Skip to comments.Dinosaurs, humans coexist in U.S. creation museum
Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long
PETERSBURG, Kentucky - Ken Ham's sprawling creation museum isn't even open yet, but an expansion is already underway in the state-of-the art lobby, where grunting dinosaurs and animatronic humans coexist in a Biblical paradise.
A crush of media attention and packed preview sessions have convinced Ham that nearly half a million people a year will come to Kentucky to see his Biblically correct version of history.
"I think we'll be surprised at how many people come," Ham said as he dodged dozens of designers working to finish exhibits in time for the May 28 opening.
The $27 million project, which also includes a planetarium, a special-effects theater, nature trails and a small lake, is privately funded by people who believe the Bible's first book, Genesis, is literally true.
For them, a museum showing Christian schoolchildren and skeptics alike how the earth, animals, dinosaurs and humans were created in a six-day period about 6,000 years ago -- not over millions of years, as evolutionary science says -- is long overdue.
While foreign media and science critics have mostly come to snigger at exhibits explaining how baby dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark and Cain married his sister to people the earth, museum spokesman and vice-president Mark Looy said the coverage has done nothing but drum up more interest.
"Mocking publicity is free publicity," Looy said. Besides, U.S. media have been more respectful, mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Looy said supporters of the museum include evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics, as well as the local Republican congressman, Geoff Davis (news, bio, voting record), and his family, who have toured the site.
FROM 'JAWS' TO EDEN
While the debate between creationists and mainstream scientists has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes "monkey trial" in nearby Tennessee 80 years ago, courts have repeatedly ruled that teaching religious theory in public schools is unconstitutional.
Ham, an Australian who moved to America 20 years ago, believes creationists could have presented a better case at the Scopes trail if they'd been better educated -- but he's not among those pushing for creation to be taught in school.
Rather than force skeptical teachers to debate creation, Ham wants kids to come to his museum, where impassioned experts can make their case that apparently ancient fossils and the Grand Canyon were created just a few thousand years ago in a great flood.
"It's not hitting them over the head with a Bible, it's just teaching that we can defend what it says," he said.
Ham, who also runs a Christian broadcasting and publishing venture, said the museum's Hollywood-quality exhibits set the project apart from the many quirky Creation museums sprinkled across America.
The museum's team of Christian designers include theme park art director Patrick Marsh, who designed the "Jaws" and "King Kong" attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, as well as dozens of young artists whose conviction drives their work.
"I think it shows (nonbelievers) the other side of things," said Carolyn Manto, 27, pausing in her work painting Ice Age figures for a display about caves in France.
"I don't think it's going to be forcing any viewpoint on them, but challenging them to think critically about their evolutionary views," said Manto, who studied classical sculpture before joining the museum.
Still, Looy is upfront about the museum's mission: to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with nonbelievers.
"I think a lot of people are going to come out of curiosity ... and we're going to present the Gospel. This is going to be an evangelistic center," Looy said. A chaplain has been hired for museum-goers in need of spiritual guidance.
The museum's rural location near the border of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana places it well within America's mostly conservative and Christian heartland. But the setting has another strategic purpose: two-thirds of Americans are within a day's drive of the site, and Cincinnati's international airport is minutes away.
The project has not been without opposition. Zoning battles with environmentalists and groups opposed to the museum's message have delayed construction and the museum's opening day has been delayed repeatedly.
The museum has hired extra security and explosives-sniffing dogs to counter anonymous threats of damage to the building. "We've had some opposition," Looy said.
The question of the firmament (Genesis 1:6) has also generated various interpretations, but we need to keep in mind that the Hebrew word (raqia) means simply "expanse," as in "a great expanse of water between California and Hawaii." An essentially synonymous English term would be "space." And just as "space" can be used to refer to space either as an entity or to a particular space, so likewise for the word "firmament."
There are at least twoprobably threespecial "firmaments" mentioned in Scripture. The most exalted firmament is under God's throne (Ezekiel 1:26). Also, there is an atmospheric firmament, where birds fly, and a stellar firmament, where the stars are (Genesis 1:20,14). There are likewise three "heavens" (note II Corinthians 12:2), and it is significant that God called the firmament "Heaven" (Genesis 1:8), where the Hebrew for "heaven" is actually a plural noun (shamayim), frequently translated "heavens." These distinctions are not often made by creationists when discussing a particular firmament (or space, or heaven), but they are Biblical, and it is important to take careful note of the context in each case.
This brings up another controversial subject, the canopy theory, the essential component of which is "the waters which were above the firmament" (Genesis 1:7). If the particular firmament (or space, or heaven) in mind here is the atmosphere, and if the waters were in the vapor state, then many Biblical facts and scientific relationships are beautifully explained. However, there are certain scientific difficulties that are still unresolved, and there is again a temptation to abandon the theory because of these.
Because you are incapable of accepting deeper theological alternatives. Of course God set in motion naturalistic phenomena, including evolution. His creation speaks of this. But I would not expect you to neither care not understand that. It is beyond your grasp and pointless to discuss with you.
Those would fit in a pretty small space.
I checked the posters listing. There is no such thing as instant petrification. The attempts to make petrification all have maybe, close, nearly, you add all the synonyms. But no real instant petrification, sort of like making gold out of lead.
Sigh......I never said life was one big coincidence. Stop putting words into people's mouths.
I asked some creationists to prove their assertions, and I got nothing but the usual hyperbolic spin, the scientific ignorance and the usual common sense disconnect.
Life does exist in many regions, which attests to its skill at adaptation, I suppose we could create life in a lab if we had controlled conditions and several million year to work with.
More abject stupidity from you, more reason for everyone to see that you are a crank, with very few argumentative skills, just very stupid statements like the one above.
Carbon-14 dating is based on the isotope carbon-14, which has a half-life of about 5700 years. This means that every 5700 years, half of your carbon-14 has gone away because of beta decay. Because there is very little to start with, after 5 or 8 half lives, there are increasing problems measuring the beta decay against the background radiation.
To date older materials you simply need isotopes with longer half lives!
On this website: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens there is a table of naturally occurring isotopes. These columns are the parent isotope, what it decays into, and the time it takes:
Many of these are used for dating. Each has its own particular uses and limitations. For example, carbon-14 dating can only be used where there is carbon, so it is good for once-living things (bone, shell, charcoal, peat, etc.).
Check out the website I linked, above, for a lot more good detail.
Putting aside quibbles about the accuracy of this statement, I take it you accept that the Cambrian period commenced approximately 542 million years ago and ended approximately 488 million years ago, and that you are therefore not a young earth creationist. Correct?
before that period, you have basically nothing, and certainly no transitional species
Again, putting aside your notion of "basically nothing" pre-Cambrian, I take it from this statement that you accept the existence of transitionals in the fossil record from at least the Cambrian period forward. Correct?
there's plenty on the net explaining the explosion
And you accept the explanations on the "net" that the duration of the "explosion" was approximately 30 million years (a kind of a slow motion explosion, if you will). Correct?
As for your "built in protection levels" that prevent speciation, you seem to be contradicting yourself. It certainly appears that you accept the existence of "transitionals", yet you state:
the protections are built in to the cells- they prevent foreign info from tainting the species info- there are several layers of these protections which ensure that species will always remain within their own kind
Are you contending that speciation does not occur, but that the fossil record nevertheless contains transitionals?
And with respect to your "protections", what, precisely, are these "protections"? Invisible force fields of some sort? Or maybe armor plating? Or some kind of "DNA-acide"? Since this is the first I've ever heard about "built in protections," perhaps you could be a tad more specific, or at least direct me to some kind of literature on the subject.
we find htese celular protections going all the way back to the cambrian age
We have Cambrian cells to study?
[Putting aside quibbles about the accuracy of this statement, I take it you accept that the Cambrian period commenced approximately 542 million years ago and ended approximately 488 million years ago, and that you are therefore not a young earth creationist. Correct?]
No. I'm arguing that there was an explosion of fully formed species at one point. I've left out the fact for now that my belief is that it was not that long ago. I don't take a position on whether it was 6000 years or 10,000 as I'm not convinced one way or the other that God's 'days' were 24 hour days in the beginning- God did say one day is as a 1000 years. But there is nothing concrete indicating what the literal days were during creation.
[Again, putting aside your notion of "basically nothing" pre-Cambrian, I take it from this statement that you accept the existence of transitionals in the fossil record from at least the Cambrian period forward. Correct?]
Again no- there is no evidence of 'transitionals' in the fossil records- Fish with legs? Sorry- all it is is fish with legs. The genetics show that clams have always been clams, birds have always been birds etc etc etc. there are no genetics indicating half one species, half another. The earth should have mountains of transitional species fossils as Darwin himself noted- the fact is, there aren't, but there are completed species that shopw up all at once. Creation? Nah- can't be- has to be something else- right?
[As for your "built in protection levels" that prevent speciation, you seem to be contradicting yourself. It certainly appears that you accept the existence of "transitionals", yet you state:]
I do accept transitionals?
[Are you contending that speciation does not occur, but that the fossil record nevertheless contains transitionals?]
No what the records clearly show is adaption- NOT NEW information in species. This is a VERY important key point to understand if you're going to argue further this on this issue.
[And with respect to your "protections", what, precisely, are these "protections"? Invisible force fields of some sort? Or maybe armor plating? Or some kind of "DNA-acide"? Since this is the first I've ever heard about "built in protections," perhaps you could be a tad more specific, or at least direct me to some kind of literature on the subject.]
Nope- they are little dynamite packages that are set with trip wires- when an invading mutation tries to thwart the gen code, WHAM!- seriously though the protections are built in coding that prevent seriuous degredations from taking place that would alter species specific instructions- there are several layers, and the deeper we look into the tiniest structures and processes, the more intricate these protections become. A study of cellular construct will show you the immense complexities and protections I'm talking about.
[If radiocarbon dating is only good for 50,000 year-old specimens, or younger... how do we get the ages of older specimens? I can see where we can extrapolate ages of geological formations from what is in each layer, etc, but how do we know, for example, how old a rock is?]
They don't know- Carbon dating is uselss past about 4000 years (not 50,000 as asserted by advocates) due to several factors as I've laid out previously- Coyote evidently found a 'Christian' who has bout into the lies yet ingores the evidences presented that show WHY carbon dating AND the 'other' methods coyote claims are used with accuracy are infact innacurate- But argue with him if ya like- He'll simply keep posting the same stuff as though there were no evidences showing the innacuracies of dating methods, and present his links as though none of the innacuracies really matter.
Lions, tigers, panthers, hyenas, leopards, and jaguars?
False. This is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center).
Your claim ("no evidence of 'transitionals' in the fossil records") is meaningless as you seem to lack the training to have a valid opinion in this particular area.
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
[I asked some creationists to prove their assertions, and I got nothing but the usual hyperbolic spin, the scientific ignorance and the usual common sense disconnect.]
Bull patties- what you got was a powerful lot of fact that you conveinently ignored claiming it was not valid simply because the word God or Flood or some other pet peeve word was mentioned in the articles- You completely ignored the scientific facts, and zero'd in on NON issues in regards to the scientific facts- but- nice attempt at spinning your failure to address the facts presented. Might fool some I suppose- but those hwo see through the bull won't fall for it Central. For every fact presented- you've issued a 'It's invalid because they aren't 'real scientists because they hold Christian ideals' Yet even the secular sciences don't stoop to such banal arguments and take them seriously because the facts they present ARE serious matters that have plagued the evolution theory for centuries now. You're tactics might work with those who don't care to check out the foundations of the arguments- but really are nothing more than a smokescreen thrown up because you can't address the real issues being presented.
Sorry Coyote- that is FAR from settled and has MANY problems of it's own- Just ask any scientist- http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10_1.php
Yes. Full grown is definitely not necessary.
That link you posted (http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10_1.php) spends a lot of time following scientists' arguments over classification, then concludes that there are no pre-human ancestors so creation must have occurred.
The arguments cited in that website show instead that transitionals are indeed present. That's why these fossils are the subject of so much debate over classification, with some favoring Homo and others favoring Australopithecus -- they are intermediate between the two!
Rather than supporting the contention you had hoped, your link shows the opposite.
I shouldn't laugh but that's just funny right there.
well by golly- they mentioned creation and the sudden appearance of FULLY FORMED man, so that automatically dissmisses the facts- Getting tired of this- The main point was totally ignored by you- Clear manipulation during assembly of skull fragments to support the preconceived notiuon of evolution.
"It has been confirmed by many researchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecus series. All of their anatomical features reveal that they are species of ape."
'Some favoring homo- some favoring Austra' then 'there is indeed transitionals'
Nope- there is indeed uncertanty and much speculation but no clear transition in species
"The fossil record shows that there is no evolutionary link between these extinct apes and Homo, i.e., human species that suddenly appears in the fossil record."
"Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:
One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.83"
"Neanderthals were a human race, a fact which is admitted by almost everybody today. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as a "primitive species", yet all the findings indicate that they were no different from a "robust" man walking on the street today. A prominent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University writes:
Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.86 "
Then they wonder why creationists are conisdered loonies.
and by the way- you are STILL ignoring the serious problem of the lack of transitional species that should be littering the earth and easily found- instead- you present contentious scant bone fragments as your 'proof' which are in no way proven, and infact, other evidences point ot hte fact that they are indeed not transitions at all? That's the best evolution can do? Throw up some VERY iffy fragments and call it transitional? Darwin himself admitted that if life evolved, there would be VAST amounts of trial and error going on as species struggled to use the random mutations to their advantage in order to 'evolve' into other species (although Darwin didn't understand that mutations could nbot possibly produce evolution- ) and there should be excessively copious amounts of these 'trial and error' 'transitional' fossils found- yet htere are none- all we find are completed species fossils going back as far as cambrian age when they came on the scene in abundance- fully formed. This is a major problem with the evolution model- one that can't be brushed off by claiming that because a site mentions that a sudden appearance suggests creation, then the FACTS that they present are invalidated- sorry- but the factes are never invalidated until PROVEN wrong by counter facts- Which has never happened in regards to the facts presented about lack of transitional species.
wow what a brilliant rebuttle of the facts- By golly- you've shown us all up with thqat whitty and inspired piece of drivel. When you think you might wanna discuss the facts- stop by again- if you can't rise to that, then I'm sure there are some immature forums where you can all sit around and throw insults out at Christians all day long and slap each other on the back as though you've accomplished something significant-
So the Cambrian was sometime in the last 6 to 10 thousand years . . . With that, I'll take my leave from the conversation.
Can anyone tell me how SIN evolved? 80 Billion years? Was it two substances colliding? Where did LOVE evolve from? I'm sure it is from nothing...
I didn't expect any less- we've been arguing young earth here and providing evidences for suchj and pointijng out that if you beleive in old earth then you HAVE to put your faith in faulty dating methods and adopt a dogmatic beleif that eovlution and old earth are fact despite evidences against it- you'd have to be willing to ignore the evidences and instead rely on speculation and faulty methods- You'd also have to put faith in the fact that sciences have shovelled complete garbage into our heads by using absolute lies to support their ideology, and have nothing concrete to back up their claims- you'd also have to ignore the fact that evolution is a biological impossibility, and ignore the fact that left hand amino acids could NEVER make the impossible leap to protiens- after ignoring that- you'll have to ignore the fact that mutations can not create the NEW information necessary for the theory to be correct.
and so on and so on- yep- takes a heaping lot of faith to ignore the impossiblities and insist on evolution and old earth- Ah- but evolution and old earth is 'reaL science' right?
No problem, you have a nice day.
See you at the next flat earth society meeting.
And, I for one, sure am thankful that we evolved from having only three fingers on each hand and three toes on each foot like they had back in Fred's day.
We've come a long way.
I am looking for the carbon date for "emotion." I want the facts. Does anyone have this info or website?
They do now .......... look at Congress.
You want more? You haven't read the last material I posted and linked to.
OK, here is more. This is Ichneumon's post #661, from an old thread. It has more information on transitionals than any rational person would ever want to see in one place.
Because I doubt you will even follow the link, it is 59 screenloads (on my system), with many supporting links.
Hand wave that away!
Bird Dino? you're kidding right? That has been rebuttled extensively- only the dogmatic cite that as 'evidence' anymore. Serious scientists don't even bother trying to use that as their 'evidence' any longer-
And please- showing species that have a FEW similiar features is like trying to state that a VW is a wheelbarrow simply because both have wheels. All you've managed to show are similiarities and suggest that billions of genetic differences bewtween the two species isn't significant. Biologically, they are so dissimiliar as to be completely seperate species- every one of those 'examples of transitions' you linked to have been debunked thoroughly- had they been proven to be true transitions, the debate would be over- Are you prepared to dissagree with science and claim that transitions have been proven?
The examples cited show adaption- and do NOTHING to prove evolution. The fact is that MUCH of what is contained in that link is subject to MUCH debate and speculation and dissagreement- even within the secular sciences alone- The question was asked in that thread "Tell me, of any two consecutive fossils in the following list, do any differ so much from each other that anti-evolutionists wouldn't just write it off as "just adaptation", or "just microevolution"?"
The answer is YES- and they HAVE been questioned and rebuttled extensively by not only Creation scientists, but by secular scientists as well
Transition from land dwellers to whales- they note there are similiarities- Yup- there are some- but then again- there a billions of dissimiliararities which they will NOT mention because it debunks their theory- Gosh- a whale has a bone that 'looks similiar' to a hippos? By golly- that's clear evidence- Whales have redundant bones- But wait- Redundant? Nope- turns out these bones helped secure females during relations. But But, the bones look like a hippos ankles- Yeah? So? Many species have similiar features-
You can either take their word for fact, or you can extensively research the facts and find out for yourself just how shaky their 'evidence' really is- pointing out a few similiarities in DNA does not make a banana a monkey.
Jaw bone and ear bone developement 'prove transitions'? Ok- yeah- sure- instructions that go through microevolution due to gene information loss inside ONE particular species kind does not a transition make no more than people adapting to places that require more sensitive senses of smell in order to survive by having babies with longer noses, weeding out the shorter nosed people who couldn't cope does not a transition make- it does show the power of adaption- micro-evolution though- simple gene information reorganization is all it is. Information already present in genes and even in hidden genes can and does go through cullings that shape the FEATURES of species, however, it never adds new features that the genes were not coded for- the limitations prevent species from becoming entirely new KINDS.
Look- many people have tried to present the stuff you did as 'evidence for transitional species in evolution' and have fallen short when the facts have been exposed. I'll tackle a few that you wish- just point out which ones- however, YOU can also do the reasearch yourself and find out exactly what I have in the past- EACH of those supposed links has been refuted and dropped by serious scientists as their 'evidence for transtional species."
look- I realize my answers might come across as snide- but please beleive me i don't think anyone who honestly searches is a fool- you may not realize it, but you're innadvertantly on a sort of right path- but you're not focussing in completely the right direction- forget about examples of adaption- evolutions only hope is to prove new information in the gene coding- lateral gene transference- science- honest science, has made a major shift in their previous pursuit for evidence of mutations because the fact is mutations do not account for evolution- science has recently focussed their energies on lateral gene transference and for good reason- it's the ONLY way evolution could have occured. However, I must caution you- that although it is 'more promissing' it still has MAJOR problems that can't be explained and can't be ignored. Christian scientists are exploring this and presenting their evidences agaisnt it in peer reviews as we speak.
A page or so ago- someone (I think it was you- maybe not) touched on this without realizing it- they presented that havard article that supposedly showed new gene information that was supposedly created through mutations- however upon further examination- it has been revealed that the information was already present and is nothign more than a reshuffling of already present info- the article was old on the harvard site- and nothing in the scientific literature shows that this was pursued- due to the difficulties in proving the case. The Harvard article didn't go into the problems because they knew it undermined their case- sins of ommission and all that.
IF you're serious about making a more solid case than mutations- which can't be made, then lateral gene transference is your best bet.
Sorry, guys. I mean this in the kindest way...
When my I argue with my wife and I know that I am WRONG, I keep on arguing anyway.
When I argue with my wife and I know that I am RIGHT, I just walk away.
Are you guys still looking for the answers for evolution? You can make "science" and statistics look like whatever you want them to look like. But did you know that only 40% of claim of scientist were actually valid science. Some one was looking for a career and started a science that had 80% truth and now he is retired with a segment of science that is dead. All this to say is that not all scientific facts or journals are absolutely true.
IF macro evolution is true and all its science journals of 'facts', there should be a reason (as I stated before) how Sin came into existence. How did love and emotion come into existence?
But I grow weary of the discussion already.
Have good afternoon.
I don't know of anyone who believes in an old earth that also believes dinos survived into the Biblical era.
You made a fallacious claim about Darwin and about him refuting his own theories.
I asked you to prove that to me.
You didn't, you couldn't and you made yourself look quite stupid doing it.
Thanks for living up to the stereotype.
>>I don't know of anyone who believes in an old earth that also believes dinos survived into the Biblical era.<<
Me neither. I don't have a clue how old the earth is. I really don't have an opinion on it one way or the other.
hahaha you keep beleiving that- His statement is freely available to you should you desire to look it up- careful- you're laziness is an indictment on you when you call others stupid because you don't beleive the statement is fact when it actually is. Wanna keep this civil? Or do you want to sink into childish insults? Choice is yours!
You can tell a creationist...but you can't tell them much.
"... evolutions only hope is to prove new information in the gene coding-..."
I've heard this many times - that evolution depends on an increase in information to produce novel features - but I remain unconvinced. Unfortunately the notion that an increase in information is needed raises a question that so far has gone unanswered on this forum - how is this information defined? That question suggests many more.
Is the information a product of a DNA sequence?
Is information contained in coding sections, highly conserved coding sections or the entire sequence?
How do we measure this information, what units are used - bits? - and how do we calculate the information content of a specific string of DNA?
Once we have a measure of the information and we know how much information a specific sequence contains how do we tie that information content to morphological traits?
What kind of trait change is necessary to validate the SToE.
Will an accumulation of trait changes eventually combine into what can be considered macro-evolution? If not, why not?
Is there an observed correlation between a morphological change and a change in information content?
Is there an observed decrease in information for every change in the genome?
Is it necessarily true that only an increase in information can produce these individual trait changes?
Without answering at least these questions, the assertion that evolution needs added information is vacuous.
If you believe that changes to the genome do not produce an increase in information then you are arguing that the information content of a DNA sequence is static. If the information content of a DNA sequence can change then it either increases or decreases. If the information content can decrease then it can increase, if it can increase then it can decrease, this is all very simple. Any change to a DNA sequence is reversible, if you make a change to any nucleotide in the sequence you can change the point back to its original value. If the change to the sequence decreases the information content then changing it back will increase the information content. This shows that information can increase in the string through a simple change to the sequence. This is true of any change to the sequence whether caused by an indel, duplication, translocation, lateral gene transfer or any other mechanism.
Your argument is limited to either proposing an informationally static sequence or accepting that information can be increased. If you characterize the genome as an informationally static structure then not even lateral gene transfer would help. However if you do make such an assertion you have a lot of science, including the ever popular creationist demand of 'observations', to refute.
"lateral gene transference- science- honest science, has made a major shift in their previous pursuit for evidence of mutations because the fact is mutations do not account for evolution..."
The reason science has started to look at lateral gene transfer and a whole number of other mechanisms is because that's what science does. The fact that they are looking for alternatives is not because the mechanism of mutation is being abandoned but because science never assumes that all the answers have been found. The work looking for mutations has not stopped even though that mechanism of DNA change is fairly well understood. However, because there is good understanding of how mutations cause morphological change, energy is being shifted to finding additional mechanisms for DNA change and to determining what changes to the genome produces which traits. The energy spent in one direction in science always changes as the knowledge base changes. It has always been that way. For you to assert that the change in direction is based on a failing of mutations to contribute to evolution shows a strong bias against the process of evolution on your part. Where science does abandon unproductive avenues rather quickly, the length of time that has been spent on mutations thus far (and we can anticipate into the future) indicates that it has not been an unproductive path in any way.
"- science has recently focussed their energies on lateral gene transference and for good reason- it's the ONLY way evolution could have occured. However, I must caution you- that although it is 'more promissing' it still has MAJOR problems that can't be explained and can't be ignored."
If the only reason you assume lateral gene transfers are necessary is because they potentially add information then my questions and answers above address this point.
Christian scientists are exploring this and presenting their evidences agaisnt it in peer reviews as we speak.
Christian 'Scientists' are busy trying to make the evidence fit their hypotheses.
"A page or so ago- someone (I think it was you- maybe not) touched on this without realizing it- they presented that havard article that supposedly showed new gene information that was supposedly created through mutations- however upon further examination- it has been revealed that the information was already present and is nothign more than a reshuffling of already present info- the article was old on the harvard site- and nothing in the scientific literature shows that this was pursued- due to the difficulties in proving the case. The Harvard article didn't go into the problems because they knew it undermined their case- sins of ommission and all that."
You are going to have to explain yourself a little more fully and clearly here. Your assertions are just not enough.
"IF you're serious about making a more solid case than mutations- which can't be made, then lateral gene transference is your best bet."
Before I can take this statement seriously you will have to describe how to determine information content in a DNA sequence and from there explain how common mutations, including simple point changes, are prevented from increasing information.
If you make the claim, its your responsibility to post it and prove it.
Otherwise, you just look like an ignorant coward.
Earth is over 6,000 year old..... Explain why are we finding fossils that are over a billion years old????
I'm not sure if its sad or funny when such ignorance is proudly on display...
I'm going to have to adress most of your post a bit later- running short on time right now. but I'll hit a few key points. I stand by the fact that new information is absolutely necessary- without it you can never turn a wheelbarrow into a car- you MUST introduce new information from another source- you can pound and bend and twist the wheelbarrow all day long- changing the structures of the components in such a way that the particles adapt to their new circumstances- but you will STILL be lacking the necessary NEW information (in htis case parts) for a car.
[Is the information a product of a DNA sequence?
Is information contained in coding sections, highly conserved coding sections or the entire sequence?
How do we measure this information, what units are used - bits? - and how do we calculate the information content of a specific string of DNA?
Once we have a measure of the information and we know how much information a specific sequence contains how do we tie that information content to morphological traits?]
morphological traits? You're asking for a breakdown of DNA when the measure is that of information that is either present to produce wings or not. This information can be traced and exampled, and used to determine whether a species has it or not- this information is what has fueled the classifications of species for some time now-
Not sure what 'traits' have to do with NEW information- perhaps you are suggesting that INCREASES in information that casue trait differences in species is the same as NEW information? If so, you are in error. Increase is NOT NEW information, it is an expansion of information already (or even at one time) present and active. a Trait can be lost, but the information that caused the trait is still present, either measurably or hidden. however, if information for a specific intraspecies change is not present, this change will never occure without lateral gene transference.
You are attemtping to argue that increase in information is evolution and this simply is not true. Our school books are responsible for this error, but I assure you that science is embarrased that this is even taught any longer.
I'll address thje rest of your questions in a bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.