Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

We've been over this, and if you remember ...

Yes... several times. You always forget your objections were answered.
This times I will let someone else answer you...
"In order to be meaningful, all samples must have formed at the same time, and must have the same initial concentration of nonradiogenic isotope. In addition, the system in which the rocks cooled must be closed, so that nothing can change the concentrations of the three nuclides other than radioactive decay. The final assumption is the most problematic: different samples must have different concentrations of parent nuclide. Otherwise, all the samples would plot on one point, and no unique solution would be obtainable.

"The problem: mineral isochrons, those that examine different mineral crystals within a melt, often produce the different parent-nuclide concentrations that the method requires. But a whole-rock isochron should not produce this result. And when it does, then the original melt was not homogeneous at all. This violates the central assumption of the method.

"The usual explanation given for a false isochron is that the rocks formed from a partially mixed, thus nonhomogeneous, melt. Other explanations include:....."http://www.examiner.com/article/isochron-dating-and-its-unsafe-assumptions

 

[6days]

How does John Sanford define "genetic information", and how does he measure it?.

Fallacy of moving the goalposts....
The challenge simply was a citation agreeing with 6days.
You have jumped from as hominem to moving the goalposts.

Here is something I posted on the topic a few years ago. At the time I was getting 'Discover' magazine and found an article by an evolutionist saying that Darwinian evolution, and its beliefs in mutations and natural selection was an inadequate explanation.

Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist who was once married to Carl Sagan. There is a most interesting interview of her in the April issue of my 'Discover' magazine. She actually is far from being a creationist, but she says many things that creationists say. For example:
* "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."
That is the creationist position. Margulis also explains that Darwinists "teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA in a direction set by natural selection". She then gives an example of chickens that can lay bigger and bigger eggs. But that mutation which may have benefits has come at a cost of "hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs".
That is the creationist position. Mutations can alter an organism, but it becomes less fit.

* "The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism [that natural selection is not a mechanism for the evolution of new species]."

* "I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence".

Margulis is then asked about studies on the beaks of finches that 'prove' evolution. She replies telling of a study done by Mr and Mrs Grant, both evolutionary biologists. "They [Grants’ research on Darwin’s finches] saw lots of variation within a species, changes over time. But they never found any new species—ever."
The creationist position is that there is a great deal of variation built into DNA. This can allow things such as finches through the process of natural, to adapt (short beak, long beak etc). Also the creationist position does accept rapid speciation.

Margulis is asked if she agrees that bacteria are mostly harmful. She doesn't agree.
The creationist position is that all bacteria were created to serve useful purposes. And most bacteria still is useful although some have mutated from the original design to become harmful.

Margulis then discusses how Darwin realized the fossil record does not support evolutionary transition, a gradual change from one species to another. She says "palaontologists Niles Eldredge and Steben Jay Gouldstudied ....looking for Darwins gradual change from one species of trilobite or snail to another. What they found was lots of back and forth variation then -whoop- a whole new species. There is no gradualism in the fossil record."

Again although Margulis is far from being a creationist, she says the same things about the evidence as creationists have been saying. The fossil record shows an explosion of life and then some extinctions. There is no fossil record of one type of animal becoming a different type.

Later date, I added.................................
Acknowledging Lynn Margulos.... She passed away last week at the age of 73. Although Lynn Differred on some theories (endosymbiotic theory and Gaia hypothesis) from most scientists, she was still well known and well respected.

Lynn had work in science research to the end and just very recently claimed to have found a new life organism, near the university of Massachusetts-Amherst where she taught. She had won many honours including the national medal of science

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes... several times. You always forget your objections were answered.
This times I will let someone else answer you...
"In order to be meaningful, all samples must have formed at the same time, and must have the same initial concentration of nonradiogenic isotope. In addition, the system in which the rocks cooled must be closed, so that nothing can change the concentrations of the three nuclides other than radioactive decay. The final assumption is the most problematic: different samples must have different concentrations of parent nuclide. Otherwise, all the samples would plot on one point, and no unique solution would be obtainable.

"The problem: mineral isochrons, those that examine different mineral crystals within a melt, often produce the different parent-nuclide concentrations that the method requires. But a whole-rock isochron should not produce this result. And when it does, then the original melt was not homogeneous at all. This violates the central assumption of the method.

"The usual explanation given for a false isochron is that the rocks formed from a partially mixed, thus nonhomogeneous, melt. Other explanations include:....."http://www.examiner.com/article/isochron-dating-and-its-unsafe-assumptions

?????????? The Examiner? A newspaper article written by Terry Hurlbut, self-described "creationism examiner"? Seriously? What did you do, Google "isochron" and some other creationist terms and go with the first hit that told you what you wanted to hear?

If this is how you approach science, I'll just let that speak for itself. Now....

Geologists invented isochron dating to make the initial daughter-isotope concentration irrelevant to radiometric analysis.

So at the very least, we've established that of the 3 items you listed previously, the first two have been shown to be irrelevant, even by your own creationist source.

In order to be meaningful, all samples must have formed at the same time, and must have the same initial concentration of nonradiogenic isotope. In addition, the system in which the rocks cooled must be closed, so that nothing can change the concentrations of the three nuclides other than radioactive decay. The final assumption is the most problematic: different samples must have different concentrations of parent nuclide.

Yep, and if that isn't the case, the resulting plot and non-linear relationships will show it. IOW, as with your previous irrelevant objections, isochron dating actually tests for these conditions. The creationist author even admits this...

An isochron that is too shallow, or slopes downward, is an obvious example.

Exactly. If any of the conditions are violated, it will show up in the resulting plot.

But sometimes, as in this Russian study, one obtains a perfectly reasonable-looking isochron that the investigators still reject because the age thus obtained doesn't fit the narrative.

Well sure. Just the other day I used a tire pressure gauge. The first 3 times it said the pressure was ~40 psi, but the next time it said it was 120 psi, and the next 3 times it said ~40 psi. Does that mean tire pressure gauges are useless? Should I have gone into a tire place and said I had no idea what my tire pressure is?

Then your source actually has the gall to cite creationist S. Austin's infamous misuse of dating protocols as evidence that the method doesn't work. In a nutshell, Austin violated the basic protocol of homogeneity of samples, in that he took samples from four different lava flows and one phenocryst.

IOW, a creationist went out, misused a tool, and then declared the tool to be useless.

Also, I have to wonder why you think anyone should care what Terry Hurlbut, a medical doctor who has no training or experience in geochemistry, thinks about geochemistry. Couldn't Google find you a creationist with some actual qualifications? :chuckle:

Further, you once again blew off most of my response to you. To repeat...

If you have a mechanism by which radioactive decay can be accelerated enough to make rocks that are only 6,000 years old appear to be billions of years old, you should let everyone know. You know why? Because you would solve mankind's energy problems forever. We'd be able to generate all the nuclear power we wanted, and use your mechanism to dispose of the leftover material. Right now we're stuck with the leftovers, and since nothing anyone has ever tried has caused decay rates to accelerate, all we can do is bury it, wait, and hope.

Also, I believe we previously covered the fact that different isotopes decay via different mechanisms. For example, K40 decays to Ar40 via electron capture, whereas Rb87 decays to Sr87 via beta decay....two entirely different processes.

So what mechanism do you propose that would affect different isotopes that decay via completely different mechanisms, in exactly the same way (such that they would give the apparent age of millions/billions of years, when they are both really only ~6,000 years old)?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi, Mike. I do have just a tad of reluctance to put much credibility in someone who has proven himself to be a false prophet, and who adamantly refuses to educate himself on science yet vehemently attacks science with the epitome of his logic being “I just don’t believe it”, and who says he plays canasta with angels, who is in awe of Uri Geller, who laughs in God’s face when given the answer to prayer, who flips-flops on doctrine, who acts like an infant with crayons, …

