erectus" had the ability to make trans-oceanic or polar

passages beginning in Africa.

Then you would really have to ask yourself, were these "Homo Erectus"

really any less sophisticted than "modern man".

jwu:

Any landslide will suffice...it doesn't quite take a global flood (if that is your

implication) to bury something.

It takes more than a landslide to lay down thousands and thousands of

miles of extremely thick strata, such as The Cretaceous or Tertiary Strata.

Strata this thick would require a world wide flood. It's way too much

deposition for a local catastrophe. Also, each column can be found anywhere

in the world( except in small local areas of unconformity...no uncomformity

is world wide) In most ToE classes, we're taught that these strata were

developed slowly and gradually over eons of time, but as the discussion

above reveals, fossils are formed rapidly, out of necessity.

Charlie:

The whole sequence, therefore, must have been formed rapidly, exactly as

the Flood model postulates.

jwu:

So all fossils that we find were laid down by the same flood?

The ones in the major strata discussed above. There's fossilization that's

occurred since these, but on a local magnitude, and are not a part of the

sequences discussed above.

Geologic sequence after sequence lay upon one another with no sign of

unconformities (signs of being exposed to natures elements-erosion, etc...)

Thus, there is no room anywhere for long ages.

So all fossils contained within each geologic sequence, by deduction, were

laid down within a very short period of time (standard hydraulic depositional

process).

But, for evolution to work, the sequences must represent very long

periods of time: Spanning billions of years.


Peace

 

[jwu]

Problem is, radiometric dating techniques are calibrated by the "geological sequence", which is based on the fossils contained within them, which is in turn based on the assumption of evolution. It's circular reasoning.

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.

Also screws up the idea that we came from gorillas, unless the gorillas were here in North America...no fossils to date of which I'm aware. Unless your
suggesting "Homo Erectus" had the ability to make trans-oceanic or polar
passages beginning in Africa.

Yep...as i said, they could have migrated there. There was more than one ice age with a clear Bering strait after all.

Then you would really have to ask yourself, were these "Homo Erectus"
really any less sophisticted than "modern man".

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.

It takes more than a landslide to lay down thousands and thousands of miles of extremely thick strata, such as The Cretaceous or Tertiary Strata.

I didn't say that a single landslide laid down all that strata. But landslides can bury animals for fossilization.

Strata this thick would require a world wide flood. It's way too much
deposition for a local catastrophe. Also, each column can be found anywhere
in the world( except in small local areas of unconformity...no uncomformity
is world wide) In most ToE classes, we're taught that these strata were
developed slowly and gradually over eons of time, but as the discussion
above reveals, fossils are formed rapidly, out of necessity

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.

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?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Moved to Evolution 101 post.