Proof of Noah's flood.

[coheir]

 

I'm answering this because I enjoy the subject of Australian marsupials. Firstly I don't see a problem with keeping "delicate" animals on the ark. Noah had more than enough preparation time to learn how to look after specific animals. Secondly I believe there has been rapid speciation since the flood ,and so not all the species we see today were actually on the ark.

 

All Australian marsupials have a common ancestor with a certain South American possum. Regarding DNA they are virtually identical to eachother, but regarding outward appearance and morphology they have large differences. So the koala bear is simply a possum-like creature that has adapted to eating eucalyptus. When animals are isolated on an island they can sometimes adapt rapidly to fill the missing ecological niches.

I'm just curious about something. You seem to support the idea that animals with extensive similarities in DNA share common ancestry. Is this correct?

I'm not sure how Noah would be able to prepare to learn how to take care of every kind of creature. Surely he couldn't google anything and I wouldn't begin to think that every kind of animal existed nearby.

 

at time of flood every living thing ate no meat, that made it a lot easier feed them.

[Bonky]

For Instance?

My Presupposition: "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan.

What "Establishment"/Organization on the Planet Earth and on a MASSIVE SCALE attempts to Cast the Most DOUBT and then Outright Denial of the Existence of GOD, Bar None??? "Secular" Science.

 

Strawman (Fallacy) I never said they were fools.  I can and "have shown" (*Supported*) where they are Factually Incorrect, however.

Easy to this on an internet messageboard, how well would you do with Hawking in person? Or the average physicist?

 

 

I feel that you are too close to this to have any sensible discussion.

 

Translation: This guy is asking me to support my assertions....I can't have that.

 

"I feel"--- based on what?

 

Also, who appointed you Judge over what is or not "Sensible Discussions"?

Well if the discussion involves me, you better believe I decide who is worthy of spending time with.

 

 

Unsupported Baseless Assertion (Fallacy).  For instance?

It isn't baseless, I've shown above where you make bizarre claims that I think are fanatical.

 

 

You also stated this that I missed....

 

So if we find specific genetic sequences that show up in two different animals we can confirm that they shared a common ancestor. I would agree myself, I think that's a completely logical conclusion.

 

Please show "Scientific Evidence" of:  Similarity = Common Decent:

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

??

 

Just because the lug nuts of a Chevy can fit on a Jeep doesn't Ipso Facto mean that they both evolved from a Tin Can 3 Billion years ago.

 

 

Also, your entire post is an Ad Hominem (Fallacy)---- attacking the person rather than the substance of their arguments.

Do you support DNA evidence in the court of law? Or to be used to determine parenthood?

Edited July 30, 2014 by Bonky

[Bonky]

at time of flood every living thing ate no meat, that made it a lot easier feed them.

So what did the great white shark eat prior to the flood?

[Jzyehoshua]

More on how the assumption of light speed travel is being challenged:

 

http://www.dailytech.com/CERN+Physicists+Observe+First+FasterThanLight+LongDistance+Travel/article22827.htm

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html

 

http://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

 

http://scienceline.org/2007/07/ask-romero-speedoflight/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Astronomical_observations

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL

[Jzyehoshua]

I've made a series of points on ERVs here, pointing out that you have to assume random gene insertion. However gene insertion is not entirely random and thus doesn't necessarily indicate a common ancestor as it can arise independently, parallel evolution, if gene insertion is not completely random. Also, ERVs are not understood all that well or cures for ERVs like AIDS would be getting found easier. Thirdly, there can be strong similarity between humans and other types of life also such as lizards, aardvarks, and pigeons - not just apes.

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/Creationism#Endogenous_Retroviruses_.28ERVs.29

[Bonky]

I've made a series of points on ERVs here, pointing out that you have to assume random gene insertion. However gene insertion is not entirely random and thus doesn't necessarily indicate a common ancestor as it can arise independently, parallel evolution, if gene insertion is not completely random. Also, ERVs are not understood all that well or cures for ERVs like AIDS would be getting found easier. Thirdly, there can be strong similarity between humans and other types of life also such as lizards, aardvarks, and pigeons - not just apes.

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/Creationism#Endogenous_Retroviruses_.28ERVs.29

That's just it, we're not finding these same specific genetic sequences in lizards, aardvarks and pigeons. In the end, what creationists are asking me to do is to consider that a creator put these sequences there because they benefit the creature. Ok, then show me some insertions/sequences that we share with pigeons or lizards. I find it peculiar that the creator just happened to place this specific benefit into primates but didn't extend it to other creatures.

My original intent was not to try to convince people here of common ancestry. It was an attempt to understand another forum member's position better.

[ARGOSY]

 

As for dating the rocks, the Purdue Studies, supported by the Israel Geological Survey have put doubt on the accuracy of radiometric dating, so the age of rocks is in doubt.

I'm not an expert in the matter, although radiometric dating does interest me some. It seems that this matter has been looked into:

http://www.nist.gov/mml/csd/14c_091410.cfm

http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf

As an aside, [according to what I've read by experts in the field] if we were to "compact" the 4 billion years of measured radio decay into only a 6000 year window, there is a huge heat and radiation problem to deal with. The Earth would be liquefied by the intense heat generated by that rate of decay.

 

 

ps your links are old (2008/2010). Yes I agree the effect does not relate to earth-sun distance, neither does it appear to relate to neutrinos. Instrument failure claims have been completely ruled out by subsequent studies , mainly involving the Geological Survey of Israel, many studies confirm the effect.

 

This is why I relate the observations to the extent of penetration of the solar wind/cosmic rays.  All the observed effects relate directly to penetration of the earth's surface. The stronger the penetration, the slower the decay.  So the effect has in no ways been ruled out , it has increasingly been confirmed. 

[Bonky]

your links are old (2008/2010). Yes I agree the effect does not relate to earth-sun distance, neither does it appear to relate to neutrinos. Instrument failure claims have been completely ruled out by subsequent studies , mainly involving the Geological Survey of Israel, many studies confirm the effect.

 

This is why I relate the observations to the extent of penetration of the solar wind/cosmic rays.  All the observed effects relate directly to penetration of the earth's surface. The stronger the penetration, the slower the decay.  So the effect has in no ways been ruled out , it has increasingly been confirmed.

Ok, so do they have concrete evidence that shows significant change in rate of decay? I mean I thought the dates they gave out were already within a margin of error. Another words if we find evidence that something affects the reading of some chemical, biological or atomic clock....but it only affects it slightly...I don't see why that's a big deal.

[Jzyehoshua]

 

I've made a series of points on ERVs here, pointing out that you have to assume random gene insertion. However gene insertion is not entirely random and thus doesn't necessarily indicate a common ancestor as it can arise independently, parallel evolution, if gene insertion is not completely random. Also, ERVs are not understood all that well or cures for ERVs like AIDS would be getting found easier. Thirdly, there can be strong similarity between humans and other types of life also such as lizards, aardvarks, and pigeons - not just apes.

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/Creationism#Endogenous_Retroviruses_.28ERVs.29

That's just it, we're not finding these same specific genetic sequences in lizards, aardvarks and pigeons. In the end, what creationists are asking me to do is to consider that a creator put these sequences there because they benefit the creature. Ok, then show me some insertions/sequences that we share with pigeons or lizards. I find it peculiar that the creator just happened to place this specific benefit into primates but didn't extend it to other creatures.

My original intent was not to try to convince people here of common ancestry. It was an attempt to understand another forum member's position better.

 

As one example, if you run a BLAST search on the V9H1F4 human ERV FASTA sequence you get the highest non-human scores for the green anole (small lizard), the aardvark, and a rock pigeon. The sequence code can be found here.

 

http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/V9H1F4

 

The search results are as follows (they'll expire after a day or so if I recall):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/Blast.cgi?CMD=Get&RID=XJHVWVNZ015

[ARGOSY]

 

erv's are not necessarily mutations. That may be an evolutionary assumption.  The sequences would have to be of the nature of undeniable subsequent mutations to be of any value to the evolution/creation debate. Retroposons are observable mutations.

I'm not sure why it needs to be mutation to qualify as evidence, finding a specific sequence in the same exact location in two animals seems to be in favor of common descent. As far as mutations, almost every mammal on the planet has an enzyme called GULO. This enzyme is used in the production of ascorbic acid [vitamin C]. What's interesting is that guinea pigs are not able to synthesize vitamin C and neither are simians. The difference is, there is a different mutation that caused this for the guinea pigs vs. what is present in simians.

One could suggest that we just happened to develop the same mutation, but I think common descent offers a better explanation [provides a real mechanism we know exists].

 

 

Two identical sequences that correspond beyond all statistical chance can be seen as intelligent design (ID)  from a creationist perspective, and so could have no bearing on common ancestry.  Therefore identical sequences on their own are not pointers to common ancestry from an ID perspective. Some creationists do not acknowledge the extent or rapidity of mutations,  even though certain changes can be seen in offspring that are not in the DNA of parents. We can therefore observe definite patterns or frequencies of certain types of genetic changes between generations. Such identifiable recent mutations can therefore be used as genetic markers to determine common ancestry. For science to make any headway in a scientific debate regarding ID, there has to be a definite distinction between what are definite genetic markers derived through undeniable mutations and what could merely be optimal DNA design sequences.

 

Your guinea pig example actually counteracts your own argument, nevertheless regarding your examples above, there is often an overlap of functions between genes, and sometimes the disabling of a gene can have benefits. Due to large populations, and normal rates of disabling mutations, its not uncommon for separate populations to independently develop beneficial disabling of the same function, without any cross breeding necessary between the two populations (ie no common ancestor). This sometimes can occur within an exact gene, across separate populations eg the Duffy gene. This of course does not help your case, blurring the boundaries of recognising common ancestry.