Davis,

Are you done with your tantrum and tirade of twisted words and meanings? A prophet / person who never makes mistakes? Lofty expectations, BJ!! Yes, some things I just don't believe. So what?! I do not play canasta with angels and I'm not hardly in awe of Uri Geller. I don't laugh in God's face and do my best with the doctrine I hold. And I don't act like an infant with crayons. There, does that make your tantrum feel better?? I'm so glad you have so much 'intellect' but what good is going to do you when God's Son returns to Earth, and you are nonplussed?! Are you going to give Him the same tantrum, like why He didn't 'reveal' Himself to you?? I made the choice to believe in Him when I heard stories about Him. I believed. You don't. Enough said. Tons of Luck!!

Michael

 

[Jose Fly]

Fallacy of moving the goalposts....

Er....um.....

Is this yet another lame attempt by you to get out of committing to a definition of "genetic information" and saying how to measure it?

You copy and pasted the following...

However...John Sanford, internationally known geneticist and author of 80+peer reviewed articles says " It must be understood that scientists have a very sensitive and extensive network for detecting information creating mutations, and most geneticists are diligently keeping their eyes open for them all the time. This has been true for about 100 years. The sensitivity of this observational network is such that even if only one mutation out of a million unambiguously creates new information (apart from fine tuning) , the literature would be overflowing with reports of this happening. Yet I am still not convinced there is a single crystal clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information. There are certainly many mutations which have been described as beneficial but most of these beneficial mutations have not created information but rather have destroyed it."​

Now I think just about anyone would read that and understand that "genetic information" and its quantity are the central concepts in the above copied material. The problem is, there's no definition of "genetic information", nor does it describe a means to measure it.

As I noted earlier, the other day you copied from creation.com, where they claimed "the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information." So naturally I asked if you were now saying that "specificity = genetic information". And as you've done countless times before, you bailed.

See the pattern here? Why can't you just say what you think "genetic information" is, and tell us how you measure it? And don't play your silly little game where you say "I already did", but conveniently somehow can't be bothered to re-state what you said, or link to where you said it.

It's time to act like an adult, be an honest participant in the discussion, and actually say what you think "genetic information" is and how you measure it. No games, no "I already did"......take a deep breath, drop your defensiveness, and just do it. And if you can't, be honest and admit it.

 

[patrick jane]

But that is one more source of magic than scientists have. Scientists have to figure out natural laws and work with them. Every single time I have asked creationists to show me that magic they lay claim to, I get reprimanded. Guess when I travel to the orient I will just have to keep relying on aeronautical engineers and such, while you guys can be whisked wherever you need to be on divine flying chariots.

If you ever spent time in the scriptures you may be persuaded to Christ. Someday, pick up a King James Bible and start with Romans. Read it in about 90 minutes or so and then the rest of Paul's epistles, Romans through Philemon. You will see differently if you really understand what is written. Go easy on Mikey

 

[Jose Fly]

* "The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism [that natural selection is not a mechanism for the evolution of new species]."

Um....hang on a sec. Earlier in this thread as I described your "Biblical model of creation", I stated....

Further, Stripe has said that natural selection never occurs ever. You have said you agree. Thus, not only does your model include ~4,500 years of constant fitness reduction in order to produce immense diversity in very little time, there isn't even any selection to weed out the deleterious alleles!​

You gave the following rather weasely response...

You have been shown numerous times Stripe agrees on rapid adaptation and the mechanisms that cause it. He just doesn't agree with some of the evolutionary terminology.

So when I characterized the "Biblical model of creation" as not including natural selection as a mechanism in the post-flood rapid evolution of species, you objected even to the point of calling me dishonest.

But now you're saying that "natural selection is not a mechanism for the evolution of new species"?

I guess this is what happens when you reflexively jump from one copy-and-paste to another in an ad hoc manner, with no regard to whether or not you're putting forth a consistent, coherent narrative.

Such is the nature of creationism.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Any supposed magic for an explanation seems highly unsatisfactory to me, even if it makes you content to stop looking for natural answers.

