PDA

View Full Version : Genetic Entropy



Pages : [1] 2

Craig.Paardekooper
05-18-2013, 09:17 AM
In my book "Enoch an essay on Angels" I document quite a bit of evidence concerning the exponential fall in longevity that occurred in the past. I was quite stunned as to how the ancient king lists of the Egyptians, Greeks, Babylonians, Mesopotamians, Chinese, confirmed this drop in longevity.

It seemed to me that rather than Evolution, we have Devolution - as a planet and as a race we are dying. Entropy, the tendency from order to disorder, "Times Arrow" as Eddington put it, means that everything is wearing out.

Hebrews 1 v 10-12 "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe, like a garment they will be changed.But you remain the same, and your years will never end."

In terms of genetics, the increase in mutations with each passing generation means that the information in the genetic code is degrading, and at quite a fast rate - estimated by population geneticists as at about 100 point mutations per generation. This is about 100 times faster than was though 20 years ago. We are degenerating at an alarming rate with each generation.

In my book - Essay on Angels - I plotted a graph of the decline in longevity after the Flood - it is an EXPONENTIAL DECAY CURVE !! We are in decline. There was higher order and more complexity in the past. An original paradise. As time passes, things go down hill.

Here are some videos that talk about this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8KbM-xkfVk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYEkqwOXE5U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dl6oOHtWBo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0

Scientists estimate that genetic collapse will take place within 200 generations from now. If each generation is approximately 20 years, then extinction is in 200 x 20 years = 4000 years.


Though this seems quite negative, it is a challenge. We know that the information stored in our DNA is information that can be stored anywhere, even in a CD. If we keep a copy of our current DNA, then even though approximately 100 new mutations are passed on to our children with each generation, we could correct for this by using the stored template to correct the info errors in the stem cell. This would halt the devolution of the human race.

If we could obtain samples of ancient DNA and reconstruct the genome of pre-diluvian man, then we could use this to create an improved genome for ourselves.

So there is a good possibility that we can halt the devolution. The nearest analogy is "rebooting from disc". If we kept the original DNA info sequence preserved, then we could effectively re-install error free code each generation so as to eliminate the 100 or so mutations that wold otherwise accumulate.

Though I believe that this would work, there is a bigger problem. Genetic entropy does not just affect human beings - it is all pervasive - taking place in all species and all plants. Our entire biosphere is dying. So even if humans were able to halt devolution, they would end up living on a dead planet. We would need to fix the animals and plants too. This seems too much of a big task, given all the animals, plants insects, marine creatures, bacteria - all of which would need to be fixed to maintain a working biosphere.

So what can we do now?

1. Well, the original creation was a paradise, and was created by God, so our primary effort should be in prayer and meditation.
2. It would be interesting to see what we can do in obtaining the best possible samples of ancient DNA, and keeping a preserved record of the DNA sequence in these - a kind of digital Noah's Ark. At some later date we will have the technology to use these ancient sequences to recreate pre-diluvian DNA and use this DNA as a template to remove mutation errors from our own DNA. The best samples of DNA are preserved in permafrost and in ice in the northern latitudes. The warming of our climate is exposing more of these frozen pre-diluvian creatures. It only remains for us to sequence them, and keep a digital record of their DNA sequences for the future.

This is the best safe-guard against devolution. Admitedly we will have to do the same for each of the plant, insect, mammal, fish and amphibian groups, but we have about 200 generations - 4000 years before genetic collapse, so we have time to perfect the technology. What is most important for now, is that we simply gather samples of ancient DNA and sequence them, and keep a digital record - a digital Noah's Ark.

Preserving a digital record is as good as preserving the original creature, since all future generations will have to do is to use the template to correct errors in the stem cells passed on from parents.

On the negative side, our time may be shorter. As mutations accumulate, both our physical and mental capacities will steadily decrease. Maybe we will become helpless. That's why it is important to do something positive now and halt the process as quickly as possible.

David M
05-20-2013, 01:40 AM
Hello Craig

I am adding some of thoughts that came to mind as I read your post. BTW I have not had time to watch the videos. The first one in the list is 1 hour 40 minutes long so I will need some free time before I can do that and I only have time at the moment to read a few posts and especially the posts I have to reply to Richard in the threads we have going.


My thoughts are these.

1. We do not know the extent of the consequences of man's genetic modification of foods and the crops that will self-seed and introduce modified seed into the natural order of things. All the genetic modifications man is making could be accelerating the overall decline you are speaking of.

2. I think we only have one option, to trust in God who has promised to "make all things new" and as you say, "we should pray..." Whatever we pray for, already God is working to His plan and has the power to create and resurrect and so we have to rely on God's power to do what is impossible for man. The second of your options which relies on man's solution (the digital Ark) is not an option as I see things.

3. How can you be sure you have the best genetic template? Are we all not unique by our DNA? What makes us unique? How do you preserve that uniqueness and not produce clones like Dolly the sheep, which was not successful in the long term as I recall?

4. Our understanding of the Genome and DNA has given us a reason to understand the ageing process. It was not understood at one time why we could not live for ever especially as the body is quite good at repairing itself (except for replacing missing amputated limbs etc.). Maybe man thinks now he knows the reason why we age and die because of the structure found in the DNA molecule and that he might be able change this.

5. Living for ever as we understand things by the observable universe is impossible. The whole universe is going from order to chaos and entropy is increasing. Only God is not governed by this law and for the earth to continue for ever and for those saved to live for ever (never to die) means that God either has to change the law of entropy or will continue to renew and sustain and restore that which is dying, decaying or diminishing.

All the best

David

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 05:01 AM
Thankyou David,

Having understood that the all life, including ourselves are undergoing rapid degradation, I realsie the impossibility of using genetic engineering to maintain our selves. It is even more impossible for us to maintain all the species of the biosphere - so even if we could maintain ourselves, there would be no place to live.

What shocked me was the rapidity of the decline. Evolutionists assume the mutation rate is less than 1. However it turns out to be much greater. Our extinction is inevitable and is estimated at only 200 generations from now = about 4000 years from now, on the outside.

This realisation has led me to reassess my priorities. The only thing that persists is God - all else perishes. So, living the religious life is ALL THERE IS.

Our natural extinction is so near in time, that it might as well be a day of judgement - only a few thousand years hence.

So now, for me, the development and committment to a truely spiritual life has become paramount; all else is secondary.

Regards

Craig

David M
05-20-2013, 05:46 AM
Hello Craig

This makes no difference to Evolutionists who have to accept that Evolution is blind and can self-destruct at any time. It appears the that time has already started and Evolutionists might have to concede that Evolution has already peaked. The argument from Evolutionists is; given enough time, anything is possible, but that does not help anyone in the present.

Your post adds extra meaning to the words of Jesus (Matt. 24:22 which says; except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: the assurance follows; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. This is said describing events which are still future and to which we can see things on all fronts happening now, and pointing to a time of trouble like as Jesus said (v21) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
We are already in the time of tribulation and what is being felt around the world with everything that is happening is likely to be the start of what is to come.

The judgement of God to come on those who are destroying the earth has already been declared (Rev 11:18) and thy wrath is come...and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

If we place our faith in God, we have nothing to fear, but for those who do not and wonder what the world is coming to then they can only live in fear of that which is to come which for some will be at the hands of God when his judgements come on all nations; (Hebrews 10:31) It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


Nevertheless, with the true words of Jesus, we can have peace; (John 14:27) Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.

All the best

David

L67
05-20-2013, 06:07 AM
In my book - Essay on Angels - I plotted a graph of the decline in longevity after the Flood - it is an EXPONENTIAL DECAY CURVE !! We are in decline. There was higher order and more complexity in the past. An original paradise. As time passes, things go down hill.

That information leads to a false conclusion. There is no evidence for a flood. ZERO. There is also no evidence for anyone living nine hundred some years. Those are simply stories in the Bible. The Bible is simply wrong because evidence proves this.

The life expectancy of man has increased, not decreased. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_tim e
Here are some videos that talk about this -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8KbM-xkfVk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYEkqwOXE5U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dl6oOHtWBo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0

Scientists estimate that genetic collapse will take place within 200 generations from now.

I looked at the first link and noticed John C. Stanford. He lost all credibility with this statement: An advocate of intelligent design, in 2005 Sanford testified in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered... that we were created by a special creation, by God." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

Common descent is a FACT! Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

It is a fact! Intelligent design has no evidence to support it.

What scientist predict our extinction in 200 years? Please don't tell me Sanford. Anyone who rejects scientific facts is not worth listening to.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 06:50 AM
That information leads to a false conclusion. There is no evidence for a flood. ZERO. There is also no evidence for anyone living nine hundred some years. Those are simply stories in the Bible. The Bible is simply wrong because evidence proves this.


OK, well the main evidence for a flood are -

1. Worldwide traditions
2. The exponential decrease in longevity after the flood
3. Records of decrease in longevity preserved in the kinglists of the Egyptians, Chinese, Mesopotamians, Greeks, Indians
4. Increased size of creatures in the past because they lived longer so they grew to larger size.

All this EXISTS as evidence, so your statement that there is no evidence is BLATANTLY wrong, and is based on wilful ignorance.



The life expectancy of man has increased, not decreased.

The historical evidence listed above shows that our base longevity fell massively after the Flood. Recent advances in medicine have led to a slight come back, but nothing like our longevity in ancient times.

as long as the rate of mutation exceeds 1 mutation per person per generation, then evolution is impossible.

We are not discussing Intelligent Design here - we are discussing mutation rates, and a rate of over 1 renders evolution impossible. If you want to support evolution, then you need to prove that the mutation rate is much lower. Good luck.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 09:41 AM
In my book "Enoch an essay on Angels" I document quite a bit of evidence concerning the exponential fall in longevity that occurred in the past. I was quite stunned as to how the ancient king lists of the Egyptians, Greeks, Babylonians, Mesopotamians, Chinese, confirmed this drop in longevity.

It seemed to me that rather than Evolution, we have Devolution - as a planet and as a race we are dying. Entropy, the tendency from order to disorder, "Times Arrow" as Eddington put it, means that everything is wearing out.

Hebrews 1 v 10-12 "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe, like a garment they will be changed.But you remain the same, and your years will never end."

In terms of genetics, the increase in mutations with each passing generation means that the information in the genetic code is degrading, and at quite a fast rate - estimated by population geneticists as at about 100 point mutations per generation. This is about 100 times faster than was though 20 years ago. We are degenerating at an alarming rate with each generation.

In my book - Essay on Angels - I plotted a graph of the decline in longevity after the Flood - it is an EXPONENTIAL DECAY CURVE !! We are in decline. There was higher order and more complexity in the past. An original paradise. As time passes, things go down hill.

Here are some videos that talk about this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8KbM-xkfVk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYEkqwOXE5U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dl6oOHtWBo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0

Scientists estimate that genetic collapse will take place within 200 generations from now. If each generation is approximately 20 years, then extinction is in 200 x 20 years = 4000 years.

Hey there Craig,

I'm glad you posted John Sanford's work because it is misleading many people. His thesis that natural selection is insufficient to maintain the integrity of the genome is demonstrably false. It is trivial to prove that it is natural selection that keeps the genome working despite all the mutations. For example, animals with eyes depend upon natural selection to keep their eyes working. If they are put in environments where there is no selection for eyes (such as a dark cave) then the random mutations accumulate and the eyes are eventually lost. If they are out in the light then natural selection maintains their eyes. This is PROOF that natural selection is what keeps our bodies working despite the entropy. John Sanford's argument is simply absurd.

There is much more to say but I'm going to do more research first. From what I've seen of his videos, he appears to be radically ignorant of the most basic science.

All the best,

Richard

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 09:52 AM
Hi Richard,

I look forward to a response based on mutation rates. The simple fact is that as long as the mutation rate exceeds 1 mutation per person per generation, then evolution is completely impossible.

I hope you can prove that the mutation rate is alot lower....... I really do........ Because a high mutation rate doesn't just affect our philosophy - it spells our extinction....in the near future. So good luck.......

L67
05-20-2013, 09:57 AM
OK, well the main evidence for a flood are -

1. Worldwide traditions
2. The exponential decrease in longevity after the flood
3. Records of decrease in longevity preserved in the kinglists of the Egyptians, Chinese, Mesopotamians, Greeks, Indians

All this EXISTS as evidence, so your statement that there is no evidence is blatantly wrong.

That is NOT evidence. There is no physical evidence of any kind that supports a global flood. That is a FACT! We know for a FACT that people were not living to the years that the Bible claims. Clink the link that I provided and you will see that it's false.


as long as the rate of mutation exceeds 1 mutation per person per generation, then evolution is impossible.

We are not discussing Intelligent Design here - we are discussing mutation rates, and a rate of over 1 renders evolution impossible. If you want to support evolution, then you need to prove that the mutation rate is much lower. Good luck.

Craig evolution is a FACT! I don't need to prove it. It already has been proven. You are simply living in fantasy land to make such statements. No offense, but there is no debate about evolution. It was proven along time ago. The facts are there for you to discover if you will look for it.

I know we're not discussing intelligent design. But in the link you provided John C. Standford proposed that absurdity over verifiable facts of a common ancestor. Anyone who ignores verifiable facts in favor of something with no evidence is suspect.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 09:58 AM
OK, well the main evidence for a flood are -

1. Worldwide traditions
2. The exponential decrease in longevity after the flood
3. Records of decrease in longevity preserved in the kinglists of the Egyptians, Chinese, Mesopotamians, Greeks, Indians

All this EXISTS as evidence, so your statement that there is no evidence is blatantly wrong.

Those are not anywhere near sufficient to prove something that contradicts demonstrable facts.

1) There is absolutely no evidence for a massive global extinction of all animal life in the recent history. It would be impossible to miss if it did happen because there would be a bottleneck in the DNA.

2) It is absurd in the extreme to think that a single pair of animals could be the parents of all subsequent generations because there is not enough genetic diversity. And there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD to explain the vast genetic diversity of all life (e.g. 40,000 species of spiders alone) if everything but a pair was wiped out in recent history.

3) There is no way that a single pair of kangaroos could have hopped all the way back to Australia. Multiply this absurdity by a million to represent all the species that would have had to return to their point of origin (which also is supported by the fossil record).

4) The carnivores would have starved immediately after the flood or every time they ate a whole species would have gone extinct.

5) There is no way to get all the animals on the ark (not big enough, not enough room for food, etc).

6) And so on and on ... to believe in a literal global flood is as absurd as anything could be.




as long as the rate of mutation exceeds 1 mutation per person per generation, then evolution is impossible.

We are not discussing Intelligent Design here - we are discussing mutation rates, and a rate of over 1 renders evolution impossible. If you want to support evolution, then you need to prove that the mutation rate is much lower. Good luck.
This comment indicates a fundamental failure to understand the basic concept of evolution. Mutations are simply explorations of genetic evolutionary phase space - the space of every possible genetic pattern. Patterns have variable survivability. Evolution is as inevitable as water flowing in a canyon. The water explores every nook and cranny. Watch these two videos and you should be able to understand (the explanation of evolutionary phase space begins at about 5 minutes in):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwCK1WTamm4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idkio89QYo0

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 10:11 AM
That is NOT evidence. There is no physical evidence of any kind that supports a global flood. That is a FACT! We know for a FACT that people were not living to the years that the Bible claims. Clink the link that I provided and you will see that it's false.



Craig evolution is a FACT! I don't need to prove it. It already has been proven. You are simply living in fantasy land to make such statements. No offense, but there is no debate about evolution. It was proven along time ago. The facts are there for you to discover if you will look for it.

I know we're not discussing intelligent design. But in the link you provided John C. Standford proposed that absurdity over verifiable facts of a common ancestor. Anyone who ignores verifiable facts in favor of something with no evidence is suspect.

Newsflash......high mutation rates undermines evolution. There is nothing fantasy about that fact.

Unfortunately for your argument, there IS a debate about evolution - and it has been raging for about 150 years.... Whatever side you take, you cannot deny that there is a debate......unless YOU are living in fantasy land. .... no offence.

OK, well it all boils down to the mutation rate. If it exceeds 1, then we're going extinct. If it is less than 1, then there is hope. I hope, for our sakes, that you can prove that the mutation rate is alot lower than Sanford says it is......

L67
05-20-2013, 10:18 AM
Newsflash......high mutation rates undermines evolution. There is nothing fantasy about that fact.

Unfortunately for your argument, there IS a debate about evolution - and it has been raging for about 150 years.... Whatever side you take, you cannot deny that there is a debate......unless YOU are living in fantasy land. .... no offence.

OK, well it all boils down to the mutation rate. If it exceeds 1, then we're going extinct. If it is less than 1, then there is hope. I hope, for our sakes, that you can prove that the mutation rate is alot lower than Sanford says it is......

Newsflash....Only among creationist is there a debate. Science already knows and has demonstrated evolution as fact. There is no debate. We have evidence that it has occurred and is still occurring 24/7. Your argument has no merit. Neither does Sanfords. He has denied something that is demonstrably true. That makes his opinions very suspect.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 10:20 AM
Hi Richard,

I look forward to a response based on mutation rates. The simple fact is that as long as the mutation rate exceeds 1 mutation per person per generation, then evolution is completely impossible.

I hope you can prove that the mutation rate is alot lower....... I really do........ Because a high mutation rate doesn't just affect our philosophy - it spells our extinction....in the near future. So good luck.......
Hey there Craig,

John Sanford claims that the stats are about 3 mutations per cell generation. He cites Michael Lynch, but Lynch says the number is actually 0.06 in humans. I'll research more to find the source of the inconsistency. But the bottom line is that Stanford appears to be grossly ignorant of basic science. He suggests that God micromanaged Adam's genome - manually fixing every mutation! That's just nuts. He also seems grossly ignorant of how natural selection maintains the genome. The proof is trivial. Just put some fish in a dark cave and you will see their eyes degenerate because there is no nothing to select the good eyes over the bad.

And there is a big problem with his "exponential decay" graph. He rigged it by using the absurdly young "age of Jesus" (33) as the final data point!

894

That's perverse! First, he should have used the average life expectancy in the first century, not the age that someone (Jesus) was executed! Jesus did not die a natural death. It is absurd to use his death age. And more to the point - we have a lot more data that Sanford simply ignored. The graph should have been extended for another two thousand years up t present time. This would PROVE that his thesis is bullshit because the graph would have been FLAT for most of the last two thousand years with a rather sharp increase represent the extension of life expectancy in the last two centuries. It would not fit an exponential decline at all if extended over the full range of our knowledge. It is therefore deceptive, and apparently deliberately so.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 10:25 AM
Newsflash....Only among creationist is there a debate. Science already knows and has demonstrated evolution as fact. There is no debate. We have evidence that it has occurred and is still occurring 24/7. Your argument has no merit. Neither does Sanfords. He has denied something that is demonstrably true. That makes his opinions very suspect.
Evolution is a fact no less obvious than gravity. Without natural selection, the genome would quickly degrade just like Stanford says. That's why his assertion that natural selection cannot keep the genome working is so bloody absurd. We can see the effectiveness of natural selection very quickly by looking at what happens when it is removed, as when for example animals live in dark caves. Random mutations quickly destroy their eyes. Those random mutations are happening all the time in all animals. Why don't animals living in the light lose their eyes? BECAUSE OF NATURAL SELECTION! Duh! :doh:

How can anyone, let alone a supposed "genetic scientist", fail to understand something as simple as this?

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 10:28 AM
This comment indicates a fundamental failure to understand the basic concept of evolution. Mutations are simply explorations of genetic evolutionary phase space - the space of every possible genetic pattern. Patterns have variable survivability. Evolution is as inevitable as water flowing in a canyon. The water explores every nook and cranny. Watch these two videos and you should be able to understand (the explanation of evolutionary phase space begins at about 5 minutes in):


Well, here is my simply logic.

If the mutation rate is higher than 1 mutation per person per generation, then all of a parents offspring will inherit that mutation.

Natural selection can remove the negative mutations but only by preventing the offspring from reproducing. If ALL the offspring inherit mutations, then natural selection has nothing to choose between, and mutations will accumulate with each passing generation, until DNA collapse occurs. Oh dear. How sad !

Regardless of your rhetoric, the simple logic of common sense prevails. The ONLY way you can challenge my argument is by showing that the mutation rate is alot lower. If you cannot do that I win the argument, but the human race looses it's existence.....

I am going to research all this much more carefully too.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 10:36 AM
Newsflash......high mutation rates undermines evolution. There is nothing fantasy about that fact.

Craig,

Could you please cite a real scientist who states that as a fact in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? That would help.



Unfortunately for your argument, there IS a debate about evolution - and it has been raging for about 150 years.... Whatever side you take, you cannot deny that there is a debate......unless YOU are living in fantasy land. .... no offence.

It's not the "debate" that has been raging, but rather those who know little or nothing of science and yet declare that evolution is false because it contradicts their religious dogmas. And that's ironic - even the Pope has accepted the evidence for evolution. And there are many devout Christians who cannot deny the evidence such as Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the human genome project. And even the most fundamentalist Bible believers such as Rich Deem of godandscience.org cannot deny evolution per se. All he can do is invent an absurd and inconsistent unscientific distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution. No one with any authentic knowledge of science can deny evolution as such and the supposed distinction between macro and micro evolution is simply absurd and unfounded.

So Craig, where do you stand on evolution? It is impossible to simply deny it altogether unless you live in a "Fantasy land" (to use your terminology).



OK, well it all boils down to the mutation rate. If it exceeds 1, then we're going extinct. If it is less than 1, then there is hope. I hope, for our sakes, that you can prove that the mutation rate is alot lower than Sanford says it is......
First, the mutation rate is listed by Michael Lynch (cited by Sanford) as 0.06 per cell generation in this paper (http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch183.pdf). So there is no problem or somebody got their numbers mixed up.

Second, Stanford's argument has been proven FALSE by the fact that we have not been degrading according to his exponential graph for over two thousand years, and the recent history totally contradicts his thesis and makes it mathematically impossible.

Third, on top of all this there is the gross absurdity of his argument in general which is based on total ignorance of natural selection and the fact that we can see it maintaining the integrity of the genome experimentally.

L67
05-20-2013, 10:42 AM
Evolution is a fact no less obvious than gravity. Without natural selection, the genome would quickly degrade just like Stanford says. That's why his assertion that natural selection cannot keep the genome working is so bloody absurd. We can see the effectiveness of natural selection very quickly by looking at what happens when it is removed, as when for example animals live in dark caves. Random mutations quickly destroy their eyes. Those random mutations are happening all the time in all animals. Why don't animals living in the light lose their eyes? BECAUSE OF NATURAL SELECTION! Duh! :doh:

How can anyone, let alone a supposed "genetic scientist", fail to understand something as simple as this?

That is a good question. I have yet to see a "creation scientist" who didn't have to skew the facts in order to prove their dogma. Why do they knowingly mislead people is the real question? I just don't get it.

Here is one example of a salamander losing its eyes by living in a cave. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/texas-part-i-beasts/


Here is 8 more examples of evolution in action. http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 10:45 AM
Well, here is my simply logic.

If the mutation rate is higher than 1 mutation per person per generation, then all of a parents offspring will inherit that mutation.

Natural selection can remove the negative mutations but only by preventing the offspring from reproducing. If ALL the offspring inherit mutations, then natural selection has nothing to choose between, and mutations will accumulate with each passing generation, until DNA collapse occurs. Oh dear. How sad !

Regardless of your rhetoric, the simple logic of common sense prevails. The ONLY way you can challenge my argument is by showing that the mutation rate is alot lower. If you cannot do that I win the argument, but the human race looses it's existence.....

I am going to research all this much more carefully too.
You have deceived yourself with the "simple logic of common sense". You forgot that the mutation happened in only ONE of the parents. Therefore, the children will have a fifty/fifty chance of getting it. So if a parent with a bad mutation has four children, natural selection will select the two without the mutation. Your argument fails. Your "simple logic" is based on a very simple failure to understand how genetics works.

Now if you want to assert that you were talking only of simple organisms that reproduce asexually, then you have a different problem. Such organisms have extremely fast reproductive cycles and we could easily have seen the degradation in the lab if it were really occurring. But we don't see it. Indeed, we see just the opposite. We see evolution in action as those simple organisms quickly adapt to changes in the environment.

Thus, the "simple logic of common sense" defeats you argument and proves evolution true again.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 10:55 AM
Ok chaps, well I shall carefully review your arguments and respond. I shall take a look and do some research to see what the true mutation rate is. I shall respond soon.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 11:15 AM
Ok chaps, well I shall carefully review your arguments and respond. I shall take a look and do some research to see what the true mutation rate is. I shall respond soon.
Sounds good.

Can you post your data for the kings in a format I can put in Excel? I'd like to check his graph.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 11:24 AM
Oh crap! John Sanford is a Young Earth Creationist! At about 35 minutes in to this video he says that we can't extrapolate back very far because of the exponential nature of the graph. He says "we started with Adam and Eve not so long ago." This contradicts ten thousand established facts.

And in his testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo4.html#p1705) at the Kansas Intelligent Design trial, he said that the earth was less than 100,000 years old, and conceivably less than 10,000 years! Yowsers! :eek:

How anyone could think to cite this man as an authority on any topic is beyond me. He's totally nuts.

This shows how weak the anti-evolutionary position really is. The best "scientists" supporting it are total loons who reject the entire body of established science. This exemplifies why the anti-evolutionary folks will never win. In order to defeat evolution, you must defeat the entire edifice of modern science.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 12:41 PM
Hi Richy,


How anyone could think to cite this man as an authority on any topic is beyond me. He's totally nuts.


It is not his sanity that interests me. Rather, it is his claim about mutation rates. Even if he were nuts, he would be a madman with a good argument - which I prefer to a sane man with a bad argument.

According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to reproduce) for each person who reproduced in order to eliminated the now absent deleterious mutations. Humans do not reproduce fast enough to support such a huge death toll. As James F. Crow of the University of Wisconsin asked rhetorically, in a commentary in 'Nature' on Eyre-Walker and Keightley's analysis: "Why aren't we extinct?"

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 01:07 PM
Hi Richy,

It is not his sanity that interests me. Rather, it is his claim about mutation rates. Even if he were nuts, he would be a madman with a good argument - which I prefer to a sane man with a bad argument.

I understand your point, but I think you misunderstood my reason for using the word "nuts." It was shorthand for saying that his arguments are worthless and indicate a gross failure to understand basic science. By "nuts" I meant that he seemed like "a madman" because his arguments are so absurd that any sane person (with the requisite scientific knowledge he pretends to have) would never utter them.



According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to reproduce) for each person who reproduced in order to eliminated the now absent deleterious mutations. Humans do not reproduce fast enough to support such a huge death toll. As James F. Crow of the University of Wisconsin asked rhetorically, in a commentary in 'Nature' on Eyre-Walker and Keightley's analysis: "Why aren't we extinct?"
You need to put the quote in context. It's from the article Mutations Galore from the Scientific Amercan (see here (http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html)):

According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to reproduce) for each person who reproduced in order to eliminate the now absent deleterious mutations [75% death rate]. Humans do not reproduce fast enough to support such a huge death toll. As James F. Crow of the University of Wisconsin asked rhetorically, in a commentary in Natureon Eyre-Walker and Keightley's analysis: "Why aren't we extinct?"

Crow's answer is that sex, which shuffles genes around, allows detrimental mutations to be eliminated in bunches. The new findings thus support the idea that sex evolved because individuals who (thanks to sex) inherited several bad mutations rid the gene pool of all of them at once, by failing to survive or reproduce.

Yet natural selection has weakened in human populations with the advent of modern medicine, Crow notes. So he theorizes that harmful mutations may now be starting to accumulate at an even higher rate, with possibly worrisome consequences for health. Keightley is skeptical: he thinks that many mildly deleterious mutations have already become widespread in human populations through random events in evolution and that various adaptations, notably intelligence, have more than compensated. "I doubt that we'll have to pay a penalty as Crow seems to think," he remarks. "We've managed perfectly well up until now."


This is why I am so peeved at Sanford. He quoted scientists as saying that we are accumulating too many mutations as if that supported his ludicrous young earth hypothesis about "degradation" of the human genome following an exponential curve but their quotes don't support that at all. Their whole point is that the corruption of the genome is happening because modern medicine and lifestyle has eliminated a lot of the natural selection that normally eliminates the bad mutations.

Sanford's errors are egregious and inexcusable in my estimation. We know that natural selection works very well to preserve genetic information. Just look at how quickly eyes are eliminated when animals are put in dark caves where there is no natural selection for the eyes. The fact that the same animals retains eyes for countless generations by natural selection is a proven fact.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 01:58 PM
According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to reproduce) for each person who reproduced in order to eliminate the now absent deleterious mutations [75% death rate].

Good to see that Crow acknowledges a very high mutation rate, far higher than the 0.6 that you quoted earlier Richard.


Crow's answer is that sex, which shuffles genes around, allows detrimental mutations to be eliminated in bunches. The new findings thus support the idea that sex evolved because individuals who (thanks to sex) inherited several bad mutations rid the gene pool of all of them at once, by failing to survive or reproduce.

I am not sure how they conclude that sex solves the problem, Richard. If there is a mutation rate of 3 harmful mutations per person per generation, then everyone is born with 3 more mutations than their parents were born with. So we are ALL mutants. By having sex, all that is happening is one mutant is having sex with another mutant, and the offspring would have 3 more mutations than their mutant parents. It is all very sick.


Yet natural selection has weakened in human populations with the advent of modern medicine, Crow notes. So he theorizes that harmful mutations may now be starting to accumulate at an even higher rate, with possibly worrisome consequences for health.

Here Crow is acknowledging that "harmful mutations may now be accumulating at an even higher rate (than 3)". How much higher I wonder????

I shall respond more fully to your arguments once I have had time to complete my research. However, I perceive an undercurrent in the evolutionary camp that worries me. I know that this is a distraction from the main argument, which resides squarely in the debate over the rate of mutation. However, I think it is worth bringing it to your attention.

In the quote above, Crow attributes the current accumulation of harmful mutations to the advent of modern medicine, which preserves the less fit members of society.

The evolutionist camp seems to place the blame upon the weaker members of society who have thus far "escaped natural selection". So, just beneath the surface of evolutionary dialog there appears to be a belief that compassion towards the weak leads to a degradation of the human race. All this sounds quite harmless now....BUT IF the human genome really is degrading, then there WILL come a time when people become DESPERATE for a solution, and such a philosophy could easily give rise to the horrors of eugenics.

Anyway, I will get back on with my research, and report back when I have something relevant to the argument at hand.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 03:00 PM
Good to see that Crow acknowledges a very high mutation rate, far higher than the 0.6 that you quoted earlier Richard.

Actually, the number I quoted was 0.06 per cell generation. That's the number in Lynch's published paper. I think there is some confusion around these numbers. It would take a lot of research to sort it out.



I am not sure how they conclude that sex solves the problem, Richard. If there is a mutation rate of 3 harmful mutations per person per generation, then everyone is born with 3 more mutations than their parents were born with. So we are ALL mutants. By having sex, all that is happening is one mutant is having sex with another mutant, and the offspring would have 3 more mutations than their mutant parents. It is all very sick.

I think such speculations are pretty meaningless at this stage because we don't have the real numbers and you haven't done the research into why sex solves the problem. It's not something that you can figure out merely using your "simple common sense." We need to look at the actual evidence, such as the obvious fact that natural selection very effectively preserves genetic information when compared with animals that are removed from natural selection. We know that natural selection maintains the integrity of the genome (e.g. eyes).



I shall respond more fully to your arguments once I have had time to complete my research. However, I perceive an undercurrent in the evolutionary camp that worries me. I know that this is a distraction from the main argument, which resides squarely in the debate over the rate of mutation. However, I think it is worth bringing it to your attention.

In the quote above, Crow attributes the current accumulation of harmful mutations to the advent of modern medicine, which preserves the less fit members of society.

This is genuinely scary talk. The evolutionist camp seems to place the blame upon the weaker members of society who have thus far "escaped natural selection". So, just beneath the surface of evolutionary dialog there appears to be a belief that compassion towards the weak leads to a degradation of the human race. All this sounds quite harmless now....BUT IF the human genome really is degrading, then there WILL come a time when people become DESPERATE for a solution, and such a philosophy could easily give rise to the horrors of eugenics - the extermination of the weak.

IF the human genome is degrading, THEN I foresee a terrible tribulation exacted by the evolutionary camp upon the weak in those days. Such a time will come.

Anyway, I will get back on with my research, and report back when I have something relevant to the argument at hand.
If it is a fact that the genome is being degraded by a lack of natural selection, then stating that fact cannot be interpreted as "blaming the victim." Truth is truth. What are we supposed to do? Deny the facts? I agree that it could present some serious challenges in the future but I'm confident we would be able to find a good solution using our intelligence that has saved us from the horrible lives we had when all we could do was beg God to cure out diseases.

And since you brought up "scary talk" let's look at the horrors of Christianity. Prominent leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have explicitly blamed gays for national tragedies like 9/11 and Katrina. They have said that gays are prompting God to destroy America. This has led to the abuse and murder of people who were thought to be gay. And this is not an isolated problem. It is endemic to Christianity which teaches that bad things in the world are caused by sin. So Christians are naturally prone to blaming "sinners" (which in effect are anyone who is not a Christian) when bad things happen, and then those sinners are cast out, abused, tortured, and murdered.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 03:24 PM
I think such speculations are pretty meaningless at this stage because we don't have the real numbers and you haven't done the research into why sex solves the problem. It's not something that you can figure out merely using your "simple common sense." We need to look at the actual evidence, such as the obvious fact that natural selection very effectively preserves genetic information when compared with animals that are removed from natural selection. We know that natural selection maintains the integrity of the genome (e.g. eyes).


Hi Richard,

I think you are right. Alot more research needs to be done, and speculations are premature until we have the exact mutation rates at hand. I wont comment further until I have researched more.

Yours Respectfully

Craig

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 03:57 PM
Dear Sirs,

Here below is a quote from an article on mutation rates as measured directly. I have high-lighted some interesting numbers. As per our previous discussion, Crow estimated 3 harmful mutations per person per generation - meaning that every offspring would inherit 3 more harmful mutations from their parents than their parents inherited from theit grand-parents.

However, it should be born in mind that ALL mutations are random rearrangements of an extremely complex code, and consequently it is arguable that ALL mutations are harmful.....

Anyway, the most accurate method of determining rate of mutation isthe Direct Method as outlined below -


Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Direct Method



This is the fourth in a series of posts on human mutation rates and their implication(s). The first three were ...

What Is a Mutation?
Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Biochemical Method
Estimating the Human Mutation Rate: Phylogenetic Method

There are basically three ways to estimate the mutation rate in the human lineage. I refer to them as the Biochemical Method, the Phylogenetic Method, and the Direct Method.

The Biochemical Method is based on our knowledge of biochemistry and DNA replication as well as estimates of the number of cell divisions between zygote and egg. It gives a value of 130 mutations per generation. The Phylogenetic Method depends on the fact that most mutations are neutral (are they ???) and that the rate of fixation of alleles is equal to the mutation rate. It also relies on a correct phylogeny. The Phylogenetic Method gives values between 112-160 mutations per generation. These two methods are pretty much in agreement.

The Direct Method involves sequencing the entire genomes of related individuals (e.g. mother, father, child) and simply counting the new mutations in the offspring. You might think that the Direct Method gives a definitive result that doesn't rely on any assumptions, therefore it should yield the most accurate result. The other two methods should be irrelevant.

This would be true if the Direct Method were as easy as it sounds but things are more complicated.

The first paper to be published was by Xue et al. (2009). They looked at the sequences of Y chromosomes from two men separated by 13 generations. (6 generations in one lineage and 7 generations in the other.) The Y chromosomes differed by four mutations in 10.15 × 106 bp.1 These are neutral mutations and the rate works out to 3.0 × 10-8 mutations per base pair per generation.

If we assume an average of 400 cell divisions per generation (male lineage) then this gives a mutation rate of 0.75 × 10-10 mutations per bp per replication. This isn't far from the value of 1.0 × 10-10 that we used in the Biochemical Method.

If we apply this mutation rate to the entire genome then there will be 96 mutations in each sperm cell and 7 in each egg cell for a total of ... 103 mutations per generation

The problems with this calculation have to do deciding how many real mutations there are. In this particular experiment, the Y chromosomes were extracted from cells in culture. The authors actually found 23 differences between the two Y chromosomes but only 12 of these were confirmed by resequencing. Of these, only four were confirmed by sequencing DNA directly from the donors. (Eight mutations occurred during growth of the cell lines.) The authors are confident that they have not missed any mutations and I suspect that the number of false negatives is, in fact, close to zero.

This value (103 mutations per generation) is on the low end of the values calculated previously but the error bars are significant due to the low number of mutations.

Three other papers have appeared recently.2

1. Roach et al. (2012) sequenced genomes from a family of four (mother, father, two children). They found 33,937 potential mutations but confirmed only 28 mutations in the two children. After making some adjustments for false negatives they estimate that the total average number of mutations per diploid genome per generation was ...70 mutations per generation This is about half the value estimated by the Biochemical and Phylogenetic Methods. It's not clear to me how they estimated the true number of mutations. What is clear is that it is not easy to count mutations when dealing with sloppy sequences.

2. Conrad et al. (2011) looked at two sets of parents and offspring (trios). They used cell lines so they had to distinguish between germline mutations and somatic cell mutations. One of the offspring had 49 mutations and the other had 35 mutations. There were 1,586 somatic cell mutations that had to be eliminated. After correcting for false negatives, they estimate 60 mutations in one child and 45 mutations in the other. Since only 2.555 Gb were analyzed, this works out to ... 75 mutations per generation
56 mutations per generation

These values are lower than what we expected from previous studies. The authors determined that 92% of the mutations in one offspring were from the father but only 36% of the mutations in the other trio were from the father. This is not reasonable and neither is the discrepancy in total mutations between the two different offspring. It suggests that there are a lot of errors in this study.

3. The most comprehensive study so far is from Kong et al. (2012). These authors looked at 78 Icelandic families whose genealogies were well known. They sequenced the genomes of 219 distinct individuals and found an average of 63.2 mutations in each child. Since they only looked at 2.63 Gb, this translates to ... 77 mutations per generation

Individual values vary over a wide range. The lowest score reported is 58 and the highest is 129. This study suffers from the same problems as the other two direct sequencing experiments; namely, that it's difficult to decide which of the differences are real mutations and which ones are artifacts. The authors claim that their false negative rate is only 2%.

The whole genome sequencing papers have been widely reported as giving a result that is half the mutation rate we estimated previously. This is a problem because the mutation rate is used in many calculations. We'll discuss the implications in later posts

OK, so all the papers show a mutation rate that is ALOT HIGHER than 3. We thought that 3 mutations per person per generation was bad enough !! . Now we learn from the papers that the mutation rate is as high as 50 to 100 mutations per person per generation, if not higher. My God.

Of course, it is claimed that most of these mutations are not harmful. Really??? In a code as complex as the genetic code, the random introduction of mistakes would generate as much harm as a bull in a china shop.

The constant introduction of 50 - 100 new mistakes into the genome of each new born child will inevitably have a cumulative effect, as the information in the code degrades more and more - and eventually this will lead to genetic collapse - at some time in the future.

As I mentioned before, it seems we are all mutants, and becoming more so with each generation. Our future is very dark.

Richard, you asked how we could have survived so long if the mutation rate was this high. I understand why you ask this. Please consider this possibility - that even though life has persisted upon this planet for millions of years, God intervenes periodically to recreate things. 6000 years ago may have been such a time.

I have written a short book on this subject called "Genesis - a surprising confirmation". You can view it here -

http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/genesis2.htm

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 04:52 PM
Dear Sirs,

Here below is a quote from an article on mutation rates as measured directly. I have high-lighted some interesting numbers. As per our previous discussion, Crow estimated 3 harmful mutations per person per generation - meaning that every offspring would inherit 3 more harmful mutations from their parents than their parents inherited from theit grand-parents.

However, it should be born in mind that ALL mutations are random rearrangements of an extremely complex code, and consequently it is arguable that ALL mutations are harmful.....

Anyway, the most accurate method of determining rate of mutation isthe Direct Method as outlined below -

Thanks for posting this info. I did a quick Google and found what appears to be the source here (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/03/estimating-human-mutation-rate-direct.html). Is that where you got it? It's always a good idea to post a link to the source when quoting something.



OK, so all the papers show a mutation rate that is ALOT HIGHER than 3. We thought that 3 mutations per person per generation was bad enough !! . Now we learn from the papers that the mutation rate is as high as 50 to 100 mutations per person per generation, if not higher. My God.

Of course, it is claimed that most of these mutations are not harmful. Really??? In a code as complex as the genetic code, the random introduction of mistakes would generate as much harm as a bull in a china shop.

The constant introduction of 50 - 100 new mistakes into the genome of each new born child will inevitably have a cumulative effect, as the information in the code degrades more and more - and eventually this will lead to genetic collapse - at some time in the future.

As I mentioned before, it seems we are all mutants, and becoming more so with each generation. Our future is very dark.

Richard, you asked how we could have survived so long if the mutation rate was this high. I understand why you ask this. Please consider this possibility - that even though life has persisted upon this planet for millions of years, God intervenes periodically to recreate things. 6000 years ago may have been such a time.


I think you are jumping to conclusions way too fast. The idea that the mutations will inevitably "lead to genetic collapse" is directly contradicted by all the evidence. You have yet to respond to the fact that natural selection very effectively conserves genetic information (as proven by what happens when there is no selection, as in dark caves).

The suggestion that "God intervenes periodically to recreate things" is highly problematic. First, it means that God had to actively intervene to keep all the viruses and bacteria alive so we all would get sick and die. Otherwise, they would have all gone extinct long ago. Why would God do that? And it seems to contradict genetic science since we can trace relations between organisms on the phylogenetic tree of life using DNA including all sorts of harmful mutations. It really seems like an outrageous speculation with zero evidence supporting it. Sorry. And it is just seems entirely removed from any real science.

Great chatting,

Richard

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 05:26 PM
You have yet to respond to the fact that natural selection very effectively conserves genetic information

Hi Richard,

I can see how natural selection will select the healthiest for reproduction. However, when ALL offspring, without exception, are less healthy than the parents because ALL offspring aquire 50-100 more genetic errors than their parents, then natural selection can only choose the least unhealthy from amongst these offspring for reproduction. As a result errors accumulate with each generation - and the genetic code degenerates.

My common sense tells me that natural selection CANNOT effectively conserve an original genetic code when it can only select between several unhealthy offspring, all of whom are more unhealthy than the parents. The general direction is inevitably DOWN.

The only question that remains is "how far can our code degenerate before loss of function becomes fatal?" The answer to this question would set the time limit on our existence as a species.

It seems ironic to me that mutation was touted as the mainstay of evolution, but is probably it's worst enemy.

It seems that entropy predominates - the gradual destruction of information - even in the field of genetics - just like chinese whispers.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 05:31 PM
Hi Richard,

I can see how natural selection will select the healthiest for reproduction. However, when ALL offspring, without exception, are less healthy than the parents because ALL offspring aquire 50-100 more genetic errors than their parents, then natural selection can only choose the least unhealthy from amongst these offspring for reproduction. As a result errors accumulate with each generation - and the genetic code degenerates.

My common sense tells me that natural selection CANNOT effectively conserve an original genetic code when it can only select between several unhealthy offspring, all of whom are more unhealthy than the parents. The general direction is inevitably DOWN.

The only question that remains is "how far can our code degenerate before loss of function becomes fatal?" The answer to this question would set the time limit on our existence as a species.

It seems ironic to me that mutation was touted as the mainstay of evolution, but has become it's worst enemy.
Hey there Craig,

I understand your logic but I think it contains an obvious error. All you need to do is consider what happens when natural selection is removed, as when an organism lives in a cave without light. The genetic code for the eyes quickly becomes corrupt and the eyes are lost. Why doesn't this happen to organisms living out in the light? Because of natural selection. Therefore, we have direct evidence that your "common sense" conclusion is fallacious. Do you understand this point? What do you think about it?

All the best,

Richard

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 06:14 PM
I understand your logic but I think it contains an obvious error. All you need to do is consider what happens when natural selection is removed, as when an organism lives in a cave without light. The genetic code for the eyes quickly becomes corrupt and the eyes are lost. Why doesn't this happen to organisms living out in the light? Because of natural selection. Therefore, we have direct evidence that your "common sense" conclusion is fallacious. Do you understand this point? What do you think about it?


I agree with you. When an organism lives in the light it's eyes have a survival value, so natural selection rightly chooses organisms with good eyes for reproduction. I also agree that when an organism with eyes is placed in a dark environment, then the eyes nolonger provide a survival advantage, so natural selection nolonger selects between sighted and blind creatures, so blind creatures are just as likely to reproduce.

I dont question the power of natural selection to conserve what is most advantageous in a given population.

My argument is simply that genetic errors accumulate when all individuals within a population contain more genetic errors than their parents. Natural selection can only choose between these individuals. So each generation there is a steady degradation of the genetic code.

You ask why creatures that live in the light dont loose their eyesight. Well, if each generation of ofspring always inherits more genetic error than their parents inherited, then inevitably their eyesight will eventually be affected by this process, and sight will fail too, in the same way that all their vital functions will eventually fail. Each generation, natural selection can only choose the best of a bad lot.

So why do we still have all our vital functions after all these millions of years, you might ask. That is a paradox - the article quoted asked the same question - "Why do we still exist?" The Bibles answer is that our genetic code was "upgraded" recently, but since that time it has slowly degraded, and continues to degrade with each passing generation

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 06:25 PM
I agree with you. When an organism lives in the light it's eyes have a survival value, so natural selection rightly chooses organisms with good eyes for reproduction. I also agree that when an organism with eyes is placed in a dark environment, then the eyes nolonger provide a survival advantage, so natural selection nolonger selects between sighted and blind creatures, so blind creatures are just as likely to reproduce.

I dont question the power of natural selection to conserve what is most advantageous in a given population.

Excellent. I'm glad we agree on this fundamental point.



My argument is simply that genetic errors accumulate when all individuals within a population contain more genetic errors than their parents. Natural selection can only choose between these individuals.
Yes, I understand your argument but it seems to be contradicted by the evidence. We can see how genes for a given trait decay when there is no natural selection for that trait. We don't see anything like that happening in the genomes of any animals subject to natural selection for their traits so there must be something wrong with your argument. If your argument were true, why do we still have working eyes? Natural selection maintains the genome. I see nothing to support your "common sense" argument based on mutation rates. It's just not that simple. For example, how many of those mutations are completely neutral? There are different codons that code for the same amino acid so if a mutation changes one codon to an equivalent codon it has absolutely no effect on the organism. And there are other variations so it's not nearly so simple as you suggest. And since you have a desire to disprove evolution it makes all such speculations highly suspect.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-20-2013, 07:20 PM
Yes, I understand your argument but it seems to be contradicted by the evidence. We can see how genes for a given trait decay when there is no natural selection for that trait. We don't see anything like that happening in the genomes of any animals subject to natural selection for their traits so there must be something wrong with your argument. If your argument were true, why do we still have working eyes? Natural selection maintains the genome.

Hi Richard,

I understand your point. Why do traits seem to persist? My answer is that the accumulation of genetic error is very gradual


We don't see anything like that happening in the genomes of any animals subject to natural selection for their traits

I beg to differ. The accumulation of genetic error with each passing generation is what we do see - aka the papers on mutation. And it is a logical consequence of this accumulation, that eventually the genes for currently observed traits will fail.


If your argument were true, why do we still have working eyes? Natural selection maintains the genome

We have working eyes because the code has not always been in a process of decay. There was a time when it was created/recreated. Since then it has decayed. Remember that the Code is information, and information comes from an intelligence.


And since you have a desire to disprove evolution it makes all such speculations highly suspect

Argument is not rendered questionable or suspect simply because you disagree with it. It is rendered questionable by it's quality as an argument. The empirical evidence that we have in front of our eyes
speaks loudest. Mutations are errors in DNA and they are invariably bad. What is more, we CAN SEE mutations accumulating with each generation. So based on what we CAN SEE (not on a hypothetical theory of origins) I argue that there is an empirical tendency towards greater genetic disorder - the opposite of evolution.

This is fully in accordance with entropy (The Second Law of Thermodynamics), the natural tendency of information systems to decay over time in the direction of increasing disorder. So my observations even have a basis in natural law.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-20-2013, 09:43 PM
I understand your point. Why do traits seem to persist? My answer is that the accumulation of genetic error is very gradual

The traits don't "seem" to persist. They most certainly do. I don't think you have understood my point. When natural selection is removed, the traits are quickly lost because they are maintained by natural selection. If your theory were true, why do we not lose traits like that? You can't say that we do when we don't. We've been around as long as the fish who lost their eyes in dark caves. This proves that natural selection is what keeps us from losing our traits and it disproves your thesis.



I beg to differ. The accumulation of genetic error with each passing generation is what we do see - aka the papers on mutation. And it is a logical consequence of this accumulation, that eventually the genes for currently observed traits will fail.

No, it most definitely is NOT what we see in the sense that we have not lost the traits which we would have lost if not for natural selection. You are talking only about hypothetical speculations about the number of mutations and their effects. You have not proven your thesis by a long shot.



We have working eyes because the code has not always been in a process of decay. There was a time when it was created/recreated. Since then it has decayed. Remember that the Code is information, and information comes from an intelligence.

Your assertion that "the code has not always been in a process of decay" is nothing but blatant unsupported assertion. You don't have any evidence supporting that assertion. And it is exceedingly unlikely given that it is based on the presumption that there is a God who tinkers with the genetic code.

Your assertion that "Code is information, and information comes from an intelligence" is also false and unsupported. The genetic "code" is not a "code" in the sense of a designed computer language. It is not semantic like a language. It is mechanical - like the tape in an old player piano. There is no reason it could not evolve, and we have absolute prove it can evolve through selection that we've done with dogs and birds.



Argument is not rendered questionable or suspect simply because you disagree with it. It is rendered questionable by it's quality as an argument. The empirical evidence that we have in front of our eyes
speaks loudest. Mutations are errors in DNA and they are invariably bad. What is more, we CAN SEE mutations accumulating with each generation. So based on what we CAN SEE (not on a hypothetical theory of origins) I argue that there is an empirical tendency towards greater genetic disorder - the opposite of evolution.

The reason your argument is "highly suspect" is because your motivation is to disprove evolution so you do not look like an objective observer. This is amplified by the fact that you reject established science and posit extremely unlikely scenarios based on religious beliefs with no scientific support of any kind.

And again, what we actually see is that natural selection maintains useful traits and when it is removed those traits quickly degenerate. So we have proof by direct observation which disproves your thesis. It is your thesis that is based on mere speculation and unconfirmed hypotheses.



This is fully in accordance with entropy (The Second Law of Thermodynamics), the natural tendency of information systems to decay over time in the direction of increasing disorder. So my observations even have a basis in mathematics and natural law.
No it is not and no you observations do not. Natural selection overcomes the entropy. We can prove this with observation. Take away the natural selection and the entropy degrades the genome. Put back the natural selection and the genome is maintained.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-21-2013, 12:26 AM
Hi Richard,

I will get back to you on all this. For the moment I will let you have the last word, since I feel that I have made my point for now.

I have enjoyed the experience of this debate, and shall return at a later time.

David M
05-21-2013, 03:10 AM
Whilst there is evidence all around the world for major flooding, which has caused layering of sediments, which are indicative of floods unlike any floods that have ever been experienced since those sedimentary layers were put down, may I remind everyone that there is not the proof for the simplest cell (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&highlight=simplest+cell) to have evolved. And before this, we do not have a proper explanation for how even a star forms; the evolutionary explanation goes against the science of expanding gases. Science is far from proving anything evolved and has much more to find out and explain.

David

sylvius
05-21-2013, 05:04 AM
All of the time past exists in every single moment of time, even just in the here and now (if you look into the starry night you look into the past, seeing things of millions of lightyears away, i.e. in the past, etc.
In fact there is no more than what exists in the here and now, in the present moment of time.

In this light the question of creation versus evolution is mute.

Everything is created "b'reishit", in the twinkling of an eye.

Future coming in a second.

L67
05-21-2013, 05:25 AM
Whilst there is evidence all around the world for major flooding, which has caused layering of sediments, which are indicative of floods unlike any floods that have ever been experienced since those sedimentary layers were put down, may I remind everyone that there is not the proof for the simplest cell (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&highlight=simplest+cell) to have evolved. And before this, we do not have a proper explanation for how even a star forms; the evolutionary explanation goes against the science of expanding gases. Science is far from proving anything evolved and has much more to find out and explain.

David

David there is no evidence for a global flood. That is easily proved false.

You are actually wrong that there is no proof of anything evolving from the simplest cell. Endosymbiotic Theory proves just that. The Endosymbiotic Theory is the accepted mechanism for how eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory#Evidence

Here is a website that lays it out nicely. http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k2endosymb.html

It is a FACT David.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-21-2013, 11:03 AM
Most evolutionists admit the EXTREME improbability that the simple cell could have evolved, but opt for that because the only alternative is a belief in Intelligent Design.

The Welcome Trust has measured the mutation rate directly for the first time in 2009


Researchers make first direct measurement of human genetic mutation rate
1 September 2009

Scientists at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and colleagues have made the first direct measurement of the general rate of genetic mutation in humans. They calculated that there are 100-200 new DNA mutations (single base changes in our DNA sequence that are different from the sequence inherited from our parents) from generation to generation. Almost all were harmless, with no apparent effect on our health or appearance, and only four mutations accumulated over 13 generations.

The findings and method developed by the researchers furthers our understanding of mutation rates and could help us test ways to help reduce mutations. Mutation is the source of genetic variation, which can lead to diseases such as cancer. They also provide a ‘molecular clock’ for measuring evolutionary timescales.

“New mutations are responsible for an array of genetic diseases,” said Dr Chris Tyler-Smith of the Sanger Institute and the study’s coordinator.

“The ability to measure rates of DNA mutation reliably means we can begin to ask how mutation rates vary between different regions of the genome and perhaps also between different individuals.”

Previous measurements of the general human mutation rate were estimates based on a few specific genes or comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA.

In the new study, the researchers looked at the Y chromosomes of two Chinese men born 13 generations apart. The Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son, so mutations accumulate slowly over generations.

The researchers sequenced the chromosomes and compared them with the reference sequence from the original human genome project to find single base pair differences in the sequence.

They found four significant mutations between the Y chromosomes of the two men, despite the many generations of separation. They then calculated that the rate of mutation is equivalent to one mutation in every 15-30 million nucleotides.

“These four mutations gave us the exact mutation rate - one in 30 million nucleotides each generation - that we had expected,” said Dr Tyler-Smith.

“This was reassuring because the methods we used - harnessing next-generation sequencing technology - had not previously been tested for this kind of research.”

Their calculations match estimates made previously by scientists who did not have access to such direct methods, including J B S Haldane, one of the founders of modern genetics.

Haldane studied haemophiliac men in London and, in 1935, estimated that the incidence of the haemophilia-causing mutation was one in 50 000 - equivalent to about one in 25 million nucleotides across the genome.


So their calculated rate of mutation is 100 mutations each generation in the entire genome, or 1 in 30 million.

The next question is "How many of these are harmful?" If the mutations occur in an area that codes for aminoacids, then they are generally regarded as harmful. However, if they occur in the "junk dna" then they are not.

However, research show sthat much of "junk dna" is vital to the functioning of cells, so the number of harmful mutations may need to increase.

Natural selection can remove harmful mutations, if they confer a disadvantage, but if all offspring are mutant, then mutations will probably accumulate over time.



Mutations are random mistakes in the copying of the genetic code.

L67
05-21-2013, 01:16 PM
Most evolutionists admit the EXTREME improbability that the simple cell could have evolved, but opt for that because the only alternative is a belief in Intelligent Design.

That is an absurd statement. I posted about The Endosymbiotic Theory. It's not just a "theory" according to science. It has real evidence supporting it. So your statement is completely false.

Craig your argument doesn't hold water. No matter how much you want evolution to be false it can't and won't ever be false. Because unlike Intelligent Design evolution has a mountain of facts supporting it. It is nothing like the Pseudoscience that guys like Sanford are presenting.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-21-2013, 01:16 PM
Most evolutionists admit the EXTREME improbability that the simple cell could have evolved, but opt for that because the only alternative is a belief in Intelligent Design.

How do you know what "most evolutionists admit"? Have you done a survey? From what I've read, most admit that we don't know how the first cell formed and so it is impossible to estimate the "probability." That kind of language is typically used by creationists trying to find a "magic bullet" to refute science.

Intelligent Design is not much of an option since it is really nothing but the assertion that "God did it." It explains nothing and cannot be verified. It would be a rational response only in a hundred years or so after we have explored all possibilities. Creationists forget that we only learned about DNA about sixty years ago. It is foolish to jump to the conclusion that "God did it" when we still know so little. If scientists in the past did that we'd still be living in caves using candles made from animal fat.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-21-2013, 01:26 PM
David there is no evidence for a global flood. That is easily proved false.

It seems to me that the evidence against a global flood in the recent past that caused a mass extinction of all land animals is an absolute impossibility. It did not happen. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it as far as I can tell. To contradict this would be equivalent to asserting the earth is flat.



You are actually wrong that there is no proof of anything evolving from the simplest cell. Endosymbiotic Theory proves just that. The Endosymbiotic Theory is the accepted mechanism for how eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory#Evidence

Here is a website that lays it out nicely. http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k2endosymb.html

It is a FACT David.
I think that's a pretty good theory about how eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic cells. Rose posted (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47089#post47089) similar info in the very interesting thread called The Simplest Cell (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell) which David linked. But the evolution of the eukaryotic cell is not really relevant since David was talking the simplest cell, which is a prokaryotic. And prokaryotic cells are so much simpler it is not that hard to imagine how they might have evolved. The first thing is that lipids naturally form membranes.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-21-2013, 01:36 PM
Whilst there is evidence all around the world for major flooding, which has caused layering of sediments, which are indicative of floods unlike any floods that have ever been experienced since those sedimentary layers were put down, may I remind everyone that there is not the proof for the simplest cell (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&highlight=simplest+cell) to have evolved. And before this, we do not have a proper explanation for how even a star forms; the evolutionary explanation goes against the science of expanding gases. Science is far from proving anything evolved and has much more to find out and explain.

David

Please cite a valid scientific source that says "the evolutionary explanation goes against the science of expanding gases." It strikes me as absurd when you say such things because we've been talking for over a year and I'm pretty sure you don't understand either the "evolutionary explanation" of stellar evolution or why it supposedly "goes against the science of expanding gases."

Richard Amiel McGough
05-21-2013, 02:04 PM
So their calculated rate of mutation is 100 mutations each generation in the entire genome, or 1 in 30 million.

The next question is "How many of these are harmful?" If the mutations occur in an area that codes for aminoacids, then they are generally regarded as harmful. However, if they occur in the "junk dna" then they are not.

Not true! You have forgotten about redundancy in the codons. Here's what the wiki says:
Degeneracy is the redundancy of the genetic code. The genetic code has redundancy but no ambiguity (see the codon tables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#RNA_codon_table) above for the full correlation). For example, although codons GAA and GAG both specify glutamic acid (redundancy), neither of them specifies any other amino acid (no ambiguity). The codons encoding one amino acid may differ in any of their three positions. For example the amino acid glutamic acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid) is specified by GAA and GAG codons (difference in the third position), the amino acid leucine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucine) is specified by UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG codons (difference in the first or third position), while the amino acid serine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serine) is specified by UCA, UCG, UCC, UCU, AGU, AGC (difference in the first, second, or third position).
There are a total of 64 codons. Three are "stop codons" and the remaining 61 code for the 22 amino acids. That's an average of 2.77 codons per amino acid. If a UCA mutates to be a UCG, UCC, UCU, AGU, or AGC nothing changes. This is a huge redundancy that strongly protects against random mutations. It looks like this system evolved in response to the high mutation rate. Natural selection would have selected against other versions of DNA that did not have this redundancy.

The fact that you ignored such an important fact (which is absolutely essential to the question of the effect of mutations on the genome) and chose rather to rush to judgement that "God did it" suggests that you have a strong bias that is skewing your judgment.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-21-2013, 02:25 PM
Hi Richard,

Both mutation and expansion of gases are examples of increasing entropy. This topic of entropy is another area that I will have to research.



Getting back to our favorite topic of mutations, I now know that about 100 new mutations are acquired by each new generation, however I still dont know -

1. How harmful these mutations are

2. And how many of them are later removed from the genome by natural selection




I have assumed that they are usually harmful, because -

1. random changes within a highly complex system tend to reduce the effectiveness of that system.

2. other instances of mutation such as result from prolonged exposure to radioactive material, usually results in severe illness and death.




I have also assumed that natural selection cannot remove all the mutations because

1. Many mutations are not harmful enough to confer a signoficant disadvantage on their own, and slip under the radar of natural selection

2. Natural selection can only choose the healthiest out of a population, and if every member of the population has 100 more mutations than their parents, then natural selection can only choose the best of a worstening lot.



Degradation is a very slow gradual process

If we only had this mutation rate to base our calculations on then we would have to conclude that the degradation of the human genome is a very slow, gradual process.

The accumulation of 100 DNA errors in each person with each generation is a very slow process. The human genome has 3 billion letters. If 100 new mistakes are made each generation and you started off with a perfect genome, then that genome would reach complete degradation in 3,000,000,000/100 x 20 years, assuming a 20 year generation = 600 million years.. So the degradation is a very slow downward process.

We are told that evolution is so gradual that it is imperceptible - well devolution seems also to be so gradual that it is imperceptible.



Redundancy in the Genetic Code

There are mechanisms within the cell that protect us against the harmful effects of mutations. Amongst there mechanisms are -

1. Redundancy
2. Multiple copies of DNA areas that serve vital functions
3. Counts and checks and repair systems

In addition Natural Selection operates to reduce the chances of damage being passed on.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-21-2013, 03:13 PM
Hi Richard,

Both mutation and expansion of gases are examples of increasing entropy. This topic of entropy is another area that I will have to research.

There is no topic about which creationists are more ignorant and confused than "entropy." They typically claim that it contradicts evolution. Nothing could be more ridiculous. If that were true all scientists would have abandoned the theory of evolution long ago. Their error is easy to see. The reason we are able live is because we take in (eat) low entropy food, use the free energy, and excrete the high entropy waste. Evolution does the same thing. Plants use low entropy energy from the sun to grow. Natural selection selects those that are more fit. Evolution happens. There is no contradiction of the second law anywhere in any of this.



I have assumed that they are usually harmful, because -

1. random changes within a highly complex system tend to reduce the effectiveness of that system.

2. other instances of mutation such as result from prolonged exposure to radioactive material, usually results in severe illness and death.

That's your mistake. A large proportion are totally neutral because they convert one codon to an equivalent codon. How many other factors have you ignored? You are seeking a preconceived conclusion based on a religious belief. That is not the way to do science.



I have also assumed that natural selection cannot remove all the mutations because

1. Many mutations are not harmful enough to confer a signoficant disadvantage on their own, and slip under the radar of natural selection


This is another major error. Who says when a mutation is helpful or harmful? In one situation the a mutation could be helpful when it is harmful in another. You are not thinking like an evolutionist. You are not considering the interplay between the environment and the organism and the relation between different organisms and so on and so forth. You simply want to find a "magic bullet" to kill evolution so you can say "God did it." That's not the way to do science.


2. Natural selection can only choose the healthiest out of a population, and if every member of the population has 100 more mutations than their parents, then natural selection can only choose the best of a worstening lot.

Again that is your preferred assumption because you are looking for reasons to reject evolution without even understanding how it works. You reasoning is not balanced. It appears that you don't understand that evolution is actually going on around us all the time and has been extremely well established by many different lines of reasoning, not the least of which is DNA which proves common descent. It seems like you are ignoring all the science except bits and pieces that you can misused in your attempt to destroy it.


Degradation is a very slow gradual process
If we only had this mutation rate to base our calculations on then we would have to conclude that the degradation of the human genome is a very slow, gradual process.

The accumulation of 100 DNA errors in each person with each generation is a very slow process. The human genome has 3 billion letters. If 100 new mistakes are made each generation and you started off with a perfect genome, then that genome would reach complete degradation in 3,000,000,000/100 x 20 years, assuming a 20 year generation = 600 million years.. So the degradation is a very slow downward process.

That's not true. If it were true then eyes would last a lot longer in organisms living in dark caves. You are repeating the same error I have explained many times. We can see how quickly the degradation happens when natural selection is removed, as with eyes in dark caves. This proves that natural selection has been maintaining the fitness of our genome for millions of years. You have never dealt with this proof as far as I recall.


We are told that evolution is so gradual that it is imperceptible - well devolution seems also to be so gradual that it is imperceptible.
Redundancy in the Genetic Code

There are mechanisms within the cell that protect us against the harmful effects of mutations. Amongst there mechanisms are -

1. Redundancy
2. Multiple copies of DNA areas that serve vital functions
3. Counts and checks and repair systems

In addition Natural Selection operates to reduce the chances of damage being passed on.
That's right, and it allows for natural selection to overcome the deleterious mutations, contrary to your primary assertion.

Great chatting!

Richard

Craig.Paardekooper
05-22-2013, 09:34 PM
How do you know what "most evolutionists admit"? Have you done a survey? From what I've read, most admit that we don't know how the first cell formed and so it is impossible to estimate the "probability."

Hi Richard,

Assessing the probability of evolution would be a good topic for an independent thread.

Any way, in response to your comment, the probability that life could have formed by natural selection operating on mutation or by pure chance is vanishingly small - and there lies YOUR FAITH Richard.

If an evolutionist were to take a position that the probability was not vanishingly small, then they would loose all credibility, since it would be obvious that they had suspended their own rationality.


most admit that we don't know how the first cell formed and so it is impossible to estimate the "probability."

That's not what the textbooks say....They all announce with absolute certainty that we evolved by random mixing of chemicals. SO they do have a position - that life originated by chance. If you were correct, then all these text books should be blank.

And it IS possible to estimate the probability based on a chance origin - the probability is vanishingly small.

So in my opinion, to claim that most evolutionists take the position of "don't know anything" is not true, but is a rhetorical way of avoiding the low-probability argument.



In the meantime, here is an article on mutation rates - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.long


My main concern in bringing up this subject of mutation was how we could deal with it on a practical level, rather than it's implications for evolution - since it seemed to pose a threat to human culture. However, it seems it is not such a threat because the cell has in-built repair mechanisms. It is certainly facinating to entertain the idea that our ancient ancestors possessed a more perfect genome with fewer mutations. It would make a very interesting project to compare DNA from modern creatures with DNA from early populations to see where they differ, and what the health benefits would be of introducing ancient sequences into the genome. If my hypothesis is correct, that early populations contained fewer mutations and therefore had greater health and longevity, then this should be the result. Such an experiment could be carried out with insect species that have a shorter generation period.

What is more, we could learn alot from ancient DNA about the genetic determinants of extended health and life.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-23-2013, 11:12 AM
Hi Richard,

Assessing the probability of evolution would be a good topic for an independent thread.

Any way, in response to your comment, the probability that life could have formed by natural selection operating on mutation or by pure chance is vanishingly small - and there lies YOUR FAITH Richard.

If an evolutionist were to take a position that the probability was not vanishingly small, then they would loose all credibility, since it would be obvious that they had suspended their own rationality.

Hey there Craig,

I have never claimed any "faith" in any theory of how life began. We have nothing like sufficient evidence for me to take a stand on this issue. And if we did have evidence for any particular theory of the origin of life (chemical evolution, Intelligent Design, God did it, Aliens from another Dimension, whatever) then it would not be "faith" but rather evidence. Faith (in the sense of believing something without evidence) is entirely different than evidence based science. I can test science. You cannot test to see if your faith is true. If you could, it wouldn't be faith!

Theists constantly try to drag rational people down to their level of "faith" in the sense of believing things without evidence or sufficient reason. This is one of the most common tricks they use. There is no equivalence of any kind between science and that kind of faith. It is exceedingly deceptive to equate the two.

It is confusion to conflate faith and science. They are entirely different. One of the reasons for the confusion is that some theists claim that everyone must have "faith" in something. That's true in one sense but not in the sense of believing religious dogmas. It's a question of epistemology. How do we know anything? If you say that my confidence in logic and facts is equivalent to a Muslim believing by faith that Muhammad rode a horse to the moon, then you will have to take a remedial course on the basics of epistemology.




most admit that we don't know how the first cell formed and so it is impossible to estimate the "probability."
That's not what the textbooks say....They all announce with absolute certainty that we evolved by random mixing of chemicals. SO they do have a position - that life originated by chance. If you were correct, then all these text books should be blank.

You are speaking in broad generalities that I find extremely hard to believe. Scientists rarely (if ever) speak with any absolute certainty concerning the origin of life. And if they do express their personal opinion that it occurred naturally they are merely extending the naturalistic hypothesis that has worked in every case ever tested. There has NEVER ONCE been any repeatable natural phenomenon that proved any supernatural influence on reality whereas naturalism has explained ten trillion facts and is proved every day by billions of devices produced by modern science. Given the record of ten trillion to zero it seems perfectly rational to assume that the record will continue, even when speaking of the origin of life. But since no one has any conclusive evidence as yet, the wiser amongst us will refrain from speaking with absolute certainty.

It is interesting that the best scientists refrain from speaking with absolute certainty because scientific results are always provisional. Scientists see old conclusions overturned all the time. This is precisely the opposite of religious dogmas. They remain the same no matter how much evidence proves them false. Religious fundamentalists are the ones who speak with certainty. Indeed, their common complaint against science is that it constantly "changes" whereas dogmas never do. I can't think of a more ludicrous point of view.

The most important thing to note is that theists have retreated to the realm of the unknown because they have lost the debate on every point that can be confirmed with evidence. The only place you have any hope of proving God is in the gaps of our knowledge. This is the God of the Gaps argument and those gaps are constantly shrinking.


And it IS possible to estimate the probability based on a chance origin - the probability is vanishingly small.

The estimates depend upon presuppositions. And creationists make up crap that is obviously fallacious. For example, they frequently "estimate the probability" of the formation of a protein by randomly connecting atoms. They don't talk about any natural laws of chemistry and how some atoms naturally form bonds, etc. Proteins are made of amino acids and amino acids evolve through natural chemical evolution as proven by the fact that we find them in space (http://planetsave.com/2013/02/28/dna-ingredients-and-amino-acids-in-interstellar-space-research-reveals-icy-grains-of-dust-as-origins-of-life-precursors/). Creationists ignore NATURAL LAW (chemistry) and simply imagine randomly sticking atoms together and conclude the probability is essentially zero (which it would be under those presuppositions). But there presuppositions are false - indeed, they are absurd as are 99.9% of all creationist arguments. They oppose all science and rationality in their efforts to prove their religious superstitions. I've never seen anything so intellectually perverse in my life. We see the same kind of ludicrous error when they say that evolution is nothing but "time and chance" forgetting that natural selection is anything but random. And so the circus continues because the creationists hate truth, which from a Christian perspective means they hate Christ. How's that for irony?


So in my opinion, to claim that most evolutionists take the position of "don't know anything" is not true, but is a rhetorical way of avoiding the low-probability argument.

I'm not trying to "avoid the low-probability argument." I would love to see your calculations and the presuppositions they are based upon.

The truth is that everyone knows the origin of life is a very difficult problem. But that's no reason to leap to the conclusion that "God did it"! We've only known about DNA for 60 years. It is absurd for you to to act as if science were all-knowing and so able to justify your assertion that natural abiogenesis is impossible. You put way too much faith in science! And that seems pretty ironic to me.



In the meantime, here is an article on mutation rates - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.long

My main concern in bringing up this subject of mutation was how we could deal with it on a practical level, rather than it's implications for evolution - since it seemed to pose a threat to human culture. However, it seems it is not such a threat because the cell has in-built repair mechanisms. It is certainly facinating to entertain the idea that our ancient ancestors possessed a more perfect genome with fewer mutations. It would make a very interesting project to compare DNA from modern creatures with DNA from early populations to see where they differ, and what the health benefits would be of introducing ancient sequences into the genome. If my hypothesis is correct, that early populations contained fewer mutations and therefore had greater health and longevity, then this should be the result. Such an experiment could be carried out with insect species that have a shorter generation period.

What is more, we could learn alot from ancient DNA about the genetic determinants of extended health and life.

I can see why you quoted that. It appears to confirm your thesis. But that's an illusion. The fact is that it directly contradicts your thesis. There is a reason why earlier generations may have had a better genome. IT IS BECAUSE NATURAL SELECTION IS WEAKER NOW THAT MODERN MEDICINE KEEPS PEOPLE ALIVE AND ABLE TO REPRODUCE. This is explicitly stated in the article you cited:
However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.
So what's going on Craig? Did you even read the article? It seems like you are cherry picking and quote mining looking for any random comment in a scientific paper that superficially appears to support your case even though it actually contradicts it. And this, unfortunately, is the common characteristic of the entire creationist movement. It's why nobody can take their arguments seriously.

All the best,

Richard

L67
05-23-2013, 12:41 PM
I

I think that's a pretty good theory about how eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic cells. Rose posted (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell&p=47089#post47089) similar info in the very interesting thread called The Simplest Cell (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3217-The-Simplest-Cell) which David linked. But the evolution of the eukaryotic cell is not really relevant since David was talking the simplest cell, which is a prokaryotic. And prokaryotic cells are so much simpler it is not that hard to imagine how they might have evolved. The first thing is that lipids naturally form membranes.

