The Epistemology Corner: How Do We Know What We Know?

[Mattias 13]

Mattias, This is only one line of evidence, and we see that as you say, they are, "estimates", there are several factors we must heed:

 

1. We don't have the scientists' response to the "new" findings from Piasan. I can't find a specific article as yet, and they have the qualified knowledge to assess the experiments better than I.

2. I admit I was a little bit rash, I thought the case for mitochondrial Eve was stronger, for younger time-frames because it is something I have heard creation scientists claim very strongly in their remarks, as though it was a clear-cut victory for a younger time-frame, so perhaps they are to blame for pumping me full of victory-juice.

 

So as you can see, it was their mistake!!! They made me say it!! Which means I am still irrefutable!

'

No, Mike, we don’t need to wait for any interpretation from scientists or anyone else, we can simply look at the facts. That is what real sceptics do, when possible.

Mike, sometimes I wonder if you even read the creationist material that you use in the discussion. Do I have to point out the creationist case for you? The main take home message in your first post is that there are huge discrepancies between estimated DNA nucleotide substitution rates over time, depending on the time frame used for the estimate.

 

When we make large-scale estimates of substitution rates based on comparisons between chimpanzees, humans, Neanderthals etc, we get very low values based on observed differences and the assumed time scales for lineage divisions from fossil time estimates. The mainstream interpretation of the age of mitochondrial Eve to ca 200 000 BP is based on these substitution rates. The magnitudes of DNA substitution differences between mitochondrial DNA from different ethnic groups, times the substitution rates, provide the time estimate (sort of).

 

On the other hand, when we can now make other comparisons, based on differences between mitochondria from close relatives over a few generations, we get much higher estimates for DNA substitution rates – sometimes orders of magnitudes higher. The cool thing for creationists is that if you apply these substitution rates to the observed differences between ethnic groups you get much shorter time estimates. Perhaps around ca 6000 to 6500 years, which seems eerily close to the Biblical time frame for the “real” Eve. Enough to make even the most hardened evolutionists wet their pants, don’t you think?

 

Now Mike, what are we to make of this? Note again how CMI's Carl Wieland interprets these differences, and don’t forget to read the original article that is linked from the webpage. There is also the following image, which does not appear on the web page.

http://creation.com/a-shrinking-date-for-eve

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j12_1/j12_1_1-3.pdf

 

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Svigil, I appreciate your sense of humour. Thanks. Those "cool words" are not just words. Feel free to ask me what any technical word means and I will give a full explanation. I am not blowing smoke up your bum, Sir, I promise if I say a word, I will understand it's full meaning. (I hope you can be bothered to read all this, I think you will find it interesting)

 

 

Svigil: You give a list of strong knowns, such as gravity. The trouble with this is, it's not so strong. We have little idea of what gravity is. We now think it comes from the Higgs field. But, the theory on this is far from perfect. And, we had to unload a ton of baggage to get there. We had to unload Aristotle's principles of motion. That is not an easy thing to do when you have the church wanting to burn you a live if you deny it's position on the subject.

You list germ theory. We had to unload this idea that demons cause sickness.

 

It's been a tough road getting to where we are. And germ theory is not as strong as you might think. For one thing, it depends upon a sub theory that the makers of this web site think is a fairy tale, evolution. So no, current germ theory would be contested by you guys!

 

I would say this is a misunderstanding of why I would regard these cases as logically strong cases. Allow me to explain.

 

You see, there is a force of gravity, but if you want, you can say that force is not fully understood, or doesn't have the right name, but it doesn't matter if we don't know the right name, or the full causes behind the force, the force is demonstrable 100% inductively, and 100% deductively and 100% mathematically.

 

That force, whether we call it gravity, or bagel-dust, is a present, demonstrable force, in the same way I can demonstrate to you that Mount Everest exists.

 

For example, to prove centripetal force you can test it every time. Same with linear momentum, which is usually referred to by it's pseudo-name, centrifugal force. There is no centrifugal force, when you go around a corner at high speed, you are thrown outwards not by a force but by linear momentum, because centripetal force is not enough to hold you in place fully, so angular-momentum is betrayed.

 

This is the type of thing I am talking about with, 'strong science'. I mean that things, whatever they are, forces, exotic-air, germs, Mount Everest, can be shown to be there. But they can't demonstrate even a bacteria, to 'macro-evolve'.

 

Now with evolution, the problem is that there is no such repeatably demonstrable evidence only tenuous conjectural hypothetics. A variety of turtles for example, is well within an understanding of baramins. But a true-transitional, would beancestors that 'LED' to what we now have, (turtles). I discussed this equivocation with the term, 'transitional' in my blogs. When I used the term, I mean an intermediate-organism, between environments. But evolutionists tend to qualify everything that exists as, 'transitional', which is a tautological definition.

