Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
526 replies to this topic

#41 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 January 2015 - 03:32 PM

 

 

Mattias: There are rarely any unfounded or unrealistic assumptions in scientific papers, and there exists no evolutionist paradigm

 

so you believe the scientists conclude that fresh dino-meat is fresh? Lol.

 

 

 

Mattias: As always, in a world full of uncertainty, the best scientific approach is to use the largest available statistical base for your estimates, and follow the principle of parsimony

 

In that case, the most parsimonious explanation is that we go back to one woman and one man, and there are various ways to calculate the ages, depending upon your method, and assumptions about molecular clocks. Why would you pick the "older" date?

 

 Why aren't there writings going back 150,000 years? Do you agree that written history is not 150,000 years old?

 

Are you seeing this single line of evidence as consequential and ignoring the powerful facts of actual recorded history, that take writings back only a few thousands of years, not 200 odd thousand years? What about the mathematical extrapolations of a population this size, of humans? Did you know that evolution would not match up, but again, a few thousand years is about correct for the populations when they are multiplied? There are many lines of evidence that don't agree with hundreds of thousands of years so using your own logic, the best answer is a few thousands of years, as it explains ALL of the evidence.

 

 

 

CMI:Nevertheless, many wonder at how the population could have grown to six billion from Noah’s family who survived the Flood that wiped out everyone else about 4,500 years ago. When you do the figures, it confirms the biblical truth that everyone on Earth today is a descendant of Noah’s sons and daughters-in-law. Not only that, but if people have been here for much longer, and there was no global Flood of Noah’s day, there should be a lot more people than there are—or there should be a lot more human remains!

 

http://creation.com/...-all-the-people

 

"I WIN! I always win!......Is there no-one on this planet to even challenge me?" - General Zod.wink.png

acigar.gif



#42 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 January 2015 - 03:48 PM

 

 

Mattias: Mike, as piasan pointed out that is nothing but gratuitous slander

 

To say that scientists are human is slander? No - they think evolution and long ages is the ONLY explanation, so they MUST explain the facts according to that belief. This is not the scientist's fault, necessarily, so your strong emotive words represent rhetorical codswallop, Mattias. Perhaps you should get back to your original topic instead of trying to hunt me down over a small side-comment I made about mitochondrial Eve, if your motives are to pursue discussion about Epistemology, because right now it just looks like you want to prove Adam was related to an ape.



#43 svigil777

svigil777

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dayton, OH

Posted 21 January 2015 - 06:20 PM

Svigil, I am not claiming anything equatable to fraud-in-science, my claim is that rather paradigm-based interpretations of evidence can lead to conclusions that are, well, paradigm-based.

 

They believe that evolution is the only answer, they will not give up that conclusion if they genuinely believe it is the only possibility. Like when they found fresh dino-meat, they would interpret it to be millions of years old when an obvious inference to explain it, would be that it isn't all that old. The only thing "stopping" them from coming to a conclusion of youth, is their paradigm which tells them it simply can't be that young, because dinos existed 65 million years ago.

 

I don't believe scientists are objective-robots. But that does not mean I believe you can equate genuine scientists with fraudsters, that seems an extreme comparison.

Ok Mr. Wiz, and that is refreshing, thank-you. I have heard positions that scientists must have evolution be true so that they are free to sin. Actually, other than Richard Feynman who regularly played bongo drums at strip clubs, scientists are largely boring people. The logic is a bit off too. If God's going to burn you, he's going to burn you whether you have published a new paper on evolution or not.

 

And I am aware of the "group think" mentality that you seem to accuse scientists of. While I worked at Boeing, I was trained on how this phenomenon resulted in controlled flight into the ground as well as the failure of the DC-10.

With that said, I don't think you acknowledged the main thrust of my post. That is that there is a self regulation funciton within science. When people are wrong, others are glad to "out" them. And I would like to add that a great deal of work has been done by scientists who were theists. Many tried mightily to find theoretical frameworks that both explained the genesis for life AND were consistent with the bible.

 

“Academics are very competitive, and they’re dying to out each other as factually incorrect.

And they conduct such a large number of studies, that in the end, science ends up pretty much policing itself because its members are so contentious with each other.”

This comes from UCLA Professor Courtenay Raia Green at the 31 minute marker of lecture 20 from her class, History 2D: Science, Magic, and Religion.

I recommend to anyone who wants to understand how these shooting battles went down, to watch her whole series. The battle wasn't just on evolution. And it wasn't always scientists against clergy. At one point, all there was was clergy! http://www.youtube.c...FD1C791A86FB485

 

In an email, I told Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute how I would disprove evolution in a heartbeat if I could. http://svis.com/Roug...Prediction.html. Just search for the word "football". I played the game as a kid. If you have a different jersey on, I want to hit 'cha. You can be on my team, and if I'm on offense and you're on the opposite line of scrimage, I'll hit you as hard as I can, ha ha! That's just me  :^)
 



#44 Mattias

Mattias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 21 January 2015 - 09:32 PM

Mike, stop running away from the topic you yourself brought up. I can easily dismiss all your delusions, but we have to take it one step of the time. Don't try to shield yourself by changing the subject. Again: You brought up the differing base substitution rates, and now we will deal with that. So, again, what are the facts in the case, Watson?



#45 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 January 2015 - 05:25 AM

Mattias, here we have two dates. One for the man, one for the woman. You go with the older date, but why did they feel the need to go looking into the male-line when they had already found a younger date for Eve? Because it didn't fit with evolution!

 

If on a ship-wreck, you find two coins, and the first one you find is dated to 1989, would you hunt for another coin that is older to try and prove the ship-wreck happened earlier? Would you look for a coin that said 1959 on it? And low and behold, they then find the older coin and say, "oho, you see, this is a more accurate date".

 

Svigil, you are going for the typical argument of, "this is how science works, it's self-correcting, other people can examine what we say", your reasoning works fine from WITHIN science, but you are ignorant of the logic. When you say you would love to disprove evolution does that mean that you have an awareness of what it means to falsify evolution when there is a conspicuous absence of evidence, via the modus tollens?

 

I can disprove evolution right now, via the tollens.

 

Example:

 

The fossils that exist are rich and fossiliferous, in many preceding rocks, in ages where modern organisms were supposed to evolve, so you would expect to find those transitionals there. With turtles, the preservations are good, but there are not turtle-ancestors. Now this is the problem - scientists are taught science, and basic logic, but they are basically not taught how to critically examine evolution, because by definition, it is the only methodologically natural explanation of life.

 

So then, IF turtles evolved, we would expect as evidence, their transitionals in rocks with rich preservation.(Modus Ponen)

We do not find their transitionals, therefore turtles did not evolve. (Modus Tollens)

 

Do not confuse this implication with argumentum ad ignorantiam, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless evidence is conspicuously absent. In logical terms this is simply called, a 'conspicuous absence of evidence'.

 

This is the problem, logically we can disprove evolution in many areas. But even if an evolutionist was to acknowledge a problem like this one, according to tenuous conjectural science, they would come up with what is called an ad-hoc rescue-device, or an extra-hypothesis, to EXPLAIN why evolution is not seen. They would use conjecture to plead their case. And this is the case in many examples, such as the Hard-Type Hypothesis. But now we find soft-bodied fossils.

 

This is poor logic, but to them, it is good science. But when it comes to falsifying claims, logic is the rule of thumb, not science. So then every scientist can agree evolution happened within scientific rules, but they still break logical rules. (argumentum ad populum)

 

It's the same with the Cursorial and Arboreal theory. The problems for both are obvious, and both theories rule each-other out. Theropods have lizard-hipped bones, not bird-hipped bones. Also, both crocodilian, crocodolomorph, and theropod, both have bellows-type lungs. But birds have contraflow lungs. The obvious path for evolution to take, would be to create birds to have bellows-type lungs like with bats. To take a path towards contraflow lungs has been proven to be about 100 times more difficult involving the guaranteed possibility of a hernia. The fact is, contraflow lungs simply make no sense in light of evolution theory, for nature always takes the path of least resistance. If animals organs and morphology are only modified by descent, then the contraflow lung represents a falsification of descent-by-modification, because the contraflow lung is not modified, it is a very special particular design for birds, because of a design-constraint.

 

The thing you don't get, is that it does not matter how honest science is, that does not make evolution true, there are no scientific rules that demand a theory be true. Evolution is a WEAK and tenuous philosophical, historical science - a ranking system. You should read my initial response in this thread, I believe it is message #2.

 

Don't forget, I could apply your reasoning to any false theory, but in the case of evolution, the scientists will only allow a naturalistic answer for origins, which means evolution can't be falsified, by definition/semantics. The falsifications they offer are only the ones they choose. Most people would agree that the Cambrian is all wrong for gradualistic-evolution, in fact a direct contradiction. The maths are also wrong, we should see less and less individuals as we go back in time, as numbers converge, the Cambrian totally breaks that. Here I wrote about it in my blog, last May, the maths is inescapable, it's a short blog but it requires understanding the reasons I give:

http://creationworld...rwins-tree.html

 

This is the problem, you see all science as "equal" but it isn't, there is different logic for different theories, some science is 100% inductive and 100% deductive. Nobody would dispute that germs exist, and there is a reason for that. Nobody would say that abiogenesis or evolution is as demonstrable as exotic air, and there's a reason for that. You are BLANKETING each theory, by using "science" essentially as an EPITHET-term. Yes, all science might be investigated with rigor, but this does not mean that logically it follows that each presently accepted theory has the same scientific and logical merit. (non-sequitur) Read message #2 in this thread. There are logical differences with each theory, that might even depend just upon our level of ignorance of the full data. The more conjectural and weak a theory is, the less logical worth it has, especially if it betrays scientific facts or obvious logical sense.

 

 

 

Mattias: I can easily dismiss all your delusions, but we have to take it one step of the time

 

Delusions of grandeur, methinksacigar.gif



#46 Mattias

Mattias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 22 January 2015 - 06:03 AM

Mike, stop running. Stay with your original claim. I asked you about the varying estimates for mitochondrial DNA substitutions depending on whether scientists follow phylogenetic lineages or modern pedigrees (See below). A story you brought up. Now I am asking you again: Did you check the facts of the case? Yes or no?

 

CMI: The review in Science’s ‘Research News’ goes still further about Eve’s date, saying that ‘using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.’ The article says about one of the teams of scientists (the Parsons team5) that ‘evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations ... they were “stunned” to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations’.4

Evolutionists have tried to evade the force of these results by countering that the high mutation rate only occurs in certain stretches of DNA called ‘hot spots’ and/or that the high (observed) rate causes back mutations which ‘erase’ the effects of this high rate. Therefore, conveniently, the rate is assumed to be high over a short timespan, but effectively low over a long timespan. However, this is special pleading to get out of a difficulty, and the burden of proof is on evolutionists to sustain the vast ages for ‘Eve’ in the face of these documented, modern-day mutation rates. These are indeed encouraging results for creationists. In summary:

  1. The mitochondrial Eve findings were, in the first instance, in line with biblically-based expectations; while not proving the biblical Eve, they were consistent with her reality, and were not predicted by evolutionary theory.
  2. The dates assigned to mitochondrial Eve were said by evolutionists to rule out the biblical Eve. But these dates were based upon ‘molecular clock’ assumptions, which were calibrated by evolutionary beliefs about when certain evolutionary events occurred, supposedly millions of years ago.
  3. When these assumed rates were checked out against the real world, preliminary results indicate that the mitochondrial ‘molecular clock’ is ticking at a much faster rate than evolutionists believed possible. If correct, it means that mitochondrial Eve lived 6,000 to 6,500 years ago, right in the ballpark for the true ‘mother of all living’ (Genesis 3:20).
  4. These real-time findings also seriously weaken the case from mitochondrial DNA which argued (erroneously) that Neandertals were not true humans.

http://creation.com/...ng-date-for-eve



#47 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 January 2015 - 08:18 AM

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. wink.png

 

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


  • svigil777 likes this

#48 svigil777

svigil777

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dayton, OH

Posted 22 January 2015 - 08:28 AM

.



#49 svigil777

svigil777

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dayton, OH

Posted 22 January 2015 - 09:59 AM

Svigil, you are going for the typical argument of, "this is how science works, it's self-correcting, other people can examine what we say", your reasoning works fine from WITHIN science, but you are ignorant of the logic. When you say you would love to disprove evolution does that mean that you have an awareness of what it means to falsify evolution when there is a conspicuous absence of evidence, via the modus tollens?

 

I can disprove evolution right now, via the tollens.

 

Example:

 

The fossils that exist are rich and fossiliferous, in many preceding rocks, in ages where modern organisms were supposed to evolve, so you would expect to find those transitionals there. With turtles, the preservations are good, but there are not turtle-ancestors. Now this is the problem - scientists are taught science, and basic logic, but they are basically not taught how to critically examine evolution, because by definition, it is the only methodologically natural explanation of life.

 

So then, IF turtles evolved, we would expect as evidence, their transitionals in rocks with rich preservation.(Modus Ponen)

We do not find their transitionals, therefore turtles did not evolve. (Modus Tollens)

 

Do not confuse this implication with argumentum ad ignorantiam, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless evidence is conspicuously absent. In logical terms this is simply called, a 'conspicuous absence of evidence'.

 

You throw around some cool words. I will admit. However, your proof is fallacious. At best, you have proven that evolution is not proven. We already knew that! Sorry to let the air out of your tire.

 

flat-tire.jpg?1368123569

 

All we can do is make the most reasonable conclusions based on the evidence we see. We can make all sorts of conjectures based upon what we don’t see. For example, I can say the Exodus didn’t happen because it is not mentioned in the Egyptian writings and archaeological evidence is completely missing at any of the oases they would have used as they journeyed to Canaan. However, if you can make an argument as to why the evidence that is missing and should be found, then you can argue your case. No writings and archaeological evidence ==> no Exodus. End of story.

 

But you don’t have that expectation. We have plenty of transitional forms. There is a tortoise for every Galapagos island. These are all transitional and they are alive! They may be leaf nodes on the tree of life, but they demonstrate transition.

http://www.galapagos...agos/tortoises/

http://animals.natio...pagos-tortoise/

 

You don’t want a leaf node? ‘not a problem.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Odontochelys

http://scienceblogs....ransitional-tu/

https://eyeonicr.wor...itional-turtle/

 

And there are other transitional forms.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

meetTik1.jpg

 

I’ll do you one more.

http://www.ucmp.berk...haeopteryx.html

archaeopteryx_DSC_8270.JPG

 

 

I’m sure you’ve got the most ingenious reasons why those are not transitional species. I’ve debated public figures on this.

http://svis.com/Roug...ionalForms.html

http://svis.com/Roug...titute/Pin.html

http://svis.com/Roug...ionalForms.html

http://svis.com/Roug.../Tiktaalik.html

http://svis.com/Roug...ickenTeeth.html

 

So go ahead. Hit me. I’m ready.

10364377-strong-biceps-on-a-white-backgr

 

With regard to your blog page, “The Evidence Contradicts Darwin's Tree”, if you dig deeply enough, you find no fossils. So, you just need to dig deeper... 'very deep.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#50 svigil777

svigil777

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dayton, OH

Posted 22 January 2015 - 11:27 AM

Mike,

You said:

The problem with defining science as knowledge is that we can see from the past, some theories such as Steady-State-Universe and Spontaneous Generation, we didn't actually, "know" they were true, and they were proven not to be, which proves science isn't really knowledge unless the theory in question is a very incontrovertibly strong case.

 

Resp:

That really was not the best definition for science. I saw something on Merriam-Webster that was similar. But this definition from Google I think is better.

 

noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
"the science of criminology"

It is a "systematic study", not just "knowledge".  But I agree. It's disconcerting that things we used to know now become unknown. It used to be that formula was better than baby's milk. Now, we know it's much better to nurse babies from their mothers, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! So, we really do have to be aware that we can get on the wrong track. Let's face it. This will happen again. I like to think of science as us trying to figure this thing out. And we have some tools we use that have made some things better for us. One of the things that is not in the tool chest is illogical thinking. Another is argument from authority. Another is appeal to the supernatural.

 

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!

 

You list evolution amongst a group of bodies of knowledge you say are propped up by conjecture. Well certainly it was conjecture when Darwin got his first twinge of understanding. However, there's an enormous body of evidence supporting it. But it's really hard to convince people that it isn't conjecture when they refuse to accept supporting evidence for what it is. We have smart people. You Mike, you're brilliant! And yet you cannot accept the evidence we find. What does it take? I want to just start handing out hundred dollar bills to people who agree to accept the evidence. You want a hundred? Sorry, I'm fresh out. I mean really!

 

I say, evolution is as established a the theory of gravitation. And people like you turn around and say, "Oh no it's not!" And here's why! Just look at how sad Jesus would be if you decided evolution was true  :'(

 

I don't even want to talk about evolution. It's such a hot topic, agreement is almost impossible. That's why I prefer to talk about the fundamentals of science and truth. I think there's a chance of getting to agreement on some of those things. Egos seem to preclude agreement further up the chain.

 

You wrote:

If we, "KNEW" they were evolutionary leftovers, how can we UN-KNOW that they are? Once a knowledge is truly known, if it is later disproven, then reasonably and logically, it was never knowledge to begin with.

 

Resp:

Yup, I get you. It stinks. But what is knowledge? That is a very deep question. I prefer to step back and talk about theories and evidence that supports them. Please find some of my discussion on this topic. http://evolutionfair...wtopic=6307&hl=

 

You wrote:

So then it is probably 8.10.

 

Resp:

Well, no. It is never 8.10 (8:00). In aviation software, we would never write code such as,

 

    if (time==8.00) then {yada yada yada}

 

We would bracket the time within a certain confidence interval. We can say, if the time is 8:00 plus or minus 500ms then do yada yada yada.

 

    if (time>=7.5 && time <8.5) then {yada yada yada}

 

That will work. But it is never ever exactly 8:00 in so far as we can measure. Nature drives you to practicalities.

 

You wrote:

However I would venture to say, that the more absurd the improbability, the closer it is to "knowledge" until we reach a place were it becomes TOTALLY absurd to say that we, "do not know".

 

Resp:

Well yeah, you could question if the symbols c-a-t really refer to the fuzzy thing that likes to eat mice. And you could demand proof. But at some point, that does become unreasonable. Absurd is a good word too.

 

I would proceed to argue that there is still a weaker set of "knowns".

  • Creation story in Genesis
  • Exodus story
  • Story of Sodom and Gomorra
  • Story of Jericho
  • Noah's Ark
  • Great kingdoms of David and Solomon
  • Diminutive status of King Omri
  • Israel and Judea were ever a single kingdom
  • Resurrection of Christ
  • Inerrancy of bible scriptures
  • Existence of the soul
  • Existence of God

All but the first item are out of scope for this web site. However, they drive this web site. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough. But the conversation seems to only include evolution. So, we tear down that theory. What's our next best theory? Creation? Intelligent Design? Well now, we're really in trouble!

 

I think we can throw darts at evolution all day. But nobody has posited a next best theory that has any plausibility at all! And I know people disagree with me. William Lane Craig suggest that it's perfectly reasonable to believe that God created man or God guided evolution. If we could prove that he exists, then sure those would be darn good alternatives. However, there is reasonable evidence that the soul doesn't exist. If you get a chance, check out Professor Shelly Kagan's class at Yale, Philosophy of Death, https://www.youtube....A330285EE38437E. If that's the case, who cares if there's a God or not. We're just things to him. And if you listen to all of William Lane Craig's debates, you can see him winning individual debates. But if you put it all together, you can see that he uses circular reasoning: we know there's a God because of the empty tomb, we know Jesus rose because it's rational that's what God would have done and we know he exists. This is out of scope so read, if you're interested, the eight web pages I've written on this, http://svis.com/Roug...dEvolution.html.

 

I had a public speaker really try hard to convince me that ID was true. And I listened to him and I debated him privately because my son had shamed me into it. You can read some of my notes on this at, http://svis.com/Roug.../HitAndRun.html.

 

Look, I want to get to absolute certainty as the next guy (chuckling). I know you don't agree, but what else is there?



#51 Mattias

Mattias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 22 January 2015 - 01:08 PM

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. wink.png

 

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

'

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/...ng-date-for-eve

http://creation.com/...1/j12_1_1-3.pdf

 

DNA%2Bsubstitution%2Brates.jpg



#52 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 January 2015 - 07:38 AM

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.



#53 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 January 2015 - 07:44 AM

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?



#54 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 January 2015 - 07:51 AM

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!!!! wink.png (Okay, okay, I admit some mischief here.wink.png



#55 svigil777

svigil777

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dayton, OH

Posted 23 January 2015 - 12:13 PM

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  ;^)



#56 Mattias

Mattias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 25 January 2015 - 01:18 AM

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!!!! wink.png (Okay, okay, I admit some mischief here.wink.png

 

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.co...ng0497-363.html

http://www.sciencedi...002929707605813

http://onlinelibrary....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...al.pone.0001764

http://www.cell.com/...9822(08)01618-7

http://genome.cshlp....ntent/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/...ent/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.oxfordjou...tent/29/11/3345

http://onlinelibrary...5178.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/...ng-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 4th 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?



#57 Mattias

Mattias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 25 January 2015 - 02:02 AM

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....s mitochondrion

http://www.ncbi.nlm....s mitochondrion

http://www.ncbi.nlm....s 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...s/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.dropboxus...imp_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...._DNA_haplogroup

http://citeseerx.ist...p=rep1&type=pdf

http://www.sciencedi...169534709001852

http://www.pnas.org/...ent/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://mattiaswebarc...bloggarens.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.



#58 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 January 2015 - 07:41 AM

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



#59 Mattias

Mattias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 25 January 2015 - 07:50 AM

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

 

http://www.ebi.ac.uk...ysis=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.



#60 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 January 2015 - 08:10 AM

Mattias, I haven't forgotten you. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users