26
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 49:
Line 49: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Baraminology (view source)
Revision as of 23:22, September 13, 2008
, 23:22, September 13, 2008→Genetic degradation
::And going back to your earlier response about species, I questioned whether species are any more testable, and your reply amounted to saying that baraminology is supposed to be about reality, so should be testable. Are you claiming that species definitions have nothing to do with reality?
::And going back to your earlier response about species, I questioned whether species are any more testable, and your reply amounted to saying that baraminology is supposed to be about reality, so should be testable. Are you claiming that species definitions have nothing to do with reality?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.
Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.
This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:
“Creationists don't propose that God steps in to stop two different baramin interbreeding every time they try; they propose that God designed the creatures in such a way that they could not interbreed,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?
Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.
As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:
“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?
-Damien Rivers
==Genetic degradation ==
==Genetic degradation ==