Questions to Justice Frangi about Noah's flood

[Rumraket]

Spurred by Justice Frangi's recommendation I set up a new thread:

Rumraket,
Happy to have a discussion with you, but would you please set up a separate thread. This will help keep this one from getting diluted or confusing. Thank you. Great question btw. Looking forward to replying.

Justice

Let me begin by thanking you Justice Frangipane, for taking the time to discuss this issue. Let me also add that I appreciate you now have at least three simultaneous discussions running on this forum, so I will understand if it will take some time for you to answer. I will be patient and look forward to your thoughts. Have a nice weekend by the way.

Anyway here goes, my questions posed in the other thread:
I'd like to know how it is possible to produce the entire extant biodiversity on the planet, from a couple of thousand pairs of biblical “kinds”, simply through “within-kind” microevolution, in less than 4.000 years, given that according to creationists, beneficial mutations that affect bodyplans are so incredibly rare they’re supposed to be impossible even if evolution had hundreds of millions of years.

In fact, here's a compiled list of creationist claims surrounding mutations:

CREATIONISTS and Intelligent Design proponents themselves have stated clearly that every and all mutations are CATASTROPHIC. Remember that? "Catastrophic."

Every human baby born has somewhere between 100 to 200 more mutations than its parents (depending on how you count)-- and twice that number relative to its grandparents-- and thrice that relative to its great-grandparents-- etc.

Young Earth Creationist Kent Hovind: “A change of only three [DNA] nucleotides is fatal to an animal. There is no possibility of [genetic] change.” (Ken Hovind, Source: http://media.drdino.com/sem/audio/mp3/books2.mp3 @ 82:10, March 2003, cited at http://kent-hovind.com/quotes/sciencei.htm)

Got that? Kent Hovind says only three mutations will kill an animal.

If creationism is correct, every baby has 100 to 200 new CATASTROPHES its parents didn't have-- and twice that number of CATASTROPHES relative to its grandparents-- and thrice that relative to its great-grandparents-- etc. Enough to kill every baby on Earth a hundred times over.

Pro-ID Philosopher William Dembski: “[T]here is now mounting evidence of biological systems for which any slight modification does not merely destroy the system’s existing function but also destroys the possibility of any function of the system whatsoever.” [Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 113]

Pro-ID lawyer Phillip Johnson: “Biologists affiliated with the Intelligent Design movement nail down the distinction by showing that DNA mutations…make birth defects” ["Berkeley's Radical: An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson", November 2000.]

Pro-ID lawyer Edward Sisson: “[T]he theory of unintelligent evolution, which depends entirely on the supposed occurrence in history of trillions of DNA mutations that beneficially affect body shape, has not identified any such mutations” -- [Edward Sisson, “Darwin or Lose”, Touchstone, v. 17, issue 6, July/Aug. 2004]

Uncommon Descent: “As far as I know, the current consensus of population geneticists is that mutations do indeed have disastrously bad fitness.” [Eric Holloway. Uncommon Descent. August 28, 2011.]

Young Earth Creationist Henry Morris: “Inheritable and novel changes (mutations) which take place in organisms today have always been observed to be harmful.” [Henry Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p.vii]

Young Earth Creationist Duane Gish: “the mutations we see occurring spontaneously in nature or that can be induced in the laboratory always prove to be harmful.” [Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No, p. 47]

Duane Gish: “all mutations are bad” [Gish, Dinosaurs by Design (1992), p.83]

Duane Gish: “Remember, all the changes were just mistakes, they were genetic errors, mutations, almost everything which is bad… they're all bad” [Keith Saladin-Duan Gish Debate II, 1988]

Creationist Don Boys: “Not only are mutations always harmful, but they produce changes in present characters, never producing new characters. Mutations are the catalyst for defects, deformity, disease, and death; yet evolutionists scream that they are the explanation for all the varieties we see… [T]he results of all mutations: disorder, defects, disease, deformity, and death.” -- ["Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!", Don Boys. Canada Free Press. May 2, 2010.]

Muslim Creationist Harun Yahya: “[N]ot one single useful mutation has ever been observed… The slightest alteration in [genetic] information only leads to harm.”

The Muslim creationist sex-cult of Harun Yahya says all mutations cause only harm: “Mutations… like all accidents, they cause harm and destruction. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl … freaks of nature… because all efficient(?) observable mutations cause only harm to living things.”

Yet we’re supposed to believe that in those ~4000 years, a single pair of frogs evolved into tens of thousands of different species of frogs, with vastly different lifestyles and large variations in biochemistry and physiology. Some with poison glands that secrete novel toxic proteins, others with pores in their skin where they carry their developing eggs. Tenthousand different species of frogs with all their differences, in 4000 years.

And creationists tell us no new proteins or metabolic pathways or regulatory networks could possibly have evolved in the 5-15 million years of the cambrian explosion, for example. But apparently unfathomable swathes of novel regulation and biochemistry, in frogs alone, had no issue evolving “within kind” in 4000 years, post-flud. And that's just frogs.

Now multiply the problem for every imagined “kind” on the Ark, which even the most conservative creationists, still estimate would have had to be in the thousands, to avoid large amounts of "between-kinds" macroevolutionary change.

 

[Inferno]

Isn't it obvious? The genome was much larger then, so all mutations are deleterious; the animals were much better in their original form.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

I switched to the new thread with Aron and hadn't even checked the peanut gallery till just now. =)

Okay, so your quotes from other creationists have a huge amount of flaw in them and I wouldn't for a second defend that argument. That said, lets redefine the argument. The purpose would be to define if either theory is plausible, and then if either is more probable than the other.

Lets define a few basics to argue. According to http://www.defenders.org/frogs/basic-facts
There are roughly 4740 species of frogs in the world. Feel free to disagree or provide another stat. It really doesn't matter a tremendous amount what number we pick as I believe you would use the same argument even if there were 500 species of frogs.

Creationist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from noah's ark roughly 4000 years ago.

Evolutionist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from a rock 375 million to 4 billion years ago.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Creationism is not a theory.

Evolutionist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from a rock 375 million to 4 billion years ago.

Please tell me you are joking!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Evolutionist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from a rock 375 million to 4 billion years ago.

Emphasis added.

:facepalm:

As if we needed any more proof of your ignorance.

 

[Rumraket]

I switched to the new thread with Aron and hadn't even checked the peanut gallery till just now. =)

Okay, so your quotes from other creationists have a huge amount of flaw in them and I wouldn't for a second defend that argument.

Fair enough. But I do have to ask, then, if it doesn't seem peculiar to you that some of the most famous professional defenders of your position says such obviously, ludicrously false things?

That said, lets redefine the argument. The purpose would be to define if either theory is plausible, and then if either is more probable than the other.

Right, but to do that you have to first give an actual theory that makes testable predictions we can go and observationally falsify.

What is the creationist theory you postulate, what predictions does it make and on what basis does it predict this?

Lets define a few basics to argue. According to http://www.defenders.org/frogs/basic-facts
There are roughly 4740 species of frogs in the world. Feel free to disagree or provide another stat. It really doesn't matter a tremendous amount what number we pick as I believe you would use the same argument even if there were 500 species of frogs.

I agree that the exact number here doesn't actually matter too much. I got the 10.000 number from a video. Whether it's 15.000, 10.000 or 5.000 species of frogs alone, is basically besides the point. There are plenty of other organisms with species in the tens of thousands. The proposition creationism must defend is how to get all the extant biodiversity on the planet from a group of single pairs approximately 4.000 years ago.

Creationist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from noah's ark roughly 4000 years ago.

Right, and the question here is how? How is this possible in 4000 years, but not possible in 260-260 million? What mechanism caused this, what testable predictions does it make?

Evolutionist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from a rock 375 million to 4 billion years ago.

According to evolution, all frogs would have a last common ancestor which was itself a frog approximately 250 to 265 million years ago. We all know what the evolutionary mechanism is, we know what kinds of testable predictions it makes, we can confirm this by looking at DNA.

The origin of life isn't part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution simply explains how life changes through the evolutionary process over time. But it doesn't say how life came to exist in the first place. We don't know how life originated. So that thing about "from rocks" is a bit of a red herring I hope you can agree.

I'm not asking how you think god created the first pair of frogs, we know you think it was some kind of divine intervention, which you obviously can't prove but have to take on faith. So it wouldn't be fair to ask me to tell you how the first life came to exist, I simply don't know. I hope we can agree to leave the question on the origin of life at that: You believe it was divine intervention and I just don't know, and get back to the post-flood evolution vs creationism question. Fair?

 

[Justice Frangipane]

@DL and "Smiles" (yes, I gave nobody a nickname)

a quick response to your additions to our thread. Unless you claim theistic evolution, then YES, you believe frogs evolved from a ROCK. (emphasis added)

If you want to pretend like my claims are ridiculous, then contribute to the conversation by adding something intelligent.

If God, in your worldview/theory didn't make the first life how did it happen? It rained on the rocks for millions of years... and the water and rocks turned into soup. What kind of soup you might ask? Let's see, what ingredients are available... oh yes, that's right, water and rocks. So it was water and rock soup. And that soup came alive. Out of that soup, the first life MUST have emerged.

Your science
water + rock + time = life

And your laughing at me?

 

[DutchLiam84]

You are again parroting Kent Hovind. Drop the straw-man argument and read what Rumraket had to say, otherwise this is going to be a very short discussion. You're the one who believes complex life came from dirt, don't turn this on us. We simply don't know (yet). Not a single scientist alive claims complex life such as a frog came from a rock+water. If so, please provide me with some scientific literature.

I'll put it plain and simple, Kent Hovind was and probably still is a moron who knew fuck all about science. None of his arguments EVER stood up to scientific scrutiny. Forget everything he ever said, for your own good. For example, he thinks you could cover the whole world with a single drop of water if you would just spread it out thinly enough. Let's see if you realize why this is impossible.

Creation "science"
dirt+magic=complex life
This is what you believe..right?

BTW, this topic is about Noah and biodiversity, not the origin of life.

P.s. if you don't mind me asking: What kind of education did you have or are you currently following?

 

[Gnug215]

@DL and "Smiles" (yes, I gave nobody a nickname)

a quick response to your additions to our thread. Unless you claim theistic evolution, then YES, you believe frogs evolved from a ROCK. (emphasis added)

If you want to pretend like my claims are ridiculous, then contribute to the conversation by adding something intelligent.

If God, in your worldview/theory didn't make the first life how did it happen? It rained on the rocks for millions of years... and the water and rocks turned into soup. What kind of soup you might ask? Let's see, what ingredients are available... oh yes, that's right, water and rocks. So it was water and rock soup. And that soup came alive. Out of that soup, the first life MUST have emerged.

Your science
water + rock + time = life

And your laughing at me?

No, "our science" doesn't say that.

If there is laughter, it is because the proposition is laughable.

IF "our science" did say that, then I agree, it would be laughable. But it doesn't say that.

What you have done here is to set up a straw man and appeal to ridicule.

I am going to assume that you have done this out of ignorance rather than malice.

The ignorance in this case is about what chemistry and molecular biology actually say about the origins of life.

For a quick rundown of some of the basics on that, you could check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#.22Primordial_soup.22_hypothesis

But to give you the gist of things: Water (H2O) and rock (... a whole myriad of different chemicals and molecules) is not all that was there. Take a look at some water from your tap in a microscope, and you'll see what I mean. And that's just tapwater. Water from other places will contain wildly different things.


I'm no expert on this stuff, but feel free to ask anything you are wondering about. I

 

[Darkprophet232]

@DL and "Smiles" (yes, I gave nobody a nickname)

How hard is it to type HWIN? And if I were you, I wouldn't try to start a trend of nicknaming users based on their avatars, Mr. Mutant Eggplant.

Unless you claim theistic evolution, then YES, you believe frogs evolved from a ROCK. (emphasis added)

Ugh, instead of telling people what they think or believe, do yourself a favor and ask them, or read the science from the scientists (not anti-science creationists). Very few things are more insulting that telling others what they think when you are in a conversation with them. This would be similar to AronRa or Rumraket insisting that you were in fact a Scientologist and then laughing at you for believing in thetans.

If you want to pretend like my claims are ridiculous...

There's no need for pretending.

If God, in your worldview/theory didn't make the first life...

Hold on, sparky, this topic is about Noah's flood and what it would have taken for for the diversity of life we see now to advance in only four-thousand years. I would kindly ask you not to change the subject to the origins of life. If you want to discuss that, I'm sure that if you made a new topic, someone would indulge you with a discussion.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

a quick response to your additions to our thread. Unless you claim theistic evolution, then YES, you believe frogs evolved from a ROCK. (emphasis added)

[snipped]

Your science
water + rock + time = life

And your laughing at me?

:facepalm:

I would laugh if this were not so tragic. Once again, you expose your ignorance of this subject and put on a false bravado about it. Nowhere in modern science is it claimed that life came from a rock. As Gnug215 pointed out, have a read of the abiogenesis page on wikipedia. That will give you more information about this subject than you will ever get from any creationist website.

Once you are done with that you can then have a read of this:

australopithecus[/url]"]Seriously? You're actually playing the "no evidence" card? I assume if this is the case you are unable to use Google for some medical reason? Allow me to counter your ignorance with example of things you've just claimed have not been evidenced:

1) A Combined Experimental And Theoretical Study On The Formation Of The Amino Acid Glycine And Its Isomer In Extraterrestrial Ices by Philip D. Holtom, Chris J. Bennett, Yoshihiro Osamura, Nigel J Mason and Ralf. I Kaiser, The Astrophysical Journal, 626: 940-952 (20th June 2005)
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X ... 7d30dfdde0

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

There you go, at least 77 papers all evidencing abiogenesis. No you cannot honestly claim there is no evidence. Thank me later.

Slightly modified.

Those are scientific papers about this very subject, showing break through after break through in the field of abiogenesis.

However, this is all an irrelevant tangent you created to get away from answering Rumraket’s questions. Thus, my suggestion to you is stick to the topic at hand and stop throwing out red herrings.

How hard is it to type HWIN?

Or he_who_is_nobody for that matter?

 

[Inferno]

How hard is it to type HWIN?

Or he_who_is_nobody for that matter?

Well to be fair, that IS bloody hard. Do you mind that people call you HWIN?

 

[Rumraket]

@DL and "Smiles" (yes, I gave nobody a nickname)

a quick response to your additions to our thread. Unless you claim theistic evolution, then YES, you believe frogs evolved from a ROCK. (emphasis added)

If you want to pretend like my claims are ridiculous, then contribute to the conversation by adding something intelligent.

If God, in your worldview/theory didn't make the first life how did it happen? It rained on the rocks for millions of years... and the water and rocks turned into soup. What kind of soup you might ask? Let's see, what ingredients are available... oh yes, that's right, water and rocks. So it was water and rock soup. And that soup came alive. Out of that soup, the first life MUST have emerged.

Your science
water + rock + time = life

And your laughing at me?

Instead of pursuing that silly discussion about the origin of life, why don't you get busy dealing with what I set this thead up for? :roll:

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Or he_who_is_nobody for that matter?

Well to be fair, that IS bloody hard. Do you mind that people call you HWIN?

I find it funny that you think I would mind. I actually do not care what people call me. I am just glad to be recognized.

 

[Gnug215]

Well to be fair, that IS bloody hard. Do you mind that people call you HWIN?

I find it funny that you think I would mind. I actually do not care what people call me. I am just glad to be recognized.

Well, then I think I'll start calling you poo-pants!!

Yay!

Also, I do recognize you. I've surely seen that face on your avatar before.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

HWIN,

It took me sooooo long to figure out from the 7 or so responses what in the world you guys were talking about!!! Laughing really hard right now.

Okay, so this is a little overwhelming. I do have a life outside of the forum as well so my responses will be a little slow from time to time. That should match well with the majority opinion on my mental prowess. =)

So here is what I'm gonna ask, because yes, I am feeling a bit ganged up on (I know, I'm a big boy and should be able to handle it) But it seems like a whole lot of "we can dish it out, but we can't take it". So chill a little and give me some space.

By the way. Loved the Mr mutant eggplant comment. Actually had me laughing pretty hard. I drew my avatar friday night and was sorta going for a robotic puppet straw man, then didn't like it so tried to morph it into a mean frog like creature based off this conversation. Mutant eggplant works too. All just for fun.

Okay, lets get into it.

Okay, so your quotes from other creationists have a huge amount of flaw in them and I wouldn't for a second defend that argument.

Fair enough. But I do have to ask, then, if it doesn't seem peculiar to you that some of the most famous professional defenders of your position says such obviously, ludicrously false things?

Yes, it bothers me, but it would be foolish to try and argue from those positions. There are a lot of people out there who don't think. So, it is what it is. It also exists on both sides and what are we gonna do, right?

Justice Frangipane wrote:
That said, lets redefine the argument. The purpose would be to define if either theory is plausible, and then if either is more probable than the other.

Right, but to do that you have to first give an actual theory that makes testable predictions we can go and observationally falsify.

What is the creationist theory you postulate, what predictions does it make and on what basis does it predict this?

Since I am new to a lot of this, I will make a request. Show me the evolutionary version of what your looking for from me, so I don't spin my wheels trying to figure out specifically what you are looking for in a response. This is not an attempt at diversion, merely a way for me learn what the job your asking me to do looks like allowing me to do a better job answering your question.
I am trying in this post to respond how I think you're requesting, but help me out if I miss the mark, please.

Justice Frangipane wrote:
Creationist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from noah's ark roughly 4000 years ago.

Right, and the question here is how? How is this possible in 4000 years, but not possible in 260-260 million? What mechanism caused this, what testable predictions does it make?

We have to cut out the "but not possible in 260 million years", part of this question. As I said last time, I don't agree with the comments of those you quoted.

This is a great question, the original question for which this thread was set up. I do believe that the ark would be sufficient to hold a large number frogs if needed. Here is my belief. (yes, belief) God created frogs (among other animals) with DNA laden with possibilities within limits. Quality control limits so to speak, that work in conjunction with natural selection to keep the gene code from mutating to a point where it would kill a species. If 25 frogs (or whatever number would be needed) were made with all the functions of the current 4,740 frogs, they could lose features as they dispersed. Imagine a "super frog" (which really wouldn't need to be all that super at all. But if it had all the features of 10 species that could deteriorated from it by loss of information not gain. (like blind animals found in caves) http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2010/08/24/outtasight-the-10-most-amazing-eyeless-animals/

This frog would follow the path seen in nature of genetic loss and not gain. Negative, harmful mutations abound in our world and would be supportive of this theory. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Most_mutations_are_harmful

After a world wide flood, the ideal breeding grounds for frogs would be enormous. With many frogs laying from 200 - 2000 eggs a week (some hundreds of thousands from a single individual) http://www.publications.steveplatt.net/tenplagues.htm, the population of frogs would grow insanely fast compared to many other kinds of animals. There would be far less natural predators due to almost all the animals in the world dying during the flood. http://www.abc.net.au/site-archive/rural/content/2007/s2186006.htm

I predict based off of this theory that there would be a historical account of an overpopulation of frogs by some ancient people within about a thousand years of the flood. (I think that this is a ridiculously unnecessary statement, but it seems this is the type of prediction you and Aron Ra are requesting)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7530678/Biblical-plagues-really-happened-say-scientists.html
(I don't think that there is really any need to site an article on this one)

Quron
http://www.inthenameofallah.org/Quran's%20NINE%20Plagues%20of%20Moses.html

The Bible
http://biblehub.com/exodus/8-2.htm

With the world changing from a catastrophe the likes of the flood (which I believe was caused initially by an ice meteor strike which would account for how a mammoth could freeze before it rots internally)
Rapid variations and changes in species would occur due to climate changing needs. Further stratifying of the species would happen as more and more predator populations would catch up to that of the frogs.

Frog population unlike human population could grow to hundreds of millions in ONE year. If we started with 25 frogs on Noah's ark, 4000 years ago and had an ideal frog breeding paradise (as a post flood world would be) It is very reasonable to believe that those 25 could easily and realistically turn to billions of frogs in a mere hundred or so years. 3900 years of dna "loaded" frogs that would mutate and lose features during that time to come to a place of 4740 frogs today would be possible. Since we observe genetic loss frequently and never (or to not start another rabbit trail, "almost never") observe genetic gain. I believe it is far more probable that this falls further into the nature of science that we see today, instead fighting the balance of mutational probability as proposed by evolutionary biology.

Justice Frangipane wrote:
Evolutionist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from a rock 375 million to 4 billion years ago.

According to evolution, all frogs would have a last common ancestor which was itself a frog approximately 250 to 265 million years ago. We all know what the evolutionary mechanism is, we know what kinds of testable predictions it makes, we can confirm this by looking at DNA.

The origin of life isn't part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution simply explains how life changes through the evolutionary process over time. But it doesn't say how life came to exist in the first place. We don't know how life originated. So that thing about "from rocks" is a bit of a red herring I hope you can agree.

I'm not asking how you think god created the first pair of frogs, we know you think it was some kind of divine intervention, which you obviously can't prove but have to take on faith. So it wouldn't be fair to ask me to tell you how the first life came to exist, I simply don't know. I hope we can agree to leave the question on the origin of life at that: You believe it was divine intervention and I just don't know, and get back to the post-flood evolution vs creationism question. Fair?

It looks like we agree on the common ancestor of frogs being a frog. =)

While you state that the origins of life are NOT a part of evolution, I would disagree. I think that's like saying you believe in mountains but not valleys. While I understand mountains and valleys are not the same thing obviously, I don't know how the one can be had without the other. However, at your request we can leave that for later, or someone else.



I hope you find my answer regarding frog speciation to be a logical scientific alternative to your perspective.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This frog would follow the path seen in nature of genetic loss and not gain. Negative, harmful mutations abound in our world and would be supportive of this theory. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Most_mutations_are_harmful

:facepalm:

The citation you gave does not claim what you are saying. Under the “Claim” section is the common (and wrong) claim that creationists make (as you did above). Under that, in the “Responses” are eight responses that disprove that claim.

 

[DutchLiam84]

While you state that the origins of life are NOT a part of evolution, I would disagree.

This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. You are factually incorrect by equivocating the two. Again, you lumping the origin of life in with the theory of evolution shows how little you know about both. The first ever self-replicating organism could have been made by a god, could've have come here on an asteroid, could've have been put here by an alien race or could've arrived by natural processes. It does not in any way, shape or form change the theory of evolution. You don't like that? Tough luck, deal with it.

Edit: Forgot a word.

 

[Isotelus]

This is a great question, the original question for which this thread was set up. I do believe that the ark would be sufficient to hold a large number frogs if needed. Here is my belief. (yes, belief) God created frogs (among other animals) with DNA laden with possibilities within limits. Quality control limits so to speak, that work in conjunction with natural selection to keep the gene code from mutating to a point where it would kill a species. If 25 frogs (or whatever number would be needed) were made with all the functions of the current 4,740 frogs, they could lose features as they dispersed. Imagine a "super frog" (which really wouldn't need to be all that super at all. But if it had all the features of 10 species that could deteriorated from it by loss of information not gain. (like blind animals found in caves) http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2010/08/24/outtasight-the-10-most-amazing-eyeless-animals/

This frog would follow the path seen in nature of genetic loss and not gain. Negative, harmful mutations abound in our world and would be supportive of this theory. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Most_mutations_are_harmful

After a world wide flood, the ideal breeding grounds for frogs would be enormous. With many frogs laying from 200 - 2000 eggs a week (some hundreds of thousands from a single individual) http://www.publications.steveplatt.net/tenplagues.htm, the population of frogs would grow insanely fast compared to many other kinds of animals. There would be far less natural predators due to almost all the animals in the world dying during the flood. http://www.abc.net.au/site-archive/rural/content/2007/s2186006.htm

I predict based off of this theory that there would be a historical account of an overpopulation of frogs by some ancient people within about a thousand years of the flood. (I think that this is a ridiculously unnecessary statement, but it seems this is the type of prediction you and Aron Ra are requesting)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7530678/Biblical-plagues-really-happened-say-scientists.html
(I don't think that there is really any need to site an article on this one)

Quron
http://www.inthenameofallah.org/Quran's%20NINE%20Plagues%20of%20Moses.html

The Bible
http://biblehub.com/exodus/8-2.htm

With the world changing from a catastrophe the likes of the flood (which I believe was caused initially by an ice meteor strike which would account for how a mammoth could freeze before it rots internally)
Rapid variations and changes in species would occur due to climate changing needs. Further stratifying of the species would happen as more and more predator populations would catch up to that of the frogs.

Frog population unlike human population could grow to hundreds of millions in ONE year. If we started with 25 frogs on Noah's ark, 4000 years ago and had an ideal frog breeding paradise (as a post flood world would be) It is very reasonable to believe that those 25 could easily and realistically turn to billions of frogs in a mere hundred or so years. 3900 years of dna "loaded" frogs that would mutate and lose features during that time to come to a place of 4740 frogs today would be possible. Since we observe genetic loss frequently and never (or to not start another rabbit trail, "almost never") observe genetic gain. I believe it is far more probable that this falls further into the nature of science that we see today, instead fighting the balance of mutational probability as proposed by evolutionary biology.

Justice Frangipane wrote:
Evolutionist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from a rock 375 million to 4 billion years ago.

According to evolution, all frogs would have a last common ancestor which was itself a frog approximately 250 to 265 million years ago. We all know what the evolutionary mechanism is, we know what kinds of testable predictions it makes, we can confirm this by looking at DNA.

The origin of life isn't part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution simply explains how life changes through the evolutionary process over time. But it doesn't say how life came to exist in the first place. We don't know how life originated. So that thing about "from rocks" is a bit of a red herring I hope you can agree.

I'm not asking how you think god created the first pair of frogs, we know you think it was some kind of divine intervention, which you obviously can't prove but have to take on faith. So it wouldn't be fair to ask me to tell you how the first life came to exist, I simply don't know. I hope we can agree to leave the question on the origin of life at that: You believe it was divine intervention and I just don't know, and get back to the post-flood evolution vs creationism question. Fair?

It looks like we agree on the common ancestor of frogs being a frog. =)

While you state that the origins of life are NOT a part of evolution, I would disagree. I think that's like saying you believe in mountains but not valleys. While I understand mountains and valleys are not the same thing obviously, I don't know how the one can be had without the other. However, at your request we can leave that for later, or someone else.

I hope you find my answer regarding frog speciation to be a logical scientific alternative to your perspective.

No, not really. Not a scientific alternative, at least. A couple of points:

To say that organisms mainly lose genetic information is not a valid argument against evolution. However you define genetic loss or gain of information in regards to DNA, please note that the loss of features is still evolution, as it is at its simplest change in allelic frequencies over time.
I'll let HWIN chime in now and ask you to define "information". To even attempt to argue against evolution, you have to be using words in the proper context. I can almost guarantee using information in the way you are now will cause you trouble in the future.

Just to play along, the ideal breeding grounds of frogs would be likewise inundated with fish, which are also prolific reproducers and natural predators of all stages of a frog's development. Also, a plague of frogs isn't overpopulation; they're moving from one place to another. That telegraph article never mentioned increased breeding rates or lack of predation. You have to be careful of how much you extrapolate information to support your case.

The claims that mammoths were flash frozen are demonstrably false. Essentially all examples can be shown to have been scavenged upon or decomposed prior to preservation. I have papers to support this, but I can't include them here unless you choose to give a specific example such that I can supply the corresponding article. Yet another example of why we don't like Hovind. Besides, I don't recall him ever explaining how a catastrophic ice meteor could have such a disastrous impact and yet leave all these mammoths essentially intact.

Edits: pressed submit by accident.

 

[Rumraket]

Okay, so your quotes from other creationists have a huge amount of flaw in them and I wouldn't for a second defend that argument.

Fair enough. But I do have to ask, then, if it doesn't seem peculiar to you that some of the most famous professional defenders of your position says such obviously, ludicrously false things?

Yes, it bothers me, but it would be foolish to try and argue from those positions. There are a lot of people out there who don't think. So, it is what it is. It also exists on both sides and what are we gonna do, right?

... Wonder why someone would make up obvious and demonstrable falsehoods if they're defending a position that's supposed to be true. But I digress.

That said, lets redefine the argument. The purpose would be to define if either theory is plausible, and then if either is more probable than the other.

Right, but to do that you have to first give an actual theory that makes testable predictions we can go and observationally falsify.

What is the creationist theory you postulate, what predictions does it make and on what basis does it predict this?

Since I am new to a lot of this, I will make a request. Show me the evolutionary version of what your looking for from me, so I don't spin my wheels trying to figure out specifically what you are looking for in a response. This is not an attempt at diversion, merely a way for me learn what the job your asking me to do looks like allowing me to do a better job answering your question.
I am trying in this post to respond how I think you're requesting, but help me out if I miss the mark, please.

Well you do go on to supply some of your idea below, though you never actually get around to making any testable predictions. It's all ad-hoc rationalization. There's nothing we can go and test or look for.

Creationist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from noah's ark roughly 4000 years ago.

Right, and the question here is how? How is this possible in 4000 years, but not possible in 260-260 million? What mechanism caused this, what testable predictions does it make?

We have to cut out the "but not possible in 260 million years", part of this question. As I said last time, I don't agree with the comments of those you quoted.

So just to make sure I've got this right: You don't think there's a problem with the theory of evolution as such, you just believe you've got an even better one?

You seem to imply that you would not have a problem with the possibility of current frog bioderversity evolving in ~260 million years?

This is a great question, the original question for which this thread was set up. I do believe that the ark would be sufficient to hold a large number frogs if needed.

Sure, if all it held was frogs. But supposedly it only held two of each "kind", whatever that means. Most creationists seem okay with the idea that all frogs belong to the same "kind", so that'd be two frogs.

Here is my belief. (yes, belief) God created frogs (among other animals) with DNA laden with possibilities within limits.

What limit, specifically? Can you quantify it? Where is the limit? At what point can an organism not longer recieve any more mutations and still undergo behavioral, morphological or physiological change, without dying?

Basically what I'm asking for here is evidence that implies there is such a barrier that prevents change beyond some obscure point (this is how I interpret your statement, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Quality control limits so to speak, that work in conjunction with natural selection to keep the gene code from mutating to a point where it would kill a species.

That doesn't really make sense. We already know mutations can kill individual organisms, either through directly causing birth-defects that result in a non-viable organism, or by causing cancers or deleterious behavioral changes etc. etc.

It would however be extremely unlikely for mutations to kill an entire species, simply because it would be extremely unlikely that all individuals in the population simultaneously suffer lethal mutations. What "saves" species from mutational extinction isn't some kind of "quality control limit" to mutations, it's population size.

There is good evidence of this. For example small populations are much more vulnerable to mutations and genetic drift(for good or for worse) simply because there's a higher probability that mutations will affect a larger proportion of the population.

If 25 frogs (or whatever number would be needed) were made with all the functions of the current 4,740 frogs, they could lose features as they dispersed. Imagine a "super frog" (which really wouldn't need to be all that super at all. But if it had all the features of 10 species that could deteriorated from it by loss of information not gain. (like blind animals found in caves) http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2010/08/24/outtasight-the-10-most-amazing-eyeless-animals/

So that's your idea, there was a single superfrog species with all the genetic and physiological features of extant frogs, from which all extant frogs diverged through selective gene loss?