Hey Richard,

Thanks for the link to that thread. But I'm confused here. Maybe you could shed some light for me? You obviously know more than I do about this. From everything I have read I thought that the endosymbiotic theory was relevant to Davids claim?

From the link that Rose posted in the simplest cell thread.

The complex eukaryotic cell ushered in a whole new era for life on Earth, because these cells evolved into multicellular organisms. But how did the eukaryotic cell itself evolve? How did a humble bacterium make this evolutionary leap from a simple prokaryotic cell to a more complex eukaryotic cell? The answer seems to be symbiosis — in other words, teamwork.

Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are actually the descendents of separate prokaryotic cells that joined together in a symbiotic union. In fact, the mitochondrion itself seems to be the "great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter" of a free-living bacterium that was engulfed by another cell, perhaps as a meal, and ended up staying as a sort of permanent houseguest. The host cell profited from the chemical energy the mitochondrion produced, and the mitochondrion benefited from the protected, nutrient-rich environment surrounding it. This kind of "internal" symbiosis — one organism taking up permanent residence inside another and eventually evolving into a single lineage — is called endosymbiosis.

I don't have the link handy but I thought this summed up the theory nicely "two prokaryotes turning into a eukaryotic cell began with a process called endosymbiosis. One large prokaryote engulfs (a process called endocytosis) one small, aerobically respiring prokaryote. The small prokaryote turned into a membrane-bound organelle, which prokaryotes do not have, and like we know, only eukaryotes have membrane-bound organelles. So that is how the eukaryotic cell structure evolved from prokaryotic cell."

Could you tell me why this wouldn't pertain to Davids claim or point me to a link? I certainly don't want to keep repeating this same error. So any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Richard Amiel McGough
05-23-2013, 01:53 PM
Hey Richard,

Thanks for the link to that thread. But I'm confused here. Maybe you could shed some light for me? You obviously know more than I do about this. From everything I have read I thought that the endosymbiotic theory was relevant to Davids claim?

From the link that Rose posted in the simplest cell thread.

The complex eukaryotic cell ushered in a whole new era for life on Earth, because these cells evolved into multicellular organisms. But how did the eukaryotic cell itself evolve? How did a humble bacterium make this evolutionary leap from a simple prokaryotic cell to a more complex eukaryotic cell? The answer seems to be symbiosis — in other words, teamwork.

Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are actually the descendents of separate prokaryotic cells that joined together in a symbiotic union. In fact, the mitochondrion itself seems to be the "great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter" of a free-living bacterium that was engulfed by another cell, perhaps as a meal, and ended up staying as a sort of permanent houseguest. The host cell profited from the chemical energy the mitochondrion produced, and the mitochondrion benefited from the protected, nutrient-rich environment surrounding it. This kind of "internal" symbiosis — one organism taking up permanent residence inside another and eventually evolving into a single lineage — is called endosymbiosis.

I don't have the link handy but I thought this summed up the theory nicely "two prokaryotes turning into a eukaryotic cell began with a process called endosymbiosis. One large prokaryote engulfs (a process called endocytosis) one small, aerobically respiring prokaryote. The small prokaryote turned into a membrane-bound organelle, which prokaryotes do not have, and like we know, only eukaryotes have membrane-bound organelles. So that is how the eukaryotic cell structure evolved from prokaryotic cell."

Could you tell me why this wouldn't pertain to Davids claim or point me to a link? I certainly don't want to keep repeating this same error. So any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
It totally applies to the general discussion of the evolution of the more advanced cells. My only point was that it doesn't apply to the actual question of how the first cell arose because the first cell was prokaryotic rather than eukaryotic.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-23-2013, 11:07 PM
Hi Richard,

Thankyou for your response.




Craig Said -
My main concern in bringing up this subject of mutation was how we could deal with it on a practical level, rather than it's implications for evolution - since it seemed to pose a threat to human culture. However, it seems it is not such a threat because the cell has in-built repair mechanisms. It is certainly facinating to entertain the idea that our ancient ancestors possessed a more perfect genome with fewer mutations. It would make a very interesting project to compare DNA from modern creatures with DNA from early populations to see where they differ, and what the health benefits would be of introducing ancient sequences into the genome. If my hypothesis is correct, that early populations contained fewer mutations and therefore had greater health and longevity, then this should be the result. Such an experiment could be carried out with insect species that have a shorter generation period.

What is more, we could learn alot from ancient DNA about the genetic determinants of extended health and life.

Richard Said -
I can see why you quoted that. It appears to confirm your thesis. But that's an illusion. The fact is that it directly contradicts your thesis. There is a reason why earlier generations may have had a better genome. IT IS BECAUSE NATURAL SELECTION IS WEAKER NOW THAT MODERN MEDICINE KEEPS PEOPLE ALIVE AND ABLE TO REPRODUCE. This is explicitly stated in the article you cited:
However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.

My hypothesis would still hold because -

1. A comparison could still be made between the DNA of modern and ancient animals, rather than humans. Most non-humans are not in receipt of modern medicine, eg mammals, plants, insects etc

2. The introduction of ancient DNA sequences into modern creatures could result in longevity that is far greater than that of modern creatures even before the advent of modern medicine.

Anyway, as much as this is truely facinating, the nearest we are getting to it is with the work in Japan. They found a frozen mammoth, and are using it's DNA in the in the egg cell of an elephant - so that it will give birth to a baby mammoth or mammoth/elephant cross.

Craig

sylvius
05-24-2013, 01:28 AM
All of the time past exists in every single moment of time, even just in the here and now (if you look into the starry night you look into the past, seeing things of millions of lightyears away, i.e. in the past, etc.
In fact there is no more than what exists in the here and now, in the present moment of time.

In this light the question of creation versus evolution is mute.

Everything is created "b'reishit", in the twinkling of an eye.

Future coming in a second.

sorry, it is "moot"

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/moot-versus-mute.aspx

Richard Amiel McGough
05-24-2013, 08:56 AM
Hi Richard,

Thankyou for your response.

[/B]

My hypothesis would still hold because -

1. A comparison could still be made between the DNA of modern and ancient animals, rather than humans. Most non-humans are not in receipt of modern medicine, eg mammals, plants, insects etc

2. The introduction of ancient DNA sequences into modern creatures could result in longevity that is far greater than that of modern creatures even before the advent of modern medicine.

Anyway, as much as this is truely facinating, the nearest we are getting to it is with the work in Japan. They found a frozen mammoth, and are using it's DNA in the in the egg cell of an elephant - so that it will give birth to a baby mammoth or mammoth/elephant cross.

Craig
Hey there Craig,

1) Any hypothesis can "hold" as a possibility until it is disproved. So sure, it is possible that past animal genomes could be better, but until you present some evidence supporting your hypothesis there is no reason to think it is true and many reason to think it is not. Can you cite any real scientific literature that supports it? The article you quoted directly refuted your hypothesis by explaining the reason the human genomes may have been better in the past.

2) Mere speculation.

I agree that this is all fascinating, but your position appears to contradict the whole set of assumptions and results underpinning modern science. That's the problem with creationists in general. The pick and choose fragments of science here and there to attack the rest of science. They are not actually doing science at all. Its as if Einstein tried to overthrow Newtonian Mechanics not by developing the theory of relativity but rather writing a three hundred page screed condemning Newtonian Mechanics as the work of the Devil. The thing about real science is that it is built on established facts. Therefore when a new theory overtakes an old theory, it has to explain all the old facts that were well explained by the old theory. That's why Relativistic Physics reduces to Classical Physics in the limit when the speed of light goes to infinity. Creationism is not playing by the rules of science at all. They just take pot shots at established science but offer no truly scientific theory that encompasses the facts to replace the one they oppose.

Great chatting,

Richard

Craig.Paardekooper
05-24-2013, 03:19 PM
The article you quoted directly refuted your hypothesis by explaining the reason the human genomes may have been better in the past.


Hi Richard, thankyou for taking the time to chat. My argument is that ancient creatures had better genomes than modern creatures.

Your response was that this was because natural selection operated more in the past, whereas it operates less now, due to the intervention of modern medicine.

I replied that not all species have received medical help, now or in the past, so the reason you gave for apparent devolution would not apply to them anyway.

To which you respond that my hypothesis is directly refuted????? This is a very strange thing to say. It is almost like a knee-jerk reaction, without conscious thought.


The health of a creature could be measured by it's size, strength, brain capacity and longevity - all of which suggest a greater fitness. Thats why I think that mammoths were fitter than their modern elephant cousins. However, the proof will only be seen when the Japanese bring a mammoth back to life.

During the Pleistocene we find giant and immensely strong forms of almost all modern creatures, eg dogs, cats, cows, deer, snakes, bears, apes, birds etc. My idea that we have since devolved into rather puny, truncated specimens, despite the advent of modern medicine, is thus not unreasonable.

For a list of examples, google Mega Fauna, or look at the appendix of my book - "Genesis - a surprising confirmation".

Richard Amiel McGough
05-24-2013, 04:18 PM
Hi Richard, thankyou for taking the time to chat. My argument is that ancient creatures had better genomes than modern creatures.

Your response was that this was because natural selection operated more in the past, whereas it operates less now, due to the intervention of modern medicine.

I replied that not all species have received medical help, now or in the past, so the reason you gave for apparent devolution would not apply to them anyway.

To which you respond that my hypothesis is directly refuted????? This is a very strange thing to say. It is almost like a knee-jerk reaction, without conscious thought.

Hey there Craig,

The confusion was caused by your fallacious appeal to that article as if it supported your thesis. Your appeal was fallacious because it did not support your thesis in any way at all. The point of the article was that modern medicine might be causing a degradation of the human genome. It did not support the idea that there has been a continuous degradation of animal genomes over evolutionary history. That wouldn't make any sense at all. It would contradict everything known about evolution.

So you are correct, that article did not directly refute "your thesis" because it didn't have anything do with your thesis in any way at all.

I have never heard of any scientist who would suggest that the genomes of modern animals in the wild are any less fit than their ancestors. Your concept of devolution directly contradicts evolution which is supported by a massive amount of evidence so I can't think of any reason anyone would think it was true. Can you cite a single evolutionary scientist who would support your theory?



The health of a creature could be measured by it's size, strength, brain capacity and longevity - all of which suggest a greater fitness. Thats why I think that mammoths were fitter than their modern elephant cousins. However, the proof will only be seen when the Japanese bring a mammoth back to life.

And look at humans ancestors. The were short and had tiny brains. Does that not falsify your thesis?

And what about the whole of evolutionary history? Are you denying the entire fossil record that shows the development of organisms with ever greater abilities?

I think the idea that "bigger is better" is entirely fallacious. It all depends upon the environment. In certain environmental niches bigger may be better whereas in other it is not. That's why the big guys went extinct and the little guys survived.

What is your theory? Are you a Young Earth Creationist? How much science do you reject?



During the Pleistocene we find giant and immensely strong forms of almost all modern creatures, eg dogs, cats, cows, deer, snakes, bears, apes, birds etc. My idea that we have since devolved into rather puny, truncated specimens, despite the advent of modern medicine, is thus not unreasonable.

Again, I think your assumption that "bigger is better" is erroneous. And the proof is pretty obvious since all those "bigger" forms of life went extinct. There's a reason for that you know. The environment changed and so the animals adapted. That's call evolution.

Great chatting!

Richard

Craig.Paardekooper
05-25-2013, 07:38 AM
Hi Richard,


I have never heard of any scientist who would suggest that the genomes of modern animals in the wild are any less fit than their ancestors. Your concept of devolution directly contradicts evolution which is supported by a massive amount of evidence so I can't think of any reason anyone would think it was true.

Well, here are a few reasons to jog your memory.....

Mammoths were bigger and stronger than modern elephants, so there is a decrease in physical fitness. (Do we really need scientists to confirm an opinion that is obvious to our eyes.) I could spend months showing you how the Pleistocene world was packed with immensely strong and powerful creatures, far more powerful than anything we have today. But I will content myself with a few examples -

Here is a comparison between Gigantopithecus and modern apes.

895

And lets take dogs - Canis Dirus was the biggest canine every to have lived



Or what about cows? Modern cattle have become much smaller than their wild forebears - (Giant Cow) - Bos primigenius “Primeval Ox”
The height at the shoulders of a large domesticated cow is about 1.5 meters (5 feet, 15 hands) whereas aurochs were much larger

897

Or what about sheep? Megalovis was a giant sheep that lived in the Pleistocene - far larger than any modern sheep.

And what about Deer? Megaloceros giganteus. Most members of the genus were extremely large animals that favored meadows or open woodlands, with most species averaging slightly below 2.1 meters (7ft) at the shoulders. It was one of the largest deer that ever lived.

898

Or what about bears? The bears of this time were 30% larger than the largest bears today.

899
Here is a nice little video -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p018cc8p/Ice_Age_Giants_Land_of_the_CaveBear/

Or what about Lions. Lions of the Pleistocene were 25% larger than modern lions.

Shall I go on? ....

Why not. There were giant Rhinos too, that completely dwarfed modern rhinos. Elasmotherium . They were about 6m long and 2 m high

900

And there were giant bison - Bison latifrons - weighed 2 tonnes, and was 2.5 m high at the shoulders

901


Maybe we have devolved after all, just like the Bible suggests, from a world of vital, strong and long lived creatures at the dawn of the age. An initial paradise from which we fell.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-27-2013, 10:04 AM
Perhaps you are wondering about humans, where they bigger too?

Just as with all the other creatures, humans too were taller and stronger. Meganthropus and Heidelbergensis were about 8ft tall (Goliath sized) on average.

902

I could go on, but I think that I have made my point that we have devolved from an ancient and mightier race ....just as the Bible suggests.

903

As mentioned previously, the dogs of the Pleistocene were far larger than their modern counterparts -

904

The largest known dog was Epicyon haydeni, this massive canid could reach the size of a large Bear and could shatter massive bones with its large teeth and powerful set of jaws.

Epicyon haydeni is the largest canid known. It is estimated to have weighed in at roughly 375 lbs (~170 kg). Even though it was the size of a bear, it still retained the relatively long legs and resulting fast speed that characterizes dogs. These dogs were not just ‘scaled up’ wolves, they were much more solidly built in general and had teeth more adapted for bone crunching. While they were top predators, and perhaps hunted in packs, they were no doubt also scavengers - able to crush bone in order to eat what had been left behind by other hunters.

905

In the Pleistocene we also find giant sheep

906

and giant pigs. As large as a bison, it stood at least 2 m (6 feet) tall at the shoulder; the skull alone was about 1 m (more than 3 feet) long and had many bony flanges and protuberances. The braincase was extremely small. The teeth were very distinctive: the incisors were blunt, while the canines were stout and must have been effective weapons. The neck was short and thick, and the spines in the anterior elements of the backbone were very long and formed a pronounced hump at the shoulders of the animal. Dinohyus was probably a root eater.

907

The hornless rhino grew to over 17 ft tall

908

There were also giant camels, giant giraffes, giant crocodiles, giant snakes, giant birds etc

L67
05-27-2013, 12:20 PM
I could go on, but I think that I have made my point that we have devolved from an ancient and mightier race ....just as the Bible suggests.

Actually you haven't. You base your conclusions on the erroneous findings of Dr. Sanford.


Here is someone who dissects Sanford's book Genetic Entropy. http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/

Here is Sanford's reply to the above. http://creation.com/genetic-entropy

Sanford also admits in his reply that lab test don't show a clear degradation like his book says. He clearly misrepresented his case in his book. It is true that most lab experiments do not show clear degeneration.



And we have fossils that prove this not to be the case as well.

And here is another reply to Sanford's response. http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/gen_entropy/

Craig.Paardekooper
05-27-2013, 01:12 PM
Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper


I could go on, but I think that I have made my point that we have devolved from an ancient and mightier race ....just as the Bible suggests.


posted by L67
Actually you haven't. You base your conclusions on the erroneous findings of Dr. Sanford.



L67 thankyou for your feedback. I will read the criticisms of Sanford and see what the current merit of Sanford's work is.

I don't see how you can say that "your conclusions are based on the erroneous findings of Dr Sanford" when all the evidence in my last 3 posts of larger, fitter creatures existing in the recent past is completely independent and outside of Dr Sanfords work. If you had read his work, you would see that he never mentions the larger, fitter creatures that lived in our ancient past. So it is quite obvious that my conclusions are only partly based on the writings of Dr Sanford.

Summing up my position I would say that my conclusions are based on -

1. The Bible history depicted in Genesis and confirmed by Jesus Christ
2. The exponential decrease in longevity after the Flood - a mathemaical pattern that shows a natural decay operating
3. The combined testimony of several nations to this decrease in longevity - Mesopotamia, China, Egypt, India, Greece
4. The evidence of larger, fitter creatures living in our ancient past
5. The Law of Entropy which suggests that the highest state of order was in the beginning, and orderly systems have been running down since then
6. Current evidence of the accumulation of mutations
7. Current evidence of the progressive extinction of species with no new species appearing.
8. Strong evidence that we were created anyway by an Intelligence.

If you can discount all of this evidence then go ahead and do so.

But, you know, more than anything else, I have presented you with an ENTIRE WORLD full of giant mammals that existed in our recent past, which is in accord with the idea that creatures were bigger, stronger and fitter in the past than they are now.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-27-2013, 10:41 PM
A reptile has the potential of growing throughout its life. Unlike other animals, the reptile has no "cutoff" mechanism whereby it stops growing in size.

So, if creatures lived ten times longer in the past, then we would have to expect gigantic reptiles.

Giant crocodiles lived during the pleistocene. C. thorbjarnarsoni is only known from a skull, but if it had proportions like modern crocodiles, it could grow to at least 7,5 meters. On comparison, Nile crocodiles longer than 5,5 meters are very rare. C. thorbjarnarsoni also had a more massive skull which would make it even more fearsome.

Euthecodon was large for a crocodilian. One specimen, LT 26306, found from the Turkana Basin, was estimated by skull length to have been around 10m long. It lived i the early pleistocene and was about twice the length of a modern crocodile.



909

Craig.Paardekooper
05-27-2013, 11:04 PM
Having said all this, the past of our planet is alot more wierd than anyone could imagine.

For example, here is a BBC video showing what looks like a giant chicken fighting off a tyranosaur. This is pre-pleistocene. However, my point is if chickens were this big in the past, then it is most likely that they lived alot longer than modern animals, and it is also most likely that other creatures were also giant sized.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Gigantoraptor#p00l8j21

The past of our planet is truely wierd. As the commentator puts it - "it was like finding a mouse as big as a house" . Our past is wierd - and it is about time that we stopped holding on to all the institutional propaganda that fills every text book about origins, and just go with the flow where ever the evidence leads - no matter how bizarre it seems to be.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-29-2013, 12:08 AM
I think the idea that "bigger is better" is entirely fallacious. It all depends upon the environment. In certain environmental niches bigger may be better whereas in other it is not. That's why the big guys went extinct and the little guys survived.



These creatures were not just bigger, they were stronger in every way, and they grew big because they lived longer. So physically they were more healthy. They also had larger brain capacity because bigger heads contain bigger brains.

Why are they not alive today??
May be they are alive...... Maybe we are the diminished remnants........ We are what's left of them.

Smaller elephants descended from larger, stronger elephants; smaller dogs descended from larger, stronger dogs; smaller pigs descended from larger, stronger pigs; smaller cows descended from larger stronger cows; smaller chicken descended from larger, stronger chicken; smaller deer descended from larger, stronger deer; smaller bears descended from larger, stronger bears; smaller apes descended from larger, stronger apes. Devolution in action.

My Definition of Fitness
Creatures that live longer, are stronger, bigger and more intelligent

David M
05-29-2013, 01:56 AM
These creatures were not just bigger, they were stronger in every way, and they grew big because they lived longer. So physically they were more healthy. They also had larger brain capacity because bigger heads contain bigger brains.

Why are they not alive today??
May be they are alive. We are the diminished remnants. We are what's left of them. Smaller elephants descended from larger, stronger elephants, smaller dogs descended from larger, stronger dogs, smaller pigs descended from larger, stronger pigs, smaller cows descended from larger stronger cows, smaller chicken descended from larger, stronger chicken, smaller deer descended from larger, stronger deer, smaller bears descended from larger, stronger bears, smaller apes descended from larger, stronger apes. Devolution in action.

My Definition of Fitness
Creatures that live longer, are stronger, bigger and more intelligent

Hello Craig
It is thought that before the Great Flood the earth's atmosphere was much richer in oxygen. Under different atmospheric conditions, it has been shown that plants can grow much larger than they do now under normal atmospheric conditions as we know them.

Maybe humans were much larger pre the Flood than they are now due to the different atmosphere. God would have calculated for this at the time. Their increase in size (by comparison to us now) and in proportion their increased strength might account for the large stones that have been found in various places like South America where great stones seem to have been lifted with ease. This is probably why Noah and his sons between them were able to handle the large timbers that would have been required to build the ark. Whereas us small humans need cranes etc to lift heavy objects, they might not have needed them If they had built lifting equipment, the giants could have used primitive lifting equipment to handle objects they could not lift by themselves. The scale of those primitive lifting devices would have been proportionally much larger than machines we would build for ourselves now using the same materials.

If we assume that these giants were say four times stronger that the average man is now, that would mean the giants could make lifting machines 4 times heavier than we could manage now using the same materials. If the lifting device gave a ten-fold increase in lifting power then the lifting gear made by giants would have a 40-fold increase in lifting power compared to a similar machine made by a man now. So if one strong man now can pick up 100 kgs, then one giant with his lifting machine would have been able to pick up 40 x 100 kgs = 4,000 kgs (approx 4 tons). I guess that is sort of weight we are thinking about when we look at some of the large stones. The very big stones would require larger machines and more than one man pulling on it.

All the best

David

Craig.Paardekooper
05-29-2013, 02:10 AM
Hi David,

Thankyou for your response. In certain parts of the world, hand tools and artifacts have been found that could only be wielded by people with far greater strength - the pyramids are interesting, but the existence of these hand tools is more direct evidence.

There is an ancient copper mine near the coastal town of Llandudno in North Wales. This area rises 220 meters above the Irish Sea, and it is known as the location of the Great Orme Copper Mine. It dates to the Bronze Age, about 3500 years ago. More than 2500 hammers have been recovered at the mine.

It is believed that the mine stretches for many kilometers, with six kilometers already surveyed. It is known to have nine levels within it, and over 1700 tons of copper are known to have been removed from the mine. This is quite a staggering accomplishment for a society of that era without the use power tools, or at least as we know power tools today.

The largest typical sledge hammer used today weighs 20 pounds, though sledge hammers in the 10 pound class are more commonplace. A grown man (without back troubleyet) can wield a 20 pound hammer, but only for limited amounts of time. The Head on a 20 pound hammer is about the size of a standard house brick, and the handle is about 3 ft long

The hammers found in the mine are 60 pound sledge hammers. The handle would be 9 feet long, with the metal head about the size of a cement block(ie a breeze block). An even bigger 64 pound sledge hammer was found at the copper mine by archeologists. To lift this 60 pound hammer using only the far end of a 9 foot long handle would be beyond the strength of any man. To swing it with force would be virtually impossible.



I would like to add, in this thread on genetic entropy, a very important note on extinction.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia : Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

Rather than new species emerging, as evolutionists would have us imagine, it appears that species are disappearing at an alarming rate, and have been doing so since the end of the Pleistocene.

This phenomenon is fully in accord with the process of genetic entropy, and devolution in general.

Evolution may be one of the greatest delusions ever....

Craig.Paardekooper
05-29-2013, 01:51 PM
Equus Giganteus

This giant ice age horse was extremely large and powerful, reaching up to 2 m (6.5') tall at the shoulders. It was possibly the largest species of horse to have existed, comparable to the Percheron and Shire horse, but more agile. The head was proportionally larger than a modern horses. The mouth was endowed with large, strong teeth, capable of chewing tough vegetation or seriously damaging predators. The legs were long, and built for both power and agility with hard hooves. It seems Equus giganteus had a rather thicker coat than a modern horse.

911

“Equus Giganteus”(The Giant Horse) is the Greater Ancestor to the modern horses. It was a giant horse, larger than the largest Cyldesdale. We have reason to believe that it may have been 13 feet tall.

But of course it is not in the evolution charts. The horse evolution charts show only those horses that fit “Cope’s Law” and intentionally leave out the giant horse.

Giant Zebras and giant giraffes have also been found.

It is so sad that philosophies such as evolution have blinded the eyes of so many generations, and hidden from us the glory of our own past, descended from God through Adam, and tried to replace this with the idea that we grew out of slime.

I came across this web site that has some good resources on ancient animal giants - http://www.ianjuby.org/feb2002.html#5

Craig.Paardekooper
05-29-2013, 02:44 PM
Many thousands of fossils have been recovered from the Gladysvale deposits . . . . From the Gladysvale external deposits (also called the GVED), almost a quarter of a million bones have been recovered since excavations began in 1992. There are many hundreds of bones still in place in the cave. Fossils recovered include antelope, giant zebra, carnivores including extinct wolves,. . . . .

Equus capensis was a Zebra species that lived during the Pleistocene and even into the Recent. It died out about 12,000 years ago. This species is sometimes referred to as the “cape zebra”. It was larger than zebras of today. Equus carpensis was about 1.9 m. (6.2 feet) tall at the shoulder. (Low estimate) Fossils of E. capensis have been found in South Africa.

Fossilized remains of Equus capensis have been discovered in Equus Cave in the Taung district of Northwest Province in South Africa. This cave was excavated in the years 1978-1982 by Beaumont (of McGregor Museum) and Shackley. Fossils have also been unearthed at the Elandsfontein site in South Africa.

Remains of a very large and robust Equus were discovered in the Geometric Kebaran of Umm el Tlel (about 14,500 to
16,500 BP). By inference, this animal weighed more than 500 kg (greater than the largest extant equid, E. grevyi). This animal
may have stood about 163 cm at the withers, which is more than in an average draft horse.

912

You can see that the entire world was full of larger versions of todays animals - the Adamic world.

Here is another good reference - http://greaterancestors.com/giant-zebra-defies-horse-evolution-chart/

L67
05-29-2013, 03:02 PM
L67 thankyou for your feedback. I will read the criticisms of Sanford and see what the current merit of Sanford's work is.

I don't see how you can say that "your conclusions are based on the erroneous findings of Dr Sanford" when all the evidence in my last 3 posts of larger, fitter creatures existing in the recent past is completely independent and outside of Dr Sanfords work. If you had read his work, you would see that he never mentions the larger, fitter creatures that lived in our ancient past. So it is quite obvious that my conclusions are only partly based on the writings of Dr Sanford.

Hey Craig,

Because Dr. Sanfords conclusions are erroneous. He misrepresents data quite regularly. He uses Crow's opinion to try and support his conclusions. But what he doesn't tell you in his book is that Crow says that the human genome deteriorating pertains only to modern times.

And your many post about animals that were larger, fitter creatures in recent past is wrong.

You make mention of Mammoths being bigger and stronger than todays elephants. True. But there were many species in the elephant family, and many of them were smaller than today's elephants. You are cherry picking your arguments.

Gigantopithecus went extinct due to lack of food. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2012/01/did-bigfoot-really-exist-how-gigantopithecus-became-extinct/

Canis Dirus (Dire wolf) -the genus Canis diverged from the small, foxlike Leptocyon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dire_wolf#Evolution They went extinct during the The Pleistocene-Holocene Event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

Bos primigenius- They went extinct due to humans hunting them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs#Extinction

Megaloceros giganteus- also went extinct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_elk#Evolution

The American lion- also went extinct during The Pleistocene-Holocene Event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lion

Elasmotherium- again went extinct during The Pleistocene-Holocene Event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium


I'm going to stop here. Every animal you listed went extinct largely due to evironmental factors. 5 mass extinction events. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events The sixth is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction This something you have failed to realize. You have also failed to realize that there were multiple species of the examples you have listed. You have singled out the largest species in order to justify your beliefs. That methodology does NOT support your case.

Also if you want to go by size the blue whale is the largest animal to have ever lived and is still living. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale






Summing up my position I would say that my conclusions are based on -

1. The Bible history depicted in Genesis and confirmed by Jesus Christ
2. The exponential decrease in longevity after the Flood - a mathemaical pattern that shows a natural decay operating
3. The combined testimony of several nations to this decrease in longevity - Mesopotamia, China, Egypt, India, Greece
4. The evidence of larger, fitter creatures living in our ancient past
5. The Law of Entropy which suggests that the highest state of order was in the beginning, and orderly systems have been running down since then
6. Current evidence of the accumulation of mutations
7. Current evidence of the progressive extinction of species with no new species appearing.
8. Strong evidence that we were created anyway by an Intelligence.

If you can discount all of this evidence then go ahead and do so.

But, you know, more than anything else, I have presented you with an ENTIRE WORLD full of giant mammals that existed in our recent past, which is in accord with the idea that creatures were bigger, stronger and fitter in the past than they are now.

1. There is no factual history in the book of Genesis. There was no Adam and Eve or a global flood. There is ZERO evidence of either. If there was a global flood then there would be tons of evidence. But the reality is there is not. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

2. This is also false. Forget that the flood is a myth. There is no proof that man lived over 900 years. The evidence is to the contrary.

3. That is not evidence. Fossils tell a different story.

4. You have applied a false methodology to reach your conclusions.

5. You have taken the typical creationist approach and erroneously used the second law of thermodynamics to justify your conclusions. You are wrong. Read these links. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

6. Richard already debunked your accumulation belief.

7. Again you speak in broad generalities. Evolution is occurring 24/7. That is a FACT supported by mountains of evidence.

8. There is no evidence of intelligent design. It is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

What kind of design is that? God created all species of animals so 99.9% can go extinct? That's ridiculous.

If anything you have said had any relevancy with real science, then someone needs to come forward to collect their Nobel prize. Science would adopt your theories in an instant if it was actually true. But it's not. Science knows this for a fact. The debate was over long ago. Sadly it's only the creationist who argue over real science.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-29-2013, 03:06 PM
"Dinocrocuta gigantea was a species of giant hyenas that lived during the Miocene and Pleistocene periods in EastAsia. They were much larger than hyenas of today. Dinocrocuta was even bigger than lions of the present.

This predator could have killed eaten quite a variety of prey. It must have been a formidable hunter.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-29-2013, 03:29 PM
There is no evidence of intelligent design. It is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction


The current rates of extinction far outstrip the rate at which new species are appearing. So evolution is just not happening !!!!!

All the giant examples show that fitter, stronger creatures lived in the past and nolonger exist - suggestive of both extinction and devolution.

I shall write a book called "Land of the Giants - our forgotten history" in which I will describe the Adamic world according to the fossil evidence. It will be a big book.

In the mean time I thank you for your opposition - it only serves to make me stronger

L67
05-29-2013, 04:28 PM
The current rates of extinction far outstrip the rate at which new species are appearing. So evolution is just not happening !!!!!

All the giant examples show that fitter, stronger creatures lived in the past and nolonger exist - suggestive of both extinction and devolution.

I shall write a book called "Land of the Giants - our forgotten history" in which I will describe the Adamic world according to the fossil evidence. It will be a big book.

In the mean time I thank you for your opposition - it only serves to make me stronger

Why didn't you deal with anything I posted?

Current rates of extinction? They occurred over millions of years. Evolution is a fact Craig. It is occurring 24/7. There is mountains upon mountains of evidence that prove it true. And there is NOT one shred of evidence that supports intelligent design other than the Bible.

Giants living in the past does not suggest both extinction and devolution. You ignored my post on why these animals went extinct in the first place. Environmental changes. Species don't always adapt successfully. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-human-race-evolvin As the fossil record demonstrates, extinction is a perfectly natural--and indeed quite common--response to changing environmental conditions.

In biology there is no such thing as devolution. All changes in the gene frequencies of populations--and quite often in the traits those genes influence--are by definition evolutionary changes.


This is proof that religion teaches people to delude themselves that legitimate science is wrong and that the myth of Genesis is true. It does so on claims with no evidence.:eek:

Craig.Paardekooper
05-29-2013, 11:48 PM
Current rates of extinction? They occurred over millions of years. [QUOTE]
Wrong . Hundreds of species have gone extinct within recorded history.
[QUOTE]Evolution is a fact Craig. It is occurring 24/7.
Is it??? Where are the new species that have appeared. Far more are going extinct than are appearing


And there is NOT one shred of evidence that supports intelligent design other than the Bible.
Obviously you are not a microbiologist, or a geneticist. There is plenty of evidence


Giants living in the past does not suggest both extinction and devolution.
Glad that you admit that giants lived in the past, BUT dont live now. It is hard to defend evolution when we seem so puny compared to the past.


You ignored my post on why these animals went extinct in the first place. Environmental changes. Species don't always adapt successfully. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...n-race-evolvin As the fossil record demonstrates, extinction is a perfectly natural--and indeed quite common--response to changing environmental conditions.
Yes, extinction is natural, but extinction does not prove evolution. The removal of species does not prove that new species evolved.


In biology there is no such thing as devolution. All changes in the gene frequencies of populations--and quite often in the traits those genes influence--are by definition evolutionary changes.
Wrong. In information theory there is such a thing as accumulation of errors - there is such a thing as degradation of information. To claim that biology is some how unique, is actually to claim something unnatural. The accumulation of errors in the genetic code is the opposite of evolution.



This is proof that religion teaches people to delude themselves that legitimate science is wrong and that the myth of Genesis is true. It does so on claims with no evidence.

Religion holds out the hypothesis that we devolved from an initial paradise, so it teaches us to question the idea that we came from slime.

Evolution is not science - it is a philosophy based on the assumption of materialism.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-30-2013, 12:28 AM
You make mention of Mammoths being bigger and stronger than todays elephants. True. But there were many species in the elephant family, and many of them were smaller than today's elephants. You are cherry picking your arguments.
However, it still seems odd that bigger fitter forms of all creatures lived in the past but not now. Evolution predicts the opposite.


Gigantopithecus went extinct due to lack of food. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/homi...ecame-extinct/
Speculation. We dont know if it was due to lack of food. Also, we have never obtained it's DNA, so we don't know if it is identical to that of an Orangutan. If Orangutans devolved from it, then it never went extinct.


Canis Dirus (Dire wolf) -the genus Canis diverged from the small, foxlike Leptocyon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dire_wolf#Evolution
Speculation. Are we expected to believe that a giant dog came from a tiny little fox? Again, until we can DNA test these creatures, then such evolutionary dogma is suspect.



They went extinct during the The Pleistocene-Holocene Event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
There was a major event prior to Adam that devastated the world, but what took place is not clear. Most of the giants disappeared from the world scene at that time. Was this because the giant forms devolved into smaller forms - only DNA testing can resolve this.


Bos primigenius- They went extinct due to humans hunting them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs#Extinction Speculation. Large cows may well have devolved into our current smaller species. Only DNA testing will resolve this.


Megaloceros giganteus- also went extinct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_elk#Evolution
Speculation. Whether it went extinct or devolved into the smaller elk of today can only be tested by DNA.


The American lion- also went extinct during The Pleistocene-Holocene Event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_lion Speculation. Whether it went extinct or devolved into a smaller lions of today can only be tested by DNA.



Elasmotherium- again went extinct during The Pleistocene-Holocene Event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium Speculation. Whether it went extinct or devolved into a smaller rhinos of today can only be tested by DNA.




I'm going to stop here. Every animal you listed went extinct largely due to evironmental factors of mass extinction events

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events The sixth is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction This something you have failed to realize. ..

Extinction does not prove evolution. They are opposite. One takes away species, the other is supposed to add new species. Devolution is still a possibility as well. The Bible says that after Noah, lifespan decreased from 1000 years down to about 120 years over a period of 900 years. Such a drop in lifespan would be accompanied by a reduction in size. For example, crocodiles (that grow throughout their lifespan) would become appreciably smaller. If such reductions in size can take place in 900 year period, then the apparent "extinction" of giants COULD simply be the diminishment of giants within a similar 900 year period.


You have also failed to realize that there were multiple species of the examples you have listed. You have singled out the largest species in order to justify your beliefs. That methodology does NOT support your case.
Yes, I have singled out the larger creatures inorder to demonstrate that larger fitter creatures populated the world in the past, and that was my case. If we are more puny in the present than in the past, then it is suggestive of devolution or extinction or both, but it is not indicative of evolution.


Also if you want to go by size the blue whale is the largest animal to have ever lived and is still living. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale

The Blue Whales of the Pleistocene were even bigger.

Nice chatting with you. Better luck next time.

913

David M
05-30-2013, 04:44 AM
Hi David,

Thankyou for your response. In certain parts of the world, hand tools and artifacts have been found that could only be wielded by people with far greater strength - the pyramids are interesting, but the existence of these hand tools is more direct evidence.

There is an ancient copper mine near the coastal town of Llandudno in North Wales. This area rises 220 meters above the Irish Sea, and it is known as the location of the Great Orme Copper Mine. It dates to the Bronze Age, about 3500 years ago. More than 2500 hammers have been recovered at the mine.

It is believed that the mine stretches for many kilometers, with six kilometers already surveyed. It is known to have nine levels within it, and over 1700 tons of copper are known to have been removed from the mine. This is quite a staggering accomplishment for a society of that era without the use power tools, or at least as we know power tools today.

The largest typical sledge hammer used today weighs 20 pounds, though sledge hammers in the 10 pound class are more commonplace. A grown man (without back troubleyet) can wield a 20 pound hammer, but only for limited amounts of time. The Head on a 20 pound hammer is about the size of a standard house brick, and the handle is about 3 ft long

The hammers found in the mine are 60 pound sledge hammers. The handle would be 9 feet long, with the metal head about the size of a cement block(ie a breeze block). An even bigger 64 pound sledge hammer was found at the copper mine by archeologists. To lift this 60 pound hammer using only the far end of a 9 foot long handle would be beyond the strength of any man. To swing it with force would be virtually impossible.



I would like to add, in this thread on genetic entropy, a very important note on extinction.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia : Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,[1] the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

Rather than new species emerging, as evolutionists would have us imagine, it appears that species are disappearing at an alarming rate, and have been doing so since the end of the Pleistocene.

This phenomenon is fully in accord with the process of genetic entropy, and devolution in general.

Evolution may be one of the greatest delusions ever....

Hello Craig

have looked for additional information from a Google search and what has been put on Youtube. I have not found support from what you say about this other than the website where you got this information and the links from that website to other websites where the information was gathered. Have these things been hidden away in museums and by the authorities so we do not have general knowledge of them. I do not doubt the existence of giants as they would explain a lot.

What do those who operate the museum that is the copper mines of the Great Orme think of this? Do they even know? From what I have seen on the websites and film of the notices in the mines that they are saying that all this was done using bones and rocks as tools. That seems far from the truth and is just another modern-day man-made myth to fool the public and provide entertainment. I think that having a 60 lb hammer head on display and presenting a story of giants would attract more people and get more funds.

for those interested, here is the website I went to: http://s8int.com/phile/giants25.html
and here are the links presented at the bottom of that webpage stating the sources.
[1] � Google image library
[2] - http://www.philipcoppens.com/greatorme.html
[3] - http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/PhotosSumerianGiantsGods.html
[4] - http://www.philipcoppens.com/orkneys.html
[5] - http://www.sydhav.no/giants/more.htm

I had a "404 Error: Page Not Found" for link #3.

David

L67
05-30-2013, 06:54 AM
Current rates of extinction? They occurred over millions of years.
Wrong . Hundreds of species have gone extinct within recorded history.

Yes recorded history that dates further than biblical times.

Is it??? Where are the new species that have appeared. Far more are going extinct than are appearing

Yes, it is. Your denial of this is just plain nuts. Animals going extinct are in large part to humans hunting them to extinction as well as environmental factors.



Obviously you are not a microbiologist, or a geneticist. There is plenty of evidence

And neither are you. Nobody with any scientific knowledge could reject evolution in favor of religious dogma.

I have studied it for years and there is no evidence that would convince any rational skeptic. Post all this evidence you speak of.



Glad that you admit that giants lived in the past, BUT dont live now. It is hard to defend evolution when we seem so puny compared to the past.

Again you ignore the many species and focus on the giants. You also ignore the environmental impact has on the giant species. Bigger animals have bigger requirements to sustain life. When the environment is impacted in such a way that interupts the sustainability of life they go extinct. It does NOT suggest anything you have been saying.



Yes, extinction is natural, but extinction does not prove evolution. The removal of species does not prove that new species evolved.

Yes it does prove evolution. http://www.baylor.edu/geology/index.php?id=62340

The fossil record clearly indicates

a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks,

that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and

that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.



Wrong. In information theory there is such a thing as accumulation of errors - there is such a thing as degradation of information. To claim that biology is some how unique, is actually to claim something unnatural. The accumulation of errors in the genetic code is the opposite of evolution.

It's not wrong. In biology there is no such thing as devolution. That is a FACT. You have been deceived by erroneous creationist propaganda.

You have failed to completely grasp what evolution actually is. Errors in the genetic is not the opposite of evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CexojNPz2cU




Religion holds out the hypothesis that we devolved from an initial paradise, so it teaches us to question the idea that we came from slime.

Yes it deludes believers just like I said. Because there is no such thing as devolution. Your religious hypothesis is wrong.


Evolution is not science - it is a philosophy based on the assumption of materialism.

It is a scientific theory that is backed by mountains of evidence that it has occurred and is still occurring. Something creation doesn't have on it's side.

L67
05-30-2013, 07:33 AM
However, it still seems odd that bigger fitter forms of all creatures lived in the past but not now. Evolution predicts the opposite.

Evolution does not predict the opposite. Evolution has no end goal. This proves you don't know what you are talking about. Try actually clicking the links I gave you. Species don't always adapt to their surroundings. Bigger animals have bigger requirements to sustain life. Survival of the fittest. Only the strong survive.



Speculation. We dont know if it was due to lack of food. Also, we have never obtained it's DNA, so we don't know if it is identical to that of an Orangutan. If Orangutans devolved from it, then it never went extinct.

We know they didn't devolve because there is no such thing as devolving. You also didn't read the link provided. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2012/01/did-bigfoot-really-exist-how-gigantopithecus-became-extinct/

The features of the dentition—large, flat molars, thick dental enamel, a deep, massive jaw—indicate Gigantopithecus probably ate tough, fibrous plants (similar to Paranthropus). More evidence came in 1990, when Russell Ciochon, a biological anthropologist at the University of Iowa, and colleagues (PDF) placed samples of the ape’s teeth under a scanning electron microscope to look for opal phytoliths, microscopic silica structures that form in plant cells. Based on the types of phyoliths the researchers found stuck to the teeth, they concluded Gigantopithecus had a mixed diet of fruits and seeds from the fig family Moraceae and some kind of grasses, probably bamboo. The combination of tough and sugary foods helps explain why so many of the giant ape’s teeth were riddled with cavities. And numerous pits on Gigantopithecus‘s teeth—a sign of incomplete dental development caused by malnuntrition or food shortages

So they were bigger and fitter? They had numerous health problems. That led to their demise. Survival of the fittest Craig.


Speculation. Are we expected to believe that a giant dog came from a tiny little fox? Again, until we can DNA test these creatures, then such evolutionary dogma is suspect.

Ummm... yes. Because the fossil record supports this. READ THE LINK.




There was a major event prior to Adam that devastated the world, but what took place is not clear. Most of the giants disappeared from the world scene at that time. Was this because the giant forms devolved into smaller forms - only DNA testing can resolve this.

Again they didn't devolve. Stop saying that nonsense. There is no such thing. There were many major events that I linked to. I guess you aren't interest in facts.


Speculation. Large cows may well have devolved into our current smaller species. Only DNA testing will resolve this.

It's not speculation. It's a fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs#Extinction The last recorded live aurochs, a female, died in 1627 in the Jaktorów Forest, Poland, from natural causes. The causes of extinction were hunting, a narrowing of habitat due to the development of farming, and diseases transmitted by domestic cattle.[8][



Speculation. Whether it went extinct or devolved into the smaller elk of today can only be tested by DNA.

Speculation. Whether it went extinct or devolved into a smaller lions of today can only be tested by DNA.


Speculation. Whether it went extinct or devolved into a smaller rhinos of today can only be tested by DNA.

Ok this getting ridiculous. You aren't interested in any facts. You don't read the links that clearly prove the opposite of what you are saying.






Extinction does not prove evolution. They are opposite. One takes away species, the other is supposed to add new species. Devolution is still a possibility as well. The Bible says that after Noah, lifespan decreased from 1000 years down to about 120 years over a period of 900 years. Such a drop in lifespan would be accompanied by a reduction in size. For example, crocodiles (that grow throughout their lifespan) would become appreciably smaller. If such reductions in size can take place in 900 year period, then the apparent "extinction" of giants COULD simply be the diminishment of giants within a similar 900 year period.

Can you be any more ignorant of evolution? The fossil record proves evolution. Devolution is something deluded Christians cling to in order to promote their dogma. Here is proof that the fossil record proves evolution.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ7VUZHwbEk&list=FLCPS4XNpQI3n4KORv-hNSoA&index=2



Yes, I have singled out the larger creatures inorder to demonstrate that larger fitter creatures populated the world in the past, and that was my case. If we are more puny in the present than in the past, then it is suggestive of devolution or extinction or both, but it is not indicative of evolution.

Yes larger animals lived in the past but that doesn't support your case. Because there are many species of the same animal. You can't single them out and say see that proves my point. You have ignored everything I have posted on why the larger animals went extinct.

Again you persist in such gross ignorance of evolution. Evolution has no end goal. The fossil proves it. Your persistence to resist established facts prove you aren't concerned with the truth. You are only concerned with confirming your religious dogma no matter how irrational it is.


The Blue Whales of the Pleistocene were even bigger.

No they weren't. The blue whale is the largest animals to ever live on earth period.


Nice chatting with you. Better luck next time.

Better luck next time? lol. You didn't refute anything I said. You repeatedly spouted the false premise of devolution and never read any of the links that prove you are wrong. Devolution is creationist garbage. It shows a true misunderstanding of evolution. This sums it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_%28biology%29

n terms of modern biology, the term is a misnomer for that concept because it presumes that there is a preferred hierarchy of structure and function, and that evolution must mean "progress" to "more advanced" organisms. That confusion is based on two conceptual errors: the idea that evolution is supposed to make species more "advanced", as opposed to "primitive"; and the idea that some modern species that have lost functions or complexity accordingly must be degenerate forms of their ancestors. Its use is therefore mainly historical apart from its use by creationists.

[/QUOTE]

Craig.Paardekooper
05-30-2013, 08:48 AM
What is really cool is that all these giants lived in the past. That is a fact. Forget all the noise from the establishment saying Christians are deluded, God does not exist etc. Put that noise aside for a minute, and consider a world were there were giants in ancient times. Yes, it looks more like the Biblical scenario, doesn't it.

I will carry on investigating the wonders of the Adamic world.

L67
05-30-2013, 10:28 AM
What is really cool is that all these giants lived in the past. That is a fact. Forget all the noise from the establishment saying Christians are deluded, God does not exist etc. Put that noise aside for a minute, and consider a world were there were giants in ancient times. Yes, it looks more like the Biblical scenario, doesn't it.

I will carry on investigating the wonders of the Adamic world.


You're right it is cool about earths distant past. But the only noise is coming from Christians. Science does NOT know everything. But we certainly know evolution is a FACT beyond all doubt. It is Christians like yourself who create the noise by saying "evolution is one of the greatest delusions ever". That view is completely removed from reality. That is delusion.

No giants living in ancient times does NOT look like the Biblical scenario. Because fossils prove that the giants lived long before the creation story. And the flood story is a complete joke. Let me pose a question to you that I asked a couple months ago in this thread. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3631-The-great-flood No Christians answered it btw. We will forget that there is no evidence for a global flood for a moment. Let's assume the flood did happen.

Answersingenesis says the world was created in roughly 4004BC. And that the date of the flood was roughly 2348BC. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/03/09/feedback-timeline-for-the-flood

One of the big problems is the Egyptian pyramids. Earliest among them is the Pyramid of Djoser.

The Pyramid of Djoser was contructed 2667–2648 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

How is it possible for a family of 8 to grow into an Egyptian population sufficient enough to construct this pyramid in roughly 300 years?

Craig.Paardekooper
05-30-2013, 11:16 AM
One of the big problems is the Egyptian pyramids. Earliest among them is the Pyramid of Djoser.

The Pyramid of Djoser was contructed 2667–2648 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

How is it possible for a family of 8 to grow into an Egyptian population sufficient enough to construct this pyramid in roughly 300 years?

According to the Bible, Egypt was founded by Mizraim, the grandson of Noah, about 2188 B.C., so the date of 2667 B.C. for the Djoser Pyramid may be in error. Many of the kings in the Egyptian Kinglist are considered to be contemporary with one another rather than sequential. And the sequential listing by Manetho gave rise to this error.

It seems that Egypt was founded at the time of the Tower of babel event, and the building of the pyramid in Egypt was paralleled by the building of a similar ziggurat/pyramid at Babel.


There is about 350 years between the Biblical date for the Flood and the building of the Tower of Babel (most probably a pyramid/ziggurat type building).

I am starting with a Flood date of 2348 B.C. and a Pyramid building date of 2000 B.C

Here are the calculations, starting with 8 people -


Noah lived a very long time—950 years total. The flood occurred when Noah was 600 years old—in the year 1656 since creation, and Noah and the others left the ark the next year—1657 since creation. The incident known as the Tower of Babel took place when Noah was 940 years old—in the year 1996 since creation.

This means that there were 339 years between when Noah and the others left the ark and when the Tower of Babel was built.

The Torah notes that there were (at least) 8 people in the ark: Noah, his wife, his 3 sons, and the sons wives.

The next important piece of information we need is the average growth rate during those 339 years. Of course, we have no hard data on that. Worldwide, the average growth rate today is 1.14%. However, smaller countries have growth rates as high as 5%. I think its fairly safe to assume that with such a small starting population (only 8 survivors of the flood), the growth rate was on the higher side. Remember that birth control was not quite in vogue then. So I think a 3.5% growth rate is a safe assumption.

Next, we need the formula to calculate growth based on initial population (P), growth rate®, and number of years (Y). That formula is:

((1+R) ^ Y) * P

Plugging in our values:

((1 + .035) ^ 339) * 8

This yields a population at the time of the Tower of Babel of over 920,000 people! So even assuming everyone else in the world was destroyed save those 8 people in the ark, the world would have been quite populated by the time of the building of the Tower of Babel.

Even if we assume a smaller population growth rate, say 2.5%—which would be a very conservative number given such a small starting population—again, using our formula:

((1 + .025) ^ 339) * 8

yields a much smaller population of 35,000 people, but still not insignificant.

So, it does seem that the years between the flood and the building of the tower left plenty of time to populate the world.

So starting with a Flood date of 2348 B.C. and a Pyramid building date of 2000 B.C. we have a population of about 35,000.


Extra Notes in Egyptian King Lists

I am just throwing this in for the Christians out there who might be curious as to how the Egyptian chronologies might synchronise with Biblical chronology -

Chronology of Egyptian Kings - The Turin Papyrus

The reign lengths of the Egyptian kings are found in two main sources - the Turin Papyrus and the writings of Manetho. A.H. Gardiner published a transcription of the hieroglyphics of the Turin Papyrus.

The following are the reign lengths that are apparent from this papyrus -

KING REIGN LENGTH
Menes Erased
Iteti Erased
Iti (Djer) Erased
Erased Erased
Itiuti Erased
Semti (Den) Erased
Merbiapen (Anedjib) 74 years
Semsem (Semerkhet) 72 years
Kebehu (Qa'a) 63 years
Baw-netjer (Hotepsekhemwi) 95 years
Kawkaw (Reneb) Erased
Banetjer (Ninetjer) 95 years
Erased 54 years
Sened 70 years
Aaka Erased
Neferkasokar 8 years, 3 months
Erased 1 year, 8 months, 4 days
Bebti (Khasekhemwi) 27 years, 2 months, 1 day
Nebka 19 years
Djoser-It (Netjerikhet Djoser) 19 years , 1 month
Djoser-Ti (Sekhemkhet) 6 years
Erased 6 years
Huni 24 years
Snofru 24 years
Kheops 23 years
Djedefre 8 years
Khefren Erased
Bakare Erased
Mykerinos 18 years
Shepseskaf 4 years
Thamphthis 2 years
Userkaf 7 years
Sahure 12 years
Neferirkare Erased
Shepseskare 7 years
Neferefre Erased
Niuserre Erased
Menkauhor 8 years
Djed 28 years
Unas 30 years

Note that during the first two Dynasties of Egypt, we find reign lengths of about 100 years. After the beginning of the Third Dynasty the reign length drops to a much lower level NEVER AGAIN to rise throughout Egyptian history.

It will be remembered that during the early chapters of Genesis the Bible repeatedly mentions Patriarchs (even after Noah) whose lifespans are compatible with reigns of 100 years - even down to the time of Abraham who lived 175 years.

This is a striking confirmation of the Genesis narrative, and is also in perfect synchrony with the
reign lengths of the Chinese and Indian kings.

The Turin Canon lists the kings, groups them together and mentions the durations of their reigns. Most lines of the Turin Canon give the name of a particular king, written in a cartouche, followed by the number of years he ruled, and in some cases even by the number of months and days.

Scholars examining the Turin Canon have stated that –
"The number of years credited to some kings of the 1st and 2nd Dynasty is so high, that, in those particular cases, they are most likely not correct. It has sometimes been postulated that this high number of years does not reflect the length of a reign but the
age at which a king died. Although this possibility cannot be entirely overruled, it is strange that the writer should choose to note the age of a king in one case and the length of his reign in another. I would rather suspect that, although these kings actually lived, they were considered more as mythological and therefore were credited with a longer than human reign."

Here we see scholars confronted with a clear historical testimony indicating a greater longevity in the first two dynasties compared to later dynasties.

Another quote from scholars -
"Manetho credits him (Menes) with having reigned - or perhaps lived for some 60 years. (The Turin Papyrus gives 2nd Dynasty kings similar spans : Anedjib - 74 years, Semerkhet - 72 years, Hotepsekhemwi - 95 etc. From the 3rd Dynasty onwards their
spans become much shorter). In view of the short life expectancy, which was less than 40 years, this seems to be improbable but not impossible."

So the Egyptian king lists show a rise in longevity as we go back in time to the 1st and second dynasties. Which is interesting.

David M
05-30-2013, 11:28 AM
The Flood would have happened before Menes, and the great Pyramids would have been built after the Flood. I am not sure how long after.



Answersingenesis says the world was created in roughly 4004BC. And that the date of the flood was roughly 2348BC. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-for-the-flood

One of the big problems is the Egyptian pyramids. Earliest among them is the Pyramid of Djoser.

The Pyramid of Djoser was contructed 2667–2648 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

How is it possible for a family of 8 to grow into an Egyptian population sufficient enough to construct this pyramid in roughly 300 years?

From the dates given it is impossible for Noah and his family to grow into the Egyptian population that built the pyramid 300 years before the flood.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-30-2013, 02:07 PM
Here is a post for the Christians - to encourage them.

Here is a table summarizing the lifespan and generation length of each of the descendents of Adam

Adam: Lifespan - 930 years : generation - 130 years
Seth: Lifespan - 912 years : generation - 105 years
Enosh: Lifespan - 905 years : generation - 90 years
Kenan: Lifespan - 910 years : generation - 70 years
Mahalalel: Lifespan - 895 years : generation - 65 years
Jared: Lifespan - 962 years : generation - 162 years
Enoch: Lifespan - 365 years : generation - 65 years
Methuselah: Lifespan - 969 years : generation - 187 years
Lamech: Lifespan - 777 years : generation - 182 years
Noah: Lifespan - 950 years : generation - 500 years
Shem: Lifespan - 600 years : generation - 100 years
Arphaxad: Lifespan - 438 years : generation - 35 years
Shelah: Lifespan - 433 years : generation - 30 years
Eber: Lifespan - 464 years : Generation - 34 years
Peleg : Lifespan - 239 years : Generation - 30 years
Reu: Lifespan - 239 years : generation - 32 years
Serug: Lifespan - 230 years : generation - 30 years
Nahor: Lifespan - 148 years : generation - 29 years
Terah: Lifespan - 205 years : generation - 71 years
Abram : Lifespan - 175 years : generation - 100 years
Isaac: Lifespan - 180 years : generation - 40 years
Jacob: Lifespan - 148 years : generation - 85 years
Joseph: Lifespan - 110 years : generation - 37 years
Moses: Lifespan - 120 years
Joshua : Lifespan - 110 years

An Exponential Decrease

With each successive generation after Noah, the lifespan decreases steadily, until after 20 generations it reaches it’s current length of 70 years. What is remarkable about the Bible data is that the rate of decline is rapid at first - then the decline gradually slows down until it tapers off. This is exactly how real processes wind down in nature, strongly suggesting that the records describe a real process that actually took place.

914

Notice how each successive downward step becomes broader and shallower. This is a perfect example of a natural “running-down” or dissipation. The gradient of the decline in longevity gets progressively shallower -


Noah to Shem drop of 350 years in one generation Gradient = 350:1
Shem to Arphaxad drop of 162 years in one generation Gradient = 162:1
Arphaxad to Peleg drop of 200 years in 3 generations Gradient = 66:1
Peleg to Nahor drop of 80 years in 3 generations Gradient = 27:1
Nahor to Joseph drop of 51 years in 5 generations Gradient = 10:1


The fall in lifespan is rapid at first, then it gradually slows down with each passing generation. This can be seen clearly in the graph above

L67
05-30-2013, 02:11 PM
According to the Bible, Egypt was founded by Mizraim, the grandson of Noah, about 2188 B.C., so the date of 2667 B.C. for the Djoser Pyramid may be in error. Many of the kings in the Egyptian Kinglist are considered to be contemporary with one another rather than sequential. And the sequential listing by Manetho gave rise to this error.

It seems that Egypt was founded at the time of the Tower of babel event, and the building of the pyramid in Egypt was paralleled by the building of a similar ziggurat/pyramid at Babel.


There is about 350 years between the Biblical date for the Flood and the building of the Tower of Babel (most probably a pyramid/ziggurat type building).

I am starting with a Flood date of 2348 B.C. and a Pyramid building date of 2000 B.C

Here are the calculations, starting with 8 people -



So starting with a Flood date of 2348 B.C. and a Pyramid building date of 2000 B.C. we have a population of about 35,000.


Extra Notes in Egyptian King Lists

I am just throwing this in for the Christians out there who might be curious as to how the Egyptian chronologies might synchronise with Biblical chronology -

Chronology of Egyptian Kings - The Turin Papyrus

The reign lengths of the Egyptian kings are found in two main sources - the Turin Papyrus and the writings of Manetho. A.H. Gardiner published a transcription of the hieroglyphics of the Turin Papyrus.

The following are the reign lengths that are apparent from this papyrus -

KING REIGN LENGTH
Menes Erased
Iteti Erased
Iti (Djer) Erased
Erased Erased
Itiuti Erased
Semti (Den) Erased
Merbiapen (Anedjib) 74 years
Semsem (Semerkhet) 72 years
Kebehu (Qa'a) 63 years
Baw-netjer (Hotepsekhemwi) 95 years
Kawkaw (Reneb) Erased
Banetjer (Ninetjer) 95 years
Erased 54 years
Sened 70 years
Aaka Erased
Neferkasokar 8 years, 3 months
Erased 1 year, 8 months, 4 days
Bebti (Khasekhemwi) 27 years, 2 months, 1 day
Nebka 19 years
Djoser-It (Netjerikhet Djoser) 19 years , 1 month
Djoser-Ti (Sekhemkhet) 6 years
Erased 6 years
Huni 24 years
Snofru 24 years
Kheops 23 years
Djedefre 8 years
Khefren Erased
Bakare Erased
Mykerinos 18 years
Shepseskaf 4 years
Thamphthis 2 years
Userkaf 7 years
Sahure 12 years
Neferirkare Erased
Shepseskare 7 years
Neferefre Erased
Niuserre Erased
Menkauhor 8 years
Djed 28 years
Unas 30 years

Note that during the first two Dynasties of Egypt, we find reign lengths of about 100 years. After the beginning of the Third Dynasty the reign length drops to a much lower level NEVER AGAIN to rise throughout Egyptian history.

It will be remembered that during the early chapters of Genesis the Bible repeatedly mentions Patriarchs (even after Noah) whose lifespans are compatible with reigns of 100 years - even down to the time of Abraham who lived 175 years.

This is a striking confirmation of the Genesis narrative, and is also in perfect synchrony with the
reign lengths of the Chinese and Indian kings.

The Turin Canon lists the kings, groups them together and mentions the durations of their reigns. Most lines of the Turin Canon give the name of a particular king, written in a cartouche, followed by the number of years he ruled, and in some cases even by the number of months and days.

Scholars examining the Turin Canon have stated that –
"The number of years credited to some kings of the 1st and 2nd Dynasty is so high, that, in those particular cases, they are most likely not correct. It has sometimes been postulated that this high number of years does not reflect the length of a reign but the
age at which a king died. Although this possibility cannot be entirely overruled, it is strange that the writer should choose to note the age of a king in one case and the length of his reign in another. I would rather suspect that, although these kings actually lived, they were considered more as mythological and therefore were credited with a longer than human reign."

Here we see scholars confronted with a clear historical testimony indicating a greater longevity in the first two dynasties compared to later dynasties.

Another quote from scholars -
"Manetho credits him (Menes) with having reigned - or perhaps lived for some 60 years. (The Turin Papyrus gives 2nd Dynasty kings similar spans : Anedjib - 74 years, Semerkhet - 72 years, Hotepsekhemwi - 95 etc. From the 3rd Dynasty onwards their
spans become much shorter). In view of the short life expectancy, which was less than 40 years, this seems to be improbable but not impossible."

So the Egyptian king lists show a rise in longevity as we go back in time to the 1st and second dynasties. Which is interesting.

Except for some major problems Craig. There is no evidence of anyone living to Noah's age. And all the evidence proves they didn't. The average age of people from the bronze age 3600-1200 BC was 26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_tim e

So the super human longevity theory is false.

Another major problem with the flood story and the population increase is this. A global flood would have completely trashed every ecosystem on the planet. There would be no way to sustain life. It would literally take decades or much longer before earth would be able to sustain life. It is absurd to even try and defend a global flood. There is not one shred of evidence of such event and it would be impossible to sustain life after such a devastating event.

And this is only couple problems. There are many more major problems with the flood story to even believe it.

L67
05-30-2013, 02:16 PM
Here is a post for the Christians - to encourage them.

Here is a table summarizing the lifespan and generation length of each of the descendents of Adam

Adam: Lifespan - 930 years : generation - 130 years
Seth: Lifespan - 912 years : generation - 105 years
Enosh: Lifespan - 905 years : generation - 90 years
Kenan: Lifespan - 910 years : generation - 70 years
Mahalalel: Lifespan - 895 years : generation - 65 years
Jared: Lifespan - 962 years : generation - 162 years
Enoch: Lifespan - 365 years : generation - 65 years
Methuselah: Lifespan - 969 years : generation - 187 years
Lamech: Lifespan - 777 years : generation - 182 years
Noah: Lifespan - 950 years : generation - 500 years
Shem: Lifespan - 600 years : generation - 100 years
Arphaxad: Lifespan - 438 years : generation - 35 years
Shelah: Lifespan - 433 years : generation - 30 years
Eber: Lifespan - 464 years : Generation - 34 years
Peleg : Lifespan - 239 years : Generation - 30 years
Reu: Lifespan - 239 years : generation - 32 years
Serug: Lifespan - 230 years : generation - 30 years
Nahor: Lifespan - 148 years : generation - 29 years
Terah: Lifespan - 205 years : generation - 71 years
Abram : Lifespan - 175 years : generation - 100 years
Isaac: Lifespan - 180 years : generation - 40 years
Jacob: Lifespan - 148 years : generation - 85 years
Joseph: Lifespan - 110 years : generation - 37 years
Moses: Lifespan - 120 years
Joshua : Lifespan - 110 years

An Exponential Decrease

With each successive generation after Noah, the lifespan decreases steadily, until after 20 generations it reaches it’s current length of 70 years. What is remarkable about the Bible data is that the rate of decline is rapid at first - then the decline gradually slows down until it tapers off. This is exactly how real processes wind down in nature, strongly suggesting that the records describe a real process that actually took place.

914

Notice how each successive downward step becomes broader and shallower. This is a perfect example of a natural “running-down” or dissipation. The gradient of the decline in longevity gets progressively shallower -


Noah to Shem drop of 350 years in one generation Gradient = 350:1
Shem to Arphaxad drop of 162 years in one generation Gradient = 162:1
Arphaxad to Peleg drop of 200 years in 3 generations Gradient = 66:1
Peleg to Nahor drop of 80 years in 3 generations Gradient = 27:1
Nahor to Joseph drop of 51 years in 5 generations Gradient = 10:1


The fall in lifespan is rapid at first, then it gradually slows down with each passing generation. This can be seen clearly in the graph above

Except the evidence suggests this is all false. There is not one shred of evidence of anyone living to those ages.

John07975
05-30-2013, 02:37 PM
The Flood is a tricky subject.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-30-2013, 02:42 PM
Hello L67,

In this situation, where there appear to be difficulties, my strategy is to collect all the evidence first. If you don't mind, I would like the opportunity to present the case fully first, then would be happy to look at the opposing arguments.

I propose, first, to tackle the idea that people lived longer in the past.

When the Bible says that human longevity decreased from the time of Noah until the time of Moses, it is claiming something that should have been witnessed by every nation over a period of about 900 years - so, if the Bible is correct, then ALL nations should have recorded a huge drop in longevity over the period 2348 B.C. till 1500 B.C. This is what the Bible is claiming. And such a claim is testable. We can look at the records of longevity of each of the nations of antiquity, and see what we find.

I know that such a test will not persuade everyone, but I'd like the opportunity to present this as evidence even so......

Note that prior to Noah, the longevity of a person is said to be approximately 1000 years , and the time
between successive generations was approximately 100 years. After the time of Noah, there is said to have been a slow decrease in longevity so that the lifespan decreased from 1000 years to 120 years and the time between successive generations decreased to about 30 years. This slow decrease is said to have taken place over a 900 year period between 2348 B.C. and 1453 B.C.

Such a slow decline in the lifespan of people over such a long period of time would certainly have been noted in the histories of people around the globe. Most historical events of note may last a day or even a year - but here we have a universal decline in longevity said to last 900 years - that would have been witnessed universally by 19 generations of people.

Longevity is not an abstract thing, but affects and impinges on the smallest details of a persons life. If people lived longer in the past, then we would expect a whole host of smaller details about their lives to be consistent with it - for example –

Abraham's wife was very beautiful and attractive to the Egyptians even though she was 100 years old
 Abraham fought in battles and won at an age of 75
 Abraham's wife had a child when she was 100 years old


Greater longevity would affect every aspect of society and personal life - and we would expect such a phenomena to be reflected in a myriad of small details such as these. Over a period of 900 years, such small details would have been witnessed and recorded over and over again by different civilizations around the world.

We should realize the importance of what the Bible is claiming here. It is worth repeating. The Bible is claiming that over a period of 900 years there was a steady decline in lifespan that was witnessed by 19 generations and, by inference, was witnessed worldwide. The Bible is making the most incredible claim and simultaneously saying that it was witnessed by EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH over a 900 YEAR PERIOD. This has to be the best opportunity ever to test a Bible claim.

Shall I proceed with the presentation of the evidence?

L67
05-30-2013, 06:21 PM
Hello L67,

Shall I proceed with the presentation of the evidence?

Absolutely. Despite our opposing views I am certainly open to being proven wrong.

David M
05-31-2013, 01:38 AM
Hello Craig
In line with what you are saying, first of all I would like you to explain one thing for me, and then I have found on record in the Bible an observation made by Jacob who is the 21st descendant from Adam in the list.



When the Bible says that human longevity decreased from the time of Noah until the time of Moses, it is claiming something that should have been witnessed by every nation over a period of about 900 years - so, if the Bible is correct, then ALL nations should have recorded a huge drop in longevity over the period 2348 B.C. till 1500 B.C. This is what the Bible is claiming. And such a claim is testable. We can look at the records of longevity of each of the nations of antiquity, and see what we find.
When you say; "the Bible says", which passages are you referring to or is this based on the shortening lives in the list of descendants?


With each successive generation after Noah, the lifespan decreases steadily, until after 20 generations it reaches it’s current length of 70 years. What is remarkable about the Bible data is that the rate of decline is rapid at first - then the decline gradually slows down until it tapers off. This is exactly how real processes wind down in nature, strongly suggesting that the records describe a real process that actually took place.
Here is an interesting observation from Jacob who tells Pharaoh when asked by Pharaoh how old Jacob is.

(Gen 47:9) And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.

It is very evident from what Jacob says that he knew he would not live to the age of his forefathers. He must have recognized the declining ages. Would Jacob have wondered to himself why this is? Did it bother Jacob? All sorts of the questions could have been asked, which were probably now answered, or needed to be answered.

"The days of our pilgrimage" (lifespan), are few in number compared with eternity that is on offer from God.

Job also makes some profound observations as recorded in Job chapter 14.

I leave that as food for thought.


David

Craig.Paardekooper
05-31-2013, 08:17 AM
Dear Sirs,

I have no interest in proving anyone wrong - simply to lay out the information in front of you.

As far as I am aware, the only way of acertaining longevity in the past is by historical records of longevity. We might also base estimates of longevity on a creatures size and health, but historical records seem to be the only way. I would be happy to learn of other ways though.

Having said that, and having a desire to test the Bible's claim - I looked at all the nations of antiquity - namely at their kinglists - to see if there were any recorded observations of a vast decrease in longevity over a period of 900 years between 2348 B.C. and 1450 B.C. IF the Bible is accurate, then I would expect such records to exist in the histories of all nations....

First, I looked at the Hindu traditions

The Hindus believe that the history of our world divides into 4 ages or Yugas –


1. Satya Yuga - lifespan was a matter of choice
2. Tetra Yuga - lifespan was even longer
3. Dwapara Yuga – life span is 1000 years
4. Kali Yuga – life span is 120 years



The ages see a gradual decline of dharma, wisdom, knowledge, intellectual capability, life span, emotional and physical strength.


Satya Yuga:- Virtue reigns supreme. Human stature was 21 cubits. Average human lifespan was 100,000 years.
Treta Yuga: – There was 3 quarter virtue & 1 quarter sin. Normal human stature was 14 cubits. Average human lifespan was 10,000 years.
Dwapar Yuga: – There was 1 half virtue & 1 half sin. Normal human stature was 7 cubits. Average human lifespan was 1000 years.
Kali Yuga: – There was 1 quarter virtue & 3 quarter sin. Normal human stature was 3.5 cubits. Average human lifespan will be 100 years. Towards the end of the Yuga this will come down to 20 years.


Reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga#Durations_of_four_yugas

They say that we are currently living in the Kali Yuga. In fact the Hindus have a very specific date for the beginning of the Kali Yuga. The Puranic tradition is that the Kali Yuga began when Krishna, the great hero of the Mahabharata War, left the earth. The Mahabharata War took place in 3139B.C. and Krishna departed in 3102 B.C.

During the previous Dwapara Yuga people are said to have had life spans of 1000 years,

“The living and moral standard of the people overall in the Dvapara Yuga drops immensely from the Treta Yuga. The average life expectancy of humans begins to fall to only 1,000 years in this era because of neglect of the Varnashram, Vedas and Yagyas.”WIKIPEDIA

but during the Kali Yuga life span diminished to 120 years

The date for commencement of the Kali Yuga coincides with the generation of Enoch in the Bible (Enoch lived 365 years until 3013 B.C) !!

According to the Indian traditions, at the end of the third age (end of the Dwapar Yuga), there was a great war – the Mahabharat War. According to the Indian records, this war occurred in 3139 B.C. and was fought between the 5 sons of Pandu and 100 sons of the Asuras (demons). During this 18-day war the death-toll came to over 4,000,000. Krishna appeared during this war to combat the Asuras. After the war, in 3102 B.C. Krishna departed and the Kali Yuga began.

Soon afterwards a catastrophic rain, storm and sea deluge, that lasted for seven days, totally drowned and destroyed Dwarika town.

We have
1. a record of a substantial decrease in longevity
2. of the correct magnitude – falling from 1000 years down to 120 years
3. taking place at the beginning of the Kali Yuga, which corresponds to Enoch’s
generation
4. followed by a catastrophic flood

An Indian Kinglist

I then began a search for an indian Kinglist. I looked on google and found this one -

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Chronology_of_Kings_of_Indraprastha

As you can see, the kinglist is quite long - spanning 124 generations from the Mahabharat War until the beginning of the Mogol Empire.

What I did next was simply to input this data into an excel spread sheet to create a graph. Here is the graph that I obtained -

915

I was astonished to see that an exponential decay curve emerged. Notice the initial rapid decline in reign length, and the overall exponential curve over 124 generations as the decline tapers off.

Please remember that no Hindus have ever mentioned this pattern hidden in their own King List. Perhaps they did not realise it was there. If the figures from Hindupedia are correct, then here we seem to have confirmation of the greater lifespan of people before 3000 B.C., and a steady decline over 124 generations. What I find interesting about this data is the sharpness of the initial decline, the fluctuating and instability of the middle period, then the final tappering out at the lowest level. This is typical of a natural process of decay, and it is very unlikely that anyone trying to “fake” a decay curve would do this.

Here ends my first installment of evidence. Next I will look at the other nations of antiquity.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-31-2013, 10:44 AM
I was curious as to whether the Chinese had a similar tradition of greater longevity in the past. Searching the libraries, I came across the ancient Shu-Ching, the Chinese book of history. This book lists all the emperors going back to Fu Hsi and Nukwa.

The following data is taken from a list of 88 generations of kings of China - 2943 B.C.-314 B.C. The Shu Ching is the ancient Chinese Book of History, listing the names of each king backwards to the very dawn of Chinese civilization.

It is interesting that when the time span of each generation is drawn on a graph, the generation time averages about 25 years, UNTIL you get back to 2355 B.C. in the reign of the Emperor Yao (in whose time a great flood covered the whole Earth). It is at this point that the generation time period starts increasing steadily up to 100 years. The Bible it says that before Noah the age
at which people had their children was about 100 years.

Chinese traditions ascribe high lifespans to the emperors before Yao. eg Hwangti - the Yellow Emperor - was supposed to have lived for 300 years.

Fuhi 115 years 2953-2838 B.C.
ShenNung 120 years 2838-2718 B.C.
Huang Ti 100 years 2698-2598 B.C.
Shao Hao 84 years 2598-2514 B.C.
Chuan Hsi 78 years 2514-2436 B.C.
Ti Kao 70 years 2436-2366 B.C.
Yao 102 years 2357-2255 B.C.
Shun 50 years 2255-2205 B.C.

So here we have a record of a drop in longevity in the mid 3rd millenium B.C.

Here is the full kinglist

916

Please note that the reign lengths become immense prior to the reign of Fu Xi, and also please note the name of the first emperor.

Reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_China

So the Chinese record a large drop in longevity occurring at a time that coincides quite closely with the end of the Dwapar Yuga, and with the Biblical time of the Flood. And their very first emperor was named Nuwa.


Garbled record of Noah?

In the book: ‘Huainanzi, chapter 6: Lanmingxun (览冥训)’ (179 - 122 BC) author: Liu An, "Nüwa Mended the Sky":

In remote antiquity, the four corners collapsed, and the earth descended into chaos: the firmament was no longer able to cover everything, and the earth was no longer able to support itself; fire burned wild, and waters flooded the land. Fierce beasts ate common people, and ferocious birds attacked the old and the weak.

Hence, Nüwa tempered the five-colored stone to mend the heavens, cut off the feet of the great turtle to establish the four corners of the Earth (The Ends of the Earth), killed the black dragon to help the earth, and gathered the ash of reed to stop the flood.

After Nüwa finishing her tasks: Heavens repaired; The Four Corners of the Earth established; Flood water dried; China became peaceful; Evil animals died; Good people grew;

Then Nüwa left Square Earth, enfolded (went to) Round Heaven


There was a quarrel between two of the more powerful gods, and they decided to settle it with fists. When the water god, Gong Gong, saw that he was losing, he smashed his head against Mount Buzhou (不周山), a pillar holding up the sky. The pillar collapsed and caused the sky to tilt towards the northwest and the earth to shift to the southeast. This caused great calamities, such as unending fires, vast floods, and the appearance of fierce man-eating beasts. Nüwa cut off the legs of a giant tortoise and used them to supplant the fallen pillar, alleviating the situation and sealing the broken sky using stones of seven different colors, but she was unable to fully correct the tilted sky. This explains the phenomenon that sun, moon, and stars move towards the northwest, and that rivers in China flow southeast into the Pacific Ocean.

Other versions of the story describe Nüwa going up to heaven and filling the gap with her body (half human half serpent) and thus stopping the flood.[citation needed] According to this legend some of the minorities in South-Western China hail Nüwa as their goddess and some festivals such as the 'Water-Splashing Festival' are in part a tribute to her sacrifices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCwa

Here ends my second installment of evidence. I have yet to present the same pattern in the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek and Mayan records.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-31-2013, 05:08 PM
L67 thankyou for your feedback. I will read the criticisms of Sanford and see what the current merit of Sanford's work is.

I don't see how you can say that "your conclusions are based on the erroneous findings of Dr Sanford" when all the evidence in my last 3 posts of larger, fitter creatures existing in the recent past is completely independent and outside of Dr Sanfords work. If you had read his work, you would see that he never mentions the larger, fitter creatures that lived in our ancient past. So it is quite obvious that my conclusions are only partly based on the writings of Dr Sanford.

Summing up my position I would say that my conclusions are based on -

1. The Bible history depicted in Genesis and confirmed by Jesus Christ
2. The exponential decrease in longevity after the Flood - a mathemaical pattern that shows a natural decay operating
3. The combined testimony of several nations to this decrease in longevity - Mesopotamia, China, Egypt, India, Greece
4. The evidence of larger, fitter creatures living in our ancient past
5. The Law of Entropy which suggests that the highest state of order was in the beginning, and orderly systems have been running down since then
6. Current evidence of the accumulation of mutations
7. Current evidence of the progressive extinction of species with no new species appearing.
8. Strong evidence that we were created anyway by an Intelligence.

If you can discount all of this evidence then go ahead and do so.

But, you know, more than anything else, I have presented you with an ENTIRE WORLD full of giant mammals that existed in our recent past, which is in accord with the idea that creatures were bigger, stronger and fitter in the past than they are now.
Hey there Craig,

Sorry I've been so slow to respond. I've got a new full time job starting Monday (software) and preparation has kept me a bit distracted.

I think it is great that you want your ideas tested. So here we go ...

First, there is a big problem with your concept of "bigger, stronger and fitter." The idea of "fitness" is defined by the environment. A fish fit for the ocean is not fit for dry land. Therefore it is meaningless to speak of any organism being "fitter" without reference to the environment. Case in point - animals dependent on mega-flora would go extinct in the modern world because there simply is not enough to eat. Therefore a smaller animals are MORE FIT to live in the modern environments. This seems to be a fatal flaw in your thesis.

Second, your theory depends upon the assumption of the truth of the global flood which is an absolute scientific impossibility as I explained in post #10 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3924-Genetic-Entropy&p=54455#post54455) (which you did not answer).

Now on to your numbered points:

1. The Bible history depicted in Genesis and confirmed by Jesus Christ
Jesus did not "confirm" any particular interpretation of Bible history - and certainly not your novel interpretation which is based on many assumptions not explicitly stated in the text.

2. The exponential decrease in longevity after the Flood - a mathemaical pattern that shows a natural decay operating
The fit is not as good as you think it is. Sanford's graph used the absurd lifespan of 33 years for his first century data point! I pointed out this absurdity in post #13 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3924-Genetic-Entropy&p=54458#post54458) and you never answered. Sanford's graph would show no exponential curve if he included the real data which has a flat line spanning millennia where lifespans were in the 70-80 year range as mentioned in the Bible. Inconsistencies like this are neon signs pointing to cognitive bias that makes his whole body of work highly suspect. I do not suffer fools lightly. Life's too short to even bother refuting people that don't take due diligence to be accurate.

3. The combined testimony of several nations to this decrease in longevity - Mesopotamia, China, Egypt, India, Greece
The testimony is not sufficiently consistent to be convincing. For example, it contradicts the Biblical timeline and involves lifespans of hundreds of thousands of years so it is obviously mythological to some degree.

4. The evidence of larger, fitter creatures living in our ancient past
As explained above, you apparently have no understanding of the meaning of biological fitness.

5. The Law of Entropy which suggests that the highest state of order was in the beginning, and orderly systems have been running down since then
This is reveals that you have ZERO understanding of entropy. Sorry, but you should be embarrassed to say such things. It is obvious that you have been reading corrupt creationist literature. I know you don't like it when I say things like this but there's no "nice" way to talk about the creationists who have been deceiving people like you for decades.

6. Current evidence of the accumulation of mutations
Invalid assertion as explained previously. You don't understand how evolution works. Talk of individual "beneficial" vs. "harmful" mutations makes little sense. As explained in post #23 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science&p=52571#post52571) of the thread How Beliefs Resist Change - Christianity and Cognitive Science (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science), evolution is driven by "chance" just like thermodynamics. Evolution explores the "phase space" of all possible genetic patterns. The environment at time t naturally selects the forms most fit for that environment. Nothing could be more natural or expected. Evolution is just the operation of natural law. Here is a debate where Dr. Rainbow gives very valuable explanation of what the actual science of evolution says.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tJ-ryHrTrA

The good stuff starts @32 minutes in. He made a graphic that shows how the "evolution machine" runs 24/7/365 while exploring the "evolutionary phase space."

If you understand his explanation you will understand why the validity of evolution is as certain as, rather than contrary to, the second law of thermodynamics.

7. Current evidence of the progressive extinction of species with no new species appearing
The current rate of extinction has nothing to do with evolution over the last billion years. Your comment makes no sense to me.

8. Strong evidence that we were created anyway by an Intelligence.
Mere assertion. When I look at the evidence I come to an opposite conclusion.

I look forward to your response.

All the best,

Richard

Craig.Paardekooper
05-31-2013, 05:20 PM
The reign lengths of the Egyptian kings are found in two main sources - the Turin Papyrus and the writings of Manetho. A.H. Gardiner published a transcription of the hieroglyphics of the Turin Papyrus. So, I visited SOAS - the School of Oriental and African Studies - based at Longon University - where I obtained this information on the Turin Papyrus

The following are the reign lengths of each pharoah

REIGN LENGTH
Menes Erased
Iteti Erased
Iti (Djer) Erased
Erased Erased
Itiuti Erased
Semti (Den) Erased
Merbiapen (Anedjib) 74 years
Semsem (Semerkhet) 72 years
Kebehu (Qa'a) 63 years
Baw-netjer (Hotepsekhemwi) 95 years
Kawkaw (Reneb) Erased
Banetjer (Ninetjer) 95 years
Erased 54 years
Sened 70 years
Aaka Erased
Neferkasokar 8 years, 3 months
Erased 1 year, 8 months, 4 days
Bebti (Khasekhemwi) 27 years, 2 months, 1 day
Nebka 19 years
Djoser-It (Netjerikhet Djoser) 19 years , 1 month
Djoser-Ti (Sekhemkhet) 6 years
Erased 6 years
Huni 24 years
Snofru 24 years
Kheops 23 years
Djedefre 8 years
Khefren Erased
Bakare Erased
Mykerinos 18 years
Shepseskaf 4 years
Thamphthis 2 years
Userkaf 7 years
Sahure 12 years
Neferirkare Erased
Shepseskare 7 years
Neferefre Erased
Niuserre Erased
Menkauhor 8 years
Djed 28 years
Unas 30 years

Note that during the first two Dynasties of Egypt, we find reign lengths of about 100 years. After the beginning of the Third Dynasty the reign length drops to a much lower level NEVER AGAIN to rise throughout Egyptian history.

It will be remembered that during the early chapters of Genesis the Bible repeatedly mentions Patriarchs (even after Noah) whose lifespans are compatible with reigns of 100 years - even down to the time of Abraham who lived 175 years.

This is directly comparable to the reign lengths of the Chinese and Indian kings in the period after the supposed Flood of Noah
reign lengths of the Chinese and Indian kings.

On further investigation, I found scholars commenting on the apparent high longevity of the kings in the first and second dynasties.
These scholars sought to explain away this feature.

"The number of years credited to some kings of the 1st and 2nd Dynasty is so high, that, in those particular cases, they are most likely not correct. It has sometimes been postulated that this high number of years does not reflect the length of a reign but the
age at which a king died. Although this possibility cannot be entirely overruled, it is strange that the writer should choose to note the age of a king in one case and the length of his reign in another. I would rather suspect that, although these kings actually lived, they were considered more as mythological and therefore were credited with a longer than human reign."

Here we see scholars confronted with a clear historical testimony indicating a greater longevity in the first two dynasties compared to later dynasties.

Another quote from scholars -
"Manetho credits him (Menes) with having reigned - or perhaps lived for some 60 years. (The Turin Papyrus gives 2nd Dynasty kings similar spans : Anedjib - 74 years, Semerkhet - 72 years, Hotepsekhemwi - 95 etc. From the 3rd Dynasty onwards their
spans become much shorter). In view of the short life expectancy, which was less than 40 years, this seems to be improbable but not impossible."

So the Egyptian king lists show a rise in longevity as we go back in time to the 1st and second dynasties. Which is interesting.

Zep Tepi - The First Time

According to Manetho, there was a period before the pharoahs ruled in Egypt. The Egyptians referred to this time as "Zep Tepi" - meaning "The First Time". This was supposed to have been a "golden age" when mankind acquired the initial elements of civilization.

Longevity during this period was said to be far greater - and the people of this time were revered as gods.

Nun
Atum/Ra 1000
Shu 700
Geb 500
Osiris 450
Set 350
Horus 300
Anhur 280
Anpu 200
Khonsu 180
Harbehdet 100
Amen 120
Tahuti 100
Shu 120
Amen Ra

So the Egyptian king lists show a greater longevity in the 1st and 2nd Dynasties, and prior to the first dynasty the Egyptians believed that longevity rose to about 1000 years.

Reference : http://www.ancient-egypt.org/index.html

Here ends my third installment of evidence for increased longevity in the past. As you can see, I am simply using the extant kinglists as believed by the native civilizations.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-31-2013, 05:39 PM
Hi Richard,

I am sorry that I will not be able to give a lengthy response to your comments at the moment, since I am fully engaged in presenting my case for increased longevity in the past. However, I will attend to your comments as soon as this phase of my presentation is complete.

Thankyou for taking the time to respond.

Richard Amiel McGough
05-31-2013, 05:46 PM
Hi Richard,

I am sorry that I will not be able to give a lengthy response to your comments at the moment, since I am fully engaged in presenting my case for increased longevity in the past. However, I will attend to your comments as soon as this phase of my presentation is complete.

Thankyou for taking the time to respond.
OK - the thread will be here when you find time.

But if you are planning on presenting your case you would be wise to answer my criticisms first since they expose fatal flaws that you most definitely would not want to include in your presentation.

Craig.Paardekooper
05-31-2013, 06:08 PM
Hi Richard,

Good luck with your new job. I am learning C ++ at the moment, and soon C#. I have been teaching computer programming - mainly visual basic, but am now upgrading my skills to include the above languages.

Craig

Richard Amiel McGough
05-31-2013, 06:50 PM
Hi Richard,

Good luck with your new job. I am learning C ++ at the moment, and soon C#. I have been teaching computer programming - mainly visual basic, but am now upgrading my skills to include the above languages.

Craig
That's cool! I'm certified in the old VB 6 (from 1997). Now I'm learning C# for this job. I'm familiar with Java, Objective C, and C++ so it's no big deal. Maybe we should start a thread in the computer forum to discuss it. Don't hesitate if you have any questions or neat insights you want to share.

Rose
05-31-2013, 07:46 PM
According to the Bible, Egypt was founded by Mizraim, the grandson of Noah, about 2188 B.C., so the date of 2667 B.C. for the Djoser Pyramid may be in error. Many of the kings in the Egyptian Kinglist are considered to be contemporary with one another rather than sequential. And the sequential listing by Manetho gave rise to this error.

It seems that Egypt was founded at the time of the Tower of babel event, and the building of the pyramid in Egypt was paralleled by the building of a similar ziggurat/pyramid at Babel.


There is about 350 years between the Biblical date for the Flood and the building of the Tower of Babel (most probably a pyramid/ziggurat type building).

I am starting with a Flood date of 2348 B.C. and a Pyramid building date of 2000 B.C

Here are the calculations, starting with 8 people -



So starting with a Flood date of 2348 B.C. and a Pyramid building date of 2000 B.C. we have a population of about 35,000.


Hi Craig,

I was just reading a cool science article (http://www.livescience.com/36981-ancient-egyptian-jewelry-made-from-meteorite.html?cmpid=514627) about an ancient Egyptian bead carved from a meteorite found in a cemetery in Gerzeh, dated to between 3600 BC and 3350 BC... this is at least a thousand years before your Flood date! How do you explain the discrepancy between your biblical dates and those of standard dating methods?

Also, every scientific source I have found dates the Djoser Pyramid well before your Flood date. Why would you think that all the scientists using standard methods for dating that have been tested for accuracy over and over again are wrong, and the genealogies of an ancient book are right? It makes no sense?

Just wondering :confused:

Rose

P.S. When you do your calculations for post-flood populations you need to start with 6 people not 8, because Noah and his wife did not have anymore children, so they cannot be counted.

Mystykal
05-31-2013, 10:59 PM
Hi Craig,

I was just reading a cool science article (http://www.livescience.com/36981-ancient-egyptian-jewelry-made-from-meteorite.html?cmpid=514627) about an ancient Egyptian bead carved from a meteorite found in a cemetery in Gerzeh, dated to between 3600 BC and 3350 BC... this is at least a thousand years before your Flood date! How do you explain the discrepancy between your biblical dates and those of standard dating methods?

Also, every scientific source I have found dates the Djoser Pyramid well before your Flood date. Why would you think that all the scientists using standard methods for dating that have been tested for accuracy over and over again are wrong, and the genealogies of an ancient book are right? It makes no sense?

Just wondering :confused:

Rose

P.S. When you do your calculations for post-flood populations you need to start with 6 people not 8, because Noah and his wife did not have anymore children, so they cannot be counted.

----------------
Hi Rose:

I have a couple of questions for you... I am wondering how you know that Noah and his wife had no children after the flood? And what type of "Standard dating methods" are you referring to when you are dating non-organic substances such as metorites? And what do those dates have to do when we are talking about when the metorite hit the earth not when it was made in space? Is there a specific metorite event which we know these pieces to belong to? And do not go off into dating patterns... I know all about half life issues. See www.metoritestudies.com/protected_dating.htm Please be specific.

I do agree with you however that the dates for the Egyptian structures are not known and could be much older than the flood dates given in the Bible which are extrapulations based on ages of people rather than actual verifiable events. :)

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
06-01-2013, 11:17 AM
----------------
Hi Rose:

I have a couple of questions for you... I am wondering how you know that Noah and his wife had no children after the flood?
Hello Mystykal,

The source of my information is the same source anyone uses to find any information about the Flood story...the Bible. The Bible tells us that Noah, his wife and their three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth and their wives were the only people to enter the Ark. After the Flood only Noah's sons are listed in the genealogies as having offspring used in replenishing the earth with people. So, according to the mythological story of the Flood, found only in the pages of the Bible, Noah had no other children after the Flood when he left the Ark.
Gen.9:18-19 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.



And what type of "Standard dating methods" are you referring to when you are dating non-organic substances such as metorites? And what do those dates have to do when we are talking about when the metorite hit the earth not when it was made in space? Is there a specific metorite event which we know these pieces to belong to? And do not go off into dating patterns... I know all about half life issues. See www.metoritestudies.com/protected_dating.htm (http://www.metoritestudies.com/protected_dating.htm) Please be specific.

I do agree with you however that the dates for the Egyptian structures are not known and could be much older than the flood dates given in the Bible which are extrapulations based on ages of people rather than actual verifiable events. :)

Namaste,

Mystykal

When an artifact such as the Egyptian bead is dated for age, the method used is not one of dating the age of the meteorite itself, rather what is dated is the time-period when the bead was carved. This particular bead was found in a cemetery that dates from the time period of between 3600 and 3350 BC which is well before the time of the date set for the biblical Flood...which was my point!

Legitimate scientists don't just pull dates out of a book written by primitive people and claim authority, like many Bible believers do. In order for the age of something to be accepted as accurate it must go through a process of verification and confirmation establishing a corroboration from different sources. The scientific method is all about confirmation of evidence using disparate means to arrive at a conclusion. An extremely biased book like the Bible would only be used as legitimate evidence for a claim if other sources confirmed its assertions.

All the best,
Rose

Mystykal
06-02-2013, 12:34 AM
Hello Mystykal,

The source of my information is the same source anyone uses to find any information about the Flood story...the Bible. The Bible tells us that Noah, his wife and their three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth and their wives were the only people to enter the Ark. After the Flood only Noah's sons are listed in the genealogies as having offspring used in replenishing the earth with people. So, according to the mythological story of the Flood, found only in the pages of the Bible, Noah had no other children after the Flood when he left the Ark.
Gen.9:18-19 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.




When an artifact such as the Egyptian bead is dated for age, the method used is not one of dating the age of the meteorite itself, rather what is dated is the time-period when the bead was carved. This particular bead was found in a cemetery that dates from the time period of between 3600 and 3350 BC which is well before the time of the date set for the biblical Flood...which was my point!

Legitimate scientists don't just pull dates out of a book written by primitive people and claim authority, like many Bible believers do. In order for the age of something to be accepted as accurate it must go through a process of verification and confirmation establishing a corroboration from different sources. The scientific method is all about confirmation of evidence using disparate means to arrive at a conclusion. An extremely biased book like the Bible would only be used as legitimate evidence for a claim if other sources confirmed its assertions.

All the best,
Rose

Hi Rose:

Thanks for the response. I responded earlier to this but I do not see it posted. So let me say again... You seem to think that the MYTH of Noah and the flood is saying that only the sons had children after the flood. Well the story according to you is myth so maybe all the facts are not present... So Noah could have had additional children after the flood! Nothing in the Biblical account rules that out!

And the dating system used for dating the Egyptian artifacts to 3300BC is not scientific in the way you make it sound. Please give specifics as to how scientists came up with that date. The Carbon dating system is flawed as it used a zero point made to conincide with the 1950s. That is a blatant lie of the scientific community! The techniques for dating things very old is flawed since we assume the zero point and then calculate the half-life based on that point. And in the universe carbon is not declining. It is accelerating! So that to assume the zero point is anywhere in the past is a scientific blunder! So please explain to me how the date was arrived at for these ancient artifacts
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-archaeologists-date-artifacts.htm

In Archaeology, timing is everything
http://kosmo.hubpages.com/hub/How-Do-Archaeologists-Date-Past-Events

In times past, things that appeared old were simply considered old, maybe as old as Atlantis, the biblical flood or the earth itself. But nobody knew for sure how old. It wasn’t until the late nineteenth century that archaeologists began using dating techniques, specifically relative dating, which began to provide an acceptable degree of accuracy for dating old things.

Then in the early twentieth century scientists began using absolute dating techniques, perhaps the most prominent of which is carbon-14. It would be hard to imagine modern archaeology without this elegant and precise timing method. Now with carbon-14 and other modern dating techniques we have a very good idea how old things are.

The following is a list of dating techniques used in archaeology and other sciences. It is more or less in the order of discovery of each procedure. Please enjoy!

1. Stratigraphy

Stratigraphy is the most basic and intuitive dating technique and is therefore also the oldest of the relative dating techniques. Based on the law of Superposition, stratigraphy states that lower layers should be older than layers closer to the surface, and in the world of archaeology this is generally the case, unless some natural or manmade event has literally mixed up the layers in some fashion. Most archaeological sites consist of a kind of layer cake of strata, so figuring out how old each layer is comprises the basis for the dating of the site itself and also helps date the artifacts found within these layers as well.

For instance, the site of Hisarlik in western Turkey comprises a manmade earthen mound, also known to archaeologists as a tell, which is covered by of nine layers of strata, the lowest of which appears to be the oldest. Interestingly, Hisarlik could be the site of Homeric Troy (circa 1300 B.C.E.), though this possibility has not been conclusively proven.

2. Seriation or Artifact Sequencing

Invented by preeminent archaeologist Sir William Flinders-Petrie in the late nineteenth century, seriation, another form of relative dating, is based on the idea that over time artifacts such as gravestones and ceramics undergo changes in style, characteristics and use. Seriation is particularly useful when layers of strata are not available, such as at ancient cemeteries.

3. Chronological Markers

The first and simplest method of absolute dating, chronological markers pertain to artifacts with dates inscribed upon them, such as coins, documents or inscriptions on buildings announcing historical events. Roman coins are excellent for this usage, as they often show dates, as well as the likeness of the emperor in power when the coins were minted. The only problem with this dating method is that when these markers are discovered out of context, their value is greatly diminished.

4. Dendrochronology

Dendrochronology or tree-ring dating was developed in the early 1900s by Tucson astronomer A. E. Douglass, who hypothesized that the growth rings in trees are influenced by solar flares and sunspot activity. This theory turned out to be true, of course, because solar activity affects virtually every living thing on the planet! These growth rings can be used to date slices of wood or logs, sometimes to the exact calendar year. Douglass’ research led to the dating of Native American puebloan ruins through the American Southwest.

The limitation with this method is that growth rings only pertain to the climate in a particular region; thus, comparing growth rings from different areas is often useless. Also, some trees show no growth rings. Nevertheless, the International Tree Ring Database has contributions from 21 countries, providing researchers with comparative regional data.

5. Radiocarbon or Carbon-14 Dating

The development of radiocarbon dating in the 1940s started a scientific revolution. The scientific basis of radiocarbon dating is that every living organism contains carbon and absorbs the radioactive isotope carbon-14 (C14) from the atmosphere during its life cycle. (C14 forms by the bombardment of cosmic rays from space.) When the organism dies, the C14 begins to decay at a rate that appears constant.the half-life of this decay is about 5,730 years. Thus the age of the organism when it died can be calculated with great accuracy. This dating method remains accurate for about 57,000 years.

The limitations to radiocarbon dating is that the ratio of C14 to other carbon isotopes such as C13 doesn’t remain constant, as the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the earth can vary over time. Also, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon spewed into the atmosphere has increased dramatically. More carbon, means more C14. Therefore, refinements and calibrations of the technique are a constant concern.

6. Potassium-Argon

Potassium-argon dating, like radiocarbon dating, involves the decay of radioactive elements in a sample. It is based on the decay of an isotope in potassium which then forms the element argon. Potassium is found in material such as micas, clay minerals, tephra and evaporates. Moreover, since argon is a noble gas it doesn’t bind with other elements once it is formed, so measuring the amount of it is straightforward.

Potassium-argon dating is mostly limited to dating volcanic materials at sites between 50,000 and two billion years old. This technique has been used greatly at Olduvai Gorge in Africa, helping date the hominid fossils found there. A recent modification is argon-argon dating, which has been used at sites such as Pompeii.

7. Fission Track

Fission track dating was developed in the mid 1960s. This method is based on the knowledge that damage tracks in minerals and glasses are created when small amounts of uranium are present in a sample. Such damage tracks are accumulated at a fixed rate that can be measured. This dating method has been used at hominid fossil sites such as Zhoukoudian in China, where Peking Man - later labeled as a specimen of Homo erectus - was discovered in 1920s.

8. Obsidian Hydration

Obsidian is a volcanic glass used by early ancestors of man primarily during the Paleolithic era. Once obsidian is exposed to the air, such as after it was used to make spear points, arrowheads or knives, it begins to absorb water. The resultant rim or rind can be measured using many different techniques such as microscopic depth profiling or, the most sensitive of the options, secondary ion mass spectrometry. Thus, the larger the rind, the longer the artifact has been exposed to the air.

Unfortunately, some factors can change the hydration rate of an obsidian artifact: the higher temperatures experienced at lower elevations, differences in water vapor pressure and the intrinsic qualities of various obsidian samples.

9. Thermoluminescence

Thermoluminescence (TL) is used for dating inorganic material, particularly pottery or other ceramics, hallmarks of ancient civilization from Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica. TL can also be used to date sediments. Invented by physicists around 1960, thermoluminescence operates on the principle that upon being heated electrons are trapped in the minerals within the material. When this material is then re-heated in the laboratory the electrons in the minerals emit light (or luminesce). This light is then measured to find the date the ceramic was fired (or when the sediment was exposed to sunlight). The effectiveness of TL is from 300 to 100,000 years ago.

Controversy using TL centers on the possibility that if a particular pottery vessel has been subjected to heat more than once, dating can present inaccurate data.

10. Optically Stimulated Luminescence

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) measures the complex process when minerals in sediments are exposed to sunlight, which frees electrons trapped within the mineral lattice. When the amount of electrons is measured, dating is accomplished. This method primarily dates sediments containing minerals such as quartz, feldspar and calcite. OSL is often used in conjunction with thermoluminescence.

11. Rehydroxylation

Like thermoluminescence, rehydroxylation (RHX) is used to date ceramics. According to scientific observation, once a ceramic is fired it immediately begins to absorb moisture from the atmosphere at a measurable rate – the fourth root of the time elapsed since firing, actually. To test a sample, it is weighed and then heated to 500 degrees Celsius until it is completely dehydrated. Then the amount of water loss can be measured, showing the age of the ceramic.

The drawback to RHX is that scientists need to know the temperature history of the site where the ceramic is found. Also, natural events such as wild fires could completely dehydrate a sample, thereby resetting its clock.

12. Paleomagnetism

As applied to archaeology, paleomagnetism is the study of the magnetic history of rock samples. Over time, the location of the earth’s north magnetic pole shifts position; also, the poles can reverse entirely from time to time. This magnetic orientation through millennia can be measured in rocks.

Studies using paleomagnetism led to the discovery of continental drift, which validated the theory of plate tectonics. And the resultant revolution in geophysical studies hasn’t let up!

13. Magnetic Properties of Lead

Lead is another element or mineral that tends to absorb water and oxygen from the atmosphere over time. When lead is subjected to cryogenic temperatures it becomes a superconductor, but when corrosion sets in it loses it superconductivity. This difference in conductivity can be measured with some accuracy. Dating lead is useful to archaeologists because it was widely used in antiquity, particularly in places such as Israel.

14. Amino Acid Dating

Also known as racemization dating, amino acid dating relies on the principle that all biological tissues contain amino acids. These amino acids have two different configurations “D” or “L” (left-handed). With a few exceptions, all organisms contain the L configuration. But after the organism dies this configuration tends to even out over time, a process known as racemization, and this tendency toward equilibrium can be measured.

However, racemization tends to happen more quickly in warm, wet climates, so knowing the climate history of the area where the artifacts were found is a critical issue. Acidity and alkalinity can also affect racemization. Amino acid dating is accurate from 5,000 to 1,000,000 years ago.

15. Oxidized Carbon Ratio

Oxidized carbon ratio dating is used to date organic material going back 35,000 thousand years. This dating method is based on the measurable difference between oxidizable and organic carbon. Over time carbon tends to oxidize with exposure to the atmosphere. Dating is achieved by measuring the difference between the two carbons.

The oxidized carbon ration method is considered experimental and is therefore subject to further testing, evaluation and refinement. Of course, this could be said of many dating methods! present, most scientists opt for C-14 dating instead.

16. Tephrochronology

Tephrochronology is a geochronological dating technique that relies on the fact that every eruption of volcanic ash – or tephra – has a unique chemical fingerprint, establishing a “tephra horizon” that is easily dated. The advantage to such dating is that layers of volcanic ash are easy to spot and spread over a wide area. The device used to read the chemical composition of the tephra is an electron microprobe.

The limitation to tephrochronology is that tephra chemistry, especially that of basaltic tephra, can be altered over time. This technique has been used at Mt.Vesuvius and the island of Santorini, where a volcanic eruption in 1650 B.C.E. may have ended the great Minoan civilization.

17. Oxygen Isotope Chronostratigraphy

Oxygen Isotope chronostratigraphy relies on the fact that oxygen has three different stable isotopes, the ratio of which changes over time and therefore can be dated in the rocks present in any particular area. The ratio tends to change during long cold or warm periods of time.

18. Uranium-Thorium Dating

Uranium and thorium are radioactive elements that accumulate in some rock formations. Uranium has a half-life of billions of years, while thorium’s is only 75,000 years. Scientists use a mass spectrometer to measure the ratio between uranium-238 and thorium-230, thereby establishing a date the radioactive breakdown began. This technique has been used to date rock formations found in caves, especially speleothems such as stalagmites and stalactites, some of which have formed in the recent past, just thousands of years ago.

As shown in the article “Diving Ice Age Mexico” in the May/June 2011 issue of Archaeology magazine, uranium-thorium dating has been used to date rock formations in the numerous limestone caves that pocket the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. Many cave dwellers lived in these caves during the Pleistocene, when sea levels were hundreds of feet lower than they are today.

19. X-Ray Diffractometry or Crystallography

This method can determine the arrangement of atoms and molecules in crystals in both organic and inorganic material, including salts, metals, minerals and semiconductors. It can also be useful determining the structure of DNA.

====================================

Assumption 2: Closed systems.

“It is important to realize that an accurate radiometric date can be obtained only if the mineral remained a closed system during the entire period since its formation. A correct date is not possible unless there was neither the addition nor loss of parent or daughter isotopes.” [2]

This assumption is not one that I am willing to concede on. In order for carbon dating to work (and this applies to other dating methods as well), the parent and daughter concentrations must have not been altered throughout the specimen’s history. Common sense would seem to indicate that this is an unreasonable assumption, especially if carbon dating can be used to ‘date’ objects up to 50,000 years old. This would mean that for 50,000 years, the specimen that is being dated must have remained in a closed system for several thousand years. If that weren’t enough, the scientists dating the specimen must also be able to make the determination of whether or not the system has remained closed.


Assumption 3: Known amounts of daughter and parent element from the start.

This is another assumption that is often made, but rarely addressed. In order for the dates from C-14 to be accurate, the starting condition must be known. How do we know that the amount of C-14 in an organism that lived 5,000 years ago is the same amount that organisms have today?

Since it is assumed that an organism will have the same ratio of C-14 as found in the atmosphere, this is a point that must be taken into consideration also. According to Willard Libby (who invented the carbon dating method), if the influx of carbon-14 in the atmosphere were increasing at its current rate, then the atmosphere would reach equilibrium in about 20,000-30,000 years.*[3] Evolutionists usually overlook this point because they believe the earth is around 4.55 billion years old. However, there are some studies that suggest that the C-14/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere has been increasing since the 1950s. Samples of historically known age can be used to estimate the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere at that point in time. Unfortunately, this only works for objects within the age of recorded history.

Another point to consider is the earth’s weakening magnetic field.[4] In fact, the magnetic field of the earth loses about ½ of its strength every 1400 years.[5] This indicates that the field was much stronger in the not too distant past. Since the magnetic field is responsible for deflecting radiation,[6] less C-14 would have been formed during the time when the magnetic field was stronger. That means an organism that lived and died during a time when the magnetic field was stronger would have less C-14 to begin with. Such would make an organism look much older than it really is according to the carbon dating method. Evolutionists believe the reason the earth’s magnetic field appears to be weakening is because the field reverses itself. Even if this is true, it still doesn’t negate the fact that the magnetic field was stronger at some point, causing less C-14 to be formed in the atmosphere.


Have anomalous dates been known to occur?

Of course, no matter how well theories sound, the true test comes from actual experimentation. Answers In Genesis has reported of such a case where a piece of wood was found in the “Hawkesbury Sandstone” of Sydney, Australia. The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a geologic age of approx. 225-230 million years based on its position in the geologic column. It was doubtful if any detectable C-14 still remained in the wood, but a test was performed anyway to see if it contained C-14 (a sample of the wood was sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston, USA). The wood came back with a C-14 age of 33, 720 ± 430 years! One might wonder if any contamination had occurred, but according to AIG, Geochron Laboratories conducted thorough tests to ensure that there was no contamination.[7]


Biblical factors

It has been said before that all evidence must be interpreted within a framework. Such a framework is the foundation in which we interpret our evidence upon. Starting with the Bible as our assumption, we must interpret the evidence based on a Biblical foundation. The Bible teaches the earth was covered in a watery cataclysm about 4,400 years ago. A global flood would have buried large pre-flood forests and animals. As a result of this, the flood buried large amounts of carbon. Animals that lived right after the flood may not have had as much carbon-14 available because of the global flood.

Also, many believe the Bible teaches that the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy (otherwise known as the ‘canopy theory’). I’m not going to dogmatically say there was or wasn’t a vapor canopy. Well-known creationists seem to be split on this one. But, if there was a vapor canopy, then this extra layer of water would have helped filter out the sun’s radiation, and therefore, less C-14 would have be formed (if any).


Conclusion

Creationists have nothing to fear from carbon dating, as it does not disprove the young age of the earth. The carbon dating method is based largely on unverifiable assumptions that are made based upon one’s axioms. Most importantly, outside of known or recorded history, there is no way of verifying these old ages.


Related Quote:

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date," we just drop it."

T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York, 1970, p.35.

===================== THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!===================

L67
06-02-2013, 10:20 AM
Hi Rose:

Thanks for the response. I responded earlier to this but I do not see it posted. So let me say again... You seem to think that the MYTH of Noah and the flood is saying that only the sons had children after the flood. Well the story according to you is myth so maybe all the facts are not present... So Noah could have had additional children after the flood! Nothing in the Biblical account rules that out!

Even if we do accept that Noah had more kids after the flood, it is still impossible to populate the earth at such a fast rate. And that doesn't even deal with the problem of inbreeding. The whole story is impossible.


And the dating system used for dating the Egyptian artifacts to 3300BC is not scientific in the way you make it sound. Please give specifics as to how scientists came up with that date. The Carbon dating system is flawed as it used a zero point made to conincide with the 1950s. That is a blatant lie of the scientific community! The techniques for dating things very old is flawed since we assume the zero point and then calculate the half-life based on that point. And in the universe carbon is not declining. It is accelerating! So that to assume the zero point is anywhere in the past is a scientific blunder! So please explain to me how the date was arrived at for these ancient artifacts

The carbon dating method is NOT flawed. That is a lie creationist have come up with to remain relevant. It has proven itself time and time again. This is not my quote and I don't remember where I saw it but it sums it up nicely.

1. We can *calibrate* carbon dating by (as you yourself describe) comparing it with other systems. ... Such as tree-rings for shorter ranges, and other forms of radiometric dating for longer ranges.

2. When we do so, carbon dating has been shown over and over to be very accurate most of the time. There are of course, specific anecdotes where a result has been produced that does not fit other evidence, and we can find special circumstances that explain the anomaly. But these are dwarfed by all the times its results have been *confirmed* by other evidence.

3. Using carbon dating to date something less than a hundred years old is like using a wooden yardstick to measure the thickness of paper. It is not *expected* to produce accurate results for something that small.

4. Carbon dating is not used for fossils anyway. Carbon dating is used on once-living tissue with a maximum range of about 60,000 years at most. Most fossils are NOT once-living tissue (they are rock), and are in the *millions* of years old.

You have to explain why it isn't accurate despite it's record of being accurate.




"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date," we just drop it."

T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York, 1970, p.35.

===================== THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!===================

This is what I am talking about. Creationist have lied by taking this quote out of context to promote their garbage. Creationism is NOTHING like established science. Creationist routinely have to lie remain relevant. Here is the original quote:

C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the
prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American
colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common
attitude among archaeologists towards it, as
follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put
it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict
them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is
completely out of date we just drop it. Few
archaeologists who have concerned themselves with
absolute chronology are innocent of having
sometimes applied this method.

Here is the evolution of that quote by dishonest creatards. http://www.ntanet.net/quote.html

It really is pathetic how creationist lie about things like this. And then they think there is some conspiracy in science to discredit the so called "truth" of creationism. It really is laughable.

Rose
06-02-2013, 12:48 PM
Hi Rose:

Thanks for the response. I responded earlier to this but I do not see it posted. So let me say again... You seem to think that the MYTH of Noah and the flood is saying that only the sons had children after the flood. Well the story according to you is myth so maybe all the facts are not present... So Noah could have had additional children after the flood! Nothing in the Biblical account rules that out!
Hi Mystykal

The important factor for those who believe the biblical account of the Flood, is that the Bible itself says that ONLY Noah's three sons Ham, Shem and Japheth (and their wives :winking0071:) were used to replenish the earth.
Gen.9:18-19 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.




And the dating system used for dating the Egyptian artifacts to 3300BC is not scientific in the way you make it sound. Please give specifics as to how scientists came up with that date. The Carbon dating system is flawed as it used a zero point made to conincide with the 1950s. That is a blatant lie of the scientific community! The techniques for dating things very old is flawed since we assume the zero point and then calculate the half-life based on that point. And in the universe carbon is not declining. It is accelerating! So that to assume the zero point is anywhere in the past is a scientific blunder! So please explain to me how the date was arrived at for these ancient artifacts
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-archaeologists-date-artifacts.htm

In Archaeology, timing is everything
http://kosmo.hubpages.com/hub/How-Do-Archaeologists-Date-Past-Events

In times past, things that appeared old were simply considered old, maybe as old as Atlantis, the biblical flood or the earth itself. But nobody knew for sure how old. It wasn’t until the late nineteenth century that archaeologists began using dating techniques, specifically relative dating, which began to provide an acceptable degree of accuracy for dating old things.

Then in the early twentieth century scientists began using absolute dating techniques, perhaps the most prominent of which is carbon-14. It would be hard to imagine modern archaeology without this elegant and precise timing method. Now with carbon-14 and other modern dating techniques we have a very good idea how old things are.

Doesn't it seem odd that all the complaints one hears from creationists about dating is always that the dates are too old! Never do we hear the opposite. Dating methods are getting more and more accurate all the time and sometimes dates are revised in the direction of being older. Take the age of the earth and the universe, each has been revised to show a date older then was previously thought. The universe went from 13.7 to 13.82 billion years (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/21/age_of_the_universe_planck_results_show_universe_i s_13_82_billion_years.html)and the earth went from 4.5 to 4.54 billion years.

The scientific method is self correcting, whereas the biblical method is not; as new techniques and methods are discovered they are applied and incorrect data is tossed out. What was written by primitive men within the pages of the Bible, remains frozen in time never to be changed. True science is continually changing with new information and evidence being considered all the time.



The following is a list of dating techniques used in archaeology and other sciences. It is more or less in the order of discovery of each procedure. Please enjoy!

1. Stratigraphy

2. Seriation or Artifact Sequencing

3. Chronological Markers

4. Dendrochronology

5. Radiocarbon or Carbon-14 Dating

6. Potassium-Argon

7. Fission Track

8. Obsidian Hydration

9. Thermoluminescence

10. Optically Stimulated Luminescence

11. Rehydroxylation

12. Paleomagnetism

13. Magnetic Properties of Lead

14. Amino Acid Dating

15. Oxidized Carbon Ratio

16. Tephrochronology

17. Oxygen Isotope Chronostratigraphy

18. Uranium-Thorium Dating

19. X-Ray Diffractometry or Crystallography

====================================

Assumption 2: Closed systems.


Assumption 3: Known amounts of daughter and parent element from the start.

Your list of dating methods only shows how reliable the scientific system is. Numerous methods are used to confirm the age of the materials being tested...that is the beauty of science, only with mutual confirmation of different methods are age dates taken as accurate.





Biblical factors

It has been said before that all evidence must be interpreted within a framework. Such a framework is the foundation in which we interpret our evidence upon. Starting with the Bible as our assumption, we must interpret the evidence based on a Biblical foundation. The Bible teaches the earth was covered in a watery cataclysm about 4,400 years ago. A global flood would have buried large pre-flood forests and animals. As a result of this, the flood buried large amounts of carbon. Animals that lived right after the flood may not have had as much carbon-14 available because of the global flood.

Also, many believe the Bible teaches that the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy (otherwise known as the ‘canopy theory’). I’m not going to dogmatically say there was or wasn’t a vapor canopy. Well-known creationists seem to be split on this one. But, if there was a vapor canopy, then this extra layer of water would have helped filter out the sun’s radiation, and therefore, less C-14 would have be formed (if any).


Conclusion

Creationists have nothing to fear from carbon dating, as it does not disprove the young age of the earth. The carbon dating method is based largely on unverifiable assumptions that are made based upon one’s axioms. Most importantly, outside of known or recorded history, there is no way of verifying these old ages.


Related Quote:

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date," we just drop it."

T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York, 1970, p.35.

===================== THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!===================

No scientist would ever assume the Bible to be a foundation for the framework of anything scientific! The Bible is nothing more than a compilation of historical and mythological data written by primitive men. Some of the historical data has been verified, but practically all of its scientific claims about how nature works are wrong and have to be explained away by creationists.

The motives of creationists is to defend the Bible by trying to prove science wrong. The motive of scientists is to try and discover how the universe works for the betterment of mankind.

All the best,
Rose

John07975
06-02-2013, 01:18 PM
This is what I am talking about. Creationist have lied by taking this quote out of context to promote their garbage. Creationism is NOTHING like established science. Creationist routinely have to lie remain relevant. Here is the original quote:

C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the
prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American
colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common
attitude among archaeologists towards it, as
follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put
it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict
them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is
completely out of date we just drop it. Few
archaeologists who have concerned themselves with
absolute chronology are innocent of having
sometimes applied this method.

Here is the evolution of that quote by dishonest creatards. http://www.ntanet.net/quote.html

It really is pathetic how creationist lie about things like this. And then they think there is some conspiracy in science to discredit the so called "truth" of creationism. It really is laughable.

I am a committed evolutionist, but an honest one. As such I do think that creationists raise some serious points, and would admit that we don't yet have all the answers. c14 is the best dating method we have, yet, as any good science, is open to questioning the assumptions upon which it is based. Nothing is ever beyond question in good science.

That's why I feel that it would be good to refrain from emotional attacks upon debaters, and refrain from dogmatic assertion - and treat each argument upon it's own merit. Insults and dogmatic assertion are characteristics of religion not of science.

Richard Amiel McGough
06-02-2013, 07:35 PM
I am a committed evolutionist, but an honest one. As such I do think that creationists raise some serious points, and would admit that we don't yet have all the answers. c14 is the best dating method we have, yet, as any good science, is open to questioning the assumptions upon which it is based. Nothing is ever beyond question in good science.

That's why I feel that it would be good to refrain from emotional attacks upon debaters, and refrain from dogmatic assertion - and treat each argument upon it's own merit. Insults and dogmatic assertion are characteristics of religion not of science.
Anyone with any knowledge of evolution knows we don't have "all the answers." But hey! What do you expect? Darwin wrote his book only about 153 years ago and we've known about DNA for only about 60 years. It would be absurd to think we should have all the answers in such a short time.

But I am a bit mystified by your comment that "creationists raise some serious points" - I don't know of any valid points they raise that evolutionary scientists didn't raise themselves.

And whatever valid points are raised by creationists are typically mixed with ludicrous false assertions about basic science (e.g. age of the earth, dating techniques, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.) and rank deceptions and about old and irrelevant scientific hoaxes like Piltdown that the scientists themselves debunked with no help at all from the creationists. So thought I completely agree that we should do everything we can to refrain from "emotional attacks upon debaters" there are times when you call it as you see it, as when creationists not only lie through their teeth but do so in there effort to slander all evolutionary scientists as "liars, frauds, and deceivers (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46962#post46962)." Click the link if you want to see how deceptive the creationists can be ... all in the name of God.

In any case - I appreciate your spirit of rational discourse and I truly hope we can all live up to it. I only react with fire when I encounter deliberate deceivers.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-03-2013, 09:05 AM
All of these sources concur that between 3000 B.C. and 2500 B.C. there was a large fall in longevity. Since some of these records date to only 500 years after the supposed fall, perhaps they were eye-witnesses to the recorded drop (which spanned many centuries), as would be the contemporary readers at that time.


"The Sumerian King List (ANET, p. 265) contains lists of royal names, cities, and amazingly long reigns for each king before the Flood. After the flood, the reigns are shorter, but still hundreds of years in length." (this PCE ref is actually to page 97, and ANET is the standard work by Oppenheim in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts)
Reference : [ANET] Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Relating to the Old Testament, with supplement. James B. Pritchard. PrincetonUP:1969 (3rd ed)

"This view was well represented in a work called the Sumerian King List. This composition, originally compiled just before 2100BC, purported to list all the kings of all dynasties ruling all Sumer from the beginning.
Reference : [CBGR] Civilization before Greece and Rome, H.W.F. Saggs, Yale:1989.

"The eight to ten 'kings before the Flood' in this list"[Soden:47]
Reference : The Ancient Orient by Wolfram von Soden (translated by Schley), Eerd: 1994.

"The King List mentions five cities for this early period before the Flood, when 'eight kings reigned'"[Intl Std. Bib. Ency (s.v. "Sumer")]
Reference : International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised ed., Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed), Eerdmans:1979.

A similar list is found in Ashurbanipal's library that has 9 kings reigning before the Flood [documented in ISI:134 and ISI:225f]
Reference : "I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood": Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, Richard Hess and David Tsumura (eds.), Eisenbrauns: 1994.


Here is a graph that I created using Excel. I simply took the reign lengths directly from the Sumerian Kinglist, without consideration that the Sumerian King list itself is divided into chronologies of quite separate city states, so are most likely contemporanous with one another.

920

Anyway, Gilgamesh lived about 2700 B.C. , and only 2 generations before him we have a marked rise in longevity.

Obviously, I will need to replot the graph taking into account the overlapping chronologies of city states. But, even with the existing plot, it appears obvious that the Sumerians record a distinct drop in longevity happening in that millenium.

So far we have looked at Hebrew, Chinese, Egyptian, and Indian chronologies. All concur that during the third millenium B.C. there was a drop in longevity.

Rose
06-03-2013, 04:57 PM
All of these sources concur that between 3000 B.C. and 2500 B.C. there was a large fall in longevity. Since some of these records date to only 500 years after the supposed fall, perhaps they were eye-witnesses to the recorded drop (which spanned many centuries), as would be the contemporary readers at that time.


"The Sumerian King List (ANET, p. 265) contains lists of royal names, cities, and amazingly long reigns for each king before the Flood. After the flood, the reigns are shorter, but still hundreds of years in length." (this PCE ref is actually to page 97, and ANET is the standard work by Oppenheim in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts)
Reference : [ANET] Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Relating to the Old Testament, with supplement. James B. Pritchard. PrincetonUP:1969 (3rd ed)
"This view was well represented in a work called the Sumerian King List. This composition, originally compiled just before 2100BC, purported to list all the kings of all dynasties ruling all Sumer from the beginning.
Reference : [CBGR] Civilization before Greece and Rome, H.W.F. Saggs, Yale:1989.
"The eight to ten 'kings before the Flood' in this list"[Soden:47]
Reference : The Ancient Orient by Wolfram von Soden (translated by Schley), Eerd: 1994.
"The King List mentions five cities for this early period before the Flood, when 'eight kings reigned'"[Intl Std. Bib. Ency (s.v. "Sumer")]
Reference : International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised ed., Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed), Eerdmans:1979.
A similar list is found in Ashurbanipal's library that has 9 kings reigning before the Flood [documented in ISI:134 and ISI:225f]
Reference : "I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood": Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, Richard Hess and David Tsumura (eds.), Eisenbrauns: 1994.


Here is a graph that I created using Excel. I simply took the reign lengths directly from the Sumerian Kinglist, without consideration that the Sumerian King list itself is divided into chronologies of quite separate city states, so are most likely contemporanous with one another.

920

Anyway, Gilgamesh lived about 2700 B.C. , and only 2 generations before him we have a marked rise in longevity.

Obviously, I will need to replot the graph taking into account the overlapping chronologies of city states. But, even with the existing plot, it appears obvious that the Sumerians record a distinct drop in longevity happening in that millenium.

So far we have looked at Hebrew, Chinese, Egyptian, and Indian chronologies. All concur that during the third millenium B.C. there was a drop in longevity.

Hi Craig,

I have a simple question concerning all the longevity data that you have presented that occurs before the Flood date, which you calculate at 2348 BC. If the biblical flood was global and destroyed all life on the planet except for the humans and animals on the ark, then where do the pre-flood records come from? All civilizations would have be wiped out, the only races that existed after the flood would all trace their lineages back to Noah. Nothing that occurred prior to the Flood date would be known because those people would be completely gone.

Outside of the biblical record how would anyone know that longevity fell in other civilizations prior to the flood since it would have been centuries after the flood before enough people accumulated to form diverse races to replenish the earth?

Just wondering,
Rose

L67
06-03-2013, 05:36 PM
Dear Sirs,

I have no interest in proving anyone wrong - simply to lay out the information in front of you.

As far as I am aware, the only way of acertaining longevity in the past is by historical records of longevity. We might also base estimates of longevity on a creatures size and health, but historical records seem to be the only way. I would be happy to learn of other ways though.

Having said that, and having a desire to test the Bible's claim - I looked at all the nations of antiquity - namely at their kinglists - to see if there were any recorded observations of a vast decrease in longevity over a period of 900 years between 2348 B.C. and 1450 B.C. IF the Bible is accurate, then I would expect such records to exist in the histories of all nations....

First, I looked at the Hindu traditions

The Hindus believe that the history of our world divides into 4 ages or Yugas –


1. Satya Yuga - lifespan was a matter of choice
2. Tetra Yuga - lifespan was even longer
3. Dwapara Yuga – life span is 1000 years
4. Kali Yuga – life span is 120 years



The ages see a gradual decline of dharma, wisdom, knowledge, intellectual capability, life span, emotional and physical strength.

This is all based on mythology.

You believe in one god. The God of the bible. The Satya Yuga is an era where mankind is ruled by gods.


Satya Yuga: The Satya Yuga (Devanagari: सत्य युग), also called Sat Yuga, Krta Yuga and Krita Yuga in Hinduism, is the "Yuga (Age or Era) of Truth", when mankind is governed by gods, and every manifestation or work is close to the purest ideal and mankind will allow intrinsic goodness to rule supreme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Yuga

You believe the only truth is the Bible. You don't believe any of these myths, so why should we take myths as evidence? It's rather obvious it's all myths. Myths do NOT support your claims.

L67
06-03-2013, 05:42 PM
I was curious as to whether the Chinese had a similar tradition of greater longevity in the past. Searching the libraries, I came across the ancient Shu-Ching, the Chinese book of history. This book lists all the emperors going back to Fu Hsi and Nukwa.

The following data is taken from a list of 88 generations of kings of China - 2943 B.C.-314 B.C. The Shu Ching is the ancient Chinese Book of History, listing the names of each king backwards to the very dawn of Chinese civilization.



None of this supports your claims either. They are based on mythology as well.

The very first emperor Nuwa who reigned 180,000 years is pure myth.

Nuwa: Nüwa (also Nuwa, Nü-wa, Nu-wa and Nügua; traditional Chinese: 女媧; simplified Chinese: 女娲; pinyin: Nǚwā; Wade–Giles: Nü3-wa1) is a goddess in ancient Chinese mythology best known for creating mankind and repairing the wall of heaven.

Do you believe a goddess created mankind or did the God of the Bible do it? What if the Bible is wrong and you are believing in the wrong gods or goddesses?

Again, why should anyone take myths as evidence?

L67
06-03-2013, 05:54 PM
According to Manetho, there was a period before the pharoahs ruled in Egypt. The Egyptians referred to this time as "Zep Tepi" - meaning "The First Time". This was supposed to have been a "golden age" when mankind acquired the initial elements of civilization.

Longevity during this period was said to be far greater - and the people of this time were revered as gods.

Nun
Atum/Ra 1000
Shu 700
Geb 500
Osiris 450
Set 350
Horus 300
Anhur 280
Anpu 200
Khonsu 180
Harbehdet 100
Amen 120
Tahuti 100
Shu 120
Amen Ra

So the Egyptian king lists show a greater longevity in the 1st and 2nd Dynasties, and prior to the first dynasty the Egyptians believed that longevity rose to about 1000 years.

Reference : http://www.ancient-egypt.org/index.html

Here ends my third installment of evidence for increased longevity in the past. As you can see, I am simply using the extant kinglists as believed by the native civilizations.

Once again, the longevity cycle is based on myths.

Let's see what Zep Tepi is: Acording to legends translated from Egyptian hieroglyphs and sacred texts, Zep Tepi was known as the 'First Time', often called the Golden Age of Alchemy, when visiting ‘godlike beings’ inhabited the land and shared their advanced spiritual technology that could shape-shift energy and transform matter. These illuminated beings

http://www.zeptepi-alchemy.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_creation_myths

Does that sound believable? Of course not. If it does, then who can be sure the God of the Bible is the only one?

L67
06-03-2013, 06:06 PM
All of these sources concur that between 3000 B.C. and 2500 B.C. there was a large fall in longevity. Since some of these records date to only 500 years after the supposed fall, perhaps they were eye-witnesses to the recorded drop (which spanned many centuries), as would be the contemporary readers at that time.

[LIST]
"The Sumerian King List (ANET, p. 265) contains lists of royal names, cities, and amazingly long reigns for each king before the Flood. After the flood, the reigns are shorter, but still hundreds of years in length." (this PCE ref is actually to page 97, and ANET is the standard work by Oppenheim in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts)
Reference : [ANET] Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Relating to the Old Testament, with supplement. James B. Pritchard. PrincetonUP:1969 (3rd ed)


Anyway, Gilgamesh lived about 2700 B.C. , and only 2 generations before him we have a marked rise in longevity.

Obviously, I will need to replot the graph taking into account the overlapping chronologies of city states. But, even with the existing plot, it appears obvious that the Sumerians record a distinct drop in longevity happening in that millenium.

So far we have looked at Hebrew, Chinese, Egyptian, and Indian chronologies. All concur that during the third millenium B.C. there was a drop in longevity.


The Sumerian Kinglist is based on mythology as well.

Names before Etana do not appear in any other known source, and their existence is archaeologically unverified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List#Second_Dynasty_of_Uruk

Etana, Lugal-banda and Gilgamesh are mythical figures.

Etana Etana was an ancient, legendary Sumerian king of the city of Kish, and was, according to the Sumerian king list, one of the kings who reigned after the deluge. He is listed as the successor of Arwium, the son of Mashda, as king of Kish. The list also calls Etana "the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and consolidated all the foreign countries", and states that he ruled 1560 years (some copies read 635) before being succeeded by his son Balih, said to have ruled 400 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etana

Lugal-banda Lugalbanda is a character found in Sumerian mythology and literature. His name is composed of two Sumerian words meaning "young king" (lugal: king; banda: young, junior; small).[1][2] Lugalbanda is listed in the postdiluvian period of the Sumerian king list as the second king of Uruk, saying he ruled for 1,200 years, and providing him with the epithet of the Shepherd.[3] Whether a king Lugalbanda ever historically ruled over Uruk, and if so, at what time, is quite uncertain. Attempts to date him in the ED II period are based on an amalgamation of data from the epic traditions of the 2nd Millennium with unclear archaeological observations.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugalbanda

Gilgamesh- In Mesopotamian mythology, Gilgamesh is a demigod of superhuman strength who built the city walls of Uruk to defend his people from external threats, and travelled to meet the sage Utnapishtim, who had survived the Great Deluge. He is usually described as two-thirds god and one third man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

Here is good reading about this kinglist. http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=the_sumerian_king_list_skl

None of these myths are even remotely true let alone count as evidence.

There is just no way any of these mythological kinglist support your longevity theory. These myths are no different than the Bible. All these cultures believe in them the same way you believe the Bible. But that doesn't prove your point.

Mystykal
06-04-2013, 12:19 AM
Hi Mystykal

The important factor for those who believe the biblical account of the Flood, is that the Bible itself says that ONLY Noah's three sons Ham, Shem and Japheth (and their wives :winking0071:) were used to replenish the earth.
Gen.9:18-19 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.





Doesn't it seem odd that all the complaints one hears from creationists about dating is always that the dates are too old! Never do we hear the opposite. Dating methods are getting more and more accurate all the time and sometimes dates are revised in the direction of being older. Take the age of the earth and the universe, each has been revised to show a date older then was previously thought. The universe went from 13.7 to 13.82 billion years (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/21/age_of_the_universe_planck_results_show_universe_i s_13_82_billion_years.html)and the earth went from 4.5 to 4.54 billion years.

The scientific method is self correcting, whereas the biblical method is not; as new techniques and methods are discovered they are applied and incorrect data is tossed out. What was written by primitive men within the pages of the Bible, remains frozen in time never to be changed. True science is continually changing with new information and evidence being considered all the time.




Your list of dating methods only shows how reliable the scientific system is. Numerous methods are used to confirm the age of the materials being tested...that is the beauty of science, only with mutual confirmation of different methods are age dates taken as accurate.






No scientist would ever assume the Bible to be a foundation for the framework of anything scientific! The Bible is nothing more than a compilation of historical and mythological data written by primitive men. Some of the historical data has been verified, but practically all of its scientific claims about how nature works are wrong and have to be explained away by creationists.

The motives of creationists is to defend the Bible by trying to prove science wrong. The motive of scientists is to try and discover how the universe works for the betterment of mankind.

All the best,
Rose

Hi Rose:

You did not say anything as to the dating method used to date the Egyptian artifacts made from a meteorite.
Do you know if multiple methods were used? And if they were what were they? Just wondering... I cant find anything about the methods used anywhere! Which is strange! Please answer!

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the %20Earth.htm

If radiometric dating methods are unable to produce the correct date in cases where the actual date of eruption is known, why should we believe that these same methods can produce accurate dates when the date of eruption is unknown?

The point is simply this: radiometric dating is known to produce grossly erroneous dates when heat is involved in the formation or fossilization process. And since the only rocks which yield ages in excess of 100,000 years are of volcanic origin, this method of dating the earth is not based on science, but rather speculation and subjecting reasoning. Unfortunately, the public is rarely informed of these facts. The bottom line is that there are only two ways to verify whether or not radiometric dating methods have any credibility at all. These are:

1. To compare the results with known dates based on historical and/or archeological data,
2. To cross-check the results with one or more different methods of radiometric dating.

The following tables illustrate the highly questionable, if not totally unreliable, nature of the radiometric methods that are currently in use or have been used in the past to "date" volcanic materials.

Table 1: The following is a comparison between rocks of known age Vs radiometric "age."

Rock Sample Obtained From:
Rocks Age from:
---- Radiom Known Age from Historical or Archaeological Data
Radiometric Dating Method Used
Sunset Crater, Arizona 1,900 yrs
210,000--230,000 yrs
K/Ar
Russian Volcano 8 24,000 yrs
50 m.---14.6 b. yrs
K/Ar
Mt Rangitoto,
New Zealand 9 3,300 yrs
485,000 yrs
K/Ar
Vulcan's Throne,
Grand Canyon 10 10,000 yrs max.
114,000--120,000 yrs
K/Ar
Hualalai Volcano,
Hawaii 11,12,13 200 yrs
140 m.---670 m. yrs
Helium
Hualalai Volcano,
Hawaii 11,12,13 200 yrs
160 m.---2.96 b. yrs
K/Ar
*Mt. Kilauea, Hawaii 14 200 yrs
0 yrs at 1400
meters depth
K/Ar
*Mt. Kilauea, Hawaii 14 200 yrs
10-14 m.y. at 3420
meters depth
K/Ar
*Mt. Kilauea, Hawaii 14 200 yrs
13-29 m.y. at 4680
meters depth
K/Ar

Note: Where abbreviations are used: b. = billion; and m. = million.
* The depth here refers to the depth below the surface of the water, since this volcano produced a lava
flow that flowed down the mountain and into the ocean.

Table 2: The following is a comparison between different methods of dating rocks of unknown age.

Rock Sample
Obtained From
Known Age
from Historical or Archaeological Data
Rocks Age from
Radiometric Dating
Method
Used

Salt Lake Crater,
Hawaii 15,16,17
Unknown
2.6 m.---140 m. yrs
Helium

Salt Lake Crater,
Hawaii 15,16,17 Unknown
400,000---3.3 b. yrs
K/Ar

Cubic Diamonds,
Zaire 18,19 Unknown
6,000,000,000 yrs
K/Ar

KBS Tuff,
E. Turkana, Kenya 20,21 Unknown
290,000---221 m. yrs
K/Ar

KBS Tuff,
E. Turkana, Kenya 22 Unknown 2,420,000 yrs
Fission
Track

Cardenas Basalts, Bottom
of Grnd Canyn. 23,24,25,26 Unknown 715,000,000 yrs
K/Ar
Isochron

Cardenas Basalts, Bottom
of Grnd Canyon. 23,24,25,26 Unknown 1.17 b. yrs
Rb/Sr
Isochron

Uinkaret Plateau, Top of
Grnd Canyon 23,24,25,26 Unknown 0.01--117 million yrs
K/Ar

Uinkaret Plateau, Top of
Grand Canyon 23,24,25,26 Unknown 1,340 million yrs
Rb/Sr
Isochron

Uinkaret Plateau, Top of
Grnd Canyon 23,24,25,26 Unknown 2,600 million yrs
Pb/Pb
Isochron

Morton gneisses,
Minnesota 27 Unknown 2.5 billion yrs
K/Ar

Morton gneisses,
Minnesota 27 Unknown 3.3 billion yrs
Ur/Pb

"Allende" Meteorite 28,29,30 Unknown 3.91 b.--11.7 b. yrs
Ur/Th/Pb
Isochron

"Allende" Meteorite 28,29,30 Unknown 4.49 b.--16.5 b. yrs
Ur/Th/Pb

Moon Rocks 31 Unknown 4.6 b.--8.2 b. yrs
Ur/Pb

Moon Rocks 32 Unknown
2.3 -- 3.76 b. yrs
K/Ar

Moon Rock (breccia) 33 Unknown 123.8 -- 125.5 b. yrs
K/Ar


* Notes: Where abbreviations are used: b. = billion; and m. = million.
* "Allende" is the name given to the meteorite that was used to "date" the age of the earth.
* KBS stands for Kay Behrensmeyer Site. It is the site where the famous 1470 skull was found.
* Cubic Diamonds from Zaire were included because the "age" derived from them is greater than the purported
(4.5 b.y.) age of the earth.
Dr. Plaisted, and many other scientists like him have also came to a similar conclusion. For example, in his paper on this subject he stated that:

"After study and discussion of this question, I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found. I believe... there is a great need for this information to be made known, so I am making this article available in the hopes that it will enlighten others who are considering these questions...." 34 Emphasis Added


Your idea about the scientist wanting to know the truth is laughable! Most scientist just want a paycheck!

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
06-04-2013, 01:04 AM
In addition to the observation I presented in which Jacob saw the length of his life shorter than his ancestors, it is before the flood that God declares (Gen 6:3); And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Regarding the re-population of the earth, it would appear that Noah was the last of those with a long life as he lived to be 950 years and he lived 350 years after the flood.

Genesis 10:1 list the generations of the sons of Noah and only those sons saved at the time of the flood are mentioned. I think we can conclude that Noah did not have any more sons after the flood. This does not mean that he did not have any more daughters. It would have also depended on his wife whether she was capable of bearing children. We do not know the ages of the wives and for how long they were able to conceive.

Gen 11:32 states after listing the families of the sons of Noah; These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. It does appear from this that no other families were added by Noah having more sons, so that is conclusive that Noah perhaps was not contributing to the replenishing of the population and that the growth of the population depended upon the sons of Noah.

It also appears that the sons of Noah were the last of Noah's generation to have a longevity of life and that after this the age was reduced to 120 years. We are only given the descendants of Shem and it is recorded (Gen 11:11); And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
The sons of Noah lived to around 300 to 500 years and so we see the lifespan reducing rapidly and is now halved to that of Noah. The lives of the sons of Noah were long enough to have many sons and daughters which are not listed.

It is around 10 generations till we get to Abram and his lifespan was 175 years (Gen 25:6) The age limit of 120 was still exceeded but was rapidly reducing. Sarah we are told (Gen 23:1) lived to 127 years of age, so she was near to the 120 age limit. It would be interesting to plot the increase of Abraham's descendants and that of his his peers, since Abraham and did not have his first child with Sarah until she had passed the age of bearing children (which was probably around the age of 50). Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah was 90 years old by the time their first son Isaac was born. It was Isaac which kick-started the increase of Abraham's descendants (Israel). It should also be noted that the son born to Abraham with Sarah's maidservant Hagar was also to become a great nation (the Egyptians?).

By the time we get to Moses, the lifespan has reached 120 years and Moses died at the exact age of 120 years (Deut 34:7)

These are the ages recorded in the Bible and some of the facts upon which to base the expanding population of the earth after the Flood.


David

David M
06-04-2013, 01:31 AM
Thanks for your post Mystykal. I went to the link you supplied and copied the tables and imported them into this post so we can compare the data more easily.

Table 1: The following is a comparison between rocks of known age Vs radiometric "age."



Rock Sample Obtained From
Known Age from Historical
or Archaeological Data
Rocks Age from
Radiometric Dating
Method
Used


Sunset Crater, Arizona 7
1,900 yrs
210,000--230,000 yrs
K/Ar


Russian Volcano 8
24,000 yrs
50 m.---14.6 b. yrs
K/Ar


Mt Rangitoto,
New Zealand 9
3,300 yrs
485,000 yrs
K/Ar


Vulcan's Throne,
Grand Canyon 10
10,000 yrs max.
114,000--120,000 yrs
K/Ar


Hualalai Volcano,
Hawaii 11,12,13
200 yrs
140 m.---670 m. yrs
Helium


Hualalai Volcano,
Hawaii 11,12,13
200 yrs
160 m.---2.96 b. yrs
K/Ar


*Mt. Kilauea, Hawaii 14
200 yrs
0 yrs at 1400
meters depth
K/Ar


*Mt. Kilauea, Hawaii 14
200 yrs
10-14 m.y. at 3420
meters depth
K/Ar


*Mt. Kilauea, Hawaii 14
200 yrs
13-29 m.y. at 4680
meters depth
K/Ar


Note: Where abbreviations are used: b. = billion; and m. = million.
* The depth here refers to the depth below the surface of the water, since this volcano produced a lava
flow that flowed down the mountain and into the ocean.
Table 2: The following is a comparison between different methods of dating rocks of unknown age.


Rock Sample
Obtained From
Known Age
from Historical or Archaeological Data
Rocks Age from
Radiometric Dating
Method
Used


Salt Lake Crater,
Hawaii 15,16,17
Unknown
2.6 m.---140 m. yrs
Helium


Salt Lake Crater,
Hawaii 15,16,17
Unknown
400,000---3.3 b. yrs
K/Ar


Cubic Diamonds,
Zaire 18,19
Unknown
6,000,000,000 yrs
K/Ar


KBS Tuff,
E. Turkana, Kenya 20,21
Unknown
290,000---221 m. yrs
K/Ar


KBS Tuff,
E. Turkana, Kenya 22
Unknown
2,420,000 yrs
Fission
Track


Cardenas Basalts, Bottom
of Grnd Canyn. 23,24,25,26
Unknown
715,000,000 yrs
K/Ar
Isochron


Cardenas Basalts, Bottom
of Grnd Canyon. 23,24,25,26
Unknown
1.17 b. yrs
Rb/Sr
Isochron


Uinkaret Plateau, Top of
Grnd Canyon 23,24,25,26
Unknown
0.01--117 million yrs
K/Ar


Uinkaret Plateau, Top of
Grand Canyon 23,24,25,26
Unknown
1,340 million yrs
Rb/Sr
Isochron


Uinkaret Plateau, Top of
Grnd Canyon 23,24,25,26
Unknown
2,600 million yrs
Pb/Pb
Isochron


Morton gneisses,
Minnesota 27
Unknown
2.5 billion yrs
K/Ar


Morton gneisses,
Minnesota 27
Unknown
3.3 billion yrs
Ur/Pb


"Allende" Meteorite 28,29,30
Unknown
3.91 b.--11.7 b. yrs
Ur/Th/Pb
Isochron


"Allende" Meteorite 28,29,30
Unknown
4.49 b.--16.5 b. yrs
Ur/Th/Pb


Moon Rocks 31
Unknown
4.6 b.--8.2 b. yrs
Ur/Pb


Moon Rocks 32
Unknown
2.3 -- 3.76 b. yrs
K/Ar


Moon Rock (breccia) 33
Unknown
123.8 -- 125.5 b. yrs
K/Ar



* Notes: Where abbreviations are used: b. = billion; and m. = million.
* "Allende" is the name given to the meteorite that was used to "date" the age of the earth.
* KBS stands for Kay Behrensmeyer Site. It is the site where the famous 1470 skull was found.
* Cubic Diamonds from Zaire were included because the "age" derived from them is greater than the purported
(4.5 b.y.) age of the earth.
Dr. Plaisted, and many other scientists like him have also came to a similar conclusion. For example, in his paper on this subject (http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp) he stated that:
"After study and discussion of this question, I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found. I believe... there is a great need for this information to be made known, so I am making this article available in the hopes that it will enlighten others who are considering these questions...." 34 Emphasis Added
Various other links are provided below.

L67
06-04-2013, 05:22 AM
I am a committed evolutionist, but an honest one. As such I do think that creationists raise some serious points, and would admit that we don't yet have all the answers. c14 is the best dating method we have, yet, as any good science, is open to questioning the assumptions upon which it is based. Nothing is ever beyond question in good science.

That's why I feel that it would be good to refrain from emotional attacks upon debaters, and refrain from dogmatic assertion - and treat each argument upon it's own merit. Insults and dogmatic assertion are characteristics of religion not of science.

I agree with most of your first statement, except creationist raise some serious points. Please show me these "serious" points by creationist. If you are an honest evolutionist, then you should be outraged at the deception of that quote taken out of context. That quote is used by creationist to portray science in a bad way. It deludes other creationist into thinking science doesn't care about the truth.

Also, my words were not to attack anyone personally in this thread. I was speaking of creationist who took that quote out of context. That quote was taken out of context long before anyone used it in this thread.

L67
06-04-2013, 09:07 AM
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the %20Earth.htm

If radiometric dating methods are unable to produce the correct date in cases where the actual date of eruption is known, why should we believe that these same methods can produce accurate dates when the date of eruption is unknown?

The point is simply this: radiometric dating is known to produce grossly erroneous dates when heat is involved in the formation or fossilization process. And since the only rocks which yield ages in excess of 100,000 years are of volcanic origin, this method of dating the earth is not based on science, but rather speculation and subjecting reasoning. Unfortunately, the public is rarely informed of these facts. The bottom line is that there are only two ways to verify whether or not radiometric dating methods have any credibility at all. These are:

Except one problem. Creationist have yet again taken something out of context and made the argument fit their bias.

The whole fresh lava dated as millions of years old is false. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html

Various creationist books mention the 1801 eruption of the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii. They claim that scientists dated the 200 year old lava, and got the utterly bogus age of 22 million years. Some books mention other bogus ages: 140 million years, or 2.96 billion years.

The claims are false. The scientists in question reported the lava's measured age as approximately zero. (Potassium's half-life is 1.3 billion years, so the imprecision - the "slop" -in their potassium/argon dating was much larger than 200 years.)

The scientists did date something as being million of years old, but it wasn't lava. Notice the title of the actual scientific report:

Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4601-4607 (15 July 1968)

The important word here is "Inclusions". The scientists were not out to date the lava: they were dating some chunks of olivine that were stuck in the lava like raisins. This lava was not hot enough to melt olivine, so the chunks were carried along when the eruption brought lava up from the depths. Of course the olivine inclusions dated as being old. They are old.
More Detail
In fact, the scientists weren't trying to date the olivine inclusions - the xenoliths. Rather, they were trying to find out if Potassium/Argon dating worked on such inclusions. There was a theory that the method wouldn't work, because the inclusions had spent a long time in the magma chamber below the volcano. The inclusions had probably been heated enough (for long enough) that some part of their Argon had escaped. So, their Potassium/Argon ages should be scattered all over the map. No one single age should dominate in the measurements.

The article reports that the theory was correct. K/Ar dating should not be used on xenoliths. But, the article clearly states (on page 4603) that the surrounding lava was dated correctly. This article casts no doubts whatsoever on the dating of lava.

Here is a nice article explaining why creationist got it wrong. http://www.oldearth.org/print/blind.pdf





Your idea about the scientist wanting to know the truth is laughable! Most scientist just want a paycheck!

This statement is rather ironic since you never bothered to fact check your posts to see if there was any truth in them. Unfortunately for you science does know the truth. They don't know everything but they certainly have more claim to truth than creationist do.

Sorry, but the link you provided bases itself off of false claims, then why should anyone take it seriously?

Read these links if you want to understand why creationist claims about radio carbon dating are errneous.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html

Craig.Paardekooper
06-04-2013, 02:16 PM
I would propose that radiometric dating is carried out blind, meaning that the radiometric daters are kept in the dark concerning where the sample was found.

If Creationists really want to test the veracity of radiometric dating, they should collect 100 samples from different strata, then submit them for radiometric dating without revealing their origins. Then, if the dates come back all wrong, the Creationists can publish this as proof.

This would cost money to carry out, but it would be worth doing, just so we can know the truth about dating.

L67
06-04-2013, 03:25 PM
I would propose that radiometric dating is carried out blind, meaning that the radiometric daters are kept in the dark concerning where the sample was found.

If Creationists really want to test the veracity of radiometric dating, they should collect 100 samples from different strata, then submit them for radiometric dating without revealing their origins. Then, if the dates come back all wrong, the Creationists can publish this as proof.

This would cost money to carry out, but it would be worth doing, just so we can know the truth about dating.

Why? What is wrong with our current dating methods? As far as I can tell creationist have never shown any real errors in the dating methods. I have already shown two instances of creationist taking things out of context. These are just two of many many errors creationists do on a daily basis. I'm not pointing at you Mystykal, I'm speaking of creationism as a whole. The whole science doesn't know or is hiding the truth conspiracy is plain nuts.

Everything you see technologically and medically is because of science and you don't see Christians complaining about that. They only complain about the established science that proves their dogma wrong. Why? Why is science trusted for everything else except evolution or dating methods that show the opposite of the Bible? Science has the evidence to support both evolution and an old earth.

Rose
06-04-2013, 03:40 PM
Hi Rose:

You did not say anything as to the dating method used to date the Egyptian artifacts made from a meteorite.
Do you know if multiple methods were used? And if they were what were they? Just wondering... I cant find anything about the methods used anywhere! Which is strange! Please answer!

Hello Mystykal,

You read the same article I did, so how would I know anything more about what method of dating was used to measure the age of the Egyptian bead than you? Like I said before, artifacts are dated in numerous ways. Scientists not only take samples from the surrounding environment, but they also send the artifacts to be tested in the lab using various methods.




"After study and discussion of this question, I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found. I believe... there is a great need for this information to be made known, so I am making this article available in the hopes that it will enlighten others who are considering these questions...." 34 Emphasis Added


Your idea about the scientist wanting to know the truth is laughable! Most scientist just want a paycheck!

Namaste,

Mystykal

I'm sure there are some scientists who are in it for the money, but unlike creationists if their test results don't hold up under scrutiny the scientist is stopped dead in their tracks. Airplanes, computers, satellites and breakthroughs in medical technology doesn't happen by using faulty facts, that's the beauty of the scientific method...if tests don't hold up they are tossed out. If people had to rely on the Bible to expand their knowledge we would still be back in the bronze age writing on papyrus. The Bible tells us nothing about how things work, it only says "God did it" and that my friend doesn't help anyone increase their understanding of how the universe works.

Scientists are the ones we owe thanks to, not creationists!

All the best,
Rose

Rose
06-04-2013, 09:09 PM
Hi Rose:



Your idea about the scientist wanting to know the truth is laughable! Most scientist just want a paycheck!

Namaste,

Mystykal

If you really want to know what is laughable, it is the mentality of creationists that hold science to a high standard of truth and question everything (which is good), but readily accept every crazy claim in the Bible as absolute truth, without one shred of evidence! How's that for an insane double standard. :lol:

Rose

Mystykal
06-05-2013, 03:02 AM
Hello Mystykal,

You read the same article I did, so how would I know anything more about what method of dating was used to measure the age of the Egyptian bead than you? Like I said before, artifacts are dated in numerous ways. Scientists not only take samples from the surrounding environment, but they also send the artifacts to be tested in the lab using various methods.





I'm sure there are some scientists who are in it for the money, but unlike creationists if their test results don't hold up under scrutiny the scientist is stopped dead in their tracks. Airplanes, computers, satellites and breakthroughs in medical technology doesn't happen by using faulty facts, that's the beauty of the scientific method...if tests don't hold up they are tossed out. If people had to rely on the Bible to expand their knowledge we would still be back in the bronze age writing on papyrus. The Bible tells us nothing about how things work, it only says "God did it" and that my friend doesn't help anyone increase their understanding of how the universe works.

Scientists are the ones we owe thanks to, not creationists!

All the best,
Rose

Hi Rose:
Thanks for responding. I agree with you that we owe alot to science and I would say to specific scientist. Such as Sir Issac Newton, Einstien and Telsa and a few others. The rest not so much! They are a bunch of people that really do not care to deal with the facts if those facts contradict their preconcieved notions. Read carefully what was done to Dr. Hubble's asisstant Dr. Arp. He proved the Hubble red-shift to be inaccurate. And they took away his ability to use the telescopes which he invented. They banned him from the USA and did not allow him to continue his research because his findings flew in the face of established science. I know you don;t want to change your mind on anything you believe... But at the most basic level you must admit that Dr. Arp is the scientist's scientist! Do your homework and you will find that Dr. Arp came up with the current models used in science and he also showed that they are flawed beyond repair. And other scientists just ignored his research. But not the Germans. So now he does research in Germany at the Max Planck Observatory. So do not give me the crap line that scientists are objective fact finders. When the facts do not match their desired conclusion they discard the evidence which flies in the face of what they believe. The galaxies which Dr. Arp discovered are today edited by NASA and the photos spliced so that the facts are not known by most people. That/s not how science is supposed to work!

And as to the dating of the Egyptain meteorite objects I just thought you might have more data than I do as to how they were dated. Until I see that data the age issue is moot! Yes I know that scientists lie! Creationists lie! But the truth, although hidden is knowable!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
06-05-2013, 02:52 PM
Hi Rose:
Thanks for responding. I agree with you that we owe alot to science and I would say to specific scientist. Such as Sir Issac Newton, Einstien and Telsa and a few others. The rest not so much! They are a bunch of people that really do not care to deal with the facts if those facts contradict their preconcieved notions. Read carefully what was done to Dr. Hubble's asisstant Dr. Arp. He proved the Hubble red-shift to be inaccurate. And they took away his ability to use the telescopes which he invented. They banned him from the USA and did not allow him to continue his research because his findings flew in the face of established science. I know you don;t want to change your mind on anything you believe... But at the most basic level you must admit that Dr. Arp is the scientist's scientist! Do your homework and you will find that Dr. Arp came up with the current models used in science and he also showed that they are flawed beyond repair. And other scientists just ignored his research. But not the Germans. So now he does research in Germany at the Max Planck Observatory. So do not give me the crap line that scientists are objective fact finders. When the facts do not match their desired conclusion they discard the evidence which flies in the face of what they believe. The galaxies which Dr. Arp discovered are today edited by NASA and the photos spliced so that the facts are not known by most people. That/s not how science is supposed to work!

And as to the dating of the Egyptain meteorite objects I just thought you might have more data than I do as to how they were dated. Until I see that data the age issue is moot! Yes I know that scientists lie! Creationists lie! But the truth, although hidden is knowable!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hi Mystykal

Whether or not scientists lie is not the issue here; the validity of the Bible is! Every scientist that has ever made a discovery did so by gathering evidence and testing it, not by using the Bible as a source of data. Scientists lie, cheat and steal just like creationists do, the difference between them is that creationists must hold to a prescribed set of biblical facts which they try to twist and pervert into reality, whereas the scientist is free to go where the evidence leads. Everyone knows that a scientist who presents false data can only promote his lie until it's tested, which is not the case with creationists because saying "God did it" can't be tested!

The Bible has never given us a cure for any disease, it did not teach Sir Isaac Newton calculus, nor did it help Einstein with his theory of relativity, even Watson and Crick had to discover DNA all on their own without any help from the Bible. I cannot think of one new piece of information that the Bible has imparted to mankind that wasn't already known long before it was written.

Yes indeed! The truth is knowable, which is the downfall of the Bible and its god.

All the best,
Rose

David M
06-05-2013, 03:45 PM
Hello Rose
It has been a long time since we have had a chat.


Whether or not scientists lie is not the issue here; the validity of the Bible is! The validity of the Bible has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Every scientist that has ever made a discovery did so by gathering evidence and testing it, not by using the Bible as a source of data. I would not say that the Bible gives us any data regarding the Creation of the Universe and the earth etc.


Scientists lie, cheat and steal just like creationists do, the difference between them is that creationists must hold to a prescribed set of biblical facts which they try to twist and pervert into reality, whereas the scientist is free to go where the evidence leads. Everyone knows that a scientist who presents false data can only promote his lie until it's tested, which is not the case with creationists because saying "God did it" can't be tested!You are right about bad scientists and bad Christians. Biblical facts are facts, so having facts is just as valid as the facts scientists have. So what good is science if its tests fail? "God did it" is an explanation when science has no answer.


The Bible has never given us a cure for any disease, You forget the guidance God gave to Israel that was far ahead of its time. He gave them hygiene rules that prevented disease. Anyone can tell you that prevention is better than cure. Man is having to battle against diseases he has brought on himself such as AIDS. Having unnatural sex with humans and animals has caused all sorts of problems and man is battling against them by relying on his own efforts.


it did not teach Sir Isaac Newton calculus, You know Isaac Newton turned his attention to the Bible and believed Creation was in 4004 BC and has calculated the end date as 2060. I think Isaac Newton appreciated the master designer of the universe.


nor did it help Einstein with his theory of relativity, even Watson and Crick had to discover DNA all on their own without any help from the Bible. It has never occurred to you that God has allowed these things to be found out and he has not kept them hidden. God is a master planner and releasing information is one way of working in the kingdoms of men. The words of Jesus not only applied to Pilate, but can be applied to other things as well;(John 19:11) "Thou couldest have no ........, except it were given thee from above:" Don't think God does not know what man is working on.


I cannot think of one new piece of information that the Bible has imparted to mankind that wasn't already known long before it was written. You mean you do not not want to think. I have referred to the hygiene rules God gave to the Children of Israel at Sinai. Good hygiene has not practised by doctors in the middle ages. Even hospitals today have not been practising good hygiene. The laws God gave to his people were far in advance compared to the nations around them.


Yes indeed! The truth is knowable, which is the downfall of the Bible and its god. Unfortunately Rose, you do not know the truth of the Bible and your bias against it is your own downfall. In the words of Elton John; "its a sad, sad situation".

All the best

David

David M
06-06-2013, 01:01 AM
I agree with most of your first statement, except creationist raise some serious points. Please show me these "serious" points by creationist. If you are an honest evolutionist, then you should be outraged at the deception of that quote taken out of context. That quote is used by creationist to portray science in a bad way. It deludes other creationist into thinking science doesn't care about the truth.

Also, my words were not to attack anyone personally in this thread. I was speaking of creationist who took that quote out of context. That quote was taken out of context long before anyone used it in this thread.

The question of the origin of matter is perhaps the most important to answer, for either it can be proven beyond doubt and is not theory, or it has to proven by man than man can create matter.
Science is not answering the questions of origins. I have not got an answer from a scientist how the simplest of cells formed. I have not got an answer to how the first star formed. The simplest star is mostly made of hydrogen which is the most abundant element in space.

Even now we are being told stars form from interstellar cloud. Up to now, no-one has shown a star to be forming. Look at what Wikipedia says;


A molecular cloud, sometimes called a stellar nursery if star formation is occurring within, is a type of interstellar cloud whose density and size permits the formation of molecules, most commonly molecular hydrogen (H2). This is in contrast to other areas of the interstellar medium that contain predominately ionized gas.

Molecular hydrogen is difficult to detect by infrared and radio observations, so the molecule most often used to determine the presence of H2 is CO (carbon monoxide). The ratio between CO luminosity and H2 mass is thought to be constant, although there are reasons to doubt this assumption in observations of some other galaxies.[1]


Then we are told;
Stars are formed within extended regions of higher density in the interstellar medium, although the density is still lower than the inside of a terrestrial vacuum chamber.

Compare the red quoted parts. It does not make sense.

How with a density as low as that would two hydrogen atoms ever come together under gravitational force.? Would two hydrogen atoms be travelling so fast as to collide with each other and a fusion reaction take place and then what?

We are talking about an area of science that has been given the title; 'Theoretical Astrophysics' aka; 'A Fairy Story' and we are supposed to believe it!!!

Scientists are like children in a sand pit. They have been given the toys to play with and that is as much as they can do; play!

When scientists can make one atom from scratch then we can see whether they can create a living cell. I would not expect them to be able to make a star, though it can be thought that if ever they do get a fusion reactor built, that would be replicating what is taking place at the core of a star. To get a fusion reactor going requires a great amount of energy to be put in at the start and the whole reaction has to be contained. An interstellar gas cloud has no containment and we are told the universe is expanding.

The problem science has is explaining its complex theories and mathematical equations in layman's terms. It is not just creationists who struggle to comprehend scientific theory. The Bible makes no attempt to do explain complex operations only known to God. The Bible gives a simple explanation as to the way things are, which any layman can understand. It is more about living. The Bible is proof of God's existence. For me that is fact and that is the conclusion I have reached. I remain open to science, but it has a long way to go and it will not give me the answers in my lifetime to persuade me otherwise (if science ever could explain all things).


David

Rose
06-06-2013, 09:20 AM
Hello Rose
It has been a long time since we have had a chat.
The validity of the Bible has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
I would not say that the Bible gives us any data regarding the Creation of the Universe and the earth etc.
Hey David, nice to talk with you. :yo:

My statement about the validity of the Bible was in reference to Mystykal's post, not the subject of this thread. Most creationists think the Bible gives plenty of information about the creation of the universe...like how old the earth is, when animals and plants were created, how humans were made out of clay and woman from the rib of a man, ect. ect. ect.


You are right about bad scientists and bad Christians. Biblical facts are facts, so having facts is just as valid as the facts scientists have. So what good is science if its tests fail? "God did it" is an explanation when science has no answer.
The beauty of the scientific method is that when a test fails it tells the scientist that something is wrong so they can look through their data and correct the errors. Computers were not built with faulty data. When science has no answer they keep looking, when creationists have no answer they say "God did it". Science has given creationists plenty of answers like that of evolution, but they refuse to accept it because that's not what the Bible says.


You forget the guidance God gave to Israel that was far ahead of its time. He gave them hygiene rules that prevented disease. Anyone can tell you that prevention is better than cure. Man is having to battle against diseases he has brought on himself such as AIDS. Having unnatural sex with humans and animals has caused all sorts of problems and man is battling against them by relying on his own efforts.
Many of the hygiene rules were common sense and you have no way of knowing if other cultures of that time period were also using similar hygiene practices. If the hygiene rules practiced by the Hebrews (which were part of the law) were so important why were they not stressed by Jesus or Paul? Instead Paul said the law was to be done away with!

AIDS was not caused by man, it was spread to people from monkeys. There is no proof that sex with monkeys was the cause of AIDS spreading to humans, that was a theory propagated by fundamentalists. One speculation is that contaminated Polio vaccines might have been the cause. What about diseases like the Bubonic Plague, are you going to say that man brought those upon himself also? And why did it take human ingenuity to come up with a cure after thousands of years and millions of lives lost? If humans hadn't relied on their own efforts they would still be dying from simple infections that cost millions of lives over the centuries.


You know Isaac Newton turned his attention to the Bible and believed Creation was in 4004 BC and has calculated the end date as 2060. I think Isaac Newton appreciated the master designer of the universe.
My point was that Newton discovered Calculus all on his own without any help from the Bible.


It has never occurred to you that God has allowed these things to be found out and he has not kept them hidden. God is a master planner and releasing information is one way of working in the kingdoms of men. The words of Jesus not only applied to Pilate, but can be applied to other things as well;(John 19:11) "Thou couldest have no ........, except it were given thee from above:" Don't think God does not know what man is working on.
First you say God has not kept things hidden, then you say he is the master planner who releases information...which is it? What you are doing is giving God credit for human ingenuity, because someone records some words supposedly spoken by a man named Jesus. Every religion thinks their god is giving them information, but if that is the case then why has it taken so long for humans to come up with cures for diseases (which have nothing to do with hygiene)?


You mean you do not not want to think. I have referred to the hygiene rules God gave to the Children of Israel at Sinai. Good hygiene has not practiced by doctors in the middle ages. Even hospitals today have not been practicing good hygiene. The laws God gave to his people were far in advance compared to the nations around them.
Like I said earlier, you have no evidence that other cultures were not also practicing hygiene rules and if those hygiene rules which were a part of the Mosaic law were so important why did Jesus and Paul say that the law was obsolete and to be done away with? Hygiene was just one small part of spreading certain diseases, what about diseases like leprosy? Leprosy wasn't caused by unsanitary conditions, yet God chose not to reveal a cure for it.


Unfortunately Rose, you do not know the truth of the Bible and your bias against it is your own downfall. In the words of Elton John; "its a sad, sad situation".

All the best

David

Truth is truth, and the Bible contains many falsehoods which it claims are true facts! The Bible has no checks and balances to rid it of error since its words are supposedly given from a infallible deity. I don't have a bias against the Bible per-say...my battle is to expose the falsehoods and errors contained in the Bible, and that is far from a downfall, it is an uplifting. :D

Take care,
Rose

L67
06-06-2013, 10:43 AM
Hi Rose:
Thanks for responding. I agree with you that we owe alot to science and I would say to specific scientist. Such as Sir Issac Newton, Einstien and Telsa and a few others. The rest not so much! They are a bunch of people that really do not care to deal with the facts if those facts contradict their preconcieved notions. Read carefully what was done to Dr. Hubble's asisstant Dr. Arp. He proved the Hubble red-shift to be inaccurate. And they took away his ability to use the telescopes which he invented. They banned him from the USA and did not allow him to continue his research because his findings flew in the face of established science. I know you don;t want to change your mind on anything you believe... But at the most basic level you must admit that Dr. Arp is the scientist's scientist! Do your homework and you will find that Dr. Arp came up with the current models used in science and he also showed that they are flawed beyond repair. And other scientists just ignored his research. But not the Germans. So now he does research in Germany at the Max Planck Observatory. So do not give me the crap line that scientists are objective fact finders. When the facts do not match their desired conclusion they discard the evidence which flies in the face of what they believe. The galaxies which Dr. Arp discovered are today edited by NASA and the photos spliced so that the facts are not known by most people. That/s not how science is supposed to work!

And as to the dating of the Egyptain meteorite objects I just thought you might have more data than I do as to how they were dated. Until I see that data the age issue is moot! Yes I know that scientists lie! Creationists lie! But the truth, although hidden is knowable!

Namaste,

Mystykal

I'm glad you mentioned Dr. Arp. Because I am very familiar with his work and he didn't prove anything. He was a prominent scientist, who pushed his theory despite what the evidence has shown. In 1965 his ideas were rather reasonable with technology in its infancy. But technology has advanced and evidence proves his theory wrong. That is the beauty of science. We can test theories and the ones that don't stand up under scrutiny can be discarded. That is what happened to Dr. Arp. He still refuses to budge despite what the evidence shows. He wasn't blackballed because he proved mainstream science wrong. He was discarded because he was wrong.

http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp#Critics

Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s; however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly since then: the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[6] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[7][8][9] As more recent experiments have expanded the amount of collected data by orders of magnitude, it has become increasingly simple to test Arp's postulates directly. A recent study stated that:

"... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [...] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency."[10]

Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles[11][12] stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge (until his death in 2010) and Margaret Burbidge.[13]

Unregistered
06-08-2013, 04:38 AM
I'm glad you mentioned Dr. Arp. Because I am very familiar with his work and he didn't prove anything. He was a prominent scientist, who pushed his theory despite what the evidence has shown. In 1965 his ideas were rather reasonable with technology in its infancy. But technology has advanced and evidence proves his theory wrong. That is the beauty of science. We can test theories and the ones that don't stand up under scrutiny can be discarded. That is what happened to Dr. Arp. He still refuses to budge despite what the evidence shows. He wasn't blackballed because he proved mainstream science wrong. He was discarded because he was wrong.

http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp#Critics

Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s; however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly since then: the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[6] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[7][8][9] As more recent experiments have expanded the amount of collected data by orders of magnitude, it has become increasingly simple to test Arp's postulates directly. A recent study stated that:

"... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [...] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency."[10]

Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles[11][12] stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge (until his death in 2010) and Margaret Burbidge.[13]

Hi Rose:
Thanks for your comments. The problem I have with the naysayers to Dr. Arp and his proposed theories of galactic formation and the Hubble red-shift is simple. The time constraints of the Big Bang model do not explain spiral galaxies and their formation. Furthermore to simply say that the frequency models do not detect ANY frdequencies Log(1+z) or any other frequency is not a factual statement when the visible objects themselves elicit an intertwined appearance that clearly bothers NASA enough to cut the pictures in two so that the tails of the multi-galaxies do not appear in photographs IS A PROBLEM! The fact that the visible evidence flies in the face of the mathematical formulas is a situatuion that most astrophysicists hate to admit.

And I would like your comments on Dr. Gentry's work. I went to school with his son in college. I know Dr. Gentry well. It is a shame many do not take his work on halos seriously. I've seen the evidence first hand. His challenge to reproduce the effect has never been duplicated! So there's that....

Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
06-08-2013, 04:53 AM
I'm glad you mentioned Dr. Arp. Because I am very familiar with his work and he didn't prove anything. He was a prominent scientist, who pushed his theory despite what the evidence has shown. In 1965 his ideas were rather reasonable with technology in its infancy. But technology has advanced and evidence proves his theory wrong. That is the beauty of science. We can test theories and the ones that don't stand up under scrutiny can be discarded. That is what happened to Dr. Arp. He still refuses to budge despite what the evidence shows. He wasn't blackballed because he proved mainstream science wrong. He was discarded because he was wrong.

http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp#Critics

Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s; however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly since then: the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[6] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[7][8][9] As more recent experiments have expanded the amount of collected data by orders of magnitude, it has become increasingly simple to test Arp's postulates directly. A recent study stated that:

"... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [...] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency."[10]

Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles[11][12] stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge (until his death in 2010) and Margaret Burbidge.[13]

===========



L67:

Just a quick comment. You think Margaret Burbidge would work with a washed-up crazy no good scientist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Burbidge
After receiving her Ph.D. in 1943, she started to research galaxies by linking a spectrograph to telescopes. At the Yerkes Observatory in the USA her work involved studying B stars and galaxy structure.

In 1957, the B2FH group showed the famous result that all of the elements except the very lightest, are produced by nuclear processes inside stars. For this they received the Warner Prize in 1959. In her later research she was one of the first to measure the masses and rotation curves of galaxies and was one of the pioneers in the study of quasars.

At UCSD she also helped develop the faint object spectrograph in 1990 for the Hubble Space Telescope. Currently, she is a professor emeritus of physics at UCSD and continues to be active in research, such as engaging in non-standard cosmologies such as, intrinsic redshift.[2]

--------
Namaste,

Mystykal

L67
06-08-2013, 06:17 PM
===========



L67:

Just a quick comment. You think Margaret Burbidge would work with a washed-up crazy no good scientist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Burbidge
After receiving her Ph.D. in 1943, she started to research galaxies by linking a spectrograph to telescopes. At the Yerkes Observatory in the USA her work involved studying B stars and galaxy structure.

In 1957, the B2FH group showed the famous result that all of the elements except the very lightest, are produced by nuclear processes inside stars. For this they received the Warner Prize in 1959. In her later research she was one of the first to measure the masses and rotation curves of galaxies and was one of the pioneers in the study of quasars.

At UCSD she also helped develop the faint object spectrograph in 1990 for the Hubble Space Telescope. Currently, she is a professor emeritus of physics at UCSD and continues to be active in research, such as engaging in non-standard cosmologies such as, intrinsic redshift.[2]

--------
Namaste,

Mystykal

Hey Mystykal,

Did I say he was washed-up crazy no good scientist? No. Read what I actually said. I'm not interested in Margaret Burbidge. You made the claim that Arp proved the Hubble red-shift to be inaccurate and that he was blackballed because he questioned mainstream science. That was false. He was made irrelevant because there was no evidence for his claims. That is how science works. It weeds out the theories with no evidence. Instead of Arp changing his stance despite no evidence for his claim he won't budge. That is why mainstream science doesn't listen to him.

You really need to fact check the info you post from creationist websites. I have corrected two other falsehoods that you posted about because of dishonest creationist. I'm not attacking you personally about being dishonest because you didn't do it. Creationist have a track record of being dishonest when it comes to established science.

Mystykal
06-09-2013, 04:58 AM
Hey Mystykal,

Did I say he was washed-up crazy no good scientist? No. Read what I actually said. I'm not interested in Margaret Burbidge. You made the claim that Arp proved the Hubble red-shift to be inaccurate and that he was blackballed because he questioned mainstream science. That was false. He was made irrelevant because there was no evidence for his claims. That is how science works. It weeds out the theories with no evidence. Instead of Arp changing his stance despite no evidence for his claim he won't budge. That is why mainstream science doesn't listen to him.

You really need to fact check the info you post from creationist websites. I have corrected two other falsehoods that you posted about because of dishonest creationist. I'm not attacking you personally about being dishonest because you didn't do it. Creationist have a track record of being dishonest when it comes to established science.

Hi L67

Hey! You inferred that because Dr. Arp will not change his position in spite of the "Evidence" in my opinion that would make him a washed-up no good scientists! However the fact that respectable scientists still work with him proves that he does have credibility in spite of his being ignored by many mainstream scientists. You are really not able to separate the man from his flaws!...

And thanks for not attacking me personally! I am not trying to support one theory over the other at the moment. I am just trying to understand the FACTS.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
06-09-2013, 10:45 PM
===========



L67:

Just a quick comment. You think Margaret Burbidge would work with a washed-up crazy no good scientist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Burbidge
After receiving her Ph.D. in 1943, she started to research galaxies by linking a spectrograph to telescopes. At the Yerkes Observatory in the USA her work involved studying B stars and galaxy structure.

In 1957, the B2FH group showed the famous result that all of the elements except the very lightest, are produced by nuclear processes inside stars. For this they received the Warner Prize in 1959. In her later research she was one of the first to measure the masses and rotation curves of galaxies and was one of the pioneers in the study of quasars.

At UCSD she also helped develop the faint object spectrograph in 1990 for the Hubble Space Telescope. Currently, she is a professor emeritus of physics at UCSD and continues to be active in research, such as engaging in non-standard cosmologies such as, intrinsic redshift.[2]

--------
Namaste,

Mystykal

You may not have seen this! ....

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090908constants.htm

"The story of Halton Arp's experiences with the scientific community has been documented many times in these pages. Suffice to say, a respectful and open-minded reception from astronomers and astrophysicists was not to be the result of his discovery. Rather than accepting his observations, Dr. Arp's papers were barred from publication and his telescope time was canceled. He was shunned by colleagues and ignored by the community at large – one of the most shameful chapters in a book filled with instances of shoddy treatment and blind resentment.

Second, by referring to material with a temperature of 100 million Kelvin as "hot gas" astrophysicists are highlighting their complete ignorance of plasma and its behavior. No atom can remain intact at such temperatures – electrons are stripped from the nuclei and powerful electrical fields develop. The gaseous matter becomes plasma, capable of conducting electricity and forming double layers."

Mystykal
06-09-2013, 10:59 PM
===========



L67:

Just a quick comment. You think Margaret Burbidge would work with a washed-up crazy no good scientist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Burbidge
After receiving her Ph.D. in 1943, she started to research galaxies by linking a spectrograph to telescopes. At the Yerkes Observatory in the USA her work involved studying B stars and galaxy structure.

In 1957, the B2FH group showed the famous result that all of the elements except the very lightest, are produced by nuclear processes inside stars. For this they received the Warner Prize in 1959. In her later research she was one of the first to measure the masses and rotation curves of galaxies and was one of the pioneers in the study of quasars.

At UCSD she also helped develop the faint object spectrograph in 1990 for the Hubble Space Telescope. Currently, she is a professor emeritus of physics at UCSD and continues to be active in research, such as engaging in non-standard cosmologies such as, intrinsic redshift.[2]

--------
Namaste,

Mystykal

==========================
==========================
The facts are:...

X-ray profile of Galactic Cluster 2XMM J083026+524133
Original image credit: G. Lamer et al.


Clusters and Cosmological Constants
Sep 08, 2009

A distant cluster of galaxies is said to confirm the existence of undetectable energy. Not a single reference is made to the most powerful known force in the cosmos: electricity.
Astronomers working with the European Space Agency's XMM Newton X-ray Telescope have discovered a grouping of galaxies in the outer most reaches of the universe containing more than 1000 times the mass of our own Milky Way. The image above is said to reflect the appearance of the cluster as it was during a relatively early epoch in the evolution of the universe.

Because the speed of light is used as a benchmark for defining cosmological distance calculations, the shifting of Fraunhofer lines into the red end of observed electromagnetic spectra determines "recessional velocity". As standard theories dictate, the faster an object recedes from our observation platforms the further away it is because the primordial Big Bang explosion imparted an initial impulse that is causing the universe to expand. Using these theoretical parameters, a faster recessional velocity means greater distance, which means an earlier time period.

According to Georg Lamar and his colleagues from the Astrophysikalisches Institut in Potsdam, massive galaxy clusters with such high redshift are rare when they shine so brightly at x-ray wavelengths. As the ESA press release states, the presence of "hot gas" encompassing the cluster with temperatures of 100 million Kelvin makes J083026+524133 the most energetic x-ray source at z > = 1 redshift – 100 times brighter than any other galaxy cluster at that distance.

Such a massive cluster with a 7.7 billion year age estimate is thought to confirm the existence of dark energy because dark energy causes acceleration in the expansion of the universe. That acceleration makes it more difficult for massive clusters like J083026+524133 to hold together in more recent times because the dark energy expansion wants to tear them apart.

Astronomers made this disconcerting find ten years ago – that the universe is expanding faster today than it did in the past. In order to accommodate anomalous redshift observations the existence of a force that exerts negative pressure on gravitational fields was proposed and later called "dark energy" because it cannot be detected with any instrument.

Enzo Brachini from the European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (ESO) wrote: "This implies that one of two very different possibilities must hold true. Either the Universe is filled with a mysterious dark energy which produces a repulsive force that fights the gravitational brake from all the matter present in the Universe, or, our current theory of gravitation is not correct and needs to be modified, for example by adding extra dimensions to space."

Presumptions are difficult to overcome, particularly when they represent the sine qua non of thought within a specific discipline. The inability of conventional researchers to understand several factors hampers their ability to grasp the fundamental nature of the cosmos. The quoted comments from a respected scientist employed by ESO, as well as those from the XMM Newton team, are a perfect example of the absurd conclusions that can be drawn when electrified plasma in space is ignored.

Two of the most pressing issues in the modern approach to understanding the universe are the adherence to redshift as the only tool for estimating distances and ages of stars and galaxies, and a lack of knowledge when it comes to electricity.

First, in order to advance the catalogue of knowledge it often requires one's reputation and livelihood be placed on the block and the axe allowed to fall where it may. It takes real courage to buck the system and stand on one's convictions despite antagonism. Such is the case with Halton Arp, one of the grand masters in the field of astronomical research.

Dr. Arp earned his place at the top of his field through years of research and many lonely hours on cold mountain peaks documenting far-flung celestial objects. As his galactic compendium grew, he noticed that there was something wrong with conventional time-speed-distance calculations – he found objects with higher redshift values in front of objects with lower redshift. Surely, such a conundrum should have immediately called into question the very nature of that "cosmological constant".

If redshift is not an indicator of distance, J083026+524133 may not be so far away and therefore not so massive or bright. As Arp and his colleagues have repeatedly shown, taking in a wider field of view often reveals similar objects on the opposite side of a nearby active galaxy. Many of these high-redshift pairs are connected across the galaxy with a bridge of radiating material. Theories of an expanding universe, dark matter, and dark energy depend on the XMM Newton's (and other observatories) extremely narrow field of view and how the data is selected.

The story of Halton Arp's experiences with the scientific community has been documented many times in these pages. Suffice to say, a respectful and open-minded reception from astronomers and astrophysicists was not to be the result of his discovery. Rather than accepting his observations, Dr. Arp's papers were barred from publication and his telescope time was canceled. He was shunned by colleagues and ignored by the community at large – one of the most shameful chapters in a book filled with instances of shoddy treatment and blind resentment.

Second, by referring to material with a temperature of 100 million Kelvin as "hot gas" astrophysicists are highlighting their complete ignorance of plasma and its behavior. No atom can remain intact at such temperatures – electrons are stripped from the nuclei and powerful electrical fields develop. The gaseous matter becomes plasma, capable of conducting electricity and forming double layers.

In 1986, Hannes Alfvén, in a NASA-sponsored conference on double layers in astrophysics, said:

"Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object (one example is the double radio sources). It is tentatively suggested that x-ray and gamma ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers. In solar flares, [double layers] with voltages of 10^9 volts or even more may occur, and in galactic phenomena, we may have voltages that are several orders of magnitude larger."

Plasma is the first state of matter and makes up more than 99.99% of all that we observe in the universe. Cosmological redshift has been shown to be a property of matter and not one of velocity. It is far past time that scientists actually look at what they see with critical eyes.

By Stephen Smith



Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
06-10-2013, 12:27 AM
:eek: I can't even begin to understand the illogical logic used by those who claim that Dr. Arp has been invalidated by modern discoveries. Many scientists are realizing that the model held about how the universe works and was formed is lacking a depth which can hold all of the abnormal findings which even NASA tries to ignore. If you take your blinders off you will see that information is availabe which will shed light on the facts. Instead of trying to support old ideas which cannot stand up to scrutiny.

So here goes...

Template:Note Arp, Halton C., Catalogue of discordant redshift associations (2003)


http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=66650&sid=bc2d75779129d190a11050d6993a0e06

How Would You Summarize Modern Cosmology?
Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Forum rules Post a replyFirst unread post • 2 posts • Page 1 of 1
How Would You Summarize Modern Cosmology?
by orrery » Mon May 28, 2012 4:25 pm

Our modern understanding has advanced significantly since the primitive days and theories of Carl Sagan's times. Modern Cosmology has overturned and invalidated 20th century musings like Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Pulsars, Quasars, and Big Bang Creationism of Catholicism. Much of 21st Century Cosmology is disdained by the Public due to the fact that it challenges their sacred religious beliefs founded in the Book of Genesis and repudiates the idea of a Creation Event and challenging them to accept a Universe infinite in time & space.

The following videos will give you the most accurate and truthful understanding of 21st Century Cosmology.
Universe: Cosmology Quest - part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFl9S39CTM, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb_EWnXCu2w

On the cutting edge of Cosmology are the advocates of The Electric Universe, you can watch their groundbreaking documentary Thunderbolts of the Gods. Professor Donald Scott, author of The Electric Sky, NASA guest lecturer, Ph. D of Electrical Engineering, highly praised by the most prestigious names in Government research like Anthony Peratt provides modern explanations for everything to the Sun, and debunking failed concepts Pulsars, and Black Holes using exciting science of Plasma Physics and Electrical Engineering.
Key Scientists of 21st Cosmology aren't people like Stephen Hawking.
They are people like:


Dr. Hannes Alfven
Dr. Anthony Peratt
Dr. Eric Lerner
Natural Philosopher Wal Thornhill
Dr. Donald Scott
Dr. Ari Brynjolffson
Dr. Halton Arp

The momentum of previous decades still weighs heavy in cosmological discussions. People have yet to upgrade their Cosmology Firmware and still believe in outdated concepts like the Big Bang, Black Holes, Pulsars, Neutron Stars, Dark Matter, & Dark Energy.

Big Bang Creationism has long since been debunked through new modern interpretation of the Red Shift phenomenon by the world's leading Radiological expert Ari Brynjolffson. You can explore his website Plasma Redshift
Personally trained by Neils Bohr himself, Ari is one of the last remaining of a great generation of Scientists. He has been head of the Danish, US Army, and United Nations Radiological Research divisions. His scientific research, using the most advanced radiological and scientific instruments available in the world, prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Doppler Shift interpretation of Red Shift originally proposed by Catholic Preacher Georges Lemaitre is fundamentally flawed just as believed by Hubble & Einstein.

Brynjolffson has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Red Shift is a consequence of the Electron Plasma Density.
When photons penetrate a cold and dense plasma, they lose energy through ionization and excitation, Compton scattering on the individual electrons, and Raman scattering on the plasma frequency. But in sparse hot plasma, such as in the solar corona, the photons lose energy also in plasma redshift. The energy loss per electron in the plasma redshift is about equal to the product of the photon's energy and one half of the Compton cross-section per electron. In quiescent solar corona, this heating starts in the transition zone to the corona and is a major fraction of the coronal heating. Plasma redshift contributes also to the heating of the interstellar plasma, the galactic corona, and the intergalactic plasma. Plasma redshift explains the solar redshifts, the intrinsic redshifts of stars, quasars, the galactic corona, the cosmological redshifts, the cosmic microwave background, and the X-ray background. The plasma redshift explains the observed magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae SNe Ia without the big bang, dark matter, or dark energy. It explains also the observed surface brightness of galaxies. There is no cosmic time dilation. The universe is not expanding. The plasma redshift, when compared with experiments, shows that the photons' classical gravitational redshifts are reversed as the photons move from the Sun to the Earth, provided they have adequate time to change their frequency. This is a quantum mechanical effect. As seen from the Earth, a repulsion force acts on the photons.

Big Bang Creationism and Cosmology, despite still being popular in Christian countries as the dominant explanation has been debunked for over 50 years. Plasma Cosmology is the only real game in town.

Once the Doppler Theory of Redshift had been debunked, all the work of "Expanding Universe" Theoreticians that built their work on the idea of Doppler Redshift became instantly invalidated. Once Redshift moved from a Doppler interpretation, to one of the Photon's Journey through Interstellar Space, the work of popular names like Stephen Hawking suddenly became toilet paper, and a new generation waits in the wings to take the baton and advance humanities understanding of the Cosmos. As we come to better understand the Photon's Pipe Journey through Space, we will be able to see further into Space than ever before through improved adaptive optics. The Universe becomes infinite in age & size and we are just opening our eyes to view deeper through the fog.
/r/plasmacosmology

I recommend the following books:


The Big Bang Never Happened by Dr. Eric J. Lerner
The Electric Sky by Dr. Donald E. Scott
Cosmic Plasma by Dr. Hannes Alfven
Physics of the Plasma Universe by Dr. Anthony Peratt
The Electric Universe by Natural Philosopher Wal Thornhill
Plasma Redshiftby Dr. Ari Brynjolffson
Seeing Red by Dr. Halton C. Arp

In closing, I find it is always important to note, that much of the public believes that the Michelson-Morley experiment upon which early 20th Century Science was developed remains valid. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was once believed that Space was a vacuum. Since our first probes into Space, we have found this is not true. Far from disproving the existence of the Aether, it has come that we have instead disproved the existence of a vacuum.

Space is a gigantic Sea of Plasma consisting of electrons, quarks, and other exotic charged particles. I can not stress this enough, there is no vacuum in Space. Despite the illusion of a vacuum, you are living in a gigantic sea of electrified plasma, a complex dusty plasma makes up our Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy. This plasma is in a Dark Glow State, not enough energy goes into it to illuminate it, but we can see much of it through Infrared Telescopes. The "seeing" may seem great, but this electrified plasma currently limits our view to around 14 GLY and its density varies depending on the Electric Field of the object being encompassed by it. With the improved red-shifted viewing of the James Webb Space Telescope, its gold primary mirror will serve as an adaptive optic to this effect, allowing us to look further than ever before into the infinite sea of space."though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology

Comments about The Electric Sky:

– Lewis E. Franks, PhD, Stanford University, Fellow of the IEEE (1977), Professor Emeritus and Head of the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts (Retired).

“Gravity was the focus of 20th century astronomy. For the 21st century, it will be electromagnetism and plasmas in addition. This forthcoming scientific revolution is presaged by the rapid pace of discoveries about our own star, the Sun, and its total plasma environment, and discoveries about the nature of the interstellar medium.”

– Timothy E. Eastman, PhD, Head of Raytheon’s space physics and astrophysics groups. He is well known for his work on magnetospheric boundary layers and the initial discovery of the Low Latitude Boundary Layer.
http://www.plasmas.org/space-astrophys.htm

“It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work.”

--------
Namaste,

David M
06-10-2013, 02:44 AM
One of the problems we have is allowing for Creationists to have problems explaining Creation in anything but a simple way like "God did it" and not knowing the processes God used in order to do it.

Scientists and Evolutionists have there own set of problems in explaining origins and it is the origin that has to be explained even before we get to the matter of Evolution. Evolution has to come from an origin that does not have a Creator.

Atheists can mock and ridicule the Bible because Christians cannot agree in the simple story presented about the Creation and yet Christians are expected by scientists and Evolutionists to accept their explanations.


In the matter of the astronomical field and its study we have conflicting opinions from the scientists. We are expected to believe that gas clouds of mainly hydrogen collapse to form stars. Apart from the obvious reason for considering this not to happen, here is a quote picked out of the article posted by Mystykal in a post just prior to this.


Such a massive cluster with a 7.7 billion year age estimate is thought to confirm the existence of dark energy because dark energy causes acceleration in the expansion of the universe. That acceleration makes it more difficult for massive clusters like J083026+524133 to hold together in more recent times because the dark energy expansion wants to tear them apart.

within these clusters are the gas clouds that are supposed form stars and yet they will be subjected to the same forces that are ripping the clusters apart. Here we have and example of conflicting theories and yet we are told by L67 that these are not theories they are facts. Can two opposing theories be fact. It is for this reason that I do not accept any theory as fact. Theories are there to give an explanation of the facts. Some theories can be more close to describing the truth than others but no theory is perfect. When there is no uncertainty to a theory and that theory is the truth and the only explanation, then (IMO) it ceases to be a theory.

David

Mystykal
06-10-2013, 02:52 AM
Here is an example of how people try and mislead and claim that the theories of Electric field theorists and such ideas have been proven to be false. First they narrow the field of topic so that the problems with the main stream theories cannot be brought up... Then they only raise a few questions on the subject and then act like that is the whole picture! Not only is this not scientific it is perfectly clear that these individuals are as blind as a bat when it comes to the facts.

Bonsai12 March 2013 17:17
WARNIG! I know the Electric Universe Theories quite good. This website is NOT a critism of Electric Universe as it doesn't represent the widely accepted Model!!!
An example: The new Sun model is very complex, not a simple Kathod!
Even the first Headline is a LIE!
January 2013 was a conference. I watched most of the Videos.

Here on this page everything that speaks AGAINST BigBang is excluded. You cannot pick out 5 points and explain the universe. You must see it as one full picture.

As I am quite familiar with both models, I can say the EU model looks much better.

Neutrino Dreaming
This Blog


This Blog

Thursday, 29 September 2011The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

I kept hearing about this theory called the “electric universe theory”, and wondered what it was all about. An ex-work colleague was quite worked up about it and even lent me some books. What was this theory and where on earth did it come from?

According to the website www.electricuniverse.info the “Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo’s Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized “gases”) which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields.” It goes on to state “Electricity is common throughout the universe, generated by all cosmic plasma as it moves through magnetic fields. Peer reviewed papers describe electricity in the Sun, and associated with the interplanetary medium (solar wind), planets and their satellites, comets, in interstellar space, other stars, and intergalactic space.” Well that sounds pretty convincing, doesn’t it?

We astronomers often stumble across new theories, and after a while a certain degree of ‘learned scepticism’ enters the fray. So I decided to take a closer look at this theory. The theory seemed to be all encompassing and rather difficult to pin down, so in order to do this, I focused on what the theory has to say about our sun in particular. Astrophysicists say that stars, including the sun, are powered by nuclear fusion. However electric universe theorists say this is not so. The reasons given are that:

1.we haven’t yet found the neutrinos that must be emitted from such a reaction;
2.that the granular structure we see on the sun would not be possible, because convection is impossible due to the conditions there;
3.the energy emitted from the sun does not display the inverse square law;
4.periodic fluctuations in the sun’s output resemble electric discharge patterns; and
5.the solar wind is and effect of charged particles being accelerated in an electric field.

Well that all sounds very plausible and ‘scientificy’. But let’s take a closer look at the arguments one by one.

Neutrinos have not been found?

A neutrino is a particle smaller than an atom with an incredibly small mass to it. They are similar to electrons, but don’t have a charge. They usually travel close to the speed of light, and not having a charge means they are unaffected by electromagnetic forces like other matter, and are able to pass through ordinary matter almost unaffected.

Neutrino observatories are actually underground because the neutrinos pass right through the earth. Neutrinos are created as a by-product result of nuclear fusion (in a nuclear plant or the sun) or when cosmic rays hit atoms. Every second about 65 billion solar neutrinos pass through every square centimetre of earth facing the Sun. Because they have a mass, neutrinos can interact with other particles via gravity.

Scientists have been detecting the effects of neutrinos for years, and they match the predictions exactly. If an alternative theory is to be considered, scientists would need to reject the theory of nuclear fusion at the centre of a star. This would also necessarily lead to rejection of the theories of thermodynamics, gravitation, nuclear physics, statistical physics, electromagnetism, hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics. In other words, most of physics would need to be rejected to address the problem of the ‘missing’ neutrinos.

Electric universe theorists argue that these neutrinos have never been detected, and those inferred by their effects are about half of what would be produced by a fusion reaction in the sun.

Some of you will be familiar with quantum mechanics, where all particles can have both wave and particle properties. Well, neutrinos are confusing too, as they have mass and therefore qualify as a particle. When they are detected they have a probability of being either an electron neutrino or a tau neutrino. We have electron neutrino detectors, and once we build a tau neutrino detector the ‘flux’ will add up to the exact amount to solve the solar problem. So maybe it is a bit premature to throw physics out just yet.

Convection in the sun is impossible?

Electric universe theory argues that the granulation we observe on the surface of the sun cannot be caused by convection bubbling up the layers of the sun. This is based on an assumption by a man called Juergen, that one of the values used in fluid dynamics, the Reynolds number, causes the convection, and at certain values convection cannot occur.
If you imagine a parcel of matter inside the sun towards the surface as the sun’s heat causes it to rise and falling back towards the centre as it cools (like boiling water), the Reynolds number describes a function of the parcel size, length and stickiness.

Juergen assumes that the Reynolds number controls convection but it doesn’t; convection is controlled by the Rayleigh number. The Rayleigh number is a function of the temperature, gravity, the degree of temperature change, stickiness and how diffuse the temperature is. So Juergen made a mistake, oops. The convection that we see on the sun can be explained without throwing away physics.

The sun’s energy breaks the inverse square law?

In physics, the inverse square law states that a specified physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. So in other words if you move from two metres to four metres away from a heater you increase the distance by two, but decrease the energy by four times (four is the square
of two). Electric universe theory says that because the sun is coolest at its surface, then the temperature jumps up again out at its halo, it does not obey the inverse square law, and physics is wrong.

At this point it is important to note that the inverse square law only applies to radiant energy (as opposed to convection or conduction) and only in a vacuum. When energy moves through an atmosphere (such as the corona of the Sun) then the law does not hold. In addition, the inverse square law applies to all energy, not just heat. The colder ‘surface’ (photosphere) actually has more energy. The energy drops dramatically at the corona as we would expect. There are a myriad of explanations for the temperature differences, none of which involve throwing out physics as we know it.

The sun’s variations prove it is a bag of plasma?

Electric universe theory says that the variations in the sun every 2 hours and 40 minutes or
so can only be explained if the sun was a big bag of gas undergoing periodic electrical discharge. Juergen cites some research that shows this period is what we would expect from a homogenous sphere, rather than the accepted layered model of the sun found in
textbooks. Well that is a problem ... isn’t it?
OK, time for some context here. The research cited was in 1976 and the authors stated that it applies only if they are p-mode oscillations. But back then we didn’t have the technology to distinguish between p-mode and g-mode oscillations. Later research, available to the electric universe theorists, showed they were gmode, so basically all the assumptions based on this research went out the window. It doesn’t matter too much what the modes are, the point is that the electric universe theory was based on outdated information from 1976. Very poor research indeed!

The solar wind is caused by an electric field?

In physics an electric field applied to charged particles cause them to accelerate. The
Electric universe theory says that the solar wind is the result of such a field, and the Sun is electric, not fusion based.

Maxwell’s theory of acceleration, however, talks about a time variable field, not a fixed one, and what’s more the solar wind contains both positive and negatively charged ions (protons and electrons mainly). An electric sun would be positively charged and all the negatively charged electrons would be attached to it – not be pushed out from the Sun on a solar wind. This fact proves the Sun is not electric.

And then the wheels fell off…

Hmmm. Towards the end of my research I found a notation on Wikipedia about why “Electric Universe Theory” had been removed. Apparently there are only a few people who currently publish ideas on the “electric universe” and those people publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the “electric universe theory”. Most papers listed as peer reviewed are not about the “electric universe” but about plasma cosmology (a different idea). The “electric universe” has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.

Well, it seems this is not a theory that anyone should be hanging their hat on. However, I will say that my little exploration did lead me to learn an awful lot about neutrinos, and our Sun. I hope that next time you read an outlandish theory you might take this journey too. You never know what you might learn.


Namaste,

Mystykal

L67
06-10-2013, 05:46 AM
You may not have seen this! ....

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090908constants.htm

"The story of Halton Arp's experiences with the scientific community has been documented many times in these pages. Suffice to say, a respectful and open-minded reception from astronomers and astrophysicists was not to be the result of his discovery. Rather than accepting his observations, Dr. Arp's papers were barred from publication and his telescope time was canceled. He was shunned by colleagues and ignored by the community at large – one of the most shameful chapters in a book filled with instances of shoddy treatment and blind resentment.

Second, by referring to material with a temperature of 100 million Kelvin as "hot gas" astrophysicists are highlighting their complete ignorance of plasma and its behavior. No atom can remain intact at such temperatures – electrons are stripped from the nuclei and powerful electrical fields develop. The gaseous matter becomes plasma, capable of conducting electricity and forming double layers."

Hey Mystykal,

Yes, I know all about Halton Arp. If you go back and read my post again you will see I said this" He was a prominent scientist, who pushed his theory despite what the evidence has shown.

It really doesn't matter now how he was treated because it turns out he was wrong anyways.

His stubborness was his own undoing. There is no evidence for his claims. You never bothered to read the links I provided. His theory has been tested and no evidence was found.

http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...41T

We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1+z) model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.

You have posted more information of peoples opinion of Dr. Arp. That is irrelevant to his claims. The only thing that matters is the evidence. And there is ZERO evidence for his claims.

L67
06-10-2013, 06:04 AM
Here is an example of how people try and mislead and claim that the theories of Electric field theorists and such ideas have been proven to be false. First they narrow the field of topic so that the problems with the main stream theories cannot be brought up... Then they only raise a few questions on the subject and then act like that is the whole picture! Not only is this not scientific it is perfectly clear that these individuals are as blind as a bat when it comes to the facts.

What facts? The Electric Universe Theory is pseudoscience.

Here is a very thorough critique of the Electric Universe Theory.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html

Here is the conclusion:

Standard theories are standard for a reason, and it's not prejudice or bias, as the supporters of much alternative "science" would have you believe. They are standard because they work, and really for no better reason than that. Supporters of alternate theories, such as the electric Sun recognize this. So, their first action is to attack the standard theory in an attempt to show that it is in reality so flawed, and so failing when compared to observation, that it must be abandoned and replaced by some "better" theory. Of course, the "better" theory is the one they advocate, in this case the "electric Sun".

But in this case the "attack" has turned out to be insipid at best. The criticisms that claim to reaveal weaknesses in standard theory are in fact so full of mistakes, misinterpretations and misrepresentations that they can hardly be taken seriously. If that's the best they can do at criticizing standard theory, one has to wonder what is the quality, really, of the arguments taken in favor of the Sun being "electric"? What is so powerful about that hypothesis that it should be accepted over and above As it turns out, the arguments in favor of the "electric sun" are no better then the arguments in opposition to standard theory. Some of that weakness I have revealed thus far, and I will add sections as time permits to complete the story. Suffice to say for now that if science is what you are looking for, you will find none where the electric sun is concerned, save that which shows it to be an untenable hypothesis.

Mystykal
06-10-2013, 11:01 PM
Hey Mystykal,

Yes, I know all about Halton Arp. If you go back and read my post again you will see I said this" He was a prominent scientist, who pushed his theory despite what the evidence has shown.

It really doesn't matter now how he was treated because it turns out he was wrong anyways.

His stubborness was his own undoing. There is no evidence for his claims. You never bothered to read the links I provided. His theory has been tested and no evidence was found.

http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...41T

We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1+z) model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.

You have posted more information of peoples opinion of Dr. Arp. That is irrelevant to his claims. The only thing that matters is the evidence. And there is ZERO evidence for his claims.

-----------------
Interesting! When you talk about the Big Bang model you have "evidence". In spite of all the anomalies that are present. But when prominent scientists take a different view and present a different hypothesis than the standard "swiss cheese" hypothesis THEY have "zero evidence!" I couldn't disagree more! All the information and data we have about the way galaxies form and function would indicate that the big bang model does not work as an explanation for what we observe in real time. The whole "dark matter" issue is a huge problem in this debate.

I don't imagine you will ever look at all the data in some other way than through the lens of the evolutionary model. However, it does make for some interesting debates.

Namaste,

Mystykal

L67
06-11-2013, 11:17 AM
-----------------
Interesting! When you talk about the Big Bang model you have "evidence". In spite of all the anomalies that are present. But when prominent scientists take a different view and present a different hypothesis than the standard "swiss cheese" hypothesis THEY have "zero evidence!" I couldn't disagree more! All the information and data we have about the way galaxies form and function would indicate that the big bang model does not work as an explanation for what we observe in real time. The whole "dark matter" issue is a huge problem in this debate.

I don't imagine you will ever look at all the data in some other way than through the lens of the evolutionary model. However, it does make for some interesting debates.

Namaste,

Mystykal


I never said the Big Bang was perfect or that I accepted every bit of it. There is still a lot we don't know. But Arp's hypothesis is wrong because it has been tested and zero evidence was found. You can argue about it all you want, but the fact remains there is no evidence for his claims. If there was all this evidence that you claim, then you would present it. Science would also adopt his theory if it found evidence for his claims. Why would mainstream scientist adopt his theory when he has been wrong and refuses to budge?

Also, why should I look at the data through any other way then the evolutionary model? It's not perfect but it works.

Mystykal
06-11-2013, 10:57 PM
I never said the Big Bang was perfect or that I accepted every bit of it. There is still a lot we don't know. But Arp's hypothesis is wrong because it has been tested and zero evidence was found. You can argue about it all you want, but the fact remains there is no evidence for his claims. If there was all this evidence that you claim, then you would present it. Science would also adopt his theory if it found evidence for his claims. Why would mainstream scientist adopt his theory when he has been wrong and refuses to budge?

Also, why should I look at the data through any other way then the evolutionary model? It's not perfect but it works.

I see that you make blanket statements alot! I did present evidnece and you just ignore it! The whole THEORY of evolutionary big bang model does NOT answer the most fundamental questions of how the universe got so large with so little visible matter. And then you have the problem of spiral galaxies... too many of them are present for the time periods of the big bang model to even BEGIN to work! AND lots of scientists are looking elsewhere for answers... Science as a body as a group are slow to change. Textbooks are typically decades behind the actual known science that is out there.
You keep saying that Dr. Arp is 100% wrong! You lie saying that but your so called "evidence" does not say that. Further more the ideas of an electric based universe is far more complex than just writing it off as a foolish idea which "scientists" have proven to be wrong like "the earth is flat" kind of thing. You have not bothered to read all the information and technical explanations on the subject. If you had you would see that it is a very strong theory which needs more research and testing.


Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/15274/twin-spiral-galaxies-dance-together/#ixzz2Vygsr8bB

http://www.icr.org/article/6498/
Distant Galaxies Look Too Mature for Big Bang
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A gamma-ray burst passed through two far-distant galaxies on its way to earth, illuminating them like a cosmic backlight and shedding new light on models of the origin and structure of the universe. Images from the event stunned some astronomers, because they show that the chemical makeup of these apparently young galaxies is far too mature to fit with the Big Bang theory.

"These galaxies have more heavy elements than have ever been seen in a galaxy so early in the evolution of the Universe. We didn't expect the Universe to be so mature, so chemically evolved, so early on," said German researcher Sandra Savaglio, lead author of a related paper slated to appear in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.1

A core Big Bang doctrine is that certain stars process lighter elements into heavy elements. The Big Bang supposedly only produced the lightest elements, hydrogen and helium. Astronomers speculate that after millions of years, hydrogen clouds condensed into stars. And then eons passed before those stars became mature enough to create the heavier elements, all of which astronomers call "metals." But stars never could have formed this way, and these new observations fly in the face of that doctrine.2

Instead of immature and lightweight galactic elements in these very distant galaxies, "the emerging picture is that the spread in metallicity is large at any redshift [distance]," according to the authors.3 The researchers analyzed the gamma-ray burst spectral lines, which showed that the galaxies through which the ray traveled contained more metals than the sun.

Distant galaxies appear just as mature as those near to earth, as though there was no relative time difference between the galaxies' formation. For example, very distant spiral galaxies—where stars are arranged in great, winding arms—appear to have undergone the same amount of spiral arm winding as closer ones. This is consistent with the idea that astronomical time runs, or used to run, at very different rates than earth time.4 It also matches the proposed idea that distant starlight takes no time to travel to earth.5

Astronomers routinely find mature-looking galaxies at great distances, and these galaxies defy the Big Bang's story of how nature might have constructed them, as well as when they were formed.6

Why do these galaxies have such mature makeups? The Big Bang could not have produced stars or galaxies, but would instead have produced evenly scattered material.7 Therefore, since the very existence of stars and galaxies requires a supernatural cause, it stands to reason that the same Cause would have also determined the composition of those stars and galaxies.

References

1.VLT Observations of Gamma-ray Burst Reveal Surprising Ingredients of Early Galaxies. Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics news release, November 2, 2011.
2.DeYoung, D. 1996. New Stars, New Planets? Acts & Facts. 25 (4).
3.Savaglio, S. et al. 2011. Super-solar Metal Abundances in Two Galaxies at z ~3.57 revealed by the GRB090323 Afterglow Spectrum. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Published online before print October 19, 2011.
4.Humphreys, R. How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr. Humphreys' cosmological model? Creation Ministries International. Posted on creation.com, accessed November 17, 2011.
5.Lisle, J. 2010. Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem. Answers Research Journal. 3: 191-207.
6.Thomas, B. 'Old' Galaxy Found in 'Young' Part of the Universe. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 24, 2011, accessed November 17, 2011.
7.Coppedge, D. 2007. Inflating the Evidence. Acts & Facts. 36 (12): 15.


Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
06-12-2013, 12:57 AM
Here we go! For all of you living in a cave! You call yourselves informed but then there is this!

Dark-Matter, Dark-Energy & The Big-Bang All Finally Resolved :eek:
Thursday, May 16, 2013
(Before It's News)


http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2013/05/dark-matter-dark-energy-the-big-bang-all-finally-resolved-2459770.html?currentSplittedPage=0

The Crisis in Cosmology



Today’s crisis in Cosmology is perhaps best demonstrated by an apparently accelerating expansion of the universe where a ‘Dark Energy’ must be postulated to justify this extraordinary acceleration apart — an energy that itselfdefies both explanation and the Law of Conservation of Energy.

And the crisis only deepens considering there would have to be between 5 and 50 times more matter in the universe for Einstein’s gravitational calculations to match observations, which is why unseen ‘Dark Matter’ was conjectured to keep these calculations “correct”, and account for the “missing mass”.


A further reason for this crisis is the now familiar ‘Big Bang’ theory — the current consensus belief backed by the attendant vested interests, and therefore largely unquestioned, but which actually fails under objective analysis showing a universe that is not expanding apart at all. Objective observation shows a universe where billions of stars organize into inwardly spiraling galaxies that group into larger stable Galactic Clusters, then further into enormous Super Clusters that thread throughout the universe providing definition even on the grandest scales.


The fact that one camp solidly and consistently reports this stable observational structure of our universe on all scales while a separate camp powerfully and enthusiastically promotes a completely incompatible “Big Bang” / “Dark Energy” ever-accelerating universe merely reinforces the enormity of the crisis in today’s Cosmological community.



Deepening the Crisis: Painting the Wrong Picture of Our Universe



However, despite the enormity of this crisis, it can be readily resolved once we identify where it all began — a fundamental flaw in Hubble’s Law which incorrectly assumes that redshifts observed in starlight shifted toward lower frequencies correspond to velocity away through space. But first it is worth taking a brief overview of the journey that brought things to this point:



Earth was once considered flat and at the center of the universe until it was found to be round and in a Sun-centered solar system as only a small part of a huge galaxy. And even our galaxy, the Milky Way, was later found to be one out of billions of galaxies in our immense universe. Meanwhile, the universe itself changed from three dimensions to presumably four – once time was included, and from entirely regular matter to apparently mostly invisible matter filling the cosmos. It even changed from a static universe to one coasting apart, and now even a shocking accelerating expansion.

This creates a picture of a universe composed of a literal ‘four-dimensional space-time fabric’ bursting forth from an actual ‘Big Bang’ creation event, with unseen exotic physical ‘Dark Matter’ filling the universe, and a new form of unexplained energy — a mysterious ‘Dark Energy’ repelling everything apart ever-faster. To counterbalance increasing acknowledgement of the complete lack of solid physical and scientific grounding for much of this picture is a unified front of increasingly fortified scientific consensus and continually growing Nobel Prize support.

This process has resulted in a number of key assumptions and theories becoming effective ‘laws of nature’, after which, by definition, observations must fall in line and not conflict to suggest other interpretations. And while this is an important process for scientific advancement, it can potentially entrench incorrect ‘laws of physics’ into our science for indefinite periods of time, sometimes with disastrous results. Indeed, even suggesting conflicting interpretations once a ‘law’ was established was a very dangerous act that history shows often carried severe penalties; it is important to note that today’s science has its own tight control and dismissal mechanisms that can indefinitely entrench detrimental ‘laws’ for reasons of vested interest just as effectively as in times gone by.
Resolving the Crisis: Where It All Began – “Hubble’s Law”

One such example is Edwin Hubble’s assumption nearly a century ago that an observed redshift in starlight to lower frequencies indicates a star’s motion away from us in space — based on a simple analogy to the known Doppler Shift of moving sound sources in air. This Doppler-like assumption was made at a time when light was presumed to be a wavelike phenomenon similar to sound, and when there was far more interest in the enormous cosmological implications of Hubble’s assumption than the actual immense differences between light and sound.



Sound, for example, is simple compression waves conducted at the speed of sound in an air medium, whereas, even in Hubble’s day, light was considered a somewhat mysterious ‘electromagnetic energy wave’ that somehow always traveled at constant light-speed — and with no conducting medium at all. Further, light was increasingly considered an even more mysterious quantum-mechanical phenomenon that is somehow simultaneously also a ‘photon particle’, only settling on either wave or particle once detected.



Despite these serious problems with Hubble’s initial Doppler-inspired ‘redshift equals velocity’ assumption, the intrigue and controversy created by a possible expanding universe coasting from a ‘Big Bang’ creation event tipped the scales, entrenching both “Hubble’s Law” and this radically new cosmological picture into our science. The increasing observations of redshifted starlight all around us now had to align with Hubble’s apparent ‘law of nature’, which could now only mean everything was moving away and apart, locking cosmology into this line of thought ever since.

So powerful was this view that it now dominates our understanding of the universe despite the fact that light is nothing like Doppler Shift-able sound waves — and that light is also easily red-shifted merely by passing it through materials such as common plastics. Given this fact, the redshifts observed in starlight across millions of light-years of space filled with all manner of materials and gases might not be particularly surprising — redshifts could simply indicate a great distance across space, and not a Doppler-like velocity at all
The Problems with Hubble’s Law Deepen



One of the most critical problems with Hubble’s “redshift equals velocity” claim is that it contains a clearly fatal logical and physical error that has been overlooked for nearly a century now. If the universe were actually expanding as Hubble claimed, it would produce nothing like the straight-line, regular spacing of the associated Hubble-Law diagram. As the plot progresses to ever-greater distances it also represents observations that are ever further back in time as well.



The universe is now believed to be about 14-billion years old, with billions of galaxies dotted throughout it at such great distances that we can only reasonably describe them in terms of light years — the distance light travels in a full year. Even the nearest galaxies are millions of light-years from us, with most of them billions of light-years away across the observable universe extending 14 billion light-years in all directions.



As such, the points plotted on the diagram below represent redshift measurements and the associated velocities as required by “Hubble’s Law” for galaxies at observed distances of one billion light-years, two billion light-years, three billion light-years, etc. And, of course, these are presumed velocities that were occurring one billion years ago, two billion years ago, three billion years ago, etc., since it took that long for their light to reach us.



Cosmologists are well aware of this, frequently stating that looking out into space is equivalent to looking back in time, yet they have failed to follow this understanding to its inevitable, troubling conclusion. Galaxy A, spotted one billion light years away, and which was apparently traveling at its redshift-indicated speed one billion years ago, will now be far more distant, as it continued speeding away over the intervening billion years.



Any regularly spaced plot of galaxies along Hubble’s straight line, where both redshifts and velocities increase linearly with distance, shows galaxy spacing that existed in the past, and which must nowbe spaced with ever-increasing gaps out from us — in the present state of the universe. This effect would be even more accentuated by, for example, the third galaxy out, Galaxy C, spotted three billion light-years away. Its “Hubble redshift” speed is supposedly three times faster than Galaxy A, and it would have been speeding thus for three times longer than Galaxy A by the time of this observation, making its present gaps with the other galaxies greater by a far more disproportionate amount than shown.



So, although the diagram shows gaps that all appear fairly equal in size and expand apart fairly equally as well to give a uniform universe from any location — asrequired by the so-called Cosmological Principle – this is actually not at all the case. Hubble’s “redshift equals velocity” interpretation actually describes animpossible universe where the gaps grow disproportionately larger with distance — from the perspective of every galaxy in the universe. But, of course, it is logically and physically impossible for the actual, present-moment gaps to be ever-larger outward from us toward distant galaxies, while also being simultaneouslyever-larger outward from distant galaxies toward us. This impossible, but very real paradox in today’s Cosmology is shown below, with two completely incompatible gaps from galaxies A to G and back again from galaxies G to A:





Erroneous “Dark Energy” Invention Draws Nobel Prize



It is this type of problem that has been building within the Cosmological community to crisis proportions, critically in recent years over the issue of specific types of supernovas and their distances and apparent speeds of recession away from us. Chronic fundamental oversights in Hubble’s Law, redshift interpretations, and logical paradoxes in misinterpretations, have led cosmologists to conclude that supernova evidence proves our universe is accelerating ever-faster due to a mysterious form of “Dark Energy” that is entirely new to science.



Despite the fact that this new form of energy has no scientific explanation, has never been demonstrated in any experiment, and has never been identified on any energy spectrum, its “discovery” roughly 14 billion light-years away via the spectra of a handful of supernovas was recently awarded a Nobel Prize.


However, none of these paradoxes or mysteries would exist at all if the universe were relatively static and the detected supernova brightness and spectral redshifts merely arose from the nature and distance of the enormous spans of intervening space rather than “Hubble’s Law”.


Further Crisis Resolution: Einstein’s Erroneous General Relativity Theory



Einstein’s General Relativity theory presents a similar issue, with Einstein’s reputation helping elevate it also to an effective gravitational ‘law of nature’, modeling the universe as a ‘warped four-dimensional space-time realm’ rather than one of gravitational forces in regular three-dimensional space.


This effective ‘law’ has likewise required observational interpretations to align with it for nearly a century, with cosmologists inventing physically unexplained and completely undetectable ‘Dark Matter’ that neither emits, absorbs, reflects or blocks light to account for tenfold discrepancies between Einstein’s theory and observations.



However, were it not for this ‘law of nature’ status, and Einstein’s reputation, following proper Scientific Method would merely have led to the conclusion that Einstein’s largely untested theory is simply wrong – now verified to be out by an enormous factor of ten when simply held to the same objective unbiased scientific observation and scrutiny as any other theory.


A bitter pill to swallow for huge vested interests in the scientific community who have staunchly supported this picture of the universe for decades? No doubt. An embarrassment to see a scientific icon knocked from his pedestal with one of his most long-standing revered theories shown to be completely false? Definitely. Reasons to knowingly send the whole of science and humanity off-track indefinitely to keep these facts hidden? Hopefully not!



Now, much as with “Hubble’s Law”, once we allow ourselves to question Einstein’s effective ‘law of nature’ and simply hold it up to the same scientific scrutiny as any other theory, its tenfold disagreement with observations immediately disproves it. And, just as letting go of this communal mental block frees us to completely eliminate the mysterious ‘Dark Energy’ attached to our “Hubble’s Law” beliefs, it also frees us to eliminate the mysterious ‘Dark Matter’ invisibly dominating our universe, attached to our General Relativity beliefs.



The Ongoing “Cosmological-Constant Blunder”



Einstein created his General Relativity theory — a merger of Newton’s gravitational-force theory and Minkowski’s four-dimensional space-time abstraction — to try to provide a truly universal model and new physical understanding of gravity, due to his strong dissatisfaction with Newton’s theory; hence today’s ‘warped space-time’ notion of gravity was born.

However, finding that his resulting equations could not be used to describe the static universe generally presumed at the time, but only one that either expanded apart or contracted together, Einstein further merged a sizably altered version of his equations describing a hypothetical mass-less universe envisioned by Willem de Sitter. Since de Sitter had already added an arbitrary control parameter to Einstein’s equations in order to tune the dynamics of his hypothetical universe, Einstein adopted this parameter, later called the ‘Cosmological Constant’, hoping he might set it to a value that made his equations valid for our presumably static universe.



But during his attempts to model a static universe with these merged equations, Einstein became convinced that the universe was actually coasting apart, based on Hubble’s ‘redshift equals velocity’ interpretation of an observed redshift in starlight all around us. Famously calling his arbitrary ‘Cosmological Constant‘ introduction his “greatest blunder”, Einstein removed it from his General Relativity equations in the hope that his original equations might better model a universe now apparentlycoasting apart, presumably from a ‘Big Bang’ creation event.



But cosmologists later noted that observations based on Hubble’s ‘redshift equals velocity’ assumption actually suggest that the universe is not only coasting apart, but actively accelerating apart ever faster, apparently driven by a mysterious repulsive ‘Dark Energy’ now dominating the universe. And, since even Einstein’s return to his original equations could not model this accelerating expansion apart, his “Cosmological-Constant blunder” removal is now being reconsidered for return toGeneral Relativity theory. This time its arbitrary addition is intended to model an accelerating universe model that hopefully works for this current belief, and is now persuasively renamed from Einstein’s “greatest blunder” — his so-called ‘Cosmological Constant’ — to the apparently new and mysterious ‘Dark Energy’ pervading the universe.

General Relativity — a Theory that has Never Actually Worked

The problems from all of these arbitrary abstractions, mergers, additions, removals and re-additions have steadily mounted. Newton’s ‘gravitational force’ theory has actually never been scientifically explained despite its familiar and intuitive nature, and neither has Minkowski’s ‘space-time’ abstraction which Einstein merged with it to create his General Relativity theory. Further, de Sitter never claimed that his hypothetical mass-less universe with its arbitrary ‘Cosmological Constant‘ was to be taken literally, and nor did Hubble ever scientifically explain or validate his ‘redshift equals velocity’ assumption that compelled Einstein to later remove his ‘Cosmological Constant blunder’.



As a result, and considering further ongoing alterations of Einstein’s General Relativity equations by various scientific camps, we have had a core theory of gravity for nearly a century now that has been cobbled together and repeatedly and arbitrarily altered to try to match the latest observations and beliefs, yet which hasnever actually worked at any point – a fact that remains the case even today.

This is the very reason for the seemingly endless stream of ‘mysteries’ and ‘surprises’ and ‘puzzles’ that seem to arise from Cosmology decade after decade; in actuality, it is not our universe that is so strange and bizarre, but merely the distorted theories and beliefs through which we view our universe that make it appear so.



False Supporting Evidence: The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation


Even further cracks appear once we begin allowing ourselves to question today’s cosmological picture. For example, it can be readily shown that faint ‘Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation’ arriving from space is not the ‘Big Bang whisper’ it was claimed to be decades ago, but merely microwave noise from our local solar system and galaxy.



It is now known that the early ground-based detector was far too crude to discern any faint patterns from outside our galaxy, and that the featureless detected radiation contained no inherent indication of a distance of origin, :eek:yet it was, and still is considered the first detection and mapping of the structure of the early universe. This remains the case despite hindsight now showing that this early ‘Big Bang whisper’ claim is an obvious error that clearly should be retracted.



Once again, the case cannot be overstated. The original crude ground-based detector initially stumbled into an unexpected random microwave hiss of noise. It was eventually decided by some that this hiss was the highly sought-after proof of the then controversial “Big Bang’ theory, after which patterns presumably representing the structure of the early universe were said to be found within this radiation; a Nobel Prize was even later awarded to this effort.



Crucially, it was much more quietly later acknowledged that the original random microwave hiss could only have been just that - a meaningless random hiss. This is because an extremely advanced detector would have been required to discern any meaningful pattern from a severely diminished signal across billions of light years of space, then across the 100-thousand light-years of our active galaxy, then through the radiation of our solar system and its burning sun, and finally our dense atmosphere. And the detector in question was orders-of-magnitude too crude – only able to pick up a meaningless random hiss of microwave noise given the task just described for any signal originating outside our galaxy or even well within it, let alone from the distant early universe.



Nevertheless, even today, despite full realization and recognition of the above, no retraction of the original erroneous “Big Bang whisper detection” has ever been issued from the Cosmological community. In fact, in quite the opposite move, a more detailed ‘Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation’ detection performed from orbit is said to agree with the initial ‘early universe’ detection pattern, despite recognition that the initial pattern is now verifiably meaningless - with the new detection effort also awarded a Nobel Prize.



Erroneous Double Nobel Prize-Winning ‘Big-Bang’ Proof

Today’s now largely unquestioned ‘Big Bang’ theory was originally heavily debated until ground-based radio telescopes detected background microwave hiss that was claimed to have patterns identifying it as ancient, greatly redshifted radiation from the ‘Big Bang’ creation event — drawing a Nobel Prize.



However, first, it is important to note that this background microwave hiss is quite unlike redshifted starlight. It is not associated with any observable distant stellar objects whose radiation is dramatically redshifted down to microwave frequencies, but is instead an almost perfectly uniform hiss of background microwaves arriving from all directions. As such, it is no more evidence of an origin of ancient radiation from the distant early universe than recent microwave noise generated from the billions of stars in our local galaxy or even our nearby blazing Sun.

Indeed, we now know, from the far more sensitive COBE satellite, that the original detected radiation was composed almost entirely of radiation from precisely these local sources. COBE also showed that any patterns that may exist in the faint radiation from beyond our galaxy would be far below the detection threshold of the original radio telescopes, and so the initial Nobel Prize-winning claims of patterns from the early universe were verifiably nothing more than wishful thinking at best.



Secondly, the COBE and later WMAP satellites also showed that any true ancient radiation patterns would be dwarfed by combined microwave disturbances and noise a hundred-thousand times more powerful in crossing the immensity of intergalactic space, then our own galaxy of billions of active stellar objects, then our solar system with its blazing sun, and finally our highly absorbing and distorting atmosphere. And since a great deal of this overwhelming distortion is largely or completely random, there is no way to reliably characterize and extract it to uncover any extremely subtle and highly distorted inter-mingled patterns a hundred-thousand times weaker.



Despite these facts, those behind the COBE and WMAP satellite projects claim that not only have they clearly discerned even more detailed patterns of the early universe from this radiation, but also that these patterns correlate with those in the original detection claim, drawing yet a second Nobel Prize. Yet, as just described, it is a physical impossibility to recover and reconstruct any faint original signal from the overwhelming distorting random noise. Also, these later projects actually show that it would have been impossible for the original detector to discern any actual ‘early universe’ patterns whatsoever in the original radiation.



So the first scientifically responsible outcome from the COBE and WMAP projects should have been a resounding retraction of the initial Nobel Prize-winning claim, as the technology to make such a claim was now unquestionably lacking — by orders of magnitude. However, not only was no such retraction made, but instead the verifiably meaningless “structural map of the early universe” was re-released after the COBE and WMAP data had been processed for months until it was convincingly superimposed on top of it, reinforcing it with further detail, and collecting a second Nobel Prize in the process.

As a result, a meaningless noise signal is, even today, held as verification of the ‘Big Bang’ theory, cementing it into our science and our collective psyches and belief systems to the point where it is now a largely forgone conclusion and unquestioned – if not even unquestionable - scientific ‘fact’.

Time to End Our Mounting Theoretical and Physical Crisis in Cosmology



So, from a theoretical perspective, our core gravitational theory in Cosmology, General Relativity, is a patchwork of scientifically unexplained, abstract sub-theories, with a ‘Cosmological Constant’ that is continually added and removed in repeatedly failed attempts to match observations, proclaimed as everything from a “great blunder” to a mysterious ‘Dark Energy’ permeating the universe.



And from a physical perspective, we have recent claims of a universe somehow accelerating apart after a presumed ‘Big Bang’ creation event despite conflicting observations increasingly showing all the stars existing within stable galaxies or galactic clusters threading throughout the universe. The recent law-violating claims of a universe accelerating apart are based on Hubble’s largely unquestioned and scientifically unverified assumption that redshifted starlight equals velocity, and the best ‘Big Bang’ evidence is now actually verifiably erroneously Nobel Prize-awarded microwave noise.



This is undeniably the current state of Cosmology today — and the current destination of billions of public tax dollars earmarked for scientific investigation and advancement. It is clear that vested interests in the scientific community are not about to enact any significant change to this state of affairs, so it is up to an informed and concerned public to do something about this ongoing state of crisis in our science.



Farewell ‘Big Bang’, ‘Dark Matter’, ‘Dark Energy’ and ‘Space-Time’



If we simply allow ourselves to take a critical look at a double Nobel Prize-winning observational claim and re-think two highly questionable century-old ‘laws of nature’, we remove three of today’s largest mysteries from Cosmology: the ‘Big Bang’, ‘Dark Matter’ and ‘Dark Energy’. It is worth noting that these Cosmological claims, ‘laws’ and observations are largely abstract or remote in nature, and so are far more susceptible to being thrown wildly off track, and require extra care and scientific due-diligence.



However, now with appropriate corrective analysis, there is no longer a mysterious infinitely small singularity from which the entire universe burst forth, no longer completely undetectable exotic ‘Dark Matter’ dominating our universe, and no longer a mysterious law-violating ‘Dark Energy’ accelerating the universe apart. In their place is a possibly static universe of potentially infinite size and age, within which stars of regular matter undergo continual births and deaths, with gravity-driven dynamics in ordinary three-dimensional space.



This leaves a number of immediate questions: Does the scientific community for some reason want to retain our current cosmological picture, with its deep and possibly irresolvable, ongoing mysteries and unquestioned “laws of nature”? And if not, and they are truly sidetracked on a centuries-old journey in search for answers, then what might this gravity be that is driving our simple and possibly static and endless universe? Newton’s gravitational-force theory has many problems, as Einstein recognized in trying to replace it, and Einstein’s warped space-time theory has even greater issues. And we certainly won’t get anywhere inventing “Dark Matter” or “Dark Energy”, so what is the answer?


We need a credible new Theory of Everything including a new theory of gravity. See these previous articles and excerpts:


Expansion Theory – Our Best Candidate for a Final Theory of Everything

http://www.themarginal.com/theory_of_everything.html



Pioneer Anomaly, Slingshot Effect and Gravitational Inconsistencies Explained

http://www.themarginal.com/pioneer_anomaly.html



Breakthrough in Faster-Than-Light Travel and Communication, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)

http://www.themarginal.com/faster_than_light.html



Gravity Breakthrough: Springing into a Gravitational Revolution

http://www.themarginal.com/gravity_spring_proof.html



Cosmology in Crisis (excerpt by Mark McCutcheon upon which this article is based)

http://www.themarginal.com/cosmology_in_crisis_excerpt.pdf



The Final Theory – Investigating Gravity

http://www.themarginal.com/final_theory_excerpt.pdf

Roland Michel Tremblay

L67
06-12-2013, 04:47 AM
I see that you make blanket statements alot! I did present evidnece and you just ignore it! The whole THEORY of evolutionary big bang model does NOT answer the most fundamental questions of how the universe got so large with so little visible matter. And then you have the problem of spiral galaxies... too many of them are present for the time periods of the big bang model to even BEGIN to work! AND lots of scientists are looking elsewhere for answers... Science as a body as a group are slow to change. Textbooks are typically decades behind the actual known science that is out there.
You keep saying that Dr. Arp is 100% wrong! You lie saying that but your so called "evidence" does not say that. Further more the ideas of an electric based universe is far more complex than just writing it off as a foolish idea which "scientists" have proven to be wrong like "the earth is flat" kind of thing. You have not bothered to read all the information and technical explanations on the subject. If you had you would see that it is a very strong theory which needs more research and testing.

You never presented any evidence that refuted what I said. You are making blanket statements that lots of scientists are looking elsewhere for answers. Post all these scientist looking for other answers. Everything you have posted about in this thread is pseudoscience. I have caught you three times posting creationist lies and you still persist on spewing such garbage.

I didn't lie. You just have a problem with the truth is all. Arp's claims were tested and no evidence was found. So if no evidence was found to support Arp's claims, then what does that make him? WRONG! You just prefer to allow yourself to get sucked into creationist garbage. This thread is proof of that. You don't bother fact checking anything you post.

I have studied the Electric Universe Theory. It is pseudoscience. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe The "Electric Universe" (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electromagnetism than by gravity. The exact claims are diverse and vary from crank author to author. A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can't put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory. Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology[2].

You didn't read the technical article that I posted obviously. The theory is bunk.

L67
06-12-2013, 05:00 AM
Here we go! For all of you living in a cave! You call yourselves informed but then there is this!

The only one living in a cave is YOU. Before its news is nothing but a conspiracy theory website. It's garbage. It's really sad you so easily get sucked into believing anything. Do you ever fact check your sources?

Before its news caught being dishonest with their articles. And about a Sandy Hook conspiracy no less. http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/18taob/website_beforeitsnews_caught_planting_disinfo_on/

Maybe the Oklahoma tornado was a false flag conspiracy. http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/05/oklahoma-tornado-proven-false-flag-conspiracy-2657410.html

The website is for loonies.

David M
06-12-2013, 12:32 PM
Here we go! For all of you living in a cave! You call yourselves informed but then there is this!

Dark-Matter, Dark-Energy & The Big-Bang All Finally Resolved :eek:
Thursday, May 16, 2013
(Before It's News)


http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2013/05/dark-matter-dark-energy-the-big-bang-all-finally-resolved-2459770.html?currentSplittedPage=0

The Crisis in Cosmology



Of course Evolutionists and non-Creationists are going to vehemently deny this article and claim it is all wrong, but if it is true, and red-shift is a function of distance of light travelling through long distances in space and not because of the Doppler effect, then as this would debunk several other fundamental theories to do with the universe. We have a similar situation with the Bible. Once one man-made myth that is said to be what the Bible teaches, is debunked, it leads to debunking other man-made myths that are concocted from the Bible.

This could lead to proving that the scientific theory of these things that are said to be "fact" is in fact no more than theory in the sense of the alternative definition;
Dictionary.com

the·o·ry
noun, plural the·o·ries.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

David

L67
06-12-2013, 07:41 PM
Of course Evolutionists and non-Creationists are going to vehemently deny this article and claim it is all wrong, but if it is true, and red-shift is a function of distance of light travelling through long distances in space and not because of the Doppler effect, then as this would debunk several other fundamental theories to do with the universe. We have a similar situation with the Bible. Once one man-made myth that is said to be what the Bible teaches, is debunked, it leads to debunking other man-made myths that are concocted from the Bible.

This could lead to proving that the scientific theory of these things that are said to be "fact" is in fact no more than theory in the sense of the alternative definition;

David

Yes, because writing for a conspiracy theory website is the pinnacle of truth. And what are the author of that articles credentials? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Michel_Tremblay French Canadian author, poet, scriptwriter, development producer and science-fiction consultant.

This confirms it. This guy has what it takes to debunk established science.

Back to reality David. I think it's hilarious that you creationist have no legitimate argument against established science and have to retreat into the realm of pseudoscience.

Richard Amiel McGough
06-12-2013, 07:53 PM
Yes, because writing for a conspiracy theory website is the pinnacle of truth. And what are the author of that articles credentials? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Michel_Tremblay French Canadian author, poet, scriptwriter, development producer and science-fiction consultant.

This confirms it. This guy has what it takes to debunk established science.

Back to reality David. I think it's hilarious that you creationist have no legitimate argument against established science and have to retreat into the realm of pseudoscience.
I have to agree. Birds of a feather (Bible believers, conspiracy theorists, pseudo-scientific cranks) flock together.

David M
06-12-2013, 11:40 PM
Yes, because writing for a conspiracy theory website is the pinnacle of truth. And what are the author of that articles credentials? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Michel_Tremblay French Canadian author, poet, scriptwriter, development producer and science-fiction consultant.

This confirms it. This guy has what it takes to debunk established science.

Back to reality David. I think it's hilarious that you creationist have no legitimate argument against established science and have to retreat into the realm of pseudoscience.

Hello L67

I am not familiar with that website and you might be correct based on other articles which I have not read. The author of this article has based his writing on another work, which he has given the link to. I have downloaded the pdf file and there are a lot of pages. I will read it later. I did open up the file and I saw the same picture that was in the article and so that confirmed the author had used what was in that book.

The article has raised the question and it is worth considering, as this is fundamental to many theories. How do you prove the red shift is caused by the Doppler effect and not by the passage of light through billions upon billions of miles of space filled with a gaseous medium? I had not thought about this and so I have to consider it now. How do you prove which is correct? Is red shift constant or does it increase the faster objects are accelerating away as the universe expands. If that is the accepted model, then the furthest objects should show a greater red shift. Is that the case? It does no harm to re-examine these things and the evidence for and against. Whoever is correct has nothing to fear.


David

David M
06-12-2013, 11:47 PM
I have to agree. Birds of a feather (Bible believers, conspiracy theorists, pseudo-scientific cranks) flock together.

And let's not forget RAM, L67, Greatest I Am, Preterists, and the like, who flock together.

Richard Amiel McGough
06-13-2013, 07:01 AM
And let's not forget RAM, L67, Greatest I Am, Preterists, and the like, who flock together.
Yes ... we "flock together" around reality, truth, and whatever is established by evidence, logic, and facts.

Craig.Paardekooper
06-13-2013, 11:15 AM
Hi Richard,

As the discoverer of the Bible Wheel, and having witnessed your keen logical mind at work over all the years, I fully understand why you might feel that the Biblical God might fall short of the idea of what God should be like. However, despite the Bible, the evidence for the intelligent design of biological systems is still very strong.

On many occasions you yourself have said that you can appreciate the need for a creation of DNA and the first cells. I agree with you whole-heartedly. Currently I have commenced the study of molecular and cell biology at university with a view to training to become a genetic engineer - and I have been amazed and awed by the mechanisms within the cell that scientists have diligently discovered. For me, and for many others - these mechanisms speak of Creation.

Yours Sincerely

Craig Paardekooper

Richard Amiel McGough
06-13-2013, 07:01 PM
Hi Richard,

As the discoverer of the Bible Wheel, and having witnessed your keen logical mind at work over all the years, I fully understand why you might feel that the Biblical God might fall short of the idea of what God should be like. However, despite the Bible, the evidence for the intelligent design of biological systems is still very strong.

On many occasions you yourself have said that you can appreciate the need for a creation of DNA and the first cells. I agree with you whole-heartedly. Currently I have commenced the study of molecular and cell biology at university with a view to training to become a genetic engineer - and I have been amazed and awed by the mechanisms within the cell that scientists have diligently discovered. For me, and for many others - these mechanisms speak of Creation.

Yours Sincerely

Craig Paardekooper
Hey there Craig,

I appreciate your position, but the more I think about it the more it seems to be an illusion based on ignorance. The fact that it is "hard to imagine" how something happened is not good reason to jump to the conclusion that "God did it." That doesn't even make any sense to me. What do you think God did, and when did he do it? Can you suggest a believable timeline of what I would have actually seen if I were there to watch? Are you saying that some invisible force physically moved atoms in a way contrary to natural law, magically assembling the first cell? To me, that seems absurd because everything we know about life obeys natural law. Everything! Analyze a cell and you will not observe anything that violates any natural law. I know of no observable phenomenon that requires God as an explanation. This is why you need to appeal to areas of human ignorance, hoping to find a gap for God to fill. That is just the old God of the gaps argument that cannot convince because it is based on ignorance, not knowledge.

And if God designed the first cell (a prokaryote), why did he wait for a BILLION YEARS to design the first eukaryote? The evidence fits perfectly with what we would expect if it were a natural phenomenon that evolved. It makes no sense at all if we think an intelligent God did it.

There is a HUGE problem with invoking the "God did it" explanation for the origin of life. It appears to be totally inconsistent with everything we know about life and the universe. Everything in the universe, including life, operates according to natural law. Therefore, if the origins were different than everything else, we would have a huge inconsistency. Why should we believe that the origin of life had to be supernatural if life itself operates perfectly by natural principles? Your suggestion seems profoundly inconsistent. And it reveals what seems to me to be a fundamental failure to appreciate the nature of science and the natural world. It's similar to David M's suggestion that stars and galaxies could not form through natural law. That seems utterly absurd to me because we see it happening all around us and have a good understanding of the basic science. To suggest that "God did it" is like saying that God had to deliberately designed each and every snowflake when the reality is that snowflakes form according to random chance and natural law. It really seems like a very ignorant and childish view of reality. Please take no offense - I'm just trying to help you understand how things seem to me.

Rose recently posted an excellent video showing how the first cell could have arisen through natural law in a thread called The Origin of Life (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?4766-The-Origin-of-Life). I think it would be great if you watched it and commented there.

Great chatting,

Richard

Mystykal
06-14-2013, 11:04 PM
You never presented any evidence that refuted what I said. You are making blanket statements that lots of scientists are looking elsewhere for answers. Post all these scientist looking for other answers. Everything you have posted about in this thread is pseudoscience. I have caught you three times posting creationist lies and you still persist on spewing such garbage.

I didn't lie. You just have a problem with the truth is all. Arp's claims were tested and no evidence was found. So if no evidence was found to support Arp's claims, then what does that make him? WRONG! You just prefer to allow yourself to get sucked into creationist garbage. This thread is proof of that. You don't bother fact checking anything you post.

I have studied the Electric Universe Theory. It is pseudoscience. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe The "Electric Universe" (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electromagnetism than by gravity. The exact claims are diverse and vary from crank author to author. A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can't put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory. Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology[2].

You didn't read the technical article that I posted obviously. The theory is bunk.

Hey!
I read all your info.. You have a strange way of saying that anything that does not fit your model is false. You just throw away information because it is posted on a "conspiracy" website. Well that is crazy! Just like saying that all scientists that believe in the big bang are conspiracy nuts! It is not really about birds of a feather... Its about the problems created by scientists that deny the facts!

(www.cosmologystatement.org) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article on www.rense.com titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004) says, ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’

The dissidents say that there are other explanations of cosmology that do make some successful predictions. These other models don’t have all the answers to objections, but, they say, ‘That is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined.’

Those who urge Christians to accept the big bang as a ‘science fact’ point to its near-universal acceptance by the scientific community. However, the 33 dissidents describe a situation familiar to many creationist scientists: ‘An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences … doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.’

Evolutionist and historian of science, Evelleen Richards, has noticed that it’s hard even for rival evolutionary theories to get a hearing when challenging the ruling paradigm—see Science … a reality check. This should give some idea of the difficulties biblical creationists face.

But don’t we read, even in the daily newspapers, about many ‘observations’ that only ever seem to support the big bang? In fact, these prominent secular scientists say:

‘Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.’


http://www.creationwiki.org/Many_current_scientists_reject_evolution_(Talk.Ori gins)

...So from an outside perspective, it is no surprise that evolution has such mass-appeal in the scientific community, not because it’s true, but because it has established a ritualistic brainwashing of young aspiring scientists from day-one. The scary part is that in reality, the young earth creation theory has a huge amount of evidence that is systematically rejected by evolutionists who believe that any of those scientists who believe in creationism do not qualify as real “scientists” and therefore their contributions cannot be considered anything more than religious propaganda. This is the reason why many known creationist scientists submit their research under pseudonyms, and have created their own peer-review journals and organizations, because there is an extreme unspoken bias against any ideas that contradict evolutionists’ precious, logically flawed theory.

Talk.Origins cites two pertinent figures in this quote: Five percent of all scientists, and 700 in "relevant fields of earth and life sciences". The first figure, from a 1997 Gallup Poll,[1] (which Talk.Origins seemingly incorrectly says is from the 1991 Gallup Poll) equates to around 100,000 of America's approximately two million scientists, so is still a very significant number. The second figure is from an 1987 Newsweek article which merely claimed that "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."[1], a very questionable source given its vagueness.[2]

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.
When you believe something with fervor and dogmatically reject anything that contradicts those beliefs such as many of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do, then why should the fact that they issue such spurious reports that uphold their elitist ideals come as any surprise? In a battle of ideals, the majority opinion does not equate to the ultimate truth.

Jonathan Sarfati points out that the position of NAS is quite evident:[3] “…a recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding. 72.2 % were overtly atheistic, 20.8 % agnostic, and only 7.0 % believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didn’t respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The unbelief is far higher than the percentage among scientists in general, or in the whole population.”

NAS has made its stance on origin beliefs more than clear by stating in so many words that evidence for creationism has been scientifically invalidated and experimentally falsified, supplying teachers with the tools to indoctrinate students more efficiently into the depths of evolutionary dogma, and publicly leading the crusade against the mandate to allow evolution to be objectively disputed or to present alternative theories in science classrooms. A quote from an article by the NAS called Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences states:

“Confronted by this challenge to the integrity and effectiveness of our national educational system and to the hard*won evidence*based foundations of science, the National Academy of Sciences cannot remain silent. To do so would be a dereliction of our responsibility to academic and intellectual freedom and to the fundamental principles of scientific thought. As a historic representative of the scientific profession and designated advisor to the Federal Government in matters of science, the Academy states unequivocally that the tenets of "creation science" are not supported by scientific evidence, that creationism has no place in a science curriculum at any level, that its proposed teaching would be impossible in any constructive sense for well*informed and conscientious science teachers, and that its teaching would be contrary to the nation's need for a scientifically literate citizenry and for a large, well*informed pool of scientific and technical personnel.”

In this way, they have unequivocally revealed their fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and definition of science, the scientific method, and objective reasoning.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.
Evidence does not speak for itself. Although evolutionists interpret the evidence to fit their ideals, because matters of origin cannot be observed, tested, nor recreated, they are not subject to the scientific method, and therefore cannot be anything more than conjecture that lacks the necessary scientific characteristic of being falsifiable. Ironically, evolution more closely matches the characteristic of a religion than of operational science.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.
Most scientists who reject evolution and support creationism are pretty open about it actually, although it is abundantly clear that most scientists accept evolution of some form, but it doesn’t matter how many hundreds or thousands of actual scientists believe in creation if they are systematically labeled as pseudo-science pushers by evolutionary elitists and their work automatically discredited if it does not glorify the evolution agenda. As far as scientists that “doubt some aspects of evolution,” what is meant is that although the mechanism of evolution may be up for debate, to question the underlying belief system is unacceptable.

For instance, when scientists discovered soft tissue attached to dinosaur bones in over a dozen fossils, evolutionists never once questioned the canonical evolutionary timeline of 70 million years for the extinction of dinosaurs, but rather they questioned the evidence and how it could possibly be preserved for such a length of time. Most well informed creationists know that evolution is “highly questionable” because they have the ability and scientific integrity to question it in the first place, and realize that to qualify an idea as science requires something more than just mass-appeal and scrupulous conformity.

Reference
1.↑ 1.0 1.1 Robinson, B. A., Results of public opinion polls on evolution and creation science, 20 February 2009.
2.↑ See Support for creation and evolution on A Storehouse of Knowledge for more details.
3.↑ Sarfati, Jonathan, National Academy of Science is godless to the core — Nature survey


33 Leading Scientists Reject big bang

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big bang can't explain

Most evolutionists and progressive creationists believe that the big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago. So how big would we expect the universe to be? Even if the universe expanded at the speed of light, then the radius of the universe should be 13.7 billion light-years as an upper limit, so the width of the universe is 27.4 billion light-years, right?

Wrong!

From new data collected from a space probe examining the Cosmic Background Radiation, astronomers estimate the universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide. Actually, it's long been known that the universe was a lot wider than 27.4 billion light-years; this latest research tells us how much wider.

According to researchers writing in the journal Physics Review Letters, the universe must have expanded much faster than light in its early stage. An atheistic physicist, Alan Guth, proposed this over 20 years ago -- the "inflation" model.

It's no wonder that 33 leading scientists have published an "Open Letter to the Scientific Community" rejecting the big bang. They refer to "fudge factors" such as the "hypothetical" inflation idea, which needs a cosmic density 20 times larger than that required for the big bang to make the light elements.

BBC News, <news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm>, 31 May 2004.
"New Scientist," 22 May 2004, p. 20.
---------------
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory
Simple Solutions to the Problems of the 'Big Bang' Theory of Cosmology
In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory as scientific fact. (William C. Mitchell)

Introduction
Hi Everyone,
Like most people I grew up with science founded on 'particles', and cosmology founded on the 'big bang' theory. At the time I just accepted it as true with little thought. Now, at the age of 50 and having spent the last 20 years reading on physics, philosophy and metaphysics I am completely convinced that both the 'particle' and the 'big bang' are incorrect. (In fact I would now say that they are extremely naive conceptions and I find it hard to believe that I used to accept them as true!)

Below you will find a list of some of the central problems of the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology. Most importantly, it is easy to show how these problems can be simply solved with the most simple explanation of physical reality - the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space.

This then deduces the most simple Cosmology: How our Finite Spherical Observable Universe exists within Infinite Eternal Space.

Geoff Haselhurst
(February, 2010)

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ - In the web pages below, we present explanations which are compatible with Newtonian and semi-classical physics. We apply the principle of causality and avoid models requiring a probabilistic existence of matter and non-locality. This differs from the current approach of modern physics. (Paul Marmet)

http://cosmologystatement.org/ - An Open Letter to the Scientific Community. The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed - inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
-----------------------------------------------


Namaste,

Mystykal

L67
06-15-2013, 05:49 AM
Hey!
I read all your info.. You have a strange way of saying that anything that does not fit your model is false. You just throw away information because it is posted on a "conspiracy" website. Well that is crazy! Just like saying that all scientists that believe in the big bang are conspiracy nuts! It is not really about birds of a feather... Its about the problems created by scientists that deny the facts!

No, what is crazy is your willingness to ignore established science to believe crackpot theories from a conspiracy theory website. And what were the credentials of the person from beforeitsnews? French Canadian author, poet, scriptwriter, development producer and science-fiction consultant.

Ya, that totally screams expert.


(www.cosmologystatement.org) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article on www.rense.com titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004) says, ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’

And here you are posting more crap from conspiracy websites. Rense.com is a joke. Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientist my ass. Getting an scientific article posted on there is as you low as you can get.

What is cosmologystatement.org suppose to prove? That there are crackpot scientist? I believe that. I look at the list of signatures and who do I find first? Halton Arp. What a joke. I already showed that his claims were wrong.


Evolutionist and historian of science, Evelleen Richards, has noticed that it’s hard even for rival evolutionary theories to get a hearing when challenging the ruling paradigm—see Science … a reality check. This should give some idea of the difficulties biblical creationists face.

Because creationist think that they can challenge a scientific fact with crackpot theories. Creationist have no evidence like science does.




http://www.creationwiki.org/Many_current_scientists_reject_evolution_(Talk.Ori gins)

...So from an outside perspective, it is no surprise that evolution has such mass-appeal in the scientific community, not because it’s true, but because it has established a ritualistic brainwashing of young aspiring scientists from day-one. The scary part is that in reality, the young earth creation theory has a huge amount of evidence that is systematically rejected by evolutionists who believe that any of those scientists who believe in creationism do not qualify as real “scientists” and therefore their contributions cannot be considered anything more than religious propaganda.

Another conspiracy theory. No matter how many times you silly creationist say this it will never be true. The whole article is absurd. Evolution was an established fact long ago and the debate about its validity was over long ago as well.

The problem is that the god of the gaps is shrinking daily. The only thing creationist have left is to claim wild conspiracy theories.


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmol...ang-Theory.htm

Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory
Simple Solutions to the Problems of the 'Big Bang' Theory of Cosmology
In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory as scientific fact. (William C. Mitchell)

Introduction
Hi Everyone,
Like most people I grew up with science founded on 'particles', and cosmology founded on the 'big bang' theory. At the time I just accepted it as true with little thought. Now, at the age of 50 and having spent the last 20 years reading on physics, philosophy and metaphysics I am completely convinced that both the 'particle' and the 'big bang' are incorrect. (In fact I would now say that they are extremely naive conceptions and I find it hard to believe that I used to accept them as true!)

Below you will find a list of some of the central problems of the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology. Most importantly, it is easy to show how these problems can be simply solved with the most simple explanation of physical reality - the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space.

This then deduces the most simple Cosmology: How our Finite Spherical Observable Universe exists within Infinite Eternal Space.

I read that article. It's a joke. The authors very first problem with the Big bang is this: 1. Redshift with Distance due to Doppler Effects of Receding Motion

That is bogus. He based his assumptions on the work of Halton Arp. Arp is wrong. No evidence for his claims. And at the end of the article he again references Halton Arp's work as some evidence against the big bang. WRONG!

This is silly. The Big Bang is the number one theory in cosmology for the simple & elegant fact that it fits the facts, better than any alternate theory.

It's just plain nuts that you get sucked into believing there is some conspiracy in science to ignore creationist. There isn't. Creationist get ignored because there is no evidence for their claims. They want to claim the Bible is a fact but there are demonstrable errors that science has debunked. There is no good reason for legitimate scientist to base there starting point on errors.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-13-2013, 01:30 AM
Atheistic materialism, under the label of "established science" is held to just as religiously as Christianity ever was.

A truly scientific position would probably be more agnostic and explorative - open to possibilities.

Anyway, why would anyone want to hold to a view of life that denies purpose and meaning. Atheistic materialism says that we came from no where - an accidental collision of atoms. It says that when we die we just cease to exist - so we are going nowhere. And it says that we are just matter, just meat, with no freewill - just cause and effect. Consequently the philosophy of atheism is very bleak. So bleak in fact that it is a kind of living hell.

Now, if God exists, then spiritual evil is also a possible reality.

God gave us two commandments - to Love God, and to Love others as we love ourselves.

If there were such a thing as spiritual evil, then I would expect it to manifest as a blanket denial of the possibility of God and a fundamental denial of the value of human life in both thought and action.

Materialism is a denial of freewill, a denial of consciousness, a denial of anything that we could call spiritual or soul. It reduces us to meat. And it denies the existence of any kind of spiritual being including God. And it holds to these tenets dogmatically and with tenacity.

So, it is possible that atheistic materialism, instead of being driven by a purely rational and scientific spirit, is in fact driven by spiritual evil???.

We should at least bear this in mind as a possibility. Naming a demon for what it is, is the first step in curing us of it. I name atheistic materialism as a manifestation of SPIRITUAL EVIL.

The clearest expression of evil in our modern times is the blanket denial of the value of human life and of the sentience of other creatures. This is diametrically opposite to the commandment - "Love others as you love yourself"

Mystykal
08-13-2013, 05:40 PM
Atheistic materialism, under the label of "established science" is held to just as religiously as Christianity ever was.

A truly scientific position would probably be more agnostic and explorative - open to possibilities.

Anyway, why would anyone want to hold to a view of life that denies purpose and meaning. Atheistic materialism says that we came from no where - an accidental collision of atoms. It says that when we die we just cease to exist - so we are going nowhere. And it says that we are just matter, just meat, with no freewill - just cause and effect. Consequently the philosophy of atheism is very bleak. So bleak in fact that it is a kind of living hell.

Now, if God exists, then spiritual evil is also a possible reality.

God gave us two commandments - to Love God, and to Love others as we love ourselves.

If there were such a thing as spiritual evil, then I would expect it to manifest as a blanket denial of the possibility of God and a fundamental denial of the value of human life in both thought and action.

Materialism is a denial of freewill, a denial of consciousness, a denial of anything that we could call spiritual or soul. It reduces us to meat. And it denies the existence of any kind of spiritual being including God. And it holds to these tenets dogmatically and with tenacity.

So, it is possible that atheistic materialism, instead of being driven by a purely rational and scientific spirit, is in fact driven by spiritual evil???.

We should at least bear this in mind as a possibility. Naming a demon for what it is, is the first step in curing us of it. I name atheistic materialism as a manifestation of SPIRITUAL EVIL.

The clearest expression of evil in our modern times is the blanket denial of the value of human life and of the sentience of other creatures. This is diametrically opposite to the commandment - "Love others as you love yourself"

Craig:
I am in agreement with your idea that anything which is not of GOD is evil - but to say that science has a theory called atheistic materialism is doing science a disfavor. And you will never win any arguments with an atheist trying to call their ideas evil - since they do not believe in evil or the devil. Good and bad is a matter of perspective. We can always argue that if you "do no harm" to anyone and there is no "victim" then there is no "wrong". Of course if you hold to the idea that GOD does exist and GOD makes the rules well then lots of things which appear to be "good" are actually evil and vice a versa! I suggest to you that your ideas of eternal life or eternal damnation are NOT from GOD! And so your whole idea of Spirituality is in fact just as much a lie of the devil as the theory of atheisism! Unless you can show that your ideas actually come from the mind of GOD then no matter how much you believe them to be good and true - they are not! So in essence you are waisting time making an argument which, although may actually be correct, will in the end do no good, as it does not save anyone from their own delusional thinking!
"For the living know that they shall die; but the dead KNOW NOTHING!" Ecclesiastes 9:5-6

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
08-14-2013, 01:43 AM
Atheistic materialism, under the label of "established science" is held to just as religiously as Christianity ever was.

A truly scientific position would probably be more agnostic and explorative - open to possibilities.

Anyway, why would anyone want to hold to a view of life that denies purpose and meaning. Atheistic materialism says that we came from no where - an accidental collision of atoms. It says that when we die we just cease to exist - so we are going nowhere. And it says that we are just matter, just meat, with no freewill - just cause and effect. Consequently the philosophy of atheism is very bleak. So bleak in fact that it is a kind of living hell.
Hi Craig, :yo: nice to be chatting with you.

Atheistic materialism as you call it is far different from the doctrines and dogmas that comprise Christianity, the former builds its worldview from tangible evidence, whereas the later builds its worldview from imaginings of the mind.

It is a fallacy to think that only religion gives purpose and meaning to one's life. People give meaning and purpose to life by what they do with it, believing in an afterlife does nothing for the quality of one's life here on earth. Most religions make peoples lives far more difficult then need be, because of all the unnecessary burdens they impose on them. It matters not from what or where we came, what matters is what we do with this life and the effect we have on the well-being of others and to lessen suffering (something that the god of the Old Testament knows nothing about).


Now, if God exists, then spiritual evil is also a possible reality.

God gave us two commandments - to Love God, and to Love others as we love ourselves.

The philosophy of loving others as oneself has been in existence in many cultures other than the Hebrews of the Bible, so it's by no means unique to Yahweh. Loving god plays no role in whether or not someone lives their life by the Golden Rule, all that is needed is to be aware of the humanity of others and treat them as such. A god who demands to be loved is clearly an invention of the human mind and has no bearing on our ability to love others ... a mother loves her young partly because of hormones like oxytocin - not god.

God doesn't need to exist in order for evil to exist, the only requirement for evil is humans treating others in an inhumane fashion...that is evil and the Bible is full of it.


If there were such a thing as spiritual evil, then I would expect it to manifest as a blanket denial of the possibility of God and a fundamental denial of the value of human life in both thought and action.

Materialism is a denial of freewill, a denial of consciousness, a denial of anything that we could call spiritual or soul. It reduces us to meat. And it denies the existence of any kind of spiritual being including God. And it holds to these tenets dogmatically and with tenacity.

So, it is possible that atheistic materialism, instead of being driven by a purely rational and scientific spirit, is in fact driven by spiritual evil???.

We should at least bear this in mind as a possibility. Naming a demon for what it is, is the first step in curing us of it. I name atheistic materialism as a manifestation of SPIRITUAL EVIL.

The clearest expression of evil in our modern times is the blanket denial of the value of human life and of the sentience of other creatures. This is diametrically opposite to the commandment - "Love others as you love yourself"

A good place to begin your search regarding the value of human life is the Bible. Throughout the entire Old Testament human life carries little to no value, especially the lives of women. Starting with the Flood, the authors of the Old Testament saw no problem with creating a god who thought nothing of drowning an entire planet of innocent children along with their parents, after that it is one episode of slaughter after another with no respite until the New Testament and even then the last book of the Bible is filled with carnage and mass slaughter of human life ... where is the value of human life there? By your own standards the Bible is clearly an evil book.


Take care,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
08-17-2013, 12:14 AM
Hi Rose,

The point is that by insisting on a materialistic origin, a materialistic nature and a materialistic future, we drive out soul from everything, and all our values, ideals and ethics boil down to the purposeless reactions of matter in a dark void. THE BIG problem with materialism is that it is utterly devoid of purpose or values, though materialists are insistent that we can still have values.

Rose, if you TRUELY believed that you were the accidental result of an explosion, that you lacked any freewill but were simply an automaton, and that soon you would utterly cease to exist, then I propose, Rose, that you would not give a shit about anything.

The trouble is that Evolutionists, in their rush to exclude God, also exclude mind, mental events, consciousness and the soul. So their philosophy effectively renders the world a dead universe. Of course, they NEVER live as if their philosophy were true - because that would be horrific. No, they just spout off.

It seems to me that their prime motivation is the desire to be free from religious control and to find the truth about our reality. You can escape religious control without having to banish the soul. In their independent searches for what is real, why do they all mysteriously gravitate to a consensus opinion that negates the soul. There must be a million other possibilities.

I agree with Mystical that only a small percentage of scientists would describe themselves as Atheistic Materialists. Atheistic materialism is not just an insult to science though - it is the deepest possible insult to human and animal nature. To render us all as soulless automatons with no more value than a piece of dust.

I would also say that compared to the meaningless void bequeathed to us by atheistic materialism, then almost anything is an improvement.

To me, atheistic materialism is the deepest and darkest place in hell - where there is no movement towards any goals - just reaction to causes, where there is no reason why we exist, just a freak accident - where all the love, justice and beauty in the world is no more valuable than a pile of dust.

I can only surmise that it is through complete ignorance that you or anyone else holds to such a philosophy - you are ignorant of it's true consequences. You argue against the Christian hell, but in it's place you offer a reality which is hell here and now. And all this simply because you don't like the anti-feminist slant of the Bible.

Gambini
06-07-2014, 05:58 PM
Hey Craig :thumb:

I'd like to add an additional line of evidence to support your argument here ...

A 2013 meta-analysis by Woodley, M.A., J. te Nijenhuis and R. Murphy entitled "Were The Victorians Cleverer Than Us?" demonstrates CONCLUSIVELY that reaction time among humans is SLOWING DOWN. They interpret this to also show that IQ is actually DECREASING (since reaction time plays a role in intelligence tests). Regardless, it clearly shows reaction time is DETERIORATING.


So to sum up ...

1) The biblical genealogies show a gradual decrease in longevity that can be plotted on a graph.

2) There is a UNIVERSAL theme in the ancient world that coheres with the biblical account of a gradual decrease in longevity.

3) The fossil record reveals that "gigantism" has gradually disappeared among virtually all organisms.

4) Meta-analysis reveals that reaction time among humans is gradually deteriorating.

5) Genetic mutations are gradually accumulating in EACH successive generation.


Taken together, this makes the argument from genetic entropy even stronger.


Btw, you ever notice sometimes how skepDICKS will take issue with the biblical claim that our ancestors lived much longer in the past??? I always thought that was a strange objection when you consider that they THEMSELVES believe our ancestors lived much longer in the past. After all, they believe we ultimately descended from the same line as sponges (which can live THOUSANDS of years) and jellyfish (the turritopsis nutricula jellyfish can live up to THOUSANDS of years).


BINI

Rose
06-07-2014, 07:18 PM
Hi Rose,

The point is that by insisting on a materialistic origin, a materialistic nature and a materialistic future, we drive out soul from everything, and all our values, ideals and ethics boil down to the purposeless reactions of matter in a dark void. THE BIG problem with materialism is that it is utterly devoid of purpose or values, though materialists are insistent that we can still have values.
Hi Craig,

I know this is an old post, but I guess I missed it all those months ago.

There is no reason that a person who believes in a naturalistic origin cannot have purpose and value in their life ... I do! We as individuals give meaning and purpose to our lives through our relationships, it makes no difference how one thinks the universe came into being.


Rose, if you TRUELY believed that you were the accidental result of an explosion, that you lacked any freewill but were simply an automaton, and that soon you would utterly cease to exist, then I propose, Rose, that you would not give a shit about anything.

Quite the contrary. I have been on both sides of the fence ... I was a Christian for nearly 28 years and now I am a non-theist, and I can honestly tell you that my life has more purpose and meaning now, then it did when I was a Christian (though at the time I would have said the same thing you are saying now :winking0071: ).


The trouble is that Evolutionists, in their rush to exclude God, also exclude mind, mental events, consciousness and the soul. So their philosophy effectively renders the world a dead universe. Of course, they NEVER live as if their philosophy were true - because that would be horrific. No, they just spout off.

It seems to me that their prime motivation is the desire to be free from religious control and to find the truth about our reality. You can escape religious control without having to banish the soul. In their independent searches for what is real, why do they all mysteriously gravitate to a consensus opinion that negates the soul. There must be a million other possibilities.

Where did you get the idea that people who believe in evolution exclude consciousness? Naturalists believe that consciousness arises out of the complexity of the brain, the more neurons a life form has the higher the state of consciousness, until we arrive at humans who have self-consciousness.

The reason many scientists exclude the soul, is because the more that they learn about the brain/mind, the more it seems like what people call the soul is just the mind ... "The mind is what the brain does." When parts of the brain get damaged or diseased, parts of our selves disappear or change, this is evidence that our brains create who we are.


I agree with Mystical that only a small percentage of scientists would describe themselves as Atheistic Materialists. Atheistic materialism is not just an insult to science though - it is the deepest possible insult to human and animal nature. To render us all as soulless automatons with no more value than a piece of dust.

I would also say that compared to the meaningless void bequeathed to us by atheistic materialism, then almost anything is an improvement.

To me, atheistic materialism is the deepest and darkest place in hell - where there is no movement towards any goals - just reaction to causes, where there is no reason why we exist, just a freak accident - where all the love, justice and beauty in the world is no more valuable than a pile of dust.

What you say makes no sense? How does believing in an immoral Biblegod give meaning to life? The Bible promotes slavery and male ownership of women ... what does that have to do with justice, love and beauty?

If we are just an accident of nature how does denying it change anything? It's better to face the truth and live your life as fully as possible. Set your own goals to help make this world the best place possible for all people. Every act of love and kindness has value regardless of whether you believe in the Biblegod or not.


I can only surmise that it is through complete ignorance that you or anyone else holds to such a philosophy - you are ignorant of it's true consequences. You argue against the Christian hell, but in it's place you offer a reality which is hell here and now. And all this simply because you don't like the anti-feminist slant of the Bible.

There is not one shred of evidence that the Biblegod is true, so it would be pure stupidity on my part to believe in something that was conceived in the minds of primitive men because they were ignorant of science. Bit by bit science is filling in the gaps that god occupied for lack of knowledge, but not once has god replaced what scientific knowledge has gained.

You are right! I don't like the male-bias of the Bible, but it was one of the things that made me dig deeper into the Bible and discover its god to be man-made. I believe all people should have equal human rights, regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation. The teachings of the Bible do not promote justice or equality, consequently people who follow its doctrines feel justified in denying equal rights to those who don't believe as they do. That is wrong!

Take care,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
06-08-2014, 08:30 AM
So to sum up ...

1) The biblical genealogies show a gradual decrease in longevity that can be plotted on a graph.

2) There is a UNIVERSAL theme in the ancient world that coheres with the biblical account of a gradual decrease in longevity.

3) The fossil record reveals that "gigantism" has gradually disappeared among virtually all organisms.

4) Meta-analysis reveals that reaction time among humans is gradually deteriorating.

5) Genetic mutations are gradually accumulating in EACH successive generation.


Taken together, this makes the argument from genetic entropy even stronger.

We discussed the idea of "genetic entropy" in a thread with that name (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3924-Genetic-Entropy) just last year. I refuted a host of arguments for it in post #89 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3924-Genetic-Entropy&p=55311#post55311) (which unfortunately Craig never answered). The primary flaw in the assertion that "genetic entropy" would make evolution impossible is that it forgets (or fails to understand) the power of natural selection. It's easy to see what happens when the effects of natural selection are removed. E.g. fish living in caves quickly lose their eyes because there is no selection. The only way "genetic entropy" could be true is if life on earth were only a few thousand years old which is obviously false. Otherwise, life would have "devolved" and died out long ago.

Bottom line: There is no argument from "genetic entropy."



Btw, you ever notice sometimes how skepDICKS will take issue with the biblical claim that our ancestors lived much longer in the past??? I always thought that was a strange objection when you consider that they THEMSELVES believe our ancestors lived much longer in the past. After all, they believe we ultimately descended from the same line as sponges (which can live THOUSANDS of years) and jellyfish (the turritopsis nutricula jellyfish can live up to THOUSANDS of years).


BINI
There you go again, calling people "DICKS" because they are smarter than you. Why do you have to be such an arrogant asshole Bini? Do you really think it helps "make the case" for your religion? Every time you say shit like that it only confirms the fact that religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind. Your hatred of truth and skepticism has caused your mind to become septic.

And your logic sucks, as usual. The fact that we descended from a radically different species with a greater longevity does not imply that we should believe baseless religious superstitions about a great longevity of recent members of our species.

Gambini
06-09-2014, 02:36 PM
"The primary flaw in the assertion that "genetic entropy" would make evolution impossible is that it forgets (or fails to understand) the power of natural selection"

That's nothing more than hand waving. You have absolutely zero evidence that natural selection would reverse the OBSERVED accumulation of mutations. Further, there is no such thing as a "neutral" mutation. That's complete bullshit. ANY mutation is either beneficial or harmful (and we know "beneficial" mutations represent a tiny percentage of mutations). There is no in-between. A so-called "neutral" mutation would BY DEFINITION be the OPPOSITE of beneficial because it's taking up what could otherwise be useful space. The idea of a truly "neutral" mutation is a myth. But since you love natural selection so much, let's see natural selection get you out of this ...

As you know, the building block of the living cell is the protein. Well, a NEW study from the University Of Glasgow (published in Nature Communications) shows that protein vibrations are OPTIMIZED for interaction (the ringing motion is "FINE-TUNED" to last one millionth of a millionth of a second, which is *PERFECT* for the most efficient reaction) and this OPTIMIZED function had to be in place BEFORE life began (which means natural selection cannot be used to explain it). So much for "the power of natural selection" :lol: ...

It's bad enough you have to explain all the mathematical evidence at the very root of the genome (which PRECEDES any natural selection), now you have to explain the extreme OPTIMIZATION of biochemistry itself (which ALSO precedes any natural selection).

"There you go again, calling people "DICKS" because they are smarter than you. Why do you have to be such an arrogant asshole Bini?"

I'm not arrogant at all, dude. It's not my fault you don't have a sense of humor.

"Religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers"

You're lying again (everytime you repeat this bullshit line of yours, I'm counting it as a lie on your part). When I gave you studies showing religiosity has POSITIVE effects on mental health and social behavior, you said you meant that believers were dishonest. But I gave you studies showing a link between HONESTY and RELIGIOSITY! Furthermore, the huge majority of the general public (meaning NONRELIGIOUS people) views ATHEISTS as the most untrustworthy members of society. And this is IN SPITE of the fact that the secular media is constantly portraying religious people in a negative light.

Btw, when you make general sweeping statements regarding the moral integrity of an entire group of people (religious people), you're only demonstrating you're a bigoted piece of shit.

"Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind"

I agree with that. You're not a skeptic. You're a skepDICK. A skepDICK is someone who will reject ANY evidence for a particular view simply because they don't want to accept that view (even in the face of mounting evidence). I'm a TRUE skeptic. I'm SKEPTICAL of your evolutionary creation myth.


Death to the skepDICKS

Richard Amiel McGough
06-09-2014, 08:34 PM
"The primary flaw in the assertion that "genetic entropy" would make evolution impossible is that it forgets (or fails to understand) the power of natural selection"

That's nothing more than hand waving. You have absolutely zero evidence that natural selection would reverse the OBSERVED accumulation of mutations.

Not true. We have thousands of examples of how natural selection maintains the fitness of the genome. This is obvious to anyone with eyes. When natural selection for a trait such as sight is removed (as when animals live in dark caves for many generations) they accumulate mutations that destroy their eyes. This proves that natural selection is what is maintaining their genome. Nothing could be more obvious.



Further, there is no such thing as a "neutral" mutation. That's complete bullshit. ANY mutation is either beneficial or harmful (and we know "beneficial" mutations represent a tiny percentage of mutations). There is no in-between. A so-called "neutral" mutation would BY DEFINITION be the OPPOSITE of beneficial because it's taking up what could otherwise be useful space. The idea of a truly "neutral" mutation is a myth. But since you love natural selection so much, let's see natural selection get you out of this ...

Wow - that's a load of bullshit. The effects of mutations are not accurately categorized as "beneficial or harmful" in general because what is "harmful" in one environment may be helpful in another. The driving force of evolution is FITNESS TO THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT. When the environment changes, previously "fit" organism may suffer and die off while those that had been poorly adapted may suddenly flourish. You write like a typical creationist totally ignorant of the most basic elements of evolutionary science. If you want to actually understand the theory that you are opposing, watch the video I posted in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3924-Genetic-Entropy&p=55311#post55311) in the Genetic Entropy (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3924-Genetic-Entropy) thread:



6. Current evidence of the accumulation of mutations

Invalid assertion as explained previously. You don't understand how evolution works. Talk of individual "beneficial" vs. "harmful" mutations makes little sense. As explained in post #23 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science&p=52571#post52571) of the thread How Beliefs Resist Change - Christianity and Cognitive Science (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science), evolution is driven by "chance" just like thermodynamics. Evolution explores the "phase space" of all possible genetic patterns. The environment at time t naturally selects the forms most fit for that environment. Nothing could be more natural or expected. Evolution is just the operation of natural law. Here is a debate where Dr. Rainbow gives very valuable explanation of what the actual science of evolution says.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tJ-ryHrTrA

The good stuff starts @32 minutes in. He made a graphic that shows how the "evolution machine" runs 24/7/365 while exploring the "evolutionary phase space."

If you understand his explanation you will understand why the validity of evolution is as certain as, rather than contrary to, the second law of thermodynamics.


That video shows that evolution is as natural as a rock rolling down a hill.



"There you go again, calling people "DICKS" because they are smarter than you. Why do you have to be such an arrogant asshole Bini?"

I'm not arrogant at all, dude. It's not my fault you don't have a sense of humor.

There is not the slightest hint of "humor" in your insults. On the contrary, you regularly include a call for DEATH to "skepDICKS" in posts that are filled with insults and venom (as I will show in detail below). You know you are not merely trying to be funny. This means you are not only an asshole, but a blatant liar too as you have proven many times on this forum (more evidence below).



"Religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers"

You're lying again (everytime you repeat this bullshit line of yours, I'm counting it as a lie on your part). When I gave you studies showing religiosity has POSITIVE effects on mental health and social behavior, you said you meant that believers were dishonest. But I gave you studies showing a link between HONESTY and RELIGIOSITY! Furthermore, the huge majority of the general public (meaning NONRELIGIOUS people) views ATHEISTS as the most untrustworthy members of society. And this is IN SPITE of the fact that the secular media is constantly portraying religious people in a negative light.

You will note that I usually repeat that fact immediately after presenting evidence supporting it. Case in point: I was responding to your deliberately insulting use of the term "skepDICKS." And then you lied about it being "humor." So I was fully justified in my assertion.

But since you have repeatedly challenge me on this point, I will review a few of the more obvious cases where I used that phrase in response to blatant corruption revealed in your own comments. For example, you repeatedly LIED about me, saying that I said "there is nothing wrong with having sex with dogs" and that " there is nothing wrong with a man HAVING SEX WITH HIS OWN MOTHER." I repeatedly corrected you on this point, and yet you chose to continue repeating the same perverse lie. It was in this context that I said you "demonstrate how fundamentalist religion corrupts the minds and morals of believers." Here is the post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5713-Is-the-Bible-the-Inerrant-Word-of-God&p=62804#post62804):





Speaking of bitches ... Do you also agree with Richard's position that there is nothing wrong with having sex with dogs (or performing/receiving oral sex on a stinking dog)? Or how about his view that there is nothing wrong with a man HAVING SEX WITH HIS OWN MOTHER (as long as he gets a vasectomy)??? Do you agree? If not, why??? Would you support your daughter's right to marry your mother? If not, WHY???

I AM GAMBINI (and you are my little bitch on the side, Sir).
You are GAMBINI - an obnoxious, sick, twisted, arrogant, ignorant, ludicrous LIAR. A mindless jerk of the first order. I have never said "there is nothing wrong with having sex with dogs." Neither have I ever said "there is nothing wrong with a man HAVING SEX WITH HIS OWN MOTHER (as long as he gets a vasectomy)." You are just making up shit and spewing it out of your putrid mouth.

And worse, you know you are lying yet you do it anyway. L67 exposed your lies and so you made up more lies, saying that you never wrote what you wrote. And now you have written it again, as if you are so mind-numbingly idiotic that you don't even remember that you were already caught in this lie. Nothing could be more pathetic. Your words are worthless shit. Your "testimony" for Christ is pure shit. It proves one thing - the fruit of believing the Bible is shit and should be rejected by all sane people.

Why then do I allow such a pathetic pile of putrescence like you stain my forum? Because you are a useful idiot. You serve my purposes to free people from the shackles of religion. You demonstrate how fundamentalist religion corrupts the minds and morals of believers. You are like dung that fertilizes my garden of freethinking skeptics and atheists. You confirm that religion like yours is objectively evil.

And so I invite you to continue raving and lying for Christ. Your demonstration of the fruits of Christianity will free more people from the shackles of religion than a thousand lectures by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. Thanks!

:signthankspin:


And how did you respond? You attempted to justify your false assertions by saying it was my fault for answering by asking a question - a question which you refused to answer. Here is the exchange we had (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5713-Is-the-Bible-the-Inerrant-Word-of-God&p=62811#post62811):




"I have never said "there is nothing wrong with having sex with dogs." Neither have I ever said "there is nothing wrong with a man HAVING SEX WITH HIS OWN MOTHER (as long as he gets a vasectomy)." You are just making shit up"

Did you lose your memory, RAMnesia? I specifically asked whether it was wrong for a man with a vasectomy TO HAVE SEX WITH HIS OWN MOTHER and what was your response to that question? You responded by asking "Why is it wrong for two adults to have consenting sex"!!! THAT was your response to the question I posed. Furthermore, not ONCE did you ever say it was wrong. But if you want to call that lying on my part, then fine. Let's clear things up right now ...

That's right you brain dead moron. I responded by ASKING A QUESTION which is how you engage a person in rational discourse. But you're not interested in anything like that and so you totally ignored my question and began spewing more putrid lies about me (spawned in your mind which has been corrupted by your superstitious dogmas). And I explained that your tactic is as transparent as it is absurd. You are trying to confuse the issue of homosexuality by switching the topic to incest! Incest can be either hetero or homosexual. It is a totally different question. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the question of homosexuality. Your tactics are ludicrous, absurd, and disgusting.

You have refused to engage me in anything like a rational discussion about morality.



1) Do you believe it is wrong for a man to have consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER (after getting a vasectomy of course)??? If you DO believe it is wrong, WHY???

I would be delighted to discuss the foundation of objective morality with you if you would at least pretend to have half a brain. As it is, I would rather play chess with a monkey on crack than you, since the monkey would surely be more rational.



If you REFUSE to answer these two questions, then your position is obvious. You just don't want the spit it out because you know your moral foundation ALLOWS for all kinds of crazy shit.

Bullshit! Your insanity is showing yet again. You have LIED about me and have not repented. You are in no position to make any assertions until you admit that you have lied and repent.

Like I said, if you had any real interest in discussing morality, you would begin with the FOUNDATION of objective morality - FAIRNESS, JUSTICE, CONSENT, EMPATHY, LOVE.

But you have no morality at all. You are a sick immoral freak who shits on the Bible and exults in your putrid glory.




So are you going to clarify your position or are you too COWARDLY to answer these two questions???

BINI
Once again, you declare the perversity of your heart and mind. Sometimes I wish there were a god so I could thank him I'm nothing like you.

If you wanted to discuss morality, you would begin with the fundamental question: What makes something right or wrong? The answer is obvious: It is the nature of the act and how it affects others. It has absolutely nothing to do with any imagined god. God adds nothing to the equation. EUTHYPHRO, you ignorant fool!


As you can see, I say that "religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers" AFTER giving evidence supporting that fact. I've explained this to you many times but you have never responded to my main point, which is that religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers because it causes them to DESPISE THE TRUTH. This is the point that you prove every time you reject the truth in favor of your irrational and demonstrably false religious beliefs. The problem is that religion encourages COGNITIVE BIAS. It is the defining characteristic of the abyss of absurdity known as "Christian apologetics." I've never seen a single apologist who upholds the Bible as "God's Word" who is not lost in a pathetic world of deep delusion. See my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/) if you want to see the evidence for the damage religion does.

As for your appeal to "studies" - that's another example of how religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. You reject and/or rationalize any and all evidence that contradicts your false beliefs. Case in point: you reject the greatest meta-study ever done on the diameter of the sun which reviews all the measurements using five different methodologies from the past 32 years. And why did you reject it? Because it contradicted some cherished absurdity you derived from Biblical numerology!!! That's totally insane. It was in this context that I began to use the phrase "religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers" in reference to your behavior. Here is an example:





"Religion corrupts a persons morals"

That's a flat out LIE. Meta-studies show the exact OPPOSITE. Religiosity ENHANCES a persons moral character ...

A 2001 Meta-analysis by C.J. Baier and B.R. Wright (which looked at 60 different studies) concludes that religious people are LESS likely to engage in criminal acts of violence (or criminal activity in general) ...

A 2006 Meta-analysis by Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Francisco Lotufo Neto and Harold G. Koering (which looked at 850 different studies) concludes that people who are MORE religious are LESS likely to use drugs or abuse alcohol (and less likely to suffer from depression or attempt suicide as well) ...


A COMPREHENSIVE study released in 2007 by Harvard Professor Robert Putnam and University of Notre Dame associate Professor David Campbell reveals that religious people are MUCH more likely to give to charity and that 40% of regular churchgoers volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly (compared to only 15% who NEVER attend religious services) ...
Why don't you post something up to date? A lot has changed since those dates.

But since you like to quote studies then here is one for you. A new study finds that religious people are less intelligent than non religious people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/religious-people-less-intelligent-atheists_n_3750096.html

You have proven that in spades Bini as I will show below.

Bini has proven it in spades made of spades! There's really nothing more ironic than Gambini quoting scientific studies because he spits on them when they don't say what he want's them to say. Case in point: Gambini convinced himself that the Bible encoded the diameter of the sun as 864,000 miles (using modern English miles!) because of some numerical coincidences based on the number 864. So I showed him a META-ANALYSIS that reviewed all measurements of the sun, using five different scientific methods, which concluded that the sun is 865,173 +/- 80 miles in diameter. You can read about it in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5288-Value-of-Pi-in-Matthew&p=59642#post59642). The number he desired has absolutely NO scientific justification of any kind. Indeed, it is beyond absurd because his desired value lies more than six standard deviations away from the mean in the metastudy. It directly contradicts the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. And how did Gambini respond when I showed him this evidence? He said this (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5288-Value-of-Pi-in-Matthew&p=59595#post59595):
GAMBINI: "Regardless, I'm ABSOLUTELY justified in using the value of 864,000 for the simple fact that the value is STILL USED by authoritative sources. That's all I need."
In Gambini's universe, he is "ABSOLUTELY justified" to base arguments on demonstrable falsehoods so long as he can find an "authority" somewhere on the internet that lists the false value! What kind of insanity rules his mind? He asserts blatant falsehood and then justifies it by committing the fallacy of appeal to authority! Wow. Just wow.

It was in this context that I explained to him how religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. Here is the exchange we had (source (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?5288-Value-of-Pi-in-Matthew&p=59642#post59642)):





Btw, I really wish you would stop repeating this ridiculous line of yours about religion having a negative effect on morals. That's the DUMBEST shit I've ever heard. Your own personal experiences of religious people don't mean anything. If your assertion that religion has negative effects on people is true, then the data should back that up ...

You are a prime example of why I say that religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. You have chosen to believe a lie and reject the vast majority of scientific studies spanning the last 32 years concerning the diameter of the sun. Your bias is the most blatant anyone could ever imagine. You have not given any SCIENTIFIC REASON to reject all those studies. You and I both know that the only reason you are rejecting those scientific studies is because they contradict what you want to believe. You explicitly claim that you are justified by an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - saying if you can find any "authorities" that use the wrong value, that justifies your use of the wrong value. That's not just a logical fallacy - it's pure insanity. It makes it look like you DESPISE the truth! This reveals a corruption of your mind. And truth is a moral issue, so your morals have been corrupted too.


And how did Gambini respond to that post? He didn't! He totally ignored it. And now he repeats his appeal to "meta-studies" in his vain attempt to contradict what we all know and can see and demonstrate: Dogmatic religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers because it breeds a contempt for the truth and teaches that belief without evidence is not only a virtue, but a necessity to avoid eternal torment in hell. It is a mind killer, and a human with a corrupt mind will have corrupt morals, because truth is a moral issue.

Richard

I could give a hundred more examples of how I say "religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers" in the CONTEXT of having given EVIDENCE supporting that fact.



Btw, when you make general sweeping statements regarding the moral integrity of an entire group of people (religious people), you're only demonstrating you're a bigoted piece of shit.

Not true. I speak only of the demonstrable effect that the human institution of "dogmatic religion" has on humans. I show no bigotry of any kind.



"Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind"

I agree with that. You're not a skeptic. You're a skepDICK. A skepDICK is someone who will reject ANY evidence for a particular view simply because they don't want to accept that view (even in the face of mounting evidence). I'm a TRUE skeptic. I'm SKEPTICAL of your evolutionary creation myth.


Death to the skepDICKS

There you go again. More humor? Yeah, right. Only a fool could believe that you are not being deliberately insulting, and therefore necessarily lying when you say it is "humor." Especially since "Dick" is a common nickname for Richard.

And of course your assertion about me rejecting evidence is another blatant lie that I have refuted many times. I have never rejected any evidence. On the contrary, I admit evidence that is contrary to what I believe in as much as it appears to support the idea that the Bible has supernatural aspects. But you can't admit even that truth! You must lie about me even when I admit evidence that supports your case. Wow.

And speaking of evidence - that's why I left the faith. My belief that Christianity was true was based largely on evidence (and a fair amount of magical thinking). So when the evidence showed otherwise, and I realized I was deluding myself with magical thinking, I HELD TO MY INTEGRITY and quit the faith.

As for your "skepticism" of evolution - that's bullshit. As far as I can tell, you reject it out of hand despite the overwhelming body of evidence. The things you write indicate you have no understanding of the most basic elements of the science, such as how natural selection prevents degradation of the genome (which is demonstrable by looking at what happens when the selective pressure for eyesight is removed in dark caves).

Craig.Paardekooper
07-29-2014, 05:46 PM
Shrodinger argued that one of the characteristics of life is that it can move against the tide of entropy - living things can take disordered atoms and order them into complex structures.

In out universe, living creatures are the only entities that can do this, albeit on a local and temporary level, since even living creatures eventually get old, die and decay.

Analysis of what enables living things to resist the tide of entropy shows that having an open system with available energy is not enough - rather, information is the key essential ingredient.

Living creatures can only overcome entropy because they have INFORMATION in the form of DNA, that can harness the available energy to perform very specific work or repair and growth.

So the key characteristic of LIFE is INFORMATION.


The strange thing about genetic information in the form of DNA is that the codons that code for the amino acids bear NO physical relationship to any of those amino acids. In other words, the information in DNA is not reducible to the chemical properties of the elements that make up the information. This means that information is itself non-naturalistic - or non-material. It is simply not reducible to matter.

This observation alone is strong evidence for theism.

When someone asks - "What is life?" the answer is - "life is the embodiment of information" which enables repair and growth. Without this information, entropy will ALWAYS ensure decay and disorder.

So when you see the living things around you - what you are looking at is embodied information - the Word made flesh !

Craig.Paardekooper
08-01-2014, 08:39 AM
Only 10,000 years ago (by modern dating) our planet was filled with mammals similar to our modern counterparts, except they were generally -

bigger
stronger
longer lived
had larger brains

Of course, as has been pointed out on this blog, this does not prove that we have devolved - but the observation still stands that similar mammals were much bigger and stronger in the past - and are smaller and weaker now.

The idea that this reduction of fitness has been due to extinction and the accumulation of negative mutations is a theory at least as acceptable as evolution. Not only is it supported by the larger stature of ancient creatures, but it also finds support from the current rates of mutation in living things, and the current rates of extinction.

In the past there were a far greater diversity of creatures, which included many larger, stronger ones. And they lived in a richer, lusher environment that could support their greater needs. A world that could support such large creatures and a much greater diversity of species would necessarily possess a richer, lusher habitat - more abundant in food, and more supportive of long life.


Taking only a brief look at the mammals of the Pleistocene reveals that there were -

giant apes
giant dogs
giant cats
giant sheep
giant horses
giant cows
giant deer
giant elephants
giant kangaroos
etc etc etc

My proposition is that devolution is a viable theory, and should be taught as a considered option alongside evolution.

It seems a bit embarrassing that Richard should prematurely bow so low before the high priests of evolution, when alternative theories are all around.

CWH
08-01-2014, 10:08 AM
Only 10,000 years ago (by modern dating) our planet was filled with mammals similar to our modern counterparts, except they were generally -

bigger
stronger
longer lived
had larger brains

Of course, as has been pointed out on this blog, this does not prove that we have devolved - but the observation still stands that similar mammals were much bigger and stronger in the past - and are smaller and weaker now.

The idea that this reduction of fitness has been due to extinction and the accumulation of negative mutations is a theory at least as acceptable as evolution. Not only is it supported by the larger stature of ancient creatures, but it also finds support from the current rates of mutation in living things, and the current rates of extinction.

In the past there were a far greater diversity of creatures, which included many larger, stronger ones. And they lived in a richer, lusher environment that could support their greater needs. A world that could support such large creatures and a much greater diversity of species would necessarily possess a richer, lusher habitat - more abundant in food, and more supportive of long life.


Taking only a brief look at the mammals of the Pleistocene reveals that there were -

giant apes
giant dogs
giant cats
giant sheep
giant horses
giant cows
giant deer
giant elephants
giant kangaroos
etc etc etc

My proposition is that devolution is a viable theory, and should be taught as a considered option alongside evolution.

It seems a bit embarrassing that Richard should prematurely bow so low before the high priests of evolution, when alternative theories are all around.

H Craig,

Just to add, and there are still Giants to this day....the largest mammal even bigger than the dinosaurs known to science the Blue Whale, The African elephant is about the same size as medium size dinosaur. There are also unconfirmed reports of Giant prehistoric dinosaurs still around such pleiosaurs, pytersaurs, saurapods. If any of these dinosaurs us caught, the theory of evolution will collapsed.

http://endtimeupgrade.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/comparison1.jpg

God Bless.:pray:

Gambini
08-01-2014, 01:36 PM
The strange thing about genetic information in the form of DNA is that the codons that code for the amino acids bear NO physical relationship to any of those amino acids. In other words, the information in DNA is not reducible to the chemical properties of the elements that make up the information. This means that information is itself non-naturalistic - or non-material. It is simply not reducible to matter.

This observation alone is strong evidence for theism.



That is an excellent point Craig :thumb: ...

I never even thought of that before. If life ultimately "evolved" naturalistically from lifeless chemicals, then we would expect to see a direct chemical relationship between the codons and the amino acids, which isn't what we see. This argument deserves an entire book. It's like a whole new theistic argument.



BINI

Richard Amiel McGough
08-01-2014, 03:09 PM
The strange thing about genetic information in the form of DNA is that the codons that code for the amino acids bear NO physical relationship to any of those amino acids. In other words, the information in DNA is not reducible to the chemical properties of the elements that make up the information. This means that information is itself non-naturalistic - or non-material. It is simply not reducible to matter.

This observation alone is strong evidence for theism.



That is an excellent point Craig :thumb: ...

I never even thought of that before. If life ultimately "evolved" naturalistically from lifeless chemicals, then we would expect to see a direct chemical relationship between the codons and the amino acids, which isn't what we see. This argument deserves an entire book. It's like a whole new theistic argument.


BINI
Actually, it's not a new argument at all. The idea that information is not "physical" has been around for many decades. And so has the contrary idea that information is a physical property. If you are interested in this topic, I would recommend Googling Landauer The physical nature of information.

It is true that the information is not identical with the physical representation - e.g. the same ides could be represented on sheets of paper, engravings in stone, computer bits, or whatever, but there has never been an example of any information without a physical representation. The idea that information "exists" independently of any physical representation is a weird metaphysical assertion without any foundation that I can see. It's like saying that logic "exists" independent of any mind. It's also important to remember that the mathematical measure of information isidentical to entropy, which is a fundamental physical property.

As for the genetic code - it is true that "the information in DNA is not reducible to the chemical properties of the elements that make up the information." The information is stored in the ORDER of the base pairs, and that is a physical property so I don't see how your statement that it is "not reducible to matter" follows. Please explain.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-01-2014, 03:39 PM
Chimp DNA was only sequenced in 2005. Papers were initially published claiming a 98 - 99 % similarity. However they were very selective in the DNA compared, and completely ignored "junk " dna.

Comparison of total DNA shows a different figure - only 70% similarity - dropping to 40% for the Y Chromosome.

If the percentage of similarity is only 70%, then it is very unlikely that we came from apes. If we did not come from apes, then it seems logical that we certainly did not come from any other animal. Therefore we must have been created.


Note: Chimps have 24 Chromosomes, we have 23, and one of ours - the Y Chromosome is only 40% similar to the chimps.

Note : the comparison of DNA sequences is an objectively quantifiable task, and therefore should be able to resolve the question of common ancestry in a rigorous and quantifiable way - far more so than any amount of speculation

So another new theological argument is Chimp DNA.




Just came across this ICR paper comparing Chimp and human DNA. It is an empirical study showing only 70 % similarity for each chromosome, and only 40% similarity for the Y Chromosome. Quite different from what the popular press have been spouting about 98-99% similarity.

Here is the paper - http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Research-Evaluating-Similarities-Human-Chimp-DNA.pdf

Craig.Paardekooper
08-01-2014, 04:15 PM
Polanyi explained in a paper:


Biological systems, like machines, have…functions and forms inexplicable by chemical and physical laws. The argument that the DNA molecule determines genetic processes in living systems does not indicate reducibility. A DNA molecule essentiality transmits information to a developing cell. Similarly, a book transmits information. But the transmission of the information cannot be represented in terms of chemical and physical principles. In other words, the operation of the book is not reducible to chemical terms. Since DNA operates by transmission of (genetic) information, its function cannot be described by chemical laws either. The life process is essentially the development of a fertilized cell, as the result of information imparted by DNA. Transmission of this information is nonchemical and nonphysical, and is the controlling factor in the life process. The description of a living system therefore transcends the chemical and physical laws which govern its constituents.”[2]

If biological information cannot be reduced to chemicals and laws, it could not have originated from them either.

The fact of the matter is that the laws of physics allow for a large number of chemical arrangements, the overwhelming majority of which convey no information whatsoever.

More importantly, Polanyi pointed out that law-like processes directing chemical bonding would actually prohibit the generation of information. Laws determining the bonding of chemicals would invariably produce repetitive regularities. So if some natural law required that guanine bond to cytosine, thymine bond to guanine, adenine bond to thymine, and cytosine bond to adenine, the only possible DNA sequence would be “CGTA” which would appear repetitively along the DNA backbone. Information, however, requires specified variability (irregularities). It is oxymoronic to think regularity can explain irregularity. If natural laws determine the bonding properties of DNA and/or amino acids—and hence their arrangement—DNA would be incapable of generating the variability required to originate biological information. Even if the CGTA-CGTA-CGTA repetitive sequence was biologically meaningful, every gene would code for the same protein. Life, however, requires a wide array of proteins to carry out all the functions of the cell.

To illustrate the problem, consider the English alphabet. If some grammatical law governed our alphabet so that out of necessity, whenever we write the letter A it must be followed by the letter D, and whenever we write the letter D it must be followed by the letter Y, and whenever Y then L, whenever L then J, whenever J then Q, whenever Q then E and so on, it would be impossible to convey meaningful information. For example, if I wished to communicate that “a cat walked past my house today,” once I wrote “A” I would have to follow it by “DYLJQE.…” Such grammatical laws would create repetition and meaninglessness, not information. The same is true of the DNA and amino acid alphabets. Since life requires information, and information requires specified variability, DNA and/or proteins cannot be the product of law-like self-organization.

For Meyer, the final nail in the coffin for self-organization models is the structure of the DNA molecule itself. Self-organizational models require that there be multiple chemical bonds of differing strength that are capable of determining a specific arrangement of chemicals. The DNA molecule, however, lacks the chemical bonds necessary to create such bonding affinities. There is only one chemical bond (N-glycosidic bond) that bonds each nucleotide base to its binding site on the sugar-phosphate backbone, so there is no chemical property along either of the two backbones that can determine the order in which nucleotides bind to it.[3] Any of the four nucleotide types can attach themselves to any binding site on the backbone with equal ease, no one being favored over another.

While there are no bonding affinities on the backbone of DNA that can determine nucleotide sequencing, are there any bonding affinities between the nucleotide pairs along the longitudinal axis in the center of the molecule that might do so? No. While there is a weak hydrogen bond between the two nucleotides that form nucleotide pairs (between adenine and guanine, and between cytosine and thymine), there are no chemical bonds between the nucleotides along the longitudinal axis in the center of the molecule where the genetic information is stored. Without any chemical bonds linking one nucleotide/nucleotide pair to the nucleotide/nucleotide pair above and below it, there is nothing to necessitate that the nucleotides be arranged in any particular order. So even if there was some natural law that could cause chemicals to self-organize, the DNA molecule lacks the necessary properties on which this law could act (the same is true of RNA).

In the same way that natural laws can cause magnetic letters to stick to a magnetic board but are incapable of determining that they be arranged to spell out a meaningful message such as “Take out the trash when you get home,” natural laws may explain the properties of the chemicals necessary for life but they are wholly incapable of determining that they arrange themselves into biologically meaningful information. Information cannot be explained by, or attributed to law-like forces. There is only one known source for generating information: intelligent agency. In the same way that an intelligent agent is required to arrange the chemical properties of ink to communicate functionally meaningful information, and in the same way an intelligent agent is required to arrange the letters on a magnetic board to convey functionally meaningful information, so too it stands to reason that an intelligent is required to arrange nucleotides into sequences capable of conveying biologically meaningful and functional information.



Ref http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/signature-in-the-cell-part-5-assessing-the-necessity-hypothesis-for-the-origin-of-life/

Richard Amiel McGough
08-01-2014, 04:45 PM
Biological systems, like machines, have…functions and forms inexplicable by chemical and physical laws. The argument that the DNA molecule determines genetic processes in living systems does not indicate reducibility. A DNA molecule essentiality transmits information to a developing cell. Similarly, a book transmits information. But the transmission of the information cannot be represented in terms of chemical and physical principles. In other words, the operation of the book is not reducible to chemical terms. Since DNA operates by transmission of (genetic) information, its function cannot be described by chemical laws either. The life process is essentially the development of a fertilized cell, as the result of information imparted by DNA. Transmission of this information is nonchemical and nonphysical, and is the controlling factor in the life process. The description of a living system therefore transcends the chemical and physical laws which govern its constituents.”[2]
Ref http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/signature-in-the-cell-part-5-assessing-the-necessity-hypothesis-for-the-origin-of-life/
That makes no sense to me. The "transmission of the information" is totally physical. The order of the base pairs is a physical arrangement, and that physical arrangement is the information that is physically transmitted by the messenger RNA. Am I missing something? Please explain.

Rose
08-01-2014, 04:55 PM
Chimp DNA was only sequenced in 2005. Papers were initially published claiming a 98 - 99 % similarity. However they were very selective in the DNA compared, and completely ignored "junk " dna.

Comparison of total DNA shows a different figure - only 70% similarity - dropping to 40% for the Y Chromosome.

If the percentage of similarity is only 70%, then it is very unlikely that we came from apes. If we did not come from apes, then it seems logical that we certainly did not come from any other animal. Therefore we must have been created.


Note: Chimps have 24 Chromosomes, we have 23, and one of ours - the Y Chromosome is only 40% similar to the chimps.

Note : the comparison of DNA sequences is an objectively quantifiable task, and therefore should be able to resolve the question of common ancestry in a rigorous and quantifiable way - far more so than any amount of speculation.



Hello Craig

I would just like to comment on two things you said in your post:

1. Humans did not come from apes ... we share a common ancestor with apes, the divergence occurred around 7 to 10 million years ago.

2. Primates have 24 chromosomes and humans have 23, because our chromosome #2 is a fusion of two chromosomes, obviously this occurred after we split from our primate cousins. Here is a good article explaining in some detail how the process of fusion occurred ... The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/07/19/the-mystery-of-the-missing-chromosome-with-a-special-guest-appearance-from-facebook-creationists/#.U9xfSmO63Sg)
Kind regards,
Rose

L67
08-01-2014, 08:59 PM
Just came across this ICR paper comparing Chimp and human DNA. It is an empirical study showing only 70 % similarity for each chromosome, and only 40% similarity for the Y Chromosome. Quite different from what the popular press have been spouting about 98-99% similarity.

Here is the paper - http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Research-Evaluating-Similarities-Human-Chimp-DNA.pdf

Craig,

There is no empirical study here. The study was rigged to get the results they wanted.

Here is part of their methodology. Given that the genome-wide analyses required a large amount of cumulative and comparative data, only the top alignment for each database hit (if it existed) was returned. Gapping was disallowed for a variety of reasons. First, Altschul et al. (1990) determined that the addition of gapping strategies for alignments designed to locate regions of local similarity using BLAST was negligible.

Why did they decide to exclude indels? Well, lets see what someone who worked on the chimp genome project has to say. Post 56.http://www.christianforums.com/t7730800-6/#post62630174


I checked: the low percentage of matches does in fact result from only looking for ungapped alignments. I downloaded the human and chimpanzee genomes and the BLAST executable. As a test set, I pulled 500 randomly sampled, non-overlapping slices from chimpanzee chromosome 12, each 300 base pairs long. After dropping any slices that contained unknown sequence (i.e. 'N's), I had 471 test sequences. I fed these into BLASTN against human chromosome 12, using the parameters specified by Tomkins, with and without allowing gaps in the alignment. With no gaps, 68% of my queries yielded matches, in good agreement with Tomkins's finding. With gaps allowed, 100% of queries matched; of these, one or two were of poor quality and likely represent random matches. So the actual matching rate, when doing a proper alignment, was 99.6%.

This is why creationists are a joke when it comes to science. Most everything they do related to science is dishonest. It appears the 98-99% similarity figure was pretty spot on after all.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-01-2014, 09:22 PM
Craig,

There is no empirical study here. The study was rigged to get the results they wanted.

Here is part of their methodology. Given that the genome-wide analyses required a large amount of cumulative and comparative data, only the top alignment for each database hit (if it existed) was returned. Gapping was disallowed for a variety of reasons. First, Altschul et al. (1990) determined that the addition of gapping strategies for alignments designed to locate regions of local similarity using BLAST was negligible.

Why did they decide to exclude indels? Well, lets see what someone who worked on the chimp genome project has to say. Post 56.http://www.christianforums.com/t7730800-6/#post62630174


I checked: the low percentage of matches does in fact result from only looking for ungapped alignments. I downloaded the human and chimpanzee genomes and the BLAST executable. As a test set, I pulled 500 randomly sampled, non-overlapping slices from chimpanzee chromosome 12, each 300 base pairs long. After dropping any slices that contained unknown sequence (i.e. 'N's), I had 471 test sequences. I fed these into BLASTN against human chromosome 12, using the parameters specified by Tomkins, with and without allowing gaps in the alignment. With no gaps, 68% of my queries yielded matches, in good agreement with Tomkins's finding. With gaps allowed, 100% of queries matched; of these, one or two were of poor quality and likely represent random matches. So the actual matching rate, when doing a proper alignment, was 99.6%.

This is why creationists are a joke when it comes to science. Most everything they do related to science is dishonest. It appears the 98-99% similarity figure was pretty spot on after all.
Good work L67! :thumb:

Did you notice that the linked paper couldn't even spell his name correctly? It has "JefferyTomkins, Institute for Creation Research." His actual name is "Jeffrey." I doubt the accuracy of the rest of the paper is any better. :lol:

And did you notice that nearly half of his citations are of his own papers? He gives 14 citations - one is "anonymous", seven are from other authors, and six of his own work. What a hoot! :lmbo:

But gets even better! Who published those six papers of Tomkins? Was there even ONE from a reputable scientific journal? NOPE! They were all published in Answers Research Journal (an organ of Answers in Genesis) and the "Creation Research Journal" hosted by Creation Ministries! Man, that just SCREAMS credibility! And this is the best that our friends can do to support their rejection of evolution. Wow. That's pretty sad. But at least its good for a laugh.

:lol: :rofl: :lmbo: :hysterical: :lmbo: :rofl: :lol:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-01-2014, 10:12 PM
If anyone wants to understand the quality of Jerffrey Tomkin's science, take a look at PZ Myers article A Tiny Bit of Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/11/a-tiny-bit-of-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing/) which eviscerates Tomkin's article called Gorilla Genome is Bad News for Evolution (http://www.icr.org/article/gorilla-genome-bad-news-for-evolution/). Myer's ends his article by saying "once again, the creationists rely on their proponents having a foolishly cartoonish version of evolution in their heads in order to raise a false objection."

Craig.Paardekooper
08-02-2014, 01:41 AM
Thank you L67 for your response,

I will have to do some BLAST studies myself, since the chimp and human genomes are readily available online, as is the BLAST tool itself.

Regards

Craig

L67
08-02-2014, 10:19 AM
Good work L67! :thumb:

Did you notice that the linked paper couldn't even spell his name correctly? It has "JefferyTomkins, Institute for Creation Research." His actual name is "Jeffrey." I doubt the accuracy of the rest of the paper is any better. :lol:

And did you notice that nearly half of his citations are of his own papers? He gives 14 citations - one is "anonymous", seven are from other authors, and six of his own work. What a hoot! :lmbo:

But gets even better! Who published those six papers of Tomkins? Was there even ONE from a reputable scientific journal? NOPE! They were all published in Answers Research Journal (an organ of Answers in Genesis) and the "Creation Research Journal" hosted by Creation Ministries! Man, that just SCREAMS credibility! And this is the best that our friends can do to support their rejection of evolution. Wow. That's pretty sad. But at least its good for a laugh.

:lol: :rofl: :lmbo: :hysterical: :lmbo: :rofl: :lol:

:yo: Richard


It really is a hoot. I knew I was in for a treat when I saw only creationist websites touting this study.

No, I didn't notice any of the things you mentioned because I stopped reading once I read the test was rigged. But lol at citing yourself six times. It's amazing how creationist will deceive just to remain relevant. The sad thing is their ignorant audience laps it up as truth.

Speaking of Pz Meyers. Here is another of Tomkins papers that he decimates. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/18/do-the-creationist-shuffle-and-twist/

LMAO at his opening commentary Don’t you hate it when you get up in the morning and the first thing you read on the internet is the news that your entire career has been a waste of time, your whole field of study has collapsed, and you’re going to have to rethink your entire future? Happens to me all the time. But then, I read the creationist news, so I’ve become desensitized to the whole idea of intellectual catastrophes.


Pz Meyers summed of creationists best. If there's a paper in one of the big journals that discusses more evidence for evolution, there is a creationist hack somewhere who'll quickly write it up and lie about it.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-02-2014, 02:31 PM
How Similar Are We To Chimps?

1. When we include "junk DNA"

To compare the two [human and chimpanzee] genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million "letters" align with the chimpanzee genome -- that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless "junk DNA." However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.


2. When we include indels (insertions and deletions)

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.


3. When we include substitutions

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single "letter" is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.


4. When we include copy number variation

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This "copy number variation" causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.


So in response to Richard and L67 it would seem that their figures only apply to exon regions, rather than the "junk" dna regions. It should be noted that "junk" dna accounts for 95% of the human genome.




For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.


“Thus, in two-thirds of the cases a genealogy results in which humans and chimpanzees are not each other’s closest genetic relatives. The corresponding genealogies are incongruent with the species tree. In accordance with the experimental evidences, this implies that there is no such thing as a unique evolutionary history of the human genome. Rather, it resembles a patchwork of individual regions following their own genealogy.”31


Ebersberger, I. et al., Genomewide comparison of DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees, American J. Human Genetics 70:1490–1497, 2002

Speaking of the differences between the Y chromosome in chimps and in humans - Hughes says -


About half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa.”34 The ampliconic sequence contains ornate repeat units (called palindromes) that read the same forwards as they do backwards. Dispersed within these palindromes are families of genes that are expressed primarily in the male testes. Not only did 50% of this type of sequence fail to align between human and chimp in the Y-chromosome, humans had over twice as many total genes (60 in humans vs 25 in chimp). There were also three complete categories of genes (gene families) found in humans that were not even present in chimps. Related to this large difference in gene content, the authors note, “Despite the elaborate structure of the chimpanzee MSY, its gene repertoire is considerably smaller and simpler than that of the human MSY,”35 and “the chimpanzee MSY contains only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units.”35

Hughes, J.F. et al., Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463:536–539, 2010

Both of the above quotes are from respected peer reviewed journals - not from some creationist quoting himself.






Refs : http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated

Craig.Paardekooper
08-02-2014, 04:01 PM
That is an excellent point Craig ...

I never even thought of that before. If life ultimately "evolved" naturalistically from lifeless chemicals, then we would expect to see a direct chemical relationship between the codons and the amino acids, which isn't what we see. This argument deserves an entire book. It's like a whole new theistic argument.


Hi Bini

It is a very strong argument, and a book it shall be. And it is little appreciated, especially as it applies to genetics, so in that sense it is new. I will develop it over the coming week.

Craig

L67
08-02-2014, 05:40 PM
How Similar Are We To Chimps?

1. When we include "junk DNA"

To compare the two [human and chimpanzee] genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million "letters" align with the chimpanzee genome -- that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless "junk DNA." However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.


2. When we include indels (insertions and deletions)

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.


3. When we include substitutions

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single "letter" is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.


4. When we include copy number variation

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This "copy number variation" causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.


So in response to Richard and L67 it would seem that their figures only apply to exon regions, rather than the "junk" dna regions. It should be noted that "junk" dna accounts for 95% of the human genome.




Ebersberger, I. et al., Genomewide comparison of DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees, American J. Human Genetics 70:1490–1497, 2002

Speaking of the differences between the Y chromosome in chimps and in humans - Hughes says -



Hughes, J.F. et al., Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463:536–539, 2010

Both of the above quotes are from respected peer reviewed journals - not from some creationist quoting himself.






Refs : http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated

Craig,

I'll look into the works you have cited.

I can't figure out why you keep posting articles from people who have been debunked so many times. The works that Tomkins cites might be peer reviewed, but why is NONE of his groundbreaking stuff ever peer reviewed by anyone with credibility? There is a reason for that.

Also, Tomkins involvement with ICR invalidates his role as a scientist. All members of the ICR have to sign a fundamentalist religious statement of faith, affirming conformity in all its work to biblical doctrine. That means he has to adhere to creation science. That is NOT real science. That is pseudoscience.

Rose
08-02-2014, 07:13 PM
Hello Craig,

It would be interesting if you could find a reputable scientist, who is not associated with a creation organization, to come to the same conclusions as Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman. I've been looking around and I can't find anyone who is saying what they are saying, which makes me suspicious of their conclusions. Also, I not talking about people who they reference in their article, I talking about secular scientists with degrees and peer reviewed papers who have come to the same conclusions ... they seem to be a scarcity. :winking0071:

Craig.Paardekooper
08-03-2014, 01:08 AM
Hi Rose and L67,

I will look into it as well. I believe that their argument should stand or fall by its truth rather than by the credibility attributed to them by followers of the opposite camp. In this case we are lucky, because a simple objective test of alignment will resolve the issue one way or the other.

CWH
08-03-2014, 04:22 AM
Hello Craig,

It would be interesting if you could find a reputable scientist, who is not associated with a creation organization, to come to the same conclusions as Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman. I've been looking around and I can't find anyone who is saying what they are saying, which makes me suspicious of their conclusions. Also, I not talking about people who they reference in their article, I talking about secular scientists with degrees and peer reviewed papers who have come to the same conclusions ... they seem to be a scarcity. :winking0071:

I don't think this is fair. Many reoputable scientists were once evolutionists but because of their discoveries, research and logical thinking, they realized that creationism or intelligent design is better than evolution and therefore goes to the creatrionist's or ID camp. I believe this is what happened to Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman.

It is bias to get a reputable scientist who believe in evolution to come to the same conclusion as Jerry Tomkins and Jerry Bergman, neither is it fair to get a reputable scientist who believe in creationism or intelligent design to do the same.

It would be much fairer if we could find a reputable scientist who do not believe in creationism and evolution to come to the same conclusion; not sure if we can one.

God Bless.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-03-2014, 06:35 AM
I don't think this is fair. Many reoputable scientists were once evolutionists but because of their discoveries, research and logical thinking, they realized that creationism or intelligent design is better than evolution and therefore goes to the creatrionist's or ID camp. I believe this is what happened to Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman.

That's not true at all. There are not "many reputable scientists were once evolutionists. There might be one or two here or there, but even they do not go for the insanely idiotic idea of young earth creationism like Tomkins. It is absolutely impossible to believe the literal interpretation of the Bible and be a "reputable scientist."

And Tomkins didn't not change his mind because of the science. He rejected evolution after he converted to Christianity. That's the real reason folks become creationists. They reject science because it contradicts the Bible.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-03-2014, 04:42 PM
That's not true at all. There are not "many reputable scientists were once evolutionists. There might be one or two here or there, but even they do not go for the insanely idiotic idea of young earth creationism like Tomkins. It is absolutely impossible to believe the literal interpretation of the Bible and be a "reputable scientist."

And Tomkins didn't not change his mind because of the science. He rejected evolution after he converted to Christianity. That's the real reason folks become creationists. They reject science because it contradicts the Bible.

Newton is a famous scientist who springs to mind who believed in a Creator - in the sense that he believed in a designer. I would not describe Newton as rejecting science.

Anyway the real issue is the determination of the percentage of alignment between ape and human. I shall carefully document my methodology and results - so that people can make up their own minds because of the science. It is very rare that one gets an opportunity to tackle such a fundamental question of origins with such digital precision.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-03-2014, 07:27 PM
That's not true at all. There are not "many reputable scientists were once evolutionists. There might be one or two here or there, but even they do not go for the insanely idiotic idea of young earth creationism like Tomkins. It is absolutely impossible to believe the literal interpretation of the Bible and be a "reputable scientist."

And Tomkins didn't not change his mind because of the science. He rejected evolution after he converted to Christianity. That's the real reason folks become creationists. They reject science because it contradicts the Bible.

Newton is a famous scientist who springs to mind who believed in a Creator - in the sense that he believed in a designer. I would not describe Newton as rejecting science.

Anyway the real issue is the determination of the percentage of alignment between ape and human. I shall carefully document my methodology and results - so that people can make up their own minds because of the science. It is very rare that one gets an opportunity to tackle such a fundamental question of origins with such digital precision.
I didn't say anything about "believing in a designer" so your comment makes no sense. I was specifically rejecting Cheow's ludicrous assertion that there are "many reputable scientists were once evolutionists." The theory of evolution didn't exist at the time of Newton, so he is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. And he's also irrelevant because he was totally ignorant of the most basic elements of modern science, such as quantum physics, general relativity, radioactive dating methods, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Your reference to a scientist who lived 400 years ago is quite ironic because it demonstrates how out of touch creationism is with modern science. Creationism was possible only when we were ignorant of modern science.

And the "real issue" relating to common descent has already been settled with "digital precision" by the analysis of genetics. This is common knowledge amongst experts in the field. Tomkins has not published a single paper in any authentic scientific journal challenging any of the scientific results. And worse, his claims have been debunked many times.

CWH
08-03-2014, 08:22 PM
I didn't say anything about "believing in a designer" so your comment makes no sense. I was specifically rejecting Cheow's ludicrous assertion that there are "many reputable scientists were once evolutionists." The theory of evolution didn't exist at the time of Newton, so he is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. And he's also irrelevant because he was totally ignorant of the most basic elements of modern science, such as quantum physics, general relativity, radioactive dating methods, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Your reference to a scientist who lived 400 years ago is quite ironic because it demonstrates how out of touch creationism is with modern science. Creationism was possible only when we were ignorant of modern science.

And the "real issue" relating to common descent has already been settled with "digital precision" by the analysis of genetics. This is common knowledge amongst experts in the field. Tomkins has not published a single paper in any authentic scientific journal challenging any of the scientific results. And worse, his claims have been debunked many times.

I know this will throw RAM, Rose and L67 into a frenzy but have a look at the list of renwn scientists who supported creationism:

A favorite ploy of evolutionists is to portray all Creation Scientists as pseudo-scientists. In fact, some of the leading scientists in their fields are creation scientists. This page contains a small sampling of scientists who are recognized by their secular peers and others as being among the very best in their fields, or who have outstanding academic achievements. As time permits, more names will be added. Remember these scientists the next time an evolutionist tries to claim that no serious scientists are young earth creationists!
Dr Raymond V. Damadian - Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)
Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title 'super-scientist' but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. See http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n3_MRI.asp.

Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist)
U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Also see Scientists Who Believe: An Interview with Dr. John Baumgardner, and Probing the Earth's Deep Places.

Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie.

Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)
This, combined with Dr Jones' other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. See Interview with Dr. Raymond Jones.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)

The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world.
Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)
Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist.*

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

Do any scientists with Ph.D. degrees reject the theory of evolution? Yes, they do!

The Credential Attack
You may have noticed that evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution. They have to do this because:
1. There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution.
2. What little evidence they have is highly questionable.
Since they can’t refute the scientific evidence, they try to refute the scientist.

The more time we spend defending ourselves, the less time we have to present factual data about the unscientific notions upon which the theory of evolution is based. That’s why we tend to ignore the personal attacks and focus on science.
Because we do this, our critics naturally claim that we don’t defend the credentials of scientists who reject the theory of evolution because we can’t. Since the charge is repeatedly made that all “real scientists” accept the theory of evolution, we will address that charge this month.

Past Scientists
There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.
Evolutionists, of course, will argue that these great scientists lived before Darwin, and weren’t acquainted with the theory of evolution or modern scientific discoveries. While that may be true of some, it certainly isn’t true of Werner von Braun (1912 - 1977). Furthermore, their argument is based on the false premise that the evidence for the theory of evolution is stronger today than it was in the sixteenth through twentieth centuries. In reality, it was easier to believe in the theory of evolution when the fossil record was much less complete, before spontaneous generation of life was disproved, before genetics and molecular biology were understood as well as they are today.
Present Scientists
There are thousands of modern scientists who reject evolution. There is a partial list of them at http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html. But evolutionists apparently believe that any modern scientist who rejects evolution has merely been brainwashed by Christian doctrine. For example, consider this email we received from “P”.

Subject: "Science is against the theory of evolution."
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:25:52 -0400
From: P
To: comments@ScienceAgainstEvolution.org
Dear Do-While Jones
I was interested to discover your web site at http://www.ScienceAgainstEvolution.org
You say: "The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution."
According to http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm, 95% of scientists (and over 98% of "life and earth scientists") in the US support the basic tenants of evolution. (A minority, like biochemist Michael Behe, claim there is evidence of an outside "designer").
You say: "We are a secular, non-profit corporation, not associated with any church. If you want answers about religious questions, ask a religious organization." But can you name one scientist who (a) is not a "Bible Literalist" and who (b) rejects evolution and supports the "young earth" hypothesis?
I look forward to hearing from you.


We visited the web site he referenced. It said,

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%. [italics and ellipsis used as on their web page]

So, even 14 years ago, Newsweek reported that there were 700 “real” earth and life scientists who rejected the theory of evolution. We will address the criteria for “respectable academic credentials” in a moment, but first we want to examine some data from that web page.
The web page presents two tables of data divided into rows representing race, sex, education, and income, etc.. One table contains data from 1991-the other from 1997. Unfortunately, the two tables didn’t use the same criteria for separating the data into rows, so it is difficult to compare them. In fact, the only common row is “Everyone.” The 1991 data showed 47% of all adults believed in creation, 40% believed in theistic evolution, and 9% believed in evolution. That only adds up to 96%, so presumably 4% had no opinion or did not respond. Then the web page said,

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:
Group
Creation
Theistic Evolution
Evolution
Everyone
44%
39%
10%
Scientists
5%
40%
55%

They want you to focus on the 5% versus 44%. But suppose it is really true (as Newsweek said) that in 1987 only 0.14% of all scientists believed in creation, and 10 years later 5% believed in creation (as this survey says). If the numbers given on that web page are correct, the number of scientists who believe in creation increased from 700 in 1987 to 24,990 in 1997!
Of course, we know we are comparing apples and oranges because the surveys probably used different definitions of “scientists.” We don’t know how the surveys were conducted, or how accurate they are. We are just reporting (not defending) numbers produced by our critics.
We don’t have any numerical data to support our belief that more and more scientists are rejecting the theory of evolution, but we think there is evidence that the trend is real. For example, we are seeing more stories about high school science teachers who are getting in trouble for presenting all the evidence for and against evolution in the classroom. We just received an invitation to subscribe to WorldNet. Their advertisement said, in part,

The July edition of WorldNet-WorldNetDaily.com's monthly print magazine-consists of a breathtaking investigative report on the debate between evolutionists and creationists.
Titled "EVOLUTION: The basis of all life, or a fairy tale for scientists who reject God?" -- this issue is perhaps the clearest, most concise, and ultimately most devastating report available on the all-important issue of the origins of life.
Ironically, while the almost sacrosanct theory of evolution is coming under spectacular scientific assault from every direction, at the same time its adherents have ushered in a new censorship movement in America.
* Roger DeHart, a Washington high school teacher, had been teaching evolution to his 9th- and 10th-grade students for 10 years in the Burlington-Edison School District when a student filed a complaint against him for criticizing Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. He was prohibited from teaching biology after that.
* Community college instructor Kevin Haley in Oregon was also condemned by other faculty for questioning evolution.
* Minnesota high school science teacher Rod LeVake was banned from teaching biology due to his criticism of Darwinism.

We believe that there would not be so much opposition to science teachers who take a balanced approach to teaching evolution if there were not so many science teachers who are presenting scientific arguments against evolution.
We get criticized for using fairly tale analogies, but we can’t help seeing a similarity to the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Wise people knew the emperor was naked, but they were afraid to say so because they were afraid to appear to be fools. When one little boy blurted out the truth, then other people had the courage to agree. We believe that there are many other scientists like DeHart, Haley, and LeVake who realize the inadequacy of the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life, and are just now willing to state what they know to be true because other scientists have broken the ice by saying that the emperor has no clothes.
Who Are Real Scientists?
But, some might argue, DeHart, Haley, and LeVake aren’t really scientists. They are just high school science teachers.
If high school science teachers aren’t really scientists, then we have to accept the fact that a large segment of the general public (specifically, people who have high school diplomas and no higher education) were taught everything they know about science from unqualified non-scientists. This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that many people have been taught that evolution is true by non-scientists who don’t know what they are talking about.
We consider science teachers to be real scientists. We think engineers are real scientists. We don’t limit the term “scientist” to professors of evolutionary biology.
In 1999, Dr. Stephen Taylor wrote,

The Creation Research Society currently has a membership of 650 scientists, each one holding a Master’s degree or above in a recognized field of science. In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.


When asked to name a “real modern scientist” who believes in creation, we might start with Henry Morris. Of course, evolutionists will immediately object, claiming he isn’t a real scientist. Why? Because he believes in creation. From an evolutionist’s point of view, anyone who believes in creation can’t be a real scientist. Therefore, scientists like Henry Morris, John Morris, Larry Vardiman, Steve Austin, and Duane Gish can be discounted immediately because they work for the Institute for Creation Research. Likewise, evolutionists won’t acknowledge Michael Behe, Andrew Snelling, Donald deYoung, and Kurt Wise, regardless of their academic credentials, because their creationist leanings are well-known.
This is another example of how evolutionists use circular reasoning. Circular logic concludes that no “real scientist” rejects evolution because the very fact that he rejects evolution means he isn’t a “real scientist”.
My late friend Jim Rieger used this method to distinguish a scientist from an engineer:

When a scientist makes a discovery, he immediately thinks, “This is an amazing new discovery. Where should I publish it?” When an engineer makes a discovery, he immediately thinks, “This is an amazing new discovery. How can I make a buck with it?”

Engineers are scientists who use scientific knowledge to design products (or invent procedures) that are commercially profitable. Scientists may speculate about how planets are formed, but not one of them has ever actually made a planet. On the other hand, when engineers claim they know to how to build a space probe that can reach those planets, they actually have to build it. This means that engineers tend to be brought back to reality more often than college professors.
ALL my friends with Ph.D. degrees who are college professors believe in evolution. NONE of my friends with Ph.D. degrees who work in the defense industry believe in evolution. When I mentioned this in a private email to an evolutionist, he replied:

This is known in the talk.origins newsgroup as the Salem hypothesis, namely the observation that creationists who claim to have academic credentials generally turn out to be engineers rather than scientists. There are a number of theories to explain this tendency, of which yours is one. One could also argue that engineers are more inclined to accept black-and-white rule-based explanations whereas scientists are more likely to think abstractly about the underlying mechanisms. Whatever the reason, it is an interesting trend. [emphasis supplied]

Notice that if one is an engineer, he only “claim[s] to have academic credentials,” and isn’t really a scientist, in the words of that evolutionist. In response to his next-to-last sentence, one could argue that engineers are more inclined to accept only actual experimental results, whereas scientists are more likely to accept fanciful theories (if told skillfully enough).
Why Does it Matter?
Why does it matter who is a scientist and who isn’t? Because our society has been conditioned to accept the notion that any sentence that begins, “Scientists say …” is undeniably true. The general public has been told that scientists are unbiased, objective individuals who are never wrong. If you can’t trust what scientists say, what can you trust?
Evolutionists weren’t too worried when scientists said evolution was true and preachers said it wasn’t. But now that thousands of scientists (not counting engineers and high school science teachers) are saying publicly that evolution isn’t true, that’s a big problem for evolutionists. Scientists have much more credibility (in their opinion) than mere preachers do. The general public might believe what scientists say. Therefore, the evolutionists have to convince the public that the scientists who reject evolution aren’t really scientists-they are just high school science teachers, engineers, or skillful debaters posing as scientists
.
Why 50 Scientists Reject Evolution
We would like to recommend the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F. Ashton. It is a collection of fifty essays, each written by a different scientist. Each author’s (impressive) academic credentials are listed at the beginning of his or her essay. They span a wide variety of academic disciplines. They aren’t all engineers! (But some are.)
The 50 essays are, on average, seven pages long. Each one gives the author’s reason for believing in the Biblical creation story rather than the theory of evolution. We have to give this book a (Cr+) rating for “strong Christian content”, but nearly every essay has strong scientific arguments for creation and/or against evolution.
We should have compiled a matrix-with 50 rows (one for each scientist) and one column for each scientific argument used-to tabulate which arguments were used by which scientists. This would have shown which arguments are most convincing to most scientists.
Although we failed to count the number of times every argument was used, we did notice that the second law of thermodynamics was mentioned by seven of the fifty scientists. Specifically, they were Jeremy Walter and Stanley Mumma (two engineers), Larry Vardiman and Don deYoung (two physicists), Ker Thompson and John Baumgardner (two geophysicists, but Baumgardner also has B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering as well as his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Geophysics and Space Physics), and Geoff Downes (forestry research, but he learned about thermodynamics in a physical chemistry class).
We, too, believe the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most powerful arguments against evolution. We have not used it on our web site because we haven’t found a way to explain it in a way that the general public can understand. These seven men give it a valiant try, and nearly succeed.
The problem is that thermodynamics is a one-semester mechanical engineering course that mechanical and electrical engineering students are generally required to take to graduate. Physics majors probably have to take it, too. It is a course that students usually try to put off until their junior or senior years because it is a tough course, which many students flunk.
To explain why the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution, one must rely on concepts appreciated only by people who have received a passing grade in thermodynamics. People who don’t understand thermodynamics make stupid counter-arguments about snowflakes or open systems.
Perhaps someday we will try to explain why the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the best we can do is recommend you read the essays in In Six Days written by the seven scientists mentioned above.
Science and Religion
Evolutionists can’t seem to separate science from religion. They sometimes imply (or even state outright) that the scientists who reject evolution do so because religious brainwashing has prevented them from being able to think rationally. Remember, the email from “P” challenged us,

But can you name one scientist who (a) is not a "Bible Literalist" and who (b) rejects evolution and supports the "young earth" hypothesis?

What has religion got to do with science? We don’t even ask our members what their religious beliefs are, let alone snoop into the religious beliefs of scientists we only know by reputation. However, we are quite confident that Harun Yahya isn’t a “Bible Literalist.” The last two chapters of his excellent 20-chapter book, Evolution Deceit, urge the reader to accept the Islamic faith. Therefore, he can’t be a Bible Literalist, but that is beside the point.
We certainly agree that most of the scientists who reject evolution believe the Bible, but it is unclear which is the cause and which is the effect. Do scientists reject evolution because they believe the Bible, or do they believe the Bible because they reject evolution? (On the other side of the coin, most atheists are evolutionists. Are they evolutionists because they are atheists? or are they atheists because they are evolutionists?)
Several of the scientists who wrote chapters for In Six Days say they were once atheistic evolutionists who didn’t accept Christianity and creation until after they realized that the theory of evolution is scientifically bankrupt. Their rejection of evolution did not come from some Christian brainwashing which prevented them from thinking rationally. They rejected the theory because science evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution.
We try as hard as we can to examine evolution from the point of view that it is a scientific theory, and examine it as critically as one might examine cold fusion or global warming. But whenever we do, an evolutionist tries to drag religion into the discussion, as “P” did in his email.
In this essay we have departed somewhat from our usual approach by addressing the academic credentials and religious beliefs of scientists who reject evolution. But we want to end with our usual appeal. We don’t want you to let personalities or religious arguments affect your decision. We want you to evaluate the theory of evolution itself-not the people who believe in it, or the reason people believe in it. We want you to look at the theory of evolution from a purely scientific viewpoint. When you do, we think you will find that science is against evolution.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm
Do real scientists believe in Creation?



"I have seen anti-creationists claim that all true scientists support Evolution, and that those who support Creation are not really scientists and that their credentials are less than legitimate. Is this true?"
* * * -Frank

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

t is true that during the 20th century, many scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton recently observed:
"An important factor in bringing about the universal dominance and acceptance of Darwinian evolution has been that virtually every eminent professional scientist appointed to posts in the life sciences in the last 40 or 50 years, in the English-speaking world, has been a convinced Darwinist. …These men, as well as occupying powerful and important academic teaching positions, were also prolific and important writers whose influence has been widespread in forming the consensus." 1
These names include such men as Gavin de Beer, Julian Huxley, J.B.S. Haldane, C.H. Waddington, Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Simpson.
Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:
"…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2

As Science Digest reported:
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3
One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5
Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." 6
Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)

▪ 600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).
▪ 150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)
▪ Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
▪ Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
▪ Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
▪ Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]
▪ Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
▪ Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
▪ Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
▪ Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
▪ Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
▪ David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
▪ Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
▪ Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
▪ Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
▪ Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
▪ Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]
▪ Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
▪ Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
▪ Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
▪ Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
▪ Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
▪ Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
▪ John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
▪ Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
▪ William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
▪ George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
▪ D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
▪ James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
▪ Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
▪ John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
▪ Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
▪ Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
▪ Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
▪ Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
▪ Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
▪ Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
▪ James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
▪ Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
▪ Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
▪ Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
▪ Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
▪ Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
▪ Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
▪ William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
▪ John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
▪ Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
▪ Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
▪ James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
▪ Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
▪ George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
▪ Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
▪ William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
▪ Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
▪ Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
▪ Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
▪ A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
▪ A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
▪ John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

God Bless.:pray:

Rose
08-03-2014, 10:22 PM
I know this will throw RAM, Rose and L67 into a frenzy but have a look at the list of renwn scientists who supported creationism:

A favorite ploy of evolutionists is to portray all Creation Scientists as pseudo-scientists. In fact, some of the leading scientists in their fields are creation scientists. This page contains a small sampling of scientists who are recognized by their secular peers and others as being among the very best in their fields, or who have outstanding academic achievements. As time permits, more names will be added. Remember these scientists the next time an evolutionist tries to claim that no serious scientists are young earth creationists!

God Bless.:pray:

The relevant point is what percentage of scientist believe in creationism ...


How many scientist support creationism and reject evolution? (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html)


"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent."


"One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on."

David M
08-04-2014, 02:06 AM
Leading on from a video on Youtube made by: Origins TV this lead to me watching another video from Dr Ed Needland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkTF7qizsp0).
In this video he makes reference to Professor James M Tour. Now whilst Professor Tour does not support Evolution, he is not saying he supports Creation. He will not debate the subject of Creation vs Evolution. Here is the url link to find out what Professor Tour has to say about himself.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/

The quote used by Ed Needland of Professor Tour says this;

"I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist; if anyone should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules as a living. I understand how hard it is to make molecules... I say; Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens? Every time I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists and who understand this, they go; "Uh-uh. Nope".

I will by lunch for anyone who will sit with me and explain to me evolution. Nobody has come forward."

L67
08-04-2014, 05:51 AM
Leading on from a video on Youtube made by: Origins TV this lead to me watching another video from Dr Ed Needland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkTF7qizsp0).
In this video he makes reference to Professor James M Tour. Now whilst Professor Tour does not support Evolution, he is not saying he supports Creation. He will not debate the subject of Creation vs Evolution. Here is the url link to find out what Professor Tour has to say about himself.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/

The quote used by Ed Needland of Professor Tour says this;

David,

What are you trying to prove here?

I know you proved one thing. You didn't read a lick of what Professor Tour has to say. Dr. Needland completely took Tour out of context.

Right in the first paragraph Tour says this about the creation vs evolution debate. I am a layman on the subject.

Here is what he says about Intelligent Design: I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion.

Tour also DOES NOT dispute that evolution is a FACT. From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution

Here is his main beef: The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.

That is where Tour is honest enough to admit he doesn't understand how we go from micro to macro evolution. I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened

And here is what he said about lunch. If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered.


Dr. Needland totally misquoted Tour in a pathetic attempt to disprove evolution. Tour readily admits micro evolution is a FACT and that he is a layman on this subject.

David you need to ACTUALLY read what you post. You blindly accepted Dr. Needlands pathetic attempts to disprove evolution. Tour lends no such support to that idea.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-04-2014, 08:37 AM
Creationism was possible only when we were ignorant of modern science.


I could respond but I think it would be better to engage in empirical research. Onwards and upwards.


And the "real issue" relating to common descent has already been settled with "digital precision" by the analysis of genetics. This is common knowledge amongst experts in the field

I want to see for myself - as you should too. All this quoting of authorities is on a par with religious dogma - Your advice - "Don't look because we already know the answers" makes me curious.




Nature 463, 536-539 (28 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature08700; Received 3 August 2009; Accepted 24 November 2009; Published online 13 January 2010

Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content

Jennifer F. Hughes1, Helen Skaletsky1, Tatyana Pyntikova1, Tina A. Graves2, Saskia K. M. van Daalen3, Patrick J. Minx2, Robert S. Fulton2, Sean D. McGrath2, Devin P. Locke2, Cynthia Friedman4, Barbara J. Trask4, Elaine R. Mardis2, Wesley C. Warren2, Sjoerd Repping3, Steve Rozen1, Richard K. Wilson2 & David C. Correspondence to: David C. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.C.P. (Email: dcpage@wi.mit.edu).

I will obtain a copy of the Chimp's Y Chromosome and compare it to the human Y Chromosome



Step 1 : Get a Copy of the Chimp's Y Chromosome

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/327554947?report=fasta

It has a size of 44.57 Mb and consists of 26,342,871 letters or bases.



You can download it by going to this page and then going to the upper-right corner and choosing SEND TO --> FILE

It will be downloaded as a .fasta file.

To convert this file to a text file, simply replace the .fasta file extension with .txt by renaming the file.

So now you have the Chimp's Y Chromosome on your computer !!

If anyone cannot get onto the webpage above then you can download the chimpY chromosome here - http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/chimpy.txt




Step 2. Obtain a Copy of the Human Y Chromosome

According to Wikipedia, the human Y chromosome has 59 million bases or letters, and I checked on ncbi's website just to confirm.

The chimp Y Chromosome has only 26 million base pairs.

This is quite a big shock for me.

Even if all the chimp dna perfectly aligned with the first 26 million base pairs of the human dna, that would still leave a staggering 33 million base pairs ( or 59 %) left over.... Wow !!

I haven't even started doing alignment tests yet, and already I am shocked into amazement at how dissimilar we are from chimps for this chromosome.

According to the Ensembl Genome Browser chromosome summary page, the human Y chromosome consists of 59,373,566 nucleotide base pairs, while the chimp Y chromosome has 26, 342,871 base pairs.


So Richard, I am so glad I did not heed your advice to keep my eyes and ears tightly shut because "your experts had already determined with digital precision that we were so similar to apes".


And the "real issue" relating to common descent has already been settled with "digital precision" by the analysis of genetics. This is common knowledge amongst experts in the field

The only thing left to debate is WHO CAN COUNT !

Richard Amiel McGough
08-04-2014, 05:28 PM
And the "real issue" relating to common descent has already been settled with "digital precision" by the analysis of genetics. This is common knowledge amongst experts in the field

I want to see for myself - as you should too. All this quoting of authorities is on a par with religious dogma - Your advice - "Don't look because we already know the answers" makes me curious.

I have seen for myself. Have you read any books written by evolutionary scientists explaining the evidence? If so, which are your favorite? Or do you think they all fail to establish the case for common descent? If so, why?

Your suggestion that my appeal to evidence is nothing but the "quoting of authorities" is false. Its very ironic that you would say such a thing, since that is what the creationists consistently do. They are driven by dogma that forces them to reject evidence no matter how well established and verifiable. This is obvious to anyone who is even slightly familiar with creationist literature.

And to top it off, your suggestion that I am saying "Don't look because we already know the answers" is really ludicrous. That's the fundamental dogma of creationists! Their answer to everything is "God did it cuz the Bible says so." Get real, dude!



I will obtain a copy of the Chimp's Y Chromosome and compare it to the human Y Chromosome

It wouldn't be a bad idea to take a little time to read the scientific rebuttals of Tomkin's work?

And aren't you even slightly curious why he can't get anything published in an authentic scientific journal?




Step 2. Obtain a Copy of the Human Y Chromosome

According to Wikipedia, the human Y chromosome has 59 million bases or letters, and I checked on ncbi's website just to confirm.

The chimp Y Chromosome has only 26 million base pairs.

This is quite a big shock for me.

Even if all the chimp dna perfectly aligned with the first 26 million base pairs of the human dna, that would still leave a staggering 33 million base pairs ( or 59 %) left over.... Wow !!

I haven't even started doing alignment tests yet, and already I am shocked into amazement at how dissimilar we are from chimps for this chromosome.
Why is that a "wow"? Can you site any published scientists who explains why there would be a problem with that? Are you just looking for "problems" so you can justify creationism? The first thing you need to do if you want to know the truth is to carefully study the existing authentic scientific literature. The fact that you cite creationists who can't even get published in peer reviewed journals suggests that you are more interested in proving creationism that learning about the way the world really works.

Sorry if my comments seem harsh, they are not intended as such. My point is that you seem to be willfully ignoring real science in favor of creationist religious dogmas. And you "set the tone" with your ludicrous assertions that I am saying you should ignore the evidence and just believe authorities. That is the fundamental error of creationists, and you know it. I am not committed to any dogmas. I have been perfectly open to all evidence. The problem is that the creationists call good and honest scientists LIARS and FRAUDS without any justification at all. This is especially egregious because they continue to spread lies long after they have been exposed many times.

All the best,

Richard

Craig.Paardekooper
08-04-2014, 05:50 PM
Hi Richard,

You forget, I am adopting a purely empirical approach. I have no time for dogma or authorities from any camp religious or otherwise. We must all do our own research from first principles .

My position is simple. Right now I am researching the similarity of the Y Chromosome in man and chimpanzee. My conclusion so far is equally simple, that for this chromosome there is NO ALIGNMENT. For God sake, our chromosome is more than double the size - so how can it possibly be 98 % similar.

I will carry on my systematic and precise research measuring the alignment of every single base in every single chromosome of every living organism. I can count, and I know how to write really good software that will be ample for revealing the truth about all this madness.

What my favourite evolutionary books are is irrelevant for alignment studies. What is relevant is software and counting.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-04-2014, 06:03 PM
Hi Richard,

You forget, I am adopting a purely empirical approach. I have no time for dogma or authorities from any camp religious or otherwise. We must all do our own research from first principles .

Then why do you constantly cite creationists who are obviously motivated by dogma?


My position is simple. Right now I am researching the similarity of the Y Chromosome in man and chimpanzee. My conclusion so far is equally simple, that for this chromosome there is NO ALIGNMENT. For God sake, our chromosome is more than double the size - so how can it possibly be 98 % similar.

Do you really think that the evolutionary scientists are ignorant of the facts? If not, then what explanations do they give for the relation between the chimp and human genome? You write as if you believe the creationist conspiracy theories that all scientists are liars who hide the truth because they hate god.

Do you not think that the FIRST thing you should do is to research what the real scientists think about the relation between the genomes and why?



I will carry on my systematic and precise research measuring the alignment of every single base in every single chromosome of every living organism if need be. I can count, and I know how to write really good software that will be ample for revealing the truth about all this madness.

What madness? Have you or have you not read the rebuttals of Tomkin's papers?



What my favourite evolutionary books are is irrelevant for alignment studies. What is relevant is software and counting.
Are you saying that you have never read a single book about evolutionary science, and yet you constantly cite CREATIONIST writings? Pardon me, but that's insane.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-04-2014, 06:20 PM
When I do my own research, I cite only my self. I downloaded the Chimp Y Chromosome, and I counted it. Then I looked at the human Y chromosome and I counted it. Then I found that one was twice the size of the other. Conclusion - no alignment. For God sake Richard, STOP trying to keep people in darkness by distracting from the facts here.

The issue isn't who you cite. The issue is far more objective - mathematically objective.


There is only ONE book I am interested in - that is the Book of Life - the DNA . This book alone will enable me to determine the degree of "inheritance" between species. No other book can do this.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-04-2014, 07:02 PM
When I do my own research, I cite only my self. I downloaded the Chimp Y Chromosome, and I counted it. Then I looked at the human Y chromosome and I counted it. Then I found that one was twice the size of the other. Conclusion - no alignment. For God sake Richard, STOP trying to keep people in darkness by distracting from the facts here.

I have not written a single word that could be construed as "trying to keep people in darkness by distracting them from the facts." On the contrary, I have asked you if you know ANYTHING about the scientific conclusions relating to the different sizes of the genomes, and you have not answered. So if anyone is trying to "distract from the facts" it is you. I also asked if you read the rebuttals of Tomkin's papers, and you have not responded. And most importantly, I have asked if you have read any books by evolutionary scientists dealing with these issues and you said that was "irrelevant"! :doh:



The issue isn't who you cite. The issue is far more objective - mathematically objective.

The numbers by themselves tell you nothing. They must be interpreted. And to do that, you need to understand the fundamentals of the theory. Your idea of simply looking at the numbers without understanding the science is like thinking you could solve Fermat's Last Theorem without knowing any mathematics. It makes no sense at all.



There is only ONE book I am interested in - that is the Book of Life - the DNA . This book alone will enable me to determine the degree of "inheritance" between species. No other book can do this.
If you were really interested in DNA you would be studying what the experts who discovered it and have learned how to decipher it have to say. But you don't do that. You fill your head with anti-scientific creationist literature and then leap off into an amateur project without any knowledge of the mountain of research done by thousands of scientists. That's just nuts.

David M
08-04-2014, 11:02 PM
Here is another eminent scientist who could not explain how the first proteins could have been assembled without the help of genetic instructions. Consequently, he changed his belief from accepting the evolution theory to the origin of life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2RZzyFTTXo



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

Dean H. Kenyon (born c. 1939) is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University,


Kenyon received a BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966, he started as an Assistant Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University and became Emeritus in 2001.[2]

In 1969, Kenyon co-authored Biochemical Predestination with Gary Steinman. Chemist Stephen Berry explained Kenyon and Steinman's theory as "describing the following causal chain: the properties of the chemical elements dictate the types of monomers that can be formed in prebiotic syntheses, which then dictate the properties of the occurring polymers, which finally dictate the properties of the first eobionts and all succeeding cells."[3] Kenyon's work was about virus production.[4]

Kenyon's views changed around 1976 after exposure to the work of young earth creationists. In his own words,

"Then in 1976, a student gave me a book by A.E. Wilder-Smith, The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. Many pages of that book deal with arguments against Biochemical Predestination, and I found myself hard-pressed to come up with a counter-rebuttal. Eventually, several other books and articles by neo-creationists came to my attention. I read some of Henry Morris' books, in particular, The Genesis Flood. I'm not a geologist, and I don't agree with everything in that book, but what stood out was that here was a scientific statement giving a very different view of earth history. Though the book doesn't deal with the subject of the origin of life per se, it had the effect of suggesting that it is possible to have a rational alternative explanation of the past."[6]

In 1980, the San Francisco State University Department of Biology had a dispute over Kenyon's presentation of creationism, then called "scientific creationism" in Biology module 337 Evolution.[7] At that time, Kenyon challenged anyone on the faculty to a debate on the merits of evolutionary theory versus "scientific creationism." According to SFSU biology professor John Hafernik, "There was much discussion in faculty meetings as well. Eventually the faculty voted (none opposed, seven abstentions) not to alter the description of Biology 337 to include creationism. The precedent set, in the context of the 1980 discussions, was that the Department did not support teaching creationism."[7][8]

Craig.Paardekooper
08-05-2014, 12:13 AM
The numbers by themselves tell you nothing. They must be interpreted. And to do that, you need to understand the fundamentals of the theory. Your idea of simply looking at the numbers without understanding the science is like thinking you could solve Fermat's Last Theorem without knowing any mathematics. It makes no sense at all.


A cannot = B, IF A > B

Y Chromosome Man cannot = Y Chromosome Chimp, IF Y Chromosome Man > Y Chromosome Chimp

59,373,566 nucleotides cannot = 26,342,871 nucleotides, IF 59,373,566 > 26,342,871


Do we really need "experts" to tell us how to count and how to perform simple logic?




The numbers by themselves tell you nothing. They must be interpreted.

That's the whole point. What does DNA say without all the "interpretation".



Having established that alignment is impossible because A > B, it would only be a complete treatment of this matter to consider whether B is a sub set of A - Is all the content of B found in A, or is the content completely different?

So it's onwards and upwards. Next, I will do some more counting - counting the number of genes in each Y Chromosome, to see if they agree or differ.




Counting the Number of Genes on the Y Chromosomes of Humans and Chimps


1. Map of the chimp Y chromosome - http://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/maps.cgi?taxid=9598&amp;chr=Y

As you can see, there are 278 genes on this chromosome. This is stated at the bottom of the page


2. Map of the human Y chromosome - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/maps.cgi?taxid=9606&amp;chr=Y

On the human Y chromosome there are 458 genes, as stated at the bottom of the page.


Result
The number of genes occurring on the human chromosome that are missing from the chimp chromosome = 180 which is a 64% difference


Summary so far
Our Y Chromosome is massively different from a Chimps. -

1. Firstly, it is more than double the size,
2. secondly it contains 180 genes that the chimp chromosome does not contain a 64 % difference in content


A cannot = B, IF A > B

Y Genes Man cannot = Y Genes Chimp, IF Y Genes Man > Y Genes Chimp

458 genes cannot = 278 genes, IF 458 > 278


Do we really need "experts" to tell us how to count and how to perform simple logic?


You can check for yourselves - ncbi website is the National Centre for Biotechnology Information.

L67
08-05-2014, 04:51 AM
Here is another eminent scientist who could not explain how the first proteins could have been assembled without the help of genetic instructions. Consequently, he changed his belief from accepting the evolution theory to the origin of life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2RZzyFTTXo

David,

Why do you continue to make the same errors about evolution over and over again? Your refusal to educate yourself on evolution is just plain ludicrous. You don't even try to get such basics facts about evolution right. Evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life. You have only been told this a hundred times. I have never see anyone so incorrigible as you David. There really is no reasoning with you David. I can't imagine going through life living in such darkness. You have my sympathy.

And Dean Kenyon is NOT a eminent scientist. He has been a creationist since 1976. The things we know about evolution has increased 10 fold since then. AN dhe didn't solve anything by switching what he believed. He couldn't explain how life came to be, so now he just posits something equally unknowable. Brilliant.

jce
08-05-2014, 05:20 AM
A cannot = B, IF A > B

Y Chromosome Man cannot = Y Chromosome Chimp, IF Y Chromosome Man > Y Chromosome Chimp

59,373,566 nucleotides cannot = 26,342,871 nucleotides, IF 59,373,566 > 26,342,871


Do we really need "experts" to tell us how to count and how to perform simple logic?





That's the whole point. What does DNA say without all the "interpretation".



Having established that alignment is impossible because A > B, it would only be a complete treatment of this matter to consider whether B is a sub set of A - Is all the content of B found in A, or is the content completely different?

So it's onwards and upwards. Next, I will do some more counting - counting the number of genes in each Y Chromosome, to see if they agree or differ.




Counting the Number of Genes on the Y Chromosomes of Humans and Chimps


1. Map of the chimp Y chromosome - http://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/maps.cgi?taxid=9598&amp;chr=Y

As you can see, there are 278 genes on this chromosome. This is stated at the bottom of the page


2. Map of the human Y chromosome - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/maps.cgi?taxid=9606&amp;chr=Y

On the human Y chromosome there are 458 genes, as stated at the bottom of the page.


Result
The number of genes occurring on the human chromosome that are missing from the chimp chromosome = 180 which is a 64% difference


Summary so far
Our Y Chromosome is massively different from a Chimps. -

1. Firstly, it is more than double the size,
2. secondly it contains 180 genes that the chimp chromosome does not contain a 64 % difference in content


You can check for yourselves - ncbi website is the National Centre for Biotechnology Information.

Hello Craig

Thank-you for staying on this thread and conducting your own analysis. I believe the 64% difference is about the same as Dr. Robert Carter noted in his presentation. It appears that the big difference is in what was once assumed to be "Junk DNA", which geneticists are discovering is not useless junk, but active and productive.

I found this reference to the evolutionist who coined the term "Junk DNA" interesting:

"Susumu Ohno, in his 1972 paper “So Much ‘Junk’ DNA in Our Genome,” wrote that the remaining sequences of DNA “are the remains of nature’s experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?” Ohno's 1972 paper can be found here: http://www.junkdna.com/ohno.html

The following statement is a sad truth of how many who dare to question evolutionary theory are treated:

"Later other geneticists like John S. Mattick, professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, refuted that irresponsible dogma of the "Junk DNA" idea by suggesting that we simply do not know everything and we should research to find out. Mattick was personally attacked and given every insult possible by people like staunch Evolutionist Larry Moran".

John

Craig.Paardekooper
08-05-2014, 05:51 AM
Well, all this revelation about the Y Chromosome was quite astonishing to me. All through my life, the evolutionists had been insisting that i evolved from an ape, or rather from a primordial bit of sludge. Quite demeaning.

Well, I was so amazed with the Y Chromosome data, even though Richard continued to ridicule my efforts. So I thought to myself, "why is he trying to do that - what is he worried that I might find next??". "What doesn't he want us to see?"

So I decided to carry out a similar analysis for the ENTIRE chimp genome. - all 24 chromosomes.



Results for Gene Count Each Chromosome



Chromosome
Man
Chimp
% Difference


1
3958
2977
32.95%


2
2787
999 + 994
39.83%


3
2203
1698
29.74%


4
1702
1251
36.05%


5
1892
1430
32.3%


6
2302
1809
27.25%


7
2146
1779
17.1%


8
1534
1091
40.6%


9
1742
1241
40.37%


10
1607
1151
39.61%


11
2364
1678
40.88%


12
1950
1527
27.7%


13
993
542
83.2%


14
1655
1044
58.52%


15
1428
934
52.89%


16
1535
1183
29.75%


17
2010
1565
28.43%


18
657
505
30.09%


19
2188
1810
20.88%


20
1014
764
32.72%


21
584
366
59.56%


22
956
650
47.07%


X
1805
1379
30.89%


Y
458
278
64%



THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF GENES PERSISTS FOR EVERY CHROMOSOME, NOT JUST THE Y.

In some chromosomes it varies by as much as 83%

Now, some people might say that we are 98% similar to apes, that there is 98% alignment. In response I would say - "Are you conscious that you are lying?"

It would be interesting for me to do a control study with gorillas, and other monkey groups as controls.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-05-2014, 06:18 AM
HI JCE,

Thankyou for your comments.

Genes are not junk, so the comparison of gene count differences between us and chimps is even more critical. It is sad to see how evolutionists can gang up on individual researchers.

Craig

Richard Amiel McGough
08-05-2014, 06:59 AM
HI JCE,

Thankyou for your comments.

Genes are not junk, so the comparison of gene count differences between us and chimps is even more critical. It is sad to see how evolutionists can gang up on individual researchers.

Craig
Nobody is "ganging up" on anybody. I merely said that it would be good if you studied the actual science before you wasted your time on a wild goose chase to refute something you know nothing about.

Think about it! You are out on a mission to destroy evolution, yet you have admitted that you have not read a single book on the subject! :doh:

Craig.Paardekooper
08-05-2014, 07:11 AM
I will persist in my efforts Richard to do what I have to do. Hope you enjoy the next episode.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-05-2014, 07:25 AM
Nobody is "ganging up" on anybody. I merely said that it would be good if you studied the actual science before you wasted your time on a wild goose chase to refute something you know nothing about.

Think about it! You are out on a mission to destroy evolution, yet you have admitted that you have not read a single book on the subject! :doh:

It is perfectly possible to measure alignment without having to read books that attempt to -

1. Say the alignment is there when it is not

2. Say that the alignment means something that it does not


Just as it is perfectly possible to read a primary source yourself rather than reading a commentary by people who actively hide truth about the primary source.


before you wasted your time on a wild goose chase

I would not say my time is wasted - it is more like an honour to engage in this battle



to refute something you know nothing about.

It is a crying shame that a bright child can know more than a dumb father.

Rose
08-05-2014, 12:24 PM
Well, all this revelation about the Y Chromosome was quite astonishing to me. All through my life, the evolutionists had been insisting that i evolved from an ape, or rather from a primordial bit of sludge. Quite demeaning.



Hello Craig,

Your motive seems obvious! To disprove the scientists whom you call "evolutionists", because you feel it is demeaning to share a common ancestor with ALL organisms.

The motive of a true "Truth seeker" should be to discover the "how" and "why" of things ... not to begin with a preformed assumption and try to prove it at all cost. Creationists begin with the belief that the Biblegod created all organisms, instead of with the open mind of a true scientist hungry for answers.

When Darwin began his search to understand the origins of life, there was no "Theory of Evolution" ... he merely gathered evidence and formed hypothesis based on his findings. Contrary to what creationists teach, Darwin's motive was not to disprove god's hand in creation, but rather to understand and discover.

There is a reason the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution ... that reason is because the evidence is there to back it up.

Kind regards,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
08-05-2014, 01:40 PM
Everyone has a motive - for some it is pro-Bible, for others it is anti-Bible - either way everyone has a motive.

But when conversation becomes MERELY a discussion of people's motives, then it becomes merely a personal attack, rather than a discussion of facts.

It is facts that we are discussing here - not people.

We are talking about alignment in DNA - just pure mathematical fact - period. No need to talk about people at all.

In future I am not going to get drawn into dialogs which are unrelated to the subject at hand.

Perhaps I felt angry today because I felt that I had been fooled by evolutionists these past 30 years when all along we are so different from apes. Discovery of the magnitude of non-alignment does that when you first see it.

Anyway, my intention is simply to proceed with my research quietly, and to share it with others.



Your motive seems obvious! To disprove the scientists whom you call "evolutionists", because you feel it is demeaning to share a common ancestor with ALL organisms.
The motive of a true "Truth seeker" should be to discover the "how" and "why" of things ... not to begin with a preformed assumption and try to prove it at all cost. Creationists begin with the belief that the Biblegod created all organisms, instead of with the open mind of a true scientist hungry for answers.

When Darwin began his search to understand the origins of life, there was no "Theory of Evolution" ... he merely gathered evidence and formed hypothesis based on his findings. Contrary to what creationists teach, Darwin's motive was not to disprove god's hand in creation, but rather to understand and discover.

There is a reason the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution ... that reason is because the evidence is there to back it up.

Kind regards,

I have high-lighted the areas in red that are personal. Remember that my only intention is to post facts, not to engage in personal dialog. Today I posted a fact which was - I counted the number of genes in Chromosome 13 of Chimpanzees and in Chromosome 13 of humans

In Chimp Chromosome 13 there are 542 genes. In Human Chromosome 13 there are 993 genes. So, currently there is no alignment because in the human there are 83% more genes than in the ape. This means that if we lined up the two sequences side by side, then one cannot match the other, because there are 549 genes found in Human Chromosome 13 that are not found in the Chimp Chromosome 13.

Just one example.

Craig

Craig.Paardekooper
08-05-2014, 02:35 PM
Evolutionary science claims we share a common ancestor with Chimps about 5 million years ago. This may be true or false, and one way to test it is to compare how similar our DNA is with that of Chimps. Evolutionists typically quote 95-98 % as the degree of alignment between human DNA and Chimp DNA.


Results for Gene Count Each Chromosome



Chromosome
Man
Chimp
% Difference


1
3958
2977
32.95%


2
2787
999 + 994
39.83%


3
2203
1698
29.74%


4
1702
1251
36.05%


5
1892
1430
32.3%


6
2302
1809
27.25%


7
2146
1779
17.1%


8
1534
1091
40.6%


9
1742
1241
40.37%


10
1607
1151
39.61%


11
2364
1678
40.88%


12
1950
1527
27.7%


13
993
542
83.2%


14
1655
1044
58.52%


15
1428
934
52.89%


16
1535
1183
29.75%


17
2010
1565
28.43%


18
657
505
30.09%


19
2188
1810
20.88%


20
1014
764
32.72%


21
584
366
59.56%


22
956
650
47.07%


X
1805
1379
30.89%


Y
458
278
64%




THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF GENES PERSISTS FOR EVERY CHROMOSOME

As you can see, it is actually quite impossible for any of the chromosomes between chimps and humans to be aligned at 95%, because in nearly all cases, the number of genes in the human chromosomes exceeds the number of genes in the chimp chromosomes by 30 percent, and in some cases much more - so alignment at it's greatest would be 70 %, falling as low as 17% for chromosome 13 and 36% for the Y Chromosome.

All these figures are obtained from the National Center for Bioinformatic information which you can find here

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/?term=Chimpanzee

I will not draw any conclusions from these results regarding the motives of anyone. All I am willing to say is that the predicted alignment (95-98%) between chimps and humans is not present. This is a simple fact that you can interpret as you will.

L67
08-05-2014, 02:54 PM
Well, all this revelation about the Y Chromosome was quite astonishing to me. All through my life, the evolutionists had been insisting that i evolved from an ape, or rather from a primordial bit of sludge. Quite demeaning.

Well, I was so amazed with the Y Chromosome data, even though Richard continued to ridicule my efforts. So I thought to myself, "why is he trying to do that - what is he worried that I might find next??". "What doesn't he want us to see?"

So I decided to carry out a similar analysis for the ENTIRE chimp genome. - all 24 chromosomes.



Results for Gene Count Each Chromosome



Chromosome
Man
Chimp
% Difference


1
3958
2977
32.95%


2
2787
999 + 994
39.83%


3
2203
1698
29.74%


4
1702
1251
36.05%


5
1892
1430
32.3%


6
2302
1809
27.25%


7
2146
1779
17.1%


8
1534
1091
40.6%


9
1742
1241
40.37%


10
1607
1151
39.61%


11
2364
1678
40.88%


12
1950
1527
27.7%


13
993
542
83.2%


14
1655
1044
58.52%


15
1428
934
52.89%


16
1535
1183
29.75%


17
2010
1565
28.43%


18
657
505
30.09%


19
2188
1810
20.88%


20
1014
764
32.72%


21
584
366
59.56%


22
956
650
47.07%


X
1805
1379
30.89%


Y
458
278
64%



THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF GENES PERSISTS FOR EVERY CHROMOSOME, NOT JUST THE Y.

In some chromosomes it varies by as much as 83%

Now, some people might say that we are 98% similar to apes, that there is 98% alignment. In response I would say - "Are you conscious that you are lying?"

It would be interesting for me to do a control study with gorillas, and other monkey groups as controls.


Craig,

Your numbers do NOT tell the whole story. The genome has already been mapped. Do you really think you are the first to discover the percentage differences? Let be realistic here. Do you really think the whole body of science has wasted their time and you have solved the riddle over night? How about no.

The reason we are so close to chimpanzees is because the numbers don't lie. This is what the numbers represent in a side by side comparison between chimps and humans. Please try and educate yourself about evolution. You are wasting your time trying to disprove it.

This image shows just how similar we really are. The results are eerily similar.

http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio213/humanevol/humanevol.html

1218

Craig.Paardekooper
08-05-2014, 03:25 PM
Craig,

Your numbers do NOT tell the whole story. The genome has already been mapped. Do you really think you are the first to discover the percentage differences? Let be realistic here. Do you really think the whole body of science has wasted their time and you have solved the riddle over night? How about no.

The reason we are so close to chimpanzees is because the numbers don't lie. This is what the numbers represent in a side by side comparison between chimps and humans. Please try and educate yourself about evolution. You are wasting your time trying to disprove it.

This image shows just how similar we really are. The results are eerily similar.


I have high lighted personal remarks in red, since I want to avoid personal dialog. The side by side comparison diagram you provided shows same colour bands at the same height for both ape and human. However, this visual aid is not accurate. NCBI website shows that there is a difference of between 30 to 80% in the gene content of chromosomes when apes are compared to humans. If your diagram was accurate then it would reflect this. NCBI is the main repository of gene data as used by all researchers in bioinformatics and genetics.

For example, Chromosome 1 in your diagram shows identical banding between chimps and humans, with just one additional band for chimps. NCBI on the other hand states that in Chromosome 1 there are 3958 genes in the human Chr 1 and 2977 genes in the ape Chr 1, a difference of 32.95%. The coloured banding in your diagram does not indicate this. Therefore your diagram must be inaccurate.

Thankyou for your input

David M
08-05-2014, 03:58 PM
How do we get to know what are the true facts?

Craig's table shows significant percentage differences over all the chromosomes. However, the chart on the website to which L67 has given us the link, shows in the diagram comparing the the difference in chromosome length between the human and chimpanzee, the relative lengths to do not correlate to the percentage differences in Craig's table. The diagram gives us a false impression of the closeness of each chromosome between human and chimpanzee in terms of length.

The average percentage difference in gene count over all the chromosomes is 39.7% according to Craig's table, yet on the website it states the difference in the DNA sequence between human and chimpanzee is only 1.6%


What is the true answer; 39.7% difference, or 1.6% difference? Are apples being compared with apples, or apples compared with oranges here? It is not clear the exact same comparison is being made and we are being presented different data to make the case on each side.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-05-2014, 04:07 PM
Dear David,

NCBI is the official data provider for all genetics researchers medical or otherwise.
Please refer to any bioinformatics textbook to confirm.

All data in my table is taken directly from NCBI.
I believe that the diagram provided by L67 does not represent the facts accurately, and the website he provided is not an official data provider for researchers, but is an introduction to biology 101 at University of Texas.


What is the true answer; 39.7% difference, or 1.6% difference? Are apples being compared with apples, or apples compared with oranges here? It is not clear the exact same comparison is being made and we are being presented different data to make the case on each side.

Over the last 24 hours I have presented data based on base count and on gene count. I will provide further data over the coming weeks.

Best wishes

Craig

David M
08-05-2014, 04:44 PM
Dear David,

NCBI is the official data provider for all genetics researchers medical or otherwise.
Please refer to any bioinformatics textbook to confirm.

All data in my table is taken directly from NCBI.
I believe that the diagram provided by L67 does not represent the facts accurately



Over the last 24 hours I have presented data based on base count and on gene count. It is also possible for me to obtain the data to show the count for each type of gene, as well as their spatial distribution within the chromosome. Over the coming weeks I will present this additional data so that you can judge more accurately.


Best wishes

Craig
Hello Craig
I accept what you say. It is up to L67 to present different figures based on the same gene count. The figures can then be argued over, if different. That would be comparing apples with apples.

I found the NCBI website very informative giving information about each human chromosome.
Here is the link; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/maps.cgi?ORG=hum&CHR=1&BEG=0.00&END=15100.00&MAP0=ideogr%2Cgenec&VERBOSE=ON&COMPRESS=on&WIDTH=350&SIZE=20&QUERY=uid%282463%2C4397%2C5215%2C5359%2C5728%2C702 2%2C9026518%2C9026566%2C9027345%2C9027957%29&QSTR=UROD+OR+GBA+OR+HPC1+OR+GLC1A+OR+PS2&CMD=&FILL=0&ZOOM=0&ABS_ZOOM=0&GNL=None

All the best
David

Craig.Paardekooper
08-05-2014, 05:06 PM
Hi David,

Here is the best page for your purpose. By clicking on any chromosome you will obtain a gene count and much more

Human - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/51

Chimp - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/202

Craig

Rose
08-05-2014, 05:39 PM
Hi David,

Here is the best page for your purpose. By clicking on any chromosome you will obtain a gene count and much more

Human - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/51

Chimp - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/202

Craig

Hello Craig,

The site you linked to for the Chimp chromosome, had a linked reference article that gave some possible reasons for differences in human and chimp Y chromosomes.

Article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20072128)

"The human Y chromosome began to evolve from an autosome hundreds of millions of years ago, acquiring a sex-determining function and undergoing a series of inversions that suppressed crossing over with the X chromosome. Little is known about the recent evolution of the Y chromosome because only the human Y chromosome has been fully sequenced. Prevailing theories hold that Y chromosomes evolve by gene loss, the pace of which slows over time, eventually leading to a paucity of genes, and stasis. These theories have been buttressed by partial sequence data from newly emergent plant and animal Y chromosomes, but they have not been tested in older, highly evolved Y chromosomes such as that of humans. Here we finished sequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, achieving levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY. By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years. The chimpanzee MSY contains twice as many massive palindromes as the human MSY, yet it has lost large fractions of the MSY protein-coding genes and gene families present in the last common ancestor. We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, 'genetic hitchhiking' effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour. Although genetic decay may be the principal dynamic in the evolution of newly emergent Y chromosomes, wholesale renovation is the paramount theme in the continuing evolution of chimpanzee, human and perhaps other older MSYs."




Another reference article linked from that site states that there is 1.78% difference between human and chimp Y chromosome, and only 1.23% difference in the whole genome.

Article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16388311)




"The mammalian Y chromosome has unique characteristics compared with the autosomes or X chromosomes. Here we report the finished sequence of the chimpanzee Y chromosome (PTRY), including 271 kb of the Y-specific pseudoautosomal region 1 and 12.7 Mb of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome. Greater sequence divergence between the human Y chromosome (HSAY) and PTRY (1.78%) than between their respective whole genomes (1.23%) confirmed the accelerated evolutionary rate of the Y chromosome. Each of the 19 PTRY protein-coding genes analyzed had at least one nonsynonymous substitution, and 11 genes had higher nonsynonymous substitution rates than synonymous ones, suggesting relaxation of selective constraint, positive selection or both. We also identified lineage-specific changes, including deletion of a 200-kb fragment from the pericentromeric region of HSAY, expansion of young Alu families in HSAY and accumulation of young L1 elements and long terminal repeat retrotransposons in PTRY. Reconstruction of the common ancestral Y chromosome reflects the dynamic changes in our genomes in the 5-6 million years since speciation."

L67
08-05-2014, 06:57 PM
Hi David,

Here is the best page for your purpose. By clicking on any chromosome you will obtain a gene count and much more

Human - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/51

Chimp - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/202

Craig

I know you think the diagram I posted doesn't represent what you claim accurately. How can you say that when you didn't even read your own links? These links totally confirm what I told you earlier.

On both of those links, when you clink on chromosome you get a nice little diagram that lets you click on each chromosome and you can clearly see they accurately represent the image I posted earlier. You can match up both the chimp and human chromosomes side by side.


We can compare the human chromosome here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/map_search.cgi?taxid=9606

And we can view the chimps here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/map_search.cgi?taxid=9598

Now let's see what they look like side by side. The represent exactly what I posted earlier. And there can be no more excuses because they come the "official" data provider like you say. You're barking up the wrong tree.

jce
08-05-2014, 07:20 PM
Hello Craig,

The site you linked to for the Chimp chromosome, had a linked reference article that gave some possible reasons for differences in human and chimp Y chromosomes.

