cDK Theory

[Tiberius]

True, but just imagine where we would be if it hadn't happened...

 

[Skaloop]

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?

Sure there are alternate explanations. But the reason this supports evolution over creation is because it is a specific prediction/expectation of evolution, specifically common ancestry. It is not, however, something that is predicted by creationism. It's possible under creation, but so is anything else, any other pattern. So because there are countless ERV patterns that could falsify evolution, but the one we find is the one predicted by evolution, whereas literally any pattern could be "explained" by creationism, it constitutes strong evidence in favour of evolution, and is neutral evidence regarding creation. That's why it doesn't count as evudence for crestionism.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

DNA quality can be assessed independently of the STR patterns. Bad DNA does not produce false positives. You either get a PCR product or you don't. The same applies for all types of evidence.

The worse part though is that you don't care about the quality of the evidence at all. You will claim, with a wave of the hand, that the evidence could have been poofed into being without any connection to the crime. It doesn't matter if the fingerprints are unsmudged, that the DNA is high quality, that the ballistics analysis is dead on. Instead, you will claim that all of this was part of the creation when the Universe came about 3 hours ago.

Are there alternative explanations for this?

Testable and falsifiable explanations? No. Omphalos type arguments that are inherently untestable and unfalsifiable? Yes.

All that I ask is that you be consistent. If Omphalos type arguments would not convince you in a court case then don't use them to dismiss evidence in other areas.

Why are common sequences seen as evidence of evolution over time . . .

Because we observe evolution producing those common sequences in a nested hierarchy in modern species. We do not see supernatural deities producing different species with shared DNA.

Isn't that more because of philosophical presuppositions that are or are not allowed by one's methodology?

Unfalsifiable and untestable hypotheses are not allowed by scientific method. That much is true. But is that really a bad thing? Shouldn't you have to demonstrate that your explanation is true through some sort of test? If there is no observation that would falsify an explanation, then what good is it?

Added by edit: Let's use forensic DNA analysis as an example. If any result from that test could indicate guilt, is it really a reliable test? If a forensic fingerprint expert could claim that any pattern of swirl marks is consistent with the fingerprints of the defendant, is fingerprint analysis really a reliable test?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Again, it's not like we have a time machine. We have inferences and assumptions that we may run through various man-made methodological machines and interpretations. We can try to do the best we can with times spans that are too huge to really deal with adequately, with regions that are too huge to come to really grips with, with data that is too vast to presume to have mastered it all -- and it's amazing we can do as well as we do -- but it's still speculative, and the further we get into the past, the more distance we cover, the more details that are related, the more we must be humbled by the sheer volume and depth of the subject-matter.

I'm amazed at what we can do today, with physical evidence from a few decades ago, with pieces of testimony, etc. But sometimes we have reasons to say we are just giving our best guess (a reasonable one, but still a guess) for something that happened within a small known region within a few weeks time span a few decades ago to one person.

So when we are dealing with the entire species, many many thousands of years ago, across the entire planet, etc., scale may be seen as problematic -- scale brings in issues. On the one hand you can speculate one way from scale to allow some wiggle-room, but on the other hand, scale issues can introduce reasonable doubt.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, it's not like we have a time machine.

In certain cases, we do have a time machine. They are called telescopes. We can actually directly observe the past. When astronomers observe a type Ia supernova in a galaxy 10 million light years away they are directly observing a supernova from 10 million years ago.

We can try to do the best we can with times spans that are too huge to really deal with adequately, with regions that are too huge to come to really grips with, with data that is too vast to presume to have mastered it all -- and it's amazing we can do as well as we do -- but it's still speculative, and the further we get into the past, the more distance we cover, the more details that are related, the more we must be humbled by the sheer volume and depth of the subject-matter.

It isn't speculative at all. It is solid conclusions backed by evidence. You may find these things hard to comprehend, but don't project your own failings onto scientists.

So when we are dealing with the entire species, many many thousands of years ago, across the entire planet, etc., scale may be seen as problematic -- scale brings in issues. On the one hand you can speculate one way from scale to allow some wiggle-room, but on the other hand, scale issues can introduce reasonable doubt.

Please show how scale issues introduce reasonable doubt in the case of orthologous ERV's shared by humans and other apes:

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

 

[ToBeInChrist]

In certain cases, we do have a time machine. They are called telescopes.

I'm sorry, but your usage of the English language is far too rhetorical, you are using WAY too much poetic license -- if you want to be technically accurate or survive peer-review. A telescope is NOT a time machine, just as nature itself does not provide 'a controlled laboratory setting', etc. That is quite the sort of 'popular science' level of fluff we see on the magazine rack and in the papers.

Scale is apparently an issue of such magnitude (haha, pun, me witty) that Newtonian physics breaks down when dealing with sub-atomic phenomena and speeds approaching the speed of light.

Does your mind have no issue at all with scale? Do all methods scale well? Does all software really 'scale' -- are all network solutions 'scalable' -- the answer is no. At some point we express concerns or doubts about how our solutions, methods, etc., will 'scale' -- and then there's the question of human comprehension and interpretation being able to 'scale' or to deal with various 'scale' issues.

 

[Loudmouth]

A telescope is NOT a time machine,

Yes, it is. Using a telescope you can directly observe the past.

Scale is apparently an issue of such magnitude (haha, pun, me witty) that Newtonian physics breaks down when dealing with sub-atomic phenomena and speeds approaching the speed of light.

And yet science is still able to model these differences at smaller scales.

At some point we express concerns or doubts about how our solutions, methods, etc., will 'scale' -- and then there's the question of human comprehension and interpretation being able to 'scale' or to deal with various 'scale' issues.

Your concerns and doubts are silly, though. You actually think that evidence was planted as part of a creative event. Why should any of us take this seriously? How can you claim to be a skeptic while swallowing such a story?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Yes, it is. Using a telescope you can directly observe the past.

You are not transported into the past, and you are making indirect observations, and your 'view' is limited. Yes you are working with evidence, but you are also interpreting it.

When I say science uses conjectures, I'm referring to pretty good philosophy of science (Karl Popper), and I do not mean it in a bad way. Sure you need hypotheses and conjectures. And sure you can survive lots of experiments -- but in line with Popper, I'd prefer to seak of experiments that are well constructed to refute conjectures, and I do not wish to present scientific theories as 'verified'. I'd rather say that some scientific hypotheses are more falsifiable and withstood many tests and have these results.

Your concerns and doubts are silly, though. You actually think that evidence was planted as part of a creative event. Why should any of us take this seriously? How can you claim to be a skeptic while swallowing such a story?

Why should any of us take you seriously when you speak of time machines, non-observed transformations from single-cell organisms to apes to humans, or nature as your controlled lab that proves evolution as a cause?

In either case we are dealing with philosophical presuppositions which may or may not be granted. Neither of us are dealing with things we have directly observed and neither of us are talking about interpretations that are at a short remove from the raw evidence -- we are making abstractions and speculations of varying quality touching upon varying fields of study, and embracing an overwhelming set of raw phenomena.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are not transported into the past,

True, but with telescopes the past is transported to you. You can directly observe it.

and you are making indirect observations,

Not at all. You are directly observing distant objects as they were in the past.

and your 'view' is limited.

Views are always limited, even in the present.

Yes you are working with evidence, but you are also interpreting it.

Of course we are interpretting evidence. THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT. What you are arguing is that the interpretation is wrong. You need to show that it is wrong.

When I say science uses conjectures, I'm referring to pretty good philosophy of science (Karl Popper), and I do not mean it in a bad way. Sure you need hypotheses and conjectures. And sure you can survive lots of experiments -- but in line with Popper, I'd prefer to seak of experiments that are well constructed to refute conjectures, and I do not wish to present scientific theories as 'verified'. I'd rather say that some scientific hypotheses are more falsifiable and withstood many tests and have these results.

Why doesn't the comparison of ERV's between humans and chimps as a test of common ancestry count?

Why should any of us take you seriously when you speak of time machines, non-observed transformations from single-cell organisms to apes to humans, or nature as your controlled lab that proves evolution as a cause?

Because I have the evidence to back it up.

Where is your evidence that the universe was created with false history?

In either case we are dealing with philosophical presuppositions which may or may not be granted.

Let's look at those presuppositions. I say that we can trust what we observe. If we have evidence that light travels at a certain speed, and we see light coming from a star at a certain distance, then the time it took for that light to reach us is the distance divided by the speed of light.

You are saying that we can not trust what we observe. You are saying that the universe could have been created 2 seconds ago, complete with false memories and a false history.

Which set of presuppositions do you think is most valid?

Neither of us are dealing with things we have directly observed

Are you saying that we can not observe viruses in action, or map their placement in the human and chimp genomes?

and neither of us are talking about interpretations that are at a short remove from the raw evidence --

My interpretations are a short remove from the evidence, the ERV evidence in particular.

we are making abstractions and speculations of varying quality touching upon varying fields of study, and embracing an overwhelming set of raw phenomena.

I am making testable hypotheses based on non-abstract evidence. You are not. That is the difference.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

True, but with telescopes the past is transported to you. You can directly observe it.

With what degree of clarity, with how much distortion, with how much interference, with what sort of instrumental artifact, and with how much completeness of reception/comprehension of all relevant phenomena in their entirety? More direct than some other methods of instrumentation allow, yes. There are still questions of quality of observation, degree of directness, and degree of abstraction in interpreting raw data from instrumentation.

