The E wrote:
If your theory devolves to "$DEITY did it", it's invalid in the absence of proof for the existence of said deity.
"Creationism postulates that currently existing organisms cannot have come into existence through the combination of mutation and selection pressures commonly referred to as Evolution. It instead postulates the existence of a creator entity, which through undefined means has caused currently existing organisms to exist."
Change "cannot have com" to "is wildly improbable to have come" and I can agree with you
It's the reliance on the creator entity, the axiomatic assumption that it has to exist, that makes all forms of creationism invalid. If we construct a logical system, our axioms need to be simple and fundamental. "|x| + |y| >= |x| for all x" is a perfectly valid axiom to use. "God exists and he has created all living beings" is not. Learn the difference.
Worshiping one who claims to be the truth brings up an interesting question. If highly probable evidence for doubting Him appears, do you choose to doubt? If you don't, it is just as hypocritical and insulting as doubting Him without such evidence would be. This is the major reason why I have decided that the quality of the methods for testing theories are far more important that any theory.
"=gcmeau"Pretty damn easily. Watch multiple generations of a population and monitor their genomes. Do they shift over successive generations as a result of the processes the theory postulates?" IMO is a good one. Examining genomes inherited from the past allows using probability math for evaluation and also sounds like a good one.
The intricate and interdependent patterns of subatomic particles and many other such things (as far as we know them at present) point to a high probability of an intelligent Designer, not a chaotic beginning.
BTW, refusing the use of axioms would not only eliminate the three currently known geometric systems, but would not allow using "The universe is real" and "The universe is understandable, at least in part" axioms, thus preventing science
IMO, it is not possible to directly test any axiom. What can be done is to deduce the results from that axiom, then do a very careful
comparison to reality.
IMO, all axioms are faith propositions. This includes any axioms about how the universe began. Have you noticed that the chaos and time biases are leading some people to the theory that our physical laws are a chance result from a chaotic beginning?
"My turn to say "You don't understand." There is no question on adaption, even to the point of speciation./"
No, wrong. If you allow speciation to exist, then your whole argument falls apart.
Speciation is even more important for a Biblical creationist than for an evolutionist. If we need to have every species on Noah's ark, even if all were babies, there would not be room. OTOH, if only a pair of feline, a pair of canine, etc. are needed for all kinds, the primary problem becomes one of having room for enough food. This can be helped some by having immature specimens, of course. Especially with dinosaurs and elephants
"snip Creationists put the baramin (kind) mostly at the family and genera level. Solid genomic sequencing should eventually provide answers on this by determining the boundaries for kind specific genes.
snip the pacific golden plover migrates to Hawaii with about a 6% energy reserve, and there is no reason to believe those islands were ever closer to the mainland. Could they have produced this behavior by gradual adaption? If so, how did they survive the failures?/"
To turn this around, what is the purpose of this behaviour if a creator entity exists?
Do you mean the migration behavior that allows the plover to survive? IMO one purpose is to provide high confidence evidence against chaos. Note that all non-Biblical IKA beginning theories start with the universe already existing, then try to explain its current state. Even the Babylonian ones started with chaos which by chance produced their gods.
You see, we know how languages develop, a process not unlike evolution in organisms. Isolated communities develop their own dialects, which eventually develop into full-blown languages that are not "compatible" with each other (like, for example, german and dutch).
The assumption in evolution is that species level changes can build up to kind level differences. This bias requires ignoring evidence of irreducible complexities, no matter how probable. The assumption of language formation from dialect formation is similar, although we AFAIK do not have any means (such as genomic sequencing is becoming for evolution) of testing the language theory.
BTW, recent developments allow sequencing in groups of thousands of DNA base pairs, instead of small groups. One result has been finding that genetic variation among homo sapiens is over 4%, rather than the earlier estimate of under 1%. 4% of the current minimum estimated difference between Homo and chimps would be over 200,000 base pairs. That is a lot of mutations. Could any probable selection pressure be large enough to sort out that number of difference in the stated time
"Mitochondrial DNA sequencing and mapping of the mutations found, which is a higher confidence evidence, shows three female sources. The mutation patterns follow the Shem, Ham, Japheth division of nations, with an unknown primary female source about a dozen generations earlier. The Ham group shows a larger number of generations, which may correlate with the African historical custom of earlier marriages./"
It's funny how easy it is to predict the points you bring up. Like, you do know that "mitochondrial Eve" is a hypothetical woman or group of women that lived anywhere between 150-230000 years ago,
" Scientists have been comparing the genetic differences between every major people group around the globe. How did those differences arise?
Assuming that God placed the ideal mtDNA sequence into Eve, all those differences arose by mutations since the Genesis 3 curse, about 6,000 years ago. Other scientists measured the rate at which these copying errors occur. Though very slow—we acquire about one mutation every 6 generations—a few dozen mutations could appear after several millennia.
This sets the stage for researchers to compare
competing models' predictions against measured mtDNA differences./"
One method of testing works out predictions based on various ideas, then compares with reality. Since you insist the Noah idea is fiction, lets compare with a "Dahak" version. At 50kyears and an initial population of thousands you wind up with a very large number of mutations, probably in the hundreds of thousands. Since I think evolution is fiction, lets compare the minimum for 200kyears, stated to be 681 from our current knowledge. Note also that the mutational variance between the known three primary nodes is very small which argues for a low number of generations from the "eve." This could be from either a very short time span, or longer generations.
The measured variation from the latest information I have is 123 overall. I do have one question here > the number of Mc per cell varies widely by cell type. Do the egg cells only have one per cell? If there are enough Mcs, it should be possible to tell which is an earlier MtDNA, and which is the latest mutation by comparing the relative frequency of the MtDNA variations in one cell.
If anyone finds any
research discussing the number of Mc/egg, please post it!!!
Cancel the last sentence.
From: http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The- ... quence.pdf
We have calculated the consensus sequence for human mitochondrial DNA using over 800
available sequences. Analysis of this consensus reveals an unexpected lack of diversity within human
mtDNA worldwide. Not only is more than 83% of the mitochondrial genome invariant, but in over
99% of the variable positions, the majority allele was found in at least 90% of the individuals. In the
remaining 0.22% of the 16,569 positions, which we conservatively refer to as “ambiguous,” every
one could be reliably assigned to either a purine or pyrimidine ancestral state. There was only one
position where the most common allele had an allele frequency of less than 50%, but this has been
shown to be a mutational hot spot. On average, the individuals in our dataset differed from the Eve
consensus by 21.6 nucleotides. Sequences derived from sub-Saharan Africa were considerably more
divergent than average. Given the high mutation rate within mitochondria and the large geographic
separation among the individuals within our dataset, we did not expect to find the original human
mitochondrial sequence to be so well preserved within modern populations.
It should now be possible to use probability math to calculate the odds on this sequence being Eve's, whether you accept the Biblical Eve or the evolutionary one.