In 2013 a remarkable DNA sequence was reported by geneticists studying ancient DNA. It was a nearly complete genome extracted and decoded from the remains of a tooth of a horse preserved in permafrost sediments in Alaska. This partially-fossilized horse was dated to more than 500,000 years old and is the most complete sequence of an ancient sample attained to date. In addition to this ancient genome, partial genomes of additional horses from 43,000 to 5000 years old have also been sequenced allowing us to compare genetic variation of horses from the past with those from the present.
I have written a series of posts about the origins of horses. The context of these post has been an evaluation of how young earth creationists (YECs) have sought to understand the origins of equine biological diversity. We have observed that many YECs have moved rather dramatically from denying the “horse sequence” of evolution to accepting that all living and extinct species of equines are all descendants of a shared common ancestor—the horse “kind.” However, this common ancestor lived just 4300 years ago rather than 40 to 50 million years ago as the evolutionary narrative holds.
Given this YEC perspective of biological ancestry including what we have rapid or hyper-evolutionary model we might ask: does DNA sequence extracted from this ancient horse prove helpful to the YEC viewpoint or does it provide another problem, among countless others, that the YEC faces as they promote their alternative explanation for the origins of biological diversity on earth?
Not long after the genome of this ancient horse was published, Elizabeth Mitchell, writing for the chief YEC apologetics ministry, Answers in Genesis, commented on this story (see: A horse is a horse, unless of course it isn’t a horse). I wish she had read my article of a similar title (A horse is a horse, unless of course it isn’t a horse) which was first published not long before hers. She seems to have missed the most important implications of the horse genome with respect to the young earth origns model that I detail in my series of articles about origins of horses (see links in the “Additional Reading” sidebar).
Let’s take a look at just a few of the conclusions we can draw from this ancient horse DNA:
This ancient horse is a horse and was a horse long ago: Here we have hundreds of millions of bases of DNA code from a horse that died long before the most recent Ice Age (we know this from the geological context in which the fossil was found). By aligning that sequence with genomes sequenes of other equine species it is clear that this ancient genome belonged to a horse. By this I mean that it DNA is so similar to the modern horse species, Equus ferus, that it could be assigned to that species of horse, or very close sibling species. This suggests that the species of horse from which domesticated horses were derived from was already genetically distinct from other horse species (i.e. donkeys, zebras etc..) as long ago as 500,000 years.
While the YEC would not agree with the ancient date of this fossil would they expect that a distinct linage of horse would already have formed before th Ice Age which the believe occurred right after the common ancestor horse “kind” left Noah’s Ark?
Let’s start with a quote about horse evolution from Georgia Purdom, AIG’s resident geneticist, which is included in Mitchel’s article:
While we would disagree that the horse ancestor lived millions of years ago (based on radiometric dating which uses unverifiable assumptions about the past), we would agree that all horses came from a common ancestor which, according to the Bible, was on the ark only around 4,300 years ago. The similarity of this fossil horse DNA to modern horse DNA further confirms that God created animals according to their kind (Genesis 1). There is variation within the kind, but even after the proposed hundreds of thousands of years the fossil and modern horse DNA are still very similar. We don’t observe the types of changes necessary for a horse to evolve into a different kind of animal.
A pair of the equine kind got off Noah’s ark about 4,300 years ago, and genetic information in that pair provided the raw material for all the equine varieties we see today. Speciation mediated through natural selection and other means enabled their descendants to adapt to many environments in the post-Flood world.
First, lets observe the obvious and important point that what we have here is confirmation of what I stated in previous articles: that AIG’s current position on the origin of horses is that all horses (donkeys, asses, zebras, domestic horses and wild horses) are the descendants of a single pair of equine ancestors on Noah’s ark just 4300 year ago. Therefore, at that time there were no zebras, donkeys or horses but some sort of combination of all of them into just two individual animals that were the common ancestors of all of them.
Second, I believe Dr. Purdom is very confused about the significance of the lack of sequence divergence in this fossils horse. Elsewhere, Purdom calls this diversification from a common ancestor “genetic sorting of raw material.” We might ask, how much raw variation was there in this original pair and where is the evidence that only a short time ago donkey’s, domestic horses, zebras, etc.. didn’t exist but only a single ancestral equine-like pair? This ancient horse sequence provides us with some clues about how long the living horse species (Equus ferus) have been distinguishable as equine lineages/species.
Examining the figures I have included you can see that the Thistle Creek (the permafrost fossil sample we are focused on here) horse exhibits the greatest genetic differentiation (ie. more DNA differences as visualized as longer lines connecting them to other horses) than all the other horses though it is still most closely associated with domesticated horses and the wild horse (Przewalski’s horse) rather than the more genetically distinct donkey and not shown zebras.
At first it may see that a YEC such as Dr. Purdom may think that evidence that a horse sequence hasn’t changed much over thousands of years might lend support to their view that there are limits to evolutionary change. But taking a minute to reflect further it quickly becomes clear that this ancient horse is of no help to the YEC. Positing that this horse demonstrate little evolvability undermines the YEC belief that horses were quick to change from a common acestor into a hundred or more genetically distinct lingeages of equines. If a horse has been a horse for thousands of years how can the YEC claim that horses have a common ancestor with donkey’s, zebras etc… just 4500 years ago?
The second figure shows the genetic variation in mitochondrial DNA for many living horses and quite a few “ancient” horses samples which come from bones at archaeological sites. Only the Thistle Creek, labeled TC, and 34,000 year-old bone exhibit DNA sequences that are significantly divergent from all other horses. Even so, these fossil sequences along with many other horse bones conventionally dated to more than 5000 years old still have DNA sequences that are very similar to living horses.
Within the context of YEC chronology, the 5000 year, 43000 year and 500,000 year old samples must all be less than 4500 years old. However, we have a reference point that YECs should all agree limits the age of the fossils within there chonology. That reference point is the fact that the later two samples are found underneath Ice Age deposits. Therefore in the YEC chronology these bones must be older than 4000 years but less than 4300 years old because their ancestor was on Noah’s Ark at that time. When the ancestor of all equine species departed from Noah’s Ark 4300 years go its offspring must have diverged into horses, horses, donkeys, zebras and all extinct species of equines in the space of just a few hundred years.
How did the genomes of the two common ancestors on the ark get “sorted out” so quickly into the distinct genomes we find in horses, zebras and donkeys today? Why are there no ancient horses with genomes that are intermediate between donkeys and horses? And why, even if they diverged very quickly, have horse genomes then barely changed in the past 4000 years after undergoing such radical change in just a few hundred years?
The characteristics of the DNA sequence of this ancient horse are perfectly consistent with the expectations of modern genetics and evoltuionary biology. In particular, the genetic divergence of this DNA sequence is consistent with the rate of genetic change we observe in the present and thus fit the conventional dating of the fossil being hundreds of thousands of years old.
Creationists believe is ultra-high speed evolution of species from a common ancestor but they have yet to provide any compelling evidence (genetic models or ancient DNA samples) that provide any hint that this rapid divergence has actually occurred in the last 4300 years.
Does DNA preserved for 500,000 years support a young-earth or ancient earth?
A second question is raised from this ancient DNA genome sequence. Mitchell is quick to cast doubt on the conventional ancient age of the horse fossils. Why? No doubt she doesn’t believe the dating methods employed but in this case she references what she thinks is a problem with DNA preservation and her expectation that DNA molecules should not be able to survive 500,000 years. Therefore she believes this is compelling evidence that these fossils are young. But as I have written many times before, (see: Where’s the DNA? Young Earth Creationism and the Search for Ancient DNA) even if ancient DNA were a problem for an ancient earth, and it doesn’t appear to be, the existence of ancient DNA raises a significant problem for Mitchell’s young-earth viewpoint.
If the world were only a few thousand years old we might ask: why is DNA not found in abundance in all fossil teeth not just ones from the very top of the fossil record? Rather than abundant in fossils, we observe that DNA is very difficult to find intact. No dinosaur teeth have DNA and yet we could expect to pull the entire genome of mammoth from nearly every mammoth tooth we have every found. What Mitchell doesn’t tell her readers is that the DNA from the 500,000 year old horse was not the same as DNA extracted from a living horse. It was found fractured into mostly small 10-50 base pair fragments for which fancy repair enzymes had to be fashioned to “fix” DNA damage before even those short fragments could be sequenced. This is exactly what we would expect to find if this DNA was very old. Even in permafrost which is the ideal environment to preserve DNA this horse DNA was degraded quite extensively.
Let’s contrast this to the 43,000 year old fossil horse which Mitchell does not mention in her article. This horse was also sequenced as part of the same study as the 500,000 year old horse. The bones from this “younger” horse were not preserved under ideal conditions and yet the DNA extracted from them was in far better shape! So the fossil estimated to be much older had DNA that was much more degraded just as expected/predicted by those who assume an ancient earth. However, in the YEC model these two sub-fossils (not completely fossilized technically) were found in sediments that young earth creationists likely would predicte were laid down immediately after the flood and probably within just a few years of one another. Effectively they believe they are roughtly the same age rather than separated by a half-a-millioin years. If this is the case why does the one that is preserved in the best conditions have the worst DNA and why is the DNA really all that decayed at all?
There are thousands of fossils that are from bones preserved during the most recent Ice Age that YECs believe are from a time just after the Flood. These fossils have DNA that is in very good condition and easily sequenced. Why do these bones not have highly degraded DNA? According to AIG dinosaurs died during Noah’s Flood just 4300 years ago why is DNA not found in abundance in them when they were quickly preserved just a few hundred years before these horse fossils. YECs have provided no explanation/mechanism to explain why DNA is NOT found in all or most fossils.
There are large inconsistencies in the stories that AIG is telling its audience about DNA and its implications. Charitably, I don’t think they even think about the ramifications of their own claims when they are trying to discredit mainstream science but they should consider how their claims would affect their own hypotheses. If they did they might see that what they are saying is inconsistent at best.
Ludovic Orlando, et al. Recalibrating Equus evolution using the genome sequence of an early Middle Pleistocene horse. Nature499,74–78(04 July 2013) doi:10.1038/nature1232
How long, I wonder,before one of our learned creationist friends turns up and says “500,000 years; but that’s just 500,000 radiometric years, and doesn’t prove anything”
Probably not long. But that is why I tossed in the bit about the relative position of the fossil. It is found underneath Ice Age deposits. This constricts when this horse could have been living to a very narrow window between the Ark and the Ice Age which is about 400 years at the most. So modern horses had to have become completely isolated genetically from the other equine species (living and extinct) within that 400 year time frame.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Someone should perform a 14C test.
Peer: “Someone should perform a 14C test.”
Due to the relatively short half life of C14, the dating is only accurate for tens of thousands of years (theoretically up to about 100,000 but practically to only about 50k due to limits of most testing methods and equipment). Moreover, samples must have organic material (so rocks and other inorganic materials cannot be directly dated with it).
Other kinds of dating have been done on the fossils in question.
YECs often dismiss the results, even though they often involve multiple independent methods that largely agree.
Gerald Aardsma published a paper in the CRSQ (Vol. 29, 1993) on tree rings and C14 dating. He concluded that data from multiple sites and multiple tree types and samples (overlapping semi-fossilized trees) compared well with C14 dates, with several series going back over 10,000 and some to 11,300 years. With cross-checking and other means, he dispelled the possibility that any multiple rings per hear or missing rings affected the results in any signficant way. He concluded that the Flood (presuming there was a global flood) must have occurred over 10,000 years ago, and challenged fellow YECs to frankly face this evidence. Instead most ignored it, and have done so ever since. See: http://paleo.cc/ce/tree-rings.htm
YE claims that tiny amounts of C14 in dino bones, diamonds, etc disprove conventional dating are faulty –often neglecting evidence of contamination, and the fact that tiny amounts of 14 will be found in any sample due to background radiation sources and imperfect de-contamination, and thus will almost always produce false dates somewhat younger than 100,000 years, even if the samples are tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Refer back to point 1.
Trying to date fossils millions of years old with C14 dating is like trying to weigh an elephant with a bathroom scale, watching the springs and screws fly out as the dial gets stuck at 400 lbs, then concluding that the elephant weighs 400 lbs, or that bathroom scales are inherently unreliable.
“or that bathroom scales are inherently unreliable.”
Bathroom scales being inherently unreliable works for me!
Elizabeth Mitchell complains about the authors of this paper saying “Our result indicates that the evolutionary timescale for the origin of contemporary equid diversity [i.e., 4 Ma] is at least twice that commonly accepted.” But note that the genus Equus, which originated in North America, is actually known there from around 5 Ma. (Perhaps they were referring to the molecular estimation for the divergence of the extant species, which of course is not the same as the origin of the genus.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, this is a common confusion for YECs when they report ages. As an aside, its been a bit tricky talking about “horses” because that could mean one species or the members of the genus Equus. It is also hard to explain that the living species are in one genus which is not as nearly as old as say all the canines which are a family. A wolf compared to a fox is not the same as comparing a donkey to horse but I think that many YECs think that these are roughly equivalent.
Dude, get an editor to proof read your blog posts. The AiG geneticist is Georgia Purdom, no George. Errors like this, and there are others, detract from your otherwise great blogs. They also give the YECs something to focus on to avoid deal directly with the substance of the blog.
My editors will love this comment since I bypassed them and published without going through them. This happens every time. I suppose someday I will learn the lesson.
Besides the major inconsistencies among YECs that you pointed out on these issues, AIG authors can’t seem to make up their minds on the role of natural selection in their hyperspeciation ideas. Even some individual authors seem to waffle on it. For example, in some articles by N Jeanson, he seems to largely neglect it; other times he suggests it could have been a significant factor. Meanwhile Ham, Purdom, and others seem to often downplay its role, depicting it as merely a mechanism to weed out negative variations. Never do they allow that natural selection drives evolution (especially “macro evolution), or can create any “new genetic information.” However, this dogma seems increasingly problematic, as they are now proposing that entire families or even larger taxa arose in only a few hundred to a few thousand years after the Flood. They keep yammering on about “frontloading”, but as you’ve noted before, they almost always neglect the severe genetic bottleneck the Flood would have created, as does Purdom in the a chapter of AIG “New Answers Book 1 (2008)”. One especially curious diagram shows what she calls the “Creation Orchard,” which shows Genesis kinds branching into new forms over time, but doesn’t show the Flood, let alone the severe genetic bottleneck and other effects (such as massive extinctions) resulting from it. Can it really be an innocent omission, considering how central the Flood is to the YEC viewpoint?
Even putting the most generous take on it (that it was intended to show only pre-Flood variation) it seems at best ambiguous and misleading.
As far as Jeason’s confusing comments on natural selection and hyperspeciation go, perhaps even Ham and others at AIG are not always sure what to make of them. I say this because a mostly negative and sometimes even harsh review of Jeasnon’s book Replacing Darwin appeared in the April 2018 Answers Research Journal, followed by a lengthy back-and-forth between Jeanson and the review’s author, Stefan Frello.
Click to access review_replacing_darwin.pdf
I was surprised to see this, since AIG could have declined to print the review and follow-ups. Indeed, in the past they seemed reluctant to publish anything more than mildly critical of their views or their staff writers. Could this exception suggest they are starting to question some of Jeanson’s ideas, or wanting to create a little distance from them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding the review of Jeanson at AiG. I was also a bit surprised at first. The review is quite extensive and damning. But I don’t think that they are backing off from Jeaonson. I doubt that Ham or many others would have even read those reviews. What the review does is gives Jeanson a chance to say they are being reviewed and he can write his responses. How may people that follow AIG would have a clue what anything in that review means? Hardly any of them. Jeanson can claim that he is responding to his critiques and will promote the fact they published it as proof that critiques are taking his theory seriously.
Joel: “But I don’t think that they are backing off from Jeaonson. I doubt that Ham or many others would have even read those reviews. What the review does is gives Jeanson a chance to say they are being reviewed and he can write his responses.”
Point taken. However, it still surprises me was the review was published in an AIG journal, despite the fact that AIG hired Jeanson as one of their science writers, and published a number of his articles.
Joel: “How may people that follow AIG would have a clue what anything in that review means?” Probably few of their core followers, but I for one found the review easier to follow and far more compelling than Jeanson’s articles. I suspect others with some science background would as well, and therefore that the negative effects of the review probably outweighed any benefit to Jeanson or AIG, at least to those readers. But I can see your point, and it may be hard to know the overall effect. I supposes it’s also possible that Ham does not exercise close control or monitoring of AIG’s technical journal. In any case, I commend AIG for publishing a negative review of Jeason’s book, whatever their motives.
Jeanson referred to my TE papers, so he is on the right track.
“Point taken. However, it still surprises me was the review was published in an AIG journal, despite the fact that AIG hired Jeanson as one of their science writers, and published a number of his articles”
I think their motive is that they want scientists to have to come to them to publish critiques. They’re just trying to get their “journal” to appear more credible – a place for scientific discussions rather than just publishing puff pieces. A creationist who’s talked to Jeanson intimated to me that that Jeanson is keen to get any and all critiques of his work publish in ARJ – that way when he responds he’s not seen to be just going after blogs.
Yes, I think that is one of Jeanson’s missions there. At some point, though, he has to justify his salary there and if nothing is sent to ARJ he has to do something. More than 2 months since his last article which was a response to a review. He has only one speaking event lined up and that is an AIG conference at the Ark so he isn’t traveling. I’m assuming he is working on follow up research but there is little evidence of activity at this point.
NH writes: “And why, even if they diverged very quickly, have horse genomes then barely changed in the past 4000 years after undergoing such radical change in just a few hundred years?
They did not even look at the genomes, NH. I start to really wonder whether the contributors here understand genomes. Ask yourslef: What is a genome. Is it pile of proteincoding sequences (that is what NHs linked study puzzled toegther. No, that is a completely outdated view. The genome is not only a pile of tools (genes), it is also computer that controls the regulation of that genes during all stages of the organisms life. Most of the genome is just that: computing. In addition,i t contains the contruction plan in the how the genome (chromosomes) are located in 3D space. This is executed by repetive sequences, previously referred to as junk. This junk is the bauplan. Rearrangement of the 3D spatial distribution of chromosomes chnages the bauplan and this is determined by the karyotype. This cannot be addressed in the 2D studies linked here. Biology is completely different than we have been taught in school and Academia. Evolutionary changes were instant and non-gradual. Darwinian Theory is completely and utterly false. Not even wrong.
seriously, if you are on the right track then there are plenty of atheist scientist who would love to become famous for discovering this new biology and would be willing to flaunt the establishment and eventually pick up their Nobel prize.
No, they would not. The frontloaded evolutionary theories are as old as the NeoDarwinain synthesis. It the was the better theory in those days, but it was rejected / ignored by the initiators of NeoDarwinian synthesis. They were all atheists.
You are bearing false witness against known individuals. To quote Wikipedia on “Objections to evolution”, Of the five founding fathers of twentieth-century evolutionary biology—Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Ernst Mayr, and Theodosius Dobzhansky—one was a devout Anglican who preached sermons and published articles in church magazines, one a practicing Unitarian, one a dabbler in Eastern mysticism, one an apparent atheist, and one a member of the Russian Orthodox Church and the author of a book on religion and science.
The neodarwinians surely wer Bible believing christians, Paul. That is why they invented their stories. Being a member of a church and atheism goes perfewctly together, however. Where I live, in Germany, all my neighbors confessed to a church, it is culture, but no one goes there or believes the teachings of the bible. It is just culture.
“Where I live, in Germany, all my neighbors confessed to a church, it is culture, ”
How many of them also preached sermons, published articles in church magazines, or authored books on religion and science?
‘ but no one goes there or believes the teachings of the bible.’
Hopeless monsters, all of them.
So you claim to have looked into the hearts of these people, including those who made very public declarations of their faith although there was no social need for them to do so, and you have concluded that they were atheists, presumably because of their work on evolution.
Would you describe Henry Drummond, Ken Miller, Dennis Venema, and Francis Collins as atheists? If not, why not?
No, they are deists. They believe in some sort of god, one who did not create, but inflate. The God of Genesis created…he is the Information supplier. He is the source of Information present together in a shipload of baranomes. These baranomes unfolded into millions of species. How it works I wrote down in my book (still available)
Peer: “No, they are deists. They believe in some sort of god, one who did not create, but inflate.”
In a previous post you wrote: “They were all atheists.” So which is it? Actually neither characterization is fair. Both early and recent “neo-Darwinists” include people on all parts of the religious spectrum (from atheists to devout believers–the latter including members of various Christian denominations and other faiths). In no case does it disqualify their scientific work. Peer, if want to imply otherwise, or suggest they were mostly disingenuous or impostors, you’re being as unkind as you are presumptuous. Which leads me to ask, Peer, do you believe only YECs are real Christians? Are you sure you cannot be mistaken about your “hyper-literal” interpretations of Genesis? I say “hyper-literal,” because even “literally” the Hebrew word for “day” (Yom) can have several valid meanings. See: http://www.oldearth.org/yom_hebrew.htm
Glen you should read what I write. I responded to Paul first, when I indicated the neodarwinians as atheists…some of them went to a church, that is true. Maybe they were deists, that is possible. Then, Paul came with a list of evotheists and I defined them as deists (since they do not believe in the God of Genesis, who is in fact the Word, or Jesus according to John. So ask yourself, can deniers of the God of Genesis be defined as Christians? I am sure about that. So, please instruct me.
Peer: Glen you should read what I write. I responded to Paul first, when I indicated the neodarwinians as atheists…some of them went to a church, that is true. Maybe they were deists, that is possible.
Yes, I did read what you and Paul wrote. I pointed out the same inconsistencies that you tacitly acknowledge here. First you said all the neo-Darwinists were “all atheists” then changed to “deists”, (and now about possible deists) — all the while implying none were real Christians, by your own narrow definition of that.
Peer: “Then, Paul came with a list of evotheists and I defined them as deists (since they do not believe in the God of Genesis,
Sorry to see you’ve gone from changing the meaning of well-established scientific terms to redefining theological ones as well, while pretending to know the hearts of people you’ve never met, and whose writings often contradict what you assert. Apparently you believe that anyone who doesn’t hold to a literal Genesis doesn’t believe in the Judeo-Christian God, which is not only theologically baseless, but an insult to millions of devout fellow Christians.
“…who is in fact the Word, or Jesus according to John. So ask yourself, can deniers of the God of Genesis be defined as Christians? I am sure about that. So, please instruct me.”
I and others have tried before, but frankly, even when you are given detailed explanations or links showing why you are mistaken about something, often you appear to misunderstand or dismiss the explanation, or don’t even reply.
However, I’ll try again now. Not only is it unclear to many Biblical scholars that Genesis is all literal, but even if it were, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that one’s salvation depends on believing that. If you really are open to instruction, here are some articles by fellow Christians agreeing with these points and giving many reasons for them. You may still disagree with them, but again, to suggest they are not really Christians is as unfounded as it is unkind and insulting.
Peer:: “Being a member of a church and atheism goes perfewctly together,”
Peer, don’t you and most YECs go to church? Are you suggesting that anyone who isn’t a YEC is an atheist, whether or not they go to church?
Unfortunately, YEC comments often suggest they only regard YECs, that is Bible-believing Christians in their view, as Christians. Bible-believing and YEC means the same thing to YECs.The others as XINO, ‘Christians in name only’, including about all of the main stream churches.
Peter: “Unfortunately, YEC comments often suggest they only regard YECs, that is Bible-believing Christians in their view, as Christians. Bible-believing and YEC means the same thing to YECs.The others as XINO, ‘Christians in name only’, including about all of the main stream churches.”
Right, many YECs imply that only YECs are “true” Christians, and real “Bible believers.” They insist their narrow interpretation of Genesis is obviously only the correct one, no matter what the scientific evidence says, or what many Biblical scholars say. There have always been believers who took this attitude, but it seemed to explode in popularity after Morris and Whitcomb heavily promoted it in their 1961 book The Genesis Flood. Coincidentally, I just received the Feb issue of ICR’s monthly periodical Acts and Facts, which includes an “adapted” reprint of a June 2000 article by their founder, the late H Morris, rehashing many of his simplistic and misleading claims, including gems as “…there is no genuine scientific evidence for evolution… no recorded history beyond the 6,000 years or so of Biblical history. Any alleged earlier ages have to be postulated on the discredited assumption of uniformitarianism.”
Even more disturbing (to me at least) are Morris’ many comments implying that if one does not accept these things, one cannot be a true believer. For example, he asserts that accepting evolution or physical death as part of the Creation “…would lead us to conclude further that we have no real Savior” and, “there remains no reason to believe in God at all, at least not a loving, omniscient ,holy, righteous God…’ Among the reasons I find this especially odd and inconsistent is that 1. Physical death is a vital part of ecosystems, which YECs otherwise seem to admire and imply that God created, and 2. evidently they see nothing cruel or unloving about God using a violent global flood to drown billions of innocent animals and countless human children and babies in order to destroy wicked adults, even though He could have instantly terminated the latter with one word, without doing any of the former. They also seem to ignore all the ways “death” is used in spiritual and metaphorical ways in the Bible. Indeed, their insistence on an all-literal Genesis is not only theologically unnecessary and scientifically bankrupt, but creates internal inconsistencies. For example, Genesis says that God told Adam that he would die the day he ate the forbidden fruit, but after he ate it, Adam did not literally (physically) die that literal (solar) day, but lived for many years afterward.
By the way, Acts and Facts is available for free from ICR’s web site, where you can request either hard copy or email versions. Years ago it was just a small, plain-looking monthly flier, but in recent years (like other YEC publications) has evolved into a slick, colorful, magazine-like publication.
You mentioned Henry Morris. I may have mentioned before that Henry Morris in The Genesis Flood explicitly refrains from developing a chronology, on the grounds that the genealogies in Genesis are ambiguous and possibly incomplete, with sons possibly referring to descendants. So this would explain how the pyramids came into existence at a date that would have been about 150 years before Ham had a son, Mizraim (Egypt) if one established a chronology with no such gaps.
But Ham is having none of it!
We do not even know when the pzramides were built…you assume to know based on Maneto. But he could be wrong. Whz do you think he was right? How could he see back 3000 years??
So basically, a fancy form of “where you there argument.” But you turn around and tell us that bones in a pit are evidence of saltational events even though you were not there to see those saltations. You could be wrong so why should we be taking anything you say seriously?
“They did not even look at the genomes, NH. I start to really wonder whether the contributors here understand genomes.”
From the paper in question: “Here we present a 1.12-times coverage draft genome from a horse bone recovered from permafrost dated to approximately 560–780 thousand years before present (kyr bp)2,3. Our data represent the oldest full genome sequence determined so far by almost an order of magnitude. For comparison, we sequenced the genome of a Late Pleistocene horse (43 kyr bp), and modern genomes of five domestic horse breeds (Equus ferus caballus), a Przewalski’s horse (E. f. przewalskii) and a donkey (E. asinus)–”
So what were they looking at, if not the genomes they claim to have examined? It seems that it’s not just we contributors who don’t understand genomes, but specialists in genetics, and the reviewers and editors of the top scientific journal in the world, Nature, who also have that affliction.
Was this horse individual simply a “hopeful monster”? Something is clearly afoot.
Correction: “Something is clearly ahoof.” :-)
Yeah, well, it was a foot bone (metapodial) that they studied, not the hoof!
Of course, the question might then be, how did they know it was ‘Equus’, and not one of the many extinct genera? This might attract the creationist accusation of ‘circular reasoning’, as in ‘the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks’. But the metapodials of Equus are distinctive.
Ha, you got me on my lack of equine foot morphology knowledge. Thanks.
“They did not even look at the genomes, ‘
The article starts:
“It was a nearly complete genome extracted and decoded from the remains of a tooth of a horse preserved in permafrost sediments in Alaska. ”
As to the rest of what Peer writes, he should give an example in worked detail. Until then, this is just empty talk.
Richard W wrote:
“Dude, get an editor to proof read your blog posts. The AiG geneticist is Georgia Purdom, no George. Errors like this, and there are others, detract from your otherwise great blogs. They also give the YECs something to focus on to avoid deal directly with the substance of the blog.
I’m glad Joel took your comment well, and I think pointing out his error was fine. And if he wants to have someone proofread or edit his postings, fine. However, I for one don’t see a big need, at least not for the reason you suggest. First, we all make little typos and careless mistakes; I often see grammar and spelling errors on blogs (which after all, are not formal publications, and run on shoestring budgets), and even in articles on major media web sites. I myself tend to make typos and other slips when pressed for time, as I am sure Joel often is. You yourself wrote, “Georgia Purdom, no George” whereas you should have written “Georgia Purdom, not George.”
But that’s not a big deal, which is part of my point. Indeed, I don’t recall anyone here focusing on such errors, until you did so. Fourth, I think Joel makes relatively few errors, especially compared to some of the YECs who often leave comments here. Sometimes their remarks are rife with grammatical and spelling mistakes, as well as serious scientific errors. I for one don’t care much about the former (as long as I can glean what the person is saying), but the latter is of far greater concern, and is properly treated as such by mainstream participants here. When YECs avoid dealing with our questions (as Peer and Robert B did when asked about the fossil record during our recent discussions on horses), the reason was not because they focused on little slips by Joel or anyone else, but apparently because they had no plausible answers.
Let me end on a light note. Reportedly when an aide criticized Winston Churchill for ending sentences with prepositions, he replied, “This is the kind of thing up with which I will not put.”
I think Paul for correcting Peer’s unfounded claim that the founders of neo-Darwinism were all atheists. I’d like to add that even if they were all atheists, it would not mean their science was not sound.
Moreover, to the extent that the the epigenetic systems or mechanisms you promote are sound, you seem to needlessly assume they must have been created by divine fiat, rather than having evolved. In other words, the possible partial role of epigenetics in evolution does not rule out the major role of natural selection and other “neo-Darwininan” mechanisms. Insisting otherwise would be a false dichotomy.
I don’t know if it is just my computer, but I noticed that my last comments ran off to the right of the screen, and I cannot even scroll to see them. Plus I meant to first refer to Peter’s recent post. Joel, in case you want to erase my previous entry, let me try again:
Peter: “Unfortunately, YEC comments often suggest they only regard YECs, that is Bible-believing Christians in their view, as Christians. Bible-believing and YEC means the same thing to YECs.The others as XINO, ‘Christians in name only’, including about all of the main stream churches.”
Right, many YECs imply that only YECs are “true” Christians, and real “Bible believers.” They insist their narrow interpretation of Genesis is obviously only the correct one, no matter what the scientific evidence says, or what many Biblical scholars say. There have always been believers who took this attitude, but it seemed to explode in popularity after Morris and Whitcomb heavily promoted it in their 1961 book The Genesis Flood. Coincidentally, I just received the Feb issue of ICR’s monthly periodical Acts and Facts, which includes a reprint of a June 2000 article by their founder, the late H Morris. In it, he rehashes many simplistic and misleading claims, including gems as “…there is no genuine scientific evidence for evolution… no recorded history beyond the 6,000 years or so of Biblical history. Any alleged earlier ages have to be postulated on the discredited assumption of uniformitarianism.”
Even more disturbing (to me at least) are his many comments implying that if one does not accept these things, one cannot be a true believer. For example, he asserts that accepting evolution or physical death as part of the Creation “…would lead us to conclude further that we have no real Savior” and, “there remains no reason to believe in God at all, at least not a loving, omniscient ,holy, righteous God…’ Among the reasons I find these assertions especially odd and inconsistent is that 1. Physical death is a vital part of ecosystems, which they otherwise seem to admire and imply that God created, and 2. evidently they see nothing cruel or unloving about God drowning billions of innocent animals and countless human children and babies as a means of destroying wicked adults, even though He could have instantly terminated the latter with one word, without doing any of the former. They also seem to ignore all the ways “death” is used in spiritual and metaphorical ways in the Bible. Indeed, their insistence on an all-literal Genesis is not only unnecessary, but creates internal inconsistencies. For example, Genesis says that God told Adam that he would die the day he ate the forbidden fruit, but after he ate it, Adam did not literally (physically) die that literal (solar) day, but lived for many years afterward.
Ah, yes, a formatting problem probably from cut-and-paste. I’ve removed that response and left this one.
As a follow up to my last post, I’d like to ask Peer a few questions: Do you like most other YECs believe there was no physical death in the original Creation? If so, how would ecosystems would work without physical death, especially from the standpoint of unchecked reproduction? Why do many animals appear to be obligatory predators? Why do many have elaborate defenses or camouflage against predators? Vague references to frontloaded variability won’t cut it, especially in cases like walking-stick insects. Why look like a stick (or leaf) if there were no animals looking to eat insects? What did rattlesnakes originally eat? Why have rattles–to warn approaching melons?
Eden was different, Glen. It was not the fallen world we life in now. There was an entirely different type of reproduction, most likely it was asexual. Eve came from Adam in a asexual way. Only after the fall we see that sexual reproduction starts. If you read the work of the late John Davison you may get an idea how biology worked in those days and that we still see the remnants of it in our genomes, i.e. in the ontology of the reproductive cells, in the fact that sexual systems evolved independently in all verterbrate groups, etc. So, we cannot compare biology before and after the fall. All your question can be undestood from frontloaded genomes, created by a omnipotent God who is above time and space (i.e the God of Genesis; not the god of evolution).
Click to access 06_Science_Essay_Evolution_Davison_Manifesto_Evolutionary.pdf
“in the fact that sexual systems evolved independently in all verterbrate groups, etc”
Meiosis evolved independently in all vertebrate groups?
No, I said sexual reproduction evolved indpendently. So the vertebrates cannot be monophyletic.We (biologists) know this for ages. Read Davisons manifesto for an overview.
Got the manifesto part right. As I’ve read through it I found it laughably (or sadly really) ignorant in so many places. Truly a case of, I had an idea and now I will simply will it to be true by massive cherry-picking of the literature.
There are indeed some marvelous howlers. Just one I picked up on: the notion that the germ cells (presumptive gametes) of birds and mammals cannot be homologous, because in birds they originate in the “extra-embryonic endoderm” and in mammals they originate in the “endoderm of the allantois”. The allantois is an outgrowth of the structure that will form the urinary bladder (as noted in the article, but this is true of all amniotes, not just mammals), seen in the embryonic condition where it is most definitely “extra-embryonic”, forming the “allentoic” part of the “chorioallentoic placenta” in placental mammals. The fact that this endoderm is situated somewhat differently in relation to the head in embryonic birds and mammals relates to the difference between the embryo being free-floating in the uterus and being packed within an eggshell.
One more comment. p. 34 “Giant animals, which typically leave few offspring, have been especially prone to extinction”. True for mammals, but not for dinosaurs, in which the size of the clutch actually increases with body size.
And, an illustration of complete miscomprehension of phylogenetics: p. 35 “The four higher primates, man (Homo), Chimpanzee (Pan), Gorilla (Gorilla), and Orangutan (Pongo) are all in separate genera. How can they gradually be transformed one into the other ——“.
Indeed. How can a mouse be related to a rat when it has 3 times the number of miRNAs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
One more thing, and then I’ll stop (because this manifesto is simply sad). In his long discussion about problems with vertebrate evolution, his knowledge of the fossil record and of evolutionary theory dates from around 1920. Science has progressed since Henry Fairfield Osborn and the notion of orthogenesis.
Peer says that in Eden there was entirely different type of reproduction, most likely it was asexual. How do you know, apart from Eve? What of the other species?
Frontloading seems to provide all the answers to all questions. Has frontloading run its full course and is everything frontloaded already existing? How do we recognize what was frontloaded? How do we reconstruct the original frontloaded state before frontloading spread out? If frontloading has not yet run its full coarse, how do we recognise frontloading waiting to occur? Name an animal species and do some detailed predictions. (And do not come again with ‘my book’. Peer should be able to provide answers to such questions.)
Peter> “(And do not come again with ‘my book’. Peer should be able to provide answers to such questions.)”
Sent me an email via NH. I will send you an electronic copy of my book for free.
Peer, I have to say that at one time I read your articles in the YEC lit with a great amount of interest. I truly am interested in understanding YEC models of speciation as I am working on several manuscripts about just that. You make one of the tables as a model but as I’ve read your comments here it has become abundantly clear that your book will be of little interest to me, my audience or other YECs at this time. There are real reasons your ideas have not gained traction. Until they at least gain traction among YECs (that means more than Jeanson using you as a reference) what compelling reason can you give us to spend time arguing about your model?
I asked: “If frontloading has not yet run its full coarse, how do we recognise frontloading waiting to occur? Name an animal species and do some detailed predictions”
And got again: “Peer says:(January 30, 2019 at 9:51 am ) Peter> “(And do not come again with ‘my book’. Peer should be able to provide answers to such questions.)” Sent me an email via NH. I will send you an electronic copy of my book for free.”
Peer, you shoud answer this question about frontloading. If your book has a worked out exampel of frontloading going to happen in a particular direction, a direct prediction of frontloading, it cannot be much trouble to shorten the example to a comment here. Why should I start reading your book if you do not provide evidence it is interesting?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Why do many have elaborate defenses or camouflage against predators? Vague references to frontloaded variability won’t cut it, especially in cases like walking-stick insects.”
Why-questions are not even scientific. As a matter of fact your stick insect example is very interesting, because according to evoscience they kept evolving and losing re-evolving their wings, which is completely in accord with frontlaoding and a young biology (because you cannot keep coded programs to build wings stable for millions of years (Sanford 2006, Borger 2009). And try to evolve a wing from scratch DNA. The magnificant storyteller Darwin is tumbling down by the Word present in the genome.
Essentially your why-questions boil down to why is the world so evil…read Genesis! And read some books of creation scientists.
Evograd wrote: “I think their motive is that they want scientists to have to come to them to publish critiques. They’re just trying to get their “journal” to appear more credible – a place for scientific discussions rather than just publishing puff pieces. ”
You may be right, but even if they started doing this more often (which I would applaud) I doubt it will help their credibility much, among either YECs or nonYECs. First, it still leaves many systematic problems in the YEC approach. ARJ and other YEC “journals” usually won’t publish an original article unless it promotes YECIsm in some way, and they typically do this through cherry picked data and other flawed methodology, severe neglect of contrary evidence, and lack of rigorous peer review. In view of all that, even if YEC journals sometimes print a review critical of one of their own papers, I doubt it will prompt the few mainstream scientists who may read it to start becoming open to YECism. In fact, I think it’s more likely to do the opposite–just confirm to them how faulty the original paper was.
Even among YECs, I think it will have little effect. After all, most lay creationists don’t read technical journals. Most seem to develop their YEC views from family traditions, church teachings, and/or popular level YEC articles, videos, and books. If they did read a technical YEC paper and saw a critical review of it in the same publication, I suspect most would just be annoyed or confused, since they are not used to seeing such criticisms in YEC sources.
That said, I am glad when YECs do publish critical reviews, since it’s the right thing to do, and the only way to show that they are even trying to participate in real science.
Evograd: “A creationist who’s talked to Jeanson intimated to me that that Jeanson is keen to get any and all critiques of his work publish in ARJ – that way when he responds he’s not seen to be just going after blogs.”
That’s interesting, and I hope ARJ keeps doing that. I’m also glad that Jeanson is willing to engage with mainstream scientists. However, I think he’s being overconfident if he thinks e is likely to come out on top after such exchanges. Nevertheless, if he thinks he has worked out some new and important genetic principles, he should publish in mainstream journals, to receive a wider scientific audience and more substantial peer review. I don’t think he can assume that they would automatically reject a submission because he is a YEC, since such principles would be important (if well supported) even aside from questions about evolution or earth history.
“Nevertheless, if he thinks he has worked out some new and important genetic principles, he should publish in mainstream journals, to receive a wider scientific audience and more substantial peer review. I don’t think he can assume that they would automatically reject a submission because he is a YEC, since such principles would be important (if well supported) even aside from questions about evolution or earth history.”
I already did that in my book of 2009. The principles have already been published in peer reviewed papers. I have discussed the models in my book. Davison, Todd, Kolnicki, etc. They did the work and provided the first evidence.
Me: “Nevertheless, if he thinks he has worked out some new and important genetic principles, he should publish in mainstream journals, to receive a wider scientific audience and more substantial peer review…”
Peer: “I already did that in my book of 2009. The principles have already been published in peer reviewed papers.”
On the contrary, your book is not a peer reviewed scientific paper, nor from what I’ve seen are YEC papers peer reviewed with the same rigor as mainstream papers. If you’re referring to mainstream papers, which of them support your conclusions, especially about hyper-rapid speciation, and your idea that all marsupials arose from placentals in the last few thousand years, or that horses and rhinos did so. I challenge you to cite any credible mainstream papers supporting such things.
“I have discussed the models in my book. Davison, Todd, Kolnicki, etc. They did the work and provided the first evidence.”
Again, I was specifically asking about mainstream journals, and why you should summit your work to them, But since you brought up the above names, please cite the full references to their specific papers that you think support the specific conclusions mentioned above. I don’t think that is too much to ask, considering the radical nature of your claims. Thank you.
“On the contrary, your book is not a peer reviewed scientific paper, nor from what I’ve seen are YEC papers peer reviewed with the same rigor as mainstream papers. If you’re referring to mainstream papers, which of them support your conclusions, especially about hyper-rapid speciation, and your idea that all marsupials arose from placentals in the last few thousand years, or that horses and rhinos did so. I challenge you to cite any credible mainstream papers supporting such things.”
My book was peer reviewed and published by a science publisher. The references you are looking for are in my book, which in fact is my thesis. Also on Research Gate.
“My book was peer reviewed and published by a science publisher”
Peer, Peter Borgers book is publisched by Scholar’s Press according to Amazon. Scholar’s Press has not much of a reputation. https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-validate-if-Scholars-Press-is-a-legitimate-publishing-house (April 27, 2018) .
And the book is not your thesis, at least nog your PhD thesis
LikeLiked by 1 person
The book of 2009? ‘Peer Terborg’ has no book on Amazon, and ‘Peter Borger’ has only a 2018 book.
“The principles have already been published in peer reviewed papers. ” Peer means, Journal of Creation and such?
Peer: Why-questions are not even scientific.
On the contrary. While asking “why” questions about the ultimate meaning or purpose of something would be mostly theological and unscientific, in many other cases (such as my question) it simply inquires into the causation or mechanism about something in nature, or challenges the logic or consistency in someone else’s claims. That’s perfectly valid and is what I am doing here. Ironically, it’s more often YECs who ask “why” questions of the first kind, since in their view, everything relates to the recent creative activities and purposes of God. Nevertheless, if you are hung up on the word “why” I’d be happy to reword the question without it. Please explain the adaptive advantage of an insect looking remarkably like a stick or leaf, if there were no predators in the original creation.
Peer: “As a matter of fact your stick insect example is very interesting, because according to evoscience they kept evolving and losing re-evolving their wings, which is completely in accord with frontloading ”
I don’t know of any mainstream scientists who hold that walking sticks or leaf mimic insects go through evolutionary cycles of looking like plant parts and then not looking like them. If that’s what you’re implying, can you provide any citations? That said, by conventional thought different species of walking sticks and leaf insects evolved to match specific plant structures, becoming more precise mimics over time, and thus more effective at evading predators. That’s entirely consistent with conventional evolution, but zero evidence for YEC views. Again, it begs the question of why such creatures would exist if there were no predators in the original creation, especially since their entire bodies are close mimics of specific plant structures, and can’t be readily modified from non-mimic insects. If you’re still suggesting that they did, then what did they originally look like, and what evidence do you have for that?
Peer: “…and a young biology (because you cannot keep coded programs to build wings stable for millions of years (Sanford 2006, Borger 2009). And try to evolve a wing from scratch DNA. The magnificant storyteller Darwin is tumbling down by the Word present in the genome.”
I didn’t ask just ask about wings. I asked about entire insect bodies that look precisely like wings or sticks. Nothing you said begins to answer how that fits into the YEC claim of no death and thus no predation before the Fall. Likewise, please explain what spider webs and their poison fangs were used for before the Fall. Please explain what the rattlesnake rattles and poison fangs (which inject neurotoxins) were used for.
As far as building a wing from scratch. Only YECs that wings arose “from scratch.” Even Genesis suggests otherwise, since God commanded “…Let the sea bring forth…: and “…let the Earth to bring forth” living things. Sounds a lot more like an indirect process than instant creation. That aside, as you should know, mainstream scientists hold that wings evolved from other insect structures over time, which is consistent with fossil and genetic evidence.
“Essentially your why-questions boil down to why is the world so evil…” read Genesis! And read some books of creation scientists.”
You’re changing the subject. I never claimed any of those predatory animals were in any way “evil.” But since you raised the issue, if someone wanted to make an argument about that, it seems like YECs would be the ones with more to explain, since in their view God either created those predators, or (in your view) caused or allowed them to become predators at the time of the Fall. In conventional science (and the view of many theologians), there is nothing inherently evil about predation or death. In fact, they are vital parts of ecosystems, to check populations and for reasons previously explained (which you have ignored). I’m simply asking you to explain the existence of clearly obligatory predators (some of which, like web-spinning spiders or rattlesnakes, cannot have been simply modified from plant eaters) if all animals were created as vegetarians. Can you answer that or not?
Peer: As to your comment “read Genesis! And read some books of creation scientists.”
Actually, I have read all of Genesis (in several translations), as well as many YEC and nonYEC commentaries of it. I’ve also read scores of creationist books and thousands of creationist articles, besides countless mainstream books and papers (besides the scientific papers I’ve written and co-written). Didn’t you notice that I quoted from Genesis a number of times in my posts, as well as various creationist books and articles? Also, a number of times I or others asked for references to support something you were claiming, but you provided none, or suggested we go hunt them down.
I’m always glad to do more reading, and as I said before, will read your book as I have time. But to be frank, from your failure to answer basic questions like those above, or earlier ones I and others asked about the fossil record, basic taxonomy, marsupials, etc, I think you could certainly stand to do more reading yourself, especially from mainstream sources on those topics.
Speaking of which… in a previous post, I left a link to my article discussing additional scientific and Biblical/theological problems with the “No Physical Death Before the Fall” dogma. Did you read it? Here’s the link again. http://paleo.cc/ce/nodeath.htm
I also encouraged you to read my article on the many ways fossil tracks and other trace fossils refute YEC/Flood Geology, and another explaining why human-host diseases refute a recent global Flood. Did you read either? If not, and you are willing to do what you asked of me, they are linked here: http://paleo.cc/ce/compelling-evidence.htm Thank you.
My book of 2009 was in dutch, but it was originally written in english in 2008. It has now, in 2018, been published as a scientific thesis. Send me an email and you get a free e-copy.
Peer, just to clarify…when I said “but you provided none” I meant in several cases where I or others asked for references for specific assertions you were making. I know you’ve sometimes left links to YEC articles, and often told us to read your book.
When I asked how ecosystems could work without physical death, especially in terms of checking exponential population explosions, Peer wrote:
“Eden was different, Glen. It was not the fallen world we life in now. There was an entirely different type of reproduction, most likely it was asexual.”
Say what?! You’ve said some outlandish things before, but this may take the cake. It also does nothing to answer my question. First, Genesis says that God created male and female, which makes no sense if reproduction were asexual. Indeed, nothing in Genesis even hints of humans or higher animals reproducing asexually. You asked me to read Genesis. I have, but it sounds like you may need to read it again. Second, I don’t know of any other YECs who have even suggested that as a possibility. So on what basis are you making that wild claim? Third, it doesn’t even help you if it were true. After all, you must believe that all creatures obeyed God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, and whether they did that sexually or asexually, their populations will grow exponentially to absurd and then impossibly large sizes, unless checked with physical death. Please explain how this could not be the case.
Peer: “If you read the work of the late John Davison you may get an idea how biology worked in those days and that we still see the remnants of it in our genomes, i.e. in the ontology of the reproductive cells, in the fact that sexual systems evolved independently in all vertebrate groups,”
First, are you seriously suggesting that all vertebrate groups evolved from a common ancestor within a few thousand years? If so, you’ve now broken yet another record on the taxonomic level of the Genesis kinds, not to mention believing in a level of hyper-evolution so rapid and dramatic it would probably make Ken Ham cringe.
Second, even if this absurd idea were true, it still does not explain how Eden would not quickly become Hell on Earth without physical death to check reproduction, as all creatures obeyed God’s command to be fruitful and multiply. Your odd suggestion that all creatures originally reproduced asexually not only conflicts with other YECs and a literal reading of Genesis, but it only makes the problem worse for you. That’s because some of the fastest reproducing organisms (many microbes and some invertebrates) are ones that reproduce (or can reproduce) asexually.
“So, we cannot compare biology before and after the fall.”
So far, none of your speculations about conditions before the fall have answered my main question, nor are even consistent with the Genesis account, let alone the fossil record and other scientific evidence. Indeed, whatever you imagine the originally created asexual created kinds to include (can you please enlighten us on that?), how would that work for Adam and Eve? Did they reproduce by budding or fission?
Even if you say humans were the exception, and they reproduced sexually from the start, it would not solve the run-away population problem. I’ll help you out a little and note that you could argue that God knew man would soon sin and usher in death, or counted on that happening, but that raises sticky theological issues. For one, it seems like the original creation should at least have had the potential to work indefinitely or at least for a long time, and without physical death, it could not.
Dear Glen, even most modern organisms can still reproduce asexually. All microorganisms, most plants, a whole lost of amphibians and reptiles. He made them man and woman…does that say anything about sexual reproduction? After the fall we read about sons and daughters. In Eden there probably (most likely) was no sexual reproduction. We do not read about it in Genesis. We (well informed biologists) know that the sexual reproduction systems are not homolog and must have evolved independently several times. So, not only these systems overturn universal common descent via sexuel reproduction, they show that the asexual mode is the original one. As I claimed before, the Darwinian paradigm is completely and utterly false. The biology taught in schools and academia is also a joke.
Glen commented on what Peer said: ““Eden was different, Glen. It was not the fallen world we life in now. There was an entirely different type of reproduction, most likely it was asexual.”
I think Peer must think that sex is sinful. Therefore, no sexual reproduction until after the Fall. But, as you note, any type of reproduction would rapidly lead to overpopulation, especially if accompanied by the absence of death.
And this is, indeed, particularly outlandish: “—in the fact that sexual systems evolved independently in all verterbrate groups, etc. ”
One has to wonder what he means by “vertebrate groups” (not to mention “sexual systems”). Is this the same thing as “vertebrate kinds”? And, if not, why not?
(I don’t think Peer means that all vertebrates diverged from a common ancestor after the fall [but, then again, perhaps he does]: more that the major groups/kinds were already created, but only started to reproduce sexually after the fall, and that somehow their reproductive anatomy/physiology/genetics attests to that.)
“I think Peer must think that sex is sinful. ”
No I dont think so, Christine. Sin is the rebellion against God. Not sex. I base my conclusions on biological observations, i.e. sexual reproduction systems are not homologous and they have independent origins, biologically. Lets quote my book:
“The common descent hypothesis therefore predicts an unbroken chain of reproductive cells – a chain that must still be present today. Evolution from microbe-to-man does not demand a continuous cell lineage, but only a reproductive continuity from one generation to the next. That is a straightforward prediction and can readily be verified. The biological facts are as follows:
“In birds the cells destined to become the germ cells first appear in the extra-embryonic endoderm (germinal crescent) anterior to the head of the developing embryo. Incidentally, this region has no homologue in the hatched bird as the extra-embryonic endoderm is, by definition, resorbed as nutrient for the developing chick. From there the presumptive germ cells enter the circulatory system and, after a period of time in the bloodstream, penetrate the walls of the venous circulation and invade the gonad where they differentiate into the definitive gametes. In mammals the presumptive germ cells first appear in the endoderm of theallantois, a structure destined to become the urinary bladder of the adult. From here they migrate in amoeboid fashion anteriorly and laterally to reach the gonad where they complete their differentiation. Thus, there is no way that the reproductive cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds as they originate from opposite ends of the embryonic axis and reach the gonads by completely different means.
Similarly, the eggs and sperm of the Anura (frogs and toads) arise in an entirely different way than do those of the Urodela (salamanders and newts). Staining methods reveal that in frogs, the cells destined to become the germ cells result from the presence of preformed granules near the vegetal pole of the unfertilized egg, a region destined to become part of the endoderm. From there they move first dorsally and then laterally to enter the embryonic gonads which are mesodermal structures. In salamanders the presumptive germ cells first appear in the mesoderm as a result of the inductive action of the underlying endoderm on the lateral plate mesoderm. From there they migrate medially to invade the embryonic gonads. Thus the germ cells of the Anura and the Urodela do not even arise from the same germ layer! In short, there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion of germ cell continuity. […] Also, the vertebrate gonad is a sterile organ unable to produce germ cells from its own epithelium. Instead, the testis or ovary receives its complement of eggs or sperm by a process of invasion from extragonadal sources early in development. Since the sources and modes of invasion are not homologous from group to group, the continuity of the germ plasm is a myth. As someone so aptly put it: “Hypotheses have to be reasonable — facts don’t.” 
The biological facts demonstrate that the reproductive cells of birds, mammals and amphibians are not of common origin, but instead, arise in an entire different way. In other words, there is no continuity of germ plasma and there is no possible biological intermediate that could serve as a transition from the one group to the other. The groups are isolated and distinct. It is safe to conclude that the groups do not have a common ancestor, and that fact alone falsifies an important prediction of Darwinian Theory.”
From: Darwin Revisited
“The biological facts demonstrate that the reproductive cells of birds, mammals and amphibians are not of common origin, but instead, arise in an entire different way. ”
No, they do not. Even if one were to take those statements as gospel truth (and I’ve already pointed out one serious error), they would only show that there is divergence from the ancestral condition in extant taxa. The condition in modern mammals and modern birds cannot be used to retrodict the condition in their common ancestor. You might as well say that mammals and birds cannot be related because their wings are formed in different ways.
“No, they do not.”
They do. For sure. And it is very old knowldegde, but not taught in schools and academia. So almost nobody knows. Why not? Because it would bring doubt upon the modern myth, the Darwinian Belief System.
This is just pure conspiracy theory. Very convenient to just say that no one knows about it then you don’t have provide any evidence. Sorry, but there are tons of out-of-the box scientists who would love to make their mark in history by overturning a popular theory. If there were merit to this “known but unknown old knowledge” it would be exploited by someone to their advantage. It’s our very arrogance and collective selfishness as a species that makes such conspiracy theories unlikely to have any merit.
NH, why do you accuse me of conspiracy theories. Nobody here ever heard about the independent origin of sexual reproducing systems. And the reason is that it is not taught. The evolutionary line thus cannot be monophyletic via sexual reproduction. That is just biological fact. So, there is polyphely, but that cannot be accepted of course, for obvious reasons: independent creations. Still biology is clear about it. Therefore we have to abandon universal common descent.
‘And it is very old knowldegde,’
Some “very old knowledge” is that the mammalian allantois* is indeed “extra-embryonic endoderm”, something that Davison is apparently unaware of when he declares it non-homologous with the extra-embryonic endoderm of birds. So no, I don’t teach what he says here. Because it’s factually wrong, and we’ve known the real facts for over 100 years.
None of us can be experts in everything, but some of us are experts in something. I used to teach basic vertebrate embryology, so I know more than many biologists on this topic, but not anywhere near as much as a developmental biologist working in the 21st century. So, when I see somebody setting themselves up as an expert with radical new ideas that overturn established science, as you appear to think Davison is, make such basic errors as noted above (and don’t even get me started on the howlers on mammalian evolution later in the chapter, where I do have the necessary expert knowledge) I know that I can’t trust them on any other information that they present. And neither should you.
And, of course, even if you go by that notion of “non-homologous sexual reproduction” you’re still left with the problem that it’s the same within major groups of vertebrates. So, was there just a single pair of mammals on the ark (apart from Noah and his family)? Did Morganucodon speciate into elephants, giraffes, armadillos, kangaroos, blue whales in just a couple of thousand years? Just the one pair of birds? Or is sexual reproduction independently derived in doves and ravens?
*I think I misspelled this as “allentois” earlier — apologies, I’d just been texting my handyman about allen keys!
“Some “very old knowledge” is that the mammalian allantois* is indeed “extra-embryonic endoderm”, something that Davison is apparently unaware of..”
This is really typical for the Darwinian. Even if Davison, who also taught ontogeny, would be wrong in this one single point, he is still right about the other three points. So, we still have independent origins of the sexual reproducting systems. Read again my excerpt and also refute the other points.
I know you cannot do that, because it is biological fact. And because the sexual reproduction systems are not homologous, there can be no universal common descent (UCD). That is sufficient to refute current evolutionary theory, which claims UCD, but cannot prove it. The data I gave you simply refute UCD. So, win addition to the 2555 micro RNA genes found in humans, not in chimps, we have a severe scientific case against the standard evolutionary paradigm.
“This is really typical for the Darwinian.”
It’s certainly typical for a scholar.
“. Even if Davison, who also taught ontogeny, would be wrong in this one single point, he is still right about the other three points.”
How do you know that? I could look up the information, but I see no need, seeing as on every point where he claims something that I know something about he’s either outdated or simply wrong.
Here’s an example of reading things with an eye for scholarship: If I were to be reading a book that professed a heretical view of the New Testament — say, for example, that Jesus never existed — and I saw that the author called the mother of Jesus “Martha”, I wouldn’t bother to read any further, whatever I thought of the basic thesis: the author would have shown me that he couldn’t get his facts straight, so why trust him on anything else?
“Read again my excerpt and also refute the other points.”
With regards to the other point (there is only one other example of supposedly non-homology of germ cells, not 3) in your excerpt: in the general vertebrate condition the germ cells (potential gametes) arise from the endoderm, and travel to the gonads via the mesenteries. Even if Davison was right about the condition in the salamander, it would merely represent a slight variant where the formation of gametes is induced by the endoderm in the overlying lateral plate mesoderm (which is intimately associated with the endoderm in all vertebrates). That does not imply non-homology: the endoderm is still the main germ layer involved here. Should Davison find a vertebrate where the gametes are formed from the ectoderm, the neural crest, or even the somitic mesoderm, then he might have a scintilla of a point. As it is, he has little on which to base his conclusion that sexual reproduction is non-homologous in different vertebrate groups: it’s simply his interpretation about the importance of slight variations in the ontogeny of germ cells, a view not shared by any developmental biologist.
And, by the way, if Davison did indeed teach “ontogeny” (I think you mean embryology, or developmental biology) it’s strange that he makes some erroneous observations about the “precocious adaptation of a placenta” in a shark. All vertebrates have the extraembryonic membrane of a yolk sac, that usually surrounds the yolk within the egg, but in viviparous fishes (and amphibians) it can also form an attachment to the uterine wall of mother. It’s a generalized and basal vertebrate condition. This structure in sharks is not homologous with the placenta of mammals, which is formed by the chorion and allantois, extraembryonic membranes only present in amniotes (mammals, reptiles and birds). (Although, interestingly, all viviparous mammals start off their embryonic life with a placenta formed from the yolk sac: in placental mammals, and a few marsupials, this later gets replaced by the chorioallantoic one.)
“So, win addition to the 2555 micro RNA genes found in humans, not in chimps, we have a severe scientific case against the standard evolutionary paradigm.”
And, by your argument of the importance of unique miRNAs in falsifying hypotheses of relationship, we would have to conclude that mice are not related to rats. I see that you dodged that inconvenient observation of mine. You have yet to produce any viable case against evolution, let alone a “severe scientific” one.
Peter wrote: “(I don’t think Peer means that all vertebrates diverged from a common ancestor after the fall [but, then again, perhaps he does]: more that the major groups/kinds were already created, but only started to reproduce sexually after the fall, and that somehow their reproductive anatomy/physiology/genetics attests to that.)”
My wording was poor. What I meant was that I gathered that Peer was claiming each vertebrate group (each class or order?) was a separately created kind. Peer, is that what he meant? Please clarify ly what each of the original vertebrate kinds were, and how you knows.
In any case, another outlandish about his suggestion that originally created kinds reproduced asexually is that it runs entirely contrary to your frontloading theory. If organisms reproduced asexually, they’re basically just making clones of themselves, so what would be the use of frontloading? It would do nothing to foster or even allow speciation. Moreover, unless you want to argue that God mandated or destined the Fal to happen, and happen quickly (which would create a big can of theological worms), what you are apparently is proposing a creation where all organisms (except humans?) are genetic clones, and there are no checks on run-away population growth. If I’ve misunderstood you Peer, please explain what you did mean, what evidence you have for it, and how you avoid the population problem.
Please especially clarify how the originally created vertebrate kinds reproduced “asexually”. Fission? Budding? Parthenogenesis? Even if they were all parthenogenic, you’d still have nothing but same-sex clones, which again, is the opposite of what you need for hyper-rapid speciation, or any speciation for that matter. Plus you’d still need to deal with the serious overpopulation problem. Vague comments about Eden being “different” won’t hack it in view of the extreme nature of your claims–and they are clearly radical even for a YEC.
Peter wrote: “I think Peer must think that sex is sinful. Therefore, no sexual reproduction until after the Fall.”
Peer, can you clarify if you really think that? Even if sex were inherently sinful for Adam and Eve or other humans (I see nothing in the Bible suggesting that–only adultery is forbidden), why would sex be sinful for animals? How does it make sense for God to create them “male and female,” or with “frontloading”, if they were meant to just clone themselves?
Peter: “But, as you note, any type of reproduction would rapidly lead to overpopulation, especially if accompanied by the absence of death.”
RIght, the Fall would have to occur within days at most in order to avoid that, with all creatures being fruitful and multiplying, even if they did so “asexually.”
Peer, to summarize my last two posts, can you please explain:
1. What were the originally created vertebrate kinds?
2. How did they reproduce asexually? Does it include humans?
3. You said frontloading “explains it all,” but wouldn’t asexual reproduction hinder speciation and adaptation rather than fostering or accelerating it?
4. Where in Genesis do you find any support for your ideas about these things?
“Peer, can you clarify…”
Asexual reproduction allows for rapid evolutionary changes from one generation to the next because of semimeiosis and instant TE-mediated genetic reshuffling of the frontloaded information of baranomes. This is how biology works. It is the mechanism if saltational instant evolution from a handful of flood survivors. It is a non-random mechanism of which the remant can still be found in the genomes of modern organisms. It is the most parsimonous waz to understand variation, adaptation and speciation. Natural selection does hardly play a role.
And 5. How would asexual reproduction solve the overpopulation problem?
Through direct feedback mechanism on the reproduction system.
Oops, I mistakenly attributed the questions about Peer’s possible belief that sex is (or was) sinful to Peter rather than Christine. Sorry about that.
While on the subject, I didn’t mean to imply that asexual reproduction cannot at times have adaptive value, especially in organisms that can also reproduce sexually. It occurs in quite a few invertebates (certain insects, worms, etc), and even some vertebrate species (certain fish, lizards, amphibians) reproduce by parthenogenesis some or all of the time. Occasionally it has been observed in a few birds, but never mammals, According to the following paper, parthenogenesis can be adaptive “when the populations are thinly scattered in temporary or marginal habitats, and when the effective breeding area is reduced by lack of motility as in sessile or sluggish animals without widely distributed gametes.”
However, to suggest all created (or evolved) vertebrate groups did so has no scientific or Biblical basis, and again, would hinder rather than foster hyperspeciation, besides undermining Peer’s frontloading theory and doing nothing to solve the overpopulation problem,
‘Oops, I mistakenly attributed the questions about Peer’s possible belief that sex is (or was) sinful to Peter rather than Christine. Sorry about that.’
No worries, Glen. It will be interesting to see if Peer addresses any of your questions.
Adaptive…? Darwinan blabla. It is the original form of reproduction. Sexual reproduction is secondary and independent, non-homologous novelties.
Peer wrote : “Adaptive…? Darwinan blabla. It is the original form of reproduction. Sexual reproduction is secondary and independent, non-homologous novelties.”
Christine already explained more than once why your and Davison’s claims about non-homologous novelties were unfounded. If you have some specific counter evidence, please present it rather than making vague swipes at “Darwinism.” Otherwise, If there is any “bla bla” going on here, it’s not by us. Why are you panning the term “adaptive”? How do organisms deal with changing environments (the essence of adaptation) and become new species, let alone do so at break neck speeds after the Flood, without adaptation? And how do you get adaptation without natural selection? Your “TEs” and “semi-meiosis” and other major chromosomal changes do not automatically create matches to environmental needs. If you don’t think natural selection has much if any role, despite lots of observational and experimental evidence that it does, what’s your alternate mechanism to create matches to new and changing environments? Certainly environments after the Flood would have been massively different for most animals than they experienced before the Flood. Vague comments about “frontloading” won’t cut it, especially in view of the severe genetic bottlenecks after the Flood.
‘And how do you get adaptation without natural selection? Your “TEs” and “semi-meiosis” and other major chromosomal changes do not automatically create matches to environmental needs’
I see now that this is the perfect explanation for the huge diversity of fossil taxa in extant lineages, otherwise problematic in the young earth model. For example all those 100 or more species of fossil horses (which Peer dubbed as ‘hopeful monsters’ rather than intermediates): the 6 extant species of Equus were the ones that just hit it lucky with the random genomic rearrangements. The rest, which when extinct almost as soon as they were created, didn’t have any kind of new combination that gave them an adaptive advantage in the post-flood world. So it’s just all stochastic, no adaptation and no natural selection. And no need to worry about ‘changing environments’ because it’s only been a few hundred years since the modern fauna became established.
In regards to all the hopeful (more like lucky) monsters Peer seems to rely on, Christine wrote:
“I see now that this is the perfect explanation for the huge diversity of fossil taxa in extant lineages, otherwise problematic in the young earth model.” Exactly, how could we have been so blind!? Sarcasm aside, it’s iconic that YECs often ridicule evolution as operating by “chance” alone, even tho natural selection is not random process. Moreover, here have Peer and Davison are promoting TEs and hopeful monsters as the main drivers of evolution, which would imply huge amounts of random luck, compounded by having very little time available. Oh wait, there’s also ill-defined “frontloading” (front-loaded hopeful monsters?) even though it still needs a mechanism for detecting and matching a new or changing environment. To the extent organisms may have some genetic triggers along these lines, why would Peer and friends assume those systems themselves could not have evolved? Frankly, I’ve always been confused that YECs often dismiss or minimize natural selection, especially since it’s inherently logical, supported by lots of observational evidence, and would help their own models make more sense. Could it be perhaps for general resentment or distaste for anything connected to Darwin and his ideas?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another question for Peer…
You say Eden was different. But Eden would have been only a tiny part of the Earth, and is depicted as a special place. So, even if there was no predation or physcial death there (which would still leave the population problem), why would you assume that applied outside the garden?
These are your words, not mine. I only conclude from my specialiyations: ontology, mol biol and genetics.
Peer: You still have not given any plausible answer to the problem of run-away populations without physical death. Again, unless you are suggesting that reproduction (whether sexual or asexual) stopped altogether soon after Creation (contradicting e God’s command to be fruitful and multiply), then the problem remains. But if reproduction stopped altogether, you have no speciation and no evolution, nor any future animals or humans (not you, I, Mary & Joseph, Jesus, or anyone else). How do you get out of that pickle, unless you do the reasonable thing, and abandon the unnecessary YEC dogma of no physical death before the Fall?
When I wrote: And 5. How would asexual reproduction solve the overpopulation problem?
Peer replied: “Through direct feedback mechanism on the reproduction system.”
Please refrain from vague generalities. What mechanism are you talking about? Unless it stopped reproduction altogether, it does nothing to solve the overpopulation problem. If it did stop reproduction, then you have no evolution and no speciation. Seems like you’ve painted yourself into a corner.
Peer: “So the vertebrates cannot be monophyletic.We (biologists) know this for ages.”
Are you seriously suggesting that all (or any) modern nonYEC biologists don’t think different vertebrate groups share a common ancestor? Can you cite even one? Speaking of vertebrates, you have not even answered my previous question about what the created vertebrate kinds were, and on what evidence you base your answer. Whatever they are, and even if they were created separately, what evidence do you have that they reproduced asexually? I’ve already explained that asexual reproduction would do nothing to solve the overpopulation problem.
Peer: “Read Davisons manifesto for an overview.”
I took the time to read his manifesto, and like Joel and Christine, found it to bristle with obvious problems and errors. As Christine noted, Davison seems to base his limited knowledge of geology and paleontology on long-outdated sources. I’m tempted to go into the problems in more detail, but Christine and Joel have already given enough examples to show how off based Davison is on a number of key issues; going further would be like explaining why the earth is not flat and the moon not made out of green cheese. I think it says a lot that you are very impressed with this highly deficient “manifesto”. One thing it suggests, which I’ve pointed out before, is that you would benefit from more reading of mainstream sources on geology and earth history. One book I would recommend is Art Strahler’s Science and Earth history, which may be the most comprehensive single volume on the subject. Not only does it do a good job of summarizing many lines of compelling of evidence for evolution and an old earth, but also thoroughly refutes dozens of specific YEC claims.
“I took the time to read his manifesto, and like Joel and Christine, found it to bristle with obvious problems and errors. As Christine noted, Davison seems to base his limited knowledge of geology and paleontology on long-outdated sources.”
Hand waiving and hiding behind Christine’s authority…
Christine objection: “Some “very old knowledge” is that the mammalian allantois* is indeed “extra-embryonic endoderm”, something that Davison is apparently unaware of..”
This is really typical for the Darwinian.It is called pars pro toto fallacy. Even if Davison, who also taught ontogeny, would be wrong in this one single point, he is still right about all the points. So, we still have independent origins of the sexual reproducting systems. Read again my excerpt and also refute the other points.
I know you cannot do that, because it is biological fact. And because the sexual reproduction systems are not homologous, there can be no universal common descent (UCD). That is sufficient to refute current evolutionary theory, which claims UCD, but cannot prove it. The data I gave you simply refute UCD. So, win addition to the 2555 micro RNA genes found in humans, not in chimps, we have a severe scientific case against the standard evolutionary paradigm.
Dear Glen, even most modern organisms can still reproduce asexually. All microorganisms, most plants, a whole lost of amphibians and reptiles.
Even if your list were accurate, it’s not most modern vertebrates. Only a handful of vertebrate species are known to engage in parthenogenesis, and few use it as the only means of reproduction.
As far as I know, no mammals reproduce by parthenogenesis or other asexual reproduction. As far as plants go, while many plants can reproduce asexually by vegetative propagation and other means, the vast majority of plants today are angiosperms (flowering plants). They comprise over 250,000 species out of about 300,000 identified plant species, and reproduce mainly by sexual reproduction. But all this is besides the point, which is that your claims about original vertebrate kinds reproducing asexually isn’t based on any credible evidence or logic, and even seems contrary to what is implied in Genesis (especially if you take it literally).
Peer: He made them man and woman…does that say anything about sexual reproduction?
I think it certainly implies that it existed.
After the fall we read about sons and daughters. In Eden there probably (most likely) was no sexual reproduction.
No sexual reproduction among any animals? Or humans? Where is your evidence? Nothing you quoted from your book constitute rigorous evidence, and Christine pointed out several factual errors in your statements. Do know of any other YECs who think all organisms were originally created to reproduce asexually? As with other things, you seem to be on the fringe of the fringe even among YECs.
Peer: “We do not read about it in Genesis.” We don’t read about photosynthesis or metabolism in Genesis either. Doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Sexual reproduction certainly seems to be implied, at least when talking about “male and female.”
Peer: “We (well informed biologists)…”
Which is it? Sorry, I could not resist. :^)
“… know that the sexual reproduction systems are not homolog and must have evolved independently several times.”
You keep saying this, and implying that sexual reproduction arose several times in different vertebrate groups, but have not given any convincing evidence, nor even specified what you think the original vertebrate kinds were. Can you please do that?
“So, not only these systems overturn universal common descent via sexual reproduction, they show that the asexual mode is the original one.”
More vague generalities. What systems? Where’s your evidence?
Peer: “As I claimed before, the Darwinian paradigm is completely and utterly false. The biology taught in schools and academia is also a joke.”
Vague generalities and inflammatory rhetoric is often used by those lacking in evidence. If you can do better, please specify what the original vertebrate kinds were, how they reproduced asexually, and what specific vidence you have for either.
Peer (quoting Peter Borger evidently):
“The biological facts demonstrate that the reproductive cells of birds, mammals and amphibians are not of common origin, but instead, arise in an entire different way. … It is safe to conclude that the groups do not have a common ancestor, and that fact alone falsifies an important prediction of Darwinian Theory.” From: Darwin Revisited
Peer, it’s been like pulling teeth to get you to say what you thin the original created kinds were, but I gather from the above that you believe birds, mammals, and amphibians are each separate kinds. From your previous comments, I gather that you also believe that at least theropod dinosaurs (and other reptiles?) can be included with birds. Did I have that right?
All of this begs the question, if there were only a handful of land vertebrate kinds, why was a giant Ark even needed? Ham and others at AIG seemed to push the hyperspeciation idea in order to reduce the “kinds” enough to make it more feasible for them (and their provisions) to fit comfortably on the Ark. However, you seem to be going so far in that direction that you’ve created the opposite problem: a surprisingly oversized Ark.
Glen, I do not know how many created kinds (baranomes) were originally created. I did not do the science yet. It would be a tremendous task, since we would need to sequence the genomes of all organsms. Of course, I would start by sequencing the genomes of vertebrates or subgroups of vertebrates. That too is an enormous challenge. At the moment I am setting up smaller studies, which includes all primates. The first analyses will be finished by the end of the year, I hope. I think, if we siomply look at the size of the ark, we can estimate the number of uncommited genomes present in the ark. I think there were between 2 and 20 thousand genomes in the ark. I will spent the rest of my life working on this question. My 2008 book was merely the start.
Peer: “Hand waiving and hiding behind Christine’s authority…”
Hardly. I gave my own frank assessment of the “manifesto” noting the agreement by Joel and Christine. I was not hiding behind Christine’s authority, but I am always happy for her input and insights, and you should too. No offense, but from what I’ve seen, she has knowledge about paleontology and anatomy in her little finger than you have in your whole bauplan.
Christine objection: “Some “very old knowledge” is that the mammalian allantois* is indeed “extra-embryonic endoderm”, something that Davison is apparently unaware of..”
After she corrected Davison’s misconceptions about “mammalian allantois” you wrote:
“This is really typical for the Darwinian.It is called pars pro toto fallacy. Even if Davison, who also taught ontogeny, would be wrong in this one single point, he is still right about all the points.”
On the contrary, he’s demonstrably wrong about numerous points, including those explained by Joel and Christine, and many others detailed by me today. Did you not read or understand them?
Peer: “So, we still have independent origins of the sexual reproducting systems… I know you cannot do that, because it is biological fact. And because the sexual reproduction systems are not homologous ”
That’s not a fact or anything close. All we have is Davison’s claims and your apparent misplaced trust in them. Christine already explained why he was mistaken about several aspects of embryonic anatomy and development. Instead of accusing me of hiding behind her authority, you should start respecting it, or offer specific counter-evidence. Otherwise, we’re not the ones doing the hand-waving.
“there can be no universal common descent (UCD). That is sufficient to refute current evolutionary theory, which claims UCD, but cannot prove it.
Even if the claims of separate sexual systems were valid, and evidently they are not, they would not refute evolution and common descent (since they could theoretically develop independently). Indeed, you’d still be left with massive amounts of evidence for CD, from genetics, homologies, and the fossil record.
“The data I gave you simply refute UCD. So, in addition to the 2555 micro RNA genes found in humans, not in chimps, we have a severe scientific case against the standard evolutionary paradigm.”
Even if this were confirmed (and based on your many misstatements about other things, excuse me for not taking your word alone), you’d still be left with mountains of evidence for an OE and evolution, and many inconsistencies in your own claims.
If you want to make an issue of “micro RNA genes” you can’t just cherry pick evidence. Can you present comparative data, for example, showing that these or other genetic differences are greater between human and chimps (which you consider different kinds), than among different marsupials such as Kangaroos (which you suggest are the same “kind”). Likewise, can you show larger genetic differences between a dove and raven (which you consider different kinds) than between a T. rex and hummingbird (which you imply are the same kind)? Can you show more differences between humans and oranges than horses and rhinos. I for one would love to see that data.
By the way, as another example of how off base Davison is on both genetics and the fossil record, he suggests (p 39) that the change from the reptilian to mammalian jaw and ear, or at least the last major stage (involving several homologous bones), happened in a single leap, and that any smooth transition or incremental changes were “inconceivable.” However, he’s demonstrably wrong. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110413132949.htm
In another case he seems to favor a fanciful scenario over evidence and logic. In discussing how small fish called darters lost their swim bladders as an adaptation to swift streams, he dismisses the idea that they did so in a series of stages through natural selection. He proposes that instead, “having lost their bladders” (presumably, based on his earlier comments, in a single step by semi-meiosus or some major chromosomal accident), they simply “stumbled into the stream environment or perhaps even sought it out.” Those are some lucky or clever darters! How they lived without swim bladders before they stumbled or decided to seek out the stream into the stream, or why natural selection would not have been useful in preserving and passing along the happily adaptive new trait, he does not say.
A little later he talks about “preadaptation” and seems to suggest that the term refers to preplanned or pre-programmed adaptations, “demanding the presence of meaningful information prepared in advance” (evidently his thinly veiled allusion to intelligent design). However, this is a mischaracterization of the concept as use by mainstream scientists. What they actually refer to is an existing trait or structure may become useful for a different or additional function as an environment changes, and which natural selection acts to preserve and pass along. No intelligence or foreknowledge is presumed or required, which is why Gould proposed the alternate term “exaptation.” .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Peer: “Glen, I do not know how many created kinds (baranomes) were originally created. I did not do the science yet.”
Thanks for acknowledging that. While you work it out, I’ll be curious how you resolve the inconsistencies in your previous suggestions, such as the idea that theropods and birds are the same kind, but ravens and doves are not.
Peer: “It would be a tremendous task, since we would need to sequence the genomes of all organisms. Of course, I would start by sequencing the genomes of vertebrates or subgroups of vertebrates. That too is an enormous challenge.”
Wouldn’t it be wise to start by learning more about the fossil record, geology, radiometric dating, to make sure your basic YE assumptions are sound? At the very least try to do more mainstream reading in those areas while pursuing your genetic work. You seem to rely a lot on fellow YECs, many of whom are poorly informed about Earth history, and people like Davison, who has been shown to be off based on many things.
Peer: “At the moment I am setting up smaller studies, which includes all primates. The first analyses will be finished by the end of the year, I hope. I think, if we simply look at the size of the ark, we can estimate the number of uncommited genomes present in the ark.”
How can the reported size of the Ark give a close estimate of the number of genomes (reflecting the number of basic kinds), if you don’t know how many animals were clean or unclean (thus whether by pairs or sevens), how much space was used for kind, and their food and fresh water, ventilation and waste management space, etc. ?
“I think there were between 2 and 20 thousand genomes in the ark
Interesting. I’m surprised at both the size and breath of that suggested range. Recently you implied entire orders or even classes of vertebrates could be the same “kind”. However, there are only about 50 extant orders of land vertebrates, and only 4 extant classes (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). Presumably in the YEC paradigm, there would not be many more extinct ones. Granted, you’d have to deal with some large prehistoric animals. But based on your past comments, apparently you’d need only one theropod/bird kinds, and maybe few other dinosaur/archosaur kinds. Plus many YECs often suggest that young dinos were taken on the Ark to save space. The upshot is, as mentioned earlier, unless you revise your thinking on how broad a kind is likely to be, you may have the opposite problem of YECs who used to suggest a kind was roughly equivalent to a species or genus (or lately, a family): an oversized rather than undersized Ark. Of course, to scientists who are well acquainted with all the abundant and compelling evidence for a long and complex earth history, and against a recent global Flood, the whole exercise will look silly.
Peer: “I will spent the rest of my life working on this question. My 2008 book was merely the start.”
Of course, if you like me and other former YECs come to realize with further study that the entire YE paradigm is misguided, you’ll have many more productive things to do. Best wishes either way.
When I wrote, “Can you show more differences between humans and oranges than horses and rhinos.” I meant orangs (orangutans) not, oranges. Obviously one would expect more differences between humans and oranges than horses and rhinos. At any rate, unlike other fields, in genetic work it’s OK to compare apples and oranges. ;^)
By the way Peer, I should have mentioned (in case you were not already aware) that the additional comments I made about about Davison’s manifesto were posted in the Comments to the “Natural Pitfall Traps” article.
I’m still curious if you have any plausible answer to the run-away overpopulation problem. How can any kind of reproduction not result in that, without physical death? Even AIG acknowledges that the “death” in Genesis includes spiritual death, so why not allow that this is the main meaning, rather than unnecessarily assume it includes physical death, and all the problems that entails? Even in the New Testament, verses such as “…you shall never die” must refer to spiritual rather than physical death, since we all still physically die. So why assume a literal/physical death in Genesis, especially since God told Adam he would die the day he ate of the fruit, but he did not physically die that literal day?
Not sure if this has come up before, but since it seems relevant to the discussions here, I thought I would mention that Todd Elder has a website devoted to “baraminology” at https://www.baraminology.net/
He recently wrote a 56 pg monograph entitled, “Elder’s Model of Created Kinds” available here:
Click to access tweemockarcscreen.pdf
To offer my quick take on it… Elder says he is trying to identify created kinds. He appears to be using mainly hybridization and morphology to do this. Of course, the former is not feasible for fossil forms, and he seems to largely neglect the fossils. One reason this can be problematic is that intermediate forms can throw monkey wrenches into his identified kinds. Another is that he can miss extinct “kinds”.
Like recent AIG authors, he suggests that a kind is often similar to a “family”, which of course strongly contrasts the much boarder “kind” concepts of Peer and Robert here. For example, one of Elder’s illustrations depicts songbirds and hummingbirds as different “kinds,”; another shows 11 different turtle kinds (similar to the 14 modern families). Unlike both AIG and Peer & Robert though, he apparently accepts natural selection as a major mechanism of speciation and post-Flood hyperspeciation. He also proposes a new system of classification and nomenclature called “Natanzera Classification.”
Early on he advises fellow YECs to avoid referring to the Flood directly in their scientific writing, and to instead use terms such as “aquatic extinction event” (as he does throughout the MS). Supposedly this will be less distracting to mainstream workers, and allow them to treat the event as a “testable” hypothesis. However, I doubt the euphemisms will fool anyone (especially since he refers to the “extinction event” as happening about 4,500 years ago), and since the idea of a global Flood (or any other major extinction at that time) is already falsified by countless lines of evidence, about which he seems to have little familiarity.