Dear alwight,

God created nature. How natural can you be?? Look for 'natural' answers, my friend!! A whim from nothing did not create 'nature.'

From One Bro' To Another!!

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

Yet evolutionists every day believe that a Breitling watch could pop into existence by dumb luck, given enough time and the right circumstances.

Erm ... No they don't. You have adopted quite a straw man there, so if that is your justification for your belief, then you are in need of a good evolution primer. At least criticise the real theory, not some self-serving creationist parody of it.

 

[MichaelCadry]

ok, when were Emus created?

Dear TheDuke: Emus were created when the cattle were created. Same with ALL beasts!! Figure it out. It says all of the creatures were created on the 6th day. Also the critters, like ants, and praying mantises, caterpillars, crickets, grasshoppers, moths, butterflies, and roaches, etc.

Incredulity combined with a conspiracy theory, how marvelous. So you're the kind of persons who rationalises fossils by claiming they were laid down by the devil, eh?
On a more serious note, care to provide an example where paleontologists reconstruct an entire animal from 1 bone?

Aren't they trying to do that with the Titanosaurus? They find one bone and they say he is the largest dinosaur ever!! Give me a break!!

Nope, but close enough

Your idea of God, is one huge deceiver, who teams up with his enemy to sucker humanity for his own amusement.

Yes there is - it's called: 'evidence'

Where do you get this from, I wonder?
BTW, could it be that you're asking the wrong questions?

OK, beware from now on, I'm going to shamelessly quote-mine this ultimate confession. Never thought it'd be so easy to get that out of you guys.....
Remember, Michael, how long we wasted talking about miracle=magic?

I'm simply done with trying to answer your questions one sentence at a time. I feel debased doing that. Get it through your head. There is a God and He does miracles, not magic. But you may never know because you don't believe in Him. But I say you will know, and it shall be a grave mistake that you've made when you find out!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I'm so glad the real world isn't like that, and that supernatural magic, pixies, fairies, gods and hobgoblins are all just make believe.

No one would dare take a boat trip in case someone decided to part the the sea or something. No, you can keep your Alice in wonderland. I'll just stick with reality.

Dear Hedshaker,

Now come on! You know that he was just using a soliloquy. He hardly thinks Our God is 'magic.' Our God does 'Miracles,' not magic. And you know it by now, so why call on him for it??

Much Love & Cheerio,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Oh bummer!
Well at least it's good to know that even after 15 years, one can still preserve one's mental sanity.

Do you reckon, this tactic is a variation of the infamous "Gish gallop"?

PS: If I'm not mistaken the "high rate of beneficial mutations" in Kimura's paper has to do with the particular mathematical model he's using, and that's exactly why he himself limits the model to only the deleterious mutations, since it fails for the good ones

Dear TheDuke,

Is this what you think I'VE been doing?? I have only posted other articles maybe five times in over a year or two. I just post them because they defend my position and that they might be useful to people who don't know about God. You're going to stand before God someday and explain your life to Him. Then He is going to pass judgment upon you. There is no getting out of it. A soul and it's spirit does never die. We are ALL here for eternity, either our souls and spirits are in Heaven or they are in Hell. That is how it works. Pick your poison. You have no idea of the grave mistake you are making! Why do you think we are so hard on you and that we try to urge you to believe in God and His Son, Christ? We're trying to spare you from burning forever. Otherwise, we would find better use of our time. Ay Carumba!! {that means Darn It in Spanish}.

Michael

 

[iouae]

Erm ... No they don't. You have adopted quite a straw man there, so if that is your justification for your belief, then you are in need of a good evolution primer. At least criticise the real theory, not some self-serving creationist parody of it.

I thought about choosing the simplest animal I know, Amoeba proteus. Its a single celled animal which can move, feed, breath, reproduce, react to stimuli, excrete, eliminate, and apparently survive indefinitely.

Looking up their genetics, they have 500 chromosomes to our 46, and 100 times more base pairs than humans. Amoeba has 290 billion base pairs, we have 2.9 billion base pairs.

