Profile

Cover photo
Answers in Genesis
3,972 followers|3,501,804 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
Why is church ultimately meaningful and fulfilling for Christians? http://ow.ly/4n6OdZ
8
Alex Bales's profile photo
 
+Spiritual War-Hammer 

here's your help!!!! all the creationists you could want!
Add a comment...

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
With incredible detail, forthright clarity, and impeccable accuracy, the Bible has consistently unveiled the future for centuries. http://ow.ly/4n6OdX
6
Add a comment...

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
According to John Lennon, "All you need is love!" Certainly we all need love. But whose love? And is it really all you need? http://ow.ly/4n6OdV
7
Sean Campbell ن‎'s profile photo
 
The Source defines the requirement.
Add a comment...

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
How Many Races Did God Create? God's Word settles this issue. There is only one race of people. This is clear from the history found in Genesis. http://ow.ly/4n6OdT
14
5
Rae Smith's profile photoDynAggelos's profile photo
7 comments
 
+Rae Smith Before you read anything, I'm making it known that I'm already done with this long and tedious conversation. This is my last comment on this post. It's been interesting, but ultimately not worth my time. Feel free to respond. I won't.

In Response to: "you don't have any evidence to say that. Making the claim does not make it true. Please show me a comparison of Adam's DNA with yours?"

My claim that we all have Adam's DNA is based on everything I have been saying; no different than your position that we all evolved from fish. Your demand for evidence is antagonistic and childish, and you know it.

In Response to: "False, if Eve's genetic material is identical to that of Adams the genetic recombination occurring at locus level will remain unchanged unless there was a significant amount of mutation that had occurred throughout their lives. Replace the red chromosome with an identical blue in this example - http://www.creationwiki.org/Genetic_recombination , and then you will see that there is no change possible at the scale that is needed to generate all the alleles in the world, esp in 1656 years." and "False equivalence. Proper comparison would be a 10♦ for a 10♦, since genes cannot move from one place to another in the chromosome as a card in a deck can. In Adam and Eve's case they have the exact same card. So no differential recombination possible."

Again, you are mistaken. Genetic recombination does not occur during fertilization, but meiosis (sex-cell creation). It has nothing to do with Adam and Eve's DNA combining, but Adam and Eve's DNA being separately used to create their own sex-cells. Again, it doesn't matter if their genes were virtually the same, genetic recombination would most likely alter their DNA in different ways during the sex-cell creation process.

During genetic recombination, genetic information does move from one place to another. That is the meaning of the term.

In Response to: "No evidence of people living to a thousand years old either. and there is also no evidence that there are recessive alleles as shown in AIG's diagram. How can there be, when Adam was made of mud?"

And what evidence is there that people didn't live to (almost) a thousand years old? (Your answer must be based on historical facts, not facts which only represent our present condition.)

Forgive my ignorance, but AIG stands for what now?

In Response to: "No, genetic markers used are based on differing levels of variation from individual to individual. Adding up the differences can lead to identifying an individual person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling"

No, the genetic markers you are referring to are based on a reconstruction of history, which is based on evidence and guided by presuppositions, as I've said. As evidence of this, we only need to look at your own words. You said, "How much variation can really occur from just one individual when natural history, genetic markers, show a common ancestor (two individuals) plus interbreeding of Neanderthals, and likely other hominds over more than 100 000 years?" Clearly, this is based on a reconstruction of history. I do not doubt that there was evidence involved in this reconstruction, I was merely casting doubt on your use of a theoretical model for scientific evidence!

In Response to: "Mutations is the only way you can get a new allele. In terms of Microsatelites they are repetitive bases e.g. AGAGAGAG, AGAGAG, AGAG, AG inserted into a particular gene or region. this is due to mutation. other alleles can be based on much larger sections of gene sequence, and could even lead to a change in the features of the resulting proteins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsatellite"

No, mutations are not the only way you can get a new allele. Genetic recombination can form a new allele, as I have said.

In Response to: "You fail to understand the nature of beneficial mutations. A predator with marginally better eyes; maybe due to a transposon, replication error etc. may be vastly more successful at catching its prey. This applies to any level of the animal kingdom as well as any feature that may be prone to mutation, whether a paramecium ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium ) or eagle. thus this successful predator can feed their young and ensure the success of their mutated genome."

A truly beneficial mutation is extremely improbable. (Didn't you once say something like, "you don't have any evidence to say that. Making the claim does not make it true. Please show me a comparison of Adam's DNA with yours?" That goes both ways.) Most mutations which do happen to be beneficial in some extreme circumstances actually weaken the organism in normal circumstances. This means that while a super-virus may survive a bleaching, if left alone, it actually has a harder time surviving than it's more normal counterparts, which would again multiply and use up it's resources.

In Response to: "nice try but belief is not evidence. It is not statistically true that a bottle-necked population has more genetic variation. if two bottle-necked populations merge later on, we can tell because he kinds of alleles present in the their genome. If founding pop has alleles 1, 2, 3, but three bottle-necked pops have 2, 3, and 2 and 3 either individuals from founding pop were isolated three ways of pops 2 and 3 met up again forming 2, 3. This is a very very basic example a single genetic marker but with more markers the answer becomes more concrete."

Nice try to you too. I never claimed belief is evidence.

I never said a, "bottle-necked population has more genetic variation." The quote you chose doesn't even imply this. Later on I even said: "While genetic variability will decrease, visible differences will increase. This is the basis behind breeding. Dogs, horses, and even grains are intentionally bred to weed out specific genetic information in favor of other, more desirable genetic information. The result is well-known: bred dogs, horses, and grain become more distinct (with little to no genetic variability)."

In the case of the flood, there was only a single surviving population: whatever was lost was lost, whatever retained, retained. There would be no genetic markers among different populations to compare with (unless you claim some people went to the moon and lived there instead). All "genetic markers" would point back to the population who survived the flood.

In Response to: "Genetic distinction does not mean that they don't have alleles that can be traced along the human migration model as linked above. there is evidence of other hominids found in Indonesia http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/indonesias-top-five-hominid-fossil-sites-29723713/?no-ist , what is more is that this is likely more a sign on hominid interbreeding. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/science/la-sci-india-australia-migration-20130115"

Just to be clear, I never claimed genetic distinction can not be traced. However, you are again relying on a reconstruction to prove your point! Here is another model (simple as it may be), based on earlier form of the Genographic Project. -- http://www.creationwiki.org/DNA_and_Babel -- As you can see, facts can be interpreted any way you like. Does that prove the interpretation is correct? No.

"[W]hat is more is that this is likely more a sign on hominid interbreeding." Careful. Racism.

In Response to: "a model is not meant to be believed it is meant to serve as a explanation that best fits what we see in nature. Models like the Atomic model, The cell model and the quantum model change periodically, but change into a model that better fits with the actual data that is obtained."

As in the case of mutations, thank you for that wonderful definition on what a model is, but it fails (miserably) to prove my statement false. My point in summary was, "Why do you keep using models to prove something, when models can't prove anything?" My point still stands.

In Response to: "You use migratory models as well, Exodus (solely based on word of mouth), Babylonian conquests, Roman Conquests, yet no decedents of Adam migration based on DNA...?"

The flood makes it impossible to trace the descendants of Adam beyond the 8 survivors of the flood.

In Response to: "humans did not necessarily mate with the indention to refine physical characteristics as breeders do. Heck, there is Neanderthal DNA in European humans and Neanderthals did not look as human. - as well as interbreeding with other hominids. Furthermore animal breeding is controlled where as humans are not."

The "breeding" I was referring to was through segregation/dispersion and natural selection. I was not implying that humans are as thoroughly bred as animals such as dogs. I was merely giving an example of how dispersion causes physically diverse characteristics. As far as the exact details of how the phenotypes we see today came about, I am not so sure. I do know dispersion/segregation of people-groups, genetic recombination, mutations (non-beneficial), and natural selection came into play.

In Response to: "'We've been discussing the evidence of this all this time.' I am discussion a hypothetical claim that there was a babel and a biblical creation that you believe to have occurred no evidence here. Only the your say so, and the say so of ancient, superstitious livestock herders."

This is merely antagonism, as well as an uncalled for Ad Hominem attack on the intelligence of ancient witnesses. People clean out other people's toilets today, does that mean their witness is worthless?

In Response to: "If you want to claim Adam genes are perfect and that we are founded in the middle east then you have to prove it. Show me the biblical migration model then, because there should be one that reflects what we see in reality, not only according to the say so of ancient, superstitious livestock herders."

Again, another antagonistic remark against the credibility of ancient witnesses. For an example (and only an example) of a Biblically-based model for the genetic history of man, see the following. http://www.creationwiki.org/DNA_and_Babel (Note that I am not claiming this is evidence, merely an alternative interpretation, flawed {minorly} as it may be.)

In Response to: "Tsar vs Chinese is statistically observable using the evidence found in each groups DNA. Mass extinctions http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/mass-extinction/ are shown using the bottle-necks you like to cling to, based on combination with the vast physical (and where available, genetic) differences in organisms that occur within particular strata.... Tell me, how would you go about proving that Adam's genes mutated exponentially greater in 1656 years than the entire Chinese population?"

Again, this is based on presuppositions! The rate of the Chinese genetic change is based on a timescale that is based on (you guessed it) evolutionary presupposition. The difference between the Chinese and the Czar might be simply explained in the time they split off from their parent group, or the way they marry and reproduce. Mendel's law teaches us that unless a family has at least 4 children, some of their genes will be lost to the family. If this continued to happen, rapid genetic deterioration (loss of genetic information) would ensue.

In Response to: "well since chimps share 98% of DNA with humans there is no grounds to say this. consider this, a Domestic cat and a Tiger only share 95% DNA! They are both considered the Feline Kind, so why aren't humans part of the ape kind? Moreover, whoever wrote the bible didn't even know chimps existed due to geographic isolation. The bible is so vague regarding the animals that existed at the time that you can't make any reasonable inferences regarding kinds."

Interesting fact: chimp DNA and human DNA (though "similar"), do not have genetic connections.

This difference between house cats and tigers is probably why some people consider the two to be completely distinct creatures (i.e., one of them is not a "feline", since the other is).

House cats and tigers are not both considered to be "the Feline Kind", but the feline species. There is a difference. "Kind" implies a biblical definition. The Bible does not tell us tigers and house cats are the same kind. This distinction between modern classification and biblical classification is important to observe.

This is not the case. We can get a good idea of what a "kind" is by comparing Genesis 7:13-16 with either 7:1-3 or 8:15-17.

In Response to: "'When evidence is lacking, strong probability suffices.' - Wrong. When evidence is lacking no concrete conclusions can be made. I can claim that there is a god on Jupiter that controls the weather. Fact: there is weather patterns on Jupiter, however there is no evidence of a god there. Just like here on earth. Thus there is a must be a strong probability that there is a god that controls the weather on Jupiter."

Wrong. Science (like scientific models) is not about facts per-say, but about analyzing the facts and coming to the best conclusion possible. (I.e., it's not about being able to completely prove anything, but about proving things without a doubt.) You will never know everything. Should you resign your hat and sit under a tree singing, "Merrily, merrily, merrily merrily, life is but a dream!" for the rest of your life? No scientist or scholar that I know would say this.

Again, this is my last post. This has been an interesting conversation, but burdensome, and ultimately not worth my time. This has been my final remark. I now leave the floor open for you to do the same.
Add a comment...

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
The Singerl twins are a vivid reminder that we are all members of one race. According to the Bible's history, all humans are descendants of Adam and EveÑthus only one biological race exists. http://ow.ly/4n6OdR
6
Add a comment...

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
How Did Fish Survive Noah's Flood? http://ow.ly/4n6OdP
5
toller retreiver's profile photo
 
there was NO world wide flood - stop thy garbage
Add a comment...
In their circles
2 people
Have them in circles
3,972 people
Mike G's profile photo
Debbie Crook's profile photo
Anton H's profile photo
Patrick Castillo's profile photo
Jon Groves's profile photo
Christian Teens's profile photo
James Hatt's profile photo
Shannon Haas's profile photo
Daniel Bain's profile photo

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
How could the God of the Bible be one God, but at the same time three PersonsÑFather, Son, and Holy Spirit? http://ow.ly/4n6OdY
8
Add a comment...

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
Did the continents drift apart in the days of Peleg as a result of God dividing and separating the continents? http://ow.ly/4n6OdW
6
Add a comment...

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
Some people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. http://ow.ly/4n6OdU
14
1
Add a comment...

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
Darwin's Deathbed ConversionÑa Legend? Many well-meaning Christians maintain that Charles Darwin on his deathbed not only renounced evolution, but also accepted Jesus Christ as his savior. http://ow.ly/4n6OdS
8
toller retreiver's profile photo
 
HORSEFEATHERS
Add a comment...

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
Doesn't the Bible Support Slavery? Get answers . . . http://ow.ly/4n6OdQ
6
Add a comment...

Answers in Genesis

Shared publicly  - 
 
How is it possible for the earth's population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning? http://ow.ly/4n6OdO
6
toller retreiver's profile photo
 
because the earth is BILLIONS of years in age
Add a comment...
People
In their circles
2 people
Have them in circles
3,972 people
Mike G's profile photo
Debbie Crook's profile photo
Anton H's profile photo
Patrick Castillo's profile photo
Jon Groves's profile photo
Christian Teens's profile photo
James Hatt's profile photo
Shannon Haas's profile photo
Daniel Bain's profile photo
Contact Information
Contact info
Phone
(800) 778-3390
Address
2800 Bullittsburg Church Rd Petersburg, KY 41080
Story
Tagline
Believing it. Defending it. Proclaiming it.
Introduction
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.