Tricks Theists Play (Part 1)

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This seems to suggest that tremendous degrees of evolution are possible. ..

I said “This seems to misunderstand the premise of a kind. Membership of a kind is determined by ancestral relations - no matter what degree of “change” occurs"

Then you said “This seems to suggest that tremendous degrees of evolution are possible. All that is needed is the claim that a common ancestor existed. All mammals could be a kind, or even all tetrapods.”

This statement of mine doesn't speak to what is “possible”, it only speaks to the concept of kinds. That is, the idea of kinds is independent of “degrees of evolution”. I did go on to make explicit statements about what degree of change is possible (given current knowledge). I also described some of the main evidences used by creationists to characterise kinds – which is more than simply a “claim that a common ancestor existed”.

Classification is not an exact science for either secularists or creationists. Both perspectives are simply doing our best to paint a picture of unobserved history given the available facts, and our particular premise. If there is a take-away point, it is that the same facts used by secularists to claim that species are closely related can also be applied to the creationist concept of kinds. Where we differ, is that creationists don't interpret the pattern of gaps between these groups to represent relationships deeper in time. Creationists interpret the pattern of separation as distinguishing created groups from each other.

 

“I’m a little confused by the classification if Leviticus 11 gives examples of kinds”

So to be clear, the Biblical use of kinds is a general usage - meaning types or sorts or groups or kinds. It is not intended as a biological classification (in scripture). Creationists have adopted this terminology from the Bible as a classification marker - characterising the concept of the distinct created groups of life. We have obviously done so because this terminology can be directly related to scriptural usage and context.

 

“Why would bats be classified with birds?”

Is it really so hard to understand why an ancient classification system might place small winged animals together? All classification systems are subjective. There is no right or wrong – just however we choose to group things together. We translate the Hebrew 'owph' into the modern English concept of 'bird' – which is probably correct in 99% of contexts. But that is our assumption. The word itself simply means winged, flying creature. It may even include flying insects.

 

“Why are insects described as having four feet? If we observe that insects have six feet, why isn’t that “claiming to know more than God”?”

From a standpoint of basic logic, if something has six legs, then it definitely has four legs. So there is no logical contradiction between what you say the Bible describes, and observation.

Regarding Leviticus 11, given that the passage describes the detailed structure of insect legs, it is patently absurd to suggest that the author neglected to notice one of the pairs of legs. But read the passage again, then go look at a picture of a grasshopper or locust. You'll notice there are four legs for walking around, and two appendages designed for leaping. Now we classify those other two appendages as legs also. However, like the bat/bird question, it is anachronistic arrogance to suggest that since ancient Hebrews classified them differently (in this case according to function), that they were wrong and we are right.

 

“This is still vague. Biotechnologists have been sticking two strands of DNA together for decades now”

I am being deliberately ambiguous because there are hundreds of ways in which strands of DNA can be incompatible (from sequence structure to chromosome structure to external factors like methylation etc.). No biotechnologist has annealed incompatible strands of DNA of any useful length – which is a requirement of successful, viable procreation.

 

“This is interesting, but I can’t get the link to work in my phone. A copy/paste doesn’t link to anything”

It is interesting. The point was simply to provide an example of the wider genetic pattern of seemingly closely related groups (some as small as a single Species, others, like the Parrots, filling entire Orders) interspersed with overt genetic differences between the groups. Creationists interpret this pattern as suggestive of (to steal a phrase) common ancestry within the group.

 

“How would you answer an argument that this is only begging the question?”

You'd have to explain to me how. In reality, this is exactly the same logical approach used by secularists to determine relatedness. The main difference is that creationists don't assume the Common Ancestry of all life, and therefore don't assume the genetic gaps represent relationships occurring far deeper in time (i.e. between the groups).

[one.opinion]

26 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Classification is not an exact science for either secularists or creationists. Both perspectives are simply doing our best to paint a picture of unobserved history given the available facts, and our particular premise. If there is a take-away point, it is that the same facts used by secularists to claim that species are closely related can also be applied to the creationist concept of kinds. Where we differ, is that creationists don't interpret the pattern of gaps between these groups to represent relationships deeper in time. Creationists interpret the pattern of separation as distinguishing created groups from each other.

Thanks, this does make sense. But that opens up the questions about the age of the earth, and we've been down that road before ?

29 minutes ago, Tristen said:

We have obviously done so because this terminology can be directly related to scriptural usage and context.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but let me see if I can paraphrase your "take-home message" regarding kinds. Since the Bible does specifically mention kinds, then that precludes the existence of a universal common ancestor. There may have been a relatively small number of common ancestors, but there is definitely more than one.

33 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Is it really so hard to understand why an ancient classification system might place small winged animals together?

Well, yes... the differences between birds and bats are rather obvious.

35 minutes ago, Tristen said:

From a standpoint of basic logic, if something has six legs, then it definitely has four legs. So there is no logical contradiction between what you say the Bible describes, and observation.

It wouldn't technically be a logical contradiction, but it sure seems like an odd way to communicate. If I tell people of Worthy Forums that I have one leg, I'll bet a lot of people would assume that I had only one.

Quote

 

There are generally two main evidences indicating a Biblical kind;

1) The most obvious is the ability of different species to hybridise. For most creationists, that is akin to confirmation that the species descended from the same gene pool (i.e. belong to the same kind).

2) Genomic differentiation. That is, those that belong to the same kind tend to have very similar genomic structures – whereas with unrelated creatures, there is generally an overt distinction in the genomic structure (which is probably why it's not possibly to hybridise them). 

 

I'm still having problems with this. We can pretty much agree that the first of your two evidences is insufficient. We both know that speciation has been observed, so procreative isolation is insufficient evidence of a Biblical kind. I still don't know for sure what you mean by your second evidence, and I'm not convinced that you do, either. If you want to stick with your example of the Psittaciformes, then we can just go with DNA sequence isolation. Otherwise, you are left with nothing but guesses such as DNA methylation patterns.

Regarding the Psittaciformes, however, I did note that the authors constructed a cladogram with time estimates based on DNA sequencing of selected areas of the genome. We are again left with the issue of time. To me, the most likely explanation is that DNA mutation rates have been consistent over time, allowing sequence divergence to be a major factor in the construction of evolutionary time lines. If someone begins with the presupposition that the earth is much younger than it appears, then it must be assumed that DNA mutation rates must have been orders of magnitude greater within the last few thousand years then they are now. And as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence supporting that scenario.

 

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Thanks, this does make sense. But ...?

 

“Thanks, this does make sense. But that opens up the questions about the age of the earth, and we've been down that road before ?”

Yup – both paradigms interpret the available facts to fit their preferred faith premise. In order to make the existence, viability and diversity of life plausible, philosophical naturalism requires an enormous amount of time. So the facts are interpreted to fit that paradigm. The Bible provides a framework that explains how the existence, viability and diversity of life can arise in a short period of time.

 

“Correct me if I'm wrong, but let me see if I can paraphrase your "take-home message" regarding kinds. Since the Bible does specifically mention kinds, then that precludes the existence of a universal common ancestor. There may have been a relatively small number of common ancestors, but there is definitely more than one”

My “take-home message” was that, while we both do so from a different perspective, both secularists and creationists apply the same logical approach to classifying related groups. There are logical weaknesses in the approach, but those weaknesses apply equally to both parties. I get the impression that you readily recognise these weaknesses in the creationist claims, but perhaps aren't applying the same level of logical scrutiny to the secular claims.

I would say that since Genesis 1 describes God creating distinct creatures separately, that is what “precludes the existence of a universal common ancestor”

Because speciation delineates within kinds, the number of species must be equal to, or larger than, the original number of kinds. I have a vague memory of someone estimating 16,000 created kinds – but I'd have to look that up.

 

“the differences between birds and bats are rather obvious”

As are the similarities. Presumably their classification system served its purpose. So long as the audience understood owph (Hb) to mean small flying creatures, then there is no logical discrepancy. The problem is with the translator's assumptions, not the original text.

 

“It wouldn't technically be a logical contradiction, but it sure seems like an odd way to communicate. If I tell people of Worthy Forums that I have one leg, I'll bet a lot of people would assume that I had only one”

Then the error would technically be in their assumption, not your claim.

I agree that it would be “an odd way to communicate”, but the Leviticus text is clear to distinguish between walking legs and other leg-like appendages. I think the meaning becomes clear to anyone who sees a grasshopper.

 

“I'm still having problems with this. We can pretty much agree that the first of your two evidences is insufficient”

“Insufficient” for what? The fact that two genomes are similar enough to hybridise is an evidence of a recent ancestral relationship. Neither of us can go back in time to observe either the creation or the common ancestor. All we can do is interpret the facts to fit our model. From the perspective of the creationist model, the capacity to hybridise is evidence that the two groups are related – and therefore belong to the same kind. That is, hybridisation is an evidence of recent group separation in a line of separations back to their shared created ancestor. In the secular system, hybridisation evidences a recent separation in a long line of separations back to the common ancestor. We are both reading a lot into the facts. But I'm not reading any more into the facts than the secularists. In fact, I think I could argue that the secularists are reading an extra 3 billion-or-so years of history into the facts. But then again, I'm reading the Biblical Creator God into the facts.

 

“I still don't know for sure what you mean by your second evidence”

So we know that we can impregnate a female tiger with lion sperm to produce a viable offspring. That is because the genomic structure and genetic content of the two groups is similar enough to align during conception. Hybridisation experiments have been performed on a few different cat species – but not all. Nevertheless, when we look at the molecular data, we find that all cats posses a genetic structure which is overtly distinct from all other types of creatures. There is no gradual pattern succession between cats and other mammals. There is cats in a clear group by themselves, and other creatures in their own groups. But if we look hard enough, we eventually do find some similarities with other mammals.

Now we also know that a female polar bear can be impregnated with grizzly bear sperm to produce a viable offspring – for the same reasons the cats can hybridise. But we absolutely cannot impregnate a tiger with grizzly bear sperm – because the genomic structure and genetic content between the two is so radically different (in potentially hundreds of different ways) that there is no way for the molecules to align to form offspring (viable or otherwise).

This molecular pattern of distinct clusters of species interspersed with large genetic gaps between the clusters is found throughout nature. Secularists use the moderate similarities between groups as evidence of common ancestry; joining the gaps and extending time millions of years into the past. Creationists interpret the clusters as evidence of distinct created kinds.

 

“If you want to stick with your example of the Psittaciformes, then we can just go with DNA sequence isolation. Otherwise, you are left with nothing but guesses such as DNA methylation patterns”

I think that's overly simplistic. It's not just that the information is different (which is a massive issue in itself), but , for example, the information will be stored on different chromosomes, and there will be different amounts of chromosomes between the two species, and there will be discrepancies in how the exons/introns are arranged for each gene, and genes in each species may be turned off by methylation through different stages of development etc. etc.

 

“Regarding the Psittaciformes, however, I did note that the authors constructed a cladogram with time estimates based on DNA sequencing of selected areas of the genome. We are again left with the issue of time”

Did you “note” that there were two cladograms based on two different assumptions regarding the origin of the Psittaciformes Order, and based on two differing molecular clock algorithms? Did you notice that one method produced a start point of 83 million years ago, and the other method said 50 million years ago? So which one should I trust uncritically?

All this ultimately means is that they applied secular uniformitarian assumptions to the data - which is what I said happens.

 

“To me, the most likely explanation is that DNA mutation rates have been consistent over time, allowing sequence divergence to be a major factor in the construction of evolutionary time lines”

Except that we know that “DNA mutation rates” are absolutely NOT “consistent over time”. They are not predictable at all. That is why we have so many different kinds of molecular clocks; adjusted clocks, relaxed clocks etc. - trying to account for the fact that mutation is a largely random process – and we have no reasonable basis upon which to make the assumption otherwise.

Molecular clocks employ circular reasoning; deriving an average mutation rate using measured mutational differences from samples they already assume they know the age of.

 

“If someone begins with the presupposition that the earth is much younger than it appears, then it must be assumed that DNA mutation rates must have been orders of magnitude greater within the last few thousand years then they are now. And as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence supporting that scenario”

How old does the earth appear?

Do you mean “DNA mutation rates must have been orders of magnitude greater” from a common ancestor, or just speciation from a created kind. Because the types of change required by the latter don't require large-scale mutations (or mutations at all). Complete speciation can occur in a few generations.

A few times a year I come across articles about scientists being surprised by rapid evolution (by which they usually mean adaptation, Natural Selection and speciation). Here's one where the scientists found “guppies evolved at rates four to seven orders of magnitude greater than those estimated from the fossil record” (https://search.proquest.com/openview/6072fd21e7506b855d03cfbdc7b45c51/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1256).

 

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

My “take-home message” was that, while we both do so from a different perspective, both secularists and creationists apply the same logical approach to classifying related groups. There are logical weaknesses in the approach, but those weaknesses apply equally to both parties.

But this really isn't the case. Let me remind you again that I am indeed a creationist, and not a secularist. The standard current classification systems are defined, although they are indeed artificial and prone to error. If classification according to "kind" consists of organisms that all came from a single ancestor, then you are left with the very real problem of trying to figure out what those are.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

I have a vague memory of someone estimating 16,000 created kinds – but I'd have to look that up.

I would really like to analyze the data showing that there were 16,000 common ancestors. This is clearly not in the Bible and clearly not in the reputable scientific literature, which raises the question of how this number was determined.

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

So we know that we can impregnate a female tiger with lion sperm to produce a viable offspring. That is because the genomic structure and genetic content of the two groups is similar enough to align during conception. Hybridisation experiments have been performed on a few different cat species – but not all. Nevertheless, when we look at the molecular data, we find that all cats posses a genetic structure which is overtly distinct from all other types of creatures. There is no gradual pattern succession between cats and other mammals. There is cats in a clear group by themselves, and other creatures in their own groups. But if we look hard enough, we eventually do find some similarities with other mammals.

I believe we interpret this information in the same way - as evidence of a relatively recent divergence in the different cat species.

 

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

This molecular pattern of distinct clusters of species interspersed with large genetic gaps between the clusters is found throughout nature. Secularists use the moderate similarities between groups as evidence of common ancestry; joining the gaps and extending time millions of years into the past. Creationists interpret the clusters as evidence of distinct created kinds.

Young earth creationists use this as evidence of common ancestry, as well. Where we differ again is the issue of time - when these divergences took place. You see this divergence point something like 4000-6000 years ago, and I see it as millions of years ago.

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

Did you notice that one method produced a start point of 83 million years ago, and the other method said 50 million years ago?

 

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

Except that we know that “DNA mutation rates” are absolutely NOT “consistent over time”. They are not predictable at all. That is why we have so many different kinds of molecular clocks; adjusted clocks, relaxed clocks etc. - trying to account for the fact that mutation is a largely random process – and we have no reasonable basis upon which to make the assumption otherwise.

Setting aside radioisotopic dating evidence, let's look at the number for a bit. The two estimated numbers of 83 million and 50 million years differ by a factor of 1.66. In order for the average of the two estimates (66.5 million years) to actually have diverged in only 6000 years, we are looking at a factor of 11,083. In other words, the adaptation rate would have to be roughly 11,000 times faster for much the last few thousand years that it is currently. Admittedly, this is 4 orders of magnitude, which matches very well with the Cichlid article you included at the end of the post. But this requires a very important caveat - the environment for these guppies was artificially altered very significantly. There was a brief burst in adaptation when the guppies were introduced into a predator-free environment. This rate of change was not maintained for thousands of years.

[Tristen]

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

But this really isn't the case. Let me remind you again that I am indeed a creationist, and not a secularist ...

“Let me remind you again that I am indeed a creationist, and not a secularist”

I did remember, but the model you appeal to is secular – that is, it is designed to explain a reality without necessitating God's involvement. You, like many others, have accepted that model and ad hoc declared God to be the Cause and Director of that model of reality. But the model itself doesn't need God, and was explicitly designed to be independent of God.

 

“The standard current classification systems are defined, although they are indeed artificial and prone to error. If classification according to "kind" consists of organisms that all came from a single ancestor, then you are left with the very real problem of trying to figure out what those are”

Apart from Species (which has several debated definitions), the levels of the Linnaean system are undefined. The individual groups within each level are defined by a particular shared characteristic. For example, those within a particular Family are considered more closely associated with each other than with creatures in the same Order – because those in the same Family have something in common with each other that is not shared with the rest of the Order. That is the logical basis of the classification system – not specific level definitions.

And that is the very same logic used by YEC (along with the very same facts) to indicate kinds. The only difference is that YEC ride the logic back to the premise of created kinds, whereas the secular model rides the logic back to a universal common ancestor. Everyone has the same “problem of trying to figure out” what fits where. We all have to make assumptions and rationally justify why we think particular creatures occupy particular groups. The “problem” is not exclusive to creationist kinds by any means.

 

“I would really like to analyze the data showing that there were 16,000 common ancestors. This is clearly not in the Bible and clearly not in the reputable scientific literature, which raises the question of how this number was determined”

The “number” is from a book called “Noah's Ark: a feasibility study” - but I got it wrong. It suggests there were no more than 8,000 pairs of animals (kinds) on the Ark. That is based on the simplistic model of equating kinds directly to Genus (and I suspect, but can't remember, excluding sea creatures and insects).

 

“I believe we interpret this information in the same way - as evidence of a relatively recent divergence in the different cat species”

Right – they speciated from an ancestor cat of some description. The molecular evidence (and hybridisation evidence) shows that they are a tightly related group. But the molecular evidence doesn't show the cat group to be tightly related to any other group. There is no gradual, consistent link between groups.

Basically, both models are following the evidence to the point where we can both agree that the groups are related to each other – because of how the molecular data clusters them. We are obviously operating on different time frames, but we agree that the pattern indicates related groups. This pattern of distinct groups in the data supports the creationist premise that God created distinct types of creatures. We don't have to interpret the data further fit our model. The secular model has to justify the premise of Common Ancestry, and therefore has to ignore the overt gaps in the data - to find some creature that, for example, is not a cat, but has something in common with cats, in order to propose that creature as a possible link between cats and the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

“Young earth creationists use this as evidence of common ancestry, as well. Where we differ again is the issue of time - when these divergences took place. You see this divergence point something like 4000-6000 years ago, and I see it as millions of years ago”

OK – but up to now you've been challenging me to justify the logic behind the concept of kinds. I assume that you understood that my paradigm questions the veracity of dating methods. But apart from the secular assumptions about time, I think I have justified that the overriding logical approach is the same for both models. The difference is in the faith presuppositions we are trying to support. Those faith presuppositions directly inform where we place the facts in our models.

Apart from my Biblical faith, I am not claiming to have the right model of history. I am simply claiming to have a model that can be rationally justified through consistency with the facts (which is all anyone making historical assertions can claim).

 

- I've separated out the next section of your comments because I think you have conflated issues that can't be logically conflated.

 

“let's look at the number for a bit. The two estimated numbers of 83 million and 50 million years differ by a factor of 1.66”

Right – one is 66% (or 33 million years) more time than the other. Alternatively, you could say one is nearly 40% less than the other. There is no way to make this a trivial difference. The point of me bringing this up was that you made a remark about “DNA mutation rates” being “consistent over time” - which is an assumption of the molecular clock idea used to date the cladograms. This example demonstrates that, as with all dating methods, the outcome depends on the starting assumptions.

 

“In order for the average of the two estimates (66.5 million years) to actually have diverged in only 6000 years, we are looking at a factor of 11,083”

You can't average them because they are independent models. I'm not going to bother looking, but I'm sure they each have their own associated error calculations. But I'm happy for you to stick with the larger 83 million years figure – because I don't think your logic follows.

 

“In other words, the adaptation rate would have to be roughly 11,000 times faster for much the last few thousand years that it is currently”

Firstly, you have to justify the prescribed 'dates'. Because those dates are based on assumptions of consistent mutation rates. But as you have aptly pointed out from the guppy article, 'evolution' can happen in bursts. So to make claims about such rates, you have to assume that I accept the premise of your dating philosophy – which you have yourself established to be untrue.

Then you have to define what you mean by “adaptation rate”? Are we talking mutation rates, or just speciation rates? Because speciation can occur in a few generations through isolation from a parent population and Natural Selection filtering the existing genes. The creationist model doesn't assume time was needed for new mutations. Even so, multiple mutations can occur in a single generation – so even with mutations, time is not a problem for creationists.

 

“Admittedly, this is 4 orders of magnitude, which matches very well with the Cichlid article you included at the end of the post”

You indicated that you were unaware of rapid evolution claims. So I found an example.

 

“this requires a very important caveat - the environment for these guppies was artificially altered very significantly. There was a brief burst in adaptation when the guppies were introduced into a predator-free environment. This rate of change was not maintained for thousands of years”

It seems to me that being released into a newly uninhabited world would provide the descendants of each kind plenty of opportunity to encounter different environmental conditions facilitating a series of rapid speciation events.

 

[one.opinion]

14 hours ago, Tristen said:

Firstly, you have to justify the prescribed 'dates'. Because those dates are based on assumptions of consistent mutation rates. But as you have aptly pointed out from the guppy article, 'evolution' can happen in bursts. So to make claims about such rates, you have to assume that I accept the premise of your dating philosophy – which you have yourself established to be untrue.

True, I am assuming that radioactive decay rates are consistent and do indeed give reasonably accurate age measurements of fossils and rocks. I just have not seen enough evidence suggesting that decay rates have fluctuated enough in the past to justify an assumption that dating techniques are several orders of magnitude away from being accurate.

14 hours ago, Tristen said:

You indicated that you were unaware of rapid evolution claims. So I found an example.

My fault, I am aware of rapid evolution claims. The examples are typically evident when a dramatic shift in environment has occurred - naturally or artificially. What I have not seen is that rapid evolution to the extent of that seen in the guppies (not Cichlids, also my fault :-P) is sustained for thousands of years.

14 hours ago, Tristen said:

Then you have to define what you mean by “adaptation rate”? Are we talking mutation rates, or just speciation rates?

The guppy article mentioned measurements of change in the fish in "darwin" units (e-fold change in a trait over one million years). I am guessing this would be partly due to mutation, but also phenotype plasticity.

15 hours ago, Tristen said:

It seems to me that being released into a newly uninhabited world would provide the descendants of each kind plenty of opportunity to encounter different environmental conditions facilitating a series of rapid speciation events.

That is a point worth pondering, but would depend on some assumptions about population interactions. From your model, would you expect to see animals exiting the ark and immediately filling environmental niches, or taking considerable time to do so?

15 hours ago, Tristen said:

Apart from my Biblical faith, I am not claiming to have the right model of history. I am simply claiming to have a model that can be rationally justified through consistency with the facts (which is all anyone making historical assertions can claim).

Thank you for the reminder, Tristen. I should remain cognizant that I am doing the same thing. All I can do is piece together, to the best of my ability, the available information in a way that fits what God has revealed through both His Word and His Works. Also, thanks for helping me develop a much better understanding of Biblical kinds.

In the end, we are brothers in Jesus Christ, something worth celebrating in this season where we remember His birth! God bless you.

 

P. S. I will likely just read your responses and leave it at that.

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

True, I am assuming that radioactive decay rates are consistent and do indeed give reasonably accurate age measurements of fossils and rocks. ...

“I am assuming that radioactive decay rates are consistent and do indeed give reasonably accurate age measurements of fossils and rocks. I just have not seen enough evidence suggesting that decay rates have fluctuated enough in the past to justify an assumption that dating techniques are several orders of magnitude away from being accurate”

Your magnitude-of-evolution-increase calculation assumes that the secular date calculations have meaning to me. Whether you decide to accept the 83 million year or 50 million year dates – for me to consider those dates meaningful, I'd have to first accept the assumptions of the molecular dating process (which we all know to be untrue), and which itself is calibrated by samples dated using the assumptions of radiometric dating techniques (including, but not limited to, consistent isotope decay rates). I would also have to accept the assumption that mutations can sequentially add novel, beneficial genes to existing genomes. Since I obviously don't trust these assumptions, I hope you can understand why such calculations, and therefore any derivative claims about required magnitudes of change, are meaningless to me.

 

“What I have not seen is that rapid evolution to the extent of that seen in the guppies (not Cichlids, also my fault :-P) is sustained for thousands of years

…

The guppy article mentioned measurements of change in the fish in "darwin" units (e-fold change in a trait over one million years). I am guessing this would be partly due to mutation, but also phenotype plasticity”

Here is a good example – such a sustained degree of change is only required if you make secular assumptions about how much change, and what types of change are required. Speciation through Natural Selection can completely alter a population from the parent population in a few generations. So all that time is not necessary to make many changes in very short order – especially in a context where there is high competition for new habitats.

Note that the “Darwin units” assume a secular time-frame.

 

“That is a point worth pondering, but would depend on some assumptions about population interactions. From your model, would you expect to see animals exiting the ark and immediately filling environmental niches, or taking considerable time to do so?”

It certainly does “depend on some assumptions about population interactions”, but apart from the time-frames, they are the same assumptions used by secularists to determine dispersion patterns.

The post-flood question is complex. For example, different species reproduce at different rates - and so have differing temporal opportunities for adaptation. The post-flood climate would presumably be unstable for a while as well – impacting dispersal and survival patterns. Also, different species have different capacities for dispersion (e.g. obviously birds can disperse more rapidly than cattle). Competition and predator-prey interactions might drive the dispersal of many species. They had a whole planet of new habitats to fill and adapt to.

 

 

[one.opinion]

22 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'd have to first accept the assumptions of the molecular dating process (which we all know to be untrue)

I wasn’t planning to respond, but that is blatant error. If “we all know” it is untrue, why do people continue using these techniques? I will read your opinion, but will call you out for your complete overstatement.

On 12/29/2018 at 2:04 PM, one.opinion said:

In the end, we are brothers in Jesus Christ, something worth celebrating in this season where we remember His birth! God bless you.

Any comment on this part of my previous post?

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I wasn’t planning to respond, but that is blatant error. If “we all know” it is untrue, why do people continue using these techniques? I will read your opinion, but will call you out for your complete overstatement. 

Any comment on this part of my previous post?

“I wasn’t planning to respond, but that is blatant error. If “we all know” it is untrue, why do people continue using these techniques? I will read your opinion, but will call you out for your complete overstatement”

By all means “call” away. I've never heard any professional claim that mutations happen at a consistent rate over time – even those that use “these techniques”. They have always known that they are simply extrapolating from a convenient measure of central tendency. The “techniques” continue to be used because there is no way to determine deep time without making these types of uniformitarian assumptions. As long as the assumptions are stated in the report (which, to be fair, they often are), then there is no problem reporting the results.

 

“ In the end, we are brothers in Jesus Christ, something worth celebrating in this season where we remember His birth! God bless you.

Any comment on this part of my previous post?”

Because of previous conversations, when I see comments like this I get concerned that you are fishing for acknowledgement that I don't question the sincerity of your faith – which I don't – which we have discussed at length.

Nevertheless I pray that God's kindness would overtake you and fill you and your loved ones to overflowing in the coming year.

[one.opinion]

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

I've never heard any professional claim that mutations happen at a consistent rate over time – even those that use “these techniques”.

Clearly there are fluctuations, as you have mentioned. I acknowledge this. My point is that in order to make these types of estimates, the assumption is that mutation rates, on average over long periods of time, are predictable. I agree that it is overly simplistic to state that there is one, unchanging, mutation rate. I could agree that no one believes that is true.

8 hours ago, Tristen said:

Because of previous conversations, when I see comments like this I get concerned that you are fishing for acknowledgement that I don't question the sincerity of your faith

Not at all, I was merely extending good will to a Christian brother. It left me with an odd feeling when you responded to everything BUT that. “No worries” now ?