Why didn't any of the superfrogs survive until today? Surely they'd be much better adapted to a whole host of environments and outcompete almost any frog that suffered geneloss?

This frog would follow the path seen in nature of genetic loss and not gain.

Define "genetic loss" and "genetic gain". I've seen way too much waffling around these terms by creationists around hat constitutes "gains" or "new information". Please supply a rigorous definition of information and "genetic gain" so that I can go and test whether your claim that there is no "genetic gain(of information?)" in nature.

Negative, harmful mutations abound in our world and would be supportive of this theory. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Most_mutations_are_harmful

Compatible with, not supportive of. Important distinction.

Deleterious mutations are perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution too, so it can't really be said to be evidence of your theory. To do that, you have to be able to say much more specifically how many deleterious mutations should happen on your theory vs how many on the theory of evolution. That's the only way to see whether it supports one theory more than the other.

After a world wide flood, the ideal breeding grounds for frogs would be enormous.

How do you know?

After a world wide flood (of the kind and proportion describled in your religion), most of the food frogs eat(insects) would have gone extinct. Not really ideal conditions for a massive increase in population size and evolutionary diversification.

With many frogs laying from 200 - 2000 eggs a week (some hundreds of thousands from a single individual) http://www.publications.steveplatt.net/tenplagues.htm, the population of frogs would grow insanely fast compared to many other kinds of animals.

Eating what? Evidence that this happened?

There would be far less natural predators due to almost all the animals in the world dying during the flood. http://www.abc.net.au/site-archive/rural/content/2007/s2186006.htm

There would be much less food too. Animals, including frogs, have to eat.

Why is there no single geological layer containing pretty much everything on the planet, from humans to dinosaurs?

I predict based off of this theory that there would be a historical account of an overpopulation of frogs by some ancient people within about a thousand years of the flood.

So that's about 3000 years ago?

What ancient people would that be and shouldn't this account then be mirrored in both scale and timing by all contemporary cultures? I mean, the chinese don't have any accounts of massive frog plagues, to pick an ancient culture. Yet frogs clearly existed in china 3000 years ago.

(I think that this is a ridiculously unnecessary statement, but it seems this is the type of prediction you and Aron Ra are requesting)

I agree it's ridiculous, but why do you thinl it's unnecessary? You're not just being asked to give your personal imagination free ride and explain in ad-hoc fashion how you can imagine it all took place. You're proffering to offer an alternative theory to evolution, that means you give testable predictions that can be observationally falsified.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7530678/Biblical-plagues-really-happened-say-scientists.html
(I don't think that there is really any need to site an article on this one)

Quron
http://www.inthenameofallah.org/Quran's%20NINE%20Plagues%20of%20Moses.html

The Bible
http://biblehub.com/exodus/8-2.htm

HAH, I see now what your "prediction" above was supposed to predict. This raises a few more questions. First of all, weren't the plagues supposed to be punishment from god? What's this got to do with post-flood frog evolution and diversification?

Also, if you accept the findings of that article, does that mean you accept radiometric dating and the methods used by the scientists to date these supposed events? How do you then square the idea of young Earth creationism with the evidence of an old Earth?

Everything in that article also speak of simple natural events such as climate change due to volcanic activity and so on. So is the bible correct that god caused the plagues, or was it just nature? Do you have anything other than faith-motivated rationalizations that god was behind it all?

With the world changing from a catastrophe the likes of the flood (which I believe was caused initially by an ice meteor strike which would account for how a mammoth could freeze before it rots internally)

LOL, What the fuck? Would you kindly supply the theory of physics that explains this ludicrous phenomenon? Last I checked, a meteor strike causes enormous heat due to atmospheric friction and subsequent impact, not instant freeze. The material of the meteor is irrelevant, it creates heat upon hitting the atmosphere at 70.000 km/h.

Also, evidence of this supposed giant ice-meteor impact? Wait a minute.. ice-meteor? What the fuck is an ice-meteor? Do you meant a comet?

Let me get this one straight. You think a global flood took place as is described in the bible? A flood that covered the entire planet over the height of the highest mountain. That's 9 kilometers of water over the entire planet. You think all this water was delivered to the planet in ice-form, in a single colossal impact-event. Which, instead of causing massive amounts of heat due to impact and friction with the atmosphere (look up Tunguska impact event), instead insta-froze mammoths somewhere in the northern hemisphere. Then subsequently this colossal (mysteriously non-vaporized flash-freezing ice-rock that didn't cause a shockwave to just disintegrate said mammoth) evaporated so that it could rain down and cover the entire planet in an additional 9 kilometers of water?

What the flying fuck?

Do we really need to go on with this discussion? Like, at all?