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

rapid plant speciation - response to criticism

Expand Messages
  • Matthew Cserhati
    Dear all, My essay has been criticized. Although I am still waiting for Eric¡¦s reply, I¡¦ll respond to Robert¡¦s criticisms. ... This is not so. Not
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 1, 2007
      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.
    • Todd S. Greene
      ... Matthew, your claim here - which is a standard young earth creationist canard - is false. Fossils are not used to DATE the layers they re in. This blows
      Message 2 of 19 , Jun 1, 2007
        --- In creationism, Matthew Cserhati wrote (post #57660):
        |[snip]
        > 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.
        > Hmmm...
        |[snip]

        Matthew, your claim here - which is a standard young earth creationist
        canard - is false.

        Fossils are not used to DATE the layers they're in.

        This blows your statement out of the water.

        - Todd Greene
      • rlbaty50
        ... Matthew, you went on to try and fuss with Rick Hartzog and his criticisms of your essay. You failed to deal with my criticism which you have now implicitly
        Message 3 of 19 , Jun 1, 2007
          Matthew, you wrote, in relevant part:

          > I'll respond to
          > Robert's criticisms.

          Matthew, you went on to try and fuss with Rick Hartzog and his
          criticisms of your essay.

          You failed to deal with my criticism which you have now implicitly
          conceded were quite correct; in your post addressed to Todd.

          That is, I indicated that your essay did not, as you claimed, provide
          any proof that there was a recent creation of the earth.

          Matthew, you would do well to simply, openly and honestly admit that
          my criticism was correct and that your essay does NOT provide proof of
          a young earth creation.

          And, as I suggested, if you want to take up your criticism of Rick's
          analysis with him, you might trying sending a copy to:

          Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • Randy Crum
          ... The key point is that there is an independent way of dating rocks called radiometric dating. That has nothing to do with the fossils in the rocks. However
          Message 4 of 19 , Jun 1, 2007
            >> Matthew Cserhati wrote (post #57660):
            >> |[snip]
            >> 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.
            >> Hmmm...
            >> |[snip]

            > Todd:
            > Matthew, your claim here - which is a standard young
            > earth creationist canard - is false.

            > Fossils are not used to DATE the layers they're in.

            The key point is that there is an independent way of dating
            rocks called radiometric dating. That has nothing to do with
            the fossils in the rocks.

            However radiometric dating is expensive and time-consuming
            so it is true that when paleontologists need a quick date
            on a particular rock, they will look at the fossils in
            that rock in order to get that estimate.

            But if it is an important fossil find, they can use
            radiometric dating to confirm the actual age.

            Of course it is mystifying why fossils of all creatures
            are not found in all rocks if they were all created at
            the same time. Don't you find that puzzling as well?

            Randy
          • John Tillman
            ... ***Long before Darwin & Wallace, it was obvious to geologists that the same sequence of fossils was found worldwide, from simpler to more complex
            Message 5 of 19 , Jun 1, 2007
              --- Randy Crum <randy_crum@...> wrote:

              > >> Matthew Cserhati wrote (post #57660):
              > >> |[snip]
              > >> 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.
              > >> Hmmm...
              > >> |[snip]
              >
              > > Todd:
              > > Matthew, your claim here - which is a standard
              > young
              > > earth creationist canard - is false.
              >
              > > Fossils are not used to DATE the layers they're
              > in.
              >
              > The key point is that there is an independent way of
              > dating
              > rocks called radiometric dating. That has nothing
              > to do with
              > the fossils in the rocks.
              >
              > However radiometric dating is expensive and
              > time-consuming
              > so it is true that when paleontologists need a quick
              > date
              > on a particular rock, they will look at the fossils
              > in
              > that rock in order to get that estimate.
              >
              > But if it is an important fossil find, they can use
              > radiometric dating to confirm the actual age.
              >
              > Of course it is mystifying why fossils of all
              > creatures
              > are not found in all rocks if they were all created
              > at
              > the same time. Don't you find that puzzling as
              > well?
              >
              > Randy
              >
              ***Long before Darwin & Wallace, it was obvious to
              geologists that the same sequence of fossils was found
              worldwide, from simpler to more complex organisms, in
              layers so regular that their relative dating was
              invariably reliable. Fixing absolute dates came
              later, but pretty good guesses were made on absolute
              ages based simply & presumed sedimentation rates.
              Also, the starts of geologic periods & ends of prior
              ones based on fossils found in rock layers globally
              were later found to correspond to mass extinction
              events, & often to shorter phases within the
              recognized periods.***







              ____________________________________________________________________________________
              Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
              http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
            • Randy Crum
              ... Maybe a better way of explaining this is to use an example. I have a friend from high school who has a degree in Forestry. When he was younger, he used to
              Message 6 of 19 , Jun 1, 2007
                >>> Matthew Cserhati wrote (post #57660):
                >>> |[snip]
                >>> 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.
                >>> Hmmm...
                >>> |[snip]

                >> Todd:
                >> Matthew, your claim here - which is a standard young
                >> earth creationist canard - is false.

                >> Fossils are not used to DATE the layers they're in.

                > Randy:
                > The key point is that there is an independent way of dating
                > rocks called radiometric dating. That has nothing to do with
                > the fossils in the rocks.
                >
                > However radiometric dating is expensive and time-consuming
                > so it is true that when paleontologists need a quick date
                > on a particular rock, they will look at the fossils in
                > that rock in order to get that estimate.
                >
                > But if it is an important fossil find, they can use
                > radiometric dating to confirm the actual age.

                Maybe a better way of explaining this is to use an
                example.

                I have a friend from high school who has a degree in
                Forestry. When he was younger, he used to go on what
                was called a 'forest census'. That involved going
                through a forest and looking at the size, age and types
                of trees available. He would then take the data he
                had gathered back to a spreadsheet and calculate an
                approximation for the amount of lumber that could be
                expected to be taken out of that section of forest.

                He could look at the height of, say, an Oak tree
                and calculate its age. If he knew how old the trees
                were in a particular area he would use their age to
                calculate the height of the trees that he expected
                to find there.

                In other words, he was using exactly the same sort
                of circular reasoning to date trees that you say that
                evolutionary scientists use when they date fossils.

                But...

                As we all know, he had available to him another way
                to determine the age of the tree which was completely
                independent of the tree's height. He could cut it
                down and count the rings.

                But of course that is much, much more work. His "circular
                reasoning" worked very well and was much easier.

                With radiometric dating, paleontologists have exactly
                the same sort of independent dating method that foresters
                have with tree rings. However, in the same way, the
                "circular reasoning" estimating method works very
                well. So why use the more difficult, more expensive
                method unless you have some really important fossil
                (or tree) to age?

                Randy
              • w_w_c_l
                Here is my original post criticising Matthew Cserhati s use of BARE-1 transposons as proof of a young Earth. Matthew s reply is appended below my message.
                Message 7 of 19 , Jun 1, 2007
                  Here is my original post criticising Matthew
                  Cserhati's use of BARE-1 transposons as "proof"
                  of a young Earth. Matthew's reply is appended
                  below my message. I will follow this post with
                  my response to his reply.

                  Rick

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


                  Robert Baty wrote:

                  > 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 the 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. [UPDATE: Turns out they have this figured
                  out now -- details in my following message.]


                  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 suggests, the rates of evolution
                  required to bring about the diversity we 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*. The family has been around for
                  over 50 million years, from the fossil record.
                  To prove a young Earth, you have to 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



                  --- 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.
                  >
                • w_w_c_l
                  Re: rapid plant speciation - response to criticism ... OK, Matthew; I ll go around in circles with you for a little bit. (Disclaimer: I said for a little
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jun 1, 2007
                    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.
                    >
                  • Todd S. Greene
                    ... Hi Randy, I agree with you that radiometric dating of rock layers (aka, absolute dating ) is a key point, but with respect to the specific young earth
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jun 1, 2007
                      --- In creationism, Randy Crum wrote (post #57677):
                      >>> Matthew Cserhati wrote (post #57660):
                      >>> |[snip]
                      >>> 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.
                      >>> Hmmm...
                      >>> |[snip]
                      >>
                      >> --- Todd Greene wrote:
                      >> Matthew, your claim here - which is a standard young
                      >> earth creationist canard - is false.
                      >>
                      >> Fossils are not used to DATE the layers they're in.
                      >
                      > The key point is that there is an independent way of
                      > dating rocks called radiometric dating. That has
                      > nothing to do with the fossils in the rocks.
                      >
                      > However radiometric dating is expensive and
                      > time-consuming so it is true that when
                      > paleontologists need a quick date on a particular
                      > rock, they will look at the fossils in that rock in
                      > order to get that estimate.
                      >
                      > But if it is an important fossil find, they can use
                      > radiometric dating to confirm the actual age.
                      >
                      > Of course it is mystifying why fossils of all
                      > creatures are not found in all rocks if they were
                      > all created at the same time. Don't you find that
                      > puzzling as well?

                      Hi Randy,

                      I agree with you that radiometric dating of rock layers
                      (aka, "absolute dating") is a key point, but with respect to the
                      specific young earth creationist argument that the dating of layers
                      is "circular" because "the rocks are used to date the fossils and the
                      fossils are used to date the rocks" it is simply wrong, *regardless*
                      of radiometric dating. (For example, before radioactivity was even
                      discovered, this young earth creationist claim was still wrong on its
                      face. And, yes, this YEC canard really has been around for over a
                      hundred years - just another example of the fact that young earth
                      creationist arguments are like zombies, YECs keep right on using them
                      despite the fact that they're arguments that have been used AND
                      discredited for decades, sometimes even several decades.)

                      First of all, fossils are only used to CORRELATE geologic layers, not
                      DATE them.

                      Second of all, it is only SOME fossils that can be used in this
                      manner (called "index fossils"), and this is known only by EMPIRICAL
                      INSPECTION of the fossils that occur in the geologic layers
                      themselves.

                      My experience is that young earth creationists don't even have a clue
                      what they're talking about when they use this argument, because they
                      don't have a clue about geological science in general, and they don't
                      have a clue about index fossils and how they are derived and how they
                      are used.

                      - Todd Greene
                    • Eric
                      ... Oh, I don t know... I m pretty sure any of the science types here are perfectly willing to discuss anything remotely relevant to the topics at hand.
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jun 1, 2007
                        > > > > 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.
                        > >


                        Oh, I don't know... I'm pretty sure any of the science types here are
                        perfectly willing to discuss anything remotely relevant to the topics
                        at hand. However none of that rescues "TJ" from its richly earned
                        irrelevance.

                        Yes, Creation Ex Nihilo 'Technical Journal' is quite a mag! I have
                        several on my shelf here and really enjoy reading them.

                        Anyone who has not had the opportunity to read the Creation Ex Nihilo,
                        however, please be aware that it is not anything approaching a
                        scientific technical journal. It is an evangelical publication
                        by 'Answers in Genesis, Australia'(Brisbane) containing articles
                        dressed up to resemble valid scientific papers. I guess this fools
                        those who are not used to reading scientific journals. The authors do
                        not tend to do any independent research but only publish opinions and
                        speculation based on the research of others.

                        One issue I picked up recently has an amusing article about how the
                        coal beds were formed when floating forests of hollow trees were
                        buried in Noah's Flood. These fanciful forests contained trees over
                        120 feet tall, well branched at the top, completely hollow and filled
                        with air- and rooted in nothing but seawater!!!!! The author, one
                        Joachim Scheven, claims that these forests ringed continents,
                        particularly Antarctica, and extended out to sea sometimes for
                        several hundred miles! It's quite a tale... and one virtually free of
                        rigorous analysis.

                        But the most informative part is right inside the glossy front cover.
                        Here you'll find a nice disclaimer, the 'AiG Statement of Faith'
                        stating, and I quote:

                        <<
                        What is Answers in Genesis?
                        Answers in Genesis is the ministry of Creation Science Foundation Ltd
                        and independent, non-profit, non-denominational organization,
                        controlled by Christian men of science and education, committed to
                        researching, developing, and promoting Christian creationist
                        materials, and Christian school texts and aids. Our work is based on
                        acceptance of:
                        1. The Bible as the divinely inspired written Word of God. {snip}
                        2. The final guide to the interpretation of the Scripture is Scripture
                        itself.
                        3. The accounts of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but
                        factual
                        presentation of the actual events and therefore provides a reliable
                        framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and
                        history of life.
                        4. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary
                        in
                        importance to the proclamation of the Gospels of Jesus Christ.
                        5. The Doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced
                        from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
                        Please note that in all of this, we openly proclaim the fact that our
                        work is centered around Jesus Christ. {snip}
                        >>

                        ...and inside the back cover in its 'instructions to authors'
                        section, the first words are:
                        "'The Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal' is dedicated to upholding
                        the authority of the 66 books of the Bible, especially in the area of
                        origins.
                        All members of the Editorial Board adhere to the Answers in Genesis
                        (AiG)Statement of Faith (above)and most papers will be designed to
                        support this."


                        See? Does this really sound like science to anyone? Does it sound at
                        all objective? The papers, many of them sent in by the editors
                        themselves, are simply 'designed' to support the gospel stories. They
                        tell us that point blank in black and white. Hello! It's an
                        evangelical magazine, not science. Each issue is simply a sermon
                        dressed up and formatted to make it look like scientific research.
                        Now that's fine, if that's what you're looking for, but it's simply
                        dishonest to call it scientific research. Let's not kid ourselves.
                        It's just religious apologetics and theological speculation, *not*
                        science.
                        "Humbug" is a very kind word for it.

                        Take care,

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