Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

johnsmith1048576

Member
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About johnsmith1048576

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    27
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
    Atheist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    California
  1. johnsmith1048576

    A Few Questions For The Atheists

    From the other thread, you said "1) In the fossil record, not one fossil found is repeated in another layer. In other words you find a certain type of fish in one layer, you won't find that same type of fish in another layer.". I don't believe this is true. IIRC, haven't shark fossils changed very little over many geology layers? Also, this is basically begging the question. You assume that you cannot find the same fossil across layers, which is more or less the conclusion. Also, I see no reason why this claim should be true from the model of evolution. Maybe... The model of common ancestry has novel falsifiable predictions. Every time we find a new species, we can plot its position on the taxonomy tree, and plot its position on the genetic tree. Every time we have made this observation for a new species, it fits exactly as predicted according to the model of common ancestry. If you want, I guess one can say that the model of evolution and common ancestry says that micro and macro are interchangeable. (Again, I apologize for my ignorance of genetics, but I think that's a fair statement for this context. Perhaps there are important differences for other discussions, but not for such a high level discussion of common ancestry.) Had we found a finch that had a radically different genome, or some other animal whose place on the two trees was radically different, then that would be bad for evolution. Indeed yes the evolutionists would claim that with your reversal of 46 and 48. That would be the sensible prediction from their models. I think you are very confused though. Take a step back please, and work with me. Evolution has common ancestry. Evolution works through slow mutation of DNA. The model is that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, and because the evolution model has slow rates of change of DNA, the model predictions that human and chimp DNA should be about the same. It's the argument above about the taxonomy and genetic trees being the same. So, an evolutionist looks at the human and chimp genomes. He sees 23 pairs, and 24. We know that the three great ape species, of which are supposed to be common ancestors with the human, all have 24 pairs. Thus, the likely answer in the model of evolution is that after our common ancestor, past the split between human and chimp, the human line had two pairs fuse into one. Again, please notice that this is a prediction from a model. So, this is a prediction made from the model of evolution and common ancestry. It was made long before both genomes were sequenced. It was quite possible from the perspective of the person first looking at the two sequenced genomes that the prediction was wrong. That is the defining characteristic of falsifiability. It's quite possible that looking at all 23 pairs of human chromosomes, and all 24 chimp pairs, that there was no matching of pairs such that 1 human pair looked like a fusion of 2 chimp pairs. Thus, you are simply wrong when you say that any result would be spun by the evolutionists to support evolution. Had they shown that all human pairs could not possibly be mistaken for fused chimp pairs, then that would be a /very/ bad blow for human and chimp common ancestry. To be very clear, as a matter of facts, they actually have the entire genomes sequenced. That means there is a computer hard drive out there somewhere with sequence of letters of A C G T for every single nucleic base of the entire DNA of an individual. With the crazy fast computers, they then looked for a pair of human chromosomes whose bases were a near match for the bases of two chimp pairs. With those crazy fast computers, they found that match.
  2. johnsmith1048576

    A Few Questions For The Atheists

    That's interesting, considering that quantum theory has the single prediction in all of the empirical sciences which was verified to the highest degree of precision of any prediction of any human empirical science, ever. I'm sorry. I'll try to keep an open mind. Do you know where I can find sourced data or primary data on this? You are correct that copying errors do not add information. You ignored the part where I said "and after a single generation of natural selection" which is the key idea of evolution. I am unsure if this omission was purposeful or not, as you seem to be educated on the topic. I ask for intellectual honesty. You should know that the argument is natural selection, survival of those genes which create successful individuals, is how information is added, with random mutation. You need both. Are you familiar with the E. Coli long term experiment at Michigan State? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment Unfortunately, you appear to have more knowledge of genetics than I, so I am unable to rebut your argument directly. I am curious if you consider the creation of an entirely new enzyme to digest an entirely new nutrient to be sufficient to "add information". Now, as you're defining it now, you're doing a No True Scotsman. In the strict sense of the information theory terms, random mutation + natural selection /will/ add information. This is indisputable. I believe we all agree to so called "small scale" evolution. So instead, you're trying to define "adding new information" to be "adding new information that would be responsible for bridging Biblical kinds". Ah, I see, talking about an unrelated discussion. I fail to understand your position though. From the model of common ancestry, and from the observation that chimps have 48 chromosomes, and from the observations that humans have 46 chromosomes, they made a novel falsifiable prediction, that one of the 23 pairs of human genomes should contain almost the same DNA as two chimp chromosome pairs. This novel falsifiable prediction was later tested, and confirmed. This is supporting evidence of common descent. In other words, this demonstrates common descent. At least, when you accumulate enough evidence of this kind, then it is rigorously demonstrated. I'm not sure what kind of game you're playing, trying to dismiss this evidence as not evidence which is in favor of common descent.
  3. johnsmith1048576

