Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [CreationTalk] A summary by request of Dan and a responce to Charles

Expand Messages
  • Charles Creager Jr
    I will provide Dan s requested summary in later post since including it here would make it too long. At this point I will respond to nathan ... No problems so
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 29, 2006
      I will provide Dan's requested summary in later post since including it
      here would make it too long. At this point I will respond to nathan

      nathan lawrence wrote:
      > 1: The nature of Gentry's interpretation
      >
      > Many people really understand Gentry's interpretation. Most think of
      > the earth just appearing out of no were in solid form, but this is
      > not so. Gentry's theory starts with a LIQUID planet but then turned
      > into a solid, he makes this very clear in many places in "Creation's
      > Tiny Mystery". This would explain many of the geological objections
      > to Gentry's ideas. For example evidence of granites forming during
      > the Flood. The question is, is the evidence for rapid cooling of the
      > planet earth or the cooling of post-Flood granites?
      >
      > "Just because Precambrian granites are considered primordial or
      > created rocks does not preclude the possibility that they were formed
      > from a liquid. The Creator, after calling the chemical elements into
      > existence, might well, in the next instant of time, have formed those
      > elements into a liquid, and then immediately cooled that liquid so
      > that it crystallized into the granites containing the polonium halos.
      > These granites would have been created instantly and yet still show
      > the characteristics of rocks that crystallize from a liquid or melt."-
      > Robert V. Gentry
      >
      > Also keep in mind Gentry's interpretation would allow non-granite
      > rock to be created with the granites. This must also keep kept in
      > mind when considering Gentry's theory.

      No problems so far

      > Furthermore, Gentry's interpretation would allow for a reheating of
      > the granites. This would mean that both Gentry and RATE could be
      > right. Imagine this: The granites were created in the primordial
      > earth, but during the Flood they were reposition, reformed, and
      > distorted certain areas.
      >
      > The heat caused by the Flood would leave safe zones from the intense
      > heat, will others would turned into magma. In the safe zones the
      > evidence would support Gentry's theory, but in the heat zones the
      > granites were reshaped to contradict the Gentry interpretation. The
      > halos in the heat zones are the result of uranium decay, but in the
      > safe zones the pre-Flood halos remained as they were and give
      > evidence of instant creation.

      1. The eraser of radio halos does not require melting the rock, it only
      requires temperatures grater than 150 degrees C.
      2 Any granite capable of producing radio halos would have been self
      heating do to accelerated decay,

      These factors would effectively eliminate these safe zones as far as
      granite is concerned.

      > 2: Supposed fossils in granite
      >
      > The very second Gentry heard the claim that fossil can be found is
      > granites, he went to the places were evolutionist and RATE claimed
      > they could be found. Were ever he went he found that there were NONE
      > to be found there. Gentry has been to EVERY fossil site in North
      > America were people have claimed were there fossils in granites can
      > be found, but found nothing more then false fossils. This is most
      > likely a result of either the rapid cool down of the planet during
      > the creation or the Flood causing havoc on the rocks.
      >
      > "I have visited every site in North America where reports of fossils
      > in granite have been cited to me as proof that Po halos in granites
      > cannot be primordial. In no instance was there any validity to the
      > claims. They were all spurious, the result of evolutionists vainly
      > trying to invent something to substantiate their beliefs." Robert V.
      > Gentry.

      RATE dose not say that the granite contained fossils, but that it
      intrudes in ti fossil barring rock. RATE II pg. 128

      > 3: The existence of granites defy natural explanation
      >
      > Gentry has presented a test for years. It simply goes like this:
      >
      > "Damon's strongest objections to my results centered around two
      > points-the association of polonium halos in granites with primordial
      > polonium and the identification of the Precambrian granites as the
      > primordial Genesis rocks of our planet. It occurred to me there was a
      > laboratory experiment which, if successful, in theory would allow
      > scientists to confirm a major prediction of the evolutionary scenario
      > and at the same time falsify my model of creation.
      >
      > "To understand this test readers must remember that in the
      > evolutionary model the proto-earth began some 4.5 billion years ago
      > in a semi-molten condition. A slowly cooling earth supposedly led to
      > the formation of various types of rocks at many different times and
      > places. Geologists think that the Precambrian granites, the
      > crystalline basement rocks of the continents, were among those rocks
      > that formed at different intervals over that long cooling period.
      > According to the uniformitarian principle the physical processes
      > which governed the crystallization of the granites in the past are
      > the same as those operable on earth today. The inevitable conclusion
      > is that it should be possible to duplicate the process of granite
      > formation in a modern scientific laboratory. That is, it should be
      > possible-provided the uniformitarian principle is really valid."-
      > Robert V. Gentry.
      >
      > The results of the test would decide who's right, Gentry or RATE/
      > secular geology.

