cDK Theory

[ToBeInChrist]

Indeed, sometimes we do things because we like doing them or just want to do them, not because they make sense.

Do you think that's a good way to decide what is true and what is not?

I was being more pragmatic and realistic than willful.

Pragmatically, at some point we just tend to go forward with some notions that we decide we can trust well enough that we can work with them. Maybe we revise our notions later, and revisit issues when we find ourselves a bit better equipped in some area.

Realistically, at some point because of the subject matter we must, if we are to be realistic, deal with matters of semantics, personal questions, etc., and not just chains of formal argumentation or machines.

To do this is not an error, it is practical and realistic. And our practical successes and realistic concessions are indications of being checked by the real world... that perhaps our formal arguments are limited, are not dealing with all of reality, are missing some practical relevance, etc.

Can you tell us why those dysfunctional mutations propagate so readily in experiments, but wild populations never seem to die out, even though these mutations are just as likely in the wild.

Could you rephrase the question?

 

[Nostromo]

Realistically, at some point because of the subject matter we must, if we are to be realistic, deal with matters of semantics, personal questions, etc., and not just chains of formal argumentation or machines.

At what point does dealing with personal questions require us to throw logic out of the window?

I think perhaps I'd better understand if you could give me an example.

Could you rephrase the question?

If I may, I'd like to hold off on that question for a little while, I hadn't really been following your conversation properly.

I have a different question to which I wouldn't mind an answer.

You just don't have an example of bigger transformations and then you say "oh those differences are arbitrary" -- well show me something that naturally mutates and then gets a new functional limb, at least, then? And more than a finger or toe. Not a cripple. Something functional. Something helpful.

Presumably you believe that God created life on Earth in its current form.

Can you give me an example of an improvement of one of His creations? An example of where an additional limb would produce something better than the original?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, no. I'm aware that many many mutant fruit-flies and rats with dysfunctional mutations or an inability to reproduce or with children who don't survive, are done.

I am aware of some positive minor mutations. I brought up moth's color change in areas where the trees were darkened by smoke.

So what of the mutations that separate chimps and humans? Do you consider those to be positive changes in DNA sequence?

No it is not. Nature is not a man made, controlled environment where causative factors are isolated by scientists to a point where causation can be studied under ideal conditions.

Nature is not a lab, period. You keep saying that, but it sounds like you have no clue, apparently, what a lab experiment is, what a controlled experiment to demonstrate causation is, as contrasted with a correlative study.

I am a scientist. I do have a clue. Nowhere in the scientific method does it require that all experiments be run in a lab. NOWHERE does it state this. In fact, laboratory conditions can produce results that are not consistent with the same processes in nature.

Even more, the limits you place on science are not limits you probably agree with anyway. If a murder does not take place in a controlled lab does that mean forensic scientists can not reconstruct the crime? Of course not. Of course, I am discussing this with a person who thinks Last Thursdayism is a valid argument.

You have no common ancestor, though.

Yes, we do. The genetic evidence is irrefutable.

Piltdown man certainly doesn't count.

Never said that it did. And how did scientists determine that Piltdown was a hoax?

In a quite exceptional circumstance, the qualitative change from a situation where there is no living biological being in the universe, to the existence of living biological beings, or the qualitative change from no intelligent biological life to intelligent biological live, or no physical universe to a physical universe -- these three particular amazing circumstances, when I look at how Newtonian physics breaks down on very large or very small scales, I see precedent for saying that we are dealing with strange transformations that may be outside of 'business as usual' in the universe.

You are assuming that these occurrences are not business as usual. As it turns out, they may very well be.

Just as travel near the speed of light or distances smaller than an atom make for conditions other than 'business as usual' when we deal with the physics, the difference before/after with the subject of the universe's physical existence/stabilized order, life, and consciousness, are not of 'ordinary scale' with other things dealt with in the relevant sciences.

Why isn't this business as usual? This is how the universe works.

The theory of macro-evolution, on the other hand, is given a free pass all over the place, with repeated failures to find a missing link that stands up to peer-review, and with various anomalies among fossils, and with repeated ad-hoc revisions in the face of problems.

Care to give some examples? Last I checked, Australopithecus afarensis and Homo erectus are still considered transitional. You have not pointed to any anomalous fossils, and you have not listed any problems.

Macro-evolutionary miracles of FUNCTIONAL mutations derived from multiple minor mutations, are given a free pass as the norm, among evolutionists. Why do you gripe about me accepting some miraculous possibilities at a few key points of transformation?

Then show me a DNA difference between humans and chimps that could not be produced by the accumulation of minor mutational changes from a common ancestor.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

At what point does dealing with personal questions require us to throw logic out of the window? I think perhaps I'd better understand if you could give me an example.

I didn't say throw logic out the window. When we deal with people and assess our relationships, we are dealing with personal stuff, complex stuff, semantics, etc., it isn't just mechanical methodological application of formal logic. When we assess complex factors on huge projects there can be a bit of an art to ingenuity. When we ask ourselves questions about our character, or when we look at consciousness or life, we cannot reduce everything to mathematical formulas.

On a lot of things we can use our reason and various formal methods, sure, but we would be tying our hands behind our back if we expected that machine-like application of mathematics/formal logic would give us an adequate practical result or appreciation of the whole or of important aspects of reality.

I have a different question to which I wouldn't mind an answer. Presumably you believe that God created life on Earth in its current form. Can you give me an example of an improvement of one of His creations? An example of where an additional limb would produce something better than the original?

I can imagine some advantages to having two extra arms. I'm thinking cats would make good use of thumbs if they had them.

So what of the mutations that separate chimps and humans? Do you consider those to be positive changes in DNA sequence?

Who says that mutations separate chimps and humans?

I am a scientist. I do have a clue. Nowhere in the scientific method does it require that all experiments be run in a lab. NOWHERE does it state this. In fact, laboratory conditions can produce results that are not consistent with the same processes in nature.

If you are looking for correlations, that may be fine. But if you want to ISOLATE a cause so that you can really demonstrate that that cause, and that cause alone, is responsible for a phenomenon, a controlled study in a lab makes all the difference, doesn't it?

 

[sandwiches]

Does it have the same initials?

ROFL!
I just read your reply and I never thought of that!

 

[Loudmouth]

Who says that mutations separate chimps and humans?

The sequencing of both genomes showed this.

Those differences are positive changes for both species, are they not? Or are you saying that the 65 million mutations that separate humans and chimps are harmful to both species?

If you are looking for correlations, that may be fine. But if you want to ISOLATE a cause so that you can really demonstrate that that cause, and that cause alone, is responsible for a phenomenon, a controlled study in a lab makes all the difference, doesn't it?

It can make a difference, but it is not required. Observing mechanisms working in nature is just as valid as any observation made in the lab, and all of these observations can be used to test hypotheses. The scientific method doesn't stop at the lab door.

 

[Davian]

How about this, Del?

If it bothers you guys so much that I'm an embedded ager -- and you want me to switch to theistic evolution -- does it bother you guys that theistic evolutionists aren't gap theorists?

And does it bother you that gap theorists aren't embedded agers?

No -- what I think really bothers you guys, is that we factor God into our equations, and use Him to pwn evolution.

This is why I don't think you guys go after the likes of Lucaspa or Faith Guardian -- because your agenda is evolution ... not God.

Put another way, you'll be able to tolerate us Christians, so long as we agree with you guys on evolution.

Again, in my opinion.

It does not bother me that theists may believe that they can factor God into an equation, or that it 'pwns evolution'; it is, to paraphrase your post here, that theists go beyond 'just believing'. They want their beliefs - their *particular* beliefs - incorporated into government and education. Your god - or anyone's deity, for that matter - should be able to stand on its own immaterial feet (or whatever it may use to stand on), without crutches and apologetics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your god - or anyone's deity, for that matter - should be able to stand on its own immaterial feet (or whatever it may use to stand on), without crutches and apologetics.

And so should yours; but the fact of the matter is, if we keep quiet, you guys will go unchecked with your religion; and it's not going to happen.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

 

[sandwiches]

And so should yours; but the fact of the matter is, if we keep quiet, you guys will go unchecked with your religion; and it's not going to happen.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

What have internet theologians and Biblists like you done to keep this religion you mention "in check?"

 

[Davian]

It does not bother me that theists may believe that they can factor God into an equation, or that it 'pwns evolution'; it is, to paraphrase your post here, that theists go beyond 'just believing'. They want their beliefs - their *particular* beliefs - incorporated into government and education. Your god - or anyone's deity, for that matter - should be able to stand on its own immaterial feet (or whatever it may use to stand on), without crutches and apologetics.

And so should yours; but the fact of the matter is, if we keep quiet, you guys will go unchecked with your religion;

See - you did the crutch thing right there, in trying to say I have a deity. As an ignostic atheist, that would be a pretty fancy set of crutches you just put on yours.

Tell me why all of these deities, like yours, all seem to need crutches like this.

and it's not going to happen.

It is already happening. Do try to keep up.

Claims to be the fastest-growing religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"There is often little coverage of the "No religious denomination" category (which includes deists, agnostics, atheists, and theists) although some evidence suggests they are growing rapidly. In the United States the so-called "Nones" are the fastest growing religious status; Australia, Canada and much of Europe have also seen dramatic increases in the numbers of non-religious people."

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

There probably are sillier things to do than quoting bible passages at an ignostic atheist, but they elude me at his time.

I do wonder, if you were to try to turn things around, what would you do differently than what you do now?

 

[Gracchus]

And so should yours; but the fact of the matter is, if we keep quiet, you guys will go unchecked with your religion; and it's not going to happen.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Well, I guess we don't have to worry about shouting stones as long as you're around.

 

[driewerf]

I'm not Dove, but I'd love to take a crack at these, if you don't mind:

I don't mind. But I'm still eager to see Doveaman's answers.

1. The Bible existentially dates this universe at just over 6000 years.

And the bible is wrong on that subject.

2. a) It only makes sense that the light would be faster, since light slows down as it travels through a medium, and there was no medium as yet when the light was created, hence the light would travel unimpeded from 3rd Heaven to Earth.

Alas, the interstellar space is a very much better vacuum than the best we can make here on earth. So, light travels at the speed of c through interstellar space.

4. Age would slow anything down; and if light is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I assume it would slow down as well. However, it slowed down anyway, as it now travels through a medium that didn't exist until the 2nd day of creation.

Your assumptions are wrong. Yes, light is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but that doesn't affect the speed of light.
And as said, interstellar space is a vacuum. Light travels through it at c.

 

[AV1611VET]

And as said, interstellar space is a vacuum. Light travels through it at c.

But we're talking about the speed of light @ Genesis 1:1, are we not?

Light traveling through space is affected by gravity, correct?

But in Genesis 1:1, the only thing that existed with gravity was the earth.

 

[driewerf]

But we're talking about the speed of light @ Genesis 1:1, are we not?

Light traveling through space is affected by gravity, correct?

But in Genesis 1:1, the only thing that existed with gravity was the earth.

Sun? Stars? Galaxies? Clusters of Galaxies? These were ther long before the earth.

 

[Tiberius]

What have internet theologians and Biblists like you done to keep this religion you mention "in check?"

If this religion AV mentions is science, then believers have done a great deal to keep science in check. They've stopped stem cell research, and the Catholic church has done a great deal to prevent use of condoms in Africa, leading to the spread of aids.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

The sequencing of both genomes showed this.

I understand that people speculate about sequencing and based on various assumptions they make various abstractions to piece together the puzzles they make based on other conclusions.

Observing a process from start to finish oneself is a different sort of thing. Just as in literary research there are primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, when we interpret raw data we are at a remove to some degree from the primary source material.

I think it's good to try to convey the degree of abstraction, the degree of remove, the degree of puzzle-play involved, the assumptions that are built into one's speculative interpretations. That may make later correction/improvement easier, may help identify mistaken assumptions or ad hoc assertions which may later be removed or modified.

The scientific method doesn't stop at the lab door.

I'm not saying that it does. What I'm saying is that it is highly desirable to isolate a single causal factor when doing research to establish causation, and if you can't do that you don't have quite the same degree of solidity behind claims of causality.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand that people speculate about sequencing and based on various assumptions they make various abstractions to piece together the puzzles they make based on other conclusions.

Observing a process from start to finish oneself is a different sort of thing. Just as in literary research there are primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, when we interpret raw data we are at a remove to some degree from the primary source material.

When someone does a DNA paternity test do they have to be there to witness the conception itself? Does a forensic scientist have to be at the crime scene to personally witness the crime in order to match the fingerprints and DNA at the crime scene to the defendant? Or could it be that evidence found in the present can be used to reconstruct the past?

I think it's good to try to convey the degree of abstraction, the degree of remove, the degree of puzzle-play involved, the assumptions that are built into one's speculative interpretations.

Then please start doing that instead of alluding to them.

We can start with ERV's. There is an excellent thread (minus dad's posts) over here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7567545/

I'm not saying that it does. What I'm saying is that it is highly desirable to isolate a single causal factor when doing research to establish causation, and if you can't do that you don't have quite the same degree of solidity behind claims of causality.

Then let's use ERV's as an example. Retroviruses have been heavily studied in the laboratory. We have found the cause of endogenized retroviral (ERV) sequences in the genomes of apes, including humans. From that knowledge we can predict that if humans and other apes share a common ancestor that we should find the same ERV insertions at the same position in each genome. These are called orthologous ERV's. When the human and chimp genomes were sequenced this prediction was put to the test. As it turns out, we found over 200,000 orthologous ERV's shared by humans and chimps with only a few hundred being lineage specific. The prediction was shown in spades. This is smoking gun evidence of common ancestry.

 

[Loudmouth]

Light traveling through space is affected by gravity, correct?

The speed of light is not affected by gravity.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

When someone does a DNA paternity test do they have to be there to witness the conception itself? Does a forensic scientist have to be at the crime scene to personally witness the crime in order to match the fingerprints and DNA at the crime scene to the defendant? Or could it be that evidence found in the present can be used to reconstruct the past?

Among the issues are: how long was the evidence left at the scene, what state is the evidence in now, how much evidence of what kind do we now have, what other corroborating evidence is there, etc.

As it turns out, we found over 200,000 orthologous ERV's shared by humans and chimps with only a few hundred being lineage specific.

Are there alternative explanations for this? Why are common sequences seen as evidence of evolution over time instead of creation in an instant? Isn't that more because of philosophical presuppositions that are or are not allowed by one's methodology?

 

[sandwiches]

If this religion AV mentions is science, then believers have done a great deal to keep science in check. They've stopped stem cell research, and the Catholic church has done a great deal to prevent use of condoms in Africa, leading to the spread of aids.

Science has progressed despite all that. AV knows that science will show itself to be true, in the end, and that's why he likes to think himself prophetic in saying that evolution will be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. It's protection from cognitive dissonance.