Of course we are interpretting evidence. THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT. What you are arguing is that the interpretation is wrong. You need to show that it is wrong.

Um, no, I'm not saying that interpretation is wrong, I'm saying that various factors can introduce reasonable questions about the quality/clarity of observation or the completeness or accuracy of causal theories, etc. I'm saying that some factors (for example, of scale) increase potential issues of interpretation.

Why doesn't the comparison of ERV's between humans and chimps as a test of common ancestry count?

I'm questioning some of the interpretations and assumptions, such as the assertion that macro-evolution is involved and has occurred over huge time spans in the far distant past. The application of statistics can also be questioned/critiqued, re: what do various statistical methods really mean in reality.

Where is your evidence that the universe was created with false history?

On what presuppositions? On what underlying assumptions? Based on what interpretive framework? Based on what raw data? That all makes a huge difference.

Let's look at those presuppositions. I say that we can trust what we observe. If we have evidence that light travels at a certain speed, and we see light coming from a star at a certain distance, then the time it took for that light to reach us is the distance divided by the speed of light.

Do you think we can just trust how we interpret and assume about things so far away that we cannot realistically expect to adequately falsify our speculations?

My interpretations are a short remove from the evidence, the ERV evidence in particular.

What role does statistical analysis play? What role does your presupposed interpretive framework play?

I am making testable hypotheses based on non-abstract evidence. You are not. That is the difference.

One might conceivably make testable hypotheses which are more cautious about the issues of scale, and a bit more open minded about the influence/interaction of a creative and intelligent being in the universe and life particularly at the points of their first appearance, and one might be a bit more open minded about studying design and intelligence in the universe and in life, without resorting to entirely abstract non-testable hypotheses, though.

 

[Greg1234]

Science has progressed despite

With the impotence of stochastic alterations and an intelligent adaptive mechanism recognized in biological organisms, we have the unfeasibility of an ill-conceived notion being demonstrated.

With storehouse of information further leaving the abode of the materialism-friendly blob of gel, this only adds to the complexity of biological organisms and highlights the ascendancy of the ancients.

 

[Greg1234]

When someone does a DNA paternity test do they have to be there to witness the conception itself?

Actually conception analogically maps with creation. Darwinism, in the analogy, is the fact that that lion over there transformed into you because we see that pupils can dilate, or that somatic mutations occur with DNA similarities between the cancer variant (descendant) and cancer-free variant ruling out conception and birth (Creationism). Or that an old car being traced back to a new car, the lights-on variant traced back to lights dimmer and back to the lights even dimmer variant, birthing car to submarine notions. Tests show that the mechanisms are not up to that task.

This further demonstrates the intellectual and cognitive origination of the ancients, the growth of an organism here mapping with a descent from their spiritual or higher basis and intelligence, into matter.

 

[driewerf]

Nature is our laboratory.

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.

Yes it is. Nature is our lab. If you think that scientific research can only be done in a lab, then you are wrong. Certainly, science like chemistry, physics, genetics are science labs. But you can't reproduce an earthquake or a solar eclipse in the lab, can you? You can't put a star in a testtube. Are therefore astronomy, geology, geophysics, glaciology not sciences?

It's one of the many creationists' many dishonest tactics to claim that some sciences they don't like (geology, paleontoly, cosmology) aren't science because they aren't done in a" man made, controlled environment where causative factors are isolated by scientists to a point where causation can be studied under ideal conditions" . This of course is nonsens.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Yes it is. Nature is our lab. If you think that scientific research can only be done in a lab, then you are wrong. Certainly, science like chemistry, physics, genetics are science labs. But you can't reproduce an earthquake or a solar eclipse in the lab, can you? You can't put a star in a testtube. Are therefore astronomy, geology, geophysics, glaciology not sciences?

You are misunderstanding my point. Maybe I should clarify. Maybe the subject is just a bit difficult to really illuminate. Maybe I could have worded things better.

Yes scientific research can be done outside of a lab. Scientists do the best that they can within the constraints that they have to deal with.

My point re: nature not being a controlled laboratory setting, is simply that if you really want to establish that a specific causal factor is at work, then if you try to isolate that particular cause and exclude other causes in a controlled setting you may make a very strong case that withstands peer review and is able to be replicated and observed by others, but when you can't do this, you have to settle for less.

So if I surveyed various sciences or various studies and theories, I might assess on various scales the quality/suitability of experimental conditions, the degree of speculation, the degree of closeness to the raw data, etc.

Some whole fields (of science) are less exact or more speculative (meteorological forecasts, anyone?)

 

[driewerf]

You are misunderstanding my point. Maybe I should clarify. Maybe the subject is just a bit difficult to really illuminate. Maybe I could have worded things better.

Yes scientific research can be done outside of a lab. Scientists do the best that they can within the constraints that they have to deal with.

My point re: nature not being a controlled laboratory setting, is simply that if you really want to establish that a specific causal factor is at work, then if you try to isolate that particular cause and exclude other causes in a controlled setting you may make a very strong case that withstands peer review and is able to be replicated and observed by others, but when you can't do this, you have to settle for less.

So if I surveyed various sciences or various studies and theories, I might assess on various scales the quality/suitability of experimental conditions, the degree of speculation, the degree of closeness to the raw data, etc.

Some whole fields (of science) are less exact or more speculative (meteorological forecasts, anyone?)

Well, you are saying exactly the same as what yuou said before. And it is wrong. Due to scale, distance, finance etc many sciences are forced to limit themselves to what they can observe. It is for example impossible for geologists to isolate P waves from S waves when an earthquake occurs. The only thing they can do is sit down and observe.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

I'm saying there are more ideal and less ideal ways to demonstrate that something is a cause.

When forced to use less than ideal ways, if confidence is less strong that is understandable, at least.

 

[Loudmouth]

With what degree of clarity, with how much distortion, with how much interference, with what sort of instrumental artifact, and with how much completeness of reception/comprehension of all relevant phenomena in their entirety?

Why are you asking these questions WHEN IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO YOU? You will claim that no matter how little distortion, interference, artifact, or incompleteness there is that the starlight is still created in transit as if it came from a real star even though it didn't. Your complaints are disingenuous in the extreme.

Um, no, I'm not saying that interpretation is wrong, I'm saying that various factors can introduce reasonable questions about the quality/clarity of observation or the completeness or accuracy of causal theories, etc. I'm saying that some factors (for example, of scale) increase potential issues of interpretation.

Last Thursdayism is not a reasonable question. Never has been.

I'm questioning some of the interpretations and assumptions, such as the assertion that macro-evolution is involved and has occurred over huge time spans in the far distant past.

That is not an assumption that is part of the interpretation of ERV's. In fact, macroevolution is what is being tested by the comparison of ERV's.

On what presuppositions? On what underlying assumptions? Based on what interpretive framework? Based on what raw data? That all makes a huge difference.

All of which you ignore using Last Thursdayism. It doesn't matter what quality the evidence is, you will ignore it.

Do you think we can just trust how we interpret and assume about things so far away that we cannot realistically expect to adequately falsify our speculations?

What about the interpretations are unfalsifiable? For example, it was thought that the universe was expanding at a constant rate. This was falsified by the observation of type Ia supernovae. The data demonstrated that the acceleration was increasing. Of course, you think all of this data is part of a universe that never existed. You think this starlight was created in transit with an invented history of accelerated inflation.

What role does statistical analysis play? What role does your presupposed interpretive framework play?

You tell me. What are the statistical analyses and presuppositions, and why are they invalid? Here is the paper:

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

One might conceivably make testable hypotheses which are more cautious about the issues of scale, and a bit more open minded about the influence/interaction of a creative and intelligent being in the universe and life particularly at the points of their first appearance, and one might be a bit more open minded about studying design and intelligence in the universe and in life, without resorting to entirely abstract non-testable hypotheses, though.

The only untestable and unfalsifiable theory discussed so far is Last Thursdayism, and it was put forward by you.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm saying there are more ideal and less ideal ways to demonstrate that something is a cause.

When forced to use less than ideal ways, if confidence is less strong that is understandable, at least.

Where did you demonstrate that a supernatural deity created starlight in transit with a fake history?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

My point is that there's a difference between the more speculative or philosphical abstractions and the sorts of statements that are more closely/directly connected to empirical data/observations.

I do not deny that last thursdayism is philosophical, speculative. I suggest that at some point speculations about what occurred throughout vast spans of space and time are just as philosophical, speculative -- that is all.

 

[Loudmouth]

My point is that there's a difference between the more speculative or philosphical abstractions and the sorts of statements that are more closely/directly connected to empirical data/observations.

The only speculative or philosophical abstractions here are your claims of Last Thursdayism. You would actually argue, in a court of law, that it is possible that DNA and fingerprints at a crime scene could have been planted their by a supernatural deity. Therefore, the evidence can be ignored. This is your argument.

I do not deny that last thursdayism is philosophical, speculative. I suggest that at some point speculations about what occurred throughout vast spans of space and time are just as philosophical, speculative -- that is all.

Then you claim is nonsense. We don't have to speculate. WE CAN OBSERVE IT. WE CAN TEST IT. NO SPECULATION NEEDED. Not so with Last Thursdayism.