So if the simplest animal has 100 times more DNA than the most complicated "animal", there seems very little chance of even the best biologist in the world explaining how complicated life really is.

So I will leave you with my very good Breitling watch analogy/parable, which I think you are just pretending you don't understand.

 

[gcthomas]

Evolution requires changes to happen with small incremental changes, with each step being viable in its own right. Artificial devices like watches are not put together like this, so the analogy fails at the first hurdle.

The fossil record suggests small incremental changes over time, supporting the evolution model and requiring the rejection of your Paley's Watch analogy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

 

[Tyrathca]

Sure. I'll quote Tyrathca:

that is how communication of information is modelled in with Shannon.

Stop being cheeky and/or stupid

I will repeat with emphasis now what I was asking a citation for:
"ALL communication is encode->transmission->decode in order to accomplish something"

All Shannon information modelling of encode->transmission->decode is of communication but that does not mean all communication is Shannon modelling of encode->transmission->decode (unless you can show otherwise - which given its known variable usage I doubt you can). Anymore than all chickens hatch from eggs but not eggs hatch chickens.

That's the definition I'm using for communication: encode->transmission->decode.

Citation needed. That is how Shannon information models communication but it does not mean Shannon information models all communication (unless you are using a narrow definition of communication I doubt anyone else uses)

A simple example: DNA is not a protein, but it is encoded with what proteins are.

So is DNA is the encoded transmission and proteins are the decoded message..... what is it encoded from? DNA is self replicated therefore seemingly in infinite transmission.... Or is DNA encoded to itself?.... It's not encoded from proteins.... none of these seem to fit with Shannon's encode->transmission->decode model.

I'll repeat a previous question - when is the encoding, transmission and decoding occurring? Can you name the life cycle or process/es occurring?

Somehow, when a protein is needed, the cell gets the encoded information and decodes it to make a protein. Sometimes the protein isn't made right even if the information from the DNA is correct because of errors that enter the transmission of the information from DNA to protein.

So in the example here you are saying that DNA isn't the transmission? Since the data is encoded from DNA then transmitted to the ribosome (via mRNA) and then decoded by the ribosome into a protein.

This is meant to clear up your claim of DNA being in transmission how?

(Note this is NOT an example of mutation, I hope that was a redundant statement but you have a penchant for misunderstanding/quote mining. On the plus side you get extra points for actually naming a biological process that has some sort of definable start (encoding) and end (decoding) point with communication over a distance, so a good start on trying to use Shannon information, I'm not sure how useful it is but good start! A pity it doesn't help your case about mutations though...)

 

[noguru]

Evolution requires changes to happen with small incremental changes, with each step being viable in its own right. Artificial devices like watches are not put together like this, so the analogy fails at the first hurdle.

The fossil record suggests small incremental changes over time, supporting the evolution model and requiring the rejection of your Paley's Watch analogy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

:shocked:

:think:

Now we are going to hear about the Cambrian explosion.



They simply try to wiggle from one logical point to another, without placing those points parsimoniously under one theoretical model of explanation. This is why they like the answer of "magic". It gets them out of the logical corner they have painted them self into.

 

[DavisBJ]

I asked PJ:

Do you think radiological dating is incorrect?

6 jumped in with this response:

The assumptoons(sp) are incorrect.

Here a minor miscommunication arises, because I then asked 6:

And those assumptions are?

To which 6 answered:

Radiometric dating accurately measures the rate of decay from parent to daughter element. When you extrapolate time to arrive at a date you are assuming
1. no elements have leached in or out.
2. How much daughter element was in the initial amount at creation.
3. That nothing in the past ever caused accelerated rate of decay.

6’s reply is essentially the stock reply I have received numerous times when I ask creationists about why they distrust radiological dating. The problem with that reply is that it is great for presenting to naïve creationist audiences, but scientifically those assumptions are at a level commensurate with maybe a freshman college student just starting into a geology career. I can’t imagine a serious laboratory that does radiological dating for who these “assumptions” have not long since been thoroughly understood.

