Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 40 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 400

Thread: Genetic Entropy

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    677
    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
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 05-23-2013 at 11:10 PM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,622
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    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...rsus-mute.aspx

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    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
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    677
    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".
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 05-24-2013 at 03:38 PM.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    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
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    677

    Mutation and Information Theory

    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.

    Name:  gigantopithecus-size.jpg
Views: 68
Size:  155.7 KB

    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

    Name:  BigCow.png
Views: 66
Size:  39.0 KB

    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.

    Name:  BigDeer.png
Views: 66
Size:  71.2 KB

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

    Name:  CaveBear.jpg
Views: 52
Size:  43.0 KB
    Here is a nice little video -

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode..._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

    Name:  elasmotherium.png
Views: 51
Size:  50.7 KB

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

    Name:  bison-latifrons.jpg
Views: 52
Size:  9.6 KB


    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.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 05-27-2013 at 09:49 PM.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    677

    A man and his dog

    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.

    Name:  meganthropus.jpg
Views: 51
Size:  29.5 KB

    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.

    Name:  meganthropus-heidelbergensis-giant.jpg
Views: 48
Size:  130.5 KB

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

    Name:  Canine.jpg
Views: 48
Size:  99.1 KB

    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.

    Name:  BigDog.png
Views: 48
Size:  77.3 KB

    In the Pleistocene we also find giant sheep

    Name:  GiantSheep.jpg
Views: 39
Size:  8.7 KB

    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.

    Name:  dinohyus-unlstatemuseum.jpg
Views: 39
Size:  48.8 KB

    The hornless rhino grew to over 17 ft tall

    Name:  giant-rhino-300x224.jpg
Views: 38
Size:  19.0 KB

    There were also giant camels, giant giraffes, giant crocodiles, giant snakes, giant birds etc
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 05-27-2013 at 10:34 PM.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post

    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/
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    677
    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.
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 05-27-2013 at 10:01 PM.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    677

    A Crocodiles Tale

    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.



    Name:  GiantCroc.jpg
Views: 38
Size:  17.2 KB
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 05-28-2013 at 09:36 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •