Re: This thing is toast

John, the fossil record has been interpreted through darwin's eyes. The problem evolutionists have is that they often date old bones and fossils by the rock they're in/next to. This is not logical. I recently ran across a site where human remains and cow remains and dinosaur remains were all found in at the same site....I'll post this later.....if scientists were to date those fossils, they'd probably date the human and cow remains with carbon 14, yet date the dinosaur remains by dating the rocks. This is because dinosaurs are assumed to be old....but who would know for sure unless they used carbon 14 to test them?

The age of the earth and how long life has been on earth are two completely differnt subjects. The earth could be old, yet life very young.

I recently ran across a thread over at Brainstorms where Peter Borger -- who I believe is a molecular biologist and evidently has a book coming out, "Why biology terminates Darwin's Era" -- insists that the data shows biological systems are not -- and cannot -- be old. This is a great thread and there are dozens of great posts by Peter. Of course this is not to say that he has proven YEC or that he is 100% right -- my point is there is evidence on the molecular level that life is not old. I truly doubt he would put his professional career on the line if he did not have good evidence to back himself up. He starts contributing on page 4:

Here are some of the more interesting comments:


---------------------------------------------



http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000621-p-5.html



We can only understand the biological discoveries of the last decade from the perspective of recent creational events (genetic redundancy with no association with gene duplication, rapid deterioration of genomes, high mutations rates within species, soft tissue recovery from dinosaurs, etc). I cannot judge the geologists' long-age claims as geology is not my field. Biology, however, is my expertise and with its recent findings in mind we cannot escape the conclusion that the systems that make life going cannot have not been around for millions-billions of years. The molecular genetic data must therefore by reinterpreted, i.e. the alignment of mutations we observe in phylogenetic analyses are not the result of common descent but rather that of a non-random mutational mechanism. The reason that many scientist converted to long ages is because Darwinism, which requires millions-billions of years, is the officially accepted account of life.
----------------------------------

Why, I wonder, are fossils interpreted as evidence for long ages? Because they are of stone?

The new biological facts are that scientists are (almost routinely now) extracting soft tissue from dinosaurs bones. Nobody anticipated on this (why would highly unstable biomolecules be stable for 65 million years) and it was tacitly assumed impossible a decade ago. That's why nobody tried it before.

Why, I wonder, do we have to contineously adjust previous biological truths to accomodate long ages. Why do we have to make consessions to long-age evolutionary theories while the biological data plead against it.

Why do we have to believe that mutations frequencies were low in organisms that lived millions of years ago and high in modern organisms?

I don't see a reason to keep up a long aged paradigm when it is not in accord with biology as we observe it.

If paradigms fail they should be overturned.
--------------------------------------


Fast-track evolutionary schemes as proposed by Davison are okay, as they do not necessary require long ages, but it may be impossible to distinguish between such processes and a creational event. Personally, I belief that socalled multipurpose genomes were created not so long ago with an built-in flexability to rapidly procude new species. This might have been established by a semi-meiotic mechanism or by karyotype fission. Nobody knows, but the mechanism was not a random one. A random mechanism would never produce the required "hopeful monsters". Schindewolfs "monsters" were generated instantly as is was guided by genetic elements, and as such qualify as instant creations from the multipurpose genome.
------------------------------------
Let me once more summarise:

The new biology shows the major part of genes can be knocked out without inducing a phenotype. This was a big surprise and you could have read about it in Nature a few years ago that the Darwinians do not believe it, as it so obviously falsifies their non-sense (Pearson H. Surviving a knockout blow. Nature 2002, volume 415: pages 8-9).

Genetic redundancies qualify as neutral genes and are thus not subject to selection (or do you want to propose neutral selection, which has been proposed by Svente Pääbo's group recently. I wrote him two letters for a little inquiry as I didn't understand what he meant, but, unfortunately he never responded).

Neutral genes can be inactivated any time you like. The no-phenotype is the scientific evidence of neutral genes and they are the rule rather then the exception in real life biology.

These new biology data scream out:

1) biological systems are designed.
2) biological systems are not old.

Maybe you did not get it yet, but I am introducing a completely new paradigm of biology devoid of the Darwinian claptrap. In order to do that I have to falsify and completely overturn the old one. That is how the scientific method works: I am a scientist, you know. GUToB is the new theory that explains all biological phenomena.

I rest my case,

---------------------
John, how were the sequences of redundant genes preserved during the alleged millions and millions of years of evolution? Now we know the sequences of the genomes of chimp and human we observe that they have independently lost many of the redundant genes. Even in human subpopulations we observe independent losses of genetic redundancies: ACTN3 and CCR5. Many genetic losses happened and still happen unnoticed as they do not give an apparent phenotype (you won't see the CCR5 'knockouts' in the hospital). How do you explain that? As argued, your PEH does not require long ages: it is instant evolution. It perfectly fits the view of recently created biology.