RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (167) < ... 162 163 164 165 166 [167] >   
  Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,20:52   

Ooo, more updates from the genetic recombination wiki thread:
In spite of Dr. Phippard's comments, the sentence, as it stands ...

   Recombination therefore only shuffles already existing genetic variation and does not create new variation at the involved loci.

is a correct statement. Dr. Elsberry is wrong when he states that it is completely incorrect. Note the following quotes from ...

Annu. Rev. Genet. 2002. 36:75–97 doi: 10.1146/annurev.genet.36.040202.111115 Copyright c° 2002 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved RECOMBINATION IN EVOLUTIONARY GENOMICS David Posada1,2, Keith A. Crandall3,4, and Edward C. Holmes5 1Variagenics Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, 2Center for Cancer Research,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, 3Department of Integrative Biology, 4Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, and 5Department of Zoology, University of Oxford,Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom

   Recombination can play a dominant role in the generation of novel genetic variants through the rearrangement of existing genetic variation generated through mutation." (p.81)

So while novel alleles can arise through recombination, these novel alleles are simply the rearrangement of existing genetic material which, the above authors believe, was originally created through mutation.

This article also says ...

   "Although both [homologous and non-homologous recombination] conform to a broad definition of recombination—[that is,]an evolutionary event that has as a consequence the horizontal exchange of genetic material..." (p.76)

"Horizontal exchange of genetic material" is not a phrase which gives the impression of anything truly novel being created.

Dr. Elsberry's proposed wording ...

   Because coding regions are relatively uncommon, in most cases recombination breaks and rejoins genetic material outside those regions, with the effect of "shuffling" already-existing loci. But since recombination does not respect reading frame boundaries, from time to time it will bring together parts of differing alleles, resulting in the production of a novel allele.

would lead readers to believe that new genetic information is being created, when in reality, previously existing information blocks are being reshuffled in a way that is not yet completely understood.

I would be interested to see what Albert's most recent textbook (2002 version) has to say about this, since this article was based on the earlier version of his textbook. I will comment on that when I can obtain a copy. --David W. Hawkins 11:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And the chromosomes still only contain the same 4 bases! No new information, no new information!

EDIT: I checked Alberts 2002, couldn't find anything about allelic recombination. It's a damned heavy book, but it doesn't have everything!

"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin


Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,21:00   

Novice alert:  I have no clue what I am talking about

It seems to me Wesley's statement was perfectly clear--it doesn't introduce "new" material, but combines existing material in a new way creating novel material.

Isn't that clear or is it just me?


Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,21:15   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 04 2007,19:00)
Novice alert:  I have no clue what I am talking about

It seems to me Wesley's statement was perfectly clear--it doesn't introduce "new" material, but combines existing material in a new way creating novel material.

Isn't that clear or is it just me?

That's right. The physical material itself isn't new, but the new combination of genetic material can lead to distinctly new properties in a novel protein. And since Dave says we determine information gain/loss by using our intuition, your intuition that says that the material is novel implies that there's been an increase in information!

"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin


Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,21:16   

Steve Story ...
Not allowing him to post here once the thread is closed will encourage him to set up shop elsewhere.
I am planning on continuing with the topics begun here at the Dawkins blog or on my blog and I thanked you for alerting me to some other options.

Are you now telling me I can't participate in Skeptic's new Christianity thread after this thread is closed?

What would be the reason for that?  Do you think I have taken over that thread?  Or plan to?  

I have not, and I don't plan to.  If you will look on that thread, my posts so far consist of a very small percentage of the total content.

A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.


Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,21:20   

But Dave still has to explain where those extra 617 HLA-B alleles came from. They didn't walk off the ark, so one way or another, they got into the human population. Recombination? Point mutation? Doesn't matter.

At least with this one gene, 98% of the alleles currently present in the population must have arisen after Dave's "flood."

Where did they come from, Dave?

2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams


Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,21:55   

See, Dave, it really doesn't matter whether you, personally, think that recombination can add information to a genome. The point is, we know for a fact, absolutely beyond dispute, that one way or another information does, in fact, get added to genomes. Unless you think that going from 10 alleles to 627 alleles for the same gene doesn't involve information being added to the genome.

One way or another, you've got to explain where it came from. And, you need to find evidence that it can happen in 4,500 years. As Lenny pointed out,

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 01 2007,14:47)
Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them "cancer victims". The only people with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of Chernobyl.

I know you hate difficult questions, Dave, especially when they're from me (whom you have accused, evidently without a scrap of evidence, of lying and misrepresenting your position). But do you think you could manage to answer this one little problem for your "hypothesis" before you turn into a pumpkin?

2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Occam's Aftershave

Posts: 4059
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,22:24   

And so like another famous American, AFDave vows to search every AIG, ICR, and DI press release until he finds the real truth about evilution!

"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.


Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,22:48   

Another semi-lurker checking in.

I wholeheartedly concur with the previous accolades for ericmurphy, and add further huzzahs.

The notion of being an "autodidact" has acquired a negative connotation. The word suggests a monomaniacal halfwit who acquires the vocabulary and the rudimentary principles of a given discipline; reaches a ground-breaking, precedent-setting, cabal-exposing epiphany that connects only tangentially to said principles and/or violates them savagely; and then sallies forth to do battle. Exhibit A: Larry Falafelman.

But ericmurphy reclaims the word. He's read, contemplated, analyzed, and synthesized information across a number of disciplines, and he discusses this information with remarkable facility and clarity. All without the direction of syllabi or the lash of semester finals. He's an autodidact in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln. (Cue billowy USA flags and a sonorous voice intoning, "Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal, you sockdologizing old man-trap!" Which was, sadly, the last human utterance Lincoln heard.)

Which leads me to my next topic, Two Reasons AFDave Has Singled Out ericmurphy For Especial Denigration & Ignorage

1. ericmurphy has no financial or professional stake in the evo-darwinian cult. This eliminates AFDave's best-loved and last-stand retort.

2. AFDave's authoritarian training, temperament, and beliefs don't allow him to consider a challenge from anyone without the proper credentials. Even though he refuses to acknowledge the validity of, and indeed is antagonistic to, those credentials.

But, arguendo, let's honor AFDave's appeal to the supreme authority of eyewitness testimony.

Please read any one of many studies on the fallibility (and malleability) of eyewitness testimony.

And then recall playing "telephone" in fourth grade.

Wah-lah! The King James Bible!


Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,01:07   


1) I showed you how leading evolutionists already admit "apparent design" in nature, yet they say it is only a mirage
2) I showed you the contradiction in saying that if a high-tech UFO lands on earth, it must be designed, yet a high-tech rotary motor driving a flagellum in a bacterium is not designed.
3) I showed you that the fundamental difference between a butterfly (which reproduces) and a watch (which doesn't) is degree of technological sophistication.  This proves that if the watch was designed, then much more the butterfly.
4) You were shown how Talk Origins supports the Michael Denton observation that the cosmos is finely tuned for life, and specifically for mankind
5) I showed you how the broken GULO gene in humans and chimps can just as easily be explained by Common Design as by Common Descent
6) I gave you three major objections to the notion of common descent between apes and humans. These objections are large and problematic for ToE.
7) You were shown how the observed phenomenon of Universal Morality supports the God Hypothesis
8) We discussed supposed human evolution and pointed out how absurd it is to say that modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago, but didn't begin keeping written records until 194,000 years later.
9) I showed you the details of the RATE Helium diffusion experiment--another serious challenge to conventional earth ages
10) You were shown how geologists have been completely surprised to find too much C14 in coal and diamonds.  If they are so old, it shouldn't be there.
11) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.
12) You were shown how the Genesis Record is not an oral tradition, but is in reality a carefully written, eye-witness account and predates the Gilgamesh Epic and other heathen distortions.
13) You were shown the most obvious and persuasive evidence ever given to any generation of the truth of a Global Flood--Millions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
14) You were shown how many leading geologists, including Derek Ager, past president of the British Geological Association, have now reluctantly become catastrophists because of the goading of creationists to observe the actual evidence.
15) You have been shown that the "convincing fossil record" consists of only 13% of the entire supposed geologic time, and is characterized by gaps, not by a continuous sequence of evolutionary change
16) We discussed the fact that the term "Punctuated Equilibrium" was invented because the fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary scenario.
17) You have been shown two modern day examples--the Palouse Canyon and the Toutle River--of debris dams bursting and forming canyons, one of them cutting vertical walls in hard rock, showing exactly how the Grand Canyon was probably formed.
18) You have been shown how uniformitarians laughed at Harlan Bretz for 60 years before finally agreeing that he was right--that the Palouse Canyon was formed catastrophically.  When will they stop laughing at creationists who say the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly?
19) You have been shown that incised meanders such as those found in the Grand Canyon require soft sediments, thus showing that the Grand Canyon was formed while sediments were still soft in the Receding Phase of the Great Flood.
20) You have been shown that the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase have been dated by fossils--which is pure speculation, not radiometrically as we are led to believe.  Some layers claim radiometric dates, but these are "calibrated" by fossils
21) Another example of dates being "calibrated" by fossils was Koobi Fora in which dates ranging from approximately 1.6 my to 230 my were obtained.
22) You have been shown how K-Ar dating used to be the most popular radiometric dating method until geologists realized that there are all kinds of problems with it making it often wildly discordant from other methods
23) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks.
24) You have been shown that radiometric dating discordance is the rule, not the exception and that this creationist contention was confirmed by creationist scientists' own experiments, which some of you say never happens.
25) I showed you Ayala's quote where he says that “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
26) I showed that the genetic bottleneck of Noah's Ark need not have been a problem WRT preserving variability.  All that was required would be a fair amount of heterozygosity in the pairs taken on the ark.
27) It was claimed that the 500 or so alleles of the HLA-B gene are some sort of problem for creationism, but this was shown not to be true.  The HLA-B gene mutates in response to different environments more rapidly than other genes.  And these mutated genes are then mixed in the various populations of the world.  
28) We showed how C14 dating is based upon the flawed assumption of relatively constant carbon levels throughout earth history.  This is an incorrect assumption as the fossil record clearly shows.
29) Dr. John Sanford has shown in his book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, that the Primary Axiom (RM + NS) has now been shown by modern genetics to be utterly false.  This leaves ToE advocates without any mechanism at all to drive evolution.
30) Eight alternative mechanisms were proposed, but I showed that they are inadequate.  Sanford is right.  There is no other mechanism.
31) I showed you where Allen MacNeill of Cornell has said that the Modern Synthesis of ToE (which he says equates to the Micro-Evo = Macro-Evo extrapolation) is DEAD.
32) And ... last but not least, I showed that recombination involves the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information, which is quite a different thing than random mutation.  And neither can serve as a mechanism for creating new biological structures.

Wherever I go next, I will be getting into the Tower of Babel, Egypt and China, the Ice Age, Post-Flood ecology, the prophecies of the Book of Daniel, Biblical Archaeology, Ante-Diluvian Man, Christianity and America, the Reformation and Protestantism and other fun topics.  I hope you will join me!


If there were only 1 YEC book that I could recommend to you, it would be Dr. John Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.  He is a semi-retired, prominent, successful Cornell geneticist who has recently rejected Darwinism with it's RM + NS dogma, and has become a Young Earth Creationist as have many competent scientists.  The list grows longer every day.  A lot of the folks here say that YECism is dying and point to the Dover trial.  But the exact opposite is happening.  YECism is growing worldwide ... and quickly.

Close runners up to Dr. Sanford's book would be Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood and John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study.

All three books are heavily documented from the science literature and are quite convincing of the YEC case.

Websites you should bookmark are ... (growing rapidly ... opening a Creation Museum in May) (where the modern YEC revival started ... growing, opened new office in Dallas recently) (My blog which is inactive at the moment because I have been here at ATBC, but I may restart and enable comments) (where I will probably be posting soon ... same username as here probably ... "afdave")


You can download both of my CGH threads here ...



... and here are some search terms for my AFD_CGH1 thread.  Just download them to a text file, then search using CTRL-F.  Here's some I set up for you.  You can also just search terms in the list of 32 items above.

Search term:
Search term: morality as a clue to the meaning of the universe
Search term: reliability of the Genesis Record
Search term: josh mcdowell on tyre
Search term: trinitysem
Search term: June 13 2006,13:11
Search term: evil in the world


Thanks to Wesley, Steve and all of you for your hospitality!  I appreciate all the thoughtful comments and I wish you all the best in the future.  Wesley, I had fun arguing with you for ... what was it 3 posts?  Er ... what was that you were saying about no quoted authority at Wikipedia?  Better look again.  Anyway, if you or Argy (I suppose Argy is David Phippard? ) or Incorygible or Deadman or Russell or Chris Hyland or Drew Headley or JonF or Carlson and whoever else want to debate any other particular YEC topics here (as opposed to over at the Dawkins forum), I would suggest one thread at a time on a very narrow topic. Let me know ... you know where to find me!

And most of all ... if any of you don't already know Him, I hope you get to know your Creator in 2007!

Have a good life!

A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.


Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,01:31   

Quote (afdave @ Jan. 04 2007,23:07)



Dave, I don't know who you think you're convincing with this bogus list of things you've "shown" us. What has in actuality happened with every single one of these points is that your "arguments" were totally blown out of the water. You were unable to support a single one of these "arguments," most of which I (an uneducated wretch) was able to blast down to the bedrock without even doing any research. What actual scientists with actual knowledge and actual research were able to do to your arguments was truly awe-inspiring.

Anyone can determine the likely truth of your claims merely by reading this thread and your previous thread. As you should know by now, in light of the half-dozen or so lurkers who delurked in time to make the cutoff on this thread, you managed to persuade essentially no one on a single point you ever tried to make here.

But you're living in a world of delusion, Dave. It will be interesting to see how much of your argumentation here is ever picked up by the creationist community at large as an example of how to win an argument against scientists.

I've never been able to figure out if you actually believe you've scored any points with these "arguments," Dave. If you do, then I have to say I have serious concerns for your mental health (and given that you've repeatedly posted links to your threads, I'm inclined to think you really do believe you've won these arguments). It would be much better for you if you realize that your arguments here have been roundly defeated, pounded to dust, but that your pride will not allow you to admit that you've been defeated.

This thread has been a sad (albeit entertaining) testament to the irrationality, intractability, and immunity to logic or reason demonstrated by your typical, dyed-in-the-wool creationist. And, as your fellow Christian scaryfacts has pointed out, your behavior here has presented Christianity in an extremely poor light. If I had never been exposed to Christians other than yourself, Dave, I would have a uniformly negative impression of the entire religion, and would see it as a direct threat to reason and rationality, if not civilization itself.

Fortunately, I am aware that most Christians are not like you, Dave. Some actually seem to have imbibed the true meaning of Christ's message, a message that seems to be entirely lost on you.

2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams


Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,01:33   

...and so, Cowboy Dave rides off into a sunset of his own making...

ostensibly to learn the roots of the Portuguese language, no doubt.

don't let that sun fry ya, Dave.

well, any more than it already has, anyway.

"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."



Posts: 11734
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,01:34   

And with that, I'll let AFDave have the last word.


Posts: 11734
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,01:38   

#### you guys are fast. Anyway, bye everybody. Check for where he'll be next.

  4989 replies since Sep. 22 2006,12:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (167) < ... 162 163 164 165 166 [167] >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]