coachpill
Guest
Just finished reading all the other posts...
Yeast gene duplication...I'm sure the Sean Carroll study I referred to in yeast gene duplication could be found on one of your database searches. The point was that I mentioned yeast gene duplications and that they happened supposedly 100 million years ago (at least the one that formed the split between these 2 species did), and that mainstream science (experimentation and data gathering) and the evidence they gather don't necessitate an evolutionary interpretation. And again, doing a search of journal articles about gene duplication does not give us an idea of the worldview behind the scientists interpretation of the results...only by reading the study can we glean that. Clearly, Carroll already assumed evolution to have occurred as he stated the gene duplication occured 100 million years ago and was followed up by subsequent mutation. And again, this was obviously not observed.
Ph.D.s and arguments from authorite...Some on this thread have appealed to what is called an argument from authority. Such arguments are fallacious, of course. With that said, I was asked what I did my Ph.D. work in. Nothing. I don't have a Ph.D. Alrighty then. Obviously that shouldn't matter anyway because the same ones appealing to the arguments from authority also denegrate the interprations of evidence by creationists with Ph.D.s who interpret evidence differently than the evolutionists. So let's put the argument from authority bit to rest.
Mutations harmful?...Because of the redundancy of the genetic code (information, by the way) in its ability to form amino acids (slightly different codons produce the same amino acid), most mutations are benign...granted (there are other reasons as well like the concept of introns and exons). However, even talk.origins claims that of the mutations that have an effect, most are harmful. Many mutations that cause effects are typically known by the diseases/disorders they produce. And yes, resistance in bacteria has been at the consequence of a decrease in functionality somewhere else.
The Miller experiment...It is being taught in all high school biology textbooks I have reviewed over the last 12 years as well as the introductory college texts that I have reviewed. All the Campbell, Reece, and Mitchell college level texts teach Miller. Starr and Taggert. I'm sure there are others. The only one so far that does not put Miller on a pedistal would be the Bob Jones University Press biology text...but we would expect that, now wouldn't we? I'm sure there are others, but I do not know of them. Holt biology, Glencoe biology...all these teach the Miller experiment.
Physics laws...Cutnell/Johnson and Giancoli Physics texts still teach Newton's laws in their first few chapters as well.
Creation in the classroom...Personally, I wouldn't want creation science taught in public school classrooms either. Imagine a whole host of science teachers that adhere to evolution trying to articulate a completely different worldview...though it might be fun to watch...In a "parochial" school where Biblical inerrancy and Scriptural authority are the worldview, yes, creation should be taught.
Creation model...Obviously it would take a lot more time than any of us have, but let me focus on just one aspect that does not involve abiogenesis or the creation of life. Others can chime in and tell me if I have this one right...creationists would claim that direct observation has lent support to the Biblical account of reproduction of the kinds. In other words, it is possible that 2 dog-kind animals (walking off the ark, of course) with maximal heterozygosity of genes could produce quite a huge amount of variation in a relatively short amount of time. Mutations would occur, of course, but any natural selection or speciation would occur within the kind. Does that sum up that aspect of the creation model? What is the "kind?" I'm not sure. I've heard that, using our man made heirarchy of today, that it might fall around the family level sometimes. Again, this modern heirarchy was not built with the biblical "kind" in mind, so it is hard to say where it would fall.
Yeast gene duplication...I'm sure the Sean Carroll study I referred to in yeast gene duplication could be found on one of your database searches. The point was that I mentioned yeast gene duplications and that they happened supposedly 100 million years ago (at least the one that formed the split between these 2 species did), and that mainstream science (experimentation and data gathering) and the evidence they gather don't necessitate an evolutionary interpretation. And again, doing a search of journal articles about gene duplication does not give us an idea of the worldview behind the scientists interpretation of the results...only by reading the study can we glean that. Clearly, Carroll already assumed evolution to have occurred as he stated the gene duplication occured 100 million years ago and was followed up by subsequent mutation. And again, this was obviously not observed.
Ph.D.s and arguments from authorite...Some on this thread have appealed to what is called an argument from authority. Such arguments are fallacious, of course. With that said, I was asked what I did my Ph.D. work in. Nothing. I don't have a Ph.D. Alrighty then. Obviously that shouldn't matter anyway because the same ones appealing to the arguments from authority also denegrate the interprations of evidence by creationists with Ph.D.s who interpret evidence differently than the evolutionists. So let's put the argument from authority bit to rest.
Mutations harmful?...Because of the redundancy of the genetic code (information, by the way) in its ability to form amino acids (slightly different codons produce the same amino acid), most mutations are benign...granted (there are other reasons as well like the concept of introns and exons). However, even talk.origins claims that of the mutations that have an effect, most are harmful. Many mutations that cause effects are typically known by the diseases/disorders they produce. And yes, resistance in bacteria has been at the consequence of a decrease in functionality somewhere else.
The Miller experiment...It is being taught in all high school biology textbooks I have reviewed over the last 12 years as well as the introductory college texts that I have reviewed. All the Campbell, Reece, and Mitchell college level texts teach Miller. Starr and Taggert. I'm sure there are others. The only one so far that does not put Miller on a pedistal would be the Bob Jones University Press biology text...but we would expect that, now wouldn't we? I'm sure there are others, but I do not know of them. Holt biology, Glencoe biology...all these teach the Miller experiment.
Physics laws...Cutnell/Johnson and Giancoli Physics texts still teach Newton's laws in their first few chapters as well.
Creation in the classroom...Personally, I wouldn't want creation science taught in public school classrooms either. Imagine a whole host of science teachers that adhere to evolution trying to articulate a completely different worldview...though it might be fun to watch...In a "parochial" school where Biblical inerrancy and Scriptural authority are the worldview, yes, creation should be taught.
Creation model...Obviously it would take a lot more time than any of us have, but let me focus on just one aspect that does not involve abiogenesis or the creation of life. Others can chime in and tell me if I have this one right...creationists would claim that direct observation has lent support to the Biblical account of reproduction of the kinds. In other words, it is possible that 2 dog-kind animals (walking off the ark, of course) with maximal heterozygosity of genes could produce quite a huge amount of variation in a relatively short amount of time. Mutations would occur, of course, but any natural selection or speciation would occur within the kind. Does that sum up that aspect of the creation model? What is the "kind?" I'm not sure. I've heard that, using our man made heirarchy of today, that it might fall around the family level sometimes. Again, this modern heirarchy was not built with the biblical "kind" in mind, so it is hard to say where it would fall.