Now let me restate, more completely, my question to 6:

6, your initial response to me specified that the “assumptions” were “incorrect”. A huge corpus of radiological dates exists in the scientific community, dates extending well back before literal Genesis allows. These dates come from a variety of radiological dating mechanisms, and where possible, they are cross-checked with dates derived from non-radiological studies. Now please identify for us those “incorrect assumptions” that you contend falsify one of the mostly widely used and trusted dating techniques in the world today. Specifically, beyond vague allusions to the apparent incipient stupidity of tens of thousands of PhD scientists that have been involved in deriving our current ancient geological dates, what specific errors were made that you think have misled, and continue to mislead, the fumbling imbeciles worldwide in academia and industry who so consistently come up with dates that are apparently in error by factors of nearly a million times?

In many branches of science measurement errors of even a few percent are massive, and clearly stand out. Surely monstrously wrong data like you must think is the norm in radiological dating must be obvious. We are almost a century into the era of radiological dating, so let’s fix it now rather than go for centuries to come in ridiculously wrong measurements.

(Why do I get the sinking feeling that 6's answer will boil down to one essential belief – that ancient religious legends handed down from truly scientifically illiterate nomadic tribes must be read absolutely literally as uncontested truth?)

 

[alwight]

I thought about choosing the simplest animal I know, Amoeba proteus. Its a single celled animal which can move, feed, breath, reproduce, react to stimuli, excrete, eliminate, and apparently survive indefinitely.

Looking up their genetics, they have 500 chromosomes to our 46, and 100 times more base pairs than humans. Amoeba has 290 billion base pairs, we have 2.9 billion base pairs.

So if the simplest animal has 100 times more DNA than the most complicated "animal", there seems very little chance of even the best biologist in the world explaining how complicated life really is.

So I will leave you with my very good Breitling watch analogy/parable, which I think you are just pretending you don't understand.

Watches don't self-replicate.
The simplest early self replicating molecules would have been rather less likely to inspire your apparent desire to be so easily personally incredulated (sic) by the genetic numbers.:think:
Pre-Cambrian life forms typically increased their size and complexity by using a fractal system which has a considerably smaller genetic mechanism than modern life, much smaller genetic numbers involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoibwW1DMuw

 

[DavisBJ]

If you ever spent time in the scriptures you may be persuaded to Christ. Someday, pick up a King James Bible and start with Romans. Read it in about 90 minutes or so and then the rest of Paul's epistles, Romans through Philemon. You will see differently if you really understand what is written. Go easy on Mikey

Alas, PJ, you are too late. For far too long I actually was a Christian, I faithfully read and studied and taught the Bible. The whole Bible. Including the passages you mention. And … and … and some others as well. Like how, had you and I lived in times of old, together we could have hacked the heads off innocent infant girls (I Samuel 15). Or we might have each been given an attractive shapely young virgin as our own private property – you know- kinda a reward for disemboweling her mother in front of her, beheading her father, and crushing the skull of her younger brother. Of course we would have to verify she was actually still a virgin before we would accept the young maiden. Wouldn’t that have been cool? Want more? Read your Old Testament.

But you are right about Michael. He is like the cockroach that keeps scurrying out and distracting you. After a while you try to step on him, but you know cockroaches sometimes don’t squash easily. He just comes back and back and back. (And he left such a clear legacy of fiercely defended promises of the apocalypse before years end – so reminiscent of the long line of equally narcissistic religious false prophets that preceded him).

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

God created nature. How natural can you be?? Look for 'natural' answers, my friend!! A whim from nothing did not create 'nature.'

From One Bro' To Another!!

Michael

That's a nice belief perhaps Michael, that "natural" = your specific God.

If you are right then of course your very specific God created smallpox to which man then had the audacity to unnaturally eradicate.

There are people walking around today happily ignorant of the fact that they should have been victims of polio and should have spent their lives crippled in honour of your specific God.

People are alive and well today when they should have been killed by cancer, a very natural disease. No doubt they will soon all pay for this affront to your God in the lake of fire? lain: