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

Re: Matthew Cserhati: he's no "David" either!

Expand Messages
  • w_w_c_l
    ... Hi, Robert. It looks to me like they are just taking it easy on Cserhati over there on the creationism list. My comments about this young-earth proof ...
    Message 1 of 8 , May 31, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > Another wannabe "David" has emerged on Todd's list
      > and has thought to take up Todd's challenge
      > regarding the evidence of age issue.
      >
      > While we await Todd's further response, I thought
      > I would post the alleged "proof" here and the note
      > I sent giving my evaluation of the claim.
      >
      > First, the alleged claim of "proof" for the
      > "young-earth" position:

      Hi, Robert.

      It looks to me like they are just taking it easy
      on Cserhati over there on the creationism list.

      My comments about this young-earth "proof"
      follow the excerpted relevant snips:

      ---------------------------

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/57523

      > Creationism
      > Message #57523
      >
      > From: Matthew Cserhati
      > To: Creationism
      > Date: May 29, 2007
      >
      > Subject: The BARE-1 transposon as a proof of
      > young earth creation
      >
      > Matthew Cserhati, MSc, biology

      (excerpts)

      > in order to measure how fast this genetic element
      > was capable of spreading <


      > an idea of how fast these plants
      > are capable of spreading <


      > the speed at which animals and plants
      > are capable of repopulating an area <


      > we can reason that if large tress
      > are capable of spreading across an island <
      >
      > longer than 300 meters, then we may
      > safely assume that barley plants
      >
      > are capable of being spread <


      > Therefore, if 13,800 BARE-1 transposons
      > (which are 8931 bases long each)
      > are capable of being spread <
      > ...
      > then we can arrive at a speed of
      > how fast genetic elements can spread <
      > within plant genomes.

      False. You have arrived at how fast these
      transposons "are capable of being spread"
      in *one species of barley*. That is *all*.


      > We can apply our calculations to measure how long
      > it took for corn to diverge from sorghum, which
      > evolutionists consider to have taken several
      > million years, its genome having expanded even
      > up to five times before divergence [6].
      >
      > ...
      >
      > If 13,800 transposons
      >
      > were able to spread within 50 years, <
      >
      > then this means that 260,000 transposons
      >
      > could have spread in around 942 years, <
      >
      > instead of millions of years as
      > commonly supposed by evolution.


      > we can see empirically and know that such
      > genetic elements can spread faster <
      > by many orders of magnitude


      Criticisms:

      1) Archaeological evidence shows corn has been
      domesticated for about 6,000 years.

      2) Genetic evidence suggests domestication of corn
      began about 9,000 years ago.

      3) Archaeological evidence shows barley was domesticated
      about 9,000 years ago.

      4) Cserhati makes calculations based on "uniformitarian
      assumptions".

      5) Cserhati applies spreading rate of barley transposons
      to entirely different genera (Sorghum, and then Zea).

      6) The entire paper talks about what "could have" been
      (that is, if it hadn't been something else), and then
      claims in its title to be "proof" of something (a young Earth)
      that is in no way justified by the evidence presented, *even
      if* the evidence presented could justifiably be used to prove
      that corn descended from Zea spp. descended from Sorghum spp.
      in less than 1,000 years. Exactly where corn came from is
      still unknown.


      Cserhati's paper also contains this:

      > At this time, I feel that it is important
      > to stress that according to the creation
      > model, plant species were not created
      > individually by God, but were created as
      > individual kinds (see Genesis 1:21), that
      > is, different plant species could all be
      > part of a single created kind within which
      > genetic intermixing could be possible, but
      > between other created kinds, such genetic
      > intermix is not possible.

      Now, Cserhati is supposed to have a master's degree
      in biology, and he writes something like this?
      At some point in his education, someone was supposed
      to have explained to him what a "species" is. If the
      plants are swapping genetic information back and forth
      ("genetic intermixing"), they are a species (the
      cultivated variety of barley is considered a subspecies
      of wild barley since they are interfertile). If plants
      can no longer swap genetic information and "bring forth"
      then they are no longer a species, no longer a "kind".
      They would be different "kinds".

      And while hybridization between species (and in the case
      of corn, possibly between genera) does rarely occur, it
      is certainly the exception rather than the rule, and if
      the created "kinds" were as something as diverse as
      Poaceae, as Cserhati proposes, the rates of evolution
      required to bring about the diversity we now have are
      just not observed in nature.

      And here's one other little tiny problem:

      If Family Poaceae is a "kind", why isn't Family Hominidae?


      > Such genetic variation has been observed in
      > the case of pigeons...

      "Pigeons"? Can you please be more "specific"? (Pun.)
      Or more "generic", as the case may be. (Another pun.)

      > ...and dogs...

      Same species, and capable of producing offspring.

      > ...and for example the plant family, Poaceae.

      *Numerous* genera and species. 600 genera, over
      9,000 species, that *do not exchange genetic
      information* (as a general rule). The family has
      been around for over 50 million years, from the
      fossil record. To prove a young Earth, Cserhati must
      show the fossils are young, not how fast transposons
      "could possibly" spread through the genome.


      > For more information on the genetic relationships
      > within the grass kind see baraminology workds
      > done by Wood [5].

      Here is reference [5]:

      > 5. Wood, C. T. (2002). "A baraminology tutorial
      > with examples from the grasses." Creation Ex Nihilo
      > Technical Journal 16: 15-25.

      Why would I want to go to "TJ" for scientific
      information?


      Rick Hartzog
      Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


      Evolution of Corn:
      http://www.seedsofchange.com/enewsletter/issue_43/corn.asp
      http://employees.csbsju.edu/ssaupe/biol106/lectures/cereals.htm

      Evolution of Sorghum:
      http://www.bioline.org.br/request?cs95020
    • rlbaty50
      Rick, I presented a teaser to the Creationism folk, Matthew Cserhati, et al. I gave the link to your analysis and suggested that they may want to come here and
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Rick,

        I presented a teaser to the Creationism folk, Matthew Cserhati, et al.

        I gave the link to your analysis and suggested that they may want to
        come here and discuss what you said about the essay.

        Here's the link to your analysis which I posted over there:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10037

        We are now up to 4 against 1. That is, Todd, Eric, you and I have
        all voiced the opinion that Cserhati's essay didn't even attempt to
        do what the thread header suggested (i.e., provide proof of a young
        earth creation).

        Maybe we will get some fresh input here.

        Maybe not! :o(

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • Robert Baty
        Matthew Cserhati has now personally confirmed that he is no David , though he failed to give me the proper credit for pointing out his essay didn t do what he
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Matthew Cserhati has now personally confirmed that he is no "David", though he failed to give me the proper credit for pointing out his essay didn't do what he was trying to claim for it.

          Here's Matthew's concession post:

          --------------------------

          To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
          From: Matthew Cserhati
          Date: Friday, June 1, 2007 10:02 AM

          Subject: to Todd about my essay

          Dear Todd,

          Okay, so the essay doesn't directly touch on the age of the universe.

          Molecular geentics and astronomy are quite seperated from each other.

          ..although I don't think it's a good idea to completely seperate different fields of science from each other.

          But... the question osrt of remains in me: if genetic variation certainly can happen so fast as I try to show in my article, and if all
          genetic variation has occured in a literal Genesis timescale, then why, why would this be at all compatible with an old universe?

          I mean, if wee look at how cosmological evolution is bound up with chemical evolution, which is followed by biological evolution?

          It might not be evidence against old age, but is certainly is *incompatible* with it.

          -Matthew

          ---------------------
          ---------------------

          My further comments:

          He could have done much better with his concession post, but we'll take what we can get and hope he might do more to set the record straight in the near future.

          Daniel Denham and company might learn a little from Matthew's example, though they all have a ways to go.

          Rick, he also attempted to rebut your criticism of his essay, as if it were my criticism. I tried to get him to come here if he was that interested in dealing with your analysis. I don't know if he will or not. You might want to check it out. It is under a different thread subject, so you'll just have to browse to find it. I'm rushed and on my WebTv so cannot now take the time to be more specific.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty








          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • w_w_c_l
          ... Matthew Cserhati responded to my criticism here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/57660 Here is my reply to that. The full text of
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
            >
            > Rick,
            >
            > I presented a teaser to the Creationism folk,
            > Matthew Cserhati, et al.
            >
            > I gave the link to your analysis and suggested
            > that they may want to come here and discuss what
            > you said about the essay.

            Matthew Cserhati responded to my criticism here:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/57660

            Here is my reply to that. The full text of Cserhati's
            response is appended below my message.


