YEC: Denying Facts or Differing Interpretations of Data?

See, already here your misunderstandings are fundamental. Science literally cannot rule anything out. It cannot possibly do that. By it’s very nature science is and always will be tentative, and it will always be possible to give an alternative explanation for the data you have. This is logically unavoidable.

You are asking for certainty from a method that cannot offer it. Nothing in science is absolutely certain. Nothing.

So what is it you see it has any problem explaining? Point to some genetic difference and explain what the difficulty is.

Yes. They always can be misleading. Evidence can be faked, or planted, or the product of mere coincidence. There is always going to be some alternative conceivable explanation for a pattern.

But it’s still a pattern, and the pattern needs an explanation. Some explanations just make much less sense than others (like independent creation resulting in consilience of independent phylogenies), and some explanations make testable predictions that can be tested against more data.

But you have no evidence that they don’t work. You’re just clining to that idea because some creationist guy said it and it feels comfortable to believe it.

Speaking of creationists denying reality, here we see a perfect example. The real-time denial of relaxed natural selection on humans. Thank you for proving the point.

Remember that table of historical infant mortality rates compared to the present? Apparently not. Mysteriously absent from your recollection, and now you’re espousing a sort of emotional conspiracy theory against demonstrable reality. It’s “too convenient”.

So if you got an infection 600 years ago after having had surgery because you had an accident and bone was sticking out of your arm and you lost a lot of blood and had to get a transfusion, what antibiotic did your doctor prescribe?

Oh wait, you didn’t get antibiotics from your doctor, because you didn’t get any surgery because you lost a lot of blood and simply died because there was no ambulance that came to get you and no phone to use to call 911, and nobody would even have known that people have different blood types. Or what the cause of infections are, much less what to do about them.

Now add everything else that medical science and industrialization helps provide people. Food, shelter, protection from predators, clean and abundant drinking water.

Nope, none of this helps people survive things they would have to contend with in nature. Systematic and industrialized agriculture has no effect on reducing rates of starvation. Nope, none at all. Being able to fill a train and and airplane with food and transport it across the globe never helped anyone who would otherwise have been dead. Never happened. Too convenient.

You mean like the idea that thinking can take place in the absence of a physical brain, outside of time and space, and make universes, planets, time, space, and living organisms simply pop into existence out of nothing?

So better take him to be right and demand others prove him wrong by completely ruling out that he’s correct using a method literally incapable of ever doing such a thing. Because that is a rational methodology if I ever heard one.

Clearly nothing is going to cut it since you so obviously don’t want anything but what you already believe to be true. But mostly because you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the nature of both science, and evidence.

We don’t know everything, in fact very little. But we know enough to know that evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life, and that it simply isn’t necessary to know the world-history of every molecule of life at sub-angstrom resolution to be able to say that. Like with the tomato soup.

There sure is, and our understanding of the evolutionary history of life is constantly improving.

Do you have a calculation that shows this or is this just another one of your too convenient feelings?

Are even you aware that you didn’t actually study the basics of physics? You read popular press news articles on findings in cosmology.

The basics of physics are found in textbooks, and they’re full of mathematical expressions.

Everything you just wrote is ridiculous nonsense.


At the same time, we do see a lot of evidence that is entirely inconsistent with her reading if the Bible, absent of ongoing unattested miracles.

So we do know here view is ruled out by science as we know it.


Of course not! You don’t see evidence because you avoid looking at any evidence.

That’s astounding. You just went, in a couple of sentences, from claiming that (nonrandom) selection can’t do something to claiming that (nonrandom) selection doesn’t even exist!

All without a speck of evidence. You gotta be kidding.


Do I win a prize if I’m the 1000th person to point out to you evolution isn’t just random chance? It’s an iterative process with a random component (genetic variation) and a non-random component (selection).


Which you do not even bother to list. You’ve responded TWICE without listing them.

Fair enough.

The evidence that @glipsnort presented is one example I was thinking of. The fact Carter mentions it is great, but he did not deal with the evidence. That is the issue.

Another example I was thinking was here: Lake Varves, Volcanic Ash, and the Great Isaiah Scroll



what will happen if we will test that idea in coding genes among two far related species (such as human and fish) instead of non coding regions in closely related species? will we get the same result? (most changes are due to mutations).

We would get a different pattern.

That’s only because you reject any evidence that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible.

Then you have your eyes closed. Here is that evidence:

The irony is that you accept Sanford’s claims without any skepticism and without any evidence.

To people with training and education in the biological sciences, they don’t make sense.

That’s just an opinion.


why actually? if the majority of differences between two different species are the result of mutations, then we should see it also at the genes level and not just in the non-coding regions. since we do have evidence that the majority of changes among coding genes are neutral (which means that they fit well with neutral accumulation of mutations)why should we get a different pattern?

The majority of changes to coding sequence that stick around are neutral. Lots of other mutations didn’t stick around because they were deleterious and removed by natural selection. That changes the pattern, e.g. it decreases the number of transversions seen relative to transitions, since the latter are more likely to be neutral.


true. and this also suppose to be true for non coding regions, which is what you checked. right? so again, why should we see a different pattern if coding regions and non-coding regions suppose to show the same pattern? (since in both the majority of changes are neutral among two different species). so for instance if we check out 100 bp differences among human and chimp in coding genes and non coding regions, we should see that both are the result of accumulated mutations.

1 Like

No. A hefty majority of mutations in noncoding regions are neutral and will thus not suffer the kind of distorting effect of selection that mutations in coding regions do.


Maybe I’m confused, but if selection is in play here then why do we see the pattern in human to human differences?

I’m not sure what you’re asking. We see the pattern because selection plays little role in mutations in most of the genome. We see the same pattern within humans and across species because mutations have been behaving this way for millions of years.


so you are basically saying that the majority of amino acids difference between two different species isnt realy neutral, but actually the result of natural selection?

No, I’m not saying that


The majority of differences in coding regions between humans and chimpanzees are synonymous mutations (ie they code for the same amino acid).

Whether you think there is any sense for a designer to make humans and chimpanzees have mostly synonymous differences is up to you to decide.

The relevant bit is here:

are you aware that even synonymous codons have functional meaning?: