Real Science Friday: What technologies needed Darwin or an old earth?
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Barbarian, regarding mutations that do not cause selectable changes:
It's called "genetic drift." But as you learned, directional evolution is by mutation and natural selection.
Yep. The evolution of useful new features requires more than that. There has to be a way to keep useful ones and remove harmful ones. So neutral evolution doesn't do much more than keep a store of mutations that might someday be useful or harmful.
"Luck" doesn't apply when no one is hoping for anything. It's just random change, unless it should become open to selection. Then something useful can be made of it. Would you like some examples?
No, you're still conflating neutral change with directional evolution. Read it again, and think about it.
I told you they usually need more than one. You were going to show me why this was impossible. But you declined to do that.
Barbarian observes:
And sometimes, one is enough. Why would that matter?
One to seven would be good. If you doubt one can do it, I can show you some examples.
At the risk of you declining to answer again, I'll ask; why would that matter?
Are you denying that a new feature can appear in a series of steps? Would you like an example of that happening?
It's called "genetic drift." But as you learned, directional evolution is by mutation and natural selection.
Yep. The evolution of useful new features requires more than that. There has to be a way to keep useful ones and remove harmful ones. So neutral evolution doesn't do much more than keep a store of mutations that might someday be useful or harmful.
"Luck" doesn't apply when no one is hoping for anything. It's just random change, unless it should become open to selection. Then something useful can be made of it. Would you like some examples?
No, you're still conflating neutral change with directional evolution. Read it again, and think about it.
I told you they usually need more than one. You were going to show me why this was impossible. But you declined to do that.
Barbarian observes:
And sometimes, one is enough. Why would that matter?
One to seven would be good. If you doubt one can do it, I can show you some examples.
At the risk of you declining to answer again, I'll ask; why would that matter?
Are you denying that a new feature can appear in a series of steps? Would you like an example of that happening?
badp
New member
Oh boy, more evolution! Define "useful" and "harmful" please.
Sure.
"Useful"; in the existing environment, a change that makes it more likely that the organism will survive long enough to reproduce.
"Harmful"; in the existing environment, a change that makes it less likely that the organism will survive long enough to reproduce.
A_O and Glover's Two Fallacies
A_O and Glover's Two Fallacies
A_O, with my time constraint, I'll respond only to what I view as your most substantive claim:
I'll describe below the two KINDS of errors I think that Glover makes in his claim. And I'll give you two ILLUSTRATIONS of that kind of error.
Here is Glover's argument (summarized in my words):
WHAT KINDS OF ERROR: Confusing Cause and Effect; and Biased Sample. To substantiate my claim of Grover using a biased sample, I'll just indicate that there are plenty of observations made by molecular biologists of genetic variation that does not conform to what was generally predicted by Darwinists (which is why New Scientist said that Darwin was wrong to claim that all living things could be mapped onto a hierarchical Tree of Life, because, my summary: "Of the many thousands of species genetically evaluated so far, more than half are not the product of a biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush for that matter)".
Regarding Grover's Confusing of Cause and Effect:
I assert that Grover is misinterpreting a pattern (like, CALLS TO 911 CAUSE INCREASED CRIME) and therefore making the exact kind of error that was repeated for centuries by early astronomers who believed in the geocentric cosmology of Plato (everything moves in circles, with earth at the center), Aristotle, & Ptolemy.
ILLUSTRATION 1: Countless observations seemed to confirm the epicycles of geocentrism, even predicting eclipses and conjunctions. In reality, there was a different reason for the overlap of their observations with that widely-held theory, yet that overlap held sway for centuries as proof of their false theory. (That misinterpretation of the data wasn't corrected until the influence of Plato and Aristotle was overcome in the area of cosmology by creationists like Kepler -- who wrote at length about the truth of the Bible, Copernicus, and Newton -- who is on OUR LIST, even wrote extensively about the historical supremacy of the Bible and "vigorously defended Ussher's chronology.")
ILLUSTRATION 2: The brilliant mathematician David Bailey in his Evolution and Probability, Report of National Center for Science Education is so biased by his Darwinism that he think he is disproving the mathematical unlikeliness of unique proteins arising by chance by describing how unlikely individual snowflake designs are:
- even though their hexagonal designs are the result of the underlying physics (which he later admits, which undermines his whole point)
- and even though it is well established that, "As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work" Polanyi, M., Life’s irreducible structure, Science, 1968
- and that in a field of snow with billions of differing snowflakes, EACH AND EVERY ONE qualifies as a flake, for their is no "specified" complexity required for it to function in a specific way within a complex system
- and that on a beach the specific arrangement of sand molecules is wildly unlikely to attain, but the beach remains a beach even as that arrangement is almost infinitely re-arranged, thus the particular ordering of the sand within the beach, like the particular manifestation of the hexagonal design of a snowflake, is irrelevant to the flake's (and the sand grain's) function.
Yet Bailey wrote:
So then Bailey concludes, not realizing that he is undermining his entire argument, that even though snowflake symmetry is wildly unlikely, "A snowflake's 6-way symmetry is in fact a reflection of an underlying 6-way symmetry inherent in the atomic structure of frozen water." So he then should be able to admit, with all of genetic science, that the ordering of the information in the genome is in no way required by the underlying chemistry of the double-helix, and therefore his whole snowflake probability argument is irrelevant.
GLOVER'S TWO FALLACIES: In that video I think that Glover commits both of these fallacies, Biased Sample and Confusing Cause and Effect. Darwin and baraminologist Dr. Roger Sanders agree that experienced biologists by their own assessments can do a great job categorizing living things, and to find both, patterns of genetic diversity that follow such categorizing, and patterns that defy such categorizing, seems to be evidence against evolution.
-Bob Enyart
A_O and Glover's Two Fallacies
A_O, with my time constraint, I'll respond only to what I view as your most substantive claim:
I'll describe below the two KINDS of errors I think that Glover makes in his claim. And I'll give you two ILLUSTRATIONS of that kind of error.
Here is Glover's argument (summarized in my words):
that there is a 10 to the 38th confirmation of evolution by the observation that cytochrome c varies as distributed through living things in a pattern consistent with previously drawn evolutionary boundaries between kingdoms, phylum, genus, etc.
WHAT KINDS OF ERROR: Confusing Cause and Effect; and Biased Sample. To substantiate my claim of Grover using a biased sample, I'll just indicate that there are plenty of observations made by molecular biologists of genetic variation that does not conform to what was generally predicted by Darwinists (which is why New Scientist said that Darwin was wrong to claim that all living things could be mapped onto a hierarchical Tree of Life, because, my summary: "Of the many thousands of species genetically evaluated so far, more than half are not the product of a biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush for that matter)".
Regarding Grover's Confusing of Cause and Effect:
I assert that Grover is misinterpreting a pattern (like, CALLS TO 911 CAUSE INCREASED CRIME) and therefore making the exact kind of error that was repeated for centuries by early astronomers who believed in the geocentric cosmology of Plato (everything moves in circles, with earth at the center), Aristotle, & Ptolemy.
ILLUSTRATION 1: Countless observations seemed to confirm the epicycles of geocentrism, even predicting eclipses and conjunctions. In reality, there was a different reason for the overlap of their observations with that widely-held theory, yet that overlap held sway for centuries as proof of their false theory. (That misinterpretation of the data wasn't corrected until the influence of Plato and Aristotle was overcome in the area of cosmology by creationists like Kepler -- who wrote at length about the truth of the Bible, Copernicus, and Newton -- who is on OUR LIST, even wrote extensively about the historical supremacy of the Bible and "vigorously defended Ussher's chronology.")
ILLUSTRATION 2: The brilliant mathematician David Bailey in his Evolution and Probability, Report of National Center for Science Education is so biased by his Darwinism that he think he is disproving the mathematical unlikeliness of unique proteins arising by chance by describing how unlikely individual snowflake designs are:
- even though their hexagonal designs are the result of the underlying physics (which he later admits, which undermines his whole point)
- and even though it is well established that, "As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work" Polanyi, M., Life’s irreducible structure, Science, 1968
- and that in a field of snow with billions of differing snowflakes, EACH AND EVERY ONE qualifies as a flake, for their is no "specified" complexity required for it to function in a specific way within a complex system
- and that on a beach the specific arrangement of sand molecules is wildly unlikely to attain, but the beach remains a beach even as that arrangement is almost infinitely re-arranged, thus the particular ordering of the sand within the beach, like the particular manifestation of the hexagonal design of a snowflake, is irrelevant to the flake's (and the sand grain's) function.
Yet Bailey wrote:
What are the chances that one of these [snowflake] structures can form “at random”? ... We can calculate the probability that the pattern in one sector will be identical with the five patterns in other sectors as... 10-500; this value raised to the 5th power is 10-2500. This probability is even more extreme that those I have seen in anti-evolution literature.
So then Bailey concludes, not realizing that he is undermining his entire argument, that even though snowflake symmetry is wildly unlikely, "A snowflake's 6-way symmetry is in fact a reflection of an underlying 6-way symmetry inherent in the atomic structure of frozen water." So he then should be able to admit, with all of genetic science, that the ordering of the information in the genome is in no way required by the underlying chemistry of the double-helix, and therefore his whole snowflake probability argument is irrelevant.
GLOVER'S TWO FALLACIES: In that video I think that Glover commits both of these fallacies, Biased Sample and Confusing Cause and Effect. Darwin and baraminologist Dr. Roger Sanders agree that experienced biologists by their own assessments can do a great job categorizing living things, and to find both, patterns of genetic diversity that follow such categorizing, and patterns that defy such categorizing, seems to be evidence against evolution.
-Bob Enyart
The same tree of life that Linnaeus prepared with no evolutionary presuppositions at all, is confirmed by DNA analyses, fossil record, and living transitional forms.
The human Y chromosome has mutated rather markedly from other primates.
And yet, when one considers which chromosome is most like ours, it's the chimp Y, closer than all others. I don't see how this is a refutation that humans and chimps have a close common ancestor. It seems to confirm the fact.
Evolutionary theory doesn't say unique proteins appeared by chance. In fact, I'd like to see any protein that has no identifiable precursor in living things.
The human Y chromosome has mutated rather markedly from other primates.
And yet, when one considers which chromosome is most like ours, it's the chimp Y, closer than all others. I don't see how this is a refutation that humans and chimps have a close common ancestor. It seems to confirm the fact.
Evolutionary theory doesn't say unique proteins appeared by chance. In fact, I'd like to see any protein that has no identifiable precursor in living things.
Wow, that must be because you aren’t even on speaking terms with her.
Regarding Io’s heat:
Unless I am seriously mistaken, you are the one at odds with the current consensus on Io’s heat. As to ideas about where the heat comes from, Do-While Jones might help, but the details of Io’s heat flow are only partially understood. However, I bet that uncertainty does not include any suspicion Io’s heat will cause Jovian moons to de-orbit in anything less than many billions of years.
For example, go to http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AREPS..24..125S. The article there about Io’s heat is long, and highly technical. At the bottom of it you will find links to hundreds of other articles dealing with Io, including orbital effects due to Io’s heating. The question of the long-term stability of the Jovian orbits has been looked at in depth for decades.
How about the first protein?
As we've often pointed out, and TOL evolutionists are pained to admit, is that a materialistic origin of life would have to happen without the aid of natural selection. Also, a living thing typically has its needs met by varied and redundant services. And evolutionists can't even theoretically define a first reproducing cell that has only a single protein. But, let's start there, with just the first protein: coded onto a segment of DNA (how that works without a host of servicing proteins is, I think, an unsolvable hurdle); then get mRNA to translate it; and don't build so many of them that they exhaust the available resources and kill their host; and when building it, make sure it folds in a way that enables it to do some life-aiding task; and make sure that whole functioning system is replicated in the very first cell duplication.
So Barbarian, do you agree that the first protein would fit your bill (answer your question)?
-Bob
Barbarian observes:
I'd like to see any protein that has no identifiable precursor in living things.
Peptides. Short strings of amino acids. Proteins are very long strings of amino acids.
Turns out chemistry isn't random, either. For example, amino acids are now known to form abiotically, as are peptides. And it has been shown that some RNAs are self-catalyzing. We don't know how life began, but the indications are that it happened naturally. Darwin, as you might know, thought that God just created the first living things, but didn't specify how. Doesn't matter, as far as evolution is concerned. Life had to begin, and if God poofed it, instead of doing it naturally, that's not a problem for evolution.
There's a good chance the first living things had no proteins. All life on Earth is cellular. It's likely no coincidence that one of the simplest biological structures is the cell membrane, which was absolutely necessary to life as we understand it. The basic cell membrane is a simple bilayer of phospholipid molecules, which in water spontaneously form enclosed vesicles.
Evidence suggests that it was much simpler than that.
Much simpler self-replicating chemical systems have been prepared by scientists. If they can do it, I don't doubt that God could have done it.
Since we know peptides can form naturally, we have precursors for that hypothetical first protein.
I'd like to see any protein that has no identifiable precursor in living things.
Peptides. Short strings of amino acids. Proteins are very long strings of amino acids.
Turns out chemistry isn't random, either. For example, amino acids are now known to form abiotically, as are peptides. And it has been shown that some RNAs are self-catalyzing. We don't know how life began, but the indications are that it happened naturally. Darwin, as you might know, thought that God just created the first living things, but didn't specify how. Doesn't matter, as far as evolution is concerned. Life had to begin, and if God poofed it, instead of doing it naturally, that's not a problem for evolution.
There's a good chance the first living things had no proteins. All life on Earth is cellular. It's likely no coincidence that one of the simplest biological structures is the cell membrane, which was absolutely necessary to life as we understand it. The basic cell membrane is a simple bilayer of phospholipid molecules, which in water spontaneously form enclosed vesicles.
Evidence suggests that it was much simpler than that.
Much simpler self-replicating chemical systems have been prepared by scientists. If they can do it, I don't doubt that God could have done it.
Since we know peptides can form naturally, we have precursors for that hypothetical first protein.
Alate_One
Well-known member
The fun thing about this is it isn't just cytochrome C. We can make trees that confirm evolution using all kinds of different genes.
What you've brought up with regards to the New Scientist cover is irrelavent and does not disprove or cause problems for evolution at all. I have pointed this out to you before but you seem to be unable to allow these ideas to sink in.
Yes some genes are the result of horizontal transfer though this is mostly at the base of the tree (single celled organisms), so are some organelles, including the mitochondrion and chloroplast. However, once the transfer occurs the genes in question are inherited like any other gene. That means they follow the "tree" pattern that all of us get when we trace our own ancestry.
Bottom line is the pattern still stands, genes like Cytochrome C (that all do the same thing) are most similar in most closely related animals and more different in more distantly related ones. Creationism would predict that either each animal would have it's unique sequence OR all animals would have the exact (or nearly exact) same sequence for the same function. There should be no ordering of differences that fits an evolutionary tree, in your model. It is a fact those orderings are real. You need to explain that fact.
This ordering doesn't have anything to do with presuppositions. I have my students make their own tree of organisms in the lab. If you print out this set of pages
Line up the sequences for 2 organisms and count up the differences between the two organisms in pairs and fill out This Table You'll find that organisms group together naturally and in ways not predicted by YEC, but very much predicted by evolution. Let us know if you choose to try to test some data for yourself.
It's Glover . . .
So are you going to deal with the actual DNA DATA that was the basis of my point and give us an alternative explanation or are you just going to keep posting irrelevant "illustrations" that amount to "I can't explain this"?
You posted nothing useful in response Bob, only hand waving that you hope will distract people from the utter failure of your assertions.
And I remember you as having a bit more class. And you atheists can quit with the 'divide and conquer' nonsense. There are a few issues that Y. disagrees with me on, there are a number of arguments he has that I had never thought of and his style is usually far more accessible than mine. What do you hope to gain by pointing out our differences?
As for you, BJ, it seems you have slid far into the cesspool of lies the like of Barbie and Watties exemplify. You are capable of so much more. Why not just have the discussion without poisoning it?
| Just for the record - watson and barbie are on ignore for the forseeable future. Neither has anything of substance to offer. Their only reason for posting is to ridicule me. I would expect serious embarrassment and an apology or two after the following exchange: I am delighted that BJ is able to maintain a discussion with the form he has, a little disappointed that he would humour the likes of watties and barbara and completely disinterested in anything further those two losers have to say unless it is an apology. Not that any such thing will ever happen. |
The fact that the Moon is receding from the Earth is one way to show the Earth-Moon system is not 4 billion years old.
What is even more intriguing about the Moon is that it shows all the same features that Earth does - without any plate tectonics! Volcanoes, seismicity and gravity settling are planet-wide features that categorise both the Earth and the Moon (not to mention Mercury and probably both the other rocky planets) as "active" (which is really what an honest reader should have derived from Y's description).
The fact that three planets show the same features is compelling evidence that the PT explanation for the Earth's features is bankrupt. And it is also compelling evidence for a recent and very dramatic galactic event. And this has nothing immediately to do with any orbits.
Last edited:
No kidding. The Earth itself is only about 4.5 billion years old.
Hmmm.. No continents. No rift valleys. No oceanic crust. No new crust being made, no subduction zones, ... (very long list).
An active volcano on the moon? Can you show us that one, Stipe?
See above.
Then what you meant was "Stephen Gould is one of them", not Harvard. But Stephen is dead, and he wasn't a college.
If colleges were open about their bias and they weren't public institutions, then it wouldn't matter. That you don't understand the difference is your best argument. Keep it up.
Nothing. I need to know what you stand on. I'll agree radiometric dating is a good point for evolution, but other dating methods don't line up with it.
Barbarian, regarding the claim that universities are bigoted against YE:
Harvard is (not)one of them. Kurt Wise was accepted by none other than Stephen Gould as a doctoral candidate, even though he knew Wise was a YE creationist.
Universities don't actually accept doctoral candidates. Departments and faculty do. Harvard accepts such people. On the other hand, as you learned, YE schools, like the ICR graduate school require a loyalty oath to YE to apply. This is an important difference between science and YE.
Barbarian continues:
So by your standard the graduate school of the Institute for Creation research is bigoted, and Harvard is not. That doesn't seem to help you any.
The truth is, there are only a tiny minority of working scientists who are YE creationists. You see a representative sample. BTW, guess what chance a non-creationist has of getting something published in Ex Nihilo.
That argument is a loser for you, Yorz. The bigots are mostly on your side.
Harvard, for example, is not a public institution. It's a private school, like the ICR graduate school. No difference from the ICR, except Harvard does accept YE creationists, and the ICR won't accept anyone who isn't. And no, you won't find out until you try to apply at the ICR; they don't readily admit it.
Surprise.
See above. You've let them snocker you again.
Harvard is (not)one of them. Kurt Wise was accepted by none other than Stephen Gould as a doctoral candidate, even though he knew Wise was a YE creationist.
Universities don't actually accept doctoral candidates. Departments and faculty do. Harvard accepts such people. On the other hand, as you learned, YE schools, like the ICR graduate school require a loyalty oath to YE to apply. This is an important difference between science and YE.
Barbarian continues:
So by your standard the graduate school of the Institute for Creation research is bigoted, and Harvard is not. That doesn't seem to help you any.
The truth is, there are only a tiny minority of working scientists who are YE creationists. You see a representative sample. BTW, guess what chance a non-creationist has of getting something published in Ex Nihilo.
That argument is a loser for you, Yorz. The bigots are mostly on your side.
Harvard, for example, is not a public institution. It's a private school, like the ICR graduate school. No difference from the ICR, except Harvard does accept YE creationists, and the ICR won't accept anyone who isn't. And no, you won't find out until you try to apply at the ICR; they don't readily admit it.
Surprise.
See above. You've let them snocker you again.
Barbarian asks:
What else do you need?
Dendrochronology and lake varves nicely correlate with C14, for example. And historical records and Argon/Argon dating of the eruption that buried Pompeii agree.
And fossil evidence agrees closely with many different kinds of radioisotope dating methods. Also it's difficult to understand what sort of coincidence would make many different types of radioisotope dating for the same rocks all agree, unless it was actually measuring time.
And, (of course) the first way we knew was simple; it agrees with observed rates of radioactive decay. And if the rate did vary over time, then it's very difficult to see how it could have varied while still giving the same dates with isotopes of widely differing half-lives.
Can you explain how that happened?
What else do you need?
Dendrochronology and lake varves nicely correlate with C14, for example. And historical records and Argon/Argon dating of the eruption that buried Pompeii agree.
And fossil evidence agrees closely with many different kinds of radioisotope dating methods. Also it's difficult to understand what sort of coincidence would make many different types of radioisotope dating for the same rocks all agree, unless it was actually measuring time.
And, (of course) the first way we knew was simple; it agrees with observed rates of radioactive decay. And if the rate did vary over time, then it's very difficult to see how it could have varied while still giving the same dates with isotopes of widely differing half-lives.
Can you explain how that happened?
Barbarian. If you accelerate one isotope with a certain half life by 30% and you accelerate the decay of another isotope with a far different half life also by 30%, you will end up with both isotope measuring systems showing the same age for a given igneous rock sample. This applies only for the same type of decay like alpha decay. An alpha decay isotope and a beta decay isotope and a electorn capture decay isotope will all show different dates however for the same rock. Im only referring to igneous rocks as well.
But they don't all involve the same kind of decay. Indeed, many involve several forms of decay over different daughter isotopes.
Learn about it here:
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/intro-dating.htm
Im only referring to igneous rocks as well.
- Status