 

All of the evidence of evolution is only evidence for micro-evolution, or adaptation.

 

I know I can't convince you, but the problem is if you have a claim of molecules-to-man, then the problem is, logically, the burden-of-proof is very high. This is because of a logical axiom that goes like this:

 

The greater the claim is, the greater the evidence must be.

 

Why is this? Let us test the axiom. Let's say I make a claim I can run fast. Sure, so then to run-fast by demonstration will be incontrovertible evidence. (we shall avoid pedantic semantics about 'proof' for now). But what if I made a claim I was superman? If I now ran fast, 20mph, would that evidence be sufficient?

 

Now I don't know what you have been TOLD about creationists, but there is a LOT of evolutionary-science that we accept as true because we have no choice, proving we are not lunatics. One of those elements we accept as true, is that animals can change, we just don't believe that animals changing can equate into animals changing into other animals.

 

LOGICALLY, good evidence for animals changing into other animals, is NOT to show animals changing, just like running fast is not good evidence that I am superman. I hope you can appreciate that, as you clearly are a smart guy. To further highlight the point, our claim is very small compared to the molecules-to-man claim, we are in fact arguing, not that molecules eventually can become men, but that men become men, birds become birds, fish become fish.

 

Think for a moment, what would be good evidence to prove a small claim that men become men? Like with the running-example, why a demonstration of course. We can show humans reproduce humans to evidence our claim, but a much greater claim would be to say that molecules can become men. I hope you can see the logical difference. I imagine you can, it is unavoidably true.

 

So then, baring this in mind, is it reasonable to accept evidence of turtle-ancestors, as ancestors that show how turtles became turtles by evolution? I propose it is not unreasonable. I propose we would expect to find such ancestors in rich fossiliferous rocks. To then SPECULATE as to why they are not there, is understandable, but it is weak science. Strong science would be to show the transitions that led to turtles, and how evolutionary exaptation was sufficent for this to happen. Example: a claw into a fin.

 

-----------------------

I appreciate your example of Sinai. That's an example actually of an argument from ignorance, because Saint Catherines was chosen as Sinai as a popular belief that it was Sinai. Sinai is actually Jebel El Lawz in Saudi Arabia. So I think that's an example, not of a conspicuous absence of the exodus, but an example of arguing from ignorance. You see, the case for Jebel El Lawz being Sinai, matches with the biblical descriptions in the book of Exodus. For example, it says the wilderness, "shut them in", it also says they went down into "the depths" of the Red Sea, in other scriptures.

 

The popular fiction, that Sinai was in the Sinai desert, was only ever based on tradition. The beach at Nuweyba, Nuweba Chiyyah, (I can't spell it right) means intepreted from original maps, read, "Moses crossing" if I remember correctly. They also found numerous circumstantial evidence for Sinai. Jebel El Lawz is burnt black on the top of the mountain, but the stones aren't burnt when split open, you can also see they are only burnt on the top of the stones. The mountain is most peculiar, the burnt-black peak ends in a neat line. Exodus says that God descended on the mountain with fire. You can see this on youtube videos. They also found a huge rock split from top to bottom, showing ancient water-erosion, and an ancient lake-bed. The "rock at Horeb". We also find many other interesting similarities with the exodus narrative, such as on one youtube video, the present of certain plants that were mentioned in the bible, still living in those locations, and flocks of quail that go to those areas, and lots of interesting evidence such as pillars of stone around the mountain, and an ancient altar. Go to youtube some time and google, "The Exodus Revealed". The case is only circumstantial, but it is a much better case that Saint Catherines, that's for sure.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

If the subsitiution rates are only based on similarities between chimps and humans, then those rates work only from assumptions that there is relatedness, surely?

 

I go with the observed rates rather than the fictional ones, Mattias. Chimps aren't relatives of humans by comparing them. Surely you can appreciate that the comparisons must be drawn based on KNOWN relatedness?

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Substitution rates:

 

1. From chimp, human comparisons, leading to lower rate.

2. From close relatives, over short periods, gives higher rate.

 

You can now compare those two respectively to ethnic groups. Chimp-fiction;) gives low rate, 200,000 years, and actual observations give high-rate, 6,000 years

 

Have I understood, Mattias?

 

If I have then you have misled me, surely logically the far stronger case is 6,000 years since we KNOW close relatives are related, but we DON'T KNOW chimps are related.

 

Why on earth would you go with the fictional substitution rates when they are based on bogus philosophy of macro-evolution? It seems my honesty of my ignorance has now provoked your conscience into admitting the full facts, which clearly favour 6,000 years!!!! (Okay, okay, I admit some mischief here.

[svigil777 17]

Mike,

 

#52 was a very thin response to #49 and #50. I'm going to give you some more time to respond to a couple rather deep challenges. With regard to your "cool words", I did Karnaugh maps and used DeMorgan on boolean agebraic expressions for safety critical flight code for commercial aircraft. Using that, I found and fixed some errors.

You can get really fancy and do all this boolean logical raza mataz and still have gaping holes in your solutions. We do a bonehead traceability analysis for that... It's nothing fancy at all. My cursory analysis of your response showed that you glossed right over most of my content.

While you catch up, I'll try to pay the bills and take care of the sweetheart. Take your time. I'd rather have quality than bluster. And I recognize you need to pay bills and tend to the GF as well.

 

'glad you appreciated the humor. We need some levity in our serious discourse... seeing as how it's up to us to save the world. I tried to send a picture of my own bicep but my FTP site's down. Well, now I still have something for my next triumphal display... since I don't smoke ;^)

[Mattias 13]

Substitution rates:

 

1. From chimp, human comparisons, leading to lower rate.

2. From close relatives, over short periods, gives higher rate.

 

You can now compare those two respectively to ethnic groups. Chimp-fiction;) gives low rate, 200,000 years, and actual observations give high-rate, 6,000 years

 

Have I understood, Mattias?

 

If I have then you have misled me, surely logically the far stronger case is 6,000 years since we KNOW close relatives are related, but we DON'T KNOW chimps are related.

 

Why on earth would you go with the fictional substitution rates when they are based on bogus philosophy of macro-evolution? It seems my honesty of my ignorance has now provoked your conscience into admitting the full facts, which clearly favour 6,000 years!!!! (Okay, okay, I admit some mischief here.

 

Mike, feel free to be as mischievous as you want, as long as you are not wasting everybody’s time by trying to derail or obstruct the conversation as an escape or defence mechanism.

 

Don’t get too hung up on the human-chimpanzee relationship. That is not important for the discussion. There are good reasons for choosing the presumed split between the human and chimpanzee lineages as an anchor point for our calculations, if we accept that this split occurred. But if you don’t, we could instead have picked many other strictly intra-human lineage divisions calculations of mutation rates (see below). All we need is a presumed split among two lineages (to calculate the differences between these lineages) and a presumed timing of the event (to calculate the rate of change).

 

It is important that you understand this, Mike: Whenever rates of mutational change are calculated, the fundamental process is always the same. You count the number of observed differences (individual mutation events, N) and divide with the estimated time since the split (in years or number of generations).

Rate of change = N / t

 

Or in reality you should divide the number of events by two, since the total number of differences between the lineages represents parallel, independent changes in both lineages after the split occurred. This should at least be approximately true initially, when the number of events is low, so that the probability of “back mutations” to an ancestral state is negligible. I’m sure there are more statistical models that go into this (including different substitution rates at different parts of the DNA), but this is the basic principle.

 

If you look at the CMI figure they call the modern rates “observed” rates and the older rates “estimated”, but that is fundamentally wrong (I will probably use this as an example of creationist biased representations later). No one has ever observed mutational rates - they are always estimated from the same basic parameters. If you have an issue with either of these estimates, you have to refute them based on some of the parameters involved, such as the true number of changes, the true point of origin of the population, or the estimated time frame.

 

This is, roughly speaking, the procedure scientists use when calculating modern mtDNA substitution rates, and this is really all you need for the CMI argument for a young “mitochondrial Eve”. Now, although there are some reservations, a number of studies do suggest substantially higher short-term substitution rates for pedigree-based estimates than for phylogenetic ones. It is the highest of these estimates that is used by CMI to claim that the mitochondrial Eve aligns fairly well in time with the biblical Eve:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v15/n4/abs/ng0497-363.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707605813

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22052/abstract

 

If we do want to compare these modern rates with phylogenetic estimates, we could stick with intra-human events, with no need for bringing in the dreaded chimpanzees. I bet that these estimates would nevertheless also be very discrepant compared to the modern, pedigree-based estimates. I don’t know what specific points the scientists would pick in reality for calibration, but there are many possible candidates, such as:

The native American mtDNA haplogroups, which originated from single or limited founding events at the last ice age about 15-20 thousand years ago, according to dating of archaeological remains:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001764

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(08)01618-7

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/9/1174

 

The Out-of-Africa migration ca 60 000 years ago, where the L3 African mtDNA haplogroup spawned all the other human mtDNA haplogroups outside of Africa:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/25/9381

 

In summary, there are wide discrepancies mtDNA substitution rates estimated from studies of modern (cell line- or pedigree-based) events and studies of ancient, phylogenetic events. These discrepancies are widely acknowledged within the scientific communities, and various solutions have been proposed to resolve these discrepancies:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/11/3345

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05178.x/abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709001852

 

Now, again, Mike: What are CMI’s and your own opinions, respectively, about how these discrepancies should be resolved? Don’t forget which original article that you referred to:

http://creation.com/a-shrinking-date-for-eve

And be specific, please. Could there be any solution for all these scenarios to be correct, or should we consider some of them wrong and some correct? And on what basis? If some of them are wrong, which specific parameters are likely to be wrong, and thus skewing the estimate?

