Human evolution Intelligent Design

Ann Gauger talks about Adam and Eve with World editor Marvin Olasky

Spread the love

Editor in chief of WORLD News Group Marvin Olasky interviews Biologic Institute’s interviews Ann Gauger,

ann-gauger-headshot

Olasky: I used to work at DuPont, the inventor in the 1930s of nylon—and 40 years later scientists found a bacterium with an enzyme dubbed nylonase that was able to digest nylon, which is a synthetic chemical not found in nature. Evolutionists use that as proof that new proteins can rapidly evolve, but you found a different story.

Gauger: It wasn’t what we call a frameshift mutation, a DNA deletion or insertion that shifts the whole way a sequence is read. I discovered a whole body of literature by some Japanese workers who had found pre-existing protein folds. There was no new protein, no novel protein fold, no new mutation.

Olasky: And now you’re undermining what we’ve seen frequently reported in newspapers and magazines: that a special creation of Adam and Eve, one couple from whom all of us are descended, could not have happened.

Gauger: Most of my scientific career seems to be involving people asking me questions and then I start down a path. In this case, a philosopher asked me how strong was the genetic evidence against Adam, because everywhere it’s been proclaimed we had to come from a population of 10,000. It’s led to people in the church suggesting there is no such thing as a historical Adam. So when the philosopher asked me, I said, “I don’t know. I’ll go look.” I started with a paper that Francisco Ayala, a very famous evolutionary biologist, wrote to disprove the possibility of a first pair. Marvin Olasky, “Science vs. Darwinism” at World Magazine

Gauger found two papers a few years later which suggested that the number of variants was much smaller. She is working on “an alternative population genetics model that doesn’t depend on evolutionary assumptions.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: John Sanford on claims about brand new nylonase genes

and

Adam and Eve and Ann Gauger

11 Replies to “Ann Gauger talks about Adam and Eve with World editor Marvin Olasky

  1. 1

    Could there have been a literal Adam & Eve?

    From the OP: ” … you’re undermining what we’ve seen frequently reported in newspapers and magazines: that a special creation of Adam and Eve, one couple from whom all of us are descended, could not have happened.”

    But this just in – tada … tada … tada

    ” … scientists in the U.S. and Switzerland have made an astonishing discovery: All humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother – an Adam and Eve – who walked the planet 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, which by evolutionary standards is like yesterday. Moreover, the same is true of nine out of every 10 animal species, meaning that nearly all of Earth’s creatures living today sprang into being recently from some seminal, Big Bang-like event. … ”

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-mysterious-extinction-event-precede-adam-and-eve

    Seems the science here is a bit unsettled.

  2. 2

    From the Foxnews article:
    ” … That is, humans, elephants, birds, you name it – Earth’s creatures tend to stand and fall in unison, like the rising and falling of the tides. And even though we don’t know what Svengali is directing the show, we now have scientific evidence that it wipes the slate clean far more frequently than we ever imagined.”

    Seems to suggest that Adam & Eve lived at multiple times in the far distant “deep time.” Sort of like a Multiverse sort of thing. I’m sure Steven Hawking will be pleased to hear this.

  3. 3
    daveS says:

    All humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother – an Adam and Eve – who walked the planet 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, which by evolutionary standards is like yesterday.

    Was this Adam the first human, and were these two people a couple?

  4. 4
    daveS says:

    I ask the question in #3 because I recall some studies relating to a genetic Adam and Eve saying these genetic Adams and Eves were not the first humans and probably were not a couple. In fact, some say that they perhaps didn’t even live at the same time. I don’t have this recent paper cited in the Fox News article, though.

    An article from 2013 states:

    These primeval people aren’t parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren’t the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today.

    I don’t know if this applies to this more recent discovery.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    If daveS would have read the article in the OP he would have found,,,

    Gauger: a philosopher asked me how strong was the genetic evidence against Adam, because everywhere it’s been proclaimed we had to come from a population of 10,000. It’s led to people in the church suggesting there is no such thing as a historical Adam. So when the philosopher asked me, I said, “I don’t know. I’ll go look.”,,,
    I understand that part of the detective work involves mitochondria, the tiny power plants within a cell that nonscientists like me became conscious of when we began hearing about “mitochondrial Eve.” We inherit mitochondria mother to daughter, mother to daughter. Some scientists in the 1980s sequenced mitochondria from people from all around the world, and then came up with a map showing the pathway of sequence descent and tracing it back to a single sequence, one woman in Africa. Everybody said, “Look: mitochondrial Eve.” Ayala didn’t like that idea. He did some calculations and concluded there were too many variants to pass through Adam and Eve.

    Seemed like a solid argument? Yes, but I kept looking and found two papers a few years later suggesting that the number of variants was much smaller. So I’m working on an alternative population genetics model that doesn’t depend on evolutionary assumptions.
    The Templeton Foundation, a very well-funded group based in Philadelphia, gave Ayala its big award and so forth. Has it given you an award? Of course not. I don’t even know if he’s issued a retraction of his paper, even though it was mainstream scientists who demonstrated he was wrong.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, before we even ask if it is possible for some chimp-like creature to evolve into a human, we first have to ask if it is even possible, according to the laws of nature, for evolution to even occur in the first place. And the answer to that question is a resounding NO.

    Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution:
    “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].”
    Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).
    Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,,
    More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,,
    http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.u.....ution-etc/

    And Godel’s incompleteness theorem has now been extended to physics:

    In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Simply put, the implications of Godel’s incompleteness theorem for neo-Darwinian evolution are,,,

    ,,, since neo-Darwinian explanations are grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality.
    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Moreover, unlike other rigorous theories in science, Neo-Darwinian evolution is based on no known physical law.

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, as the following video shows,,,

    Evolution vs Entropy – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGaSE-Q8nDU

    ,,,the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

    Moreover, it was recently shown that when realistic rates of detrimental mutations are included in Fisher’s Theorem, then Fisher’s Theorem gets flipped on its head and shows that “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified.

    Fisher’s proof of Darwinian evolution has been flipped?
    William F. Basener, John C. Sanford – December 27, 2017
    Excerpt: we re-examine Fisher’s Theorem, showing that because it disregards mutations, and because it is invalid beyond one instant in time, it has limited biological relevance. We build a differential equations model from Fisher’s first principles with mutations added, and prove a revised theorem showing the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Our expanded theorem, and our associated analyses (analytic computation, numerical simulation, and visualization), provide a clearer understanding of the mutation–selection process, and allow application of biologically realistic parameters such as mutational effects. The expanded theorem has biological implications significantly different from what Fisher had envisioned.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fishers-proof-of-darwinian-evolution-has-been-flipped/

    The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – William F. Basener, John C. Sanford – June 2018
    Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    And as Dr. Sanford recently highlighted at his talk at the National Institute of Health, when realistic rates of detrimental mutations are taken into consideration then Darwinian evolution becomes completely unfeasible:

    John Sanford gives lecture at NIH on mutations and human health – video – November 15, 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=eqIjnol9uh8

    John Sanford also recently co-authored a book, “Contested Bones” which clearly shows that the fossil record for supposed human evolution is far more ‘un-Darwinian’ than is popularly believed:

    “Contested Bones” review by Paul Giem – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm

    Contested Bones – overview
    1) Collapse of the traditional understanding of ape-to-man evolution.
    The traditional view of ape-to-man evolution was a simple linear progression forward. It was thought that ape-like creatures were sequentially replaced by more and more human forms (as illustrated by the famous “ape parade” icon, see Figure 1). This iconic image is still commonly portrayed in many books and out-of-date textbooks. However, in the last few decades, new fossil evidence has shown this classic point of view is false. All the experts in the field have abandoned what is called the straight-line concept of human evolution. The powerful ape parade icon that has so profoundly influenced our culture for over 50 years is now officially dead. This is now universally acknowledged within the paleoanthropology community. For instance, paleoanthropologist J.J. Hublin wrote in Nature:
    “The once-popular fresco showing a single file of marching hominids becoming ever more vertical, tall, and hairless now appears to be fiction.”
    Paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood writes similarly in New Scientist:
    “There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place … On the left of the picture there’s an ape … On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”,,,
    Summary
    For the last 150 years, bones and bone fragments have been used to promote the concept of ape-to-man evolution. One by one, these bones have been questioned, then challenged, and then have been either abandoned or simply put on the shelf. Tens of thousands of bones and bone fragments have now been catalogued, named, and often re-named. Some of these bones have been very strange indeed. Despite all this, the scientists who study these things now conclude that these bones DO NOT SHOW a clear progression from ape to man (Figure 1). All that is seen is a messy, tangled “bush” with no fossil trail leading to man (Figure 2). What do the bones show? They show that there are basically two types of bones of interest— bones of the ape type (cataloged Australopithecus), and bones of the human type (cataloged Homo) (Figure 4). There are no bones that are clearly transitional between the ape type and the human type.
    https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a704d4_3909a00402bd40659f809dbde784b219.pdf

    Moreover, recently two different studies found that Chimp DNA is only 84% similar to Human DNA not 98.5% as is popularly believed

    Separate Studies Converge on Human-Chimp DNA Dissimilarity – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – OCTOBER 31, 2018
    Excerpt: A key element of the evolutionary paradigm is the idea that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA are 98.5% identical. This level of DNA similarity is needed to undergird the hypothesis that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor three to six million years ago. Based on known mutation rates in both humans and chimps, anything significantly less than a 98.5% DNA similarity would destroy the foundation of the entire theory.,,,
    ,,, The newest version of the chimpanzee genome was recently completed, and the results not only validate my past research but also spectacularly confirm new research I have just published.,,,
    University of London evolutionist Richard Buggs analyzed the results of a comprehensive comparison of the new chimp genome with the human one and posted his shocking anti-evolutionary findings. He stated, “The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%.”5
    What makes Dr. Buggs’ analysis more amazing is the fact that my own recently published research using a different algorithm gave the same results. In my study, I aligned 18,000 random pieces of high-quality chimp DNA about 31,000 DNA letters long (on average) onto human and several different versions of the chimp genome. Not only did my data show that the older version of the chimp genome (PanTro4) that had been used to support evolution was deeply flawed and humanized, but they also showed the aligned segments of chimp DNA were on average only 84.4% identical to human—the same level reported by Buggs.
    https://www.icr.org/article/separate-studies-converge-human-chimp-dna

    Comparison of 18,000 De Novo Assembled Chimpanzee Contigs to the Human Genome Yields Average BLASTN Alignment Identities of 84% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins  – September 5, 2018
    Excerpt: In a previous 2016 study aligning Sanger-style chimpanzee genomic trace reads (mean length = 704 bases) to the human genome, it was determined that chimpanzee DNA was not more than 85% similar to human. To further investigate the issue of human-chimpanzee genome similarity using higher quality DNA sequence, 18,000 de novo assembled contigs (constructed with Sanger style reads, Illumina short reads, and PacBio long reads) downloaded from NCBI having an average length of 30,913 bases were queried against the human genome using the BLASTN algorithm with gap extension. The alignments averaged 10,508 bases in length with a nucleotide identity of 84%.,,,
    https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/comparison-chimp-contigs-human-genome/

    How similar are human and chimpanzee genomes? – Richard Buggs – 14th July 2018
    Excerpt: To come up with the most accurate current assessment that I could of the similarity of the human and chimpanzee genome, I downloaded from the UCSC genomics website the latest alignments (made using the LASTZ software) between the human and chimpanzee genome assemblies, hg38 and pantro6. See discussion post #35 for details. This gave the following for the human genome:
    4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly
    5.18% was in CNVs relative to chimp
    1.12% differed due to SNPs in the one-to-one best aligned regions
    0.28% differed due to indels within the one-to-one best aligned regions
    The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%.,,,
    http://richardbuggs.com/index......e-genomes/

    Moreover, completely contrary to Darwinian thought, kangaroos and Dolphins are far more genetically similar to us than was presupposed under Darwinian thought:

    Dolphin DNA very close to human, – 2010
    Excerpt: They’re closer to us than cows, horses, or pigs, despite the fact that they live in the water.,,,
    “The extent of the genetic similarity came as a real surprise to us,” ,,,
    “Dolphins are marine mammals that swim in the ocean and it was astonishing to learn that we had more in common with the dolphin than with land mammals,” says geneticist Horst Hameister.,,,
    “We started looking at these and it became very obvious to us that every human chromosome had a corollary chromosome in the dolphin,” Busbee said. “We’ve found that the dolphin genome and the human genome basically are the same. It’s just that there’s a few chromosomal rearrangements that have changed the way the genetic material is put together.”
    http://www.reefrelieffounders......-to-human/

    Kangaroo genes close to humans – 2008
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

    Where you find dramatic differences between different species is in the Alternative Splicing patterns:

    Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
    A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
    On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    – per “the scientist”

    Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing – 2016
    In Brief
    Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,
    Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013).
    http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/.....M_2016.pdf

    Moreover, alternative splicing patterns are part of the developmental Gene Regulatory Network. Mutations to the developmental Gene Regulatory Network are ‘always catastrophically bad’.

    “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.”
    – Eric Davidson – developmental biologist

  8. 8
    vmahuna says:

    You can’t START a “new” species with an INITIAL population of 10,000. Unless you’re arguing: DAY -1: no humans anywhere; DAY 0: POOF! 10,000 humans EXACTLY divided into 5,000 ADULT males AND 5,000 ADULT females.

    Ya wanna explain an ALTERNATE process that MAGICALLY gets you 10,000?! individuals, each one FULLY a member of the New Species, AT THE SAME TIME.

    The more logical alternative is for there to be a SINGLE new baby who is Fully Human. And since he or she is COMPLETELY helpless, you need a nursemaid rather more delicate and caring than a chimp or gorilla. And so Nursemaid dotes on the helpless baby human until he or she is 8 or 10!! years old, and has SOME chance of finding food and defending himself or herself.

    And IN PARALLEL, there MUST BE a SINGLE new baby of the alternate sex. A single Nursemaid could easily take care of both babies at the same time, but humans have a LONG period of immaturity.

    Alternately, if you have some huge Alien breeding factory (like for Storm Troopers in Star Wars), then YES you can generate 10,000 mixed male and female adults in a single afternoon. And we have, um, ah, hmmm, ZERO known examples of any such breeding factory.

    And WHO exactly is it that BUILT the breeding factory, and WHERE did the factory go once humans began producing puppies “naturally”?

    There would of course still be the problem that teenagers who have NEVER experienced RAISING an infant to adolescence are probably going to KILL a fair percentage of the young, even if only by simple neglect. THERE is NOTHING in all of human experience that suggests the CREATION of an “initial” pool of 10,000 humans, ALL of the SAME age.

    The Deity could of course do this no problem. But doesn’t it make more sense that the “first production models” of the new species are Female #1 and Male #1? And isn’t it then logical that the Deity, either directly or through Agents (the so-called Angels), RAISED the helpless little humans to the point (as in “Blue Lagoon”) where they “realized they were NAKED”. And Boy #1 LIKED the naked Girl #1, and the pair went off into the bushes to explore all their new discoveries.

    I am willing to accept that at some arbitrary point in Ancient History, there was a “bottleneck” that severely reduced the total number of living humans. And that all modern humans are descended from the parents who didn’t get killed during the Bottleneck.

    I can’t believe ANY scientist producing Hybrid plants or animals shoots the works and generates 10,000 hybrids in the FIRST generation without bothering to tinker in the lab for a few generations.

    10,000 humans in the FIRST generation sounds a WHOLE lot like one of the Barbarian creation stories. I mean, I’m sure Odin or the Dagda could have just waved their swords and POOF!: 10,000 adult humans, mixed 51% female and 49% male. No Science required.

    Oh, does this “minimum of 10,000” apply to OTHER species? I don’t think ANY of the Endangered Species of large mammals have populations over 10,000 today. How many gorillas are there in Africa? Did their ancient HUGE population COLLAPSE to only a few hundred today? Does this mean they are already “extinct” for practical purposes, since they “need” 10,000 or more individuals to “exist”?

  9. 9
    Mimus says:

    I’m not sure if you’re trolling vmahuna, but species arise when one species (perhaps with thousands or millions of individuals) splits into two. Theres is no requirement that either the new species have only a few individuals.

    The 10,000 number doesn’t apply to all species. It’s a number inferred from the diversity of modern humans.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Mimus claims:

    species arise when one species (perhaps with thousands or millions of individuals) splits into two.

    Yet Darwinists have no evidence for this claim:

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: “But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.”
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol – Scant Search For a Maker – April 20, 2001
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    The Trouble with Darwin by Kas Thomas – February 16, 2014
    Excerpt: Darwin’s landmark work was called The Origin of Species, yet it doesn’t actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies).,,,
    It’s also terrible at explaining the speed at which speciation occurs. (Of course, The Origin of Species is entirely silent on the subject of how life arose from abiotic conditions in the first place.) It doesn’t explain the Cambrian Explosion, for example, or the sudden appearance of intelligence in hominids,,,
    http://bigthink.com/devil-in-t.....ith-darwin

    Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change – Casey Luskin – January 2012 – article
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55281.html

    The Dog Delusion – October 30, 2014
    Excerpt: In his latest book, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany takes on the widespread view that dog breeds prove macroevolution.,,, He shows in great detail that the incredible variety of dog breeds, going back in origin several thousand years ago but especially to the last few centuries, represents no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels.
    Michael Behe writes:
    “Dr. Lönnig shows forcefully that one of the chief examples Darwinists rely on to convince the public of macroevolution — the enormous variation in dogs — actually shows the opposite. Extremes in size and anatomy come at the cost of broken genes and poor health. Even several gene duplications were found to interfere strongly with normal growth and development as is also often the case in humans. So where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution now?”
    The science here is indeed solid. Intriguingly, Lönnig’s prediction from 2013 on starch digestion in wolves has already been confirmed in a study published this year.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90751.html

    etc… etc… etc…

    Minus then claims:

    There is no requirement that,, the new species have only a few individuals.

    Yes, but there is a requirement that one should be able to define exactly what a species is in the first place. The entire concept of species, like the concepts of personhood and mathematics,,

    “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.”
    – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    The entire concept of species, like the concepts of personhood and mathematics, is an abstract, immaterial, concept that simply cannot be grounded within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution.

    Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas
    The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage
    Excerpt: First, the problem of essences. G. K. Chesterton once quipped that “evolution . . . does not especially deny the existence of God; what it does deny is the existence of man.” It might appear shocking, but in this one remark the ever-perspicacious Chesterton summarized a serious conflict between classical Christian philosophy and Darwinism.
    In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.
    Think about it: How is it that we are able to recognize different organisms as belonging to the same group? The Aristotelian provides a good answer: It is because species really exist—not as an abstraction in the sky, but they exist nonetheless. We recognize the squirrel’s form, which it shares with other members of its species, even though the particular matter of each squirrel differs. So each organism, each unified whole, consists of a material and immaterial part (form).,,,
    One way to see this form-matter dichotomy is as Aristotle’s solution to the ancient tension between change and permanence debated so vigorously in the pre-Socratic era. Heraclitus argued that reality is change. Everything constantly changes—like fire, which never stays the same from moment to moment. Philosophers like Parmenides (and Zeno of “Zeno’s paradoxes” fame) argued exactly the opposite; there is no change. Despite appearances, reality is permanent. How else could we have knowledge? If reality constantly changes, how can we know it? What is to be known?
    Aristotle solved this dilemma by postulating that while matter is constantly in flux—even now some somatic cells are leaving my body while others arrive—an organism’s form is stable. It is a fixed reality, and for this reason is a steady object of our knowledge. Organisms have an essence that can be grasped intellectually.

    Denial of True Species
    Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,,
    The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.

    What About Man?
    Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,,
    Implications for Bioethics
    This is not a mere abstract point. This dilemma is playing itself out in contemporary debates in bioethics. With whom are bioethicists like Leon Kass (neo-Aristotelian and former chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics) sparring today if not with thoroughgoing Darwinians like Princeton’s Peter Singer, who denies that humans, qua humans, have intrinsic dignity? Singer even calls those who prefer humans to other animals “speciesist,” which in his warped vocabulary is akin to racism.,,,
    If one must choose between saving an intelligent, fully developed pig or a Down syndrome baby, Singer thinks we should opt for the pig.,,,
    https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

    In other words, it is impossible for Darwinists to ever accurately define exactly what a species is in the first place without ‘borrowing’ the unifying, abstract, immaterial, concept of species from Theists.

    As their inability to ground the unifying, abstract, immaterial, concept of species illustrates, (as well as their inability to ground the unifying, abstract, immaterial, concepts of mathematics, persons, etc.. illustrates), Darwinists simply are unable to ground any given abstract, immaterial, “context” of any particular group of particles that they may wish to classify as a particular group.

    As Pastor Joe Boot points out in the following video, “If you have no God,, you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan.”

    “If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no preexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no pre-established pattern (to connect the facts given atheism).”
    Pastor Joe Boot – 13:20 minute mark of the following video
    Defending the Christian Faith – Pastor Joe Boot – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqE5_ZOAnKo

    Any given ‘context’ simply can never find any grounding within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution. As the following article succinctly states, “The whole is required to give meaning to the part.”

    A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature – Book Review
    Excerpt: They focus instead on what “Methinks it is like a weasel” really means. In isolation, in fact, it means almost nothing. Who said it? Why? What does the “it” refer to? What does it reveal about the characters? How does it advance the plot? In the context of the entire play, and of Elizabethan culture, this brief line takes on significance of surprising depth. The whole is required to give meaning to the part.
    http://www.thinkingchristian.n.....821202417/

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    And as Godel states,

    “In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.”
    Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996.

    And as was pointed out in post 6, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem has now been extended to physics,

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Simply put, the devastating implications of Godel’s incompleteness theorem for neo-Darwinian evolution are,,,

    ,,, since neo-Darwinian explanations are grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic ‘form’, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality.
    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Minus then claims that:

    The 10,000 number doesn’t apply to all species. It’s a number inferred from the diversity of modern humans.

    Yet the “diversity of modern humans” is arrived at, (like the ‘diversity of dogs’ as was referenced earlier), by a loss of genetic diversity not by a gain of genetic diversity.

    “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”
    Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

    Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations – (Nov. 28, 2012)
    Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins — the workhorses of the cell — occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,,
    “One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,”,,,
    “Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older.” (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,,
    The report shows that “recent” events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers.
    The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132259.htm

    Of related note:

    In BIO-Complexity, a New Model for Human Ancestry
    Ann Gauger November 7, 2016
    Excerpt: The key assumption that distinguishes our model from the standard ones is that we assume that the first pair started out with heterogeneous chromosomes — four distinct sets, two sets for each individual. The standard population genetics models work backward assuming everything starts from a single point. We are proposing that things started out different, not the same, with diversity present from the beginning in the genomes of the starting first pair.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03261.html

    The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! – Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos
    Excerpt: In Figure 5, I display a theoretical allele frequency curve for the human “population” at Creation.,,,
    When Adam and Eve start having children, they are going to be given a random set of the alleles within the parents. In the case of two heterozygous individuals,,,,
    ,,,As detailed above, one of the arguments from BioLogos is that there has not been enough time to accumulate the mutations found among people today if we came from Adam and Eve. A corollary to that is, we could not survive that kind of mutation load. As I said above, however, this is assuming Adam had no heterozygosity, which is ridiculous.
    http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos

    CMI has an excellent video of the preceding paper by Dr. Carter, that makes the technical aspects of the paper much easier to understand;

    The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter) – 2011 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ftwf0owpzQ

    5 Reasons Why Humanity Didn’t Begin as a Population – Fazale Rana PhD
    Evolutionary biologists argue for this mainstream idea (that there were many first humans, not just two), but I’m reluctant to accept these claims for a number of reasons.1
    1. The idea that humanity arose as a population is a theory-laden concept that is a necessary entailment of the evolutionary paradigm. Biologists view evolution as a population-level phenomenon. Populations evolve, individuals don’t. As a consequence, there can’t be a primordial pair—if one views human origins from an evolutionary framework. To put it another way, humans must have emerged from a population by definition.
    2. The methods used to determine population sizes rely on simplified and idealized mathematical models that are highly sensitive to input parameters. Because of that the population numbers need to be viewed as rough estimates, at best.
    3. These models do a poor job in taking into account the effects of population structure, migrations, and gene flow all of which can lead to misleading population size calculations.2
    4. Population size methods have not been validated. That is, there are not any studies that demonstrate that these methods produce accurate results for population size estimates, when applied to known situations. Studies in conservation biology suggest that these models don’t accurately predict genetic variability when the original population size is known. As a case in point, in three separate studies involving Mouflon sheep, Przewalski’s horses, and gray whales, genetic diversity (measured generations after the initial population) was much greater than expected based on the models.
    5. Other studies in conservation biology raise questions about the validity of the mathematical relationships that undergird the population size methods. In fact, these concerns prompted one research team to question if these problems invalidate population size estimates in humans. These researchers state, “Recently, however, Bazin et al. (2006) have argued that mtDNA variation is a poor indicator of population size in animals. . . . This raises the question of whether mtDNA is in fact a reliable predictor of human population size.”3
    http://www.reasons.org/blogs/t.....population

    Verse and study of the overall pattern of the fossil record:

    Genesis 1:24-25
    And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and wild animals according to their kinds.” And it was so. God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

Leave a Reply