            Re: rapid plant speciation - response to criticism

            Matthew Cserhati wrote:

            > Dear all,
            >
            > My essay has been criticized. Although I am still
            > waiting for Eric's reply, I'll respond to Robert's
            > [Rick's] criticisms.

            OK, Matthew; I'll go around in circles with you for
            a little bit. (Disclaimer: I said for a "little bit".
            I have no intention of getting entangled in the details
            of an argument that is irrational to begin with.)


            Matthew had written:

            > > Therefore, if 13,800 BARE-1 transposons
            > > (which are 8931 bases long each)
            > > are capable of being spread <
            > > ...
            > > then we can arrive at a speed of
            > > how fast genetic elements can spread <
            > > within plant genomes.

            And I replied:

            >> False. You have arrived at how fast these
            >> transposons "are capable of being spread"
            >> in *one species of barley*. That is *all*.

            Matthew now writes:

            > This is not so. Not just one species of barley. Check
            > reference number three which speaks about a number of
            > barley species.

            Rick:

            But all that reference shows is the difference in number
            of transposons (26,000), *not a rate* at which the
            transposons have spread through the population! Are we to
            take your calculations and say that population is only
            a hundred years old?

            (This is an assumption on my part; I haven't read the
            article [3]. I'm out here in the woods and don't have
            a university library handy. But I feel pretty sure that
            if a rate had been suggested, you would have mentioned
            it.)

            [Later: Hey, I did find it!:
            http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/content/full/11/9/1769 ]

            Here's a quote:

            "These rates need not be either constant or consonant; the
            maize genome has apparently experienced an explosive increase
            in retrotransposon numbers in at least part of the genome over
            the last 3 million years (SanMiguel et al. 1998)."

            Another:

            "Whereas no direct data are available, the degree of
            polymorphism seen with an anchored PCR method
            (Waugh et al. 1997 ) indicates that the BARE-1 insertion
            frequency is in the range seen for intrachromosomal
            recombination, <4 x 10^-5 events per element per generation."


            Before reading this article I would have once again
            said that all you have done is shown the rate at which
            transposons "could have" spread through a single species
            of barley -- now I will say that all you have done is
            shown a rate that retrotransposons "may have" spread
            through *a single population* of *a single species* of
            barley! Because not only is this rate highly variable
            between species, it is variable *within* species based
            on environmental conditions!

            You have no business trying to apply this rate to corn!

            And what makes barley so special?
            "...BARE-1 LTRs were considerably more prevalent than
            would be expected from the numbers of intact elements."

            Matthew, you've been pulling our leg!


            Here's a link to similar research on maize:
            http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/5/831#MBEV-20-05-15-
            MATSUOKA1
            [may be line-wrapped]


            > I specifically mentioned that the difference in number
            > of the BARE-1 transposon can reach 26,000 in other
            > species. Therefore we might take the liberty and divide
            > the rate of spread by two.

            Based on what? You can multiply it by 4 if you want to
            and it still wouldn't make your argument any stronger,
            because, once again, the rate at which something "can"
            happen is not evidence that is the rate at which it
            *did* happen -- it only gives a *minimum* time frame
            in which a change "can" come about.

            I had excerpted parts of Matthew's paper and provided
            criticisms:

            > > If 13,800 transposons [barley]
            > >
            > > were able to spread within 50 years, <
            > >
            > > then this means that 260,000 transposons [corn]
            > >
            > > could have spread in around 942 years, <
            > >
            > > instead of millions of years as
            > > commonly supposed by evolution.
            >
            >
            > > we can see empirically and know that such
            > > genetic elements can spread faster <
            > > by many orders of magnitude
            >
            >
            >> Criticisms:
            >>
            >> 1) Archaeological evidence shows corn has been
            >> domesticated for about 6,000 years.
            >>
            >> 2) Genetic evidence suggests domestication of corn
            >> began about 9,000 years ago.
            >>
            >> 3) Archaeological evidence shows barley was
            >> domesticated about 9,000 years ago.

            Matthew says:

            > Please specify on these proofs.

            Look it up. This is the sort of evidence you are
            going to have to deal with before you start talking
            about how rapidly transposons "could possibly"
            spread through a genome. You might as well become
            familiar with it.

            Humans "could possibly" swim to the other side every
            time they cross the Missouri River, but there is no
            reason to think that they do.

            The rate at which a brush fire "could possibly" spread
            given optimized wind speed, wind direction, slope,
            dryness, and vegetation type is no reason to suspect
            that every time a fire gets out it is going to spread
            at that optimized rate.

            Think about what you are saying. (I think you know.)


            > By the way such ages for the domestication of barley
            > and corn fit in nicely with my view that speciation
            > can occur quite rapidly. Thanks for the evidence, I
            > think I'll even incorporate it into my essay.

            I wouldn't recommend it. The rate at which something
            "can" occur does not negate the evidence showing the
            rate at which something *did* occur.

            And why do you want to say that speciation "can" occur
            quite rapidly, when we, in general, don't *observe*
            such things in nature? Aren't you shooting yourself
            in the foot?

            (By the way, "my view" is that the beginning of
            agriculture is when we left the Garden behind and
            began eating from the Tree of Knowledge, altering
            God's systems to rely on our own systems.)


            > I can even cite the following article which gives proof
            > that maize from teosinte was domesticated within only
            > hundreds of years:
            >
            > Rong, VLin, W. et al., The limits of selection during
            > maize domestication, Nature 398(18):236, V238, 1999.

            Here's the link:
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6724/full/398236a0.html

            It says domestication likely occurred over a period of
            315 to 1,024 years. You may notice they arrived at that
            number without any mention whatsoever of BARE-1 transposons
            in barley.


            Here's something a little more recent. It says a single
            domestication event about 9,000 years ago:

            http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/9/6080

            Apparently, they've finally figured out where maize
            came from!: It was *Zea mays parviglumis* all along!


            >> 4) Cserhati makes calculations based on "uniformitarian
            >> assumptions".

            > We know that there are two specific models in the
            > spreading of transposons within genomes. One is the
            > linear model where a transpsoosn element is copied
            > and then inserts into another site within the genome.
            > This is what I based my calculations on. That is, one
            > transposonic element gives rise to another element. On
            > the other hand, however, there is the exponential model
            > which says that transposons simply don't disactivate
            > themselves, but the daughter elements as well as the
            > parent elements give rise to more and more copies of
            > the given element. Therefore this would reduce the rate
            > of the spreading of transposons even further.

            Don't you mean "increase" here? (This is the sort of
            technical stuff I mentioned that I have no intention of
            getting bogged down in.) But one of the "uniformitarian
            assumptions" you have made is that the spreading rate
            of transposons in barley may be applied to other genera
            of Poaceae. And it cannot.


            > Again, I thank you for calling this to my mind so that
            > I may further refine and better my model.

            And your model may have some value in crop research. But
            it is absolutely useless in determining the age of the
            Earth or the time that modern humans have been on the
            Earth. Hasn't it struck you that agriculture began with
            the end of the Pleistocene?


            >> 5) Cserhati applies spreading rate of barley
            >> transposons to entirely different genera (Sorghum,
            >> and then Zea).

            > What real reason is there that the rate of tranpsosons
            > is generally slow?

            I would suggest that what you are looking at is a
            difference brought about by *un-natural* selection
            (domestication) compared with the checks and balances of
            natural selection.

            [Later: May be true for some species, but not barley --
            barley just has an abnormally high rate, which Cserhati
            then tried to apply to maize.]


            > Evolutionists themselves [admit] that many transposon
            > elements are capable of spreading quite quickly.

            "Admit"? "Admit"? Dollars to do-nuts it was
            "evolutionists" who *pointed it out*! And they sure
            don't seem to think that the rate transposons "are
            capable of" spreading means that's the rate they
            *have* spread.


            > Cserhati's paper also contains this:
            >
            > > At this time, I feel that it is important
            > > to stress that according to the creation
            > > model, plant species were not created
            > > individually by God, but were created as
            > > individual kinds (see Genesis 1:21), that
            > > is, different plant species could all be
            > > part of a single created kind within which
            > > genetic intermixing could be possible, but
            > > between other created kinds, such genetic
            > > intermix is not possible.
            >
            >> Now, Cserhati is supposed to have a master's degree
            >> in biology, and he writes something like this?
            >> At some point in his education, someone was supposed
            >> to have explained to him what a "species" is.

            Matthew replies:

            > Yes, they did. When we were discussing evolution and
            > population genetics, we were told that varying from
            > different fields of biology, a different definition is
            > given for species for each field. They gave 16 such
            > definitions or so. Take your pick.

            OK. For the purposes of this discussion let's say that
            a species is capable of naturally reproducing a breeding
            population. (In this sense, corn itself may not be a
            "species", since it came about by human efforts and is
            now incapable of survival in the wild.)


            > If we compare with other scientific fields of inquiry,
            > such as physics, we can see that they don't even define
            > such basic concepts as time, space, matter, and energy.
            > Are you going to be the one who, like David, is suddenly
            > going to settle the controversy?

            Of course not. I'm going to let the physicists go about
            their business -- I assume they know what it is.


            >> If the plants are swapping genetic information back
            >> and forth ("genetic intermixing"), they are a species...

            > No, they are a common breeding group. Since such animals,
            > like tigers and lions, dolphins and killer whales are
            > capable of bringing forth offspring. Do a simple Google
            > search for ligers or tigons.

            But ligers and tigons themselves are sterile, just as
            mules. Hybrids such as these are incapable of producing
            a breeding population. Therefore the genetic material
            is not "intermixing". It crawls off to the side and dies
            while the originating parent populations continue
            unaffected.

            (Female ligers and tigons are fertile, but tiger/lion
            crosses do not take place in the wild [or *extremely*
            rarely], and offspring of ligers and tigons are not hardy --
            unlikely to survive, much less reproduce. The end result
            is that an insignificant amount of lion genetic material
            "could possibly" get mixed back into the tiger genome or
            vice versa, but it is *highly unlikely*.

            And here is the rest of my remark above that got
            snipped off:

            >> If plants can no longer swap genetic information
            >> and "bring forth" then they are no longer a species,
            >> no longer a "kind". They would be different "kinds".

            Now, if you want to say that Zea is still "bringing
            forth" after the Poaceae "kind", be my guest -- I'll
            then simply point out that chipmunks are still "bringing
            forth" after the squirrel "kind", that squirrels are still
            "bringing forth" after the Rodentia "kind", that Rodentia
            is still "bringing forth" after the Mammalia "kind", that
            Mammalia is still "bringing forth" after the Chordata "kind",
            etc. -- that Life "brings forth" "after its own kind".

            It is inevitable but that young-earthers get themselves
            into trouble with their "fuzzy" definitions of "kinds".

            I wrote:

            >> And while hybridization between species (and in the case
            >> of corn, possibly between genera) does rarely occur, it
            >> is certainly the exception rather than the rule, and if
            >> the created "kinds" were as something as diverse as
            >> Poaceae, as Cserhati proposes, the rates of evolution
            >> required to bring about the diversity we now have are
            >> just not observed in nature.

            > Then tell me, what is adaptive radiation?

            Specialization of an offspring population to make use
            of resources that are available to but unusable by the
            parent population. Nature is opportunistic.

            > Such as observed in the case of Geospizidae or the
            > Drosophila genus in Hawaii? In Hawaii they have about
            > 800 species of Drosophila (if I recall correctly).
            > Why haven't they turned into anything other than
            > Drosophila? Big question. Obvious answer is that they
            > simply don't evolve.

            My point exactly -- except that they don't evolve at
            rates to give you the diversity we see in Poaceae in
            some few thousand years. And the answer to your "big
            question" is itself another question: "Why *don't* they
            evolve?" And the answer to that question is that they
            have not faced any environmental pressure that would force
            them to. They are able to maintain an optimal population
            as they are. There is no reason for organisms that are
            optimized for their niche to go arbitrarily producing
            a population of organisms that would be *less* optimized --
            those less-appropriate organisms couldn't compete. It's
            when a change occurs that those here-and-there outliers
            may be given an oportunity.


            > We can also cite the work done by Gale and Devos who
            > have studied Poaceae species in great detail. What they
            > find is that in the case of the Poaceae, there are a
            > number of chromosome regions where all of the genes
            > roughly have the same gene order than compared to other
            > non-Poaceae species.
            >
            > This is the proof.

            Proof of what? That they are all evolutionarily related.

            What you say here is exactly what we saw with the
            recently-completed chimpanzee genome. Hey, a match!

            I asked:

            >> And here's one other little tiny problem:
            >>
            >> If Family Poaceae is a "kind", why isn't
            >> Family Hominidae?

            > It all depends on whether humans are interfertile
            > with monkeys, for example. They're not. There are
            > genetic differences and obvious morphological
            > differences separating us from chimpanzees.

            And neither is Arundo interfertile with Phyllostachys --
            or even Sorghum with Zea, or even Zea mexicana with
            (modern) Zea mays (as a rule). You are arguing in a
            circle. Poaceae genera, or even species, are *not*
            interfertile.

            And that's the point, and is why I asked you the
            question: If Poaceae is a "kind", why isn't Hominidae?

            (By the way, instead of "monkeys" I think you mean
            chimpanzees, or orangutans.)


            > Please note that it is possible that Homo erectus,
            > sapiens and neanderthalensis all could be part of
            > a wider human kind.

            But genetic research (in progress) so far shows that
            H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis were not interfertile
            either, and diverged half a million years ago.

            Yet I agree: all Homo species are part of a "wider kind".
            It's called Hominidae.


            > > Such genetic variation has been observed in
            > > the case of pigeons...
            >
            >> "Pigeons"? Can you please be more "specific"? (Pun.)
            >> Or more "generic", as the case may be. (Another pun.)

            > Darwin himself knew that all pigeons stem from a single
            > species of pigeon, Columba livia. But as to the common
            > ancestor between pigeons and non-pigeons, we're still in
            > the dark. In this case, the burden of proof rests on the
            > evolutionists.

            Oh dear! The "evolutionists" have not been able to show
            complete lineages for every single creature that has ever
            lived, so the whole thing must be false!

            Ha ha.

            I continued:

            > > ...and dogs...
            >
            >> Same species, and capable of producing offspring.
            >
            > > ...and for example the plant family, Poaceae.
            >
            >> *Numerous* genera and species. 600 genera, over
            >> 9,000 species, that *do not exchange genetic
            >> information* (as a general rule). The family has
            >> been around for over 50 million years, from the
            >> fossil record. To prove a young Earth, Cserhati must
            >> show the fossils are young, not how fast transposons
            >> "could possibly" spread through the genome.

            Matthew "replies":

            > But in dating the fossils the evolutionary way we
            > always have the classic problem of the fossils being
            > dated as old as the layers they're in. And how old are
            > the layers? Why, they're just as old as the fossils that
            > are in them!

            That isn't a "classic problem", it's a classic YEC blunder.
            I'm going to refrain from calling it a lie, since this is
            the first time I've ever written to you. Correct your
            misconceptions, or the next time you mention it I will
            call it a lie.

            Fossils can be dated *relatively* by types, the rocks
            can be dated *relatively* by the fossils they contain,
            but the rocks are dated *absolutely* by radiometric
            methods.

            So I will say again: To prove a young Earth, Cserhati
            must show the (50 million years-plus Poaceae) fossils
            are young, not how fast Poaceae transposons "could
            possibly" spread through the genome.

            And to do that, Cserhati will have to show how 4 billion
            years of radioactive decay "could possibly" occur in a
            few thousand years without the planet still being, even
            now, too hot to support life.


            > > For more information on the genetic relationships
            > > within the grass kind see baraminology workds
            > > done by Wood [5].
            >
            >> Here is reference [5]:
            >
            > > 5. Wood, C. T. (2002). "A baraminology tutorial
            > > with examples from the grasses." Creation Ex Nihilo
            > > Technical Journal 16: 15-25.
            >
            >> Why would I want to go to "TJ" for scientific
            >> information?

            > In it Wood writes down a lot of details. Simply
            > dismissing TJ as humbug is just evading the arguments.

            They aren't "arguments". They are illogical
            constructions, just like your own, put together with the
            sole intent of deceiving people. I'm not sure Cserhati
            is attempting to deceive or if he is just deceived himself,
            but the writers of the TJ articles know *exactly* what they
            are doing -- particularly Russell Humphries, Steve Austin,
            Andrew Snelling and the rest of the ICR and AiG bunch.

            In most cases you don't even have to know much about the
            science to spot their errors and logical fallacies. And
            none of it is valid evidence for a young Earth. It's all
            just diversionary maneuvers to keep you from looking at
            the real evidence.

            Yes, Matthew, it *is* humbug.



            Rick Hartzog
            Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


            P.S. OK, Matthew: it was fun. I learned a lot, and I
            am glad to find out that they finally know where corn
            came from. But I have shown that your BARE-1 transposons
            don't have anything to do with the age of corn or even
            barley. Everyone already knew it didn't have anything to
            do with the age of the Earth.

            So I'm going to consider this barley matter closed.

            Personally I can recommend just being a Christian who
            accepts whatever science is telling us about the age
            of the Earth and biological evolution. I think it will
            let you appreciate science more and will open up the
            Scriptures to you in ways you never guessed.

            Christianity is strong enough to handle the truth --
            it is *the* Truth. If you have to resort to falsehoods
            to defend it, you are defending something besides
            Christianity. That should be obvious to anybody.


            rh/wwcl



            --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com,
            "Matthew Cserhati" <cs_matyi@...> wrote:
            >
            > Dear all,
            >
            > My essay has been criticized. Although I am still waiting for
            Eric¡¦s
            > reply, I¡¦ll respond to Robert¡¦s criticisms.
            >
            > > > Therefore, if 13,800 BARE-1 transposons
            > > > (which are 8931 bases long each)
            > > > are capable of being spread <
            > > > ...
            > > > then we can arrive at a speed of
            > > > how fast genetic elements can spread <
            > > > within plant genomes.
            > >
            > > False. You have arrived at how fast these
            > > transposons "are capable of being spread"
            > > in *one species of barley*. That is *all*.
            >
            > This is not so. Not just one species of barley. Check reference
            > number three which speaks about a number of barley species. I
            > specifically mentioned that the difference in number of the BARE-1
            > transposon can reach 26,000 in other species. Therefore we might
            take
            > the liberty and divide the rate of spread by two.
            >
            > > > If 13,800 transposons
            > > >
            > > > were able to spread within 50 years, <
            > > >
            > > > then this means that 260,000 transposons
            > > >
            > > > could have spread in around 942 years, <
            > > >
            > > > instead of millions of years as
            > > > commonly supposed by evolution.
            > >
            > >
            > > > we can see empirically and know that such
            > > > genetic elements can spread faster <
            > > > by many orders of magnitude
            > >
            > >
            > > Criticisms:
            > >
            > > 1) Archaeological evidence shows corn has been
            > > domesticated for about 6,000 years.
            > >
            > > 2) Genetic evidence suggests domestication of corn
            > > began about 9,000 years ago.
            > >
            > > 3) Archaeological evidence shows barley was domesticated
            > > about 9,000 years ago.
            >
            > Please specify on these proofs. By the way such ages for the
            > domestication of barley and corn fit in nicely with my view that
            > speciation can occur quite rapidly. Thanks for the evidence, I
            think
            > I¡¦ll even incorporate it into my essay.
            >
            > I can even cite the following article which gives proof that maize
            > from teosinte was domesticated within only hundreds of years:
            >
            > Rong¡VLin, W. et al., The limits of selection during maize
            > domestication, Nature 398(18):236¡V238, 1999.
            >
            > > 4) Cserhati makes calculations based on "uniformitarian
            > > assumptions".
            >
            > We know that there are two specific models in the spreading of
            > transposons within genomes. One is the linear model where a
            > transpsoosn element is copied and then inserts into another site
            > within the genome. This is what I based my calculations on. That
            is,
            > one transposonic element gives rise to another element. On the
            other
            > hand, however, there is the exponential model which says that
            > transposons simply don¡¦t disactivate themselves, but the daughter
            > elements as well as the parent elements give rise to more and more
            > copies of the given element. Therefore this would reduce the rate
            of
            > the spreading of transposons even further. Again, I thank you for
            > calling this to my mind so that I may further refine and better my
            > model.
            >
            > > 5) Cserhati applies spreading rate of barley transposons
            > > to entirely different genera (Sorghum, and then Zea).
            >
            > What real reason is there that the rate of tranpsosons is generally
            > slow? Evolutionists themselves that many transposon elements are
            > capable of spreading quite quickly.
            >
            > > Cserhati's paper also contains this:
            > >
            > > > At this time, I feel that it is important
            > > > to stress that according to the creation
            > > > model, plant species were not created
            > > > individually by God, but were created as
            > > > individual kinds (see Genesis 1:21), that
            > > > is, different plant species could all be
            > > > part of a single created kind within which
            > > > genetic intermixing could be possible, but
            > > > between other created kinds, such genetic
            > > > intermix is not possible.
            > >
            > > Now, Cserhati is supposed to have a master's degree
            > > in biology, and he writes something like this?
            > > At some point in his education, someone was supposed
            > > to have explained to him what a "species" is.
            >
            > Yes, they did. When we were discussing evolution and population
            > genetics, we were told that varying from different fields of
            biology,
            > a different definition is given for species for each field. They
            gave
            > 16 such definitions or so. Take your pick. If we compare with other
            > scientific fields of inquiry, such as physics, we can see that they
            > don¡¦t even define such basic concepts as time, space, matter, and
            > energy. Are you going to be the one who, like David, is suddenly
            > going to settle the controversy? ļ
            >
            > If the
            > > plants are swapping genetic information back and forth
            > > ("genetic intermixing"), they are a species
            >
            > No, they are a common breeding group. Since such animals, like
            tigers
            > and lions, dolphins and killer whales are capable of bringing forth
            > offspring. Do a simple Google search for ligers or tigons.
            >
            > > And while hybridization between species (and in the case
            > > of corn, possibly between genera) does rarely occur, it
            > > is certainly the exception rather than the rule, and if
            > > the created "kinds" were as something as diverse as
            > > Poaceae, as Cserhati proposes, the rates of evolution
            > > required to bring about the diversity we now have are
            > > just not observed in nature.
            >
            > Then tell me, what is adaptive radiation? Such as observed in the
            > case of Geospizidae or the Drosophila genus in Hawaii? In Hawaii
            they
            > have about 800 species of Drosophila (if I recall correctly). Why
            > haven¡¦t they turned into anything other than Drosophila? Big
            > question. Obvious answer is that they simply don¡¦t evolve.
            >
            > We can also cite the work done by Gale and Devos who have studied
            > Poaceae species in great detail. What they find is that in the case
            > of the Poaceae, there are a number of chromosome regions where all
            of
            > the genes roughly have the same gene order than compared to other
            non-
            > Poaceae species. This is the proof.
            >
            > > And here's one other little tiny problem:
            > >
            > > If Family Poaceae is a "kind", why isn't Family Hominidae?
            >
            > It all depends on whether humans are interfertile with monkeys, for
            > example. They¡¦re not. There are genetic differences and obvious
            > morphological differences separating us from chimpanzees. Please
            note
            > that it is possible that Homo erectus, sapiens and neanderthalensis
            > all could be part of a wider human kind.
            >
            > > > Such genetic variation has been observed in
            > > > the case of pigeons...
            > >
            > > "Pigeons"? Can you please be more "specific"? (Pun.)
            > > Or more "generic", as the case may be. (Another pun.)
            >
            > Darwin himself knew that all pigeons stem from a single species of
            > pigeon, Columba livia. But as to the common ancestor between
            pigeons
            > and non-pigeons, we¡¦re still in the dark. In this case, the burden
            of
            > proof rests on the evolutionists.
            >
            > > > ...and dogs...
            > >
            > > Same species, and capable of producing offspring.
            > >
            > > > ...and for example the plant family, Poaceae.
            > >
            > > *Numerous* genera and species. 600 genera, over
            > > 9,000 species, that *do not exchange genetic
            > > information* (as a general rule). The family has
            > > been around for over 50 million years, from the
            > > fossil record. To prove a young Earth, Cserhati must
            > > show the fossils are young, not how fast transposons
            > > "could possibly" spread through the genome.
            >
            > But in dating the fossils the evolutionary way we always have the
            > classic problem of the fossils being dated as old as the layers
            > they¡¦re in. And how old are the layers? Why, they¡¦re just as old
            as
            > the fossils that are in them¡K
            > Hmmm¡K¡K
            >
            > > > For more information on the genetic relationships
            > > > within the grass kind see baraminology workds
            > > > done by Wood [5].
            > >
            > > Here is reference [5]:
            > >
            > > > 5. Wood, C. T. (2002). "A baraminology tutorial
            > > > with examples from the grasses." Creation Ex Nihilo
            > > > Technical Journal 16: 15-25.
            > >
            > > Why would I want to go to "TJ" for scientific
            > > information?
            >
            > In it Wood writes down a lot of details. Simply dismissing TJ as
            > humbug is just evading the arguments.
          • Robert Baty
            Rick, You are welcome. :o) I m glad I was able to set you up with Cserhati for that discussion. SIncerely, Robert Baty [Non-text portions of this message have
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Rick,

              You are welcome. :o)

              I'm glad I was able to set you up with Cserhati for that discussion.

              SIncerely,
              Robert Baty






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.