Evolution as natural history is psuedo-science

[mark kennedy]

There is no doubt in my mind that the way Charles Darwin used the expression 'natural selection' is little more then an antithesitic rethorical device. Darwin didn't invent the concept of a universal common ancestor or refute immutablity of species. He certainly didn't dispel any misconceptions about teleology or any of the requiste Aristotlean concepts. What he did was to form that bases for a foundational doctrine that would become the cornerstone of atheistic naturalism. He did not attempt to prove, he simply presumed that all living things were traced back to a common ancestor in infinite regress:

Brilliant in it's simplicity and audacity it has become an unquestionable dogma. Creationism, intelligent design and structuralism have attempted to tentativly inquire as to what criteria constitutes a serious question for this concept. They are unanimously rejected as psuedo scientific rationalizations of well established scientific fact. For anyone to entertain the idea that this diagram is anything other then an immutable canon of natural science is unthinkable.

The last couple of years have been a quest to take Biblical literalism to it's ultimate conclusion, to the very beginning. Most creationists would not dream of looking at empirical demonstrations as confirmation for Christian conviction but I thought it was worth the effort. What I found that this is nothing like the other arguements I have encounted in my Christian apologetics studies, evidential or otherwise. The stangest part of all is that the actual scientific evidence is not only useless in these discussions it is altogether irrelevant.

Case in point, the Human Genome Project has compiled a rather comprehensive archieve of educational material. Attractively illustrated these concise lessons on genomics would be suitable for any Biology class from a public school forum to a Christian fundamentalist homeschoolers kitchen table.

Take a look, there is nothing in any of these pages that is remotely offensive to Christian theism:

Genomics:GTL and Chromosome images.

There is nothing here about evolution as natural history, none of the shrill crys that evolution is the heart of biology. None of the pedantic insinuations that intelligent design or special creation or an afront to modern scientific theory and practice. It doesn't exist here because it does not exist in science. Evolutionists are desperate to convince you apart from the evidence that the Single Common Ancestor Model is beyond skepticism.

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century [1-3] sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same."​

http://www.euchromatin.org/Collins1.htm

This discussion isn't scientific or even remotely theological, I can't find a trace of either in these discussions. This is secular humanism sometimes masquerading as science and sometimes masquerading as theology and we should treat both of those imposters the same.

 

[Deamiter]

You've gotten significantly more dogmatic in recent months. You used to stick to facts and draw conclusions based on them -- now you've moved to asserting your position, and drawing (or at least posting) conclusions unrelated to the facts you present.

First off, you've concluded that Darwin used natural selection as "little more then an antithesitic rethorical device." That statement asserts that Darwin was antitheistic when all biographical and historical evidence insists otherwise. While his faith was challenged and probably lost -- especially toward the end of his life, his use of the statement (and the bulk of his research) began while he was STRONGLY theistic.

Secondly, you've implicitly concluded that because the Genome Project has education material about genes, but does not have educational material about common ancestry, it is tacitly denying the conclusions of common ancestry.

Of course, the site certainly doesn't compare ANY genomes (it focuses on mapping the HUMAN genome in case you didn't notice). It is a collaboration between the USA's DOE and NIH and focuses specifically on the human genome, and future research into specific technologies that could benefit the founding organizations. It has information only remotely related to any type of comparative studies that would be related to evolution or common ancestry (largely because it only touches on a single species, and in a very limited way at that).

I'm a bit disappointed in this post. You've moved to asserting in stronger and stronger terms, while backing up your assertions less and less. Yeah, it sounds better if you're preaching to people who already want to agree with you, but it's a lot less interesting to read for somebody who used to really appreciate the depth of your posts (even as I disagreed with your conclusions).

 

[busterdog]

If information is bandwidth going from say the emergence of oceans on planet earth to the operatoin of the human eye, Darwin looked at a very small bit of bandwidth to get where he was. As you say, it was audacious to assume that all the causal links would fall into place to show how primodial soup would lead to the appreciation of visual beauty.

If I understand what you are saying, the genome project also operates within such a realtively small bandwidth that there is no basis for an audacious leap to grand conclusions. Incredibly precision in specialized fields are useful and elegant, but they really don't make the case either.

Does it make sense to believe that there is a comprehensive view of the entire bandwidth of knowledge for how we got here and why we are what we are? Absent unscientific things like revelation and faith, if there is such a comprehensive view, it would have to assume that when we die and rot we are done, since there is nothing anywhere in there that gives life. There is no tree of life in any of this knowledge. Which would lead one to believe that the audacious leap of understanding is a very considerable rush to a false conclusion.

You've gotten significantly more dogmatic in recent months. You used to stick to facts and draw conclusions based on them -- now you've moved to asserting your position, and drawing (or at least posting) conclusions unrelated to the facts you present.

My man. Screw the bloody trees. I say go forest!

First off, you've concluded that Darwin used natural selection as "little more then an antithesitic rethorical device." That statement asserts that Darwin was antitheistic when all biographical and historical evidence insists otherwise. While his faith was challenged and probably lost -- especially toward the end of his life, his use of the statement (and the bulk of his research) began while he was STRONGLY theistic.

Begging the question, of course.

Secondly, you've implicitly concluded that because the Genome Project has education material about genes, but does not have educational material about common ancestry, it is tacitly denying the conclusions of common ancestry.

Not denying, but not addressing.

Of course, the site certainly doesn't compare ANY genomes (it focuses on mapping the HUMAN genome in case you didn't notice). It is a collaboration between the USA's DOE and NIH and focuses specifically on the human genome, and future research into specific technologies that could benefit the founding organizations. It has information only remotely related to any type of comparative studies that would be related to evolution or common ancestry (largely because it only touches on a single species, and in a very limited way at that).

The idea of common ancestry is gratuitous I think is the point, but many pretend otherwise. It does seem worthwhile to ask whether it is at all fair to that assume that Darwin or its later apologies are on the same level as the actually work getting done in science.

I'm a bit disappointed in this post. You've moved to asserting in stronger and stronger terms, while backing up your assertions less and less. Yeah, it sounds better if you're preaching to people who already want to agree with you, but it's a lot less interesting to read for somebody who used to really appreciate the depth of your posts (even as I disagreed with your conclusions).

When my son burned his face recently, I was quite happy to stop worrying about whether his healing would fit a particular medical model or theology. It was so much more satisfying to leave it with Jehova Raffa and to see the pain evaporate. There is a time to count the trees and a time to just remember whose woods they are. The former does not necessarily lead to the latter.

 

[Deamiter]

Absent unscientific things like revelation and faith, if there is such a comprehensive view, it would have to assume that when we die and rot we are done, since there is nothing anywhere in there that gives life

Why? Why should a comprehensive view of everything we know (or even of everything there is TO know) be able to answer every question? If we're throwing out unscientific concepts, shouldn't we also throw out philosophy and metaphysics which you've just used to say that a comprehensive scientific view "would have to assume [atheistic naturalism]"

I mean, why can't a complete and flawless worldview (a hypothetical here) have questions it cannot answer? Do YOU know whether God can make a rock so big he can't lift it? Isn't the assumption that science can answer every question by itself, a non-scientific assumption?

The point of the OP could very well, as you said, be that with limited 'bandwidth' our conclusions should also be limited. That's not what I read at all, and I personally see no reason to limit ourselves to a tiny amount of bandwidth... Of course I DO see the point to a scientific project focusing on their stated goals... It would be a bit odd if every governmental research project had an educational page on common descent -- particularly one that only researches one small aspect of a single species (the human genome).

 

[Deamiter]

Begging the question, of course.

Not at all. Mark suggested that Darwin's motive was to counter theism with this atheistic term. The premise makes little sense if Darwin was a strong theist while he was using the term... This type of EAC conspiracy theory always annoys me because of course you can't PROVE that Darwin DIDN'T really worship Satan and spend his entire life trying to promote atheism... but the utter lack of evidence makes such a CONCLUSION rather silly.

Not denying, but not addressing.

If that were true, I wouldn't have addressed the statement. In fact, it's not even that implicit -- Mark said, "None of the pedantic insinuations that intelligent design or special creation or an afront to modern scientific theory and practice. It doesn't exist here because it does not exist in science." (emphesis mine)

Again, he said it does not exist in this site BECAUSE it does not exist in science. This is a pretty strong claim -- that it's absense here is evidence of it's absence in science period.

The one-liners are quite tiresome if you don't bother to read the OP to make sure that they apply to what I've written in criticism of the OP!

The idea of common ancestry is gratuitous I think is the point, but many pretend otherwise. It does seem worthwhile to ask whether it is at all fair to that assume that Darwin or its later apologies are on the same level as the actually work getting done in science.

Now THERE'S begging the question. You're contrasting "actual work" with Darwin, yet I'm sure you know very well that there's no POSSIBLE definition of "actual work done in science" much less an all-encompassing definition of what Darwin and "later apologies" (sic) have done. Right after making yet another unsupported assertion that common ancestry is wrong...

When my son burned his face recently, I was quite happy to stop worrying about whether his healing would fit a particular medical model or theology. It was so much more satisfying to leave it with Jehova Raffa and to see the pain evaporate. There is a time to count the trees and a time to just remember whose woods they are. The former does not necessarily lead to the latter.

Of course not. That's what I said. We're both Christians, neither of us believe science can answer all questions. In fact there are VERY few people who believe such a thing! Even the vast majority of atheists (besides the odd Dawkins) firmly acknowledge the possibility of a higher power, and certainly don't pretend that science can answer questions like "why are we here" or "what is the meaning in all this?"

 

[busterdog]

Why? Why should a comprehensive view of everything we know (or even of everything there is TO know) be able to answer every question? If we're throwing out unscientific concepts, shouldn't we also throw out philosophy and metaphysics which you've just used to say that a comprehensive scientific view "would have to assume [atheistic naturalism]"

I mean, why can't a complete and flawless worldview (a hypothetical here) have questions it cannot answer? Do YOU know whether God can make a rock so big he can't lift it? Isn't the assumption that science can answer every question by itself, a non-scientific assumption?

There is a dichotomy between knowledge and what can save you. Gen. 2&3. Science does lots of great things, obviously. But, as good as your handle on things may be, it doesn't come close to saving you. Should eternal life be the gold standard for any study? Its just one of several indications that the big picture is just way too big.

Granted, cramming those ideas into one thesis as the OP did is a little audacious. But, it has an interesting simplicity.

 

[mark kennedy]

You've gotten significantly more dogmatic in recent months. You used to stick to facts and draw conclusions based on them -- now you've moved to asserting your position, and drawing (or at least posting) conclusions unrelated to the facts you present.

Biology and genetics used to get worked into the mix, unfortunatly that seems to be fading away. My central point is that the actual science has nothing to do with the creation/evolution controversy everyone is so exercised about. The facts as presented are irrelevant, science is in fact itself irrelevant to evolution.

First off, you've concluded that Darwin used natural selection as "little more then an antithesitic rethorical device." That statement asserts that Darwin was antitheistic when all biographical and historical evidence insists otherwise. While his faith was challenged and probably lost -- especially toward the end of his life, his use of the statement (and the bulk of his research) began while he was STRONGLY theistic.

There is no indication the Darwin ever had any vistage of Christian theism in his thinking. I don't know what kind of sources you are looking at but I can't see one trace of theistic reasoning in his personal philosophy, writtings or experineces related in his authobiolgraphy. His father was an avowed atheist and his grandfather had given credit for the emergance and evolution of life to an elemental muse.

Secondly, you've implicitly concluded that because the Genome Project has education material about genes, but does not have educational material about common ancestry, it is tacitly denying the conclusions of common ancestry.

Genetics and biology does not need evolution. Darwinian philosophy on the other hand desperatly needs to be percieved as procedeing from the life sciences. There is no connection to be made between the life sciences and the myth of universal descent. Evolution isn't even defined scientifically with regards to lineage so when talking about evolution you have to discern between evolution as science and evolution as supposition.

Of course, the site certainly doesn't compare ANY genomes (it focuses on mapping the HUMAN genome in case you didn't notice). It is a collaboration between the USA's DOE and NIH and focuses specifically on the human genome, and future research into specific technologies that could benefit the founding organizations. It has information only remotely related to any type of comparative studies that would be related to evolution or common ancestry (largely because it only touches on a single species, and in a very limited way at that).

The gateway to the genome browsers is there and a lot of the same people who worked on the HGP worked on the chimpanzee genome. Genomics like biology itself doesn't require this mythical progression from primordial soup to increasingly complex living systems. Just as astrology grew up around astronomy evolution as a single common ancestor and evolution as changing alleles have grown up together.

I'm a bit disappointed in this post. You've moved to asserting in stronger and stronger terms, while backing up your assertions less and less. Yeah, it sounds better if you're preaching to people who already want to agree with you, but it's a lot less interesting to read for somebody who used to really appreciate the depth of your posts (even as I disagreed with your conclusions).

I can handle an honest disagreement, certainly a different conclusion based on the evidence. It is this constant barage of hypercritical rethoric creationists get pounded with that I get sick of. Invariably the conversation turns away from the science to personal attacks and petty bickering.

Nothing in the life sciences requires the single common ancestor model, absolutly nothing. People should realize that there is a big difference between science and suppostion.

 

[shernren]

There is no indication the Darwin ever had any vistage of Christian theism in his thinking. I don't know what kind of sources you are looking at but I can't see one trace of theistic reasoning in his personal philosophy, writtings or experineces related in his authobiolgraphy. His father was an avowed atheist and his grandfather had given credit for the emergance and evolution of life to an elemental muse.

