EarthScienceguy wrote:
I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.
God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.
In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.
Since this theory uses “kinds of animals� that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?
What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.
I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.
KINDS and ADAPTATION
Moderator: Moderators
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #371
[Replying to post 367 by Neatras]
Ah, Yes a favorite tactic of evolutionary theology is when fact does not support your claim. Make up a "hypothesis" and treat it as fact and maybe no one will read the fin print. Eh.
Let me help you with the fine print.
This study says nothing about contradicting the scientific fact that all mutations that are observed in genes that control early development result in extremely deleterious mutations.
I know of no million year old study to prove this evolutionary theological proposal.
Ah, Yes a favorite tactic of evolutionary theology is when fact does not support your claim. Make up a "hypothesis" and treat it as fact and maybe no one will read the fin print. Eh.
Let me help you with the fine print.
This is study is simply saying that this could be a possibility. Not that it actually takes place.Overall, our results show that de novo gene birth could proceed through proto-genes.
This study says nothing about contradicting the scientific fact that all mutations that are observed in genes that control early development result in extremely deleterious mutations.
I know of no million year old study to prove this evolutionary theological proposal.
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #372
[Replying to post 368 by EarthScienceguy]
You're the same person who cried foul when I brought up a journal that used the word "might" to indicate possibility in the past. You don't actually demonstrate an understanding of scientific rhetoric or literature, Earth"Science"Guy. This is a hopeless endeavor because you're not trained to learn, you're trained to sniff out buzzwords you can use to reject science.
You're the same person who cried foul when I brought up a journal that used the word "might" to indicate possibility in the past. You don't actually demonstrate an understanding of scientific rhetoric or literature, Earth"Science"Guy. This is a hopeless endeavor because you're not trained to learn, you're trained to sniff out buzzwords you can use to reject science.
Indeed, one could define science as reason’s attempt to compensate for our inability to perceive big numbers... so we have science, to deduce about the gargantuan what we, with our infinitesimal faculties, will never sense. If people fear big numbers, is it any wonder that they fear science as well and turn for solace to the comforting smallness of mysticism?
-Scott Aaronson
-Scott Aaronson
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #373
[Replying to post 369 by Neatras]
Nope, just deal in facts. If you have a fact or observations contrary to the facts and observations I listed. I will read it.
But conjectures of what "could be" are neither facts or observations.
Derogatory, comments are simply an indication that a person is short on both facts and observations.
Nope, just deal in facts. If you have a fact or observations contrary to the facts and observations I listed. I will read it.
But conjectures of what "could be" are neither facts or observations.
Derogatory, comments are simply an indication that a person is short on both facts and observations.
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #374
[Replying to post 370 by EarthScienceguy]
Still waiting for you to justify your assertion that genetic entropy is a fact, by the way. Because you're dreadfully lacking in the evidence department. If you can't support your own myth without attacking science, this may not be the sub-forum for you.
Still waiting for you to justify your assertion that genetic entropy is a fact, by the way. Because you're dreadfully lacking in the evidence department. If you can't support your own myth without attacking science, this may not be the sub-forum for you.
Indeed, one could define science as reason’s attempt to compensate for our inability to perceive big numbers... so we have science, to deduce about the gargantuan what we, with our infinitesimal faculties, will never sense. If people fear big numbers, is it any wonder that they fear science as well and turn for solace to the comforting smallness of mysticism?
-Scott Aaronson
-Scott Aaronson
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #375
[Replying to post 371 by Neatras]
From Wikipedia:
John C. Sanford (born 1950) is an American plant geneticist, and an advocate of intelligent design and young earth creationism.
An advocate of intelligent design, Sanford testified in 2005 in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered... that we were created by a special creation, by God".
He stated that he believed the age of the Earth was "less than 100,000" years.
Anyone who believes, in 2019, that the age of the Earth is less than 100,000 years, cannot be taken seriously. For those not familiar with Sanford, he is the person pushing genetic entropy and of course AIG and other creationist websites have latched onto it. Since ESG primarily parrots these websites of course he is throwing it out here as if it were fact.
It is really hard to take anyone serious who genuinely believes the earth is less than 100,000 years old. The amount of physical evidence and science that has to be rejected to believe something this outrageous is enough to discredit such a person's comments on anything science related, because it clearly demonstrates selective belief rather than unbiased adherence to the scientific method.
Still waiting for you to justify your assertion that genetic entropy is a fact, by the way.
From Wikipedia:
John C. Sanford (born 1950) is an American plant geneticist, and an advocate of intelligent design and young earth creationism.
An advocate of intelligent design, Sanford testified in 2005 in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered... that we were created by a special creation, by God".
He stated that he believed the age of the Earth was "less than 100,000" years.
Anyone who believes, in 2019, that the age of the Earth is less than 100,000 years, cannot be taken seriously. For those not familiar with Sanford, he is the person pushing genetic entropy and of course AIG and other creationist websites have latched onto it. Since ESG primarily parrots these websites of course he is throwing it out here as if it were fact.
It is really hard to take anyone serious who genuinely believes the earth is less than 100,000 years old. The amount of physical evidence and science that has to be rejected to believe something this outrageous is enough to discredit such a person's comments on anything science related, because it clearly demonstrates selective belief rather than unbiased adherence to the scientific method.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #376
[Replying to Neatras]
Genetic Entropy is something that is an observed FACT. I am still waiting on any observation that indicates the possibility of mutation that occur in genes that control early development being beneficial.
But I understand that there is no such evidence so you are figuring, that it is better to move on to a side issue, where you may have better luck with. But alas that would be an incorrect assumption, just like the theology of evolution makes all the time.
As the years have gone on the observations of genetic entropy has increased and is becoming quite a formidable theory. If evolutionary theology were a real theory these observations would have to be explained using current mechanisms which we observed today. But since evolution is a theological belief, evolution theology can invoke any type of outside energy or made up fairy tale to explain observations made that fall outside the mechanisms of evolutionary theology. Or just ignore current observations and pretend evolutionary theology answers all questions.
The newest edition of Genetic Entropy (2014), has shown that genetic degeneration is not just a theoretical concern, but is observed in numerous real-life situations. Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows: a) the ubiquitous genetic degeneration of the somatic cells of all human beings; and b) the genetic germline degeneration of the whole human population. Likewise Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows rapid genetic degeneration in the H1N1 influenza virus. Genetic Entropy also documents “evolution in reverse� in the famous LLEE bacterial experiment (https://www.logosra.org/lenski).
A new paper (Lynch, 2016) written by a leading population geneticist, shows that human genetic degeneration is a very serious problem. He affirms that the human germline mutation rate is roughly 100 new mutations per person per generation, while the somatic mutation rate is roughly 3 new mutations per cell division. Lynch estimates human fitness is declining 1-5% per generation, and he adds; “most mutations have minor effects, very few have lethal consequences, and even fewer are beneficial.�
Our new book “Contested Bones� (available at ContestedBones.org) cites evidence showing that the early human population referred to as Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) was highly inbred, and had a very high genetic load (40% less fit than modern humans) (Harris and Nielsen, 2016; Roebroeks and Soressi, 2016). See pages pages 315-316. This severe genetic degeneration probably contributed to the disappearance of that population (PrÜfer et al., 2014; Sankararaman et al., 2014).
Similarly, the new book Contested Bones (pages 86-89), cites evidence that the early human population referred to as “Hobbit� (Homo floresiensis), was also inbred and apparently suffered from a special type of genetic degeneration called “reductive evolution� (insular dwarfing) (Berger et al., 2008; Morwood et al., 2004). This results in reduced body size, reduced brain volume, and various pathologies (Henneberg et al., 2014).
Contested Bones (pages 179-210) also cites evidence that the early human population referred to as Naledi (Homo naledi), was likewise inbred and suffered from “reductive evolution�, again resulting in reduced body size, reduced brain volume, and various pathologies.
Contested Bones (pages 53-75) also cites evidence that many other early human populations, broadly referred to as Erectus (Homo erectus), were inbred and suffered from “reductive evolution� (Anton, 2003). However, it seems the genetic degeneration of Erectus was less advanced—generally resulting in more moderate reductions in body size, brain size, and pathologies. Indeed, many paleoanthropologists would fold both Hobbit and Naledi into the more diverse Erectus category.
An important but overlooked paper, written by leading population geneticists (Keightley et al., 2005), reported that the two hypothetical populations that gave rise to modern man and modern chimpanzee both must have experienced continuous genetic degeneration during the last 6 million years. The problems associated with this claim should be obvious. Their title is: Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes, and they state that there has been the “accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.� (emphasis added).
A new paper (Gaur, 2017), shows that if a substantial fraction of the human genome is functional (is not junk DNA), then the evolution of man would not be possible (due to genetic degeneration). Gaur states that human evolution would be very problematic even if the genome was 10% functional, but would be completely impossible if 25% or more was functional. Yet the ENCODE project shows that at least 60% of the genome is functional.
A new paper (Rogers and Slatkin, 2017), shows that mammoth populations were highly inbred and carried an elevated genetic load (likely contributing to their extinction due to “mutational meltdown�).
A paper (Kumar and Subramanian, 2002) shows that mutation rates are similar for all mammals, when based on mutation rate per year (not per generation). This means that mammals (both mice and men) should degenerate similarly in the same amount of time. This suggests that the major mutation mechanisms are not tightly correlated to cell divisions.
A new paper (Ramu et al., 2017), shows that the tropical crop, cassava, has been accumulating many deleterious mutations, resulting a seriously increasing genetic load, and a distinct decline in fitness.
Another paper (Mattila et al. 2012), shows high genetic load in an old isolated butterfly population. “This population exemplifies the increasingly common situation in fragmented landscapes, in which small and completely isolated populations are vulnerable to extinction due to high genetic load.�
Another paper (Holmes, E. C. 2003), shows that all RNA viruses must be young—less than 50,000 years. This is consistent with our H1N1 influenza study that show that RNA virus strains degenerate very rapidly.
Genetic Entropy is something that is an observed FACT. I am still waiting on any observation that indicates the possibility of mutation that occur in genes that control early development being beneficial.
But I understand that there is no such evidence so you are figuring, that it is better to move on to a side issue, where you may have better luck with. But alas that would be an incorrect assumption, just like the theology of evolution makes all the time.
As the years have gone on the observations of genetic entropy has increased and is becoming quite a formidable theory. If evolutionary theology were a real theory these observations would have to be explained using current mechanisms which we observed today. But since evolution is a theological belief, evolution theology can invoke any type of outside energy or made up fairy tale to explain observations made that fall outside the mechanisms of evolutionary theology. Or just ignore current observations and pretend evolutionary theology answers all questions.
The newest edition of Genetic Entropy (2014), has shown that genetic degeneration is not just a theoretical concern, but is observed in numerous real-life situations. Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows: a) the ubiquitous genetic degeneration of the somatic cells of all human beings; and b) the genetic germline degeneration of the whole human population. Likewise Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows rapid genetic degeneration in the H1N1 influenza virus. Genetic Entropy also documents “evolution in reverse� in the famous LLEE bacterial experiment (https://www.logosra.org/lenski).
A new paper (Lynch, 2016) written by a leading population geneticist, shows that human genetic degeneration is a very serious problem. He affirms that the human germline mutation rate is roughly 100 new mutations per person per generation, while the somatic mutation rate is roughly 3 new mutations per cell division. Lynch estimates human fitness is declining 1-5% per generation, and he adds; “most mutations have minor effects, very few have lethal consequences, and even fewer are beneficial.�
Our new book “Contested Bones� (available at ContestedBones.org) cites evidence showing that the early human population referred to as Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) was highly inbred, and had a very high genetic load (40% less fit than modern humans) (Harris and Nielsen, 2016; Roebroeks and Soressi, 2016). See pages pages 315-316. This severe genetic degeneration probably contributed to the disappearance of that population (PrÜfer et al., 2014; Sankararaman et al., 2014).
Similarly, the new book Contested Bones (pages 86-89), cites evidence that the early human population referred to as “Hobbit� (Homo floresiensis), was also inbred and apparently suffered from a special type of genetic degeneration called “reductive evolution� (insular dwarfing) (Berger et al., 2008; Morwood et al., 2004). This results in reduced body size, reduced brain volume, and various pathologies (Henneberg et al., 2014).
Contested Bones (pages 179-210) also cites evidence that the early human population referred to as Naledi (Homo naledi), was likewise inbred and suffered from “reductive evolution�, again resulting in reduced body size, reduced brain volume, and various pathologies.
Contested Bones (pages 53-75) also cites evidence that many other early human populations, broadly referred to as Erectus (Homo erectus), were inbred and suffered from “reductive evolution� (Anton, 2003). However, it seems the genetic degeneration of Erectus was less advanced—generally resulting in more moderate reductions in body size, brain size, and pathologies. Indeed, many paleoanthropologists would fold both Hobbit and Naledi into the more diverse Erectus category.
An important but overlooked paper, written by leading population geneticists (Keightley et al., 2005), reported that the two hypothetical populations that gave rise to modern man and modern chimpanzee both must have experienced continuous genetic degeneration during the last 6 million years. The problems associated with this claim should be obvious. Their title is: Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes, and they state that there has been the “accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.� (emphasis added).
A new paper (Gaur, 2017), shows that if a substantial fraction of the human genome is functional (is not junk DNA), then the evolution of man would not be possible (due to genetic degeneration). Gaur states that human evolution would be very problematic even if the genome was 10% functional, but would be completely impossible if 25% or more was functional. Yet the ENCODE project shows that at least 60% of the genome is functional.
A new paper (Rogers and Slatkin, 2017), shows that mammoth populations were highly inbred and carried an elevated genetic load (likely contributing to their extinction due to “mutational meltdown�).
A paper (Kumar and Subramanian, 2002) shows that mutation rates are similar for all mammals, when based on mutation rate per year (not per generation). This means that mammals (both mice and men) should degenerate similarly in the same amount of time. This suggests that the major mutation mechanisms are not tightly correlated to cell divisions.
A new paper (Ramu et al., 2017), shows that the tropical crop, cassava, has been accumulating many deleterious mutations, resulting a seriously increasing genetic load, and a distinct decline in fitness.
Another paper (Mattila et al. 2012), shows high genetic load in an old isolated butterfly population. “This population exemplifies the increasingly common situation in fragmented landscapes, in which small and completely isolated populations are vulnerable to extinction due to high genetic load.�
Another paper (Holmes, E. C. 2003), shows that all RNA viruses must be young—less than 50,000 years. This is consistent with our H1N1 influenza study that show that RNA virus strains degenerate very rapidly.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #377
[Replying to post 372 by DrNoGods]
John C. Sanford
Sanford graduated in 1976 from the University of Minnesota with a BSc in horticulture. He went to the University of Wisconsin–Madison where he received an MSc in 1978 and a Ph.D. in 1980 in plant breeding/plant genetics. Although retiring in 1998, Sanford continues at Cornell University as a courtesy associate professor. He held an honorary Adjunct Associate Professor of Botany at Duke University. Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications.[1]
Inventions
At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun".[2][3][4] He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor.
I thought you were a "physical chemist."
So what part of his education and subsequent accomplishments disqualifies Stanford from assessing his findings?
What part of your education and subsequent accomplishments makes it possible for you to discredit his findings? Especially when others have observed the same build up in the genome.
John C. Sanford
Sanford graduated in 1976 from the University of Minnesota with a BSc in horticulture. He went to the University of Wisconsin–Madison where he received an MSc in 1978 and a Ph.D. in 1980 in plant breeding/plant genetics. Although retiring in 1998, Sanford continues at Cornell University as a courtesy associate professor. He held an honorary Adjunct Associate Professor of Botany at Duke University. Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications.[1]
Inventions
At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun".[2][3][4] He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor.
I thought you were a "physical chemist."
So what part of his education and subsequent accomplishments disqualifies Stanford from assessing his findings?
What part of your education and subsequent accomplishments makes it possible for you to discredit his findings? Especially when others have observed the same build up in the genome.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #378
[Replying to post 374 by EarthScienceguy]
I made no comments on his education so not sure why you brought that up. My point was that he thinks the Earth is less than 100,000 years old, and it is known to be billions of years old (~4.6 billion). Therefore, he is ignoring the science that proves the Earth's age and instead follows his creationist doctrine, which is incompatible with modern science.
THAT is why his opinions on science related issues are suspect. It doesn't matter what education he has or where he went to school. He is using his belief in creationism to interfere with his science thinking.
My science education (I do have one) is completely irrelevant to the point I am making about Sanford. I think I was clear enough in my original post, but I'll repeat it since you seemed to have somehow missed the point. He has stated that he believes the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. Science has proven that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. Therefore, Sanford is putting his creationist beliefs ahead of science, and that is not proper science.
Also, your attempts to cast ToE as some sort of religion or theology is an old, tired, standard creationist tactic that fools no one.
So what part of his education and subsequent accomplishments disqualifies Stanford from assessing his findings?
I made no comments on his education so not sure why you brought that up. My point was that he thinks the Earth is less than 100,000 years old, and it is known to be billions of years old (~4.6 billion). Therefore, he is ignoring the science that proves the Earth's age and instead follows his creationist doctrine, which is incompatible with modern science.
THAT is why his opinions on science related issues are suspect. It doesn't matter what education he has or where he went to school. He is using his belief in creationism to interfere with his science thinking.
What part of your education and subsequent accomplishments makes it possible for you to discredit his findings?
My science education (I do have one) is completely irrelevant to the point I am making about Sanford. I think I was clear enough in my original post, but I'll repeat it since you seemed to have somehow missed the point. He has stated that he believes the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. Science has proven that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. Therefore, Sanford is putting his creationist beliefs ahead of science, and that is not proper science.
Also, your attempts to cast ToE as some sort of religion or theology is an old, tired, standard creationist tactic that fools no one.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #379
[Replying to post 375 by DrNoGods]
I understood your point the first time you expressed it. That according to genetics life could not have been around as long as theories in geology say the Earth has been around. Geologist can have whatever theory they want to have but life was not here that long.
As always his interpretation is up for debate just like any other theory in science. But the weight of evidence is piling up in favor of Stanford's theory.
If evolution was truly a theory and not a theology these observations would have to be included into the "theory", or the theory would have to be discarded. But evolution is not a theory but a theology.
I understood your point the first time you expressed it. That according to genetics life could not have been around as long as theories in geology say the Earth has been around. Geologist can have whatever theory they want to have but life was not here that long.
As always his interpretation is up for debate just like any other theory in science. But the weight of evidence is piling up in favor of Stanford's theory.
If evolution was truly a theory and not a theology these observations would have to be included into the "theory", or the theory would have to be discarded. But evolution is not a theory but a theology.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #380
[Replying to post 376 by EarthScienceguy]
Evidently not since you responded with comments on a completely different issue. And this comment is also not related to Sanford's belief that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old:
What does the age of the Earth have to do with when the first life forms appeared? Geologists and other scientists can determine the age of the Earth (and have) completely independent of when life first appeared. The two are not related other than the obvious fact that life on Earth could not have appeared before the Earth formed and cooled sufficiently. I don't know of anyone who claims that life has been around for as long as the Earth has been around ... but I believe evidence of biological activity has been observed in Zircons some 4 billion or so years old:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... fe-zircon/
But again, your comment above doesn't make any sense ... geologists don't claim that life has been around on Earth for as long as Earth has been around, and neither do biologists.
Evolution IS a theory whether you accept it or not. The science community has decided that already. And like any scientific theory, it is subject to refinements as new observations and data become available. You can call it a theology all you like, but unfortunately (for you) the science community doesn't listen to everyone with a random opinion without some evidence to back up that opinion. If genetic entropy is shown to be valid then the science community will indeed have to deal with it. And my guess is that they won't base any necessary modifications on comments from a fine internet forum like DC&R.
Sanford will have to go through the usual peer-review process and prove that his ideas are sound, reproducible, and supported by evidence. He doesn't help his cause when he claims that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old ... because we know with 100% certainty that this is false. Is he friends with Russel Humphreys?
I understood your point the first time you expressed it.
Evidently not since you responded with comments on a completely different issue. And this comment is also not related to Sanford's belief that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old:
That according to genetics life could not have been around as long as theories in geology say the Earth has been around. Geologist can have whatever theory they want to have but life was not here that long.
What does the age of the Earth have to do with when the first life forms appeared? Geologists and other scientists can determine the age of the Earth (and have) completely independent of when life first appeared. The two are not related other than the obvious fact that life on Earth could not have appeared before the Earth formed and cooled sufficiently. I don't know of anyone who claims that life has been around for as long as the Earth has been around ... but I believe evidence of biological activity has been observed in Zircons some 4 billion or so years old:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... fe-zircon/
But again, your comment above doesn't make any sense ... geologists don't claim that life has been around on Earth for as long as Earth has been around, and neither do biologists.
If evolution was truly a theory and not a theology these observations would have to be included into the "theory", or the theory would have to be discarded. But evolution is not a theory but a theology.
Evolution IS a theory whether you accept it or not. The science community has decided that already. And like any scientific theory, it is subject to refinements as new observations and data become available. You can call it a theology all you like, but unfortunately (for you) the science community doesn't listen to everyone with a random opinion without some evidence to back up that opinion. If genetic entropy is shown to be valid then the science community will indeed have to deal with it. And my guess is that they won't base any necessary modifications on comments from a fine internet forum like DC&R.
Sanford will have to go through the usual peer-review process and prove that his ideas are sound, reproducible, and supported by evidence. He doesn't help his cause when he claims that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old ... because we know with 100% certainty that this is false. Is he friends with Russel Humphreys?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