Article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20072128)

"The human Y chromosome began to evolve from an autosome hundreds of millions of years ago, acquiring a sex-determining function and undergoing a series of inversions that suppressed crossing over with the X chromosome. Little is known about the recent evolution of the Y chromosome because only the human Y chromosome has been fully sequenced. Prevailing theories hold that Y chromosomes evolve by gene loss, the pace of which slows over time, eventually leading to a paucity of genes, and stasis. These theories have been buttressed by partial sequence data from newly emergent plant and animal Y chromosomes, but they have not been tested in older, highly evolved Y chromosomes such as that of humans. Here we finished sequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, achieving levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY. By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years. The chimpanzee MSY contains twice as many massive palindromes as the human MSY, yet it has lost large fractions of the MSY protein-coding genes and gene families present in the last common ancestor. We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, 'genetic hitchhiking' effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour. Although genetic decay may be the principal dynamic in the evolution of newly emergent Y chromosomes, wholesale renovation is the paramount theme in the continuing evolution of chimpanzee, human and perhaps other older MSYs."




Another reference article linked from that site states that there is 1.78% difference between human and chimp Y chromosome, and only 1.23% difference in the whole genome.

Article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16388311)




"The mammalian Y chromosome has unique characteristics compared with the autosomes or X chromosomes. Here we report the finished sequence of the chimpanzee Y chromosome (PTRY), including 271 kb of the Y-specific pseudoautosomal region 1 and 12.7 Mb of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome. Greater sequence divergence between the human Y chromosome (HSAY) and PTRY (1.78%) than between their respective whole genomes (1.23%) confirmed the accelerated evolutionary rate of the Y chromosome. Each of the 19 PTRY protein-coding genes analyzed had at least one nonsynonymous substitution, and 11 genes had higher nonsynonymous substitution rates than synonymous ones, suggesting relaxation of selective constraint, positive selection or both. We also identified lineage-specific changes, including deletion of a 200-kb fragment from the pericentromeric region of HSAY, expansion of young Alu families in HSAY and accumulation of young L1 elements and long terminal repeat retrotransposons in PTRY. Reconstruction of the common ancestral Y chromosome reflects the dynamic changes in our genomes in the 5-6 million years since speciation."




I would like to point out a couple of the "uncertainties" of this rhetoric:

First, they insert a basic assumption as follows: "The human Y chromosome began to evolve from an autosome hundreds of millions of years ago Where is the empirical evidence to confirm this much time was available, without which the entire inventive idea fails. This is the most commonly used opening line which sets-up the remainder of the paper for "circular reasoning".

Prevailing theories hold that Y chromosomes evolve by gene loss, the pace of which slows over time, eventually leading to a paucity of genes, and stasis What other prevailing theory is there except evolutionary thinking which is highly suspect in light of the Bible and totally dependent on vast ages.


By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years. Note the use of the word "indicating" which is anything but a conclusion and also observe the circular reasoning in their reference to "millions of years".

We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, 'genetic hitchhiking' effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour Also note that this is merely a "suggestion" and nothing more.

Although genetic decay may be the principal dynamic" So then... it may be, or it may not be. We simply don't know.


Greater sequence divergence between the human Y chromosome (HSAY) and PTRY (1.78%) than between their respective whole genomes (1.23%) confirmed the accelerated evolutionary rate of the Y chromosome.[/COLOR] Each of the 19 PTRY protein-coding genes analyzed had at least one nonsynonymous substitution, and 11 genes had higher nonsynonymous substitution rates than synonymous ones, suggesting relaxation of selective constraint, positive selection or both. Again we are instructed accept this as merely a "suggestion" and not a proof.

Reconstruction of the common ancestral Y chromosome reflects the dynamic changes in our genomes in the 5-6 million years since speciation." It is appropriate that this paper should conclude with the "circular reference" to the assumed vast ages with no empirical support.

Thanks for bringing this evolutionary suggestion to our attention.

John

jce
08-05-2014, 07:24 PM
I know you think the diagram I posted doesn't represent what you claim accurately. How can you say that when you didn't even read your own links? These links totally confirm what I told you earlier.

On both of those links, when you clink on chromosome you get a nice little diagram that lets you click on each chromosome and you can clearly see they accurately represent the image I posted earlier. You can match up both the chimp and human chromosomes side by side.


We can compare the human chromosome here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/map_search.cgi?taxid=9606

And we can view the chimps here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/map_search.cgi?taxid=9598

Now let's see what they look like side by side. The represent exactly what I posted earlier. And there can be no more excuses because they come the "official" data provider like you say. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Does this chart prove beyond doubt that chimps and humans have a common ancestor or a Creator in common? How could you ever be certain?

John

L67
08-05-2014, 07:24 PM
Hello Craig,

The site you linked to for the Chimp chromosome, had a linked reference article that gave some possible reasons for differences in human and chimp Y chromosomes.

Article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20072128)

"The human Y chromosome began to evolve from an autosome hundreds of millions of years ago, acquiring a sex-determining function and undergoing a series of inversions that suppressed crossing over with the X chromosome. Little is known about the recent evolution of the Y chromosome because only the human Y chromosome has been fully sequenced. Prevailing theories hold that Y chromosomes evolve by gene loss, the pace of which slows over time, eventually leading to a paucity of genes, and stasis. These theories have been buttressed by partial sequence data from newly emergent plant and animal Y chromosomes, but they have not been tested in older, highly evolved Y chromosomes such as that of humans. Here we finished sequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, achieving levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY. By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years. The chimpanzee MSY contains twice as many massive palindromes as the human MSY, yet it has lost large fractions of the MSY protein-coding genes and gene families present in the last common ancestor. We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, 'genetic hitchhiking' effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour. Although genetic decay may be the principal dynamic in the evolution of newly emergent Y chromosomes, wholesale renovation is the paramount theme in the continuing evolution of chimpanzee, human and perhaps other older MSYs."




Another reference article linked from that site states that there is 1.78% difference between human and chimp Y chromosome, and only 1.23% difference in the whole genome.

Article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16388311)




"The mammalian Y chromosome has unique characteristics compared with the autosomes or X chromosomes. Here we report the finished sequence of the chimpanzee Y chromosome (PTRY), including 271 kb of the Y-specific pseudoautosomal region 1 and 12.7 Mb of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome. Greater sequence divergence between the human Y chromosome (HSAY) and PTRY (1.78%) than between their respective whole genomes (1.23%) confirmed the accelerated evolutionary rate of the Y chromosome. Each of the 19 PTRY protein-coding genes analyzed had at least one nonsynonymous substitution, and 11 genes had higher nonsynonymous substitution rates than synonymous ones, suggesting relaxation of selective constraint, positive selection or both. We also identified lineage-specific changes, including deletion of a 200-kb fragment from the pericentromeric region of HSAY, expansion of young Alu families in HSAY and accumulation of young L1 elements and long terminal repeat retrotransposons in PTRY. Reconstruction of the common ancestral Y chromosome reflects the dynamic changes in our genomes in the 5-6 million years since speciation."





Good work Rose. Here is the whole paper to the first article you linked for anyone interested. http://eebweb.arizona.edu/nachman/Suggested%20Papers/Hughes_et_al_2010.pdf

Nice little tidbit from this article “As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%).”

L67
08-05-2014, 07:33 PM
Does this chart prove beyond doubt that chimps and humans have a common ancestor or a Creator in common? How could you ever be certain?

John

A common ancestor. You ask: How could you ever be certain? Maybe try picking up a book about evolution and LEARN about the compelling evidence? I can tell though that your not really interested in educating yourself about evolution. Why remain in the dark? Why only trust creationists who have to deceive to remain relevant? I just don't get it.

jce
08-05-2014, 07:41 PM
A common ancestor. You ask: How could you ever be certain? Maybe try picking up a book about evolution and LEARN about the compelling evidence? I can tell though that your not really interested in educating yourself about evolution. Why remain in the dark? Why only trust creationists who have to deceive to remain relevant? I just don't get it.


Wrong Book.

John

Richard Amiel McGough
08-05-2014, 09:38 PM
I would like to point out a couple of the "uncertainties" of this rhetoric:

First, they insert a basic assumption as follows: "The human Y chromosome began to evolve from an autosome hundreds of millions of years ago Where is the empirical evidence to confirm this much time was available, without which the entire inventive idea fails. This is the most commonly used opening line which sets-up the remainder of the paper for "circular reasoning".

Where's the empirical evidence? In the paper that Rose linked to, and the chain of hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers it links to. If you had clicked on it, you would have seen that the authors (which consisted of a group of 17 profession scientists!) supported the sentence you quoted with two footnotes to two other articles published by real scientists in peer reviewed scientific journals:

1. Rice WR. Evolution of the Y sex chromosome in animals. Bioscience. 1996;46:331–343.
2. Lahn BT, Page DC. Four evolutionary strata on the human X chromosome. Science. 1999;286:964–967.

And those papers cited other papers that gave EVIDENCE for their conclusions. Your rhetoric is getting way out hand. You provided no evidence of any "circular reasoning." You didn't even glance at the article you thought you were refuting! Get real.

Here's the list of Ph.D. peer reviewed professional scientists that you dismiss without an ounce of logic, reason, or intelligence:

Jennifer F. Hughes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Hughes%20JF%5Bauth%5D), Helen Skaletsky (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Skaletsky%20H%5Bauth%5D), Tatyana Pyntikova (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Pyntikova%20T%5Bauth%5D), Tina A. Graves (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Graves%20TA%5Bauth%5D), Saskia K. M. van Daalen (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=van%20Daalen%20SK%5Bauth%5D), Patrick J. Minx (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Minx%20PJ%5Bauth%5D), Robert S. Fulton (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Fulton%20RS%5Bauth%5D), Sean D. McGrath (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=McGrath%20SD%5Bauth%5D), Devin P. Locke (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Locke%20DP%5Bauth%5D), Cynthia Friedman (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Friedman%20C%5Bauth%5D), Barbara J. Trask (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Trask%20BJ%5Bauth%5D), Elaine R. Mardis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Mardis%20ER%5Bauth%5D), Wesley C. Warren (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Warren%20WC%5Bauth%5D), Sjoerd Repping (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Repping%20S%5Bauth%5D), Steve Rozen (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Rozen%20S%5Bauth%5D), Richard K. Wilson (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Wilson%20RK%5Bauth%5D), and David C. Page (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Page%20DC%5Bauth%5D)

Don't you think it a tad bit arrogant to ignorantly dismiss all those serious scientists and the evidence they worked so hard to collect and present?



Prevailing theories hold that Y chromosomes evolve by gene loss, the pace of which slows over time, eventually leading to a paucity of genes, and stasis What other prevailing theory is there except evolutionary thinking which is highly suspect in light of the Bible and totally dependent on vast ages.

Modern science is "highly suspect" in light of an ancient storybook written by primitive men totally ignorant of modern science? Wow. Seriously?

The "vast ages" are supported by ten thousand facts. Just look at the stars. They are billions of light years away, which means the universe is billions of years old. The authors of the Bible knew nothing of the real nature of physical reality.



By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years. Note the use of the word "indicating" which is anything but a conclusion and also observe the circular reasoning in their reference to "millions of years".

Dude! Have you no conception of the basic meaning of words? The word "indicates" means exactly that. The fact I see the leaves rustle indicates the wind is blowing. It seems you are so lost in your fundamentalist certainty that you think everyone should speak in absolutes. That's not how intelligent and scientific people talk, because they know that human knowledge is limited.

And there is nothing "circular" about referring to the millions of years which is established by many independent witnesses.



We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, 'genetic hitchhiking' effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour Also note that this is merely a "suggestion" and nothing more.

It's a LOT more than a mere "suggestion." It is a suggestion based on evidence which they presented in the paper.

I've noticed that you and David M like to highlight words that indicate points of uncertainty in scientific papers, as if that meant that all their logic and facts and evidence were no better than a mere guess. I wish there were a way for me to help free you from such intellectual bondage, but that won't be possible until you choose the path of truth and light. It is a sad fact that the light of science has come into the world, but creationists hated the light because their dogmas were based on the darkest ignorance.

<sigh>

Richard Amiel McGough
08-05-2014, 09:55 PM
Does this chart prove beyond doubt that chimps and humans have a common ancestor or a Creator in common? How could you ever be certain?

John

A common ancestor. You ask: How could you ever be certain? Maybe try picking up a book about evolution and LEARN about the compelling evidence? I can tell though that your not really interested in educating yourself about evolution. Why remain in the dark? Why only trust creationists who have to deceive to remain relevant? I just don't get it.
Does DNA prove paternity? DUH! :doh:

There are patterns in the DNA that prove descent, just like patternity. It is not mere similarity of genes, but rather specific patterns like fingerprints that are passed down specific lines. There are plenty of books out there explaining this to anyone who loves truth and knowledge. My favorite is called The Making of the Fittest.

The adamant arrogance of the incorrigibly ignorant is painful to behold. This is why I believe that fundamentalist religion corrupts the minds and morals of believers. It breeds in them a contempt for the truth so deep they can't even understand the most basic facts that are common knowledge in our modern world. Everyone knows that DNA can be used to determine paternity. It is accepted in court. And THAT is the kind of DNA evidence that proves common descent. Yet they refuse to see. Such is the evil that religion inflicts upon the human mind.

jce
08-05-2014, 11:17 PM
Does DNA prove paternity? DUH! :doh:

There are patterns in the DNA that prove descent, just like patternity. It is not mere similarity of genes, but rather specific patterns like fingerprints that are passed down specific lines. There are plenty of books out there explaining this to anyone who loves truth and knowledge. My favorite is called The Making of the Fittest.

The adamant arrogance of the incorrigibly ignorant is painful to behold. This is why I believe that fundamentalist religion corrupts the minds and morals of believers. It breeds in them a contempt for the truth so deep they can't even understand the most basic facts that are common knowledge in our modern world. Everyone knows that DNA can be used to determine paternity. It is accepted in court. And THAT is the kind of DNA evidence that proves common descent. Yet they refuse to see. Such is the evil that religion inflicts upon the human mind.

Richard

Here's a real "DUH" for you and it comes from the the type of men you hold up as the lighting the way to the truth:

Allen H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt speaking about the origin of the Big Bang: "It is tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing"

Paul Davies: "This "quantum cosmology" provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing without violating any laws of physics".

Edward Tryon: "... our universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum or state of nothingness"

Such conceptions might be acceptable if these men were stand-up comics, but they are not. They are highly educated men who appear have studied themselves into imbecility. It is the final destination of atheism. An idea that fittingly leads to nowhere, but where else can they retreat to other than into absurdity after they've so artfully painted themselves into the corner.


You speak as though the theory of molecules to men were a material fact. You place your destiny in the hands of fallible men such as those quoted above, apparently without any thought that they could be wrong, and, as if such ideas were not preposterous enough, you have the audacity to ridicule others who question a theory proclaiming molecules to men through natural law and processes alone. Hillbillies and creationist liars are the labels you apply to those who disagree with such mentality, simply because they won't climb aboard the evolutionary love train. From where I stand, your position is no better than theirs because you too rely on faith, only it is a confidence placed in the fallible work of men rather than a simple trust in the revelation of a Supreme Being who is not bound by natural law and natural process. One who is able to create the Universe in which we live and all of the amazing life forms dependent upon it. If there was ever a place to apply Occam's razor, it seems applicable here.

This is what you once proclaimed as irrefutable regarding the Bible:

The implications of this revelation know no limit. Never in the history of the world has anyone beheld such a profoundly compact and reiterative compound symbol in the structure of any book, let alone a book that proclaims itself Divine, that defines and exemplifies the symbols in its own text, that was composed in three languages over a period of fifteen hundred years by multiple individuals from all walks of life, that transformed the world with its message, and that kept its secret hidden for centuries after its completion only to be revealed when it was simply "rolled up like a scroll" on the alphabetic pattern established within its own pages! Obviously, we are beholding a blazing immutable miracle straight from the Mind of Almighty God.

Can you find any "uncertainties in your statement? Would you actually put your personal credibility on the line and make the same statement about the idea that men came from molecules strictly through natural law and processes?

Furthermore, if you accuse me of arrogance, what word would you employ to characterize the manner in which you conduct yourself? It is rather common here on this forum for you to toss about insults against those whom you consider your inferior. Think about it.

John

Craig.Paardekooper
08-06-2014, 05:59 AM
I know you think the diagram I posted doesn't represent what you claim accurately. How can you say that when you didn't even read your own links? These links totally confirm what I told you earlier.

On both of those links, when you clink on chromosome you get a nice little diagram that lets you click on each chromosome and you can clearly see they accurately represent the image I posted earlier. You can match up both the chimp and human chromosomes side by side.


We can compare the human chromosome here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects...cgi?taxid=9606

And we can view the chimps here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects...cgi?taxid=9598

Now let's see what they look like side by side. The represent exactly what I posted earlier. And there can be no more excuses because they come the "official" data provider like you say. You're barking up the wrong tree.


Hello L67

I have outlined personal comments in red.

The diagrams you provided in red and green colours are stick diagrams only showing the approximate lengths of the chromosomes. They do not show how many genes are within each chromosome - which still differs considerably for each chromosome as the source site confirms.

ncbi does not provide a banded diagram for chimp chromosomes, only for humans, so I am unable to confirm whether the distribution of genes between man and chimp is the same, as indicated in your original diagram.



Hello Rose

As my table indicates, the Y Chromosome is not alone in having a large dissimilarity between Chimp and Man. The same dissimilarity extends throughout all the chromosomes, where the number of genes varies by up to 83 % - the average gene number difference being 40%.

The original predicted level of similarity by evolutionists was 95-98 % for all chromosomes. However the actual level of similarity is much lower for all chromosomes as my table proves - either we gained 40% more genes, or the chimps lost 40% of theirs.

It seems likely that if any creature suffered 40% loss of their genes they would die for sure. And if we have gained 40% more genes then that would require the modification of almost half our DNA, and we would be a new creature.

Results for Gene Count Each Chromosome



Chromosome
Man
Chimp
% Difference


1
3958
2977
32.95%


2
2787
999 + 994
39.83%


3
2203
1698
29.74%


4
1702
1251
36.05%


5
1892
1430
32.3%


6
2302
1809
27.25%


7
2146
1779
17.1%


8
1534
1091
40.6%


9
1742
1241
40.37%


10
1607
1151
39.61%


11
2364
1678
40.88%


12
1950
1527
27.7%


13
993
542
83.2%


14
1655
1044
58.52%


15
1428
934
52.89%


16
1535
1183
29.75%


17
2010
1565
28.43%


18
657
505
30.09%


19
2188
1810
20.88%


20
1014
764
32.72%


21
584
366
59.56%


22
956
650
47.07%


X
1805
1379
30.89%


Y
458
278
64%





I will not offer interpretations or explanations until I have gathered more information to establish a clearer picture of the percentages of each type of gene in the chimp chromosomes and their distribution, and how these compare with humans.

jce
08-06-2014, 06:23 AM
Where's the empirical evidence?

Here's the list of Ph.D. peer reviewed professional scientists that you dismiss without an ounce of logic, reason, or intelligence:

Jennifer F. Hughes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Hughes%20JF%5Bauth%5D), Helen Skaletsky (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Skaletsky%20H%5Bauth%5D), Tatyana Pyntikova (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Pyntikova%20T%5Bauth%5D), Tina A. Graves (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Graves%20TA%5Bauth%5D), Saskia K. M. van Daalen (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=van%20Daalen%20SK%5Bauth%5D), Patrick J. Minx (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Minx%20PJ%5Bauth%5D), Robert S. Fulton (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Fulton%20RS%5Bauth%5D), Sean D. McGrath (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=McGrath%20SD%5Bauth%5D), Devin P. Locke (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Locke%20DP%5Bauth%5D), Cynthia Friedman (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Friedman%20C%5Bauth%5D), Barbara J. Trask (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Trask%20BJ%5Bauth%5D), Elaine R. Mardis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Mardis%20ER%5Bauth%5D), Wesley C. Warren (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Warren%20WC%5Bauth%5D), Sjoerd Repping (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Repping%20S%5Bauth%5D), Steve Rozen (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Rozen%20S%5Bauth%5D), Richard K. Wilson (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Wilson%20RK%5Bauth%5D), and David C. Page (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Page%20DC%5Bauth%5D)

Don't you think it a tad bit arrogant to ignorantly dismiss all those serious scientists and the evidence they worked so hard to collect and present?

Richard

When your time finally arrives to depart this earth, not one named on this list will be there to argue your case. You may be required to explain it in great detail on your own, a task I'd rather leave to a good defense attorney. I know a Good One.



Modern science is "highly suspect" in light of an ancient storybook written by primitive men totally ignorant of modern science? Wow. Seriously?

Is this "ancient storybook" not the same compilation of writings from which we get the Bible Wheel? Which is it Richard, are these men as you so derogatorily label "ignorant primitives" or are they rather to be credited with the following (in your words) accomplishment?

Never in the history of the world has anyone beheld such a profoundly compact and reiterative compound symbol in the structure of any book, let alone a book that proclaims itself Divine, that defines and exemplifies the symbols in its own text, that was composed in three languages over a period of fifteen hundred years by multiple individuals from all walks of life, that transformed the world with its message, and that kept its secret hidden for centuries after its completion only to be revealed when it was simply "rolled up like a scroll" on the alphabetic pattern established within its own pages!

It appears to me that you must either credit the Bible God, or these primitive ignorants for the Obviously, blazing immutable miracle.



The "vast ages" are supported by ten thousand facts. Just look at the stars. They are billions of light years away, which means the universe is billions of years old. The authors of the Bible knew nothing of the real nature of physical reality.

Your answer to the vast ages implies that there is no alternative other than another man-made theory that is filled with gaps. By acceptance of the big bang as a foregone conclusion to the origin of the universe, would it not be important to, not necessarily have "all knowledge", but at least enough to explain the process without gaps. Your conclusion that the bang is the only process by which the universe exists also dismisses the idea that God may have stretched out the heavens in a moment of time. How can one simply dismiss the reality of an all powerful supernatural Creator in exchange for such a presumptuous assertion that it had to be naturally occurring?

Some have argued that it would be deceptive of God to give the appearance of long ages in the heavens. God is deceiving no one for He cannot lie. He has stated very clearly in the Bible that He is the one who created these things. There is nothing wrong with trying to figure out "how" He did it. The problem lies in man's effort to remove Him from the equation. He must be disappointed that he is left out of the conversation.


Dude! Have you no conception of the basic meaning of words? The word "indicates" means exactly that. The fact I see the leaves rustle indicates the wind is blowing. It seems you are so lost in your fundamentalist certainty that you think everyone should speak in absolutes. That's not how intelligent and scientific people talk, because they know that human knowledge is limited.

Not sure if "Dude" is any better than "hillbillie". Should I take it as a compliment?

Let's take one more look at the word "indicate" to see if I have any "indication" that I understand it. Here's a test of its meaning. Is it synonymous with the word "confirm"? Let's try using "confirm" in the context of your example: "The fact I see the leaves rustle "confirms" the wind is blowing". Does it now basically mean the same thing as "indicates", or does this substitution now exclude other possibilities?




It's a LOT more than a mere "suggestion."

Then why not use a word which implies a little more "certainty" in the theory, such as "conclude"? Maybe more like this "We conclude that...". Doesn't that sound a little more convincing? Of course we know that they can't say that because they are, quite simply stated..."not certain".


I've noticed that you and David M like to highlight words that indicate points of uncertainty in scientific papers

Words and their meaning are very important, for it is by our choice of words that we will be justified or condemned.


<sigh>

Perhaps you should take a break from the evolutionary defense team and gets some rest.

John

L67
08-06-2014, 06:51 AM
Richard

Here's a real "DUH" for you and it comes from the the type of men you hold up as the lighting the way to the truth:

Wow,you don't even realize what these men were even saying because you copied and pasted this crap from some creationist website..


Allen H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt speaking about the origin of the Big Bang: "It is tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing"

From 1984: http://books.google.com/books?id=1BB8qlv9S0AC&pg=PA397&lpg=PA397&dq=It+is+tempting+to+go+one+step+further+and+specu late+that+the+entire+universe+evolved+from+literal ly+nothing%22&source=bl&ots=6U_wnjPjGX&sig=ObZss13VJw_qVpgY-USSZAcsFfw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MhbiU9z5BsGMyATa-4D4Cg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20tempting%20to%20go%20one%20step%20furt her%20and%20speculate%20that%20the%20entire%20univ erse%20evolved%20from%20literally%20nothing%22&f=false

Let's quote the whole thing. The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing




Paul Davies: "This "quantum cosmology" provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing without violating any laws of physics".

This was the only quote I could find but it makes sense given the text of the out of quote one.

How did nothing become something and then explode?
Paul Davies’ answer is that it happened through quantum physics applied to cosmology. He says, ‘This “quantum cosmology” provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating any laws of physics.’18



Edward Tryon: "... our universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum or state of nothingness"

http://books.google.com/books?id=qcAt-iSl2q0C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=our+universe+had+its+physical+origin+as+a+quant um+fluctuation+of+some+pre-existing+true+vacuum+or+state+of+nothingness%22&source=bl&ots=Vf_irDjiER&sig=IW2xpI4TSfo73RFfOKw3ddK_It4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ah3iU86bC9ejyASo0YKwAw&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=our%20universe%20had%20its%20physical%20origin%2 0as%20a%20quantum%20fluctuation%20of%20some%20pre-existing%20true%20vacuum%20or%20state%20of%20nothi ngness%22&f=false


In normal circumstances, such pairs vanish after an exceedingly brief time: there persistence would violate energy conservation(which hols up over macroscopic times in quantum theory, but may be violated for microscopic durations because of a time-energy uncertainty relation). But if there were a spontaneous quantum fluctuation yielding a system with zero net energy, that system could persist forever. In principle, there is no limit to how large such a fluctuation could be. So I conjectured that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre- existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness. Thus stood matters when my proposal of creation ex nihilo was published in Nature December 1973




Such conceptions might be acceptable if these men were stand-up comics, but they are not. They are highly educated men who appear have studied themselves into imbecility. It is the final destination of atheism. An idea that fittingly leads to nowhere, but where else can they retreat to other than into absurdity after they've so artfully painted themselves into the corner.

Oh the irony of your words. You didn't even bother to put those quotes into proper context and the last guy proposed creation ex nihilo.

Way to go. :lol:


There really is no depths as to how low Christians will sink to avoiding admitting truth.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-06-2014, 08:13 AM
1221

This diagram was created by the researchers who sequenced the chimp genome. The circular pie charts show the type of sequence as a percentage of the total chromosome in both chimps and man.

In chimps 14.7 mb of the chromosome has Ampliconic sequences - characterised by palindromic repeats, where as in the human chromosome the ampliconic only occupies 10.2 mb, a difference of 17% of the entire chromosome

In addition, the human chromosome has an X transposed region of 3.5 mb, that is completely missing in the chimp - a difference of 13.17% of the entire chromosome.

As you can see from the banded bars at the top of the diagram, the distribution of these regions is quite different between chimpanzee and human.

In the X-degenerate region 16 genes occur I the human, but in the chimp there are only 12.

The authors state that overall, the chimp y chromosome contains only 66% as many distinct genes as the human and only 50% as many protein coding transcription units.

This matches well with what I calculated using a simple gene count from ncbi for the Y Chromosome - see below.

Results for Gene Count Each Chromosome



Chromosome
Man
Chimp
% Difference


1
3958
2977
32.95%


2
2787
999 + 994
39.83%


3
2203
1698
29.74%


4
1702
1251
36.05%


5
1892
1430
32.3%


6
2302
1809
27.25%


7
2146
1779
17.1%


8
1534
1091
40.6%


9
1742
1241
40.37%


10
1607
1151
39.61%


11
2364
1678
40.88%


12
1950
1527
27.7%


13
993
542
83.2%


14
1655
1044
58.52%


15
1428
934
52.89%


16
1535
1183
29.75%


17
2010
1565
28.43%


18
657
505
30.09%


19
2188
1810
20.88%


20
1014
764
32.72%


21
584
366
59.56%


22
956
650
47.07%


X
1805
1379
30.89%


Y
458
278
64%




However, I found the same magnitude of gene number differences persisting throughout all the other chromosomes too .


Returning to the diagram posted by L67 which showed identical banding for the Y Chromosome between Chimps and Man. L67's diagram seems to be at odds with the very different contrasting banding shown in the diagram above.

David M
08-06-2014, 08:38 AM
Everyone has a motive - for some it is pro-Bible, for others it is anti-Bible - either way everyone has a motive.

But when conversation becomes MERELY a discussion of people's motives, then it becomes merely a personal attack, rather than a discussion of facts.

It is facts that we are discussing here - not people.

Remember that my only intention is to post facts, not to engage in personal dialog. Today I posted a fact which was - I counted the number of genes in Chromosome 13 of Chimpanzees and in Chromosome 13 of humans

Hello Craig
This is a position seen often. I have accepted your facts for what they are. I pointed out that the drawing presented by L67 from another website was not telling us the full picture and was misleading and not comparing apples with apples.

Instead of copying and pasting links and irrelevant parts of websites and other articles in opposition to you, they should extract the relevant facts. If there is only a 1.6% variation in gene count and DNA length, then the facts supporting that should be extracted from the sources and presented. The facts can then be argued. Instead, the facts are thrown aside and personal remarks are made. The next step I have been waiting for is for L67 to give the corresponding gene count for Chimpanzees.

It is easy to see a possible connection between different looking arms and legs etc., which are component parts of God's creation.

I would be interested to have a side by side comparison of just one chromosome comparing the gene count between humans and chimpanzees and identifying what each gene or sets of genes is responsible for. That might be work in progress with a long way to go. A direct comparison would eventually show differences that explain the difference between humans and chimpanzees, which explains why chimpanzees have a smaller gene count. The genes must have some function. What is the chimpanzee lacking and humans have, and vice versa. One would expect a high degree of similarity in the chromosomes, since a leg and an arm whether human or chimpanzee has an elbow, shoulders, wrist etc that have great similarity. There is both similarity and variations. These are the building blocks God used, which look different but function almost identically. This is not unlike building structures out of Leggo bricks to look similar and function the same.

I shall wait to see what corresponding facts come from L67 or Richard to the facts you have given in your human/chimpanzee chromosome gene-count table.

David

Craig.Paardekooper
08-06-2014, 08:45 AM
Experiment to Determine the Distribution of Exons Between Chimp and Human for Chromosome 13

As you know, exons are the regions of the dna that code for proteins, and these regions are found located between stop and start signals. I was therefore curious to find out the distribution of stop and start codons in the Chimp genome, and compare this to the distribution in the human genome.


Method

In order to carry this out, I will

1. get a copy of chimp chromosome 13 in text format from ncbi database.

2. get a copy of human chromosome 13 in text format from ncbi database

3. Loop through the first 1,000,000 letters of chimp chromosome 13 and convert the bases into an aminoacid sequence

4. I will then loop through the aminoacid sequence and record the position of each MET and each STOP, and the distance in AAs between them.

5. I will do the same for the human chromosome 13


Hypothesis being Tested

If chromosome 13 varies by only 5% , as evolution literature claims it will follow that

1. the number of exons that my software detects in chimps should vary by only 5% from the number of exons in humans.

2. the exons should occupy positions in the chromosome that vary by only 5% from the position occupied in humans

3. the length of the exons in the chimps should vary by only 5% of the length of exons in humans.

4. the content of the exons in chimps should vary by only 5% from the content of the exons in humans


So I will carry out this test. If it turns out that chimp chromosome 13 varies from the human by only 5%, I am willing to acknowledge that I am just a chimp.

David M
08-06-2014, 08:56 AM
So I will carry out this test. If it turns out that all the other chromosomes vary from the human by only 5%, I am willing to acknowledge that I am just a chimp.

But could a chimp ever do what you are doing by presenting these scientific facts? You would make for an highly intelligent chimp.

Maybe we should start using highly intelligent chimps to do our work for us and then Rose can campaign on behalf of chimps claiming 'Chimpanzee Rights' and an end to chimpanzee slavery.



David

jce
08-06-2014, 08:58 AM
Wow,you don't even realize what these men were even saying because you copied and pasted this crap from some creationist website..
I fully concur with your assessment that such suggestions are, well... in your own words, "crap".


Let's quote the whole thing. The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing

What is so tempting about the belief of something from nothing via natural processes? Does this concept "tempt " you to believe it?


This was the only quote I could find but it makes sense given the text of the out of quote one.

How did nothing become something and then explode?
Paul Davies’ answer is that it happened through quantum physics applied to cosmology. He says, ‘This “quantum cosmology” provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating any laws of physics.’18

http://books.google.com/books?id=qcAt-iSl2q0C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=our+universe+had+its+physical+origin+as+a+quant um+fluctuation+of+some+pre-existing+true+vacuum+or+state+of+nothingness%22&source=bl&ots=Vf_irDjiER&sig=IW2xpI4TSfo73RFfOKw3ddK_It4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ah3iU86bC9ejyASo0YKwAw&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=our%20universe%20had%20its%20physical%20origin%2 0as%20a%20quantum%20fluctuation%20of%20some%20pre-existing%20true%20vacuum%20or%20state%20of%20nothi ngness%22&f=false


In normal circumstances, such pairs vanish after an exceedingly brief time: there persistence would violate energy conservation(which hols up over macroscopic times in quantum theory, but may be violated for microscopic durations because of a time-energy uncertainty relation). But if there were a spontaneous quantum fluctuation yielding a system with zero net energy, that system could persist forever. In principle, there is no limit to how large such a fluctuation could be. So I conjectured that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre- existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness. Thus stood matters when my proposal of creation ex nihilo was published in Nature December 1973

Perhaps this is just not a very popular idea to the majority of the scientific community. If this type of logic appeals to you, then rejoice in it. I prefer to dismiss it as nonsense.



Oh the irony of your words. You didn't even bother to put those quotes into proper context and the last guy proposed creation ex nihilo.

Way to go. :lol:

Irony in my words? Creation ex nihilo" is a Biblical Truth. The first statement set forth by the Creator implying that He brought forth "something from nothing". Those are His Words. I'll trust that He knows what He's talking about. As for the other guys, well, my guess is they're probably still working on the math.


There really is no depths as to how low Christians will sink to avoiding admitting truth.

There is only one foundation that will sink in the final analysis, and that is the shifting sands of the wisdom of men over the Word of God. Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world and stated that by the wisdom of men, He would not be found? In the predetermined council of His own will, God designated the foolishness of preaching the Word to save them that believe. There is a Biblical truth that all men are fools. They can be divided as follows: "Those who say there is no God", and "Those who are fools for Christ". I find myself willing, by His grace, to be found in the latter group, where there is most certainly, no worldly prestige.

John

Rose
08-06-2014, 08:58 AM
Hello Rose

As my table indicates, the Y Chromosome is not alone in having a large dissimilarity between Chimp and Man. The same dissimilarity extends throughout all the chromosomes, where the number of genes varies by up to 83 % - the average gene number difference being 40%.

The original predicted level of similarity by evolutionists was 95-98 % for all chromosomes. However the actual level of similarity is much lower for all chromosomes as my table proves - either we gained 40% more genes, or the chimps lost 40% of theirs.

It seems likely that if any creature suffered 40% loss of their genes they would die for sure. And if we have gained 40% more genes then that would require the modification of almost half our DNA, and we would be a new creature.

I will not offer interpretations or explanations until I have gathered more information to establish a clearer picture of the percentages of each type of gene in the chimp chromosomes and their distribution, and how these compare with humans.

Hello Craig,

The differences between human and chimp genomes is most likely a combination of deletions, insertions, duplications and accelerated evolution, occurring over the 6 millions years since we diverged from our chimp cousins.


Comparing the human and chimp genomes (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long):


"Gene duplication via segmental duplication or retrotransposition of mRNA sequences is an evolutionary mechanism for creating new genes with new biological functions. Duplicated genes can become nonfunctional (pseudogenes), neofunctional (acquire a new function), or subfunctional (adopt a portion of the previous function) (Ohno 1999 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-95); Hurles 2004 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-63)). Such species-specific changes in copy number of gene families may allow for the evolution of new functions unique to the species—and are thus pertinent loci for investigation. A recent study reported that 33% of human duplications are human specific (Cheng et al. 2005 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-19)); and with an estimated 200-300 species-specific retroposed gene copies in humans and chimpanzees (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-20)), there is an ample landscape to explore."



"Identify genes and gene families showing evidence of human-specific rapid evolution

Genes that have the signature of accelerated evolution (Clark et al. 2003 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-23); Nielsen et al. 2005 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-94)), i.e., a high ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitutions (Ka/Ks ratios), are good candidates for further study. In particular, genes that show Ka/Ks >1 are possible targets of positive selection (Messier and Stewart 1997 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-87); Yang and Bielawski 2000 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-128)) ..."



"Repetitive elements such as LINEs (long interspersed elements) and SINEs (short interspersed elements) can duplicate and spread throughout the genome by reverse transcription, causing potentially important functional changes in coding and flanking sequences (Smit 1999 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-110); Carroll et al. 2001 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-16)). Alu elements are the most abundant class of SINEs in humans, making up ∼10% of the genome (Lander et al. 2001 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-76)), where they apparently expanded up to three times more than in the chimpanzee genome (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005 (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long#ref-20))."

Rose
08-06-2014, 09:18 AM
So I will carry out this test. If it turns out that all the other chromosomes vary from the human by only 5%, I am willing to acknowledge that I am just a chimp.

Hello Craig

You have made a BIG point of saying you are not going to address personal comments and then you make a comment like that?

So, if you vary by 5% you're just a chimp ... what about 6%?

Humans are made up of the same genetic material (DNA) as all life on the planet, the ONLY thing that sets us apart is our self-awareness ... that is what gives us the ability to use reason and logic.

Other than that, we are all just organic matter. :p


Kind regards,
Rose

Craig.Paardekooper
08-06-2014, 10:03 AM
My apologies.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-06-2014, 08:05 PM
Good evening John, :yo:



Where's the empirical evidence?

Here's the list of Ph.D. peer reviewed professional scientists that you dismiss without an ounce of logic, reason, or intelligence:

Jennifer F. Hughes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Hughes%20JF%5Bauth%5D), Helen Skaletsky (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Skaletsky%20H%5Bauth%5D), Tatyana Pyntikova (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Pyntikova%20T%5Bauth%5D), Tina A. Graves (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Graves%20TA%5Bauth%5D), Saskia K. M. van Daalen (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=van%20Daalen%20SK%5Bauth%5D), Patrick J. Minx (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Minx%20PJ%5Bauth%5D), Robert S. Fulton (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Fulton%20RS%5Bauth%5D), Sean D. McGrath (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=McGrath%20SD%5Bauth%5D), Devin P. Locke (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Locke%20DP%5Bauth%5D), Cynthia Friedman (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Friedman%20C%5Bauth%5D), Barbara J. Trask (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Trask%20BJ%5Bauth%5D), Elaine R. Mardis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Mardis%20ER%5Bauth%5D), Wesley C. Warren (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Warren%20WC%5Bauth%5D), Sjoerd Repping (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Repping%20S%5Bauth%5D), Steve Rozen (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Rozen%20S%5Bauth%5D), Richard K. Wilson (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Wilson%20RK%5Bauth%5D), and David C. Page (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Page%20DC%5Bauth%5D)

Don't you think it a tad bit arrogant to ignorantly dismiss all those serious scientists and the evidence they worked so hard to collect and present?

Richard

When your time finally arrives to depart this earth, not one named on this list will be there to argue your case. You may be required to explain it in great detail on your own, a task I'd rather leave to a good defense attorney. I know a Good One.

You have made a fine art of dodging my points John. If we are to be judged after we die, it seems likely that you will have many more unjustified words to account for than I.

I listed those seventeen scientists to help you see the abject absurdity of the irrational faith you have placed in demonstrably deceptive creationists. You dismiss the solid peer reviewed work of a vast array of expert scientists - many of whom are Christians - without any justification whatsoever. You rejected their paper as not presenting any evidence when in fact that's what their paper is all about. The first sentence that you challenged was supported by two references to the peer reviewed work of three other scientists, which itself was based on the work of hundreds if not thousands of others. Your judgment is demonstrably unjust. If truth really is a person named Jesus, I can not help but conclude that you have offended him greatly.

Here's the problem - creationists have a cartoonish caricature of science. They have no idea of how it really works, the number of people involved or how very competitive the discipline is. Science itself is fundamentally Darwinian - only the theories that can stand in light of criticism and evidence survive. That's why the scientific method has transformed the world. We wouldn't be having this conversation on the internet if it were not for the fruit of science. Religion has never produced anything like it. On the contrary, religion opposes all truth revealed by science if it conflicts with the ignorant dogmas inherited from primitive superstitious men.

To get an idea of the magnitude of the scientific enterprise, here is a list of the authors from another article Mammalian Y chromosomes retain widely expressed dosage-sensitive regulators (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24759411) coauthored by Hughes, the first person in the list above. This paper was coauthored by 28 scientists!

Bellott DW, Hughes JF, Skaletsky H, Brown LG, Pyntikova T, Cho TJ, Koutseva N, Zaghlul S, Graves T, Rock S, Kremitzki C, Fulton RS, Dugan S, Ding Y, Morton D, Khan Z, Lewis L, Buhay C, Wang Q, Watt J, Holder M, Lee S, Nazareth L, Rozen S, Muzny DM, Warren WC, Gibbs RA, Wilson RK, Page DC.

And each of those scientist wrote many other papers that were coauthored by many other scientists and they supported their findings with citations from hundreds if not thousands of other peer reviewed papers involving every scientific discipline (astronomy, biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, etc., etc., etc.). So when you mindlessly attack evolution, you are actually attacking the entire integrated body of science that has proven itself a a billion times a day in the modern world it has produced.




Modern science is "highly suspect" in light of an ancient storybook written by primitive men totally ignorant of modern science? Wow. Seriously?

Is this "ancient storybook" not the same compilation of writings from which we get the Bible Wheel? Which is it Richard, are these men as you so derogatorily label "ignorant primitives" or are they rather to be credited with the following (in your words) accomplishment?

Never in the history of the world has anyone beheld such a profoundly compact and reiterative compound symbol in the structure of any book, let alone a book that proclaims itself Divine, that defines and exemplifies the symbols in its own text, that was composed in three languages over a period of fifteen hundred years by multiple individuals from all walks of life, that transformed the world with its message, and that kept its secret hidden for centuries after its completion only to be revealed when it was simply "rolled up like a scroll" on the alphabetic pattern established within its own pages!

It appears to me that you must either credit the Bible God, or these primitive ignorants for the Obviously, blazing immutable miracle.

Wow, you did it again. True to form, you totally missed my point. I was talking specifically about he scientific ignorance of the Bible authors. Nothing in that quote from my book says anything about that. Indeed, even when I was a fundamentalist I could see through the lies that you believe. It is absolutely impossible to make the Bible cohere with modern science, aka reality. I trust that is a sufficiently "absolute" statement for you.

But I'm glad you brought up the Bible Wheel. What it means and how it was formed remains a mystery. The integrity of my heart and mind that enabled me to discern the patterns in the Bible is the same integrity that compels me to declare that it is not "true" in the sense you believe. How it was formed and what it means remains a mystery, and I have sufficient integrity to admit that too despite the fact that you can use it to push your agenda. There may be other possible explanations. The most obvious is COGNITIVE BIAS. Like all believers, I was a "magical thinker" at the time I wrote the book. I would scan the books on each spoke looking for "connections." My book only reports on the "connections" I found. This is the definition of a SELECTION BIAS which may well invalidate the entire pattern, though I am not convinced of this yet. But I do know that some selection bias played a role, so I need to think about it more. I think it would be great to start a thread to discuss this. Very few people, in all the years since I wrote the book and started this forum, have engaged me in any serious discussion of it.




The "vast ages" are supported by ten thousand facts. Just look at the stars. They are billions of light years away, which means the universe is billions of years old. The authors of the Bible knew nothing of the real nature of physical reality.

Your answer to the vast ages implies that there is no alternative other than another man-made theory that is filled with gaps. By acceptance of the big bang as a foregone conclusion to the origin of the universe, would it not be important to, not necessarily have "all knowledge", but at least enough to explain the process without gaps. Your conclusion that the bang is the only process by which the universe exists also dismisses the idea that God may have stretched out the heavens in a moment of time.

My answer had nothing to do with the Big Bang. The universe could be a steady-state and the same implication would remain. The fact that the stars are billions of light years away implies the light began to travel billions of years ago. And that's just one fact amongst dozens that imply a very old universe.

Your reference to "man made theories" is ludicrous in light of your blind belief in the man-made doctrine of infallibility. Who are you to tell God what he can do in His Own Word? He never defined what books books belong in the Bible, let alone that he would keep each of them free from all error! What kind of arrogance rules the minds of the fundamentalists? I rejected the man-made dogma of infallibility even when I was fully convinced the Bible was "God's Word" because I respected GOD as the author and could see that he most certainly designed it to look like it had errors. Apologists who attempt to defend it as infallible make God to look like an imbecile scribbling with crayons, who needs "brilliant apologists" to correct the incoherent mess that he inspired. Nothing could be more absurd. Remember, this was my judgment when I was the more firm and fully convinced believer. Folks who create the blatantly absurd man-made doctrine of infallibility completely disrespect God as its author and make him look like an idiot. Yet I believed the Bible was "inspired" and "God's Word." How then did I reconcile these seemingly contrary ideas? I concluded that God designed the Bible (the Written Word of God) in analogy with Christ (the Living Word of God). Just as Christ was fully human and fully divine, subject even to death, so the Bible had all the signs of being a fully human and fully divine book. I explained away the contradictions as there by design. Like Christ, the Bible was a stumbling stone to unbelievers, but a precious cornerstone to believers. I used to say that the Bible had everything a believer needed to believe, and everything an unbeliever needed to "unbelieve." I had a long interest in the analogy between Christ and the Word - I addressed this topic in my book and it was the topic of one of the first threads (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?25-Analogies-between-the-Living-and-the-Written-Word) I started on this forum way back on June 9, 2007.

What "gaps" do you see in our knowledge of the physical evolution of the universe following the Big Bang?

I have never said that "the bang is the only process by which the universe exists." Where did you get that idea?

The idea that "God may have stretched out the heavens in a moment of time" explains nothing. Do you have any idea what the scientific term "expansion of the universe" means and how it relates to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity? Of course not. Your speculations are vain.



How can one simply dismiss the reality of an all powerful supernatural Creator in exchange for such a presumptuous assertion that it had to be naturally occurring?

It's funny that you would ask that because humans have been making up theories about gods for millennia and I thought you didn't want to believe in "man made" theories.

:lol:

But seriously, that's an excellent question. There are many aspects to the answer. First, the idea of an "all powerful supernatural Creator" explains nothing. It's just a placeholder for a GAP in our knowledge. It's like saying "I-don't-know did it." It's just an appeal to magic and ignorance. And worse, it is logically incoherent because a being existing in timeless eternity could not "act" in any way at all because time did not exist. But it couldn't create time, because that would be an act! The concept makes no sense at all.

Now if you wanted to dispense with the silly man-made theory that God exists "outside time" then we may have something to talk about. In that case, such a God could act. But then we are confronted with the fact that your God intelligently designed the Bot Fly to eat the eyes of children. And we are confronted with the fact that your God chose to let millions of people die horrible deaths (even as they begged him for mercy) of diseases that atheists scientists are able to cure and who never would deny healing to a single person. I could go on, but I trust you get the picture. Your idea of God creates many more problems than it solves. There is no sign of any god anywhere and people have always been making up gods and the god of the Bible is indistinguishable from those other gods, and worse, he established institutionalize slavery and sexism. And I could go on ...

As for the appeal to naturalism ... it's only natural! Just look around you. Is there anything observable that requires a god for an explanation. I'm not talking about speculations about origins. I'm talking about hard science that can be observed in the here and now. Everything is explained by natural law. No god need apply. Do you disagree?



Some have argued that it would be deceptive of God to give the appearance of long ages in the heavens. God is deceiving no one for He cannot lie. He has stated very clearly in the Bible that He is the one who created these things. There is nothing wrong with trying to figure out "how" He did it. The problem lies in man's effort to remove Him from the equation. He must be disappointed that he is left out of the conversation.

It takes no effort to remove something that isn't there, and great effort to insert it. That's what you are doing - trying to insert god into science where he has no role.

You are repeating the most common creationist paranoid delusion - the idea that scientists are motivated by a desire to "remove god." Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists search for explanations of how the world works. If there were any evidence that required a god, no scientist could - and few would if they could - ignore it because scientists are the quintessential truth seekers. And they are hard-core about it. They play hardball. Knock-down drag-out SHOW ME THE FACTS OR SHUT UP! That's what scientists are all about. It's fundamentally Darwinian and the competition is FIERCE. The are thousands of fighters out there trying to make a name for themselves by proving other scientists wrong. Creationists don't have a clue what science is really all about.




Dude! Have you no conception of the basic meaning of words? The word "indicates" means exactly that. The fact I see the leaves rustle indicates the wind is blowing. It seems you are so lost in your fundamentalist certainty that you think everyone should speak in absolutes. That's not how intelligent and scientific people talk, because they know that human knowledge is limited.

Not sure if "Dude" is any better than "hillbillie". Should I take it as a compliment?

The Dude Abides! (The Big Lebowski)




I've noticed that you and David M like to highlight words that indicate points of uncertainty in scientific papers

Words and their meaning are very important, for it is by our choice of words that we will be justified or condemned.

Indeed. I refer you back to my first paragraph in this post.

I'm really glad you are persisting in this conversation.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Craig.Paardekooper
08-06-2014, 09:58 PM
Here are the start and stop positions of each of the 278 genes in Chimps ChY

Ref : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/maps.cgi?TAXID=9598&CHR=Y&MAPS=cntg-r,sts,genes[1.00%3A26342871.00]&CMD=TXT#1

start stop Symbol O Links E Description

22257 23520 LOC100614650 + sv dl ev protein double homeobox protein 4-like protein 4-like
27745 29302 LOC100615210 + sv dl ev protein double homeobox protein 4-like protein 4-like
175520 176963 LOC100614742 + sv dl ev protein double homeobox protein 4-like protein 4-like
181150 182914 LOC100614826 + sv dl ev mRNA double homeobox protein 4-like protein 4-like
189564 238203 LOC100615389 - sv pr dl ev hm protein sodium/hydrogen exchanger 9B1-like
244662 246032 LOC100614916 + sv dl ev protein actin-related protein 3B-like
279250 290412 LOC101059303 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101059303
322428 323170 LOC100615501 - sv dl ev protein Ig kappa chain V-I region Walker-like
570938 571961 LOC100615683 - sv dl ev mRNA putative uncharacterized protein FLJ44672-like
626539 627073 LOC100615874 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100615874
628971 635446 LOC750033 + sv dl ev sts protein putative golgin subfamily A member 8D-like
644825 654570 LOC750025 - sv dl ev mRNA uncharacterized LOC750025
663355 669644 LOC750021 - sv dl ev mRNA putative golgin subfamily A member 6-like protein 10-like
678785 697401 LOC101059487 - sv dl ev protein ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2 Q2-like
767969 770799 CDY1 + sv pr dl ev sts mRNA chromodomain protein, Y-linked, 1
824436 836578 LOC100609267 - sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
882780 883132 LOC100608190 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific XK-related protein, Y-linked 2-like
887551 895625 LOC750009 + sv dl ev protein actin, cytoplasmic 2-like
907205 923439 LOC100609449 + sv dl ev protein PTPN13-like protein, Y-linked-like
923530 949505 LOC750007 + sv dl ev mRNA glutamate dehydrogenase 1, mitochondrial-like
951100 952518 HSFY1 + sv dl ev mRNA heat shock transcription factor, Y-linked-like
1031539 1046017 LOC100609828 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100609828
1328757 1342331 LOC101058205 - sv pr dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
1592206 1628157 LOC101058746 - sv pr dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101058746
1722481 1733879 LOC473251 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 3-like
1733883 1765993 LOC749973 + sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
1795898 1796671 LOC100608312 - sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
2015883 2016656 LOC100608582 + sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
2046537 2060678 RBMY1F - sv dl ev mRNA RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
2065115 2068296 LOC749956 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC749956
2070391 2073127 TSPY2 + sv dl ev mRNA testis-specific Y-encoded protein 4-like
2081153 2083889 TSPY2 + sv dl ev mRNA testis-specific Y-encoded protein 4-like
2091915 2094467 TSPY2 + sv dl ev mRNA testis-specific Y-encoded protein 4-like
2113146 2122559 LOC749954 - sv pr dl ev hm protein uncharacterized LOC749954
2124065 2125870 TSPY1 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 3-like
2194569 2196438 LOC749951 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 3-like
2442372 2442524 PANTROV1R-PS302 + sv dl ev best RefSeq vomeronasal 1 receptor panTroV1R-ps302 pseudogene
2506631 2507930 LOC473414 - sv dl ev protein C-terminal-binding protein 2-like
2538128 2538529 LOC101058594 - sv dl ev protein putative uncharacterized protein FLJ11871-like
2551542 2555930 LOC101058474 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101058474
2586406 2593302 LOC736038 + sv dl ev protein carboxy-terminal domain RNA polymerase II polypeptide A small phosphatase 2-like
2690031 2696927 LOC100610885 - sv dl ev protein carboxy-terminal domain RNA polymerase II polypeptide A small phosphatase 2-like
2727378 2731766 LOC101058521 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101058521
2744779 2745180 LOC101058715 + sv dl ev protein putative uncharacterized protein FLJ11871-like
2775387 2776686 LOC100611075 + sv dl ev protein C-terminal-binding protein 2-like
2840802 2840954 PANTROV1R-PS299 - sv dl ev best RefSeq vomeronasal 1 receptor panTroV1R-ps299 pseudogene
3061570 3069936 GLUD1 + sv dl ev protein glutamate dehydrogenase 1, mitochondrial-like
3071633 3072960 HSFY1 + sv dl ev protein heat shock transcription factor, Y-linked-like
3161629 3176161 LOC749924 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC749924
3270518 3272716 LOC100611166 + sv dl ev protein tubulin beta-8 chain-like
3334676 3365586 LOC100612530 - sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
3385153 3398080 LOC100612615 - sv dl ev protein ras-related protein Rab-9A-like
3420094 3420574 LOC100612720 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific XK-related protein, Y-linked-like
3442365 3454889 LOC100611521 + sv dl ev protein PTPN13-like protein, Y-linked-like
3522247 3533409 LOC101057240 - sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 9 protein-like
3534058 3561414 LOC100612923 - sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
3683136 3724896 DAZ3 - sv pr dl ev sts mRNA deleted in azoospermia 3
3745337 3830504 DAZ1 + sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA DAZ protein|deleted in azoospermia 4
4263681 4264079 LOC100613225 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100613225
4274464 4283867 LOC100612134 - sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member A1-like
4319032 4346640 LOC100613329 + sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
4347289 4358455 LOC101057398 + sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 9 protein-like
4425837 4438370 LOC100612233 - sv dl ev protein PTPN13-like protein, Y-linked-like
4460143 4460623 LOC100613510 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific XK-related protein, Y-linked-like
4482549 4495553 LOC100613584 + sv dl ev protein ras-related protein Rab-9A-like
4515123 4544827 LOC100613679 + sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
4607947 4610145 LOC100612322 - sv dl ev protein tubulin beta-8 chain-like
4707678 4712700 LOC100613762 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100613762
4825541 4854492 LOC749862 - sv dl ev mRNA actin, cytoplasmic 2-like
4858910 4859262 LOC100612430 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific XK-related protein, Y-linked 2-like
4905472 4928437 LOC100614045 + sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein homolog
4971964 4974200 CDY1 - sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA chromodomain protein, Y-linked, 1
5135536 5137515 CDY1 + sv pr dl ev sts best RefSeq chromodomain protein, Y-linked, 1
5190192 5204237 LOC100614984 - sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
5250434 5250786 LOC100614709 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific XK-related protein, Y-linked 2-like
5255204 5284163 LOC749843 + sv dl ev mRNA actin, cytoplasmic 2-like
5274875 5291066 LOC100615178 + sv dl ev protein PTPN13-like protein, Y-linked-like
5397052 5401846 LOC100615358 - sv dl ev protein adenylate kinase isoenzyme 6-like
5687351 5701003 LOC101059674 - sv pr dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
5862448 5863599 LOC101056806 - sv pr dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
5985868 5986785 LOC101056852 - sv pr dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
6081453 6092852 LOC100615753 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 3-like
6092856 6125006 LOC100615847 + sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
6154953 6155726 LOC100614796 - sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
6211871 6213430 LOC100499476 + sv pr dl ev best RefSeq MTRNR2-like
6543497 6544468 LOC100614888 - sv pr dl ev mRNA putative transcript Y 12 protein-like
6579148 6634791 LOC100616501 + sv dl ev protein raftlin-like
6635248 6635477 LOC101059769 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101059769
6670363 6672042 LOC100608119 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 3-like
6678292 6688030 LOC100608229 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100608229
6698400 6698978 LOC100608345 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100608345
7251193 7253100 LOC100608439 + sv dl ev protein cell division cycle 27 homolog (S. cerevisiae) pseudogene
7369585 7371463 LOC100608525 - sv dl ev mRNA cell division cycle protein 27 homolog
7373146 7376371 LOC101057756 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101057756
8102739 8127287 LOC100611198 + sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
8142048 8143711 LOC735401 - sv dl ev protein heat shock transcription factor, Y-linked-like
8149567 8187408 LOC735503 + sv dl ev sts mRNA XK-related protein 3-like
8226456 8232370 LOC100608698 + sv dl ev protein lymphocyte-specific protein 1-like
8274223 8374874 LOC100611463 + sv dl ev protein lymphocyte-specific protein 1-like
8377695 8378118 LOC101059623 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101059623
8380884 8408950 LOC100611561 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100611561
8611889 8612278 LOC100611663 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100611663
8623806 8635251 LOC736159 - sv pr dl ev sts mRNA RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member A1-like
8636075 8639391 LOC100611855 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 3-like
8644597 8958025 LOC736411 - sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
8987228 9009860 LOC101057573 - sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
9019939 9023509 LOC736673 - sv pr dl ev hm protein uncharacterized LOC736673
9023618 9026967 LOC100612200 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 2-like
9049021 9052321 LOC736791 + sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member B-like
9055820 9060837 LOC100612401 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 1-like
9061712 9076177 LOC736145 + sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
9105808 9106581 LOC100608901 - sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
9325791 9326564 LOC100609201 + sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
9356480 9368679 LOC100609298 - sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
9380076 9693919 LOC737503 - sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
9723156 9727314 LOC101057788 - sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member B-like
9755877 9759447 LOC100612894 - sv pr dl ev hm protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 3-like
9759556 9762906 LOC100612989 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 2-like
9785334 9789184 LOC737897 + sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
9792681 9797500 LOC100613185 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 1-like
9800581 9812771 LOC100609450 + sv pr dl ev hm sts protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
9842689 9843462 LOC100609600 - sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
10059364 10060137 LOC100609889 + sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
10089765 10104285 RBMY1F - sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member A1
10138981 10142330 LOC101057971 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 2-like
10142439 10146009 LOC101058022 + sv pr dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101058022
10156088 10178718 LOC101058059 + sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
10207940 10214586 LOC101058090 + sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member B-like
10225112 10226434 LOC101058129 + sv dl ev protein putative uncharacterized protein CYorf17-like
10295600 10296230 LOC101058165 - sv dl ev protein ras-related protein Rab-9A-like
10338209 10338839 LOC101058206 + sv dl ev protein ras-related protein Rab-9A-like
10407978 10409300 LOC101058232 - sv dl ev protein putative uncharacterized protein CYorf17-like
10419831 10426479 LOC738600 - sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member B-like
10455724 10478386 LOC101058303 - sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
10488461 10492031 LOC738831 - sv pr dl ev hm protein uncharacterized LOC738831
10492140 10495489 LOC100613649 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 2-like
10524344 10529361 LOC100613829 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 1-like
10532227 10544510 RBMY1J + sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member J
10574337 10575110 LOC100610358 - sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
10794301 10795074 LOC100610640 + sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
10824976 10836649 RBMY1F - sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
10845271 10849914 LOC739485 - sv pr dl ev hm sts protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 1-like
10852304 10854855 LOC473888 + sv dl ev sts protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 4-like
10863158 10865904 TSPY2 + sv dl ev mRNA testis-specific Y-encoded protein 4-like
10884411 10893826 LOC739636 - sv pr dl ev hm protein uncharacterized LOC739636
10895332 10897137 TSPY1 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 3-like
10956537 10964674 LOC100614111 - sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member B-like
10965111 10967756 LOC739785 - sv dl ev mRNA testis-specific Y-encoded protein 4-like
11207568 11208867 LOC100614199 - sv dl ev protein C-terminal-binding protein 2-like
11239282 11239683 LOC101058579 - sv dl ev protein putative uncharacterized protein FLJ11871-like
11252695 11257091 LOC101057241 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101057241
11428494 11432885 LOC101057274 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101057274
11445898 11446299 LOC101058621 + sv dl ev protein putative uncharacterized protein FLJ11871-like
11476707 11478006 LOC100614675 + sv dl ev protein C-terminal-binding protein 2-like
11737464 11745830 LOC740402 + sv dl ev protein glutamate dehydrogenase 1, mitochondrial-like
11747427 11748846 HSFY1 + sv dl ev mRNA heat shock transcription factor, Y-linked-like
11834535 11849066 LOC100608028 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100608028
11883090 11887408 LOC101058703 + sv dl ev mRNA uncharacterized LOC101058703
11943395 11945593 LOC473897 + sv dl ev protein tubulin beta-8 chain-like
12017508 12038695 LOC100608120 - sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
12058273 12071220 LOC100608230 - sv dl ev protein ras-related protein Rab-9A-like
12093180 12093660 LOC100608346 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific XK-related protein, Y-linked-like
12115471 12127997 LOC100614941 + sv dl ev protein PTPN13-like protein, Y-linked-like
12195356 12206514 LOC101058799 - sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 9 protein-like
12207163 12234522 LOC100608526 - sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
12269707 12279109 LOC473903 + sv dl ev sts mRNA RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
12289490 12289888 LOC100608619 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100608619
12722708 12774035 DAZ2 - sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA deleted in azoospermia 2
12794476 12843422 DAZ3 + sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA deleted in azoospermia 3
12965028 12992403 LOC100608902 + sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
12993052 13004215 LOC101058933 + sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 9 protein-like
13071565 13084128 LOC100615813 - sv dl ev protein PTPN13-like protein, Y-linked-like
13105937 13106417 LOC100609116 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific XK-related protein, Y-linked-like
13128423 13141362 LOC100609202 + sv dl ev protein ras-related protein Rab-9A-like
13160932 13181845 LOC100609300 + sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
13253770 13255968 LOC100609390 - sv dl ev protein tubulin beta-8 chain-like
13311741 13316068 LOC100609484 - sv dl ev mRNA uncharacterized LOC100609484
13353366 13375025 LOC741824 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC741824
13491868 13500201 LOC100609862 - sv dl ev mRNA actin, cytoplasmic 2-like
13504622 13504974 LOC100609575 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific XK-related protein, Y-linked 2-like
13551204 13562089 LOC100609942 + sv dl ev protein oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 protein-like
13617588 13619888 CDY1 - sv pr dl ev sts mRNA chromodomain protein, Y-linked, 1
13755852 13758088 CDY2A + sv pr dl ev sts mRNA chromodomain protein, Y-linked, 2A
13870873 13871225 LOC100610162 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific XK-related protein, Y-linked 2-like
13875645 13883729 LOC742134 + sv dl ev mRNA actin, cytoplasmic 2-like
14017397 14022189 LOC100611108 - sv dl ev protein adenylate kinase isoenzyme 6-like
14077078 14078607 LOC100499474 - sv dl ev best RefSeq MTRNR2L pseudogene
14309112 14322626 LOC101056752 - sv pr dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
14484222 14485382 LOC101057116 - sv pr dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
14572654 14608675 LOC101057153 - sv pr dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101057153
14703284 14714685 LOC100611464 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 3-like
14714689 14746837 LOC742998 + sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
14776753 14777526 LOC100610254 - sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
14938666 14940224 LOC100499475 - sv pr dl ev best RefSeq MTRNR2-like
14996138 14996911 LOC100610458 + sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
15016281 15031690 RBMY1F - sv dl ev mRNA RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
15034855 15038043 LOC743372 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC743372
15040092 15042878 TSPY2 + sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA testis-specific Y-encoded protein 4-like
15061581 15071038 LOC743503 - sv pr dl ev hm protein uncharacterized LOC743503
15072544 15074349 TSPY1 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 3-like
15142157 15144778 LOC743629 - sv dl ev mRNA testis-specific Y-encoded protein 4-like
15252481 15271178 LOC740000 - sv dl ev mRNA cell division cycle protein 27 homolog
15272822 15276129 LOC101057382 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101057382
15561246 15563395 PANTROV1R-PS300 + sv dl ev best RefSeq vomeronasal 1 receptor panTroV1R-ps300 pseudogene
15626244 15627543 LOC735402 - sv dl ev protein C-terminal-binding protein 2-like
15657976 15658377 LOC101058291 - sv dl ev protein putative uncharacterized protein FLJ11871-like
15671390 15675800 LOC101058194 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101058194
15697979 15700206 LOC735737 + sv dl ev protein carboxy-terminal domain RNA polymerase II polypeptide A small phosphatase 2-like
15806166 15808393 LOC100612595 - sv dl ev protein carboxy-terminal domain RNA polymerase II polypeptide A small phosphatase 2-like
15830572 15834982 LOC101058223 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101058223
15847995 15848396 LOC101058383 + sv dl ev protein putative uncharacterized protein FLJ11871-like
15878797 15880096 LOC735716 + sv dl ev protein C-terminal-binding protein 2-like
15943945 15944097 PANTROV1R-PS301 - sv dl ev best RefSeq vomeronasal 1 receptor panTroV1R-ps301 pseudogene
16212035 16215339 LOC101058742 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101058742
16216985 16241842 LOC744896 + sv dl ev protein cell division cycle protein 27 homolog
16245290 16248594 LOC101058810 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101058810
16250240 16268933 LOC740038 + sv dl ev protein cell division cycle protein 27 homolog
16376247 16379696 LOC744381 + sv pr dl ev sts mRNA testis-specific Y-encoded protein 4-like
16447501 16449306 TSPY1 - sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 3-like
16450812 16453730 LOC744504 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC744504
16458166 16472568 RBMY1F + sv dl ev sts mRNA RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
16502239 16503012 LOC100608700 - sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
16559115 16560674 MTRNR2L17 + sv pr dl ev best RefSeq MTRNR2-like 17
16722143 16722916 LOC100608903 + sv dl ev protein putative transcript Y 13 protein-like
16752548 16764989 RBMY1F - sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member F
16767854 16772870 LOC100614770 + sv dl ev protein testis-specific Y-encoded protein 1-like
16776370 16780220 LOC744852 - sv dl ev protein RNA-binding motif protein, Y chromosome, family 1 member F/J-like
16802651 16808177 LOC101059018 - sv pr dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101059018
16819776 16882199 LOC101059054 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101059054
16888851 16890175 LOC101059107 + sv pr dl ev protein putative uncharacterized protein CYorf17-like
16911997 16962087 LOC736655 - sv pr dl ev protein RNA binding motif protein, X-linked-like-1-like
17185575 17185793 LOC100609238 + sv pr dl ev hm protein protein kish-A-like
17235159 17250742 LOC100615139 + sv pr dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100615139
17324249 17349736 RPS4Y2 - sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq ribosomal protein S4, Y-linked 2
17363135 17378742 LOC100615327 - sv dl ev protein F-box-like/WD repeat-containing protein TBL1Y-like
17512954 17529681 EIF1AY - sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq eukaryotic translation initiation factor 1A, Y-linked
17553658 17559620 LOC101059258 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101059258
17586521 17639806 LOC741029 + sv pr dl ev sts mRNA putative transcript Y 10 protein-like
18075176 18113380 KDM5D + sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq lysine (K)-specific demethylase 5D
18217853 18227853 CYorf15B - sv pr dl ev sts mRNA chromosome Y open reading frame 15B
18234020 18237182 TXLNGY - sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq putative gamma-taxilin 2
18342311 18344891 LOC101059302 + sv pr dl ev sts protein BCL-6 corepressor-like
18344981 18371217 LOC465993 + sv dl ev sts mRNA BCL-6 corepressor-like
18438261 18439656 LOC101059384 - sv dl ev protein glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase-like
18699389 18849242 TTTY14 + sv dl ev best RefSeq testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 14
18903440 18909289 LOC100609485 + sv pr dl ev mRNA putative uncharacterized protein encoded by NCRNA00185-like
19805957 19807169 LOC100609576 + sv dl ev mRNA family with sequence similarity 8, member A1 pseudogene
19833383 19838754 LOC465983 + sv pr dl ev sts mRNA arylsulfatase E-like
19845115 19883284 LOC745720 + sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA arylsulfatase D-like
19886561 20004590 LOC745793 - sv dl ev sts mRNA uncharacterized LOC745793
20035259 20043330 SHROOM2P1 + sv dl ev sts best RefSeq shroom family member 2 pseudogene 1
20161291 20163492 TTTY15 + sv dl ev best RefSeq Y-linked testis transcript 15
20216950 20361686 USP9Y + sv pr dl ev sts best RefSeq ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked
20407381 20420667 DDX3Y + sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq DEAD (Asp-Glu-Ala-Asp) box polypeptide 3, Y-linked
20670974 20683759 LOC100608231 - sv dl ev mRNA TGF-beta-activated kinase 1 and MAP3K7-binding protein 3-like
20698064 20699906 LOC746087 + sv pr dl ev sts mRNA protein FAM92A1-like
20755944 20756514 LOC100608441 + sv dl ev protein developmental pluripotency associated 2 pseudogene
20811668 20812437 LOC741933 + sv dl ev sts mRNA proteasome (prosome, macropain) subunit, alpha type, 6 pseudogene
20847594 21007003 UTY - sv pr dl ev sts best RefSeq ubiquitously transcribed tetratricopeptide repeat gene, Y-linked
21261696 21264133 LOC100608527 + sv pr dl ev sts mRNA thymosin beta-4, Y-chromosomal-like
21304650 21487245 LOC465975 + sv dl ev sts protein anosmin-1-like
21572563 21573338 LOC742075 - sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA variable charge X-linked protein 3B-like
21659673 21660609 LOC742119 + sv dl ev sts mRNA variable charge X-linked protein 3B-like
22167735 22302691 LOC100611199 - sv dl ev protein steryl-sulfatase-like
22391491 22427239 LOC100611287 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100611287
22939662 23232215 NLGN4Y - sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA neuroligin 4, X-linked
24791622 24822079 LOC473896 - sv pr dl ev sts mRNA matrix-remodeling-associated protein 5-like
24854941 24856427 LOC100611465 + sv pr dl ev sts protein argininosuccinate synthase-like
25135734 25238580 PRKX - sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq protein kinase, X-linked
25402997 25607972 TBL1Y - sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA transducin (beta)-like 1, Y-linked
25616358 25618398 LOC100610795 - sv pr dl ev protein ATP synthase-coupling factor 6, mitochondrial-like
25806970 25815068 AMELY + sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq amelogenin, Y-linked
26005064 26031158 ZFY - sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq zinc finger protein, Y-linked
26056740 26060654 LOC100611666 + sv dl ev protein nucleosome assembly protein 1-like 1-like
26102808 26107092 LOC100611768 + sv dl ev protein heat shock transcription factor, Y-linked-like
26119516 26144595 RPS4Y1 - sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq ribosomal protein S4, Y-linked 1
26202574 26203483 SRY + sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq sex determining region Y
26248138 26300407 CD99 - sv pr dl ev hm sts mRNA CD99 molecule





Here are the Start and Stop Positions of Each of the 458 Genes on Human ChY

Ref : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/maps.cgi?TAXID=9606&CHR=Y&MAPS=cntg-r,sts,genes[1.00%3A26342871.00]&CMD=TXT#1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/maps.cgi?TAXID=9606&CHR=Y&MAPS=cntg-r,sts,genes[1.00%3A60000000.00]&CMD=TXT#1)

Total Genes On Chromosome: 458
Genes in Region: 458


start stop Symbol O Links E Cyto Description


Region Displayed: 0-57M bp Download/View Sequence/Evidence Download Data


Total Genes On Chromosome: 458
Genes in Region: 458


start stop Symbol O Links E Cyto Description

276324 303356 PLCXD1 + HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.33; Yp11.32 phosphatidylinositol-specific phospholipase C, X domain containing 1
304750 318787 GTPBP6 - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq Xp22.33; Yp11.32 GTP binding protein 6 (putative)
319145 321332 LINC00685 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Xp22.33; Yp11.3 long intergenic non-protein coding RNA 685
333933 386955 PPP2R3B - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.33; Yp11.3 NY-REN-8 antigen|PP2A, subunit B, PR48 isoform|protein phosphatase 2 (formerly 2A), regulatory subunit B'', beta|serine/threonine protein phosphatase 2A, 48kDa regulatory subunit B|serine/threonine-protein phosphatase 2A regulatory subunit B'' subunit beta
433803 441344 LOC102724521 + sv dl ev rnaseq uncharacterized LOC102724521
624344 659411 SHOX + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.33;Yp11.3 short stature homeobox
1009720 1010100 RPL14P5 - HGNC sv pr dl ev sts best RefSeq Xp22.33;Yp11.32 ribosomal protein L14 pseudogene 5
1127409 1128785 LOC100418703 + sv dl ev best RefSeq X;Y repetin pseudogene
1172583 1175157 LOC652608 + sv dl ev protein X;Y 60S ribosomal protein L6-like
1187538 1212636 CRLF2 - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq Xp22.3; Yp11.3 cytokine receptor-like factor 2
1264832 1322871 CSF2RA + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.32 and Yp11.3 colony stimulating factor 2 receptor, alpha, low-affinity (granulocyte-macrophage)
1293918 1293992 MIR3690 + HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Xp22.32 and Yp11.3 microRNA 3690
1336601 1382689 IL3RA + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.3 or Yp11.3 interleukin 3 receptor, alpha (low affinity)
1352689 1365171 LOC101928055 - sv dl ev rnaseq uncharacterized LOC101928055
1365567 1368017 LOC102724575 + sv dl ev protein collagen alpha-1(III) chain-like
1378130 1382392 LOC101928032 - sv dl ev rnaseq uncharacterized LOC101928032
1386152 1392146 SLC25A6 - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.32 and Yp11.3 solute carrier family 25 (mitochondrial carrier; adenine nucleotide translocator), member 6
1400531 1415421 ASMTL-AS1 + HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.33; Yp11.32 ASMTL antisense RNA 1
1403139 1453794 ASMTL - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.3; Yp11.3 acetylserotonin O-methyltransferase-like
1462572 1537144 P2RY8 - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.33; Yp11.3 purinergic receptor P2Y, G-protein coupled, 8
1591593 1602520 AKAP17A + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.33 and Yp11.32 A kinase (PRKA) anchor protein 17A
1595455 1643081 ASMT + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.3 or Yp11.3 acetylserotonin O-methyltransferase
2219506 2500974 DHRSX - HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.33; Yp11.2 dehydrogenase/reductase (SDR family) X-linked
2321887 2337998 LOC101928070 + sv dl ev rnaseq uncharacterized LOC101928070
2486414 2500967 ZBED1 - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.33;Yp11 zinc finger, BED-type containing 1
2566027 2609164 LOC101927008 - sv dl ev mRNA uncharacterized LOC101927008
2609191 2609254 MIR6089 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Xp22.3 and Yp11.3 microRNA 6089
2609265 2657229 CD99P1 + HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.33;Yp11.31 CD99 molecule pseudogene 1
2612991 2615347 LINC00102 - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Xp22.33 and Yp11.31 long intergenic non-protein coding RNA 102
2691187 2741309 CD99 + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xp22.32 and Yp11.3 CD99 molecule
2752296 2774996 XGY2 + HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.31 Xg pseudogene, Y-linked 2
2786855 2787741 SRY - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.3 sex determining region Y
2789826 2790396 RNASEH2CP1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.31 ribonuclease H2, subunit C pseudogene 1
2827982 2828218 TOMM22P2 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.31 translocase of outer mitochondrial membrane 22 homolog (yeast) pseudogene 2
2841582 2866956 RPS4Y1 + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.3 ribosomal protein S4, Y-linked 1
2881565 2883739 HSFY3P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.31 heat shock transcription factor, Y-linked 3, pseudogene
2929370 2930363 NAP1L1P2 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.31 nucleosome assembly protein 1-like 1 pseudogene 2
2935071 2982506 ZFY + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.3 zinc finger protein, Y-linked
2995067 2995273 EEF1A1P41 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq eukaryotic translation elongation factor 1 alpha 1 pseudogene 41
3002996 3102272 LINC00278 + HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq long intergenic non-protein coding RNA 278
3293808 3294809 AGPAT5P1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 1-acylglycerol-3-phosphate O-acyltransferase 5 pseudogene 1
3549813 3550585 PRRC2CP1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 proline-rich coiled-coil 2C pseudogene 1
3579085 3580041 TGIF2LY + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 TGFB-induced factor homeobox 2-like, Y-linked
3682558 3684842 USP12PY + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 ubiquitin specific peptidase 12 pseudogene, Y-linked
3777997 3779546 RNF19BPY - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq ring finger protein 19B pseudogene, Y-linked
3851224 3852869 LOC100533723 - sv dl ev best RefSeq HERV-FRD provirus ancestral Env polyprotein pseudogene
3864609 3866779 UBE2V1P3 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2 variant 1 pseudogene 3
4801010 4802929 SERBP1P2 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 SERPINE1 mRNA binding protein 1 pseudogene 2
5000226 5742228 PCDH11Y + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 protocadherin 11 Y-linked
5206367 5208078 VDAC1P6 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 voltage-dependent anion channel 1 pseudogene 6
5337603 5338980 EIF4A1P2 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4A1 pseudogene 2
5337614 5356243 LOC101928634 + sv dl ev rnaseq uncharacterized LOC101928634
5573089 5574488 KRT18P10 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 keratin 18 pseudogene 10
5634484 5634655 SNX3P1Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq sorting nexin 3 pseudogene 1, Y-linked
5793257 5793835 RPL26P37 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 ribosomal protein L26 pseudogene 37
5887511 5888741 TUSC2P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 tumor suppressor candidate 2 pseudogene 1
6158798 6159833 DLGAP5P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 discs, large (Drosophila) homolog-associated protein 5 pseudogene 1
6242446 6243610 TTTY23B - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 23B (non-protein coding)
6246223 6249018 TSPY2 + HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 2
6266547 6269275 TSPY11P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 11, pseudogene
6304302 6305349 TSPY19P - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 19, pseudogene
6328189 6343584 RBMY2GP + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member G pseudogene
6390401 6411564 TTTY1B + HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 1B (non-protein coding)
6406244 6428444 TTTY2B - HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 2B (non-protein coding)
6443434 6447077 TTTY21B + HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 21B (non-protein coding)
6449468 6457906 TTTY7 + HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 7 (non-protein coding)
6471031 6473630 TTTY8B - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 8B (non-protein coding)
6520418 6520929 TSPY17P + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 17, pseudogene
6718950 6719180 SRIP3 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq sorcin pseudogene 3
6837699 6838252 GOT2P5 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase 2 pseudogene 5
6865918 6874027 AMELY - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 amelogenin, Y-linked
6901134 6901468 ATP5JP1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial Fo complex, subunit F6 pseudogene 1
6910686 7091936 TBL1Y + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 transducin (beta)-like 1, Y-linked
6950426 6950616 FAM199YP + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 family with sequence similarity 199, Y-linked, pseudogene
7100398 7106505 GPR143P - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 G protein-coupled receptor 143 pseudogene
7273972 7381547 PRKY + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 protein kinase, Y-linked, pseudogene
7671468 7677978 RBMY2HP - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member H pseudogene
7686801 7689593 TSPY12P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 12, pseudogene
7699357 7701247 TTTY16 - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 16 (non-protein coding)
7712985 7776705 RFTN1P1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 raftlin, lipid raft linker 1 pseudogene 1
7804924 7810683 TTTY12 + HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 12 (non-protein coding)
7845483 7846463 TRIM60P1Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 1, Y-linked
7853710 7854843 ZNF92P1Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq zinc finger protein 92 pseudogene 1, Y-linked
7905536 7907317 TRIM60P2Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 2, Y-linked
7913434 7914135 ZNF736P8Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq zinc finger protein 736 pseudogene 8, Y-linked
7926089 7948999 BPY2DP - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 basic charge, Y-linked, 2D, pseudogene
7990943 7991848 ZNF736P7Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq zinc finger protein 736 pseudogene 7, Y-linked
8068994 8070118 ZNF736P9Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq zinc finger protein 736 pseudogene 9, Y-linked
8127124 8144630 RBMY2JP + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member J pseudogene
8177826 8179167 FAM8A7P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 family with sequence similarity 8, member A1 pseudogene
8253772 8254266 TTTY30P - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 30, pseudogene
8264176 8279146 RBMY2KP - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member K pseudogene
8280198 8282209 TSPY24P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq testis specific protein, Y-linked 24, pseudogene
8350919 8352020 ZNF736P6Y + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq zinc finger protein 736 pseudogene 6, Y-linked
8363536 8363959 MTND6P1 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 MT-ND6 pseudogene 1
8364032 8365150 MTCYBP1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq MT-CYB pseudogene 1
8371663 8372030 MTND1P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 MT-ND1 pseudogene 1
8372099 8372173 NMTRQ-TTG8-1 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 nuclear-encoded mitochondrial transfer RNA-Gln (TTG) 8-1
8372241 8372710 MTND2P3 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 MT-ND2 pseudogene 3
8413046 8414054 TRIM60P3Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 3, Y-linked
8418851 8419923 ZNF736P10Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq zinc finger protein 736 pseudogene 10, Y-linked
8683370 8683878 TTTY18 - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 18 (non-protein coding)
8704472 8705283 TTTY19 + HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 19 (non-protein coding)
8783313 8817382 TTTY11 - HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 11 (non-protein coding)
8904218 8916344 RBMY2MP + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member M pseudogene
8970055 8970444 TTTY24P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 24, pseudogene
9034110 9040188 OFD1P3Y + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 OFD1 pseudogene 3, Y-linked
9165228 9168027 CDY3P - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 3 pseudogene
9185599 9185812 USP9YP22 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 22
9189639 9204613 USP9YP4 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 4
9230926 9231247 TCEB1P4 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 4
9317061 9322874 RBMY1A3P - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member A3 pseudogene
9325490 9330587 LOC100287769 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member G, pseudogene
9329880 9334832 TTTY20 - HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 20 (non-protein coding)
9337489 9340283 TSPY4 + HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 4
9357833 9360598 TSPY8 + HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 8
9378076 9380871 TSPY7P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 7, pseudogene
9398421 9401222 TSPY3 + HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 3
9458743 9464345 FAM197Y5 - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 family with sequence similarity 197, Y-linked, member 5
9466955 9469749 TSPY1 + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 1
9476985 9484873 FAM197Y4 - HGNC sv dl ev hm mRNA Yp11.2 family with sequence similarity 197, Y-linked, member 4
9487267 9488988 TSPY9P + HGNC sv dl ev hm SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 9, pseudogene
9507550 9510363 TSPY6P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 6, pseudogene
9519666 9525268 FAM197Y2 - HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 family with sequence similarity 197, Y-linked, member 2, pseudogene
9527899 9530683 TSPY10 + HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 10
9548062 9550873 TSPY15P + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 15, pseudogene
9610721 9615153 RBMY3AP - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 3, member A pseudogene
9624183 9626352 TSPY25P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq testis specific protein, Y-linked 25, pseudogene
9640249 9640761 TSPY16P - HGNC sv pr dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 16, pseudogene
9691100 9693699 TTTY8 + HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 8 (non-protein coding)
9706824 9715262 TTTY7B - HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 7B (non-protein coding)
9717653 9721296 TTTY21 - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 21 (non-protein coding)
9736286 9758476 TTTY2 + HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 2 (non-protein coding)
9753156 9774289 TTTY1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 1 (non-protein coding)
9801153 9813245 TTTY22 + HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 22 (non-protein coding)
9831418 9835967 RBMY2NP - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member N pseudogene
9869703 9870436 TSPY18P + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 18, pseudogene
9905457 9908185 TSPY13P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 13, pseudogene
9910798 9911962 TTTY23 + HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 23 (non-protein coding)
9951547 9959843 RBMY2OP + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member O pseudogene
10022216 10035290 RBMY2QP - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member Q pseudogene
10035018 10038389 TSPY20P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 20, pseudogene
10066393 10069196 TSPY5P - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 testis specific protein, Y-linked 5, pseudogene
10090410 10090528 RNA5SP518 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq RNA, 5S ribosomal pseudogene 518
10092875 10092993 RNA5SP519 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq RNA, 5S ribosomal pseudogene 519
10156183 10156444 MRPL57P10 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 mitochondrial ribosomal protein L57 pseudogene 10
10171614 10172653 LOC100887073 - sv dl ev best RefSeq double homeobox 4 like 6 pseudogene
10173844 10174204 PCMTD1P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq protein-L-isoaspartate (D-aspartate) O-methyltransferase domain containing 1 pseudogene 1
10190389 10192298 CDC27P2 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yp11.2 cell division cycle 27 pseudogene 2
10193930 10197199 LOC101059962 - sv dl ev protein serine/threonine-protein phosphatase 1 regulatory subunit 10-like
10197257 10199104 RNA18SP2 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yp11.2 RNA, 18S ribosomal pseudogene 2
10200155 10200306 RNA5-8SP6 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq RNA, 5.8S ribosomal pseudogene 6
11085476 11086061 C2orf27AP1 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq chromosome 2 open reading frame 27A pseudogene 1
11094968 11095487 LOC100419952 - sv dl ev best RefSeq uncharacterized LOC100419952
11153795 11159193 TEKT4P1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.1 tektin 4 pseudogene 1
11167992 11169160 ANKRD57P1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.1 ankyrin repeat domain 57 pseudogene 1
11170731 11172105 LINC00268-2P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.1 long intergenic non-protein coding RNA 268-2, pseudogene
11173618 11174439 ANKRD20A6P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.1 ankyrin repeat domain 20 family, member A6, pseudogene
11178288 11179040 SNX18P1Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq sorting nexin 18 pseudogene 1, Y-linked
11306823 11308191 LOC728169 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 double homeobox 4 like 16
11314824 11316196 LOC643001 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 double homeobox 4 like 17
11321461 11322831 DUX4L18 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 double homeobox 4 like 18
11332234 11333607 DUX4L19 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 double homeobox 4 like 19
11336403 11337109 LOC100131374 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 poly(A) binding protein, cytoplasmic 1 pseudogene 5
11340390 11385695 SLC9B1P1 - HGNC sv pr dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 solute carrier family 9, subfamily B (NHA1, cation proton antiporter 1), member 1 pseudogene 1
11395873 11397516 ACTR3BP1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 ACTR3B pseudogene 1
11412547 11418872 CHEK2P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 checkpoint kinase 2 pseudogene 1
11781056 11782527 RCC2P1 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 regulator of chromosome condensation 2 pseudogene 1
11922285 11923873 ASS1P6 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 argininosuccinate synthetase 1 pseudogene 6
11957177 11988583 MXRA5Y + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.21 matrix-remodelling associated 5, Y-linked, pseudogene
12244745 12252124 RPS24P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 ribosomal protein S24 pseudogene 1
12252300 12258035 ARSFP1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.21 arylsulfatase F pseudogene 1
12321481 12323357 FAM8A4P + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.21 family with sequence similarity 8, member A1 pseudogene
12332258 12347515 ARSEP1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.21 arylsulfatase E pseudogene 1
12354031 12387409 ARSDP1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.21 arylsulfatase D pseudogene 1
12406116 12421590 GYG2P1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.21 glycogenin 2 pseudogene 1
12436699 12507408 LOC101928693 - sv dl ev protein glycoprotein Xg-like
12484477 12507346 XGY1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.21 Xg pseudogene, Y-linked 1
12541058 12543220 SHROOM2P1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.21 shroom family member 2 pseudogene 1
12618985 12634401 MED14P1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.1 mediator complex subunit 14 pseudogene 1
12662367 12692224 TTTY15 + HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.1 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 15 (non-protein coding)
12701231 12860843 USP9Y + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.2 ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked
12801141 12804058 CDY4P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.2 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 4 pseudogene
12903985 12920478 DDX3Y + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11 DEAD (Asp-Glu-Ala-Asp) box helicase 3, Y-linked
12929856 12948185 CASKP1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11 calcium/calmodulin-dependent serine protein kinase (MAGUK family) pseudogene 1
13094804 13097721 SFPQP1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.1 splicing factor proline/glutamine-rich (polypyrimidine tract binding protein associated) pseudogene 1
13151541 13204866 TAB3P1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 TGF-beta activated kinase 1/MAP3K7 binding protein 3 pseudogene 1
13230884 13231448 DPPA2P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq developmental pluripotency associated 2 pseudogene 1
13248379 13480670 UTY - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11 ubiquitously transcribed tetratricopeptide repeat containing, Y-linked
13286561 13287546 PSMA6P1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 proteasome (prosome, macropain) subunit, alpha type, 6 pseudogene 1
13703567 13706024 TMSB4Y + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.221 thymosin beta 4, Y-linked
13718065 13718837 LOC360022 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11 PC4 and SFRS1 interacting protein 1 pseudogene 2
13751656 13920022 KALP + HGNC sv pr dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11 Kallmann syndrome sequence pseudogene
13985772 13986512 VCY - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 variable charge, Y-linked
14056222 14056958 VCY1B + HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.21 variable charge, Y-linked 1B
14081075 14081461 PNPLA4P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq patatin-like phospholipase domain containing 4 pseudogene 1
14100967 14101721 LOC100379236 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq patatin-like phospholipase domain containing 4 pseudogene 1
14522608 14844945 NLGN4Y + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.221 neuroligin 4, Y-linked
14639074 14641314 AGKP1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.21 acylglycerol kinase pseudogene 1
14793642 14804033 NLGN4Y-AS1 - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq NLGN4Y antisense RNA 1
14907896 14908068 MED13P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.221 mediator complex subunit 13 pseudogene 1
14940689 14941749 CYCSP46 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.221 cytochrome c, somatic pseudogene 46
15373504 15375458 HDHD1P1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 haloacid dehalogenase-like hydrolase domain containing 1 pseudogene 1
15547209 15576291 STSP1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11 steroid sulfatase (microsomal) pseudogene 1
17184470 17194769 SURF6P1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 surfeit 6 pseudogene 1
17500958 17516742 FAM41AY1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.221 family with sequence similarity 41, member A, Y-linked 1
17516596 17519431 TUBB1P2 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.221 tubulin, beta 1 class VI pseudogene 2
17575161 17579452 FAM224B - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.221 family with sequence similarity 224, member B (non-protein coding)
17623863 17624424 CLUHP1 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq clustered mitochondria (cluA/CLU1) homolog pseudogene 1
17628413 17629792 TAF9P1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 TAF9 RNA polymerase II, TATA box binding protein (TBP)-associated factor, 32kDa pseudogene 1
17721197 17723195 CDY5P + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.222 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 5 pseudogene
17729799 17744540 PRYP1 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.221 PTPN13-like, Y-linked pseudogene 1
17756197 17758298 ACTG1P2 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11 actin, gamma 1 pseudogene 2
17768980 17770560 XKRY - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.222 XK, Kell blood group complex subunit-related, Y-linked
17782231 17784816 USP9YP23 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.222 ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 23
17796185 17800818 TRAPPC2P3 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 trafficking protein particle complex 2 pseudogene 3
17809199 17822834 OFD1P1Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.222 OFD1 pseudogene 1, Y-linked
17837201 17837528 TCEB1P6 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 6
17878260 17880219 CDY2B - HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.222 chromodomain protein, Y-linked, 2B
17881998 17884134 CDY6P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.221 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 6 pseudogene
17910591 17910787 USP9YP7 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 7
17914911 17921630 USP9YP6 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.221 ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 6
17951268 17953564 CDY7P + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 7 pseudogene
17984249 17993387 USP9YP34 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 34
18021873 18024009 CDY8P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.221 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 8 pseudogene
18025787 18027746 CDY2A + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.221 chromodomain protein, Y-linked, 2A
18068483 18068810 TCEB1P12 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 12
18080616 18096811 OFD1P2Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.222 OFD1 pseudogene 2, Y-linked
18105192 18109825 TRAPPC2P8 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 trafficking protein particle complex 2 pseudogene 8
18135449 18137029 XKRY2 + HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 XK, Kell blood group complex subunit-related, Y-linked 2
18147810 18149718 ACTG1P11 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 actin, gamma 1 pseudogene 11
18161364 18177051 PRYP2 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 PTPN13-like, Y-linked pseudogene 2
18178932 18179260 TCEB1P26 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.222 transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 26
18182817 18184815 CDY9P - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.222 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 9 pseudogene
18276280 18277495 TAF9P2 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 TAF9 RNA polymerase II, TATA box binding protein (TBP)-associated factor, 32kDa pseudogene 2
18281584 18282145 CLUHP2 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq clustered mitochondria (cluA/CLU1) homolog pseudogene 2
18326533 18330827 FAM224A + HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.222 family with sequence similarity 224, member A (non-protein coding)
18386581 18389416 TUBB1P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.222 tubulin, beta 1 class VI pseudogene 1
18389270 18405046 FAM41AY2 - HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.2 family with sequence similarity 41, member A, Y-linked 2
18440797 18441125 TCEB1P13 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 13
18453050 18469259 OFD1P4Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 OFD1 pseudogene 4, Y-linked
18490914 18494295 USP9YP5 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 5
18507812 18509608 XKRYP1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 XK, Kell blood group complex subunit-related, Y-linked pseudogene 1
18532326 18532656 TCEB1P7 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 7
18540894 18544232 USP9YP1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.221 ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 1
18546688 18588963 HSFY1 + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.222 heat shock transcription factor, Y-linked 1
18581206 18590521 TTTY9B - HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.221 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 9B (non-protein coding)
18581963 18629179 OFD1P5Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 OFD1 pseudogene 5, Y-linked
18649646 18650768 RAB9AP4 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.222 RAB9A, member RAS oncogene family pseudogene 4
18654056 18656177 TRAPPC2P7 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 trafficking protein particle complex 2 pseudogene 7
18673727 18738440 OFD1P6Y + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.22 OFD1 pseudogene 6, Y-linked
18729882 18739197 TTTY9A + HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.222 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 9A (non-protein coding)
18731440 18773735 HSFY2 - HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.222 heat shock transcription factor, Y linked 2
18776175 18779513 USP9YP2 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.221-q11.222 ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 2
18787665 18788326 TCEB1P14 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 14
18810798 18812594 XKRYP2 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.222 XK, Kell blood group complex subunit-related, Y-linked pseudogene 2
18826107 18829488 USP9YP10 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 10
18848162 18867381 OFD1P7Y + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.222 OFD1 pseudogene 7, Y-linked
18872102 18872272 MTCYBP2 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq MT-CYB pseudogene 2
18872501 18878228 NCRNA00185 - HGNC sv pr dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.222 non-protein coding RNA 185
18985110 18986385 ZNF839P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq zinc finger protein 839 pseudogene 1
18990640 18992819 CD24P4 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.222 CD24 molecule pseudogene 4
19041560 19044727 LOC102723889 - sv dl ev rnaseq uncharacterized LOC102723889
19051108 19077416 TTTY14 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.222 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 14 (non-protein coding)
19327499 19328765 GAPDHP19 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.222 glyceraldehyde 3 phosphate dehydrogenase pseudogene 19
19455431 19503153 BCORP1 - HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.222 BCL6 corepressor pseudogene 1
19481616 19483933 LOC102723934 - sv dl ev protein BCL-6 corepressor-like
19567358 19607170 TXLNGY + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.222 taxilin gamma pseudogene, Y-linked
19703865 19744939 KDM5D - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11 lysine (K)-specific demethylase 5D
19986588 19987873 RCC2P2 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq regulator of chromosome condensation 2 pseudogene 2
20001188 20001711 ZNF886P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq zinc finger protein 886, pseudogene
20357614 20358416 ZNF884P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq zinc finger protein 884, pseudogene
20396168 20396796 ZNF885P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq zinc finger protein 885, pseudogene
20465668 20519228 TTTY10 - HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.221 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 10 (non-protein coding)
20520191 20524427 LOC101928633 - sv dl ev rnaseq uncharacterized LOC101928633
20569690 20570564 KDM5DP1 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.221 lysine (K)-specific demethylase 5D pseudogene 1
20575711 20593154 EIF1AY + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 eukaryotic translation initiation factor 1A, Y-chromosomal
20610114 20612062 FAM8A9P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.222 family with sequence similarity 8, member A1 pseudogene
20727255 20742901 TBL1YP1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 transducin (beta)-like 1, Y-linked pseudogene 1
20756068 20781032 RPS4Y2 + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 ribosomal protein S4, Y-linked 2
20808776 20843588 HSFY4P - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 heat shock transcription factor, Y-linked 4, pseudogene
20861379 20862541 GAPDHP17 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.221 glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase pseudogene 17
20901841 20907609 TMEM167AP1 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.222 transmembrane protein 167A pseudogene 1
21130870 21131181 TOMM22P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 translocase of outer mitochondrial membrane 22 homolog (yeast) pseudogene 1
21221351 21221782 NEFLP1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.2 neurofilament, light polypeptide pseudogene 1
21311161 21319435 RBMY2SP + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member S pseudogene
21382961 21386360 PRORY - HGNC sv pr dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 proline rich, Y-linked
21395148 21401562 RBMY2EP - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member E pseudogene
21430324 21437347 RBMY2TP - HGNC sv pr dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.222 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member T pseudogene
21468129 21470939 TSPY14P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis specific protein, Y-linked 14, pseudogene
21493419 21502337 RBMY1HP + HGNC sv pr dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member H, pseudogene
21511312 21525786 RBMY1B + HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member B
21534853 21559700 RBMY1A1 + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member A1
21583600 21594666 TTTY13 - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 13 (non-protein coding)
21631679 21632015 LOC100288493 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 5
21636601 21639468 CDY10P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 10 pseudogene
21661826 21674111 USP9YP3 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 3
21677246 21679223 USP9YP8 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 8
21696145 21699173 CDY11P + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 11 pseudogene
21811387 21818212 OFD1P16Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 OFD1 pseudogene 16, Y-linked
21869702 21894552 RBMY1D - HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member D
21903618 21918093 RBMY1E - HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member E
21927115 21939239 RBMY2AP - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member A pseudogene
21972211 22005684 OFD1P8Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 OFD1 pseudogene 8, Y-linked
22064597 22065805 CDY12P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 12 pseudogene
22068820 22069151 TCEB1P15 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 15
22071756 22096007 PRY2 - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 PTPN13-like, Y-linked 2
22101692 22147484 LOC101929148 - sv dl ev mRNA Yq11.223 uncharacterized LOC101929148
22144987 22146834 TTTY6B + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 6B (non-protein coding)
22168542 22183008 RBMY1F - HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member F
22183850 22186021 TSPY23P + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis specific protein, Y-linked 23, pseudogene
22198322 22201877 RBMY2UP + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member U pseudogene
22209331 22216580 RBMY1KP + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member K, pseudogene
22296798 22298876 TTTY5 - OMIM HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 5 (non-protein coding)
22304428 22307893 TSPY22P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis specific protein, Y-linked 22, pseudogene
22308857 22316205 RBMY2FP + HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member F pseudogene
22316678 22320384 LOC100652931 + sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member A1 pseudogene
22331532 22332002 TTTY25P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 25, pseudogene
22381566 22388096 RBMY2VP + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member V pseudogene
22394574 22402820 TSPY21P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis specific protein, Y-linked 21, pseudogene
22403410 22417881 RBMY1J + HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 1, member J
22439593 22441459 TTTY6 - OMIM HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 6 (non-protein coding)
22490397 22514637 PRY + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 PTPN13-like, Y-linked
22517242 22517573 TCEB1P8 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 8
22520588 22521796 CDY13P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 13 pseudogene
22580707 22614183 OFD1P9Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 OFD1 pseudogene 9, Y-linked
22647156 22655218 RBMY2BP + HGNC sv pr dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member B pseudogene
22726008 22729254 FAM8A10P + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 family with sequence similarity 8, member A1 pseudogene
22762324 22769890 RBMY2WP - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member W pseudogene
22851584 22852715 TTTY17A + OMIM HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 17A (non-protein coding)
22860980 22861844 TRIM60P4Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 4, Y-linked
22866661 22867752 ZNF736P11Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq zinc finger protein 736 pseudogene 11, Y-linked
22936455 22973284 TTTY4 + OMIM HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.2 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 4 (non-protein coding)
22984263 23005465 BPY2 + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11 basic charge, Y-linked, 2
23025594 23026660 TRIM60P8Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 8, Y-linked
23050035 23051168 ZNF736P3Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 zinc finger protein 736 pseudogene 3, Y-linked
23058036 23059183 TRIM60P9Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 9, Y-linked
23129355 23199092 DAZ1 - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 deleted in azoospermia 1
23219457 23291356 DAZ2 + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 deleted in azoospermia 2
23379382 23392797 PPP1R12BP2 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 protein phosphatase 1, regulatory subunit 12B Y-linked pseudogene 2
23536902 23549031 RBMY2CP - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member C pseudogene
23581595 23614898 OFD1P10Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 OFD1 pseudogene 10, Y-linked
23674278 23675485 CDY14P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 14 pseudogene
23678504 23678835 TCEB1P16 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 16
23681340 23694681 PRYP3 - HGNC sv pr dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 PTPN13-like, Y-linked pseudogene 3
23715687 23717485 XKRYP3 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 XK, Kell blood group complex subunit-related, Y-linked pseudogene 3
23751188 23751754 RAB9AP1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 RAB9A, member RAS oncogene family pseudogene 1
23754870 23765685 TRAPPC2P9 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 trafficking protein particle complex 2 pseudogene 9
23770823 23798250 OFD1P11Y + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 OFD1 pseudogene 11, Y-linked
23808821 23809146 TCEB1P9 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 9
23854271 23857512 CDY15P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 15 pseudogene
23861470 23862800 CDY16P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 16 pseudogene
23916696 23918494 XKRYP4 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 XK, Kell blood group complex subunit-related, Y-linked pseudogene 4
23919905 23920123 USP9YP13 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 13
23936663 23940102 USP9YP11 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 11
23936727 23941622 TTTY3B - HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 3B (non-protein coding)
23946965 23947123 USP9YP12 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 12
23956569 23960215 RAB9AP5 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 RAB9A, member RAS oncogene family pseudogene 5
23963031 23970797 TRAPPC2P10 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 trafficking protein particle complex 2 pseudogene 10
23983300 23995181 OFD1P12Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 OFD1 pseudogene 12, Y-linked
24006911 24007237 TCEB1P10 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 10
24045229 24048014 CDY1B - HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked, 1B
24049777 24051913 CDY17P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 17 pseudogene
24103786 24107233 CDY18P + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 18 pseudogene
24142345 24152401 LOC102723951 + sv dl ev rnaseq uncharacterized LOC102723951
24169911 24172669 GOLGA6L11P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 golgin A6 family-like 11, pseudogene
24177543 24182632 DNM1P24 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 DNM1 pseudogene 24
24183433 24187230 CSPG4P2Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan 4 pseudogene 2, Y-linked
24187532 24188843 CSPG4P3Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan 4 pseudogene 3, Y-linked
24196515 24206132 LOC100996911 - sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC100996911
24205464 24206069 LOC359998 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.2 CHRFAM7A pseudogene 2
24208857 24214831 GOLGA2P2Y - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.23 golgin A2 pseudogene 2, Y-linked
24232826 24238993 UBE2Q2P4Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2Q family member 2 pseudogene 4, Y-linked
24246282 24247878 DNM1P25 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 DNM1 pseudogene 25
24248478 24249860 LOC360025 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 golgin A6 family-like 12, pseudogene
24275987 24277367 LINC00265-2P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 long intergenic non-protein coding RNA 265-2, pseudogene
24277326 24280818 CICP2 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 capicua transcriptional repressor pseudogene 2
24278538 24291476 LINC00266-2P + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 long intergenic non-protein coding RNA 266-2, pseudogene
24361936 24362478 RPL41P7 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 ribosomal protein L41 pseudogene 7
24396077 24403633 RBMY2XP - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member X pseudogene
24485332 24486463 TTTY17B + HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 17B (non-protein coding)
24494728 24495592 TRIM60P5Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 5, Y-linked
24500410 24501501 ZNF736P12Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq zinc finger protein 736 pseudogene 12, Y-linked
24570202 24607025 TTTY4B + HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 4B (non-protein coding)
24618004 24639207 BPY2B + HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 basic charge, Y-linked, 2B
24659337 24660403 TRIM60P10Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 10, Y-linked
24679737 24684855 ZNF736P2Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 zinc finger protein 736 pseudogene 2, Y-linked
24691782 24692929 TRIM60P11Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 11, Y-linked
24763069 24813492 DAZ3 - OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 deleted in azoospermia 3
24833820 24907040 DAZ4 + HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 deleted in azoospermia 4
24977179 24978326 TRIM60P6Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 6, Y-linked
24985203 24990367 ZNF736P1Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 zinc finger protein 736 pseudogene 1, Y-linked
25009703 25010769 TRIM60P7Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 7, Y-linked
25030901 25052104 BPY2C - HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 basic charge, Y-linked, 2C
25063083 25099892 TTTY4C - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 4C (non-protein coding)
25169212 25170193 ZNF736P4Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq zinc finger protein 736 pseudogene 4, Y-linked
25174511 25175386 TRIM60P12Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq tripartite motif containing 60 pseudogene 12, Y-linked
25183643 25184773 TTTY17C - HGNC sv dl ev SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 17C (non-protein coding)
25266480 25274045 RBMY2YP + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member Y pseudogene
25307660 25308202 RPL41P6 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 ribosomal protein L41 pseudogene 6
25378671 25391610 LINC00266-4P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 long intergenic non-protein coding RNA 266-4, pseudogene
25389329 25392822 CICP1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 capicua transcriptional repressor pseudogene 1
25392781 25394160 LINC00265-3P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 long intergenic non-protein coding RNA 265-3, pseudogene
25420283 25421665 LOC360026 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 golgin A6 family-like 13, pseudogene
25421953 25423846 DNM1P27 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 DNM1 pseudogene 27
25431147 25437315 UBE2Q2P5Y + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2Q family member 2 pseudogene 5, Y-linked
25455311 25460175 GOLGA2P3Y + HGNC sv pr dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.223 golgin A2 pseudogene 3, Y-linked
25464006 25473624 LOC101929235 + sv dl ev protein uncharacterized LOC101929235
25464069 25464674 LOC359999 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.2 CHRFAM7A pseudogene 1
25481296 25482607 CSPG4P4Y + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan 4 pseudogene 4, Y-linked
25482908 25486705 CSPG4P1Y + OMIM HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan 4 pseudogene 1, Y-linked
25486528 25487227 DNM1P48 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq DNM1 pseudogene 48
25487507 25492463 DNM1P26 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 DNM1 pseudogene 26
25492674 25495599 LOC360027 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 golgin A6 family-like 14, pseudogene
25497476 25500234 LOC100287845 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 golgin A6 family-like 16, pseudogene
25517743 25527799 LOC102724004 - sv dl ev rnaseq uncharacterized LOC102724004
25562907 25566354 CDY19P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 19 pseudogene
25618218 25620354 CDY20P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 20 pseudogene
25622117 25624902 CDY1 + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 chromodomain protein, Y-linked, 1
25674995 25697426 OFD1P13Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.223 OFD1 pseudogene 13, Y-linked
25699329 25707095 TRAPPC2P5 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 trafficking protein particle complex 2 pseudogene 5
25709911 25713557 RAB9AP2 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 RAB9A, member RAS oncogene family pseudogene 2
25722990 25723148 USP9YP30 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 30
25728490 25733388 TTTY3 + OMIM HGNC sv dl ev sts SNP best RefSeq Yq11.23 testis-specific transcript, Y-linked 3 (non-protein coding)
25730010 25733452 USP9YP9 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 9
25748860 25749988 USP9YP19 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked pseudogene 19
25751617 25753415 XKRYP5 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 XK, Kell blood group complex subunit-related, Y-linked pseudogene 5
25807304 25808634 CDY21P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 21 pseudogene
25812592 25815833 CDY22P + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 22 pseudogene
25860943 25861268 TCEB1P17 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 17
25871831 25887981 OFD1P14Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 OFD1 pseudogene 14, Y-linked
25897207 25897581 OFD1P18Y - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.22 OFD1 pseudogene 18, Y-linked
25904397 25915212 TRAPPC2P4 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 trafficking protein particle complex 2 pseudogene 4
25918329 25918895 RAB9AP3 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 RAB9A, member RAS oncogene family pseudogene 3
25952590 25954387 XKRYP6 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 XK, Kell blood group complex subunit-related, Y-linked pseudogene 6
25975395 25988736 PRYP4 + HGNC sv pr dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 PTPN13-like, Y-linked pseudogene 4
25991241 25991572 TCEB1P11 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 11
25994591 25995798 CDY23P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 chromodomain protein, Y-linked 23 pseudogene
26069665 26088595 OFD1P15Y - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 OFD1 pseudogene 15, Y-linked
26121585 26133714 RBMY2DP + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.23 RNA binding motif protein, Y-linked, family 2, member D pseudogene
26277823 26348678 PPP1R12BP1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 protein phosphatase 1, regulatory subunit 12B pseudogene, Y-linked 1
26400954 26401230 CYCSP48 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 cytochrome c, somatic pseudogene 48
26409520 26439003 ANKRD36P1 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 ankyrin repeat domain 36 pseudogene 1
26508213 26579868 TPTE2P4 + HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 transmembrane phosphoinositide 3-phosphatase and tensin homolog 2 pseudogene 4
26549364 26550366 CYCSP49 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq11.223 cytochrome c, somatic pseudogene 49
26586645 26587564 SLC25A15P1 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq solute carrier family 25 (mitochondrial carrier; ornithine transporter) member 15 pseudogene 1
26594668 26634655 PARP4P1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Yq11.23 poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase family, member 4 pseudogene 1
26626323 26627368 FAM58CP - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq family with sequence similarity 58, member A pseudogene 1
56855243 56856170 CTBP2P1 + HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Yq12 C-terminal binding protein 2 pseudogene 1
56954309 56968975 SPRY3 + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xq28 and Yq12 sprouty homolog 3 (Drosophila)
57014613 57016181 AMDP1 - HGNC sv dl ev sts best RefSeq Xq28 and Yq12 adenosylmethionine decarboxylase pseudogene 1
57067800 57130289 VAMP7 + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xq28 and Yq12 vesicle-associated membrane protein 7
57165512 57165845 TCEB1P24 - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Xq28 and Yq12 transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1 pseudogene 24
57171866 57172767 TRPC6P - HGNC sv dl ev best RefSeq Xq28;Yq12 transient receptor potential cation channel, subfamily C, member 6 pseudogene
57184101 57197337 IL9R + OMIM HGNC sv pr dl ev hm sts SNP best RefSeq Xq28 and Yq12 interleukin 9 receptor
57208178 57212192 WASH6P + HGNC sv pr dl ev sts best RefSeq Xq28;Yq12 WAS protein family homolog 6 pseudogene
57212181 57214703 DDX11L16 - HGNC sv pr dl ev sts best RefSeq Xq28; Yq12 DEAD/H (Asp-Glu-Ala-Asp/His) box helicase 11 like 16
57215071 57215627 LOC100507426 - sv dl ev protein X;Y uncharacterized LOC100507426

I will obtain gene tables like this for every chromosome in the chimp and human genomes.


It is most likely that most of the genes have functions that are related to the functions of adjacent genes, so the extra genes found in humans could not have been added randomly just anywhere. The addition of a new gene would need to be coordinated carefully with the existing genes. How in some cases, if new genes did not need to be integrated then they could simply be tagged on the end.

Each gene has it's own sequence of bases, in FASTA text format, so it will be possible to do an indepth comparison also.




An Odd Observation

448 out of 458 of the genes in human chy occur with in the range 0 - 26 million, then there is a huge gap where there is not a single gene - from 26 million to 59 million, then right at the end there are another 10 genes. It is almost as if they were just tagged on the end.

And what is inside that mysterious zone of 33 million bases which starts at the 26 million mark? When I was searching for a message in DNA, I never searched as far as the 26 million mark - I always stopped short. I am curious about this zone. The genes necessary for reproduction are all found outside of it, so it seems "unnecessary" for biological function. And it occurs as a solid block at the end of the chromosome. And when the Bible says that God made man in his image, perhaps an image has been inserted here - in to the "man" part of the genome?


The Next Step

The Next Step is to copy all this gene data into excel, and then sort the gene name column A-Z, so that we can quickly see the positions of all the genes with the same name.
Sorting like this we will be able to see -

1. how many genes that the chimps and humans have in common
2. how long each gene is in base pairs

I did this and here are the two excel files

http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/humanygenes.xlsx

http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/chimpYgenes.xlsx




Integration

It is probable that human specific genes could not just be added to the chimp chromosome, but had to be integrated, which means that chimp specific genes had to be modified to accommodate them.

Think of a gene as a computer sub-routine or class module. There would need to be code within the chimp specific sub routines that "calls" the human specific sub routines and visa versa. So I would expect that when similar genes occur between chimp and human, the human version will contain a few extra base sequences for calling and responding to the extra genes.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-07-2014, 03:55 AM
Well I created the spread-sheets as shown in my previous post.

My first task was this - to see if all the Chimp genes were a subset of the human genes.

If we came from a common ancestor then we should expect a large number of genes in common.



Here is a list of all the chimp genes. http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/shared.xlsx

If the gene is followed by a 1, then it also occurs in the human chromosome Y

If it is followed by a 0, then it does not occur in the human chromosome Y

Out of 278 chimp genes, only 45 occurred in the human Chromosome Y




Doing a gene count was one thing - we established that our Y Chromosome had twice as many bases as the chimp Y chromosome, and had 64% more genes than the chimp Y chromosome. But now, we find that it is also a difference of type, not just of number.

Before, we found that there are 278 genes in the Chimp Y and 458 genes in the human Y - a difference of 64%

Now, we find that of those 278 genes, only 45 are shared with humans

So the actual change is much higher. A rough approximation would be 458-45/458 = 90% change based on a number count alone.

This might have been expected, because to integrate all the new human genes, would require making changes to the existing chimp genes, effectively altering those genes and making them into a different sequence.



90% of the genes are different - different could mean "modified" rather than completely new. I will have to do alignment tests on each gene to see what they could be modifications of.

However, that magnitude of this difference does feel more like a distinct kind - a new creation - but I will just keep on researching - because this is getting more interesting by the second.


And another question would be - taking the 45 genes that both chimp and human have in common, do they occur in the same order in both chimp and human.

Recall L67's banded chromosome diagram which showed genetic content of the same type occurring at the same position in the chromosome Y in both Chimps and humans. Well, we can now say with 100% certainty that only 10% of the genes in the human Y are shared with the chimp Y, and the human Y has 64% more genes than the chimp Y.

Even the order of the 45 shared genes may be different in chimp Y compared to human Y. I will look at this next.

David M
08-07-2014, 03:59 AM
It is probable that human specific genes could not just be added to the chimp chromosome, but had to be integrated, which means that chimp specific genes had to be modified to accommodate them.

Think of a gene as a computer sub-routine or class module. There would need to be code within the chimp specific sub routines that "calls" the human specific sub routines and visa versa. So I would expect that when similar genes occur between chimp and human, the human version will contain a few extra base sequences for calling and responding to the extra genes.
Hello Craig
That was what I was thinking. We know how strict computer code has to be at times. Even with simple website design code, sometimes we can get away with a tag in the wrong place with no consequences. At other times, get a specific tag wrong and a website is a total mess and does not work.

I am interested is someone getting to the simplest forms and proving the evolution to greater complexity is possible. The simplest of cells seems like a monumental task to demonstrate how it came about. Where in the amino acid /protein chain does the simplest forms exist on which to build. The next step has to be proven. It is easy to break things down to see how they are made, it is not so easy to put the broken pieces back together.

Whatever machine or device man makes, it is made by design. The parts of a machine can all be identified and individually made. Some way to building the finished design can begin with making the simplest parts. Those simpler parts can then be pieced together to form the simplest sub-module. Then the next simplest sub-module etc until all the component parts have been made and pieced together. Once the component parts are identified, the parts are put together to form sub-modules which can then come together. That is how I would like to see someone begin to explain how the simplest cell formed. Define the simplest parts first and prove it possible for those parts to self-form. Then prove the assembly of some of the simplest parts and so on.

It is fascinating that with the DNA molecule, because it works, it is self replicating and has survived to continue to replicate. The DNA passes from one generation to the next. The problem is getting a DNA molecule to the stage where it can self-replicate and survive. This is where a God-factor might have to come in to build the DNA molecule in the first place. That DNA molecule has to have an environment in which it can be sustained. Bringing those precise conditions together to sustain life is another thing science cannot demonstrate is possible.

A miracle is beyond science. The chances of some things happening has the same odds as science would put on a miracle happening. When something requires one miracle after another, that is scientifically impossible to begin to quantify in terms of probability.

Building the first DNA molecule could be beyond the reach of man and therefore is an impossibility. Proving something like building a human DNA molecule from the bottom up is impossible could take an infinite amount of time. Until evolution science says; "I quit, it is impossible", there is always the chink of hope and infinite time available to continue trying. The time might never come to quit, because infinity is on the side of evolution science.

God has told man that the hidden things belong to him. That means, man will never find out those hidden things. Therefore, I do not have to end my life not knowing it is impossible for man to make a DNA molecule or that it is impossible for the DNA molecule to have self-formed from raw chemicals. Evolution scientists will go to their graves never knowing it was impossible, but dying with their belief that is was possible, but never being able to give substantial proof.

All the best
David

David M
08-07-2014, 04:12 AM
Here is a list of all the chimp genes. http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/chimpygenessharedwithhumansygenes.xlxs

Hello Craig
This link does not work in my browser. I get an error message. Can you attach the file for download off this forum, or from your website. I could not find a download link on the website.

Regards
David

Craig.Paardekooper
08-07-2014, 04:31 AM
It works now

David M
08-07-2014, 05:34 AM
It works now

Thanks. Let's see what your critics think of those facts and present their own facts to prove their own point of view.

Rose
08-07-2014, 08:04 AM
Well I created the spread-sheets as shown in my previous post.

My first task was this - to see if all the Chimp genes were a subset of the human genes.

If we came from a common ancestor then we should expect a large number of genes in common.



Here is a list of all the chimp genes. http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/shared.xlsx

If the gene is followed by a 1, then it also occurs in the human chromosome Y

If it is followed by a 0, then it does not occur in the human chromosome Y

Out of 278 chimp genes, only 45 occurred in the human Chromosome Y

Doing a gene count was one thing - we could establish that our Y Chromosome had twice the number of genes that were found in the Chimp Y chromosome. But now, we find that it is also a difference of type, not just of number.



Before, we found that there are 278 genes in the Chimp Y and 458 genes in the human Y - a difference of 64%

Now, we find that of those 278 genes, only 45 are shared with humans

So the actual change is much higher. A rough approximation would be 458-45/458 = 90% change based on a number count alone.

This might have been expected, because to integrate all the new human genes, would require making changes to the existing chimp genes, effectively altering those genes and making them into a different sequence.



90% of the genes are different - different could mean "modified" rather than completely new. I will have to do alignment tests on each gene to see what they could be modifications of.

However, that magnitude of this difference does feel more like a distinct kind - a new creation - but I will just keep on researching - because this is getting more interesting by the second.


And another question would be - taking the 45 genes that both chimp and human have in common, do they occur in the same order in both chimp and human.

Recall L67's banded chromosome diagram which showed genetic content of the same type occurring at the same position in the chromosome Y in both Chimps and humans. Well, we can now say with 100% certainty that only 10% of the genes in the human Y are shared with the chimp Y, and the human Y has 64% more genes than the chimp Y.

Even the order of the 45 shared genes may be different in chimp Y compared to human Y. I will look at this next.

Hello Craig

I applaud your effort to understand why there seems to be so many differences between the human and the chimp genome, but obviously there is much left for you to learn. The quest for knowledge and understanding is always good, as long as your motives don't cloud the answers you find.

There are solid, fact based reasons why the vast majority of scientists that specialize in the field of genetics, state in peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper that we share a common ancestor with chimps around 6 million years ago ... and none of those reasons have to do with trying to disprove the Biblegod. :p


Good luck in your search for answers, :thumb:
Rose

Rose
08-07-2014, 11:12 AM
Building the first DNA molecule could be beyond the reach of man and therefore is an impossibility. Proving something like building a human DNA molecule from the bottom up is impossible could take an infinite amount of time. Until evolution science says; "I quit, it is impossible", there is always the chink of hope and infinite time available to continue trying. The time might never come to quit, because infinity is on the side of evolution science.

God has told man that the hidden things belong to him. That means, man will never find out those hidden things. Therefore, I do not have to end my life not knowing it is impossible for man to make a DNA molecule or that it is impossible for the DNA molecule to have self-formed from raw chemicals. Evolution scientists will go to their graves never knowing it was impossible, but dying with their belief that is was possible, but never being able to give substantial proof.

All the best
David

Hello David,

I am quite surprised that you actually think that humans should quit trying to discover all the "unknowns". Just imagine if before DNA was discovered, scientists had given up and said, "Let's just quit because some hidden things belong to god". Even if there is an intelligent creator behind the beginnings of the universe, why should humans give-up their pursuit of knowledge? If you believe our intelligence is god-given shouldn't we use it to its full potential, which means understanding the workings of the universe?

We should all hold on to the hope that all things are possible and knowable. Never give-up trying to understand how we came to be, whether it be a naturalistic cause, or god caused. Always pursue knowledge with an open mind to receive whatever answers come your way.
Don't ever say "I quit" when it comes to learning ... :pop2:


Kind regards,
Rose

L67
08-07-2014, 08:19 PM
I shall wait to see what corresponding facts come from L67 or Richard to the facts you have given in your human/chimpanzee chromosome gene-count table.

David

David,


Why are you waiting on me to post facts? You could seek out the facts yourself. I have discussed evolution with you off and on for two years now and you have yet to even correct your basic errors about evolution. You repeat the same errors over and over and over again. The sad facts is you don't care that you misrepresent evolution. And then you exalt yourself above the whole body of science to tell us evolution is just a "theory". I have posted tons of evidence for you to analyze and you reject it all based on your religious beliefs. You have proven you have no idea what you are talking about concerning evolution, so how could anyone think you could discern facts from non facts? How do you know Craig posted any facts? You don't. You're just latching on to his words because you think it disproves evolution.

Also, what Craig has posted does NOT in anyway disprove evolution. He is equally ignorant of evolution as you. Posting raw numbers doesn't prove anything. Do you really think the whole body of science isn't aware of the information Craig has posted? And that all the expensive equipment they have is useless when all they had to do is write a simple program to crunch some numbers? And you expect me to believe that the vast majority of science has wasted their time PROVING evolution 10,000 times over? People like Francis Collins (who is a devout Christian) and happens to be head of the human genome project? You know the actual website Craig has been pulling in information from. http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ By yours and Craigs logic, Collins has wasted his entire career on just a "theory". Let's come back to reality.

I haven't bothered posting anything in return because you and Craig have PROVEN you aren't interested in learning about the truth of evolution. If you were then you would be reading every book you could get your hands on. You know like all the time you spent listening to Michael Rood and you spend ZERO time on evolution. Listening to creationists doesn't count as educating yourself on evolution.

You want to find out if there is any truth to Craigs work? How about Craig present all his work to a credible source to be peer reviewed?

L67
08-07-2014, 08:38 PM
I fully concur with your assessment that such suggestions are, well... in your own words, "crap".

Nice play on words. Considering the context of my statement didn't say that, I'm not surprised a creationist has to play with words.




What is so tempting about the belief of something from nothing via natural processes? Does this concept "tempt " you to believe it?

Why bothering even asking this question? You have proven you really don't care to educate yourself.

You don't even realize how silly your line of reasoning is. You say what is so tempting about believing something from nothing? Why don't you tell me? Because that is EXACTLY what you believe only you posit that a god did it? How does that advance the argument when you can't substantiate the claim that god did it?




Perhaps this is just not a very popular idea to the majority of the scientific community. If this type of logic appeals to you, then rejoice in it. I prefer to dismiss it as nonsense.

Oh, I forgot you are more qualified than the whole body of science to make such a statement. Thanks for clearing that up.:rolleyes:





Irony in my words? Creation ex nihilo" is a Biblical Truth. The first statement set forth by the Creator implying that He brought forth "something from nothing". Those are His Words. I'll trust that He knows what He's talking about. As for the other guys, well, my guess is they're probably still working on the math.


You still missed the irony. The whole point was that you copied a scientist out of context and in an attempt to dismiss science as nonsense. And you totally failed to even realized that one of the guys was trying to PROVE creation ex nihilio. :doh:



There is only one foundation that will sink in the final analysis, and that is the shifting sands of the wisdom of men over the Word of God. Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world and stated that by the wisdom of men, He would not be found? In the predetermined council of His own will, God designated the foolishness of preaching the Word to save them that believe. There is a Biblical truth that all men are fools. They can be divided as follows: "Those who say there is no God", and "Those who are fools for Christ". I find myself willing, by His grace, to be found in the latter group, where there is most certainly, no worldly prestige.

And the ones sinking are creationists. Face it, you don't have anything to substantiate that god did anything other than your blind faith in an ancient book. Your blind faith can only operate in the same place as your god. The gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Craig.Paardekooper
08-07-2014, 09:48 PM
Also, what Craig has posted does NOT in anyway disprove evolution. He is equally ignorant of evolution as you. Posting raw numbers doesn't prove anything. Do you really think the whole body of science isn't aware of the information Craig has posted? And that all the expensive equipment they have is useless when all they had to do is write a simple program to crunch some numbers? And you expect me to believe that the vast majority of science has wasted their time PROVING evolution 10,000 times over? People like Francis Collins (who is a devout Christian) and happens to be head of the human genome project? You know the actual website Craig has been pulling in information from. http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ By yours and Craigs logic, Collins has wasted his entire career on just a "theory". Let's come back to reality.

I haven't bothered posting anything in return because you and Craig have PROVEN you aren't interested in learning about the truth of evolution. If you were then you would be reading every book you could get your hands on. You know like all the time you spent listening to Michael Rood and you spend ZERO time on evolution. Listening to creationists doesn't count as educating yourself on evolution.

You want to find out if there is any truth to Craigs work? How about Craig present all his work to a credible source to be peer reviewed?
I have outlined all the personal comments in red. Please refrain from being personal. My intention is to only focus upon simple facts that speak for themselves.
Peer review is not the only way to determine the truth of a work - in this case, one can simply use counting to determine the number of genes in humans that differ from the genes in chimps.

The Biological data found at http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ is quite independent of any theory of origins, and is of enormous value in itself for medical and research purposes.

David M
08-08-2014, 12:53 AM
I have outlined all the personal comments in red. Please refrain from being personal. My intention is to only focus upon simple facts that speak for themselves.
Peer review is not the only way to determine the truth of a work - in this case, one can simply use counting to determine the number of genes in humans that differ from the genes in chimps.

The Biological data found at http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ is quite independent of any theory of origins, and is of enormous value in itself for medical and research purposes.
Hello Craig
I am in total agreement with you. I am tired of personal remarks in response to my posts and in post to others. The continued aggressive style has got tedious. I do not intend to continue to answer aggressive posts. People should stick to facts; as you are doing. You are looking at one specific subject and that is the similarity of genes between humans and chimpanzees. By doing so, you are showing that the similarity between humans and chimpanzees might not be as close as we have been lead to think. If the differences between humans and chimpanzees are not as close as the Evolution Theory tells us they are, then inferences can be drawn from the facts. This might mean Evolutionists have to refine their theory.

Naturally, if the differences between humans and chimpanzees are not as close as Evolutionists are telling us (according to their determination of the differences) then it is bound to lead to the question; what other species have greater differences than we have been told? That question is not under consideration at this time.

All the best
David

Craig.Paardekooper
08-08-2014, 12:59 AM
Hi David.

Thank you for your comment. I shall look at the dna differences between all the major transitional species later on, but for now I am focusing on chimp-human to establish a methodology

Craig

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
08-08-2014, 03:15 AM
:yo:

God and Religion does have to do with "social-biological values," and "the way that groups function." The sociologist, Emile Durkheim, has written about the sociology of religion and that is one of its major functions.

There are groups of apes and monkey species that move in similar gatherings that may echo certain kinds of religious practice. But it may have a lot to do with social function; that's a very important part of it.

Science- neurology and cognitive-science, in particular- these fields have to do with Perception, and I personally have a sense that god/religion "has to do with the way we dream." We dream probably rather similarly to the way people dreamed a few million years ago, a few thousand years ago most certainly. We know about people a thousand years ago because they wrote dream books.

Religion has to do with "some kind of brain-function" like that which is driven often by the qualia of hope and fear. And by visual-imagination. This is all enormously interesting to me! I've also had a suspicion that religion has to do with "sociobiology," that this is part of the way the species organizes, in groups. This has to do with group-affiliation and shared-values and how they are articulated.

The Bible is basically a bunch of folk-stories though I was not brought up to think that! LOL. I have absolutely no use for it and have always thought it was a bunch of absolute-nonsense and horse-shit, basically ridiculed it.

But in fact, I think it's very important to look at god and religion perhaps as "a function of the human brain, as a manifestation of part of the way we think," and certainly as a very important part of human culture. These are subjects worthy of a great deal of study by neurologists, anthropologists, cultural historians- worth a great deal more than ridicule.

It does matter, simply because enough humans believe it does matter, and in so beliveing, will religion into importance. The percieved will of God, Allah, Yahweh or whatever, guides and shapes human action, not because these beings exist in some objective, real external sense, but because they exist only within the confines of our human psyche-minds.

It's a trap of our own creation...The most deadly and dangerous kind known!

You let them be religious, they let you not be! Progress comes from "Intellectual-Discord." I hate overtly religious people.

As long as the superstition and myth persists that the rational-worldview is somehow lacking in humanity, the efforts of Freethought will only be rewarded with marginal success. It is these "Structural Fictions of Thought" that grant religion all of its respect and legitimacy. Freethought may be literally-soulless, but "its Ethical and Life-Affirming." (which is a good thing.) The fact that one can live a life where morality is solely a human affair; where the natural world offers beauty in abundance; and where life is even more precious for being finite is one all free-thinkers know, and that's why religion doesn't matter.

The actual evolution from non-conscious to consciousness does not occur within "aristotelian dichotomies", but rather through a continuum. You might ask yourself at what level of evolution does consciousness exist in animals. We have little problem with seeing evidence of consciousness in humans, apes, dolphins, or even cats and dogs.

Trying to pigeonhole just where non-con consciousness ends and consciousness begins only misses the mark and can lead us to create reification fallacies. Even though describing categories of intelligence in general terms helps us understand the broad ranges, viewing the evolution though a time continuum I think gives us a more accurate way to understand its development.

Note the progression of biological-intelligence always stem from non-conscious intelligence to conscious intelligence (evolution), never the other way around (biblical I.D. creationism). The arrow-of-time ===> ("entropy") puts non-conscious-intelligence always before conscious-intelligence on the past-future time scale.

Millions of years ago, only simple celled life-forms existed, then came multi-celled life, then multi-celled life with simple brains, and then more complex-brains, and finally human brains with large neo-cortexes with self-awareness and consciousness- dolphins and apes (humans get classified within the ape family). All of these biological life-forms contain recipes of DNA, the mechanism-of-replication which carries with it intelligent-expressions (phenotypes).

The classic and best experiment in Susan Mineka's work with a group of monkeys in Madison in the 1980's, where she set out to examine the ontogeny of an instinct- in this care fear of snakes. Wild-born monkeys are afraid of snakes. They're so scared of snakes that they will cower in the back of the cage screaming rather than reach across a plastic model snake to get at a peanut when they're very hungry. Captive-born monkeys are not afraid of snakes; they happily reach across the model snake to get at a peanut. So what's going on here? That means that fear of snakes must be learned. But how on earth do you learn fear of snakes? The conventional classical conditioning wouldn't work very well, would it, because either you have a bad experience with a snake to learn from, in which case you're dead, or you don't have a bad experience, in which case you don't learn that snakes are frightening. So how are you going to end up acquiring a fear of snakes? It seems an absurd thing to acquire. She argues that what's happening is that there is a program for fear of snakes, an instinct if you like, but that that instinct needs to be socially triggered- in some sense triggered by a vicarious experience, by observing another monkey having a fear of snakes. So she set up an experiment in which she videotaped the wild-born monkey reacting with fear to a snake, and she then showed this video to a captive-born monkey, which immediately acquired a fear of snakes and was not then prepared to reach across even a model snake to get a peanut. She now doctors the video, so that it has the same monkey reacting in the same way in the background, but the bottom half of the screen now instead of having a snake has a flower. Again, the captive-born monkey has never seen a flower, so after it sees a monkey reacting with extreme fear to this new thing called a flower it should just as easily learn a fear of flowers. But it doesn't. It just learns that some monkeys are crazy. So what's going on here is that there is clearly an instinct for fear of snakes, and that's not surprising.

Human beings have snake phobia. It's the commonest of all the phobias, even though most of us hardly even ever see a snake in our lives, but it requires an input from the environment. It requires a nurture input to be triggered. We know this is happening in the amygdala, and we're getting a bit of a handle on which cells are involved. We're not yet down to the gene level, but I'd bet my bottom dollar there's going to be a little pathway of genes in here that's mediating this process.

What about "Culture"? I think of homo sapiens as "the cultured ape" because it is cultural diversity above all that defines us as a species. Through the emergence and further elaboration of a group of neurons called "mirror-neurons" our brains have become symbiotic, or parasitic, with culture (a child raised in a cave would not be recognizably human.) Can we simulate cultural sophistication in the vat? Will the world in the 25th century be hundreds of warehouses with thousands of brains in rows and rows of vats? They could even all be identical to each other to save time and effort programming. Why not? No one brain would know it was the same as every other.

Iaccomo Rizzolati and Vittorio Gallasse discovered mirror neurons. They found that neurons in the ventral premotor area of macaque monkeys will fire anytime a monkey performs a complex action such as reaching for a peanut, pulling a lever, pushing a door, etc. (different neurons fire for different actions). Most of these neurons control motor skill (originally discovered by Vernon Mountcastle in the 60's), but a subset of them, the Italians found, will fire even when the monkey watches another monkey perform the same action.

In essence, the neuron is part of a network that "allows you to see the world from the other persons point of view," hence the name “mirror neuron."

Researchers at UCLA [1] found that cells in the human anterior cingulate, which normally fire when you poke the patient with a needle ("pain neurons"), will also fire when the patient watches another patient being poked. The mirror neurons, it would seem, dissolve the barrier between self and others. I call them "empathy neurons" or "Dalai Lama neurons". (I wonder how the mirror neurons of a masochist or sadist will respond to another person being poked.) Dissolving the "self vs. other" barrier is the basis of many ethical systems, especially eastern philosophical and mystical traditions. This research implies that mirror neurons can be used to provide rational rather than religious grounds for ethics (although we must be careful not to commit the is/ought fallacy).

Mirror Neurons and imitation learning as the driving force behind "the great leap forward in human evolution"- that the emergence of a sophisticated mirror neuron system set the stage for the emergence, in early hominids, of a number of uniquely human abilities such as proto-language (facilitated by mapping phonemes on to lip and tongue movements), empathy, "theory of other minds and gods", and the ability to "adopt another's point of view".

This crucial step emerged roughly 240 thousand years ago in the inferior parietal lobule.

Monkeys do have them but they "are not capable of sophisticated culture." There are two possible reasons for this. First, mirror neurons may be necessary but not sufficient. Other functions such as long working memory may have co-evolved through parallel selection pressures. Second, the system may need to reach a certain minimum level of sophistication before primate cognition can really get off the ground (or down from the trees!)


An idea that would be "dangerous if true" is what Francis Crick referred to as "the astonishing hypothesis"; the notion that our conscious experience and sense of self is based entirely on the activity of a hundred billion bits of jelly- the neurons that constitute the brain.

We take all this for granted in these enlightened times but even so it never ceases to amaze me...Some scholars have criticized Crick's tongue-in-cheek phrase (and title of his book) on the grounds that the hypothesis he refers to is "neither astonishing nor a hypothesis". (Since we already know it to be true.) Yet the far-reaching philosophical, moral and ethical dilemmas posed by his hypothesis have not been recognized widely enough. It is in many ways the ultimate dangerous idea.

Let's put this in historical perspective...

Freud once pointed out that the history of ideas in the last few centuries has been punctuated by "revolutions," major upheavals of thought that have forever altered our view of ourselves and our place in the cosmos.

First, there was the Copernican system dethroning the earth as the center of the cosmos. Second was the Darwinian revolution; the idea that far from being the climax of "intelligent design" we are merely neotonous apes that happen to be slightly cleverer than our cousins. Third, the Freudian view that even though you claim to be "in charge" of your life, your behavior is in fact governed by a cauldron of drives and motives of which you are largely unconscious. And fourth, the discovery of DNA and the genetic code with its implication (to quote James Watson) that "There are only molecules. Everything else is sociology."

To this list we can now add the fifth, the "neurosciencerevolution" and its corollary pointed out by Crick- the "astonishing hypothesis"- that "even our loftiest thoughts and aspirations are mere by-products of neural activity. We are nothing but a pack of neurons.

If all this seems dehumanizing, you haven't seen anything yet! :winking0071:


~"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes!"

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
08-08-2014, 03:56 AM
Consciousness is still Mysterious. And all, I think, all admit it. But we ought to remember that it's not that long ago that "life itself was thought to be equally spooky and mysterious."

I'm going to quote from a book, "A Short History of Biology" by Charles Singer, a reputable historian of science, published in 1931, where he says, about the gene,

". . . despite interpretations to the contrary, the theory of the gene is not a 'mechanist' theory. The gene is no more comprehensible as a chemical or physical entity than is the cell or, for that matter, the organism itself. . . . If I ask for a living chromosome, that is, for the only effective kind of chromosome, no one can give it to me except in its living surroundings any more than he can give me a living arm or leg. The doctrine of the relativity of functions is as true for the gene as it is for any of the organs of the body. They exist and function only in relation to other organs. Thus the last of the biological theories leaves us where the first started, in the presence of a power called life or psyche which is not only of its own kind but unique in each and all of its exhibitions."

That was 1931. In 1953, Watson and Crick drove a coach and horses through it, blew it out of the water! Genes are isolatable, they can be taken out of bodies, they can be sequenced, they can be put in bottles, they can be written out in a book and stored away in a library, and then at any time in the future they can be simply typed back into a machine and the original gene reconstituted. It could be put back into a living creature where it will work exactly the way it originally did. In the context of the gene, the understanding, the explanation is more or less total. And it was completely unexpected only a few decades ago.

My suspicion, my hunch, my hope, my prayer :pray: is that the same thing is going to be done for the conscious mind. Probably within the next century or so. The ooky-spooky "Soul" will finally be killed-off, and I say good-riddance! LOL. :lol: But in the process, far from being destroyed, will still be finding new worlds to Conquer! :thumb:

The argument that morality *can only* come from a belief in a soul that accepts God's purpose and is rewarded or punished in an afterlife. I think the evidence suggests that this doctrine is false both logically and factually. I don't think free will is a myth, only that it consists of a brain process rather than the uncaused action of an immaterial soul. Common-sense dualism is wrong. There is no consensus as to precisely how mental life emerges from a physical brain, but there is no doubt that this is its source. If by 'soul', then, you mean something immaterial and immortal, then souls do not exist. All of us are soulless-bodies... We see the world in terms of material bodies, including our own bodies, and in terms of immaterial souls. And we are dualists; we see bodies and souls as distinct.

Our dualistic perspective also affects how we think about such moral and political issues as stem-cell research, abortion, animal rights, and cloning. These are complicated issues, but the way people tend to address them- often explicitly, but always implicitly- in terms of the question: Does it have a soul? If so, then the being in question is worthy of protection, a precious individual. If not, it is a mere thing.

In the case of abortion, our common-sense dualism can support both sides of the issue. We use phrases like "my body" and "my brain", describing our bodies and body parts as if they were possessions, and some people insist that all of us- including pregnant women-own our bodies, and therefore can use them as they wish. On the other hand, the organism residing inside a pregnant body might well have a soul of its own, possibly from the moment of conception, and would thereby have its own rights. President Clinton was at a town meeting some years ago, and he discussed abortion. He described the controversy as a reasonable disagreement among moral people.

Nobody doubts the preciousness of human life. What they disagree about is an empirical issue: Precisely when does the soul occupy the body?


"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul..." -Thomas Jefferson, 1820.

David M
08-08-2014, 04:00 AM
Your post should be moved to a new thread of its own along with my reply to just a part of it. Your post is more in keeping with the conversation going on with me and Matthjar, but even some of that conversation should have a thread of its own. Your thread might be lost here and not have the impact you would like it to have.


But in fact, I think it's very important to look at god and religion perhaps as "a function of the human brain, as a manifestation of part of the way we think," and certainly as a very important part of human culture. These are subjects worthy of a great deal of study by neurologists, anthropologists, cultural historians- worth a great deal more than ridicule.
The whole subject of the mind is fascinating. Complex as the brain is, it has memory and processing power and is self-learning and stores facts and experiences in memory. This mind which has to be inferior to a mind capable of design it, has been designed in the image of its designer. The image of God's mind has the same attributes of the mind of its designer, such as love and hate.

The mind is self-aware, self-learning, self-controlling. That is why some minds learn and think their mind is greater than the mind of God, or that God does not exist. It is God's prerogative to dispense with minds that reject God and are not fit for his kingdom. That mind which rejects God, also denies God his prerogatives.

David M
08-08-2014, 04:11 AM
This whole post is not presenting the facts.


And the ones sinking are creationists. Face it, you don't have anything to substantiate that god did anything other than your blind faith in an ancient book. Your blind faith can only operate in the same place as your god. The gaps in our scientific knowledge.

The usual rhetoric making false statements that incite anger in those who suffer the slings of outrageous comments. It is like all previous discussions have meant nothing and nothing has been taken on board. This is dealing with a mind that does not deal with all the facts, or presents the facts requested.

Please stay on topic, do as Craig has requested and present solid facts on the topic.

SOPHIA-BAPHOMET777
08-08-2014, 04:57 AM
David, those are all NON-SEQUITURS DUMB-ASS! :lol:

Argument From Design

1. The universe has a complex design

Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the form of earthly based DNA life-forms.

2. Things that have a complex design, have and intelligent designer.

This is non-sequitur (it does not follow!). Designs do not require a monogenetic single designer even for human design. Designs usually come about from many designers. A Boeing 747, for example, required many designers. In fact no one single person could have had all the knowledge required to design its entirety. Even inventions usually thought of as designed by one person (light bulb by Edison, the telephone by Bell, etc.) derive from the knowledge accumulated by many persons and many disciplines. Edison, for example, could not have invented the light bulb without prior knowledge of electricity brought about by scientists before him.

I defy anyone to give an example of any physical invention created solely by a single inventor without annexing prior knowledge from others.

Taking the analogy to its extreme, everything in the universe could have come from pantheistic designers, trillions of them, where each designer (god) would consist of the dumbest possible entity needing only "knowledge" of one or two things (to react or not to react). Each designer here would consist of a subatomic particle. Thus we could have an entire universe built from many unintelligent gods.

This would also explain their silence, and agrees perfectly with the science of physics.

Complex "designs" can come about without an intelligent designer at all. Snowflakes, crystals and life-forms for example. Order and complexity can even come out of disorder; for example, galaxies, star and solar systems, the Red Spot on Jupiter, hurricanes, etc. These all show order emerging from disorder.

3. Therefore, the universe has an intelligent designer

Another non-sequitur. Simply because complexity exists, says nothing about intelligence or a designer. Again, designs do not require a monogenetic single designer, much less an intelligent one. Complexity and order occurs many times without a designer at all. All present workable scientific theories about the universe and life-forms do not require a Designer for their understanding, much less from an intelligent designer or many designers.

In light of the your pathetic "dumb-ass" arguments, you haven't established a designer much less an adequate conclusion. And the Bible's description of the world and the universe differs from observation. Even the Biblical view does not agree with the monocentric Designer hypothesis proposed by many Xtians.

Furthermore, it would not solve the creation problem, for if an "outside" designer created the universe, who created the designer? How did the "outside" come into existence? What created the conditions for the designer and the "outside"? This presents even more difficult questions that leads to endless circular reasoning, absurdum ad infinitum.

Typically answer: "Well, God always existed." But we could just as well say the Universe always existed. Why introduce an unnecessary variable? Applying Occam's Razor usually proves prudent to trim out unnecessary trash in our theories.

Moreover, you neglect other possibilities that don't require intelligent design. I could make up various other miraculous causes that would equal the God hypothesis such as Pink Unicorns, Supermen, robot agents made out of cotton candy, and so forth.

The Universe or Human Brain/Mind requires no need to postulate an intellegent-designer/demiurge-creator to make it consistent with observation and reason.To introduce a creator adds nothing to our knowledge of the universe but has only created insurmountable or inconsistent problems.

There is ZERO evidence for your lowly creator-god...Nothing, nothing at all, epis!, zip!, nada, just hard old vacuum, zero, NULL-field. That little rule holds true for so much of EVERYTHING WE CAN PERCIEVE that there is no reason to suppose that any exception at all will be made regarding our tiny and insignificant region of the universe at the end of each of our individual lives.

YOUR conscious experience and sense of self is based entirely on the activity of a hundreds and hundreds of billion bits of jelly- the neurons that constitute the brain/mind. We all take this for granted. When "YOU" die and the lights go out and the jelly of your brains just gets cool and less jelly-like, that's it, that's all! A little while later our brains begin to decompose! :lol: Which sort of implies "NO AFTER LIFE" when you get right down to it, eh. Hey pal, look around (I mean outside of low orbit!), and not just in space either, in time, or trapped in our skulls and isolated from other living minds, or in that weird little orthogonal universe that information and mathematics lives in.

That human brain- a mere lump of jelly inside YOUR cranial vault- can contemplate the vastness of interstellar space and grapple with concepts such as zero and infinity. Even more remarkably it can ask disquieting questions about the meaning of its own existence. "Who am I" is arguably the most fundamental of all questions.

In conclusion, can YOU please attempt to present an understandable theory, at least present a hypothesis without resorting to your typical superstition, supernatural or circular-reasoning and without introducing unnecessary BULL-SHIT?? :pray:

:yo: