Age of the Earth 2

[Guest Genxpastor]

SA,

I'll do my best. But you know I'm a painter and not a scientist. Ha.

Well in a single celled organism I would assume there is no mechanism for creating anything other than a single celled organism. In humans there are no mechanisms for creating anything other than a human, 2 eyes, 2 arms etc. I assume in the DNA the information for creating those things are there. So for a Human to adapt to their surroundings they have to adapt using the information contained in them through random mutations , beneficial or they'll die. Or more information has to be added to there genetic make up, to make them adapt. So their genetic material whatever that is, has to get some new information to survive or change. In a single celled organism, there is a lot less genetic information, like how to make an arm, so where did the information to create arms come from? Is that helpful. It's the best I can do I'm afraid.

I'd say God bless here, but you don't think he would anyway. Ha.

~ martin

Martin!

It's great to meet you! I'm glad there is a brother out there who is very skeptical of this whole macro-evolution thing. I'm reading a great book called Darwin's little black box by Michael Behe. Michael presents great arguments for intelligent design. He asserts that in Bio Chemistry there simply is not a defense for evolution at all.

Just as a side note, I find it pretty funny when people make claims that creationists are spreading lies. If one believes that we come from primordial soup then who is to say that something is a lie or wrong? Where is the great law of morality in that. After all, when we die we would have nothing forward to look at, why not commit all kinds of atrocities.

Blessings Martin...Blessings...

[Bread_of_Life]

mscoville

Well in a single celled organism I would assume there is no mechanism for creating anything other than a single celled organism. In humans there are no mechanisms for creating anything other than a human, 2 eyes, 2 arms etc. I assume in the DNA the information for creating those things are there. So for a Human to adapt to their surroundings they have to adapt using the information contained in them through random mutations , beneficial or they'll die. Or more information has to be added to there genetic make up, to make them adapt. So their genetic material whatever that is, has to get some new information to survive or change. In a single celled organism, there is a lot less genetic information, like how to make an arm, so where did the information to create arms come from? Is that helpful. It's the best I can do I'm afraid.

Aware you're not a mathematician, but this definition isn't entirely clear. I think you're trying to say that information is what creates novel features, and therefore that you will only accept an informational gain when new features appear. However, I might be wrong, is this what you're trying to say?

I'm also not sure if this is a good definition of information. For example, human embryos have been known to develop parts of a tail (even the bony parts) on the end of the coccyx. However, even though (for humans) this is a novel feature, it almost certainly isn't new information, but rather unused information being "switched on" by a mutation. Similarly, a whale has been found with atavistic legs - and whereas this is new for modern whales, it isn't new information - but rather reactivated information that has layed dormant for millions of years.

Also, genuinely new information can arise without new features arising - the new information simply modifying old features already existant. Furthermore, genuinely new features can arise from a loss of information, since some information in the genome inhibits growth, and a loss of inhibition could lead to new features. Therefore, I'm not sure if this definition of information is entirely sound.

Lets take sickle cell as an example. Sickle Cell anaemia occurs because of a mutation on the 6th protein of the beta-haemoglobin subunit, that makes up the haemoglobin chemical in your red blood cells. The Valine protein is substituted for the Glutamate protein. This causes the red blood cells to be less flexible, especially in their de-oxygenated state, and also causes them to take an unusual shape when they are in this state - a feature that is essentially novel (new, it didn't appear previously, it would not a feature of the red blood cells prior to this).

According to your definition, this would be a gain in information. On the face of it, that'd be right - there's a genuinely new allele formed that didn't exist before, and a new feature of blood that didn't exist before (curling and rigidity in deoxy state). However - in actual fact all that has happened is that one protein has been replaced with another - so no new genetic material has been added, existing genetic material has simply changed in content. Is this still an addition of information, or is it a change in existing information?

[stevehut]

Please someone enlighten me...

Does this topic have some religious significance? I don't understand...

[truseek]

SA, here is a link to one of many articles regarding human remains found is very old rocks n whatnot.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc03.htm

Yours in Christ

Truseek

[Bread_of_Life]

Okay, I've seen quite a few of these before. They're usually presented, as they are on that site, without references to academic papers on the subject. That isn't surprising, given the truth about the claims:

Human Footprints?

Glen Rose/Paluxy

These are not human footprints. Some of the footprints are dinosaur footprints. Processes such as erosion, infilling, and mud collapse obscure the dinosaurian features of some footprints, making them look like giant human footprints, but careful cleaning reveals the three-toed tracks of dinosaurs [Kuban 1986; Hastings 1987].

Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities. They show no clear human features without selective highlighting. Some of the prints show evidence of deliberate alteration [Godfrey 1985].

Kuban, Glen J., 1996. The Texas dinosaur/"man track" controversy. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Godfrey, L. R., 1985. Foot notes of an anatomist. Creation/Evolution 5(1): 16-36.

Hastings, Ronnie J., 1987. New observations on Paluxy Tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin. Journal of Geological Education 35(1): 4-15.

Kuban, Glen, 1986. Color distinctions and other curious features of dinosaur tracks near Glen Rose, Texas. In: Gillette & Lockley, 1989 (see below).

