Talk:Creation biology/Archive 3

up for discussion
i readded the diagram josh deleted in a "kneejerk" style.

i added this to clarify josh's concern that these are "superligers."
 * The kinds in their original form are hypothesized to be of a significantly superior genetic structure and much more genetically diverse than the species of today. Many of them were created with sufficient latent heterozygosity to speciate.

i removed this because it is plainly untrue. creationists point to the profound gap between chimps and humans as "yeah right" evidence against common ancestry.
 * (which the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus mostly on religious grounds).

i changed
 * "missing links,"

to
 * extinct common ancestors between higher taxa,

to explain that just as creationists have a hard time identifying the boundaries of kinds, evolutionists have a hard time figuring out who, exactly, our common ancestor with the monkeys was.

i readded this to explain the fundamental difference between the models.
 * While mainstream evolutionists emphasize the importance of mutations in providing new genetic diversity and speciation, creation biology hold that mutations are only a minor cause of speciation, and instead credit the bulk of biological diversity to the effects of reproductive isolation, inbreeding, natural selection, and genetic drift. It is further proposed that the original kinds exhibited greater heterozygosity than present species.

i replaced this because the first is vague and does not address the issues.
 * there are no mechanisms that are presented by mainstream science that they accept as explanations for how such things could have occured.::

with
 * they posit that the mainstream scientific mechanisms proposed to explain these theories are unreasonable, impossible, or falisified by observations.

alright fellas, let's hash this out right here. Ungtss 15:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed the following:


 * While mainstream science infers from degrees of genetic similarity and the fossil record that all life shares a common ancestor, creation biology infers from scriptural evidence, for which it finds support in the degrees of genetic differences and an absence of transitional forms in the fossil record that all cats may share a common ancestor, but dogs and cats do not. 


 * While mainstream science theorises that speciation is due to an increase in genetic diversity and complexity through random mutation, creation biology holds that speciation is due to a decrease in the same respects from an original design.


 * While mainstream evolutionists emphasize the importance of mutations in providing new genetic diversity and speciation, creation biology hold that mutations are only a minor cause of speciation, and instead credit the bulk of biological diversity to the effects of reproductive isolation, inbreeding, natural selection, and genetic drift. It is further proposed that the original kinds exhibited greater heterozygosity than present species.


 * And replace it with what is currently there. First of all, mainstream science mainfestly DOES NOT theorize that speciation is due to an "increase" in genetic diversity. That is a creationist misnomer. Genetic diversity is created and destroyed in mainstream biology not just created, and the concept of "genetic information" is one that is misused by creationists and doesn't apply in thisinstance at all. Secondly, mainstream scientists don't ephasize the importance of mutations: mutations are not what allow the evolution of species, it is all the effects that according to the last paragraph creationists think are important as well. The fact is that mutations in-and-of-themselves are not what evolution is about. It is a mischaracterization to include such a statement. The current paragraph is correct from a mainstream scientific standpoint. If you think it is NPOV with respect to a creationist standpoint, edit the points you need. Joshuaschroeder 20:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<>
 * summary dismissal doesn't cut it. how do evolutionists think we got from bacteria to humans?  by an INCREASE in genetic information.  justify your misrepresentation of evolution in order to hide from reality, please.  Ungtss 21:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not simply an increase in genetic information: it's specialization to an environment. Since "genetic information" is an ill-defined term as genetic complexity, it's difficult to determine exactly what you mean when you say that information had to be added to the genome in order for single-celled organisms to be the ancestors of multicellular organisms, for example. Specialization can carry the appearance of increase in information when really it's an adaptation to a specific environment (thus making the organism more vulnerable to environmental changes and catastrophes, for example). Evolution is not about genetic information, though AnsersInGenesis wants it to be cast in that way --> it's about natural selection and interactions with environmental factors.
 * Was information added to the genome in order for bacteria to be the ancestors of human beings? It's hard to say because a quantifiable measurement of genetic information isn't offered by anybody that is consistent. The genetic code of multicellular organisms is full of junk DNA that serve only no functional purpose in day-to-day interactions. Does this stuff count in the "genetic information" of the organism? There are indications that highly-specialized multicellular organisms may have less "information" in their genome than smaller multicellular organisms that are not as specialized. The analogy could easily follow through between multicellular and unicellular. Since the specific amount of information required to encode a single-cellular eukaryote and a multicellular eukaryote is difficult to determine, we really cannot make anything other than handwaving judgements to this regard and so the criteria is not used in modern evolutionary theory. This is especially true if you consider the symbiosis evolution that we know occured, for example, between mitochondria and chloroplasts and other cells.
 * <>
 * nobody said it was SIMPLY an increase in genetic information -- the increase is necessary, but not sufficient. beyond that, you're evading the simple fact that humans have more genes than bacteria, so there WAS an increase by definition.  you're talking about natural selection and genetic drift, but those do nothing but strip OUT BAD material -- the only way to get NEW material is through mutation.  Ungtss 03:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that you reject transposons and polyploidy? These are considered mutations that have the potential to add genes. We know they had to occur since mitochondrial DNA is different from the parent cell.Joshuaschroeder 20:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<''Secondly, mainstream scientists don't ephasize the importance of mutations: mutations are not what allow the evolution of species, it is all the effects that according to the last paragraph creationists think are important as well. The fact is that mutations in-and-of-themselves are not what evolution is about. It is a mischaracterization to include such a statement.''>>
 * once again, summary dismissal doesn't cut it. where does the RAW GENETIC MATERIAL come from within the evolutionist standpoint -- the ONLY source of new material is mutation, which is then shaped and shaved by selection and genetic drift.  tell me why i'm wrong, please.  Ungtss 21:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * RAW GENETIC MATERIAL that is added to a genome is a misnomer. It doesn't exist. We don't have the stuff just floating about in the ecosystem that latches on to other genomes. We do observe processes whereby strings of DNA and even entire chromosomes are added to genomes, however, these processes are not the sole means by which evolution occurs. What is required is a mutation that is environmentally beneficial. Sometimes the REMOVAL of genetic material is environmentally beneficial. Sometimes pseudogene activation, for example, is what is beneficial. It's all contextual, but it's by no means ALL mutations. Joshuaschroeder 23:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * once again, you're evading by throwing a strawman. nobody said it was the ONLY way it happened -- it's necessary but not sufficient -- but there is NO OTHER WAY THAT NEW GENES AND INFORMATION COME ABOUT.  natural selection + genetic drift are purely negative.  or am i wrong?  Ungtss 03:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * See above, I would say that you are wrong. Joshuaschroeder 21:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

finally, why did you delete this: <> leaving creationists only with the bible, and no rational basis for their belief? what possible justification could you have for such an edit? Ungtss 21:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Since creationists don't define transistional forms, how do they know there is an absence of them? You can't just posit a lack without providing evidence. Joshuaschroeder 23:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'll tell you what a transitional form is. a transition form is a form that is identifiable as having significant characteristics of two higher taxa -- like a hairy lizard, or a dog-cat.  they're easy to define.  you just don't have any.  Ungtss 03:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you reject all of the ones stated. I posted the entire transitional record between reptiles and mammals. Obviously you contest every single one of those transitional forms. "Hairy lizard" is ridiculous because hair evolved late in the transition. In actuality, it was dog/bear/weasles that branched from cat/civet/hyenas, so the transitional form isn't between cats and dogs but rather between catcivets and dogbears. The Eocene provides the transitional forms. This is rejected by creationists. Joshuaschroeder 06:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please address these points
Here's some major problems with kinds. Please respond Ungtss.

Since evolution says organisms came from a common ancestor and since they lived in a continuity of environments, we should see a continuum of organisms. There should be a continuous series of animals between cats and dogs, so that one could not tell where cats left off and dogs began. Source: Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 70-71.

The claim might be true if there were no such thing as extinction. But since species do become extinct, intermediates that once existed do not exist today. Since extinction is a one-way street, species can only become less connected over time. This is clear if we look at the fossil record, in which early members of separate groups are much harder to tell apart.

Environments (and ecological niches) are not really as continuous as the claim pretends. Dogs bring down their prey through long chases, and cats ambush their prey; dogs are made for long-distance running, and cats are made for short sprints with high acceleration from a standing start. These requirements are quite different, and it is hard to achieve both in a single body. Compromises between the two have disadvantages in competition with specialists for either type, and thus natural selection culls them. Intermediates are competitive only so long as specialists are absent; so when specialists evolve, the intermediates are likely to become extinct.
 * 1) they should leave fossils, since they were around for millions of years.
 * 2) if they were superior to their ancestors (as the many mutations leading to homo erectus or whatever the fictional missing link of the day is should have been superior to the chimps) should beat out the lower forms, and be "better able" to survive. there are many species of fish that are not reproductively isolated and inhabit the same niche.  why would natural selection permit this?  Ungtss 13:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you asking if there's fossil evidence for proto-carnivores? Or are you asking for evidence of something that meets your characterisation of a 'cat-dog'?
 * any true protocarnivore would do the trick. all i've seen are "rodents" or "dogs" or "cats" -- their "kind" is plainly identifiable just by looking at them.  if dogs evolved with bears, then where are the BEAR-DOGS?  Ungtss 18:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And who gets to define 'true'? Rodents aren't carnivores, they're in fact more closely related to man.  "Plainly identifiable"?  Is the gold standard going to be 'creationist common sense', then?  The bear-dogs are extinct, what did you think?  Are you about to ask me to dredge up references to the fossil and genetic evidence for their relatedness?  Are we, in short, veering increasingly away from the focus of the article?   Alai 19:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm just addressing the questions as i've been instructed. "creationist common sense" is probably a good name for it.  you tell me the bear-dogs are extinct, but i haven't seen the fossils.  i've seen bears, and i've seen dogs, but no bear-dogs.  Ungtss 19:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I still don't see hiw it's helping with regard to the state of the article. So in other words, yes, you want me to go on a evidenciary hunt for eocene proto-carnivores, so's you can tell me after the fact what criteria you'll be using to dismiss them?  (The genetic similarity point you don't address at all.)  Alai 20:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI the standard model cites 'Miacis' as an eocene proto-carnivore, and there's fossil evidence for it. (On the basis of some more google-grade research.)  Now obviously, this won't be a "true proto-carnivore" for you, for some reason or another, but just to let you know.  Alai 03:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't follow; isn't natural selection on your list of things that CBs and EBs agree on?  What precisely is the point at dispute here?  Alai 18:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * he's trying to explain why the intermediates are gone by saying they went extinct. i'm wondering, if the intermediates had an evolutionary advantage over the originals, why didn't natural selection PRESERVE them while eliminating the originals?  i.e. if homo erectus was superior to the branch that remained chimps, then why didn't it wipe out the chimps?  Ungtss 18:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Different environments. And please note the originals were not "chimps", thus they could not have "remained" chimps.  I realize you don't want to taint yourself by reading about evolutionary biology, but are you familiar with the maxim, "know your enemy"?  If we're going to have to go over basics of EB, which you've decided in advance you can't accept, this is going to be very long drawn out and painful.  Alai 19:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * different environments can't do it i don't think -- that's what i said in the original -- there are many different animals that are in the same ecological niche. Ungtss 19:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the point; you asked about "chimps" (forest-dwelling primates) vs. homidids (plains-dwellers).  This is key to the acccount of hominid evolution, so if you're bringing it up here, it's either a pretty tacky straw man, or indicates you're not at all familiar with the evolutionary model you want to poke holes at, in circuitous defence of CB.  Alai 20:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In part, distinctness is an illusion caused by our choice of which groups to give names to. Groups with unclear boundaries tend not to get separate names, or groups in which intermediate forms exist are chopped in half arbitrarily (especially obvious if fossil forms are considered; e.g., the line between dinosaurs and birds is arbitrary, increasingly so as new fossils are discovered).

There are indeed several cases of continua in nature. In many groups, such as some grasses and leafhoppers, different species are very hard to tell apart. At least ten percent of bird species are similar enough to another species to produce fertile hybrids (Weiner 1994, 198-199). The most obvious continua are called ring species, because in the classic case (the herring gull complex) they form a ring around the North Pole. If we start in Western Europe and move west, similar populations, capable of interbreeding, succeed each other geographically. When we have traveled all the way around the world and reach Western Europe again, the final population is different enough that we call it a separate species, and it is incapable of interbreeding with herring gulls, even though they are connected by a continuous chain of interbreeding populations. This is a big problem for creationists. We expect kinds to be easily determined if they were created separately, but there are no such obvious divisions: They are mistaken, who repeat that the greater part of our species are clearly limited, and that the doubtful species are in a feeble minority. This seemed to be true, so long as a genus was imperfectly known, and its species were founded upon a few specimens, that is to say, were provisional. Just as we come to know them better, intermediate forms flow in, and doubts as to specific limits augment. (de Condolle, quoted in Darwin, 1872, chap. 2)


 * i don't have a problem with the above facts, only the above groundless conclusion. once again, KINDS can produce many many species, and those species may or may not be reproductively compatible (but will usually be close).  the above conclusion that "this is a problem for creationists" is simply not true.  you evolutionists persist in saying that "creationists deny that speciation can take place."  that's simply not true, as indicated on the page, and by me a dozen times.  i don't have a problem with those birds being related.
 * my PROBLEM is with the rather silly belief that those birds differentiated through MUTATION and selection alone ... rather than from preexisting heterozygous characteristics that allowed some raw material for selection to work on. you're saying that each of those birds evolved its independent characteristcs by chance after all the bad ones were selected out.  i'm saying each of those birds came from ancestors who had the preexisting ability to create ALL of those species.  my theory is more parsimonious.  Ungtss 13:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * But we're not here to discuss your theories; we're here to describe CB.  I keep asking you to try and keep the advocacy in check, and you respond in "advocacy, what advocacy?" terms, then keep right on going.  In a more moderate tone in the article space, but there nonetheless.   I think it's not a good model of for the article to structure it on the basis of, let's give the CBs the last word on everything, regardless of the status of the detail of their proposals, the amount of research behind them, or indeed the factuality thereof.  But that's how it's going:  we can't even get rid of one piece of POV before the next "yes, but" rolls on in.
 * I don't believe anyone has at any point editted the article to say "creationists deny that speciation can take place.", so I don't see the standing of the above objection. (Then again, it does EBs no good ultimately to refute CB models of speedy-speciation, since they always have the option of moving the 'created kind' back to the species level in any given case.)  You're speaking (here, and in the article) as if CBs propose some mechanism for speciation that EBs don't:  this is not the case.  The CB list is simply the EB one, minus mutation.  ('Mutation' let's use for the time being as an umbrella for all chance non-reproductive perturbations to the genome, which is to gloss over a lot of details, but they're probably not very material here.)
 * You keep throwing in 'heterozygous' as the cure for all CB speciation's ills, but you're very short on specifics. What sort of genome would be able to code for all the characteristics for a modern family -- much less that of a whole order?  Hz gets you two sets of characteristics for free;  from a liger/tigon population, interfertility willing, yes, you'd be able to back-breed a reasonable-looking tiger (or lion).  But how do you get a lion/tiger/leopard/jaguar/puma/geoffrey's cat/caracal/housecat/cheetah/etc, etc, etc hybrid, containing the information of all?  Do you have one copy of each chromosome per 'target' species, on the liger model?  Do you have 'stretch' chromosomes?  Recall that genetics is one the list of things that CBs agree with the 'mainstream' on...  Alai 18:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * <>
 * 1) my goal is not to advocate it on the PAGE, but i was baited on the talkpage, so i took the challenge. Ungtss 18:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * 2) creationists have 14 individuals (7 pairs, as reported by genesis) with 2 pairs each -- that allows for 28 completely homozygous combinations, and any number of combinations between them in the original genepool. secondly, you've got many polygenic traits or linked traits (for instance, the "masking" gene that provides for more eye-colors than blue or brown).  third, not ALL cats have to be related (for instance, the sabertooth might have come in separately as proposed by AiG).  fourth, all cats off south america have the exact same number of chromosomes -- only the south american cats have had a chromosome link up -- creationists and evolutionists agree on that, no?  Ungtss 18:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * And how exactly does that help? How do you 'engineer' genomes that code all those different characteristics, and yet are still interfertile?  Are you suggesting this is possible with conventional genetics, or are special circumstances involved here?  (I don't see how the number of individuals figures here, I didn't even mention that as a possible constraint.)  Sabretooth isn't a felidae, that's not pertinent.  Numbers of chromosome pairs I don't know off the top of the head, I'm talking about overall content of the genome.  What I was asking was if you were invoking some sort of hyper-polyploidy in your ancestral cats, not modern cats.  (South American cats?  Which?)  "Evolutionists"?  If you mean evolutionary biologists, please say so.  Alai 19:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * heterozygosity. i'm hypothesizing that the distinctly "tiger" and "lion" segments of the code could exist in a heterozygous state in the original kinds.  for instance, a pair of ligers can contain a FULL GENOME for both a lion AND a tiger, without any additional engineering, because they have TWO of each chromosome.  one chromosome contains the uniquely "tiger" genes, and the other chromosome contains the uniquely "lion" genes.  no additional genetic material.  just carrying a mixture of what we now only see separately.  whereas evolution sees the changes happening through mutation and selection, i see the changes happening through the SORTING of those characteristics.  that's why the number of original animals is relevent.  i've got the potential for 28 COMPLETELY DISTINCT FELINES coming off the ark, and a good amount of room for blending.  Ungtss 19:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please stop saying 'heterozygosity' as if it's the answer to anything, rather than the question at hand. You keep throwing up the liger example, but what about much less related felidae? What possible set of genes can a) breed with each other, and b) (d)evolve into all of the felines I've mentioned within a hundreds of generations? I repeat my question about which south american cat(s) you were referring to. Oh, and can can you please also STOP SHOUTING SO MUCH? Alai 20:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i actually find that fact to be very interesting, and i'd like to know more specifics about the species of birds.