As a bonus question, you might also ponder the 4^th take-home statement in the CMI article: “These real-time findings also seriously weaken the case from mitochondrial DNA which argued (erroneously) that Neandertals were not true humans.” Why would that be the case?

[Mattias 13]

As a side note, it is probably time that we make clear what we are talking about, here. This is no ethereal subject where you can only stand as a spectator on the side-lines, but the basic stuff, including much of the raw data, can actually be accessed directly via publications and public data bases.

 

Let me present the true main character in the story about the metaphorical Eve: The mitochondrial DNA molecule. This DNA is found in the mitochondria of all eukaryotes (organisms with a proper nucleus and certain cytoskeletal features); it is about 16 500 bases long (a bit different depending on the species). You can find most published mtDNA sequences in the NCBI databases, which I have done here for your benefit for humans, Neanderthals, and chimpanzees (ignore the Arabidopsis sequences that for some reason pop up in the search for human sequences):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=homo+sapiens+mitochondrion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=homo+sapiens+neanderthalensis+mitochondrion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=pan+paniscus+mitochondrion

 

 

If you want to look at the differences between two stretches of DNA, you can align them fairly easily using publicly available web-based algorithms such as Clustal:

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalo/

I have put together a data set in text format of mitochondrial sequences from human, Neanderthal and chimp, which you can try out yourselves using the ClustalO interface:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72671761/HumNeanChimp_mtDNA.fasta

Download the file, which is in ordinary text format (Fasta is just a way of designating the content inside the file to fit the formats that the algorithms use). You can open it in Word or another word processor to look at the sequences and cut and paste into the Clustal web interface, or you can directly upload the file into the Clustal interface:

In Step 1 – enter your input sequences: Change the content type from PROTEIN to DNA.

Then, either upload the file or cut and paste the contents into the frame.

Then just press Submit further down. Then you are done.

 

The page will change to a waiting page that you can refresh at regular intervals until the alignment is done. Should take about a minute or two. Then you can look at the alignments and see similarities and differences between the sequences. The main differences are at the ends, where I guess base pairs can be added or subtracted without affecting the overall function too much. Stars indicate where all three sequences are the same. There are a lot of stars…

 

Here are overviews of the different human haplogroups of mtDNA, and the different parts of the molecule and what they mean, to help you orient yourself. There is a lot of interesting stuff here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.8229&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709001852

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/25/9381

 

Now, you can use the mitochondrial DNA of different organisms to create phylogenetic trees between widely different organisms, because the molecules are all thought to have the same origin. That is a bit more tricky, and you have to make adjustments for many different calibration factors and odd events that have changed the molecule between distant ancestors. I have done this with several mammals here, and another scientist has performed a different version on the same set. The page is unfortunately in Swedish, but the pictures should be self-explanatory:

http://mattiaswebarchive.blogspot.se/2013/03/lite-systematik-i-newtonbloggarens.html

This is all done with publicly available material and software, and I predict that these methods will be brought into the discussion about evolution at a later stage, but for now you can just have a first look, if you want.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Svigil, your post said a lot, for a post that said little. I only offered to explain those terms, so indeed show you I was not using, "bluster".

 

For example I gave the delineation with the Sinai-example, it's an example of arguing from ignorance, not as any fault of your own, but because one argues from ignorance, if the evidence is not certainly conspicuously absent.

 

It's not bluster, I can show the difference:

 

Example: Imagine someone was killed and you were a suspect, to argue from ignorance, if there was no evidence you did it, I could say, "no evidence, ergo Svigil didn't do it", That would be the fallacy. BUT, if there should have, without a doubt, have been some evidence you were there, then the absence of that evidence would allow you to negate the argument that you killed the person. (My example is not technically accurate, but I would have to waffle on for a long time to flesh it out right)

 

 

So what I'm saying is, when evolutionists say there is no evidence of an exodus, that is an argument from ignorance because the bible does not describe an evolutionist's version of the exodus, that assumes it is a mythical tale that might be explained by natural occurrences, and assumes that St Cath's is Sinai. But, you could falsify it if the bible certainly said that was the route, and there was no evidence at all, when it would follow that it was certainly expected to be there.

 

You gave me the standard evolutionary response of giving me an example of a variety of turtles.

 

Right now I don't have the time, I might get back to the threads but you know how it is, when you spend money you have to then work to get it back. Lol

[Mattias 13]

I should add that I have made an alignment that can be viewed directly here:

 

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/services/web/toolresult.ebi?jobId=clustalo-I20150125-084506-0247-45866510-oy&analysis=alignments

 

 

Thing is, it will only stay active for a week or so, after which I will delete this post. So have a look now, if you don't want to try out the Clustal engine yourselves.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Mattias, I haven't forgotten you.