      The lumping together of rate and secular geology is a straw man. RATE's
      model of granite formation is far closer to Gentry's than secular
      geology. RATE and Gentry both have rapid cooling while secular geology
      has slow cooling.

      > The repeated results of the test keep on showing
      > that granites CANNOT be formed under natural conditions and that they
      > are literally miracle rocks. On this basis I claim that the Earth's
      > granites could not have been created during the Flood.
      > Gentry goes into deeper detail in his book.

      Once again the Flood was not a natural event and It is highly unlikely
      that any lab experiment could recreate the exact physical condition
      during Flood, at least with current technology so this point has no
      barring on RATE's model. More below.

      > (I suppose that God could of created the granites during the Flood
      > but I object to this on the grounds of reason. I see no reason for
      > God to create granites during the Flood and it seems to be
      > contradictory to the purpose of the Flood. Flood was meant to destroy
      > the Earth, not to rebuild it. It is far more reasonable for God to
      > create them during the creation week)

      One reason for God to create granites during the Flood, would be to
      provide evidence for the Flood. Also while the the purpose of the Flood.
      Flood was meant to destroy the Earth, some reconstruction would be part
      of the recovery after all the mountains we have to day were formed
      during the Flood.

      > 4: Many Po halos cannot be accounted for by uranium decay
      >
      > Prof. Feather , an evolutionist, after looking at the data, rejected
      > the uranium theory on very solid grounds. His conclusions were
      > derived from a theoretical investigation of the nuclear properties of
      > the relevant isotopes. Gentry's 1968 and 1976 Science reports, to
      > which Feather refers, show respectively that the secondary
      > radioactivity are not valid for polonium halos in granites. He has
      > pointed out that many Po halos are most likely not caused by uranium
      > decay because it would require ideal conditions. Conditions that are
      > so hard to reach that it would require a miracle.

      All of which predate RATE, which show that the ideal conditions could
      occurred during the Flood.

      > Also, the ring structure of many don't match those expected by that
      > of uranium decay. Gentry has done hundreds of experiment along these
      > and often the results show that many Po cannot have formed by the
      > means of uranium.
      >
      > Furthermore, Gentry has done many experiments with advance acid
      > etching techniques. He has repeatedly shown that many Po cores have
      > no sign of uranium , no traces and any other signs remotely connected
      > with uranium, but are entire consistent with good old polonium decay.
      > This proves that many Po halos can't be formed by uranium decay and
      > were formed by the means of polonium.
      >
      > And also, Gentry sites areas were they is no cracks or any other sign
      > of foreign elements seeping into the rocks. Uranium leaves a fine
      > trail, were you can trace it's movements.
      >
      > This contradicts RATE, since ALL Po halos should be from uranium
      > decay is their model. I do not doubt that many Po halos are the
      > results of uranium, but there are those few that clearly support
      > Gentry's theory.

      The answer to all of this is simple. U238 in a zircon decays in to
      Rn222,. The Rn222 mover to an impurity where is get trapped and decays
      to the Po210, Po214, and Po218. The uranium does not move any place but
      since the decay products move, there would be no uranium at the site of
      the Po halo and no sign of uranium movement


      > The following are the statements were made by Charles and I will
      > respond point by point:
      >
      > "How does Gentry's interpretation would allow for a reheating?
      > The reheating would have be hot enough to erase any pre-Flood halos,
      > it does not require melting."
      >
      > As I showed in point one of my summary of issue, there would be safe
      > and heat zones. Both Gentry and RATE are right. There is solid
      > evidence supporting Gentry and RATE, thus we must combine the two
      > models.

      See above.
      >
      > "Fission track data shows that the rock got that hot."
      >
      > I don't know much about this one but I think this could be also
      > interpreted as the heat generated from the primordial liquid,

      You missed the point Like halos the fission tracks are erased above
      150 C and there fewer fission tracks than indicated by the amount of
      nuclear decay in known preFlood granite. By the way the nuclear decay
      has to have occurred after the Granite solidified.

      > "Second the Flood was nether normal geology nor was it a natural
      > event."
      >
      > But yet it can be understood in natural terms.

      True, but the condition during the Flood wee so unnatural that, you
      could not call the Flood granite formation natural.

      > "Both Gentry and Rate agree that the granite cooled unnaturally
      > quick, that may be the key to its formation."
      >
      > The cooling rates, no pun intended, are not the same in the two
      > models.

      True but both cooling rates are many orders of magnitude faster than
      magma is seen to cool today, besides RATE's data only sets an upper
      limit too cooling time not a lower limit.

      > In Gentry's model it's a whole planet we are talking about
      > and in RATE's it's merely one layer.

      RATE's model is dealing with more than one layer, besides its not relevant

      > "in that case it could have formed during the flood as well as day
      > two of creation."
      >
      > The granites , as I stated in my summary, were merely reshaped during
      > the Flood. I based this off the fact that granites cannot form naturally.

      Even if you consider granite formation during the Flood to be natural,
      the "fact" that granites cannot form naturally, is based on post Flood
      conditions, not the conditions during the Flood. As such they have no
      barring on granite formation during the Flood

      > "Also even if the only possible answer is that God formed granite by
      > a direct act, there is no reason that he could not have done so during
      > the Flood as well as creation."
      >
      > Not true. Can you give me any rational reason why would God would
      > created a layer of while distorying the others?

      1. See above.
      2. I was simply making the point that a supper natural explanation does
      not prove when God did it.

      --- Charles Creager Jr.
    • nathan lawrence
      I will reply in full later. There is a lot here. It seems most of the issue comes down to one thing. A mere interpretation of the experimental data concerning
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 1, 2006
        I will reply in full later. There is a lot here.

        It seems most of the issue comes down to one thing. A
        mere interpretation of the experimental data
        concerning the possibility of secondary granite
        creation. We are at two options:

        1: The granites must have been formed during the
        creation event because all further events are
        understood in natural terms.

        2: Many granites formed during the Flood because God
        intervened.

        The WHOLE issue comes down to this and how we merely
        interpret this. The one you merely choose will decide
        which model you come to.

        I’m not going to be dogmatic about the issue and I
        have learned a lot about RATE during this discussion.
        Thank you Charles for your information. From this
        exchange I am convinced that there are missing pieces
        to this puzzle. There must be some explanation for the
        lead. Maybe this is the key of the whole issue.

        You have a valid point at the erasing of Po halos from
        the granites, but does this apply to all Flood models?
        Would it apply to hydroplate theory and vertical
        plate tectonics?

        I want to go through as much data as I can before I
        make anymore claims concerning the issue.

        --- Charles Creager Jr <cpcjr@...>
        wrote:

        > I will provide Dan's requested summary in later post
        > since including it
        > here would make it too long. At this point I will
        > respond to nathan
        >
        > nathan lawrence wrote:
        > > 1: The nature of Gentry's interpretation
        > >
        > > Many people really understand Gentry's
        > interpretation. Most think of
        > > the earth just appearing out of no were in solid
        > form, but this is
        > > not so. Gentry's theory starts with a LIQUID
        > planet but then turned
        > > into a solid, he makes this very clear in many
        > places in "Creation's
        > > Tiny Mystery". This would explain many of the
        > geological objections
        > > to Gentry's ideas. For example evidence of
        > granites forming during
        > > the Flood. The question is, is the evidence for
        > rapid cooling of the
        > > planet earth or the cooling of post-Flood
        > granites?
        > >
        > > "Just because Precambrian granites are considered
        > primordial or
        > > created rocks does not preclude the possibility
        > that they were formed
        > > from a liquid. The Creator, after calling the
        > chemical elements into
        > > existence, might well, in the next instant of
        > time, have formed those
        > > elements into a liquid, and then immediately
        > cooled that liquid so
        > > that it crystallized into the granites containing
        > the polonium halos.
        > > These granites would have been created instantly
        > and yet still show
        > > the characteristics of rocks that crystallize
        > from a liquid or melt."-
        > > Robert V. Gentry
        > >
        > > Also keep in mind Gentry's interpretation would
        > allow non-granite
        > > rock to be created with the granites. This must
        > also keep kept in
        > > mind when considering Gentry's theory.
        >
        > No problems so far
        >
        > > Furthermore, Gentry's interpretation would allow
        > for a reheating of
        > > the granites. This would mean that both Gentry
        > and RATE could be
        > > right. Imagine this: The granites were created in
        > the primordial
        > > earth, but during the Flood they were reposition,
        > reformed, and
        > > distorted certain areas.
        > >
        > > The heat caused by the Flood would leave safe
        > zones from the intense
        > > heat, will others would turned into magma. In the
        > safe zones the
        > > evidence would support Gentry's theory, but in
        > the heat zones the
        > > granites were reshaped to contradict the Gentry
        > interpretation. The
        > > halos in the heat zones are the result of uranium
        > decay, but in the
        > > safe zones the pre-Flood halos remained as they
        > were and give
        > > evidence of instant creation.
        >
        > 1. The eraser of radio halos does not require
        > melting the rock, it only
        > requires temperatures grater than 150 degrees C.
        > 2 Any granite capable of producing radio halos
        > would have been self
        > heating do to accelerated decay,
        >
        > These factors would effectively eliminate these safe
        > zones as far as
        > granite is concerned.
        >
        > > 2: Supposed fossils in granite
        > >
        > > The very second Gentry heard the claim that
        > fossil can be found is
        > > granites, he went to the places were evolutionist
        > and RATE claimed
        > > they could be found. Were ever he went he found
        > that there were NONE
        > > to be found there. Gentry has been to EVERY
        > fossil site in North
        > > America were people have claimed were there
        > fossils in granites can
        > > be found, but found nothing more then false
        > fossils. This is most
        > > likely a result of either the rapid cool down of
        > the planet during
        > > the creation or the Flood causing havoc on the
        > rocks.
        > >
        > > "I have visited every site in North America where
        > reports of fossils
        > > in granite have been cited to me as proof that Po
        > halos in granites
        > > cannot be primordial. In no instance was there
        > any validity to the
        > > claims. They were all spurious, the result of
        > evolutionists vainly
        > > trying to invent something to substantiate their
        > beliefs." Robert V.
        > > Gentry.
        >
        > RATE dose not say that the granite contained
        > fossils, but that it
        > intrudes in to fossil barring rock. RATE II pg. 128
        >
        > > 3: The existence of granites defy natural
        > explanation
        > >
        > > Gentry has presented a test for years. It simply
        > goes like this:
        > >
        > > "Damon's strongest objections to my results
        > centered around two
        > > points-the association of polonium halos in
        > granites with primordial
        > > polonium and the identification of the
        > Precambrian granites as the
        > > primordial Genesis rocks of our planet. It
        > occurred to me there was a
        > > laboratory experiment which, if successful, in
        > theory would allow
        > > scientists to confirm a major prediction of the
        > evolutionary scenario
        > > and at the same time falsify my model of
        > creation.
        > >
        > > "To understand this test readers must remember
        > that in the
        > > evolutionary model the proto-earth began some 4.5
        > billion years ago
        > > in a semi-molten condition. A slowly cooling
        > earth supposedly led to
        > > the formation of various types of rocks at many
        > different times and
        > > places. Geologists think that the Precambrian
        > granites, the
        > > crystalline basement rocks of the continents,
        > were among those rocks
        > > that formed at different intervals over that long
        > cooling period.
        > > According to the uniformitarian principle the
        > physical processes
        > > which governed the crystallization of the
        > granites in the past are
        > > the same as those operable on earth today. The
        > inevitable conclusion
        > > is that it should be possible to duplicate the
        > process of granite
        > > formation in a modern scientific laboratory. That
        > is, it should be
        > > possible-provided the uniformitarian principle is
        > really valid."-
        > > Robert V. Gentry.
        > >
        > > The results of the test would decide who's right,
        > Gentry or RATE/
        > > secular geology.
        >
        > The lumping together of rate and secular geology is
        > a straw man. RATE's
        > model of granite formation is far closer to Gentry's
        > than secular
        > geology. RATE and Gentry both have rapid cooling
        > while secular geology
        > has slow cooling.
        >
        > > The repeated results of the test keep on showing
        > > that granites CANNOT be formed under natural
        > conditions and that they
        > > are literally miracle rocks. On this basis I
        > claim that the Earth's
        > > granites could not have been created during the
        > Flood.
        > > Gentry goes into deeper detail in his book.
        >
        > Once again the Flood was not a natural event and It
        > is highly unlikely
        > that any lab experiment could recreate the exact
        > physical condition
        > during Flood, at least with current technology so
        > this point has no
        > barring on RATE's model. More below.
        >
        > > (I suppose that God could of created the granites
        > during the Flood
        >
        === message truncated ===




        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
        http://new.mail.yahoo.com
      • Charles Creager Jr
        ... 3: Granites can form through natural processes, but it requires unnatural conditions, such as vary rapid cooling and solidification. Both Gentry s and
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 1, 2006
          nathan lawrence wrote:
          >
          > I will reply in full later. There is a lot here.
          >
          > It seems most of the issue comes down to one thing. A
          > mere interpretation of the experimental data
          > concerning the possibility of secondary granite
          > creation. We are at two options:
          >
          > 1: The granites must have been formed during the
          > creation event because all further events are
          > understood in natural terms.
          >
          > 2: Many granites formed during the Flood because God
          > intervened.

          3: Granites can form through natural processes, but it requires
          unnatural conditions, such as vary rapid cooling and solidification.

          Both Gentry's and RATE's models have this and regardless of the
          mechanism by which this rapid cooling occurred, it may not; at least at
          present; be duplicated in a lab.

          > From this exchange I am convinced that there are
          > missing pieces to this puzzle. There must be some
          > explanation for the lead. Maybe this is the key of
          > the whole issue.

          It would help to the know the exact lead isotope, and whether or not it
          is found in rock considered to have formed during the flood.

          > You have a valid point at the erasing of Po halos from
          > the granites, but does this apply to all Flood models?
          > Would it apply to hydroplate theory and vertical
          > plate tectonics?

          Both of these would produce sufficient heat; particularly given
          accelerated nuclear decay; remember the key temperature is only 150 C.

          --- Charles Creager Jr.
        • nathan lawrence
          Many of the experiments have tested most geological conditions on planet earth. Even conditions of the core. To brush them aside as leaving possibilities for
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 2, 2006
            Many of the experiments have tested most geological
            conditions on planet earth. Even conditions of the
            core. To brush them aside as leaving possibilities for
            non-divine created formation seems some what
            unscientific. I will not consider any model for
            secondary formation of granite as conclusive until it
            has been shown it is even possible.


            And it is not true that Gentry's model would have
            natural formation of granites regardless of the data.
            He states over and over again in his book that , at
            the creation period, the physicals laws were
            different. Granites formed by the very hand of God.

            It is not so much the existence of the lead but were
            it is found. It is found in the Po cores, but yet is
            unknown to it's decay chain. I'll have to find the
            article.
            --- Charles Creager Jr <cpcjr@...>
            wrote:

            > nathan lawrence wrote:
            > >
            > > I will reply in full later. There is a lot here.
            > >
            > > It seems most of the issue comes down to one
            > thing. A
            > > mere interpretation of the experimental data
            > > concerning the possibility of secondary granite
            > > creation. We are at two options:
            > >
            > > 1: The granites must have been formed during the
            > > creation event because all further events are
            > > understood in natural terms.
            > >
            > > 2: Many granites formed during the Flood because
            > God
            > > intervened.
            >
            > 3: Granites can form through natural processes, but
            > it requires
            > unnatural conditions, such as vary rapid cooling and
            > solidification.
            >
            > Both Gentry's and RATE's models have this and
            > regardless of the
            > mechanism by which this rapid cooling occurred, it
            > may not; at least at
            > present; be duplicated in a lab.
            >
            > > From this exchange I am convinced that there are
            > > missing pieces to this puzzle. There must be some
            > > explanation for the lead. Maybe this is the key
            > of
            > > the whole issue.
            >
            > It would help to the know the exact lead isotope,
            > and whether or not it
            > is found in rock considered to have formed during
            > the flood.
            >
            > > You have a valid point at the erasing of Po halos
            > from
            > > the granites, but does this apply to all Flood
            > models?
            > > Would it apply to hydroplate theory and vertical
            > > plate tectonics?
            >
            > Both of these would produce sufficient heat;
            > particularly given
            > accelerated nuclear decay; remember the key
            > temperature is only 150 C.
            >
            > --- Charles Creager Jr.
            >




            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
            http://new.mail.yahoo.com
          • Steve Matthews
            The following email was sent to me today. Perhaps a few of you could help me with a response. All HUMAN codes and information required creators; however,
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 4, 2006
              The following email was sent to me today. Perhaps a few of you could
              help me with a response.

              All HUMAN codes and information required creators; however, natural
              mechanisms are sufficient to account for evolution to man (check out the
              latest issue of Nature for the first million bases of the Neanderthal
              genome) so unless you have evidence that humans were created this is not
              a valid argument. You claim that evolutionary biologists (or
              evilutionary in your acrid words) have only given 'just so stories'. The
              logic can be turned on you as well, friend. Convince me that creation is
              scientific. We now know many genetic mechanisms for duplicating and
              acquiring genes, as well as the selection processes involved in forming
              new functions. Evo devo has demonstrated that only a few 'toolkit' genes
              are necessary to significantly alter body plans and that the timing of
              expression can be altered to produce enormous variation. Alterations in
              these commands can result in things like..dolphins with hind vestigial
              appendages (CrotalusHunter posted this on a thread). There is no need to
              invoke intelligence in biology; selection is the non-telic guiding
              force.

              Furthermore, modern biologists would disagree with you that codes cannot
              be accounted for by evolution. If you enter "evolution of the genetic
              code" for instance into the Pubmed database, you get 4919 returns. There
              has been a lot of work done in this area since the advent of molecular
              biology. Also, check out SELEX experiments where random mutation and
              NATURAL SELECTION is used in place of human intelligence to develop RNA
              molecules that have specific catalytic and binding capabilities. These
              experiments also give significant credence to the RNA world hypothesis.
              I've posted challenges to irreducible complexity on previous "Evolution"
              threads on this site.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Paul
              ... Paul: Natural mechanisms are sufficient to account for genetic changes and observed adaptations. Whether the range of possible changes is unlimited is an
              Message 6 of 12 , Dec 4, 2006
                --- Steve Matthews <phonehero@...> wrote:

                >
                > The following email was sent to me today. Perhaps a
                > few of you could
                > help me with a response.
                >
                > All HUMAN codes and information required creators;
                > however, natural
                > mechanisms are sufficient to account for evolution
                > to man (check out the
                > latest issue of Nature for the first million bases
                > of the Neanderthal
                > genome) so unless you have evidence that humans
                > were created this is not a valid argument.

                Paul: Natural mechanisms are sufficient to account for
                genetic changes and observed adaptations. Whether the
                range of possible changes is unlimited is an entirely
                different matter. So too is the matter of specific
                changes that would have had to have occurred within a
                set time frame. (Even an assumption of geologic time
                frames does not allow for everything).

                A more potent reply to the above argument however is
                in pointing out that the natural mechanisms themselves
                have to be accounted for. Genetic changes are not
                possible unless there is a functional genome in place
                and a mechanism allowing for gene expression. This
                mechanism entails the existence of mRNA, tRNA,
                ribsomes, amino acids, tRNA amino acyl synthetases
                (enzymes) and much more. Standard theories are not
                able to account for their origin or that of the
                genetic code by which they function.

                > You claim that evolutionary biologists (or
                > evilutionary in your acrid words) have only given
                > 'just so stories'. The
                > logic can be turned on you as well, friend. Convince
                > me that creation is
                > scientific. We now know many genetic mechanisms for
                > duplicating and
                > acquiring genes, as well as the selection processes
                > involved in forming new functions.

                Paul: Again this is built on the shifting sand of
                abiogenesis plausibility.

                Evo devo has demonstrated that only a
                > few 'toolkit' genes
                > are necessary to significantly alter body plans and
                > that the timing of
                > expression can be altered to produce enormous
                > variation.

                This is a very deceiving description. This is a
                likely reference to homeobox genes which have the
                unique feature of expression according to their
                physical sequence. This means in many cases that a
                simple gene duplication hypothesis is insufficient to
                expalin "toolkit additions." Such additions must be
                physically so as to allow for correct sequential
                expression. Errors in expression during embryonic
                development lead to birth defects or death.

                Alterations in
                > these commands can result in things like..dolphins
                > with hind vestigial
                > appendages (CrotalusHunter posted this on a thread).
                > There is no need to
                > invoke intelligence in biology; selection is the
                > non-telic guiding force.

                Alterations lead to the demise of a developing fetus.
                This scenario is complex and greatly oversimplified
                for argument's sake.
                >
                > Furthermore, modern biologists would disagree with
                > you that codes cannot
                > be accounted for by evolution. If you enter
                > "evolution of the genetic
                > code" for instance into the Pubmed database, you get
                > 4919 returns. There
                > has been a lot of work done in this area since the
                > advent of molecular
                > biology. Also, check out SELEX experiments where
                > random mutation and
                > NATURAL SELECTION is used in place of human
                > intelligence to develop RNA
                > molecules that have specific catalytic and binding
                > capabilities. These
                > experiments also give significant credence to the
                > RNA world hypothesis.
                > I've posted challenges to irreducible complexity on
                > previous "Evolution"
                > threads on this site.

                It takes more than catalytic and binding capabilities
                to explain codes. This reference might be helpful. A
                commentary on an article authored by David Berlinski
                is the basis for the post.

                Paul
              • Paul
                ... I forgot to include the URL of the reference which is: http://intelligent-sequences.blogspot.com/2006/11/chemical-codes.html In addition, a sentence I
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 4, 2006
                  > > --- Steve Matthews <phonehero@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > The following email was sent to me today.
                  > Perhaps a
                  > > > few of you could
                  > > > help me with a response.
                  >
                  I forgot to include the URL of the reference which
                  is:

                  http://intelligent-sequences.blogspot.com/2006/11/chemical-codes.html


                  In addition, a sentence I wrote referring to
                  homeobox gene additions should have read:

                  Such additions must be physically located so as to
                  allow for correct sequential expression.

                  Paul
                • Derek
                  This is the same claims as always, his claim modern biologists would disagree with you that codes cannot be accounted for evolution . Well, I am a molecular
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 4, 2006
                    This is the same claims as always, his claim 'modern biologists would
                    disagree with you that codes cannot be accounted for evolution'. Well, I am
                    a molecular biologist, and I AGREE! A recent post I made reference to an
                    article dealing with the rise of this information as the often say 'given
                    enough time' and things like your friend mentions here. Now, I am not sure
                    what your scientific background is here or that of the one that sent you the
                    email, but let me say this, the information that is presented to people in
                    the science world more often than not is highly overrated. As a scientist I
                    attend conferences too often to enjoy and lab meetings. This is where the
                    truth comes out. What you do not hear is all the failures and information
                    that is not reported the tweaking of data to fit ideas, and so much more.
                    Then, the average lay person reads about this fact presented in Nature or
                    this fact presented in 'whatever' or scientist prove this or that. Back to
                    your friend, his response or 'many mechanisms for duplicating and acquiring
                    genes' is rubbish, plain and simple. What IS observed in research are
                    mechanisms for duplicating genes, TRUE, like Down syndrome, works every
                    time. Genes are functioning units. What most average lay person and
                    scientist not acquainted to this field (I work in molecular genetics) do not
                    comprehend is the amount of INTERACTION involved. Here, scientists start
                    backwards from what we already have and then try to formulate how that arose
                    based on what we know today and that bias the work. And, before I forget,
                    the dolphin thing he mentioned was not vestigal appendages but reduced sized
                    fins, it was REPORTED as four fins, not vestigal appendages, here for
                    instance is one story
                    (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/76345012.html) and you
                    can see a close up detailed image of the fins, CLEARLY fins. It is this
                    press out to the media to prove evolution and what was REALLY found is not
                    significant at all. They hope it is a 'throw back' to a terrestrial
                    ancestor, but the REAL evidence is some reduced fins and that's ALL. But,
                    back to the other part. The mechanisms he refers to have done most of the
                    damage, check out OMIM
                    (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=OMIM) and get an idea of
                    the number of disorders and diseases that arise from these so called
                    'evolutionary onward and upward advancing techniques'. They are nothing more
                    that disease causing for the most part. To argue that in the past the helped
                    but now they cause disease is a joke, they are working backwards. The REAL
                    evidence shows gene duplications, transversions, and other such mechanisms
                    are deleterious to our genes. They are not getting more finely reduced but
                    they are getting more and more mutated and diseased full! A clear fact of
                    the decay of the genetic code as would be expected from the curse to death!
                    What they want is for us to believe in that RNA world because that is the
                    ONLY scenario that works right now for them. Just like life originally
                    evolved close to the surface then when they realized that Uv was deadly to
                    DNA and not stable and we had no atmosphere, they shifted down to vents in
                    the deep ocean. Evolutionary theory as it pertains to origins is like the
                    Gypsies; they just pack up and move to what's best next! When he refers to
                    as the toolkit genes are mostly signal pathways. These are detrimental to
                    normal development. They are some of the early groups of expressed genes. It
                    is like a domino set. During early development (by the way, for a human, all
                    ~30,000 genes are present, the sequence is all there, most are in a
                    repressed state until activated). So, anytime you alter or adjust pathway
                    genes, that can have tremendous affects of any organism. Enormous variation,
                    yes.extra limb growing (not a help) or reduced limbs, etc. None of that is
                    beneficial because other genes along interconnecting pathways are affected
                    as well. Altering them (the already established pattern of development does
                    make serious changes to organisms and most often it is lethal or would be
                    apart from modern science. Selection of these does not need guidance, he is
                    right. They will not survive. How do we know if something is beneficial,
                    well, the survivors survive, that is ridiculous. That is the logic truly
                    behind it. Most of the people that use the arguments he is using has a very
                    superficial knowledge of REAL science. Reading articles and the like from
                    those journals and magazines are VERY misleading. Most often when you read
                    the REAL papers they wrote, you get a totally different impression. The
                    articles in National geographic and the like often misrepresent the truth
                    behind most 'findings' in order to support the idea. Down to RNAs, they are
                    very complex molecules. Not only that, any changes or deletions of the ones
                    involved will throw major pathways out of 'whack' so to speak. One person
                    here wrote the existence of mRNA and other RNAs, I would agree (except for
                    the mRNA) which is a product of the DNA transcription process. Of which
                    many.many molecules are involved, not just various RNAs and the amino acids
                    in translations. The rRNA which support the peptide and have function in
                    themselves to support protein chain 'growth' events. And the many molecules
                    that support the DNA chains during the transcription. The events that happen
                    to recombination the DNA is incredible. All these have to be present. Sure,
                    he mentions RNA with binding capabilities, we can make lots of things in the
                    lab to have similar function to other known molecules, but that does not
                    remotely come close to the origin of the molecules. I synthesize DNA primers
                    all the time (nucleotide by nucleotide) but that does not prove the genetic
                    code evolved. The reading of the code and it's respective translation all
                    cannot be explained by ANYTHING we know in modern science. Explaining the
                    function DOES NOT explain its origin. This is the biggest smokescreen ever.
                    I recently read a paper titled 'the evolution of protein transferases' 9
                    pages of function and a few paragraphs on what might have, maybe occurred,
                    could have given rise to.etc. This is what they do, and your friend is a
                    perfect example. He has become a missionary for evolution, yet does not
                    understand how REAL science works. The experiments he mentions are another
                    smokescreen to the truth. When it comes to codes we are dealing with
                    sequence data for the sake of DNA/RNA. Any program that randomly gathers
                    nucleosides (nitrogen base and sugar) will eventually find a 'combination'
                    that exhibits activity. It is like using a computer program to guess your
                    password and open your email. Eventually, it is bound to get it right. Well,
                    with a handful of bases to choose from and we know that sequence is truly
                    the bottom line, it should function the same way. Again, there understanding
                    is backwards. They are so blind to even see that. They use already existing
                    bases and sugars to build them. How did the first group of atoms form the
                    first POOL of bases to be acted upon? Where did all the atoms come from to
                    form all the bases and sugars that would be selected for? Actually, how did
                    the original atoms form the bases.then form the sugars.then, where did the
                    kinases come from that phosporylates them into nucleotides and the where did
                    the incorporation event first take place and when..where.etc, THIS is what
                    they cannot answer. They pretend that these experiments are really relative
                    to the WHOLE and in essence, they are not! This email could go on and on
                    and on. If you have more direct questions, send me an email at
                    Dyesucevitz@... or questions@... . This email is
                    all over the place. There is so much to cover and respond to. If some of it
                    makes no sense, well, I was in my lab at 4:30 am today and I am very tired.
                    :-)



                    Derek



                    _____

                    From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                    Behalf Of Steve Matthews
                    Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:04 PM
                    To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [CreationTalk] Help with a response




                    The following email was sent to me today. Perhaps a few of you could
                    help me with a response.

                    All HUMAN codes and information required creators; however, natural
                    mechanisms are sufficient to account for evolution to man (check out the
                    latest issue of Nature for the first million bases of the Neanderthal
                    genome) so unless you have evidence that humans were created this is not
                    a valid argument. You claim that evolutionary biologists (or
                    evilutionary in your acrid words) have only given 'just so stories'. The
                    logic can be turned on you as well, friend. Convince me that creation is
                    scientific. We now know many genetic mechanisms for duplicating and
                    acquiring genes, as well as the selection processes involved in forming
                    new functions. Evo devo has demonstrated that only a few 'toolkit' genes
                    are necessary to significantly alter body plans and that the timing of
                    expression can be altered to produce enormous variation. Alterations in
                    these commands can result in things like..dolphins with hind vestigial
                    appendages (CrotalusHunter posted this on a thread). There is no need to
                    invoke intelligence in biology; selection is the non-telic guiding
                    force.

                    Furthermore, modern biologists would disagree with you that codes cannot
                    be accounted for by evolution. If you enter "evolution of the genetic
                    code" for instance into the Pubmed database, you get 4919 returns. There
                    has been a lot of work done in this area since the advent of molecular
                    biology. Also, check out SELEX experiments where random mutation and
                    NATURAL SELECTION is used in place of human intelligence to develop RNA
                    molecules that have specific catalytic and binding capabilities. These
                    experiments also give significant credence to the RNA world hypothesis.
                    I've posted challenges to irreducible complexity on previous "Evolution"
                    threads on this site.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Alan
                    Curious, all the objections Steve s counterpart listed are actually more elements of intentional design. In other words, he argued against himself. --Alan
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 4, 2006
                      Curious, all the objections Steve's counterpart listed are actually more
                      elements of intentional design.

                      In other words, he argued against himself.

                      --Alan
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.