Rapid Adaptation

[Lon]

Ooh an AiG "research" article. It reads more like something written for a fictional universe than this one.


Gee lets get out the transporters and replicators while we're at it. Because if we throw enough "bio-babble" at the problem that's sure to fix it!

What's really funny about it is the author uses the term "originally created heterozygous allele pool". But here's the elephant in the room not addressed by the "paper".

If you start off with two individuals. You can have at maximum, 4 alleles for every gene. Adam has allele A and B. Eve has allele C and D. This is because each human being (and pretty much any other eukaryotic organism) has two chromosomes - one from mom and one from dad. So each organism can have two alleles max. So while some individuals might be B and C or A and D, there's very little actual variation.

And any population that originates from two individuals will have max of four alleles. If you left that population alone it would have very low genetic diversity, because the effective population size would be 2, forever.

Unless two things - mutation or creation of new alleles by God as the population expanded - i.e. Genesis wasn't complete.

Of course many genes are well known to have hundreds of alleles. So what that means is either God accelerated the rate of mutation thousands of times fold or He essentially re-created/re-coded all of land living life after the flood. Extra miracles just to maintain the illusion of no flood.

Because the actual genetic evidence does not show any major reduction in genetic diversity in the past few thousand years. And such a reduction - to two individuals is incompatible with rapid speciation. Not to mention the level of speciation we're talking about is beyond anything that's ever been observed. But hey, why let data get in your way . . . :chuckle:

This is like finding a number, and then trying to make up a mathematic problem that comes up with that answer. Guess what? There are an infinite number of 'reasonable' mathematic formulas that 1million 52 can answer.

One million plus 52 is the simplistic answer, not the only answer.

You've created the same problem for evolution with your answer. See Genesis 11 for example, of God continuing to change creation, including what I'd imagine, genetic changes.

So from their POV, it's a clever trick and a good one. Remember, they subscribe to Luther's belief that a "good strong lie" is O.K. with God.

Link?

 

[everready]

Let's see if everready is ever ready to answer the question he's been dodging;

Everready wrote:


Barbarian chuckles:
Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

God says life came from the Earth. So you think the Earth is not non-living matter? Is it that you think it's alive, or is it that you think it's not matter? Or both?

C'mon. I'd like to hear this.

Prediction: Another dodge.

Yes lets take a look at verse 24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

When God spoke these words the living creature in its kind appeared the cattle and creeping things appeared and the beasts of the earth according to their kinds appeared, the last five words "and it was so done" means it was finished

I'd still like to hear what you think this world was like before sin entered Gods creation, be the man Barbarian.

everready

 

[The Barbarian]

This is like finding a number, and then trying to make up a mathematic problem that comes up with that answer. Guess what? There are an infinite number of 'reasonable' mathematic formulas that 1million 52 can answer.

No, it's an observation that (for example) Adam and Eve could have had no more than four alleles for each gene locus between them. And yet there are dozens of useful alleles for each today. The rest could only have evolved by mutation and natural selection. That's just the way it is. Rather than the genome deteriorating, it grew, became more diverse and robust.

You've created the same problem for evolution with your answer. See Genesis 11 for example, of God continuing to change creation, including what I'd imagine, genetic changes.

So the genome didn't deteriorate after all?

Barbarian observes:
So from their POV, it's a clever trick and a good one. Remember, they subscribe to Luther's belief that a "good strong lie" is O.K. with God.

Link?

Let's see...

Jonathan Sarfati, another frequent contributor to your creationist perspective website, is no better. In his article “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All The Supernova Remnants?” first published in Creation Ex Nihilo 19:46-48 and later online at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/stars.asp, Sarfati tries to claim that the absence of Type III supernovas suggests that the universe is young, perhaps a few thousand years old, not billions of years as evolutionary scientists claim. He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."



Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/10/deception-of-trueorigin.html

After several years, Sarfati took down the article. But it's a good indication of the willingness of AiG to lie when they think they can get away with it.

 

[6days]

This of course is why I think there were likely other people (besides Adam and Eve)

That's is the problem with evolutionism. *It inserts non-scriptural ideas into scripture destroying the gospel.

Theistic evolution teaches young people that God's Word doesn't mean what it says.*

*If 'evilution' is true then physical death is not a consequence of sin.*

*If physical death is not a result of sin, then it was part of God's very God creation.*

*If physical death is good, and not the "final enemy" then Christ's death and resurrection (defeating death) become meaningless. *

Christian parents need to teach their kis that God's Word can be trusted. When Jesus talked about creating male and female at the foundation of the world he was not confused. When the Bible talks about the virgin birth and the physical resurrection it is not open to allegorical interpretations. We need to teach our children that Genesis is foundational to the gospel and can be fully trusted.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's is the problem with creationism. It inserts non-scriptural ideas into scripture destroying the gospel.

Creationism teaches young people that God's Word doesn't mean what it says.

If 'evilution' is true then physical death is not a consequence of sin.

God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter. So if we can trust God to tell the truth, that death was not physical.

If Jesus came to save us from dying physically, He failed. We will all die physically.

If physical death is not a result of sin, then it was part of God's very God creation.

Even a literalist re-interpretation doesn't have to deny this. Adam and Eve were not immortal; God acknowledges this when he says that if they remain in the garden the tree of life will keep them alive forever. So he expels them.

If physical death is good, and not the "final enemy" then Christ's death and resurrection (defeating death) become meaningless.

Only if you think God did not tell Adam the truth.

Christian parents need to teach their kis that God's Word can be trusted.

See above. Re-interpreting Genesis is not trusting His word.

When Jesus talked about creating male and female at the foundation of the world he was not confused.

But many have been confused about what He said. In fact, God discusses what was there at the beginning, and male and female were not there.

When the Bible talks about the virgin birth and the physical resurrection it is not open to allegorical interpretations.

It's good you acknowledge that much. The Gospels are clearly historical.

We need to teach our children that Genesis is foundational to the gospel and can be fully trusted.

If you trusted it, you wouldn't be having these difficulties. Let God be God.

 

[6days]

Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."

Barbarian you must be the most dishonest person in TOL..

THIS is the sentence that you quote mined. ..

"It appears that with the above explanation there is no need to postulate values of E/n differing greatly from those in the Galaxy, and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved.”*

Contrary to the way you framed things, the article is in actuality proposing an answer to the mystery.*

 

[George Affleck]

No kidding. Still would have to be created with the same number of chromosomes as you and me, the same rules apply regardless.

I already gave the best case scenario. You don't get to make up new rules for genetics just because you don't like the results.

Because God said Man shall live 120 years?

You tell me if you think this scenario is possible.

Before the flood a vapour canopy above the earth, combined with pressure from underground water filled caverns, established atmospheric pressure at levels much higher (perhaps x2) than it is today.

Adam and Eve, plants and animals, were created to respond well to high atmospheric levels. When it dropped, about the time the "kinds" exited the ark, this drop triggered mutations that accelerated the speciation* rate well above the pre-flood levels. This occurred faster in populations with short generation spans than long ones - eg. insects vs. humans - and even resulted in extinction in many cases.

The question is, has there been enough time (4500 years) for this to happen. Or, to be More precise, enough generations. Perhaps we should compile a list of the number of possible generations in that time for sample organisms to get an idea.

Do you think that speciation every 100 - 250 generations is impossible? Could this be the real answer behind the "punctuated equilibrium" theory?

* speciation - the inability, over successive generations, for an organism to hold on to "kind" integrity due to negative genetic load and accumulating mistakes.

 

[6days]

If Jesus came to save us from dying physically, He failed.

You provide a great example of how compromise in Genesis, compromises the Gospel.*

Jesus defeated physical death, with a physical resurrection...NOT a spiritual resurrection.*
1 Cor. 15
12But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead?*13*For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either.*14*And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless.*15*And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead.16*And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised.17*And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins.*18*In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost!*19*And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world.

 

[TracerBullet]

You tell me if you think this scenario is possible.

Before the flood a vapour canopy above the earth, combined with pressure from underground water filled caverns, established atmospheric pressure at levels much higher (perhaps x2) than it is today.

Where to start?

To double the atmospheric pressure this imaginary vapor canopy would have to be about 40 feet thick.
This would cut sunlight by about 50% and mean things like the stars and even the moon would not be visible.

For this thickness of a vapor canopy exist it's temperature would have to be a minimum of 220° F otherwise, the vapor would just condense into a liquid.

This 220 temperature would increase the surface temperature of the earth by several hundred degrees.

That surface temperature would go even higher when this vapor canopy condensed and fell as rain as each gram of condensing water vapor releases over 500 calories of heat. A little math shows that your 40 foot water vapor canopy condensing into rain would raise the earth's surface temperature to over 800 F. Add in the release of heat of the vapor barrier's kinetic energy and the surface temperature climes to 18,000 F. This temperature would liquefy granite.

aside from this doubling the atmospheric pressure would make oxygen toxic to most animals including humans as doubling atmospheric pressure doubles the blood’s oxygen content. A couple hours of exposure to this would lead to blindness and a few days exposure would lead to death.

 

[The Barbarian]

From the link:
Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."

Barbarian you must be the most dishonest person in TOL..

You're embarrassed and upset. But denial and counter-accusations won't help you.

This is what your guys posted:
As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’.


Notice that they cut out parts of two different paragraphs and pasted them together to falsely claim that these astronomers thought there was a problem.

And here's what they really said:
It appears that with the above explanation there is no need to postulate values of E/n differing greatly from those in the Galaxy, and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved.

Your attempt to help them only points out your lack of integrity. And accusing others won't save you. If you lived up to your claims of belief, you wouldn't even want to try that kind of dishonesty.

Contrary to the way you framed things, the article is in actuality proposing an answer to the mystery.

They aren't proposing an answer, they found the answer and said so. AIG pretended that they thought is was still a mystery, and doctored their statements to support that lie. And now you've joined in that dishonesty.
Anyone who supposes 6days is telling the truth, can read the article in question here:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1976MNRAS.174..267C/0000302.000.html

P. 301 has the statement, and it says what I said it does.

 

[Stripe]

Meanwhile, the challenge in OP remains ignored. With good reason: Evolutionists hate to even admit there is an opposition.

 

[George Affleck]

To double the atmospheric pressure this imaginary vapor canopy would have to be about 40 feet thick.

I was thinking more like 200 miles thick.
And not nearly as dense as you are proposing. More like .01% of that.

This would cut sunlight by about 50% and mean things like the stars and even the moon would not be visible.

Depending on density - see above.

For this thickness of a vapor canopy exist it's temperature would have to be a minimum of 220° F otherwise, the vapor would just condense into a liquid.

Not at all - temps in the upper atmosphere and in most clouds are a lot less than on earth and still hold moisture. Condensation occurs when cold meets hot - ask any scientist.

This 220 temperature would increase the surface temperature of the earth by several hundred degrees.

You are exaggerating, but I agree that there would be a greenhouse effect. This may be why we find evidence of tropical organisms near the poles.

That surface temperature would go even higher when this vapor canopy condensed and fell as rain as each gram of condensing water vapor releases over 500 calories of heat. A little math shows that your 40 foot water vapor canopy condensing into rain would raise the earth's surface temperature to over 800 F. Add in the release of heat of the vapor barrier's kinetic energy and the surface temperature climes to 18,000 F. This temperature would liquefy granite.

OK - now you're completely off the charts and lying through your teeth! Ha ha! How often does the earth heat up when it rains?

aside from this doubling the atmospheric pressure would make oxygen toxic to most animals including humans as doubling atmospheric pressure doubles the blood’s oxygen content. A couple hours of exposure to this would lead to blindness and a few days exposure would lead to death.

I guess you haven't heard of the "iron lung".

All-in-all not a very good try.
How embarrassing for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe ignores all the discussion of evolution and pacing:

Meanwhile, the challenge in OP remains ignored. With good reason: Evolutionists hate to even admit there is an opposition.

You're living up to your reputation again, Stipe. Not only has the OP been discussed, the question of rapid evolution was first discussed by Darwin in The Origin of Species, in which he noted that the pace of evolution would not always be the same.

His defender and ally, Huxley, differed with him on how fast it could be, with Huxley thinking that it might be very fast.

So the issue of rapid evolution was part of evolutionary theory long before YE creationism was invented.

It became a useful idea to creationists, since it was obviously impossible to fit all the necessary animals on the Ark. So it supposed that a few kinds were on the Ark, and then the rest evolved from that by hyperevolution in a few thousand years.

The problem with that belief is that new species would be popping into existence monthly, and no one seems to have thought it worth remarking on.

So not too likely. Rapid evolution, like so many other things from evolutionary theory, was borrowed by creationists, and adjusted a little to fit their new religion.

 

[The Barbarian]

You provide a great example of how compromise in Genesis, compromises the Gospel.*

You're not just compromising, you're denying what God said. He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats from the tree, but lives on physically for many years thereafter. So if God tells the truth, that death was spiritual, not physical.

We will be resurrected. But we will all die. Adam died spiritually, but God did not intend him to live forever, unless he remained in a state of innocence in the garden. Which is why he was expelled. Within the garden, he could live forever, as God says in Genesis. So he was created like the other animals, to die eventually. Only by eating from the tree of life could he live forever.

Do you think God didn't see all of this coming?

 

[BOLCATS]

Barbarian you must be the most dishonest person in TOL..

THIS is the sentence that you quote mined. ..

"It appears that with the above explanation there is no need to postulate values of E/n differing greatly from those in the Galaxy, and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved.”*

Contrary to the way you framed things, the article is in actuality proposing an answer to the mystery.*

Not sure when that article was posted but "missing" supernovae remnants are no longer a mystery. Tim Thompson of NASA said that supernovae remnants become essentially invisible in less than a million years in an open environment and much less than that within the crowded environs of a galaxy.

NASA/JPL Terrestrial Science Research element
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer.
Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer.: Tim's credentials.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe's definition lacks any use, because it's not testable. So, I can say humans and chimps are a kind, because they have a common ancestor. And that fits his definition nicely. Or I could say that humans and chimps are two different kinds, because they don't have a common ancestor. Which also fits.

And a definition that fits all things, is useless.

Stipe should probably find out about the creationist concept of "discontinuity systematics" to come up with a more plausible story. At least the baraminologists are trying to find a rational way to define kind.

 

[6days]

Stipe's definition lacks any use, because it's not testable. So, I can say humans and chimps are a kind, because they have a common ancestor.

You can say that because you reject God's Word.
He tells us that He formed man from the dust...woman from man's rib...and in six days He created the heavens, the earth and everything in them

 

[TracerBullet]

I was thinking more like 200 miles thick.
And not nearly as dense as you are proposing. More like .01% of that.

Making up things won't help. Above 10 (The upper limit of clouds)miles at the density you are making up there would not be sufficient pressure to keep the water vapor in gaseous form and it would immediately condense If that wasn't bad enough at 80 the tempature falls below -130F so any water vapor there would flash freeze and fall to the earth.

You are exaggerating, but I agree that there would be a greenhouse effect. This may be why we find evidence of tropical organisms near the poles.

It's simple math.
A gram of water vapor that condenses to liquid releases 539 calories of heat.

A vapor canopy sufficient to form 40 feet of water would have around 6.0 x 10^21 grams of water vapor.
The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.0 x 10^21 grams. Add in the mass of your vapor canopy.
One calorie is the energy required to raise 1 gram of water on degree Celsius.
Multiply it all out and the water vapor condensing to water would raise the temperature 450 C or just over 800 F. now add that to the surface temperature that existed before the rain started...

OK - now you're completely off the charts and lying through your teeth! Ha ha! How often does the earth heat up when it rains?

conservation of energy. go ask a scientist. It takes energy to keep your vapor canopy n a gaseous form, it takes energy to keep your vapor canopy up the fact that your canopy would have to be in orbit around the earth means that it would have a huge amount of kinetic energy which would be released with it turned into water and fell.

I guess you haven't heard of the "iron lung".

All-in-all not a very good try.
How embarrassing for you.

An iron lung is a negative pressure ventilator. It uses air pressure to inflate and deflate the lungs of victims of paralysis.

Those kept alive by an iron lung don't breath the pressurized gas in the lung itself.

 

[everready]

Hideous Discovery

Hideous Discovery

The great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his sermon ‘Hideous Discovery’, preached on July 25, 1886, made the following comment on evolution:

‘In its bearing upon religion this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter: this is not the time for soft speaking.’

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/quotes/spurgeon-on-evolution/


everready

 

[Lon]

No, it's an observation that (for example) Adam and Eve could have had no more than four alleles for each gene locus between them. And yet there are dozens of useful alleles for each today. The rest could only have evolved by mutation and natural selection. That's just the way it is. Rather than the genome deteriorating, it grew, became more diverse and robust.

:nono: They are speculations and you've bought one, ignored the other. I wasn't there, neither were you. You can 'think' you have the answer but a few innocent men are in jail, even with DNA and ballistics. Science can often be arrogant. It is like demanding that all trees from all of creation, could not have existed without 100 rings. That is a ridiculous demand. Food has to exist for life to be sustained. I've "after their kind" might support either model BUT our models are our suppositions. I'll start with "God" created as a non-negotiable. I'd hope you'd be correctable and start there too. Earth and water certainly did not and couldn't create life. If God didn't create, there is no reason for you to be a Christian or a Catholic (if you see a difference).

So the genome didn't deteriorate after all?

This is you and Alate_one trying to speculate. I don't mind that. I mind the backhanded slaps as if you and he have some one-up from the rest of us. You don't. You are both arrogantly assertive.

Barbarian observes:
So from their POV, it's a clever trick and a good one. Remember, they subscribe to Luther's belief that a "good strong lie" is O.K. with God.



Let's see...

Jonathan Sarfati, another frequent contributor to your creationist perspective website, is no better. In his article “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All The Supernova Remnants?” first published in Creation Ex Nihilo 19:46-48 and later online at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/stars.asp, Sarfati tries to claim that the absence of Type III supernovas suggests that the universe is young, perhaps a few thousand years old, not billions of years as evolutionary scientists claim. He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."



Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/10/deception-of-trueorigin.html

After several years, Sarfati took down the article. But it's a good indication of the willingness of AiG to lie when they think they can get away with it.

Actually, this is historical license and not careful reading. We don't know in what context it was applied, but we have 'historians' attaching the life with the statement. I've read the German translated not as clearly as people like to try and convey it. I studied 2 years of German, and have a hard time getting the meaning AND the only quotes I've seen are second and worse, third and forth sources rather than a direct quote from one of Luther's letters. What we have instead is 'accusations' rather than a direct quote, in context, from Luther. Rather convenient to hear this repeated from Catholics ad nauseam. If it existed/exists, it was talking about the problem of polygamy in the OT and a man choosing in Luther's day to try and marry two women. That is the context in which even the secondary sources cite it. To stretch it to flat-out lying, is actually more of the lie than Luther's original statement as far as I can tell. We'll see if you throw it around fast and loose in the future.... :think:

You didn't touch it, but I challenge you, once again, from that longer post, to talk about Jesus when you talk about Creation. It will dramatically change your relevance on TOL even if your hands are tied behind your back in the classroom.