Response by: Christopher Sernaque
Question:
At around 2:30, you state that sea creatures wouldn't have had much of a problem during the flood. Anybody who knows anything about aquatic/marine biology can tell you this is very much not the case; aquatic animals are very sensitive to things like water salinity, PH, and bacterial content, which the flood would have altered greatly. The amount of sediment in the water would also cause problems.
About 3:00 in, you also show an ignorance of botany. Salty water will kill many types of seeds, and vegetable mats generally don't live for very long, especially in salty water. Plants, and their seeds, can also drown. That living olive tree at the end of the story is a botanical impossibility. From what I can tell, you're giving the same easy answers everyone's heard before, without looking to see if those answers actually hold up to scrutiny. What is your background in any of the sciences that intersect with your discussion points, anyway? I assume it's none, and you've just studied the Bible and theology, but I might be wrong.
5 minutes in, and you conflate evolution with abiogenesis, ignoring the question of "Is microevolution evidence of evolution?" to discuss a completely different topic. Evolution does not rely on any hypothesis of abiogenesis, which is actually a group of different hypotheses regarding the origin of life from organic matter.
Evolution would still describe the history and diversity of life just as well if the first lifeform(s) was sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure, or if they were formed carefully by a god. These hypotheses are completely untestable, while looking into chemistry is bringing promising results.
5:18 "mutations do not produce new genetic information." Genetics is yet another field of science you're completely ignorant of. While we've known about mutations building new alleles, duplicating genes, etc. to make new information, recent news in genetics is the discovery of new genes built from scratch. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03061-x?fbclid=IwAR2oIFUuW5Gsds6EZbrFGmUOh3T8fxeh48BzfnL2S_udQkHiw9urAaaja3o
"Jacob used artificial selection to change the coat color of the flock" I'm wheezing. Have you read that story? Do you know how artificial selection works? Hint: it's not by putting striped sticks in front of mating animals.
Here is that story, in full, since you clearly haven't read it. Either that, or you don't know the basics of agriculture and heritability. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+30%3A25-31%3A55&version=NIV
Answer:
Veronica Stoldt Good morning Veronica. Thank you for your comments and for watching the video. I do not want to engage in a back and forth conversation for all eternity, and I assume you don't want to do that either, so I am going to reapond to each of your questions, and then we can call it a day; as we both got to share our thoughts.
Veronica Stoldt In answer to this first question, I have another video that addresses this subject on how aquatic life fared in the Genesis Flood. I filmed it already and it should be released next week. If you would like to view the video, and the additional study material that accompanies it, you may. Here is the link to the Genesis Under a Microscope playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLI_SU2SFwv4vglCaHOQ3BHNB0cZBV6BSh
Veronica Stoldt In answer to your second question on botany and my credentials, I will begin by answering the latter portion of the question. There is an expression which says, "Every scientist outside his field is a layman." I studied Psychology and Forensic Science in College, not botany. I did however also get the chance to study extremophiles under Kyoto University and I took a course from Harvard on Mitochondria. That being said, I have not studied the Bible or Theology at a University level. I did however complete the Amazing Facts School program. Amazing Facts is a Christian ministry. The answers presented in Genesis Under a Microscope are designed to be simple summary answers of the YEC model. For more in depth studies, I would recommend getting to check out Dr. Donald Batten. He has a PhD in botany and I think you would enjoy his work. If you are interested, here is one of his videos: https://youtu.be/Jx6HbPQjV24
Veronica Stoldt With regard to your third question on how abiogenesis relates to the evolutionary theory, I have answered this objection in this response article. This article also addresses a few other questions that you might have. If you are interested, you may read it here. I am not going to write out the entirety of the information, as it would be too much to view on a FB conversation. Here is the link to the article: https://www.christjesusministriesllc.com/post/yt-question-how-do-we-refute-arguments-that-seem-to-support-evolution-gum-e7-part-1
Veronica Stoldt Thank you very much for the article that you provided on de novo genes; it was a fascinating read. Since I do not have the space here to respond to an entire article, I would like to comment on three paragraphs from the article that caught my eye and recommend a few resources. Paragraph 1: Instead, some are fashioned from desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules. When she looked back at the fish genomes, she saw hints this might be the case: the antifreeze protein — essential to the cod’s survival — had seemingly been built from scratch. Comment 1: Here the author indicates that the information was not spontaneously generated out of a void, but rather originated in "desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules." Creationists reject the idea of "Junk-DNA" as it is commonly presented, so this paragraph comes as no surprise. Paragraph 2: Creating genes from non-coding regions could have some benefits over other gene-making methods, says Albà. Gene duplication is a “very conservative mechanism” she says, producing well-adapted proteins cut from the same cloth as their ancestors; de novo genes, by contrast, are likely to produce markedly different molecules. Comment 2: "Creating genes from non-coding regions..." Evolutionist assumed that most of the genome was junk and now are being surprised by the potential that it has. Creationists have, both past and presently, encouraged research into these "non-coding" or "non-functional" portions of the genome. Paragraph 3: “One of the beauties of working with de novo genes,” says Casola, “is that it shows how dynamic genomes are.” Comment 3: This last quote was more a sentence, rather than a paragraph, nonetheless it was an interesting way for the article to end, as it highlighted a fascinating point. In forensic science, and even science in general, sometimes two different possible scenarios or models have what is called, "non-discriminating information." NDI is information that supports both alternatives and therefore cannot be used to support one side or the other. For example, both Creationists and Evolutionists believe in natural selection or differential reproduction. In the article, the closing sentence mentions the dynamic nature of the genome, something Creationists agree with. Thus, this information, though it is essential for the evolutionary theory, cannot be used to disprove the YEC model as Creationists also expect the genome to be dynamic. Here are the additional resources I mentioned: Here is a Creationist view on the genome. Dr. Robert Carter studied genetics and marine biology at the University of Miami. I think you will enjoy this video: https://youtu.be/Dii6Aor7nH4 Here is another article, also by Dr. Carter, on new information in the genome: https://creation.com/mutations-new-information Finally, if you are interested, this is a documentary that levels scientific critiques on the evolutionary theory, from the areas that are its purported strengths: https://youtu.be/L9TCtmoyBaI In the Genesis Under a Microscope series, I have episodes that address junk DNA and the genome in a more in depth fashion. The topics were skimmed over in this video as they were covered before.
Veronica Stoldt Thank you very much for the article that you provided on de novo genes; it was a fascinating read. Since I do not have the space here to respond to an entire article, I would like to comment on three paragraphs from the article that caught my eye and recommend a few resources. Paragraph 1: Instead, some are fashioned from desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules. When she looked back at the fish genomes, she saw hints this might be the case: the antifreeze protein — essential to the cod’s survival — had seemingly been built from scratch. Comment 1: Here the author indicates that the information was not spontaneously generated out of a void, but rather originated in "desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules." Creationists reject the idea of "Junk-DNA" as it is commonly presented, so this paragraph comes as no surprise. Paragraph 2: Creating genes from non-coding regions could have some benefits over other gene-making methods, says Albà. Gene duplication is a “very conservative mechanism” she says, producing well-adapted proteins cut from the same cloth as their ancestors; de novo genes, by contrast, are likely to produce markedly different molecules. Comment 2: "Creating genes from non-coding regions..." Evolutionist assumed that most of the genome was junk and now are being suprised by the potential that it has. Creationists have, both past and presently, encouraged research into these "non-coding" or "non-functional" portions of the genome. Paragraph 3: “One of the beauties of working with de novo genes,” says Casola, “is that it shows how dynamic genomes are.” Comment 3: This last quote was more a sentence, rather than a paragraph, nonetheless it was an interesting way for the article to end, as it highlighted a fascinating point. In forensic science, and even science in general, sometimes two different possible scenarios or models have what is called, "non-discriminating information." NDI is information that supports both alternatives and therefore cannot be used to support one side or the other. For example, both Creationists and Evolutionists believe in natural selection or differential reproduction. In the article, the closing sentence mentions the dynamic nature of the genome, something Creationists agree with. Thus, this information, though it is essential for the evolutionary theory, cannot be used to disprove the YEC model as Creationists also expect the genome to be dynamic. Here are the additional resources I mentioned: Here is a Creationist view on the genome. Dr. Robert Carter studied genetics and marine biology at the University of Miami. I think you will enjoy this video:
Comments