“The Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’ Revisited” - An invitation to examine both sides of the origins debate

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
Another very good observation I read…

Equivocation

There is ambiguity of terminology, that allows the equivocation, or moving goalposts, in the origins debate. Terms with dual (or more) meanings are equivocated, and the wrong definitions are used to deflect from the intended usage.

Dogs and wolves are not 'different species!', except by declaration. Neither are Inuits and Pygmies. They are all from the same genetic line. Clade or haplogroup, can also describe this observable reality.

Entropy is not only, 'The measurement of heat transfer in a closed system!', yet naturalists will use another definition to pretend to refute the obvious and proper use of entropy, as the tendency of EVERYTHING toward randomness.

But the reliance on ambiguity of terminology is one of the favorite tactics of the Evolution Warrior Evangelists, (EWE's). They will bleat about diversification WITHIN a clade, and call it 'speciation!', then move the goalposts to any and all organisms outside of that clade, and smugly declare, 'Evolution!' But it is a false equivalence. It is extrapolating a visible, observable phenomenon of diversity within a genetic architecture, to some fantasy of gene and trait creation that has never been observed, and does not happen.

..yet this hare brained 'theory' is promoted with jihadist zeal, using every tactic of propaganda, and EVERY fallacy known to men or angels. They attack and demean creationism, while declaring atheistic naturalism as 'Science!' The EWE's are very zealous for their religion.

..reflecting on the physical world, and the evidence before us, should give us pause.. But the EWEs do not want us to consider our Creator, or take pause with the empirical facts, but they demand we Believe, and will unleash the hounds of Hell to bully us into submission.

..but all the bullies of atheistic naturalism can do is demand we give ourselves paws..

It is important to remember.. The 'hounds of Hell!', as fearsome as they see themselves (and pretend to be), are just brain dead sheep.. EWEs that can only follow their Indoctrination, and cannot use scientific methodology, open inquiry, or Reason.

No, this is not a 'nice!' post, looking for common ground with naturalism. This is an exposé of the deadly poison of naturalism, as it is indoctrinated by agenda driven ideologues.

Equivocation is just one of the common fallacies used by the propagandists of naturalism. Don't be fooled by these distortions of reason. Truth can be known. The Creator IS. Why will you die in a lie? Seek your Maker. Don't be a dupe to state propaganda.”
 
Last edited:

TempestOfTempo

Superstar
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
8,309
Another very good observation I read…

Equivocation

There is ambiguity of terminology, that allows the equivocation, or moving goalposts, in the origins debate. Terms with dual (or more) meanings are equivocated, and the wrong definitions are used to deflect from the intended usage.

Dogs and wolves are not 'different species!', except by declaration. Neither are Inuits and Pygmies. They are all from the same genetic line. Clade or haplogroup, can also describe this observable reality.

Entropy is not only, 'The measurement of heat transfer in a closed system!', yet naturalists will use another definition to pretend to refute the obvious and proper use of entropy, as the tendency of EVERYTHING toward randomness.

But the reliance on ambiguity of terminology is one of the favorite tactics of the Evolution Warrior Evangelists, (EWE's). They will bleat about diversification WITHIN a clade, and call it 'speciation!', then move the goalposts to any and all organisms outside of that clade, and smugly declare, 'Evolution!' But it is a false equivalence. It is extrapolating a visible, observable phenomenon of diversity within a genetic architecture, to some fantasy of gene and trait creation that has never been observed, and does not happen.

..yet this hare brained 'theory' is promoted with jihadist zeal, using every tactic of propaganda, and EVERY fallacy known to men or angels. They attack and demean creationism, while declaring atheistic naturalism as 'Science!' The EWE's are very zealous for their religion.

..reflecting on the physical world, and the evidence before us, should give us pause.. But the EWEs do not want us to consider our Creator, or take pause with the empirical facts, but they demand we Believe, and will unleash the hounds of Hell to bully us into submission.

..but all the bullies of atheistic naturalism can do is demand we give ourselves paws..

It is important to remember.. The 'hounds of Hell!', as fearsome as they see themselves (and pretend to be), are just brain dead sheep.. EWEs that can only follow their Indoctrination, and cannot use scientific methodology, open inquiry, or Reason.

No, this is not a 'nice!' post, looking for common ground with naturalism. This is an exposé of the deadly poison of naturalism, as it is indoctrinated by agenda driven ideologues.

Equivocation is just one of the common fallacies used by the propagandists of naturalism. Don't be fooled by these distortions of reason. Truth can be known. The Creator IS. Why will you die in a lie? Seek your Maker. Don't be a dupe to state propaganda.”
What a post! Its like the "EWE" as you have rightfully labeled them refuse to acknowledge the stone cold fact that despite all of their legitimate advances and contributions... their "truths" are mostly supplemental, while refusing to respect that the BASIS for them even existing in the first place is that which you have so eloquently stated... Creationism... a blessing from the Creator. Soe are just blinded followers, but other are straight up agenda servants.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
Part 3 - Detecting the designer the fingerprints of God in biology

Here are some more reasons to reject the evolutionary philosophy that is masquerading as science.

Combinatorial problem for creating information (proteins for selection)

Stephen Meyers book - Darwin’s Doubt (pg. 204) explains that Douglas Axe - worked out if information (namely novel functional folding proteins - the smallest unit of selection required for natural selection working on mutations to achieve macroevolution) could be created by random mutation and natural selection. Evolutionists think proteins evolve in neutral mutation conditions so they won’t destroy other proteins or the organism. Neutral mutations mean that natural selection is not helping, it all occurs by random mutations alone.

1) The first problem was the combinatorics problem - the sequence space to be searched was vast. Finding an extremely rare new functional protein that folded was 1 in 10 to 77 power, for a protein chain of 150 amino acids in length, there are far more non-functional-folding proteins combinations than functional ones.
Protein chains could handle 95% of the time one-off random mutations of amino acid changes at places, but 5% even one-off changes would destroy normal folding. The problem becomes exponential as more mutational changes are made, changes made to the exterior of the folded protein would cause collapse but changes made with similar amino acids to the interior of a folded protein could survive with small diminished functionality.

2) The estimated number of organisms that have existed being 1 in 10 to 40th power (using evolutions time frame 3.4 billion years) (each generation would have to have one new sequence to be experimented on for neutral mutations for trailing, to see if it could turn into a folding new functional protein)

3) This means it is unlikely mutations can achieve the goal of making new information in the form of folding new functional proteins. 1 in 10 to 40th power, over 1 in 10 to 77th power, becomes 1 in 10 to 37 power, which is still too large for random mutations to solve.

4) Rates of mutation are not enough to generate the opportunities needed to get a folding new functional protein.

5) New cells require many proteins working together. But natural selection can not select a cell that is not giving some advantage, which means the cell and proteins need to be functioning together first before natural selection can operate to give an adaptive advantage.

This problem is even worse if you consider the Cambrian explosion, where novel life forms are supposed to have evolved. There were not billions of years, so not 10 to 40 power, life forms available to try to evolve new proteins. New animals require not just proteins but new cells, which require many new proteins all working together.

Natural selection

Natural selection can not change the body plans of animals. To change a creature's body plan, and morphological design, mutations must occur at the embryonic level in the regulatory genes that affect body plan formation (they must be beneficial and heritable), but these mutations are fatal (pathological) (lethal) and are not accepted. The only mutations and expressions excepted are in the alleles, like changing your hair colour, or height, these already have a wide range for expression. Mutations at this level will not change your body plan or morphological design. So natural selection can not select the mutations it needs for macroevolution to occur.

Mutations at the embryonic level is impossible causing death to the animal. Mutations can only happen later on in an animal's life cycle, and only affect small changes of variation. The needed mutations refuse to happen.

100 years of drosophila (fruit fly) experiments where they are subjected to mutations by radiation etc. showed no morphological changes in the body plan, their most significant achievement was growing an extra set of wings, but this only proves copying existing information not creating new information, and there was no muscles attached, so it was not an uphill beneficial mutation. It actually highlights the problem of multiple coordinated mutations needed together that are beneficial for selection to occur.

Mutations on fruit flies (drosophila melanogaster) failed, they did get some new wings, but no muscles etc to get them to work, so more like copying existing wing code.

And bacteria experiments of over 40 000 generations confirmed this, that all mutations do not change the creature, they will still be a bacteria.

E-coli bacteria was used for mutation experiments - E-coli has been found in rock strata at 3.5billion year ages unchanged. Findings show only bacteria is produced by mutations in bacteria. Even the bacteria that mutated to eat citric after 40 000 generations or the equivalent of over 1 million years in human generations. Showed a loss of information, not added, since all bacteria have that ability already it’s just turned off at certain times. Two mutations caused it to turn on when it should have been off. Not uphill evolution that is needed for the hypothesis of evolution to work.

Not enough time for mutations to happen - calculations of mutational rate and breeding rates, show there is not enough time for mutations to occur and change animals. There need to be many beneficial mutations to change species to species. The famous evolutionary geneticist J.B.S. Haldane (1892–1964) co-founder of population genetics. Haldane articulated a serious problem for evolutionary theory in a seminal paper in 1957—the ‘cost of substitution. He calculated that 1,667 beneficial substitutions could have occurred in the supposed 10 million years, this is not enough time to account for the necessary beneficial mutations to change species.


Theory of Common Descent - the genetic release factor protein in prokaryotic ribosome mechanism for E.coli in your intestine, should be the same homologous for other release factors if common descent is true. But they are completely different in human eukaryotic cell. This shows just one problem, but the major underlying problem for evolution is the large number of Orphan genes, where no ancestor proteins match or have a similar function. Where are these new proteins coming from, if they are not passed on? Where is the new information coming from? One significant variation was discovered in topoisomerases, which vary distinctly. The progenitor LUCA must have a lot genetic information, for all information needs to be tracked backwards.

New proteins for macroevolution - the belief that new proteins can be made by mutations hinges on the assumption that there are duplications of genes in the DNA, where the duplicates can mutate in a neutral way without harming or destroying other proteins or the organism. Natural selection is not supposed to be involved in the generation of new proteins, that is what neutral evolution means. But the only way for new creatures or macroevolution to happen is for new cells and proteins to be formed. This means there is no small incremental process available if natural selection can not help in creating new proteins or cells.

Epigenetic Information - Neo-darwinism relies on selection from mutations in the DNA. But Epigenetic information is not stored it seems in DNA, but in the structure of proteins, cells, sugar shapes etc. This means selection cannot select that sort of information.

Context-dependent polyfunctional modularity of genes - in some cases the same genes are used in different species / and even categories of phylum/animals but expressed differently. Pax6 gene used in the development of eyes is the same in arthropods and cephalopods and vertebrates but each of the eyes is totally different. This means the mutation of the gene has not been responsible for the different types of eyes. This is more like a designer using the same component in different contexts to achieve a higher planned coordinated function. eg. a resistor can be used in building a radio, computer, car. The same component is used in a different context to build a planned product. Evolution did not predict the polyfunctional role of genes, this is more of a prediction from an intelligently designed system, not random mutation via natural selection.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
Problems for the Big Bang from the James WebbSpace Telescope (JWST)

1661001464335.png

JWST Image credit NASA, ESA, CSA, STSci.

Introduction to the Problem:

The images being obtained by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), such as the above, have been awe-inspiring to many. They show a great multitude of brilliant galaxies in the vastness of the universe, and so far back in time that they are very close to the inception of the cosmos, or, colloquially, the moment of the Big Bang. Many scientists have been surprised by the number of galaxies; thousands of times the anticipated number of galaxies have been imaged. “No one was expecting anything like this,” says Michael Boylan-Kolchin of the University of Texas, Austin [1]. “Galaxies are exploding out of the woodwork,” says Rachel Somerville of the Flatiron Institute[1]. “This is way outside the box of what models were predicting,” says Garth Illingworth of the University of California (UC), Santa Cruz [1].

Since the first results came in on 12th July 2022, a series of scientific papers has also registered surprise, disbelief and even panic! Indeed, “Panic” was the first word used in the title to an article about JWST results by 16 astrophysicists led by Leonardo Ferreira [2]. Authors of other papers report that there are many more full-sized galaxies than expected; many stars seem over a billion years old, and had an abundance of elements that theory suggested should have taken over 5 billion years to build up. Yet this multitude of mature galaxies with smooth disks and neat spiral arms is only 235 to 500 million years out from the beginning of it all, the Big Bang event (BB). All the new data flies in the face of BB theory which has been built up over the last 75 years and taught that way publicly by the BB theorists. These theorists are facing a crisis. “Right now, I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong”[3].

Summarizing the Big Bang Model:

The many scientific papers contrast the JWST data with the standard BB model. In that model, it is postulated that, for some time after the beginning, there was a dark period with no galaxies or stars. It was initially expected that this dark period would last for some 500 million atomic years up to 1 billion years after the BB [4]. After that, galaxies should only gradually appear and their numbers start to build up. These early galaxies were expected to be ragged and even disrupting each other until full-sized galaxies had formed and stabilized.

This Big Bang model, which these astrophysicists and cosmologists have been promoting, is based on gravitational interactions forming all structures in the universe. In summary, it goes something like this: After the initial BB event, matter had to cool down, form neutral atoms, and by a gradual process of gravitational agglomeration, organize itself to form the first stars & then very small galaxies. These very small galaxies then collided and interacted with each other to build up bigger galaxies and the gravitational process continued to eventually form much larger, full-sized galaxies. The stars within those galaxies built up the various elements in their interiors by a process of nuclear burning and then, at the end of their life cycle, exploded these elements into their environs. It is thought that it would take 3 successive generations of such stars to provide the proportions of the various elements and their observed quantities.

Distance of Images from the BB Origin:

Galaxy distances are measured by their redshifts designated by the letter “z.” The higher the number the more distant they are and hence closer to the initial BB event. The earliest galaxy seen by Hubble space telescope had a redshift of z = 11, thought to be about 400 million years after the BB. This was a surprise, since it was so close to the Big Bang. [5]. They expected the earliest galaxy to be up to one billion years after the BB. But more surprises were in store.

The Webb telescope was expected to penetrate the dark period to z = 20 or about 180 million years after the BB [6]. The initial Webb telescope results encompass redshifts from z = 11 back to z = 16.7. This latter value translates to 235 million years after the BB [7]. In other words, this telescope’s first exploration is looking at structures that were in existence from about 400 million years right back to only 235 million years after the Big Bang [5, 6, 7]. This has caused some problems with the standard model.

Galaxies Far More Numerous than Expected

First, in contrast to the BB model, which predicts only a very few disorganized galaxies at the beginning, the galaxies become more numerous, not less, as the moment of the BB is neared. At a redshift of z = 5 galaxies are 10 times more numerous than theory predicted [8]. At redshifts greater than z = 10, galaxies are 100,000 times more numerous than expected [8].

Galaxies Fully Mature Extremely Early:

Second, these distant, early galaxies are fully mature, with smooth disks and neat spiral arms [2, 8]. For this to happen just 235 million years after the BB is impossibly early for standard cosmology. Even the possibility that some galaxies seen in the Webb telescope are 400 million years after the beginning defies their model. The problem is much worse if they are at the minimum distance for this data set of 235 million years from the BB.

Galaxies Massive Without Any Sign of Mergers:

Third, there is no sign of galaxy mergers building up to these bigger galaxies [2]. And these galaxies are full-sized spirals, like our own Milky Way system. The masses of these galaxies range from 10^9 (one billion) up to 10^11 (one hundred billion) suns which is normal for large galaxies [8]. In other words, these galaxies give no appearance of being built up by mergers with smaller objects, but they already exist, fully formed, extremely close to the origin of the cosmos.

Galaxies Extremely Brilliant:

Fourth, many of those early galaxies are brilliant. The measurements suggest they may be up to 600 times more brilliant than galaxies in our immediate area [9]. The expectation had been that galaxies would start out relatively fainter and build up mass and brightness with time. That is not what the Webb telescope shows. The original early brightness of these galaxies compared with the much lower brightness of galaxies now, ties in with the increasing brilliance of quasars as we go closer to the origin [10].

Stars in these Galaxies Appear Mature:

Fifth, the Webb telescope has a variety of filters which allow the colors of the stars in these galaxies, and their composition, to be determined. Gravitational astronomy has a color-mass relationship which gives the approximate age of the stars, as does the amount of hydrogen present, if nuclear burning has occurred. Using these factors indicates that stars in these extremely early galaxies show an equivalent of 1 billion years of burning [11]. Yet these galaxies are not even 500 million years from the BB, let alone having had a billion years of burning for their stars once they had formed. This unexpected result calls into question this whole BB approach to the age of stars.

Chemical Elements Present in the Galaxies:

1661001464369.png

The Near-Infrared Spectrograph on the James Webb Space Telescope identified the chemical composition (bottom) of a galaxy that emitted light 13.1 billion years ago (top). Image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, STSci

Sixth, in this image from the Webb telescope, the filters and other equipment have determined, from the characteristic wavelengths of emitted light, that the elements hydrogen, oxygen and neon are present and prominent [12]. This is a problem for current Big Bang theory. At this early stage in galaxy development, only the elements hydrogen and helium should be prominent with small quantities of lithium and beryllium. The elements oxygen and neon were not meant to be present initially, but rather built up in the interiors of stars and then exploded out into the host galaxy. According to BB theory, the time for these elements to become prominent in galaxies is of the order of billions of years. Yet here they are enriching a galaxy only a few hundred million years after the origin.

JWST Data Question Accelerating Expansion:

Seventh, one class of statements by astronomers is confusing when the Webb telescope data are considered. These astronomers are locked into a scenario with an accelerating expansion of the universe, when in fact the data disprove that. A word of explanation is thus needed to see the problem. Under ordinary circumstances, an object of a given size will look smaller and smaller with increasing distance; the farther awayfrom you it is, the smaller it looks. However, with the accelerating expansion of the cosmos, in vogue since about 2000, a different optical effect kicks in. Beyond a certain point when distance has already made them small, objects will begin to look larger and larger with distance, not smaller and smaller. This is because their light is meant to have left them when they were much closer to us.

As a result of this theoretical accelerating expansion, astronomers and cosmologists were expecting the galaxies to look larger than would normally be expected for that distance. Instead, it can be shown that they were the right size for that distance under ordinary circumstances, but smaller than the accelerating model predicted. Since these scientists still held to accelerating expansion, the only way they could explain these results was if these galaxies were very small. This ignores the fact that these galaxies had masses up to 100 billion suns with well-ordered disks and neat spiral arms. If they truly were as small as these cosmologists claim, the density of these galaxies would be impossibly high. All the other data indicate these galaxies are the same size as our Milky Way system, as referenced by other researchers such as [8]. Since the accumulation of data show that the effects of accelerating expansion are not present, then different options should be considered, as in reference [13].

Summary of Results from the Webb Telescope:

In summary, the JWST, or Webb telescope, has imaged galaxies ranging from 235 million years out to 400 million years after the BB beginning. There are little or no signs of galaxy mergers occurring. However, these galaxies have masses of 1 billion up to 100 billion stars like our sun. They are also fully mature and have smooth disks and neat spiral arms. The galaxies are up to 100,000 times more numerous than expected and are very much closer to the moment of the Big Bang than any theory predicted. Furthermore, their brilliance, up to 600 times that of galaxies in our own area, contrasts with the expectation that galaxies start off small and faint, and increase in mass and brilliance with time. Despite being so close to the BB beginning, the stars which make up these galaxies seem mature as they have the color characteristics and a hydrogen abundance associated with an age of about one billion years. This is supported by the presence of other chemical elements. Finally, the Webb telescope data indicate that the expected effects of accelerated cosmic expansion are not present, so that idea also needs to be re-examined.

Conclusion:

From the above abbreviated list of Webb telescope data, it appears that the cosmos started off in an almost pristine condition, then faded with time. It also appears the Big Bang Model is in need of a total overhaul, or perhaps a new approach altogether is required. It is apparent that full maturity and brilliance for galaxies and stars was achieved as early as 235 million years after the Big Bang. With the standard model based on gravitational interactions, this is an impossibility, even given the most favorable conditions. There are a few alternatives left to consider. A key one is plasma physics applied to astronomy based on the laboratory plasma experiments of Anthony Perattin LANL. There he showed that plasma interactions can form all the various types of galaxies very quickly [14]. Reference [15] applies these principles to recent astronomical discoveries. Using all this information, it seems possible, using known physics, to formulate a model different from the standard BB, but still in conformity with the JWST data and its time constraints [16].

Barry Setterfield, 19th August, 2022.

REFERENCES:

[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/webb-telescope-reveals-unpredicted-bounty-bright-galaxies-early-universe

[2] Panic! At the disks…Leonardo Ferreira et al., https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09428

[3] Alison Kirkpatrick, Astronomer, Uni. of Kansas in Lawrence,
[4] https://stardate.org/astro-guide/galaxy-formation

[5] https://www.space.com/11386-galaxies-formation-big-bang-hubble-telescope.html

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

[7] https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2022/edinburgh-astronomers-find-most-distant-galaxy

[8] A very early onset of massive galaxy formation, Ivo Labbe et al., https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.12446 Accepted by Nature Journal.

[9] Early results from GLASS-JWST III: Galaxy candidates from z =9 to z= 15, Marco Castellano et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09436

[10] Quasars, redshifts and controversies, pages 1-4. H. Arp, Interstellar Media,1987.

[11] https://interestingengineering.com/science/james-webb-telescope-will-reveal-dawn-of-cosmos

[12] https://cen.acs.org/physical-chemistry/astrochemistry/first-James-Webb-Space-Telescope/100/i25

[13] Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions… E.J. Lerner, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 477, Issue 3, July 2018, Pages 3185–3196, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty728

[14] A.L. Peratt, Transactions on Plasma Science PS-14 (6), pp.763-778 (December 1986).

[15] A.L. Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe, 2nd Edition (Springer-Verlag, 2015)

[16] Plasma Astronomy and the Bible, Barry Setterfield,
 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
In 1957, the leading evolutionary geneticist JBS Haldane published what is now known as Haldane's Dilemma. In simple terms, there is far too little time to produce the human genome in the purported 10 million years since we supposedly branched out from the last common ancestor.

Why? Once a beneficial mutation takes place, especially in a species like man, which requires 20 years per generation, it takes a really long time for that mutation to replace all the other non-mutated genes in the population.

Let's picture a scenario where you have a population of 100,000 ape-like ancestors. A new beneficial mutation arises within one mating couple. We then wipe out 99,998 of the population, leaving the two behind to reproduce. And then, in cartoonishly unrealistic fashion, they are able to replace the entire population with a new 100,000 children, who now have that beneficial mutation, all in a single 20-year generation. Even with this, all you can accomplish in 10 million years would be half a million beneficial mutations. A far cry from the 5% difference between chimp and man.

The more realistic number is more like... 167, if we go by a combination of Haldane's calculations and the paleontologists' claim that 90% of those 10 million years were spent in stasis (i.e. no evolution).

This issue is so bad that after the 60s, evolutionists have just decided to stop talking about it. But just because you ignore a problem, doesn't mean it will go away.

 

TempestOfTempo

Superstar
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
8,309
In 1957, the leading evolutionary geneticist JBS Haldane published what is now known as Haldane's Dilemma. In simple terms, there is far too little time to produce the human genome in the purported 10 million years since we supposedly branched out from the last common ancestor.

Why? Once a beneficial mutation takes place, especially in a species like man, which requires 20 years per generation, it takes a really long time for that mutation to replace all the other non-mutated genes in the population.

Let's picture a scenario where you have a population of 100,000 ape-like ancestors. A new beneficial mutation arises within one mating couple. We then wipe out 99,998 of the population, leaving the two behind to reproduce. And then, in cartoonishly unrealistic fashion, they are able to replace the entire population with a new 100,000 children, who now have that beneficial mutation, all in a single 20-year generation. Even with this, all you can accomplish in 10 million years would be half a million beneficial mutations. A far cry from the 5% difference between chimp and man.

The more realistic number is more like... 167, if we go by a combination of Haldane's calculations and the paleontologists' claim that 90% of those 10 million years were spent in stasis (i.e. no evolution).

This issue is so bad that after the 60s, evolutionists have just decided to stop talking about it. But just because you ignore a problem, doesn't mean it will go away.

So in other words, the evolutionists are pushing their own variation of Adam & Eve/Noah's Ark?
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
68E86DE8-9A49-478D-B5F2-B2318A3CE5A3.jpeg


These are amino acids. They average 19 atoms each. A critical component of abiogenesis theory is that hundreds of these came together (by chance) and formed bigger, but functional molecules such as peptides, proteins and machines of some sort, that could copy other molecules such as RNA.

Put another way, if your grandfather had never been born, would you be here. A naturalist MUST believe in the impossible theory of Abiogenesis - I.e. information arising from noise, in order to have an opening chapter in their evolutionary story.

An increasing number of scientists are realising that it simply doesn’t work.

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
This might be of interest to you @Red Sky at Morning

I wonder if there is an echo of Genesis 6 here?


6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
Zilhão concluded:

‘This discovery, along with research on the rock strata at other cave sites, has huge implications for how we view the European Neandertals and, more widely, human evolution. The differences between Neandertals and modern humans may be much less than had been previously thought, suggesting that human cognition and symbolic thinking may date back to before the two sub-species split around 400,000 years ago.’

Removing the evolutionary interpretive lens from that, biblical creationists could conclude from the same data:

‘Neandertals and other varieties of humans show human cognition and symbolic thinking, which date back to before these varieties split at Babel. This is consistent with all humans, including Neandertals, being descended from Adam and Eve, whom God created in His image (Genesis 1:26–27, 3:20, 1 Corinthians 15:45).’

0F30A321-2268-4B11-B11E-1A8289CE36D9.jpeg

Pic from Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone, 30 Nov 2004
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
Muscle and blood were found in a well-preserved salamander fossil claimed to be 18 million years old. How could tissue and blood last for 18 million years? Physics and chemistry have a simple answer for us: they could NOT have lasted that long.

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
Schweitzer’s idea is that iron generated free hydroxyl (.OH) radicals (called the Fenton Reaction) causing preservation of the proteins. But free radicals are far more likely to help degrade proteins and other organic matter. Indeed, the reaction is used to destroy organic compounds. It also requires that the hydroxyl radicals are transported by water. However, water would have caused hydrolysis of the peptide bonds, and very fast deamidation of the amino acids residues asparagine and glutamine. Aspartyl residues should also have isomerized to isoaspartyl residue if exposed to water. Tyrosine, methionine and histidine would have been oxidized under Schweitzer’s proposed conditions. But the dino proteins show that these unstable residues are still present:

The dilemma is this: how did the fragment successfully become cross-linked through aqueous hydroxyl free radical attack apparently explaining peptide survival while hydrolytically unstable moieties such as Asn avoid contact with the aqueous medium—for 68 million years? If we are to accept the benefits of random aqueous hydroxyl radicals cross-linking the peptide matrix in an undefined chemical bonding, we should also accept the cost—peptide and amino acid hydrolysis.

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
More on dinosaur DNA


Dino DNA

The problem for long-agers is even more acute with their discovery of DNA. Estimates of DNA stability put its upper limit of survival at 125,000 years at 0°C, 17,500 years at 10°C and 2,500 years at 20°C.2 One recent report said:

“There is a general belief that DNA is ‘rock solid’—extremely stable,” says Brandt Eichman, associate professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt, who directed the project. “Actually DNA is highly reactive.”

On a good day about one million bases in the DNA in a human cell are damaged. These lesions are caused by a combination of normal chemical activity within the cell and exposure to radiation and toxins coming from environmental sources including cigarette smoke, grilled foods and industrial wastes.

A recent paper on DNA shows that it might be able to last as much as 400 times longer in bone. But even there, there is no way that DNA could last the evolutionary time since dino extinction. Their figures of the time till complete disintegration of DNA (“no intact bonds”) is 22,000 years at 25°C, 131,000 years at 15°C, 882,000 years at 5°C; and even if it could somehow be kept continually below freezing point at –5°C, it could survive only 6.83 Ma—only about a tenth of the assumed evolutionary age. The researchers state:

However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone.

Yet Schweitzer’s team detected DNA in three independent ways. Indeed, one of these chemical tests and specific antibodies specifically detect DNA in its double–stranded form. This shows that it was quite well preserved, since short strands of DNA less than about 10 bp don’t form stable duplexes. The fluorescent molecular probe DAPI lodges in the minor groove of a stable double helix, which requires even more bp (see diagram below), and the stain PI is also an intercalation test.

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
Secular scientists claim that diamonds are billion years old.

But the discovery of fresh a, unfossilized pristine wooden log in the same rock as these ancient diamonds, throws a wrench into this assumption.

So does the discovery of Carbon 14 in diamonds, which should have long decayed away, if diamonds really were billions of years old.

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
Secular geologists are surprised to discover that, contrary to uniformitarian received wisdom, rocks and particularly crystals do NOT take millions of years to form.

Indeed, some particularly large crystals have been discovered to grow extremely rapidly in certain cases. Anywhere from days, to mere minutes.

While this is a surprise to those who believe in billions of years, it's just another discovery that fits perfectly and neatly with the Biblical account that the beginning was just about 6,000 years ago, when God created the heavens and the earth.

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,129
248333C4-A131-4E77-88E8-D002A2A3C44F.jpeg

Since we've rediscovered dinosaurs 200 years ago, many theories have cropped up on both sides, creationist and evolutionist, to explain their extinction.

In recent decades, the idea of a meteor impact, previously rejected by the secular community, has now become the standard. Specifically, the Chicxulub strike, which supposedly caused a massive layer of iridium across the K-Pg (previously K-T) boundary.

That supposedly marks the period of extinction. But there are quite a few holes in this theory, such as circular reasoning being used to define what exactly that boundary is.

On the other hand, creationists have proposed a number of Biblically consistent ideas to explain dinosaur extinction. It could not have been due to Noah's Flood, as dinosaurs would have counted as creatures aboard the Ark. And thus would have survived the meteor impact, which likely occurred during that period.

As such, some theories include hunting by humans - just look at our many dragon-slayer legends - as well as the Post-Flood Ice Age, amongst others, which fit neatly into the Biblical timeline.

 

Wigi

Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
891
View attachment 82465

Since we've rediscovered dinosaurs 200 years ago, many theories have cropped up on both sides, creationist and evolutionist, to explain their extinction.

In recent decades, the idea of a meteor impact, previously rejected by the secular community, has now become the standard. Specifically, the Chicxulub strike, which supposedly caused a massive layer of iridium across the K-Pg (previously K-T) boundary.

That supposedly marks the period of extinction. But there are quite a few holes in this theory, such as circular reasoning being used to define what exactly that boundary is.

On the other hand, creationists have proposed a number of Biblically consistent ideas to explain dinosaur extinction. It could not have been due to Noah's Flood, as dinosaurs would have counted as creatures aboard the Ark. And thus would have survived the meteor impact, which likely occurred during that period.

As such, some theories include hunting by humans - just look at our many dragon-slayer legends - as well as the Post-Flood Ice Age, amongst others, which fit neatly into the Biblical timeline.

I think DNA studies are effectively giving a hard time to evolutionary science, because the more we study the field and try to look at it and be honest with ourselves the more we find issues that gets more and more difficult to explain. I believe the usual "scientific consensus support our views" is becoming less and less audible.

For example, the numerous claims about Dinosaur DNA discoveries is something I have a hard time explaining myself if I want to stay consistent with what we know

Lab-bench studies that show DNA, under the best conditions, lasts a max of about 10,000 years.2 The authors themselves cite such studies. Does their adherence to millions of years force them to ignore this hard science of DNA decay?

In a massive genetic study, senior research associate at the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University Mark Stoeckle and University of Basel geneticist David Thaler discovered that virtually 90 percent of all animals on Earth appeared at right around the same time.

Reading this how, one cannot admit something is off with what we've been told?
 
Top