    Young Earth Age Correlations

    Unfortunately, this succinct synopsis is incorrect. Think about it for a sec - general relativity says that there is no preferred speed, and all observations are independent of your current speed. So, what you said is inconsistent. Take an observer A, like you, and a fast moving object B, say a distant galaxy. You see B as moving at high speed, and thus you argue that B moves slower through time. In other words, if you could see a clock at B, it would be running slower than a clock in your hand. Now let's ask what B sees. B sees A moving at a high speed. Thus B should see the clock in A's hand moving slower than the clock in B's hand. However, this just doesn't add up. In short, in general relativity, it's not the speed. It's the acceleration. In other words, see the twin paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox In the twin paradox, only one twin accelerated to near light speed from his starting inertial frame, and that's the younger twin when he gets back to Earth. Both twins were at high speed from each other's perspective. Sadly, I barely understand this myself, so I won't be able to help you much more than this.
  4. johnsmith1048576

    Young Earth Age Correlations

    I'm just replying to the ones I can comment usefully on. Sorry I'm not an expert in all things. Surely we can explain this with bacterial or something which eats the ooze. If not, we can invoke plate tectonics and how the ocean plates are frequently recycled due to subduction zones. Again, could this possibly be explained with plate tectonics? I suppose if the number is thousands vs millions. I'd need to see sources to comment further. One related topic, which bears reference to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal Now, there are certain kinds of rocks, that when they cool, they harden in such a way that they record the current orientation of the local magnetic field. It's really cool. What's cooler is that you can look at the ocean floor at these kinds of rocks, and they exist in alternating bands. The bands are not regular in width, but there are definite bands. The bands are parallel to known faults. The "mainstream" explanation is plate tectonics, and the Earth's magnetic pole reverses from time to time. It's really fun stuff. It involves the geo dynamo hypothesis/theory of the Earth's magnetic field. IIRC, there's been some modeling of the Earth's core, the dynamo, and how it's possible you can get pole reversals. Again, it's really cool stuff. Also, elsewhere, I've seen it quoted that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying, and that's another evidence for a young earth. That argument assumes a constant rate of decay, which is wrong if you buy plate tectonics, given the above evidence. Now this might as well be an argument that evolution isn't true. If evolution is true, then it explains this quite well. The negative mutations are weeded out, and only the non-mutations and the positive mutations survive to reproduce. It's quite elementary. Of course, I suppose that if you don't buy evolution, then this is an evidence for a young Earth. Related: That reminds me. So, the accepted story amongst young earthers is that Noah took only 2 (or 7) of each kind on his ship, right? Now, if all animals on the planet came from only 2 (or 7) breeding individuals in the past, then this would be detectable. This model has falsifiable predictions. We've done the analysis, and it's wrong. We know the rough rate of mutation, and the genetic diversity of most breeding populations on the planet. There had to been a lot more than 2 (or 7) breeding individuals for each population in the distant past. If there was such an incredibly low number, this leaves a huge mark on the genetics of current day animals. For example, this actually happened to the cheetah. The cheetah has an incredible lack of genetic diversity. As a species, it's having problems because of it - more susceptible to diseases, you know. Fun fact, any cheetah on the planet can take a skin graft from any other cheetah on the planet. They did the experiment. They all took. (IIRc, it was like 50 cheetahs as distantly related as they could find.) It took because their immune systems recognized the skin grafts, and that's because of the remarkable lack of genetic diversity in the cheetah. So, I just want to confirm, is there an "official" explanation for this? Did god come down a few hundred years after the flood to do a miracle and change the genetics of all species (except the cheetah) on the planet to reach the currently observed genetic diversity?
  5. johnsmith1048576

    Young Earth Age Correlations

    I'm sorry I'm not an expert of geology. In fact, I know very little. We do agree that the geology column is the same everywhere in the world, except for a couple of cases like this one where the column is upside down, correct? So, the "mainstream" science explanation is that the column was turned upside down by plate tectonics, right? Thus they predict that all of the fossils would still be in their corresponding layers, correct? This is also what we observe, correct? So, the alternative is that the geology column is the same everywhere, except in a couple isolated mountains, where just by luck it happens to be exactly the opposite of everywhere else, with all of the fossils in the expected places. Frequently, doesn't Flood geology make the argument that the slower species are found in lower layers because the flood waters got to them first? How does this jive with the sea creature fossils on the top of the mountains? Why do we only see sea creature fossils on the top of the mountains with the reversed geology column, but not on the other mountains. And we're talking presumably a lot of fossils. This seems to have a rather high statistical correlation, enough that random chance will not suffice. In fact, I now claim that these two explanations are inconsistent. If we observe all of the "slower" moving animals at the lower levels because they ran the slowest from the flood waters, and most tall places completely lack these "slow" animals and sea creatures, then this should predict that we should not see sea creatures at the top of mountains. At least, it should predict that we should either see a relatively nice uniform height distribution, not this two spike distribution with sea creatures on top of some mountains and no sea creatures on top of other mountains.
  6. johnsmith1048576

    A Few Questions For The Atheists

    False. Quantum theory and general relativity are incompatible, and one makes predictions that are incompatible with the other. Also, I think you subtly changed the argument. I argued that a good empirical science need not be complete. You argued something else. You argued as if I said that a good empirical science need not be accurate all the time. Those are two very different things. AFAIK, there isn't a smoking gun of empirical evidence against evolution. All observations conform to the model. Actually, I need to expand on this. I'm sorry. I just realized this is the naive and incorrect Popper idea of falsification. Unfortunately, properly done empirical science is a bit more nuanced. Allow me to explain with two examples. When Newton published his Principalia (or soon thereafter, I forget), they measured the orbit of Uranus. It did not conform to the predictions of Newtonian gravity. Does that mean Newtonian gravity is wrong? No. When you're faced with contradicting evidence, your options are to throw out what you have and start over, or make an ad hoc hypothesis. In this case, the ad hoc hypothesis was the existence of another planet. They calculated exactly where another planet would have to be in order to produce the observed orbit of Uranus. Later, they found that planet exactly where predicted. We call this planet Neptune. To continue, there is also the orbit of Mercury. It's not a perfect ellipse. That contradicts Newtonian gravity. This was known for a long time, and that time a simple ad hoc hypothesis wouldn't work. Instead, it took general relativity to produce a model consistent with observations. However, the interesting part is that Newtonian gravity is a special case of general relativity. Newtonian gravity isn't simply incorrect, unlike Astrology. It's merely an approximation of a more accurate theory, the theory of general relativity. All of the predictions verified under Newtonian gravity are still correct today. It's not like the observation of Mercury's orbit somehow invalidates high school weight and spring physics problems done with Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity was a successful theory. It made many novel falsifiable empirical predictions that were verified. It covered a large range of observations. However, it was both incomplete and incorrect in some cases. Again, contrast this with astrology, which is simply incorrect. To that end, even if you find one or two minor contradicting evidences against evolution, you still have the whole mountain of evidence to go through. We might need an ad hoc hypothesis, like maybe special creation for the X fossil we found at Y, but when 99.9% plus of all evidence fits something, like it did with Netwonian gravity, you know you're on to something. To drive this point home, consider general relativity and quantum mechanics. They both can't be right. They make predictions which contradict the other. General relativity works well at the large scale and at large relative speeds. Quantum mechanics works well at the micro level where gravity is usually irrelevant. We know there's another, better, theory out there. If you figure it out you'll probably win a Nobel prize. If we find that theory which makes even better predictions, then the old predictions of quantum mechanics and general relativity will be just as right. The new theory (sometimes dubbed incorrectly "the theory of everything") may not even be complete nor fully accurate itself. It might just be another approximation of reality, more correct than previous theories, but still incorrect in some measurable cases. So, a simple rabbit in the pre-cambrian, while it would be most interesting, would not be sufficient to disprove evolution. It has too much evidence behind it. I think most scientists would rather accept alien intervention or time travels. However, if you start finding a lot of out of place fossils, or a lot of animals whose place on the genetic tree of life doesn't match their place on the taxonomy tree of life, then they'll reconsider. This, of course, appears to be highly unlikely. To put it another way, very often in science a confirmed theory is never "proven wrong". Just something better comes along. Even alchemy, while laughed at today, still managed some correct models of how chemistry works (depending on exactly what one wants to call alchemy). Oh, and finally, (I think many of you have heard this before, but it bears repeating): disproving evolution is insufficient to prove special creation. There are a multitude of possible hypotheses out there, including alien seeders, us living in The Matrix, or the all father Odin creating all life instead of the Christian God.
  7. johnsmith1048576

    A Few Questions For The Atheists

    False. Quantum theory and general relativity are incompatible, and one makes predictions that are incompatible with the other. Also, I think you subtly changed the argument. I argued that a good empirical science need not be complete. You argued something else. You argued as if I said that a good empirical science need not be accurate all the time. Those are two very different things. AFAIK, there isn't a smoking gun of empirical evidence against evolution. All observations conform to the model. Come again? I don't follow. What does it mean for something to be empirically verified vs inferred? I think I have to disagree with your claim. Again, the empirical scientific method as I know it cares only about making models, based on empirical evidence, which offer novel falsifiable predictions, which have withstood honest and robust attempts to falsify them. There is this notion in some communities that it has to be done in a lab, or be replicated, to be considered (empirical) science. This simply isn't true. You simply need a model which accounts for observations. Now I know you're all quite picky about such claims, so I'll only make it hesitantly until I can find more information to back that up, but off the cuff wasn't that video dismissed as an editing trick? If you wish, I can answer right now. There are mutations which add "letters" to the DNA sequence. After one generation of natural selection, information has been added to the genome of the surviving children. Do you prefer for me to respond one by one to the evidences in that thread here, or in that thread? Unfortunately, I not an expert in archeology, so some of those I'll be unable to comment on. Suffice to say, I think many of those arguments are weak. I do not understand. How can that be evidence for any possible hypothesis? Suppose the hypothesis was for special creation. How would that piece of evidence support that hypothesis? At best, it would be neutral. Surely we can agree that there are models which are incompatible with the observed fusion of the two chromosomes. I am at a loss how you can say that observation is consistent with all possible models. Yes, evolution was known true before sequencing the genomes, as I mentioned. However, it's just another falsifiable prediction from the model which has been verified, adding to the mountain of evidence. Now, I am curious, could you expand a bit on this please. How can you predict from the Biblical flood model that sequencing the human and chimp genomes would reveal that a human chromosome pair is the result of a fused chimp chromosome pair (more or less)? I do not follow at all.
  8. johnsmith1048576

    A Few Questions For The Atheists

    Well the proverbial precambrian rabbit is always a good example. A couple well documented examples of obviously wrongly placed fossils would do well to disprove evolution. One of the best evidences for evolution is how the tree of taxonomy, a science that predates evolutionary theory completely (or at least Darwin), coincides near exactly with the genetic tree of life. You can compare the DNA distance between two different species, and that genetic distance corresponds to their distance on the taxonomy tree of life. If you start finding some animals for which their place on the taxonomic tree of life doesn't match with the genetic tree, that would do quite well to disprove evolution. One of my favorite examples of how evolutionary science is a predictive science, and not merely a history, is when we sequenced the genomes of the chimps and humans. According to evolutionary theory, humans share a common ancestor with the great apes. All of the great apes have 48 chromosomes. We have 46. If evolutionary theory is true, then in one of our ancestors had to have one of its pairs of chromosomes fuse with another pair to produce 1 less pair. We've known this for many decades. Just recently, we've sequenced both genomes, and low and behold, we found that fused chromosome. If we didn't find that fused chromosome, that human chromosome which contains two great ape chromosomes, then that would be another good disproof of evolution.
  9. johnsmith1048576

    A Few Questions For The Atheists

    Again, that level of scrutiny I argue is unfair and inapplicable. No other empirical scientific theory is held to that standard. Why should evolution?
  10. johnsmith1048576

    A Few Questions For The Atheists

    I think you have an implicit premise that medical science has advanced to the degree that they can re-animate their body and brain. I believe that this is empirically false. Any good medical doctor will tell you that the brain's function is poorly understood, and that we very much lack the ability to take a dead brain and put it back to the "live brain" configuration. One reason that we cannot is that we don't know yet precisely what a "live brain" configuration is. If and when medical science advances to the point that they can, then I fully expect that you will be able to return people from the dead by properly restoring their body's state. Now this is just a canned attack on evolution. I'm new to the forums, so I'm wondering if it would be best to start a new topic. Unfortunately, this is a rather broad topic, the topic of at least one forum and many posts, so I doubt I'll be able to do it justice here. Instead, let me reply with the other side's canned replies. You invoked the idea of irreducible complexity. The basic idea is that if there is a system whose parts cannot have come about from a small, incremental modification of simpler precursor parts, then biological evolution by natural selection cannot be true. That is a true statement. The evolutions will disagree that there is a confirmed case of irreducible complexity. Every time one is found, later it is debunked, and an evolutionary pathway has been suggested and confirmed (or at least highly plausible). (Especially for the popular "in the news" cases, such as the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, and so on.) Second is your assertion that evolutionary science must explain it all in order to be true and accepted. This is a rather high standard, far higher than in any other discipline. Take, for example, quantum theory. Quantum theory doesn't explain why we have time dilation at macroscopic speeds, and thus it's incomplete, but that doesn't make its confirmed predictions any less true. By the same token, evolutionary science is incomplete, but its confirmed predictions are still true, and it's still making new falsifiable non-trivial predictions every day, the hallmark of a good empirical scientific theory.
  11. johnsmith1048576

    A Challenge To Evolutionists.

    Of course they do. Both sides do, frequently, including experts and prominent people on both sides. I hope that in these forums we could ignore those real life flame wars and discuss the interesting intellectual issues.
  12. johnsmith1048576

    Why The Earth Could Not Have Been Formed By Big Bang.

    Thus far, I have done my best to explain why this simplistic argument of the OP is wrong. I have presented a full argument. I please ask that you present a full argument as well so that I may be properly equipped to reply. Moreover, I was replying to the OP, not to your mathematician friend. I am sorry that my arguments cannot apply to all variations of an argument, including those not yet presented. I snipped the various reasons why it's unlikely because it's irrelevant to both the argument and the counter argument. I granted that those things do make the Earth's existence incredibly unlikely from a certain perspective, the perspective of complete ignorance. See conditional probability. However, we are in that perspective. We happen to have more information. To repeat, if it was just a random guess that a certain planet existed somewhere with those properties, then the chances that that guess were right would be exceedingly low. (Perhaps - let's ignore the actual question of how many Earth-like planets there are right now.) However, it's not just a guess. We happen to be on that planet, and thus with the benefit of hind sight, we are quite able to say pretty certainly that there exists a planet with those properties which we're on, just like we're able to say with hind sight no matter how unlikely a sequence of poker hands may be, if we happened to observe them or otherwise have good empirical evidence concerning them, then it happened. Also, if we want to invoke appeal to authority, then I will also note that I also have a college degree in mathematics from a respected university.
  13. johnsmith1048576

    A Challenge To Evolutionists.

    I cannot respond to claims that I have not made, especially to claims that I would similarly condemn.
  14. johnsmith1048576

    A Challenge To Evolutionists.

    Now, I'm trying very hard not to get into a war over definitions - as in claiming this is the "right" definition, but I do need to explore definitions to correctly answer this question. I think my argument was that empirical science does not care about the "artificial" distinctions of physical and non-physical, natural and supernatural, "real" and magic. All science cares about is models based on empirical evidence that offer falsifiable empirical predictions that are rigorously attempted to be falsified. Suppose that people tomorrow manifested some cheesy magic ala Harry Potter. Scientists would study this magic using the empirical scientific method. Perhaps they would need to invent a whole new "physics" to explain it, or perhaps it would be explainable in terms of the current standard model, quantum, relativity, and so on. However, the method of investigation would be the same. In other words, empirical science explores what is observable, directly or indirectly. That's just another way of saying empirical science studies claims which can be empirically falsified.
  15. johnsmith1048576

    Why The Earth Could Not Have Been Formed By Big Bang.

    snip Ok. I want to start with you agreeing that it must be a very rare event. Let's suppose that we can assign probabilities to each of those events, and assume the probabilities are statistically independent so that we can just multiply them together. I want you to think about this following experiment. Let's suppose you go to Vegas and play simple 5 card poker for a day. At 5 minutes a hand (rough estimate), that's 96 hands in eight hours. Suppose you play for 8 hours a day, for 7 days. Suppose you record down exactly what hand you were dealt, the exact order of each card, for all hands, keeping the hands in time order as well. I want you to calculate the odds that you were dealt those exact hands in that exact order. Statistically impossible, right? If it's not unlikely enough for you, extend this to every casino in Vegas, for every person who attended in, since Vegas existed. Obviously it happened, and yet "obviously" it must not have happened because it's so unlikely. You cannot naively dismiss past occurrences because the event was "unlikely" when we have good empirical evidence that the unlikely event did happen. Simplistic arguments from improbability of this form are simply not valid arguments. Now, what might be a valid argument. As a matter of empirical facts, we haven't captured the hands of everyone who has ever gone to Vegas. If you produce to me a supposed list of hands, then I can safely dismiss it as almost assuredly false because you have no backing evidence that those hands are correct. In other words, the chances that you guessed correctly are miniscule, and thus you are almost assuredly incorrect. Now, to go back to the original problem, sure, the chances that Earth having all the right conditions is rare. However, to continue the poker analogy, we happen to have very good evidence that this extremely unlikely event happened.
×

Important Information

Our Terms