Man-ofGod vs Evolution, etc.

[Recusant]

Evolution takes faith too you know, unless someone has observed a species evolving into a separate species? Did you know that evolution uses more catastrophic events to explain its theory that of the entire Bible? Evolution needs as much faith, if not more then that of the Bible. When your indoctrinated though, it becomes second nature.

Willful ignorance, much? The theory of evolution is based on observable facts. I give you one example, but there are many.

By 'catastrophic events' I gather that you are referring to what are known as  extinction events. These events are recorded in the fossil record, and in fact do not 'explain' the theory of evolution at all. Where did you get the idea that there is a large element of catastrophism in the theory of evolution? Please give sources for this idea.

There is profound irony in this common practice of creationist bible-thumpers; accusing science of being a system of indoctrination. It's mildly amusing, and exposes a deep misunderstanding of what science actually is, but it gets old quickly.

 

Viral evolution? Fist of all explain how this is a benefit? Second, in order for evolution to occur, there must be new genetic information. Where is the new genetic information in viral mutation?

Yes fossil record, indicates catastrophe, the Bible says only one ever occured that wiped out all life on the planet. Evolution has to come up w/ at least 5 different catastrophic events to explain mass extinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

Here is an entertaining video about your belief.. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3318/01.html

Science and evolution is not the same thing. You heard that already I am sure. Evolution is a belief, and their is no observable evidence.

 

Since when did a mutation require new information and not simply different information?

OK?

You, Man-ofGod, seem to be laboring under the mistaken idea that evolution is somehow devoted to a "positive" outcome, presumably for human beings.  This has nothing to do with evolution, which is only the relatively gradual change in forms of life, in response to the environment.  The only positive thing that happens is that the fit forms of life continue, and produce more of their kind.  In the case of the virus; mutation allows it to colonize and infect new species that it had previously been unable to infect. I suppose you could say that this was "good" for the virus. This ability is a new thing in the genetic make-up of the species of virus.  The virus has evolved.  Fact.

You also seem to think that because the bible mentions one world-wide catastrophe, and the geological record shows that there have been at least five extinction events, that somehow this makes the bible more valid than the theory of evolution.  I don't follow your reasoning here. Especially since you have not bothered to explain the supposed connection between the fossil record of extinction events and the theory of evolution.


The theory of evolution is just that, a scientific theory, not a "belief."  Please explain why the theory of evolution is not scientific. The evidence I provided you showed that the virus was evolving an ability to infect new host species.  Do you deny that this is valid evidence?

[VanReal]

It is obvious that I am challenging the fundamentals of your belief. It is also obvious that you do not want to admit that it is a belief.

This is why I say people have been indoctrinated into evolution. All branches of science today are taught that evolution is fact when its not, and therefore do their research through the framework of the evolution theory. Since the mantra is that evolution is fact, then anything that challenges this establishment is not allowed (your attitude to this discussion is evidence of this), despite the enigmas that plague this theory ( for example, polonium halos). Evolution is a business, the sooner you realize that the sooner you realize that its not about what the majority thinks.

It's a theory not a belief.  If new evidence or scientific data adjusted, added to, rearranged, or negated a part of, etc., that theory it would be accepted (after proper discovery/analysis) without an uprising of people who think this theory is closer to the truth than others.  There is no blind faith (or any faith) required in thinking that evolution is reasonable and supported by tangible facts and/or evidence.  It also is not taught as fact (unlike the bible most certainly is) it is taught as what it is "The Theory of Evolution" and the ideas and support of this theory are taught and readily available for further discovery, alternate explanations, elaboration, corrections, and so on.  There is no god of evolution or any leaps of faith requested, there is simply "here is the evidence, observations, ideas and thoughts on what could have plausibly happened".  There also is no collection plate or request for financial support of the theory from people who agree that it's reasonable so I'm not sure what you mean by business.  If anything the theory of god is a business, and a tax free one at that.

[Recusant]

This is why I say people have been indoctrinated into evolution. All branches of science today are taught that evolution is fact when its not, and therefore do their research through the framework of the evolution theory. Since the mantra is that evolution is fact, then anything that challenges this establishment is not allowed (your attitude to this discussion is evidence of this), despite the enigmas that plague this theory ( for example, polonium halos). Evolution is a business, the sooner you realize that the sooner you realize that its not about what the majority thinks

If creationism were valid science, rather than an attempt to prove the bible correct by the use of selective presentation of 'facts' and outright distortion, then it would have a place in the scientific community.    'Creation science' is almost without exception flawed and does not address reality, but instead picks and chooses what portions of the evidence it will accept as valid.  

You seem willing to conflate all of scientific endeavor with the theory of evolution.  For instance your example of 'polonium halos' is an issue in the subject of geology, and really has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.  In fact this is one of many attempts by young earth creationists to prove that the bible is correct in it's very brief timeline for the existence of the universe, as well as our home planet.  You can read about why the idea of 'polonium halos' is flawed here, but since the article was written by a mere Unitarian Universalist with a degree in geology, who specialized in  uranium resource investigations as part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Program, I guess you'll just ignore it.

[Man-ofGod]

OK?

You, Man-ofGod, seem to be laboring under the mistaken idea that evolution is somehow devoted to a "positive" outcome, presumably for human beings.  This has nothing to do with evolution, which is only the relatively gradual change in forms of life, in response to the environment.  The only positive thing that happens is that the fit forms of life continue, and produce more of their kind.  In the case of the virus; mutation allows it to colonize and infect new species that it had previously been unable to infect. I suppose you could say that this was "good" for the virus. This ability is a new thing in the genetic make-up of the species of virus.  The virus has evolved.  Fact.

Thanks for the kind response in explaining this.  For the sake of this discussion, my focus is based on origins.  How do we get from non-living matter to life.  And if DNA is information, where did this information come from? Furthermore, how did the DNA combine w/ non living matter to form lets say  bacteria?

You also seem to think that because the bible mentions one world-wide catastrophe, and the geological record shows that there have been at least five extinction events, that somehow this makes the bible more valid than the theory of evolution.  I don't follow your reasoning here. Especially since you have not bothered to explain the supposed connection between the fossil record of extinction events and the theory of evolution.

When the evolution theory was gaining some momentum, a problem arose for geologist.  How do you fit the layers of  strata and the fossil record into this theory?  Enter the geologic column and mass extinction. Todays science, looking through the lenses of evolution, believes the geological record shows 5 extinction events.

 However, I believe the geological record only shows one mass extinction based on a world wide flood. That is my point.

The theory of evolution is just that, a scientific theory, not a "belief."  Please explain why the theory of evolution is not scientific.

Well lets look at an image of the scientific method.



Now lets run through this model.  For argument sake, lets assume our question is "Did man evolved from a lower level of species?"   We will assume all current evidence that is used to support this claim has been already admitted.

So running through the method,

Ask a Question? Check

Do a background search (evidence)? check

Construct Hypothesis? check

Test with experiment?  hmm cannot do this one.

Analyze Results?  Cannot do that either, no test we can perform

Hypothesis if False or Partially true? ( do not know, cannot test it, therefore I believe it to be true but its not scientific.)

 

The evidence I provided you showed that the virus was evolving an ability to infect new host species.  Do you deny that this is valid evidence?

You use the word evolve as if its synonymous with mutations.  And I cannot fault you,  since main stream science does this as well.  I dislike the term because it infers that since evolution (mutations) is true on a viral level, then it must be true that an organism can evolve from a lower form of life. See how one viral evolution (mutation) is different from an organism evolving from a lower form of life.  Which has never been tested or proven btw via the scientific method.

Again thanks for your kindness, just expressing my point of view.

[Man-ofGod]

It is obvious that I am challenging the fundamentals of your belief. It is also obvious that you do not want to admit that it is a belief.

This is why I say people have been indoctrinated into evolution. All branches of science today are taught that evolution is fact when its not, and therefore do their research through the framework of the evolution theory. Since the mantra is that evolution is fact, then anything that challenges this establishment is not allowed (your attitude to this discussion is evidence of this), despite the enigmas that plague this theory ( for example, polonium halos). Evolution is a business, the sooner you realize that the sooner you realize that its not about what the majority thinks.

It's a theory not a belief.  If new evidence or scientific data adjusted, added to, rearranged, or negated a part of, etc., that theory it would be accepted (after proper discovery/analysis) without an uprising of people who think this theory is closer to the truth than others.  There is no blind faith (or any faith) required in thinking that evolution is reasonable and supported by tangible facts and/or evidence.  It also is not taught as fact (unlike the bible most certainly is) it is taught as what it is "The Theory of Evolution" and the ideas and support of this theory are taught and readily available for further discovery, alternate explanations, elaboration, corrections, and so on.  There is no god of evolution or any leaps of faith requested, there is simply "here is the evidence, observations, ideas and thoughts on what could have plausibly happened".  There also is no collection plate or request for financial support of the theory from people who agree that it's reasonable so I'm not sure what you mean by business.  If anything the theory of god is a business, and a tax free one at that.

This is a nice thought, but it is not true. Scientist are just as infallible as the men who wrote the Bible.  I can give you one example, or even a video if you like, of a person who ran a study through many established scientific journals , who stumped the scientific community.  When he proposed a theory contrary to what they were willing to accept, they nearly barred him from the scientific community.  He was not fully barred until he actually testified in the creation vs evolution court case in Tennessee as an expert witness.  If they accepted his evidence, it would literally turn evolution on its head.  But they disregarded it as a tiny mystery, as if science was based on the amount of evidence and not the quality of evidence.

[Will]

Well lets look at an image of the scientific method.



Now lets run through this model.  For argument sake, lets assume our question is "Did man evolved from a lower level of species?"   We will assume all current evidence that is used to support this claim has been already admitted.

So running through the method,

Ask a Question? Check

Do a background search (evidence)? check

Construct Hypothesis? check

Test with experiment?  hmm cannot do this one.

Analyze Results?  Cannot do that either, no test we can perform

Hypothesis if False or Partially true? ( do not know, cannot test it, therefore I believe it to be true but its not scientific.)

I'll field this one.

While evolution on a large scale tends to take a very long time, on a microscopic scale and with certain organisms it can be much, much faster. It all depends on the rate of a) mutation and b) reproduction. If a particular organism, like bacteria, reproduce and mutate at a quick enough rate, not only can we observe the evolution, but we can actually experiment with it. June of last year, an article popped up in New Scientist describing something wondrous:

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

You see, we actually were able, for what I believe is the first time, to completely test evolution using the scientific method. A question was asked by Darwin, as was a great deal of research. Continuing well after his death, more biologists continued to research, compiling a mountain of evidence and creating a better picture of what that evidence was making clear. the hypothesis that Darwin had once created was now shared by the foremost experts in the world. And now, we've tested this with an experiment and yielded a successful result. After analyzing the results, it becomes clear that not only did a random mutation develop, but that particular mutation was helpful to the organism's survival. And that organism thrived, reproduced creating offspring with the same mutated trait, and that process continued until we could see the clear pattern of evolution.

It was a good day for science. I had cake.

[VanReal]

This is a nice thought, but it is not true. Scientist are just as infallible as the men who wrote the Bible.  I can give you one example, or even a video if you like, of a person who ran a study through many established scientific journals , who stumped the scientific community.  When he proposed a theory contrary to what they were willing to accept, they nearly barred him from the scientific community.  He was not fully barred until he actually testified in the creation vs evolution court case in Tennessee as an expert witness.  If they accepted his evidence, it would literally turn evolution on its head.  But they disregarded it as a tiny mystery, as if science was based on the amount of evidence and not the quality of evidence.

I would contend that the "evidence" this creationist scientist proposed was something that was not in line with scientific theory and probably stemmed from something occuring without tangible evidence?  What was the study?  What was this piece of evidence that proved evolution incorrect?  I'm also curious how, with so many people against the theory of evolution, he just quietly slinked away and no one has supported his findings to bring down this big anti-creator theory?  Where are the creationists?  I don't believe for one second that if there was scientific evidence that evolution was flawed, errored or incorrect that the evidence would quietly go away because of the shunning of the scientific community in general.  The one thing that scientific theories tend to do is not claim they know everything, and not claim that there aren't still undiscovered facts and evidence, so bringing up something that isn't addressed by a theory doesn't negate it or prove it wrong, as the theory does not state that it knows all.