Schadewald, Robert J. 1986. Scientific creationism and error. Creation/Evolution 6(1): 1-9, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

Laetoli Footprints

These footprints are actually really human-like, although they arn't human. How similar the Laetoli footprints look to australopithecine feet is a matter of debate. Tuttle [1990] thinks they are too human-like for Australopithecus afarensis and may belong to another species of australopithecine or to an early Homo species. Other anthropologists think they are significantly different from Homo and could be A. afarensis [reviewed by Foley 2002]. Creationists tend to cite only Tuttle because he seems to best support their view (although actually, Tuttle doesn't support their view at all, he believes that the tracks were made by a human ancestor, ancestors creationists don't believe in).

Unfortunately, I can find no scientific references to Gediz or Antelope Springs, if only they referenced their work!!

Human Skulls?

(these were taken from the talkorigins.org site)

Castenedolo Man: Morris and Parker (1982) say "Fossils of ordinary people in Mid-Tertiary rock [i.e. tens of millions of years old; the actual date is about 1.5 million years] were found in Castenedolo, Italy back in the late 1800's ...". An official report on these skeletons in 1899 noted that all the fossils from the deposit were impregnated with salt, except the human ones. This implies that they are from relatively recent burials. Collagen tests in 1965 and radiocarbon dating in 1969 confirmed this. (Conrad 1982)

Guadeloupe Man: W. Cooper claimed in 1983 that a modern skeleton found on Guadeloupe in 1812 had been dated at 25 million years old, in the Miocene period. The excellent condition of the skeleton, and the fact that it had originally been found with other skeletons (all pointing in the same direction) along with a dog and some implements, indicate that it was a recent burial. In addition, it has never been claimed to be from Miocene deposits by anyone except Cooper. (Howgate and Lewis 1984)

Calaveras Man: this was a modern skull discovered in 1866 in California in Pliocene deposits (2 to 5 million years old). A few scientists did believe it genuine, but it was always widely considered to be a hoax. Personal testimonies and geological evidence indicate that it is probably a modern Indian found in nearby limestone caves, and that it was planted as a practical joke by miners. Tests have shown it to be recent, probably less than 1000 years old. (Dexter 1986; Taylor et al. 1992; Conrad 1982) : The Calaveras Skull Revisited, by Paul Heinrich, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/calaveras.html

Moab Man: Indian skeletons that had been buried in a rock crevice, the surrounding rocks dating back to the Cretaceous

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part2.html

http://members.aol.com/gkuban/moab.htm

As for the stuff on human skulls and implements found in coal, I can only find a reference to a skull made of coal, called the "freiberg skull", which was a hoax. That's the best I can do, which isn't surprising given the material. For example:

A lady, in Illinois, found a gold chain in a chunk of coal which broke open (1891). A small steel cube was found in a block of coal in Austria (1885). An iron pot was found in coal in Oklahoma (1912). A woman found a child's spoon in coal (1937).

[artsylady]

I was listening to a creation/evolution debate on the air and the humans found in old rocks was mentioned. The evolutionists only response, with a chuckle, was "that's good for the creationists" and the moderator host also laughed, mockingly.... ???? Hmmm. Yeah, good answer.

[artsylady]

http://www.mcremo.com/index.html

Talk origins devotes a whole paragraph to each archaological anomaly expecting its readers to find that sufficient. And it is sufficient for most of those who frequent talk origins because they aren't looking for truth. They're looking for a way to explain away evidence for creation. However, in reality, these answers are not sufficient. these anomolies defy a simple explanation. They are mysteries - unless you believe in the flood and creation.

"A lady", "A woman", "An iron pot was found". No references to papers, no references to researchers, only the sex of the people who "found" these objects (and sometimes not even that), no evidence that they even existed or that the stories are true...

So you accept only evidence that has been found by actual archaeologists? Hmmm that's interesting.

[artsylady]

http://home.hetnet.nl/mr_9/95/krocat/english/news/news4.htm

Article from Paleo News.

Trail of fossilized footprints found in South Africa

Aug. 14, 1997

WASHINGTON - A trail of fossilized footprints left more than 100,000 years ago by an anatomically modern human has been found on the shore of a South African lagoon. The fossils, found in a sand-dune-turned-rock dated at 117,000 years ago, are the oldest known footprints of an anatomically modern human.

These footprints are traces of the earliest of modern people, says Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in announcing the discovery in the September issue of National Geographic magazine. Unlike the footprints found at Laetoli (Tanzania), which were left millions of years ago, these were made by modern humans our direct ancestors.The discovery was detailed at a press conference at the National Geographic Society in Washington and also appears in the August issue of the South African Journal of Science.

The footprints have other implications as well. Whoever left these footprints has the potential of being the ancestor of all modern humans, Berger said. If it was a woman, she could conceivably be

[truseek]

SA, could you please direct me to the paper writtem by the team who discovered any archaeological evidence of "early man"?

Yours in Christ

Truseek

[artsylady]

SA: And just to prove that AIG is credible and interested only in truth, this is what they had to say about Castenedolo Man.