Daniel Smith
Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 23 2008,04:09) | | Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2008,18:36) | | Nope. Not yet. That's a rabbit trail I'm not prepared to go down at this time. |
So you've not yet made your mind up regarding the age of the earth?
Let me remind you of a few predictions you made
| Quote | Organisms will show evidence of preparation for anticipated environments; rudiments of organs not yet needed will be found.
When confronted with environmental changes, organisms will adapt using pre-existing features (already coded for in the genome) or will become extinct - no new features will develop slowly over time.
Patterns and laws will be found that govern how evolution works. |
Very profound.
| Quote | From the fossil record:
Lineages will be found to have begun before environments in which they later flourished began.
Mass extinctions will have been preceded by the introduction of new types that would dominate the next phase in earth’s cycle.
Organisms will be found to have begun the adaptive process before adaptation was necessary.
Patterns will be found in the origin, differentiation and eventual extinction of lineages that are not dependent upon environmental factors but exist across all manner of differing environments, geographical locations, types of organisms and ages. |
Quite a sweeping set of predictions there Daniel!
| Quote | Genetically:
Mathematical patterns not explainable by the current theory will be found when comparing sequences of different organisms.
The genetic code will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought.
Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought.
Careful examination of genomes will find preparatory and adaptive codes “waiting in the wings” ready to be utilized in case of environmental changes- many just a frame shift away.
Frame shifting will be found to be a more common mechanism for sudden evolutionary change than previously thought.
Every part of the entire genome of any organism will be found to either be used at some time in the organisms life, or be of future use. There are no unusable “Leftovers”.
No adequate explanation other than design will ever be found for the origin of life’s most basic components - i.e. protein synthesis, cell division, sexual reproduction, etc.
Universally:
Because the earth, and the solar system were specifically designed for life, no life or signs of previous life will be found on any other planets within our field of exploration.
|
Even more sweeping!
For this one
| Quote | | Mathematical patterns not explainable by the current theory will be found when comparing sequences of different organisms. |
It seems to me that you've since had the opportunity to compare sequences of different organisms.
What mathematical patterns did you find that are not explained by the current theory Daniel?
In that same message you said, in answer to me asking is there anything that design predicts that evolution does not:
| Quote | | I could say the same thing about the currently held theory. Is there anything that will ever be found that you won't somehow make to fit and eventually make to be a prediction of the currently held theory? |
And of course there any many things that if found would destroy "currently held theory" but it seems that over the course of this thread no amount of contrary evidence cannot be incorporated into your worldview.
I mean, it's like you say
| Quote | | I'm interested in the truth - that's all. My goal is to find out what really happened. |
And so let us continue. Some time later you note
| Quote | | I don't know why I started arguing against superimposable nested hierarchies - since that is entirely consistent with designed descent. I guess it's just the old creationist in me that got me caught up in that. I do admit that I don't have a real good grasp of the subject, and need to learn more. Really my main objection to the current theory of evolution is in regards to mechanism. |
That old time creationist in you? Seems to me that you've already made up your mind with regard to the age of the earth. And that's the funny thing - you are attempting to use the fossil record and what it shows as evidence for your position yet at the same time you think that it's all fake anyway and under 10,000 years old! It must be a strange place, the inside of your head. Lot's of Chinese walls.
From the same post:
| Quote | | First let me say that we have witnessed a saltational evolutionary event consistent with designed descent in our lifetime - the nylon bug. |
So the designer knew that nylon would exist, when Daniel? Back at the start of time?At the beginning of the universe? Or more recently then that?
| Quote | | That the code for this enzyme was pre-existing also makes it consistent with designed descent. |
So, under your "theory" it should be possible to go back to a previous "version" of the bug in question, before it started to be able to eat nylon and find the code in question but deactivated? Is that right?
In another post you say
| Quote | | If (as I'm alleging) genomes are replete with embedded codes just waiting for a signal, such as a frame shift, to set them in action, then a saltational change can happen with just one substitution. These substitutions would be non-random of course. |
Ah, so your position appears to be that your god makes these substitutions in real time. This appears to be at odds with what you recently said and with what I just quoted you as saying.
I asked you
| Quote | Was this "direct refashioning" because
a) natural but as yet unexplained events caused it
b) god did it directly there and then.
c) god planned it that way from the beginning.
or other? |
And you said
| Quote | | I don't know - maybe all of the above. |
Which appears to contradict what you said...
The funny thing is that I keep asking you "why". And you keep saying you don't know. Yet previously you said
| Quote | | If we cannot directly ask a designer why they made certain choices, the best we can hope for is to examine their designs and try to make an educated guess based on what we observe. |
So, Daniel, why did the designer (or "a" designer) make the choice regarding the overlong nerve in the giraffe neck? You did already in fact attempt an answer
| Quote | The reason the nerve passes between the internal and external carotid arteries is because the giraffe evolved from a short-necked ancestor. The giraffe most likely represents the over-specialized typolysis phase of Schindewolf's theory.
My guess is that the giraffe will exhibit low genetic variability when compared with other mammals also.
You have to remember that creation took place a long time ago, and lots of evolution and variation has happened since then. The fact that so much of what remains is still functional is a testament to the brilliance of the Creator. |
So my question to you is "a long time ago" about 6000 to 10000 years? Or is it longer?
You seem to be forgetting previous positions you've held Daniel. Some days the giraffe nerve is explained by "lots of evolution and variation" due to it being such a long time ago and some days it cannot be explained that way as the earth *might* not really be old at all.
Yet still, you can't seem to make up your mind as you've also said
| Quote | I'll just say this and be done with it:
I'm perfectly content with a 4.5 billion year old earth, and I wouldn't cry if it turned out to be only 10,000 years old either. IOW, it's not really an issue for me.
It's not how old things are; it's their chronological order that matters. |
Perhaps the reason it's "not really an issue" for you is the general incoherence of your position. That's the trouble when you just make it all up for yourself, picking and choosing the bits you like and discarding the rest.
At that time I asked you this:
| Quote | Daniel, in your opinion are Schindewolf, Berg, and their theories of constrained evolution and evolution by law compatible with a 6000 year old earth and a global flood?
If not, what will you rule out?
Either way, progress will have been made. |
Do you now care to rule one or the other out? Or is that rabbit hole still far to scary to enter?
In short Daniel, accept the fact you'll have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion or mankinds body of knowledge in general until you make up your mind about a few basic premises! And consider this - if your god can interfere at will and make changes such as the nylon bug frameshift then what happens to cause and effect? What happens to prediction? How can the whims of a designer be predicted? And yet predictions about how the physical world behave can be made with stunning accuracy, no god(s) required. |
I've read your post and I can't see all these inconsistencies you talk about. The nylon bug frameshift is evidence of two working codes existing side by side. One is activated when the other is deactivated. I've been posting links to papers that have bits and pieces of confirmations for many of the other predictions.
I don't really care about the age of the earth. I don't know why you think that's such a big deal anyway. The sequence of events are already well established. I'm arguing for a theory of evolution! (or did that fact escape you?)
What's your beef?
--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins
|