[piasan 1,402]

Now, again, Mike: What are CMI’s and your own opinions, respectively, about how these discrepancies should be resolved? Don’t forget which original article that you referred to:

http://creation.com/a-shrinking-date-for-eve

And be specific, please. Could there be any solution for all these scenarios to be correct, or should we consider some of them wrong and some correct? And on what basis? If some of them are wrong, which specific parameters are likely to be wrong, and thus skewing the estimate?

As a bonus question, you might also ponder the 4^th take-home statement in the CMI article: “These real-time findings also seriously weaken the case from mitochondrial DNA which argued (erroneously) that Neandertals were not true humans.” Why would that be the case?

I can give you CMI's opinion.....

"The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.....

By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Source: http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

[Mattias 13]

I can give you CMI's opinion.....

 

 

Hah, yes I know !! But it's not an arbitrary question. I think it is important to emphasize the focus on the data and parameters.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Mattias: The native American mtDNA haplogroups, which originated from single or limited founding events at the last ice age about 15-20 thousand years ago, according to dating of archaeological remains:

 

This is the problem, uniform assumptions in science are unavoidable, but the logic is so weak. Think about it Mattias, if those 'ages' never happened, how then would you intepret the data? Would that not change the whole scenario?

 

Really that is the point me and CMI are making. it's not possible to NOT assume uniformity in some way, in experiments to do with age-extrapolations. Think about it, it would be like saying, "avoid human-flooring from now on, including concrete, carpets, wood, asphalt"

 

Is that not a reasonable point, Mattias, that in some way I have to take uniformity as granted, for any of these experimental advantures to, '"work".

 

Now your argument seems to be this: "mike, be a scientist".

 

How? I am not a scientist? Have I not already conceded I was rash, and gave my reasons? It seems this is your field-of-interest, so naturally you want to hold us spell-bound by the minutia of science. But I will never be interested in pretending to be a scientist. I am not one, it is therefore fair of me to have no opinion about that which I am not knowledgeable concerning.

 

But obviously on the more general issues, I still remain a creationist, so perhaps the issue of uniformity, as it pertains to epistemology, might make a better discussion.

 

 

 

. Mattias: But if you don’t, we could instead have picked many other strictly intra-human lineage divisions calculations of mutation rates

 

If that is certainly true and there is no assumptions of uniformity truly presented, then you win the mtDNA debate. But is it true? I am not distrustful of you, you are quite an objective person, but is it possible you yourself are not aware that there are in fact some assumptions below the radar?

[piasan 1,402]

Really that is the point me and CMI are making. it's not possible to NOT assume uniformity in some way, in experiments to do with age-extrapolations. Think about it, it would be like saying, "avoid human-flooring from now on, including concrete, carpets, wood, asphalt"

The point being made by CMI is not that it is impossible to NOT assume uniformity. CMI neither said nor implied anything about uniformity. Their point is that if it disagrees with a literal Genesis, it is INVALID BY DEFINITION. Their openly declared reason is that they have already concluded the Bible is "inerrant."

[Mattias 13]

Mike, here are my answers. Note that I have edited your post thematically.

 

“If that is certainly true and there is no assumptions of uniformity truly presented, then you win the mtDNA debate.”

“Have I not already conceded I was rash, and gave my reasons?”

 

We are not trying to score cheap points in a limited debate. We are discussing foundations of epistemology and science here – not whether you were a bit sloppy when you browsed through a publication. Let’s leave such petty “victories” to some of the other people frequenting the debate at this forum, and for that matter the world at large.

 

“Now your argument seems to be this: "mike, be a scientist".

 

How? I am not a scientist? It seems this is your field-of-interest, so naturally you want to hold us spell-bound by the minutia of science. But I will never be interested in pretending to be a scientist. I am not one, it is therefore fair of me to have no opinion about that which I am not knowledgeable concerning.

 

But obviously on the more general issues, I still remain a creationist, so perhaps the issue of uniformity, as it pertains to epistemology, might make a better discussion.”

 

We are discussing fundamental epistemology and the issue of uniformity here – if you haven’t noticed that, you should read the conversation in this thread more carefully. But in order for this to have any bearing on the real world, and the creation-evolution debate, we have to stay with a relevant topic to discuss. Each topic should not be too big, and properly delineated, for us to be able to address it in a bite-sized discussion. We also have to stay with the topic until we have gotten the facts straight. I have not even offered any opinions, or assumptions, before we get the relevant facts on the table, which we are not done with yet. You have provided a topic that is suitable and we will now learn from it what we can.

 

You don’t have to be a scientist, but you, like everybody else (including myself) should learn to think more like a scientist. Unfortunately, evolution or God or whatever created us, did not create us with a very scientific brain, so to think scientifically does not come naturally for any of us. It has to be learned. Science is simply the ruthless, hard-core application of cutting-edge epistemology to real-world questions about real-world phenomena. And its conclusions are very often counter-intuitive and cut across prejudice and opinion and the establishment, so when you ride the science roller-coaster you can expect a rather rough and bumpy ride.

 

As for you, you are full of opinions about different subjects in the creation-evolution debate. A brief glance at the threads here reveals that they are littered with your opinions about this and that. You are probably one of the top-ten most prolific posters in the forum. That you are not knowledgeable about a topic does not seem to stop you from having all kinds of opinions about it. Why would you suddenly stop having opinions now, when they are being questioned? The problem in this forum is certainly not a lack of opinions, but a lack of informed opinions. Very few people seem to be willing to question the opinions being offered by this or that faction, by looking into the facts offered as a basis for these opinions. What you disparagingly call “the minutia of science” is actually the minimal amount of facts and reasoning needed, in order to raise this to an informed discussion about reality that goes beyond mere opinion.

 

Are you not here to discuss things in order to learn new things and grow intellectually? Why else would you participate in a discussion forum? How can you then question an offer to participate in a discussion that does just that? Are we not learning interesting stuff, which also just happens to be what we need in order to look beyond the veil of opinion to the real heart of the matter?

 

“This is the problem, uniform assumptions in science are unavoidable, but the logic is so weak. Think about it Mattias, if those 'ages' never happened, how then would you intepret the data? Would that not change the whole scenario?

 

Really that is the point me and CMI are making. it's not possible to NOT assume uniformity in some way, in experiments to do with age-extrapolations. Think about it, it would be like saying, "avoid human-flooring from now on, including concrete, carpets, wood, asphalt"

 

Is that not a reasonable point, Mattias, that in some way I have to take uniformity as granted, for any of these experimental advantures to, '"work".”

 

Uniformity is never taken for granted in the scientific community at large. That is a lie that is perpetuated by the creationist establishment to a gullible audience. Don’t be gullible, Mike. Check the facts.

 

“I am not distrustful of you, you are quite an objective person, but is it possible you yourself are not aware that there are in fact some assumptions below the radar?”

 

Rule number one: Science is not based on trust, but on verifiable, repeatable observations, consistent epistemology, and logical reasoning. You don’t have to trust me at all. And you should not engage in vague speculations about hidden assumptions. What you should do, if you don’t agree with some claim of mine, is to form a counter-claim that is specific enough for both of them to be evaluated, at the same epistemological level, against the available evidence.

 

In that vein, I will again repeat my questions: Could there be any solution for all these scenarios to be correct, or should we consider some of them wrong and some correct? And on what basis? If some of them are wrong, which specific parameters are likely to be wrong, and thus skewing the estimate?

As a bonus question, you might also ponder the 4^th take-home statement in the CMI article: “These real-time findings also seriously weaken the case from mitochondrial DNA which argued (erroneously) that Neandertals were not true humans.” Why would that be the case?

 

If you don’t feel up to the task, I will grudgingly do this for you, but it is really something you should take a shot at yourself before I try to pre-empt your own evaluation. There is no prestige or shame in offering your take on the matter – only a potential for intellectual growth.

[Mattias 13]

BTW, Mike: you asked me somewhere if I had listened to the video that Calypsis had linked to, and I forgot to acknowledge that. I viewed it immediately after viewing his post - I always evaluate all material provided by others in this debate very seriously. I am not very impressed by the film and its arguments, though, but we can discuss these cases individually in their proper context.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Mattias, you are never very impressed with any clear-cut and blatant evidence that does not favour evolution.

 

And to say I am only full of opinion is insulting, just because you don't understand what I am talking about doesn't mean everything I have is opinion, opinion, opinion.

 

No, I think you conflated razor-sharp cleverness with with, 'opinion'.

 

for example, in another thread, when I mentioned, Slothful-induction, that was not an 'opinion' I invented. In this thread when I mentioned Argumentum-Ad-Ignorantiam and delineated the difference from this fallacy and a SOUND negation via the tollens, because of conspicuous lack of evidences, this was not opinion, but just because you are unable to understand that high level of delineation doesn't mean I am an opinionated dunder-head.

 

;)You've brought down the mikey-wrath, and now you have to face the irrefutable consequences. You vermicious knid, Sir, you flushbunking snozzcumber, you grobswitching wrackspurt! Don't you know, have you not heard, since the beginning of time, that mike is irrefutably unrefuted?

 

On a serious note, Mattias, lighten up dude, not everyone is a opinionated dunder-head just because they don't dig on the particulars of scientific conjecture like you. i have paid close attention to your words, and treated them as valid, should you not show me a modicom of respect given you know that many Christians here would not even read your post, judging you to be an evolutionary-motivated atheist? have I not been your friend, hmmm? Yet you insult me even when I offered you provisional victory and the first step on the path towards world-domination.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Mattias, I am not finished thinking about your words/information, I am forumating my provisional thoughts, still. I shall return. I have respected you as a member, yet you are determined to hate;) mike because of his belief in the Lord.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

I typed, 'formulating" as, "forumating", and have a new word!!!! Mutations are beneficial in language, Dataforge!!! haha, what a brilliant new flushbunking word, "forumating".

 

Brilliant!

 

See, it was worth getting out of bed this morning, after all.

[Mattias 13]

Mike, I may have been a bit rough in my assessment here. But it is clear that you have a lot of opinion on the matters discussed here. Opinion is not in itself bad - we all have opinions about this and that. But in order to actually have weight in a discussion, an opinion needs to be supported by something. Whether you also have facts and reasoned approaches to support these opinions is something we will have to see. Sometimes you evidently do, but sometimes I think you need to solidify your case substantially. The fact that you are evidently smart and have a grasp on logic is promising, but smart people can be wrong too.

 

Case in point: previously you said yourself that it was unfair to ask you to have an opinion about a subject with which you were not familliar. But you already had volunteered an opinion about the subject. Your conclusions were clear. It was only when I am now asking you for specifics that you are backtracking. So I must insist that I actually approach the specifics that I asked you about.

 

And: I don't know if your comment about hating you because your belief in the Lord was said in jest or in earnest. For the record, I am not very interested in discussing the role of the Lord in this context, and I am totally indifferent to your opinion about Him. I am primarily interested in resolving conflicting claims about observable reality. This is a completely agnostic approach to most theistic world views, except for the young-earth one. But that has nothing to do with God, only with the far-fetched claims about observable reality that the young-earth position makes..

[mike the wiz 1,210]

I was jesting, Mattias. I use wink-smilies to indicate mikey-mischief. You used to have a sense of humour a bit more, but as we argue more, I sense degeneration.

 

It's true that I had one strong opinion of mtDNA without having much knowledge, but to extend that to mean the totality of my thinking is opinion-based would be a bit of a hasty generalization.

 

I would say that you are noticing SOME opinions so you inferred that to mean "ALL".

 

I would agree clever doesn't = correct. But I would argue rather that my correct arguments = cleverness, not "opinion".

 

All of us are prone to failures, biases. confirmation-bias, memory-bias, post-hoc reasoning (post hoc ergo propter hoc), etc...I can only offer mikey-perfection.

 

I shall return to forumate later on. I have to go the bank and do boring chores. I have not finished thinking about mtDNA, we shall discuss it later.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Mattias, let me go over my provisional thoughts, that occur to me from reading your posts. That we can discuss it. I shall cease with the humour and messing around then, and attempt to understand your thoughts on this matter, to be fair to you. Am I right in stating the following:

 

You are basically, generally or roughly, approximately saying, that the mutation-rate is depending upon the mathematics of the particular extrapolation in question? The rate is then only based upon what is extrapolated FROM the frame-of-reference in use?

 

So then, let us imagine we analyze the genes and count the differences, then we would divide it by a date of choosing, in a somewhat recent time, to deduce a rate that gives us a convergence at an even earlier date?

 

So then we could extrapolate a rate that would lead back in time to a point in history whereby the DNA converges?

 

It seems to me though, that all of this depends highly upon the veracity of the point in history, one chooses.

 

If there was not an ice-age all those thousands of years ago, then what would the mutation-rate really be based on?

 

So I would say that CMI mean something different from what you think they mean in reference to the word, "observed".

 

It depends on the veracity of the date.

 

The short-term rates are basically provable because we know humans have been around for the dates of written-history, and we know humans are all related as a species.

 

It seems to me, if you base your frame-of-reference on an ASSUMED date of convergence between apes and humans or an ice-age assumed to have occurred 20,000 years ago, based only on a dating-method, then that frame-of-reference is much weaker, because it is not an OBSERVABLE, "science".

 

I think CMI are referring to observational-science. The difference would be a logical one, so I think you could be assuming that the veracity of the uniform-dates are of the same veracity of dates that are provable.

 

We can PROVE humans are related, so to base the study on ethnic group-diversity of DNA, would be a STRONGER extrapolation/study, surely? But with the chimps or the ice-age, these respective examples would be much more conjectural dates, NOT proven dates. They would only agree with eachother because they are based on dates that are generally inferred from a uniformity-assumption. So "agreement" would be Ipso Facto. (thinking required here, this is not understood easily)

 

I probably got the maths wrong, I can't be bothered figuring the specifics of the maths, there is no need, it doesn't affect our discussion, really. I think I know what you mean but I would need to learn more about the maths. I think you should LIST each "date" the mutation-rates are based on, and then show how those dates were assumed to be valid dates? One thing is for sure, ethnicity-based, differences in DNA, are going to be concrete compared to ALLEGED, uniform-dates, because we have proof humans are related.

 

So then, "more studies" is not relevant, for if you have many extrapolated rates that are based on none-provable histories, then that will not count as an induction-by-majority, and will not negate the studies of ethnicity.

 

Essentially to say, "more studies for older dates come to older dates" would essentially be to commit the fallacy of exclusivity. It would be to focus on the majority of the scientific findings, and ignore the importance of the one date that refutes those findings. In fact, the observable-science, the one line of evidence for a younger date, would logically TRUMP many, many, many disagreeing, older, longer rates of mutation. Think about it, from a variety of date-sources, you will get longer mutation rates, but what does it matter if the one date that truly counts is the only one you can know for sure is concrete? We KNOW ethnic groups are related. So that study surely TRUMPS your other studies, IMHO!

[svigil777 17]

You wrote: "Mattias, you are never very impressed with any clear-cut and blatant evidence that does not favour evolution."

 

Resp: "So, do you want him to pretend to be impressed?"

 

You wrote: "And to say I am only full of opinion is insulting..."

 

Resp: No, I checked. He said, "As for you, you are full of opinions..."

 

"The tone argument is to dismiss an opponent's argument based on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. It is an ad hominem attack, used as a derailment, silencing tactic or by a concern troll." ref 1

 

“A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by Concern trolls and sometimes as a Derailment, in which it is suggested that feminists would be more successful if only they expressed themselves in a more pleasant tone” ref 2

 

You wrote: "...You vermicious knid, Sir, you flushbunking snozzcumber, you grobswitching wrackspurt!"

 

Resp: Ok, the words used were a bit funny. But to your argument,

 

"Name calling is abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group, a verbal abuse. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse and school systems, in an attempt to negatively impact their opponent." ref 3

 

This undermines your credibility... if you care, that's up to you. But it does not help your argument. I would call it, "childish", but then I would be guilty of name callinging, lol.

 

You wrote: "On a serious note, Mattias, lighten up dude, not everyone is a opinionated dunder-head just because..."

 

Really, this is subjective. It's opinion and it has nothing to do with the correctness of the argument. So, my opinion has no more weight than anyone else's. But, I don't think Mattias is in any way inappropriate or disrespectful. If anything, your name calling was disrespectful. I recall when I was a fundamentalist Christian, I was listening to Christian (then) Contemporary. There was a song called, "They Will Know Us By Our Love". Somebody's going to call that a Red Herring. But, it's just a memory.

 

Honestly, and I'm not just ganging up on you, I think epistemology is crucial. That's why I'm on this thread. I feel you have been getting discourse from Mattias of high quality, high cordiality with the purest of intentions. 'just my opinion.

[svigil777 17]

Mattias, I am not finished thinking about your words/information, I am forumating my provisional thoughts, still. I shall return. I have respected you as a member, yet you are determined to hate;) mike because of his belief in the Lord.

Wow, that is quite a charge. And I've seen this perspective in other threads with other people. As an ex-Christian, I don't get it. I cannot fathom anything Mattias has said that could be construed as "hate speech". Dang, if I didn't see his listing as atheist, I would judge him to be a saint by his patience and tone. He clearly likes you. So, what your motivation would be for characterizing him as such is really a fascinating cognitive puzzle. He does admonish you. You know as well as I do that to admonish someone can be an act of love.

 

This comes from Google, "Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, S@xual orientation, disability, or other traits." Maybe I missed it. I don't see anything Mattias has said where he has done any of this.

 

However, on another level, I do get it. I didn't take philosophy in school because I was told that I would lose my faith in God if I went. I didn't read anything coming from atheists. The word alone, "atheist"... I still loathe the word because of my conditioning in church. In Amway, the business leader would talk about "The godless atheists". So, consider that it is your fear that is moving you to interpret Mattias' communications in such a way. I do not consider myself an atheist, btw. I consider myself one or all of the following, naturalist, rationalist, scientist, empiricist, engineer, milonguero. (You can look the last one up.)

 

I do not doubt that you have experienced his communications as you have stated. The fear... it's very hard to get past the fear.

 

Bye the way. I am going to use my traceability analysis skills to determine which of my arguments you have not yet responded to. Try to keep your arguments short, if you can (just askin'). Off the top of my head, you have not told me why the examples I provided are not transitional in nature. And I do realize I stretched the word "transitional" with the Galapagos Island tortoises. Maybe cause you're Christian and you've been studying the beatitudes lately, you'll indulge your ex-Christian brother. ;^)

 

 

[Mattias 13]

Svigil, I think that we can relax with regards to the wiz kid's outspoken "name-calling"; I actually don't interpret that as name-calling at all; just a hyperbolic way of joking about this debate as if it was a battle to the death rather than a geeky conversation - and for the record, that part can be quite funny, Mike. There might be other things to discuss in terms of tone, but we'll see if we have time for that.