And it is true that scientists will abandon theories they have long followed and feel attached to, if the evidence or new ifnormation provided to them are more reasonable than the current theory.  Um, like Hawking's black hole theory that was long thought to be "gospel" until another scientist found a flaw in at least one of the proofs of that theory.  Hawking himself at first said "no, my proofs are correct" (paraphrased of course) but has since conceded the error in his very own theory. http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1053983.html.  If scientist are willing to admit their own theories flawed and/or errored (that have been followed for more than 30 years mind you), then that shows that they are open to the science, the evidence, the data, the verifiable fact.

[McQ]

Moving this over from the Religion section. Should be posted here.

OK, MOG (dunno if you've ever played Final Fantasy games, but, well, I just saw the acronym in you name and decided I had to use it    ), you clearly are asking the tough questions because you don't want to be "mislead" into believing evolution.  That's fine, but the tough questions entail tough answers, and you really have to understand the underlying basics.

Evolution, at its most basic, is just descent, under pressure of natural selection, with modification (mutation).  Don't just read it, understand it.  Now, let's look at DNA.  DNA is "read" (reacts with) by special special proteins, that create more proteins in turn.  The actual process is very complicated, but even creation scientists can observe it if they wish.  Now, if the DNA is altered, the proteins will likely be altered, too.  The vast majority of our DNA is non-coding junk, it has special chemical modifiers that prevent it from being "read", and these unread sections will not produce proteins at all.  Most mutations are harmless and do nothing for this reason.  There are many types of mutations, though: deletions, insertions (new information), frame shifts (I'll explain in a minute), and plain ol' duplications (harmless in most circumstances, but gives an organism more room to be mutated without dying, so while it helps by allowing possible benefits to manifest, it is a benefit in itself as it prevents important stuff from being destroyed).

Natural selection is pretty straightforward.  Everyone, even creationists, can observe natural selection via unnatural selection (selective breeding) used on crops or in breeding dogs or cattle.  If you only breed the tallest corn stalks over many generations, the end result is taller corn.  Do the same for bigger kernels, and then only yellow kernels, and you end up with a far different strain that you see in the wild.  This is done in only a very short time, too, demonstrating how constrained breeding can quickly differentiate things over just a few generations.  As a reminder selective breeding applied to humans is called eugenics, we know, and it isn't necessarily a good thing because it is acting directly against the environment.  That is, we're harming the genepool.  This isn't true only of humans, though, since anything we apply selective breeding to, we do in spite of the environment.  Bananas no longer have seeds, transplantation being the method used to create more trees.  Single viral strains have nearly wiped out the fruit because of this.  A chihuahua without people to feed it is a grossly inadequate dog that will likely parish.   Nonetheless, it's all more proof that selective pressures, environmental or not, can change life forms, and the ethics of selective breeding of other animals we can discuss elsewhere.

Back to genetics in regards to mutations, I'll briefly go over frame shifts and cover duplications in more detail.  The term "deletion" is used whenever an entire gene is wiped out, from stop codon to stop codon (those make the proteins that read DNA stop reading, and define the entirety of the protein produced).  Frame shift, on the other hand, describes the deletion or insertion of single base pairs.   Base pairs are coded for by the reading protein 3 at a time, like this:
ACA GAT CCA GCA GCA ...
Each one results in a different "protein piece," which is actually just another amino acid (those things are handy).  Now, if you add or delete a single base pair, the protein will now read:
CAG ATC CAG CAG CA. ...
or TAC AGA TCC AGC AGC A.. ...
Which, depending on where it falls in a gene, can alter a lot or a little.  If a base pair is added in the last three, almost no difference will occur.  The first three, though, and the resulting protein will be totally different (probably, there are sequences which would be unaffected).  Substitutions may also happen, which doesn't involve adding or subtracting base pairs, just changing one.  Depending on the sequence left behind, a different amino acid may be coded, and the protein may be altered, or nothing may happen.  Keep in mind that if any of this happens in a deactivated portion of the DNA, nothing happens.  And if it happens in a duplicated region of active DNA, then, at the least, the organism is unlikely to die from a lack of something.  Duplications can actually give room for this "new information" to arise, a safe(r) testing ground, in a manner of speaking.

Now, understand that there is no second, uncorruptable, DNA copy for total parity.  There is nothing, natural at least, to guard how much an organism may change over time.  Now, keeping in mind how long it takes these powerful changes to accrue and be selected for, tell me now what makes it impossible for an animal's legs to get a little longer, and its arms a little shorter, and its jaw a little wider.  What is there, then, to prevent it from getting a little less hairy and a little smarter?  And again and again?  Is it really that hard to see, that with a lot of very small changes, things will eventually look totally different?  Let's say you have a screen 1600 X 1200 pixels, and you can only recolor one pixel at a time.  Is there anything that will eventually prevent the screen from being a completely different color?  So, look at our ancestral apes and tell me you still don't see how it could have happened.

97-98% of our DNA matches that of a chimp's.  We have 16 ERVs (endogenous retroviruses, that is, deactivated viral matter present in our genome) that we share with chimps!  We're not telling you this because we want to be primates, we're telling you this because we are primates.  This is confirmed genetically, obviously, but it is also confirmed from the bottom up by examining our traits!  Our physical form is so closely related: same number of teeth (and incisors, canines, premolars, and molars, to boot!), tetrapoidal (possessing 4 limbs), body-wide hair follicles, lungs and heart enclosed inside a ribcage, backbone supporting 12 cranial nerves, skull with dual enclosed eye-sockets and a single temporal fenestra, and so, so much more.  

Demonstrate that evolution is impossible and you can rewrite the science books.  But we're seeing apparent speciation, even now!  Living ring species that can no longer interbreed, bacteria that can digest nylon, a chemical that did not exist 50 years ago!  Even the need to get more flu shots is evidence of viral evolution.  You asked earlier what the benefit of viruses evolving.  The benefit is that they continue to exist, because obviously if they didn't evolve they would cease to exist.  The benefit is theirs, not ours.  Their evolution to suit their environment clearly happens, and evolution just explains how.  If you want to ask why (not how) they might evolve to thwart our vaccines, then you might ask the same of God.

Evolution, though, is not an attack on God.  Sure, it isn't compatible with the allegorical Genesis (and neither is the Sears Tower, far taller than Bable ever was), but even as a Christian I knew it was allegory.  Evolution may not make you feel special, either, like you would if your lineage was specially created in opposition to nature.  Neither is a requisite for it being true.  It happens.  The Theory of Evolution describes the mechanism we actually observe, and it can be used with brilliant accuracy to make predictions throughout biology.  Please, take a strong interest in finding out the facts.  I will assist you with any questions, you have.

[Man-ofGod]

I would contend that the "evidence" this creationist scientist proposed was something that was not in line with scientific theory and probably stemmed from something occuring without tangible evidence?  What was the study?  What was this piece of evidence that proved evolution incorrect?

Well evolution is so intertwined with all branches of science, that if it effects one branch, it effects others.  So indirectly it effects evolution.  Polonium Halos is the study, and you can read his online book, which I recommend you read his story first before reading the critics, cause theres always two sides.  All his studies are published in reputable journals, however there are laymen scientist who contest his findings who also published their findings online, but they were not accepted in any journals.

Good read even if you disagree w/ his belief.  Also its good to read atleast to understand part of where creationist are coming from.  I am always a proponent of understanding someones belief or view point even if I do not agree with it.  It makes the world a better place when people are empathetic.

http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-toc.htm  
 

I'm also curious how, with so many people against the theory of evolution, he just quietly slinked away and no one has supported his findings to bring down this big anti-creator theory?  Where are the creationists?

It did not quietly slink away, but it did slink away none the less.

I don't believe for one second that if there was scientific evidence that evolution was flawed, errored or incorrect that the evidence would quietly go away because of the shunning of the scientific community in general.

I know, nor would I expect you to.  In this day in age?  Read the book and hear his testimony.

 

The one thing that scientific theories tend to do is not claim they know everything, and not claim that there aren't still undiscovered facts and evidence, so bringing up something that isn't addressed by a theory doesn't negate it or prove it wrong, as the theory does not state that it knows all.

I believe that is what the scientific theory is suppose to represent.  But what I see is an attempt to explain origin, something that cannot be observed and has not been observed.

And it is true that scientists will abandon theories they have long followed and feel attached to, if the evidence or new information provided to them are more reasonable than the current theory.  Um, like Hawking's black hole theory that was long thought to be "gospel" until another scientist found a flaw in at least one of the proofs of that theory.  Hawking himself at first said "no, my proofs are correct" (paraphrased of course) but has since conceded the error in his very own theory. http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1053983.html.  If scientist are willing to admit their own theories flawed and/or errored (that have been followed for more than 30 years mind you), then that shows that they are open to the science, the evidence, the data, the verifiable fact.

Yes, I applaud science when they are able to put their emotion aside and look objectively at all theories.  I do not know this to be true, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that scientist use to be competitive about validating their theory or invalidating well known and accepted theories.  It seems that spirit is squashed, especially when it comes to evolution.  Lots of emotion on that subject I think you will agree.

[Will]

It seems that spirit is squashed, especially when it comes to evolution.

What evidence is there that's against evolution? Other than religion, of course.

[Recusant]

When the evolution theory was gaining some momentum, a problem arose for geologist. How do you fit the layers of strata and the fossil record into this theory? Enter the geologic column and mass extinction. Todays science, looking through the lenses of evolution, believes the geological record shows 5 extinction events.

Quite the contrary.  The age of the earth was known to be much greater than that derived from biblical studies before Darwin proposed the theory of evolution.
 And I still find your bringing in of extinction events as a supposed critique of evolutionary theory to be of dubious value.  Geologists are looking at the record of the earth as found in rocks, not as a means of proving or disproving evolutionary theory, but simply to discover what that record says about events in the past.  You seem to think that they are influenced by the current scientific acceptance of the theory of evolution, but in fact all they are doing is reporting on what they've found in the geologic record.  Do you believe that findings that support the biblical story are being suppressed?  If so, please give links to the creationist sites that expose this vast conspiracy.

 Just out of curiosity, since you seem to give it so much importance:  If there seems to be a record of at least five distinct extinction events, separated by layers of strata, how does that equate with one great extinction, caused by a global flood, as recorded in the bible?


As for Gentry and the 'polonium halos:'

All his studies are published in reputable journals, however there are laymen scientist who contest his findings who also published their findings online, but they were not accepted in any journals.

Thomas Baillieul is not a "layman scientist."  In fact, as I mentioned above, he has a Master's degree in geology, while Gentry is not a geologist, but has a Master's degree in physics.  Gentry's Doctorate is honorary, and bestowed on him by Columbia Union College, a fundamentalist institution.

 

I find the questions and comments about my critique having undergone peer review interesting. My critique is intended to be a peer review of Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis - which itself was never published in its complete form in a mainstream scientific journal nor subjected to peer review. None of Gentry's short papers to Science ever presented the full scope of his study or his conclusions. Most scientific journals do not peer review the comments of their peer reviewers, as those individuals are well known to the journal's editors. In the case of my critique, though, it was reviewed extensively prior to posting.

The original manuscript was submitted for publication in the Records of the National Center for Science Education. The paper was reviewed by the journal's editor, Andrew Petto (senior lecturer in anatomy and physiology at the University of Wisconsin), and Lorence Collins (Emeritus Professor of Geology at California State University Northridge). An additional scientist with nuclear radiation background also reviewed the manuscript for the journal, although I was never given his name (science journals seldom identify their reviewers to the prospective authors for a variety of reasons; Collins self-identified himself to me). All reviewers agreed with my arguments and felt the work warranted publication. However, they felt that the material was too technically complex and lengthy for the average readership of the Records of the NCSE Looking to present the critique to the widest audience possible, I chose instead to submit the revised paper to the Talk Origins Archive. Prior to posting, there was additional technical and editorial review by Talk Origins' coordinators. Following initial posting on the Talk Origins page, I received technical comments from a specialist in radiation effects on biological materials, leading to an expansion of my discourse on the Bragg Effect in minerals. I also had extensive correspondence with 2 creationists which resulted in expanding and clarifying several sections of the paper to make the arguments clearer to a lay audience.


At the end of his 1974 paper in Science, Gentry asks the question about polonium halos: "...can they be explained by presently accepted cosmological and geological concepts relating to the origin and development of the Earth?" I believe my critique answers that question in the affirmative as well as showing Gentry's work to be flawed and incomplete.

 

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.

God did it!

[PipeBox]

Ah, perfect topic.  Apologies for the text bomb, I haven't read anything yet, but I'll get right to it.  So, here's my post:

OK, MOG (dunno if you've ever played Final Fantasy games, but, well, I just saw the acronym in you name and decided I had to use it   ), you clearly are asking the tough questions because you don't want to be "mislead" into believing evolution. That's fine, but the tough questions entail tough answers, and you really have to understand the underlying basics.

Evolution, at its most basic, is just descent, under pressure of natural selection, with modification (mutation). Don't just read it, understand it. Now, let's look at DNA. DNA is "read" (reacts with) by special special proteins, that create more proteins in turn. The actual process is very complicated, but even creation scientists can observe it if they wish. Now, if the DNA is altered, the proteins will likely be altered, too. The vast majority of our DNA is non-coding junk -- it has special chemical modifiers that prevent it from being "read", and these unread sections will not produce proteins at all. Most mutations are harmless and do nothing for this reason. There are many types of mutations, though: deletions, insertions (new information, often viral, but cells can incorporate wholly novel genes without fuss as well), frame shifts (I'll explain in a minute), and plain ol' duplications (harmless in most circumstances, but gives an organism more room to be mutated without dying, so while it helps by allowing possible benefits to manifest, it is a benefit in itself as it prevents important stuff from being destroyed).

Natural selection is pretty straightforward. Everyone, even creationists, can observe natural selection via the unnatural selection (selective breeding) used on crops or in breeding dogs or cattle. If you only breed the tallest corn stalks over many generations, the end result is taller corn. Do the same for bigger kernels, and then only yellow kernels, and you end up with a far different strain that you see in the wild. This is done in a very short time, too, demonstrating how constrained breeding can quickly differentiate things over just a few generations. As a reminder, selective breeding applied to humans is called eugenics.  We know, and it isn't necessarily a good thing because it is acting directly against the environment. That is, we're harming the genepool. This isn't true only of humans, though, since anything we apply selective breeding to, we do in spite of the environment. Bananas no longer have seeds, transplantation being the method used to create more banana trees. Single viral strains have nearly wiped out the fruit because of this. A chihuahua without people to feed it is a grossly inadequate dog that will likely parish. Nonetheless, it's all more proof that selective pressures, environmental or not, can change life forms, and the ethics of selective breeding of other animals we can discuss elsewhere.

Back to genetics in regards to mutations, I'll briefly go over frame shifts and cover duplications in more detail. The term "deletion" is used whenever an entire gene is wiped out, from stop codon to stop codon (those make the proteins that read DNA stop reading, and define the entirety of the protein produced), and it is almost always harmful. Frame shift, on the other hand, describes the deletion or insertion of single base pairs. Base pairs are coded for by the transcription (reading) protein 3 at a time, like this:
ACA GAT CCA GCA GCA ...
Each one results in a different "protein piece," which is actually just another amino acid (those things are handy). Now, if you add or delete a single base pair, the protein will now read:
CAG ATC CAG CAG CA. ...
or TAC AGA TCC AGC AGC A.. ...
Which, depending on where it falls in a gene, can alter a lot or a little. If a base pair is added in the last three, almost no difference will occur. The first three, though, and the resulting protein will be totally different (probably, there are sequences which would be unaffected). Substitutions may also happen, which do not involve adding or subtracting base pairs, just changing one. Depending on the sequence left behind, a different amino acid may be coded, and the protein may be altered, or nothing may happen. Keep in mind that if any of this happens in a deactivated portion of the DNA, nothing happens. And if it happens in a duplicated region of active DNA, then, at the least, the organism is unlikely to die from a lack of something. Duplications can actually give room for this "new information" to arise, a safe(r) testing ground, in a manner of speaking.

Now, understand that there is no second, uncorruptable, DNA copy for total parity. There is nothing, natural at least, to guard how much an organism may change over time. Now, keeping in mind how long it takes these powerful changes to accrue and be selected for, tell me now what makes it impossible for an animal's legs to get a little longer, and its arms a little shorter, and its jaw a little wider. What is there, then, to prevent it from getting a little less hairy and a little smarter? And again and again? Is it really that hard to see, that with a lot of very small changes, things will eventually look totally different? Let's say you have a screen 1600 X 1200 pixels, and you can only recolor one pixel at a time. Is there anything that will eventually prevent the screen from being a completely different color? So, look at our ancestral apes and tell me you still don't see how it could have happened.

97-98% of our DNA matches that of a chimp's. We have 16 ERVs (endogenous retroviruses, that is, deactivated viral matter present in our genome) that we share with chimps! We're not telling you this because we want to be primates, we're telling you this because we are primates. This is confirmed genetically, obviously, but it is also confirmed from the bottom up by examining our traits! Our physical form is so closely related: same number of teeth (and incisors, canines, premolars, and molars, to boot!), tetrapoidal (possessing 4 limbs), body-wide hair follicles, lungs and heart enclosed inside a ribcage, backbone supporting 12 cranial nerves, skull with dual enclosed eye-sockets and a single temporal fenestra, and so, so much more.

Demonstrate that evolution is impossible and you can rewrite the science books. But we're seeing apparent speciation, even now! Living ring species that can no longer interbreed, bacteria that can digest nylon, which is a chemical that did not exist 50 years ago! Even the need to get more flu shots is evidence of viral evolution. You asked earlier what the benefit of viruses evolving is. The benefit is that they continue to exist, because obviously if they didn't evolve they would cease to exist. The benefit is theirs, not ours. Their evolution to suit their environment clearly happens, and evolution just explains how. If you want to ask why (not how) they evolve to thwart our vaccines, then you might ask the same of God.

Evolution, though, is not an attack on God. Sure, it isn't compatible with the literal Genesis (and neither is the Sears Tower, far taller than Bable ever was), but even as a Christian I knew it was allegory. Evolution may not make you feel special, like you would if your lineage was specially created in opposition to nature. But that is not a requisite for it being true. It happens. The Theory of Evolution describes the mechanism we actually observe, and it can be used with brilliant accuracy to make predictions throughout biology. Please, take a strong interest in finding out the facts. I will assist you with any questions, you have.

[PipeBox]

Moving this over from the Religion section. Should be posted here.

Important stuff.

Argh, sorry, please remove that post (I think MOG is more likely to read it when it doesn't look like a block quote from a science blog), the duplicate in the Religion subforum, and this one requesting their removal.  But thanks for putting it in here while I was afk.  

[Tanker]

(wtf thats the second time I've messed up the quotes well I can't figure out how to fix it, sorry if it causes problems just ask if you need clarification)

Thanks for the kind response in explaining this.  For the sake of this discussion, my focus is based on origins.  How do we get from non-living matter to life.  And if DNA is information, where did this information come from? Furthermore, how did the DNA combine w/ non living matter to form lets say  bacteria?

The theory of evolution does not in anyway explain how life originated and it is not intended to. So focusing on trying to disprove evolution as a means of proving origins is at best pointless.

When the evolution theory was gaining some momentum, a problem arose for geologist. How do you fit the layers of strata and the fossil record into this theory? Enter the geologic column and mass extinction. Todays science, looking through the lenses of evolution, believes the geological record shows 5 extinction events.
However, I believe the geological record only shows one mass extinction based on a world wide flood. That is my point.

Modern Geology existed BEFORE the Theory of Evolution and questions of the actual age of the earth and the inacuacies writen in the Bibel were raised before the Origin of the Species was ever published.

Well lets look at an image of the scientific method.



Now lets run through this model. For argument sake, lets assume our question is "Did man evolved from a lower level of species?" We will assume all current evidence that is used to support this claim has been already admitted.

So running through the method,

Ask a Question? Check

Do a background search (evidence)? check

Construct Hypothesis? check

Test with experiment? hmm cannot do this one.

Analyze Results? Cannot do that either, no test we can perform

Hypothesis if False or Partially true? ( do not know, cannot test it, therefore I believe it to be true but its not scientific.)

First we don't evolve from lower species all living species are all equally evolved. The only therory of evolution that claims we are evolved from lower species is the flawed one propagated by creationist intentionaly putting foward a known wrong therory so they can debunk it.

Second the last part is that the results are posted regardless of weather or not the outcome meets with their expectations. Which is the apitamy of scientific honesty. They simply post the honest results of thier work no matter whether it proves or disproves or only partialy match their hypothisis.

[SSY]

Lots of good science going on in this thread, I approve.