"The fathers eat sour grapes and their sons' teeth are set on edge?" I can't remember which ancient holy book it was that told me this was wrong ...

Seriously though, a Google search on Darwin's writings gives these:

Belief in God- Religion.- There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God. On the contrary there is ample evidence, derived not from hasty travellers, but from men who have long resided with savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have no idea of one or more gods, and who have no words in their languages to express such an idea.* The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-03.html

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distinct futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species in each genus, and all the species in many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence, we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.
It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.


http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-15.html

Isn't this very much a Theistic Evolutionist viewpoint?


AFAIK, Darwin's gradual rejection of faith had far less to do with evolution than with his recognition of savagery in nature (whether evolved or specially created) and the death of his daughter.

 

[busterdog]

Quote:
Originally Posted by busterdog
Begging the question, of course.
Not at all. Mark suggested that Darwin's motive was to counter theism with this atheistic term. The premise makes little sense if Darwin was a strong theist while he was using the term... This type of EAC conspiracy theory always annoys me because of course you can't PROVE that Darwin DIDN'T really worship Satan and spend his entire life trying to promote atheism... but the utter lack of evidence makes such a CONCLUSION rather silly.

Perhaps I have confused the terms. Admitting a monotheistic philosophy is still compatible with "denying the power of" God, not to mention His identity, which is as good as atheism. He may have been a sincere, wonderful guy, but did he believe in a God who could or does do anything? If not, that is virtual atheism.

Again, he said it does not exist in this site BECAUSE it does not exist in science. This is a pretty strong claim -- that it's absense here is evidence of it's absence in science period.

The one-liners are quite tiresome if you don't bother to read the OP to make sure that they apply to what I've written in criticism of the OP!

Eeek! (Or eureka!) I am suddenly overwhelmed with pride at my superior ability to parse human language!

Quote:
The idea of common ancestry is gratuitous I think is the point, but many pretend otherwise. It does seem worthwhile to ask whether it is at all fair to that assume that Darwin or its later apologies are on the same level as the actually work getting done in science.
Now THERE'S begging the question. You're contrasting "actual work" with Darwin, yet I'm sure you know very well that there's no POSSIBLE definition of "actual work done in science" much less an all-encompassing definition of what Darwin and "later apologies" (sic) have done. Right after making yet another unsupported assertion that common ancestry is wrong...

Well, yes, I am begging the question. What are message boards, theology and Darwinism anyway if you can't toss around ultimate question like football QB ratings.

Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question …
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.

Quote:

When my son burned his face recently, I was quite happy to stop worrying about whether his healing would fit a particular medical model or theology. It was so much more satisfying to leave it with Jehova Raffa and to see the pain evaporate. There is a time to count the trees and a time to just remember whose woods they are. The former does not necessarily lead to the latter.

Of course not. That's what I said. We're both Christians, neither of us believe science can answer all questions. In fact there are VERY few people who believe such a thing! Even the vast majority of atheists (besides the odd Dawkins) firmly acknowledge the possibility of a higher power, and certainly don't pretend that science can answer questions like "why are we here" or "what is the meaning in all this?"

To get quite serious, the example is not offered to make a case against anyone's Christianity. There is more fidelity to Jesus in lots of other things beside healing. BUt, the example does attempt to make a point about "knowledge". If you "know" that power by what He does, can't that knowledge be as valid a piece of evidence for how life was created as the genome project? And, is "Admitting the possibility of higher power" really good for much? How much higher might Dawkins' power be? Apparently not much higher. And, remember that the identity of God scripturally is sometimes defined by what He has done and can do. But, Dawkins seems bent upon establishing an upper limit. I have a lot of sympathy for folks who can make the lion lie down with the lamb in terms of a belief in miraculous healing and doubts about miraculous creation. But I can't see the basis for "ruling out" any creative possibilities for a real "higher power." All this fancy science is just too narrow to do that.

 

[notto]

Yet it objectively explains many lines of evidence that no other scientific theory can explain in a way that is testable and falsifiable.

Funny thing that.

Pretty good for psuedo-science.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yet it objectively explains many lines of evidence that no other scientific theory can explain in a way that is testable and falsifiable.

Funny thing that.

Pretty good for psuedo-science.

That is exactly what I'm talking about, evolution as natural history is neither testable nor falsifiable. Tell me something, how is chimpanzee and human lineage testable and natural history. In other words the evidence is layed before us and we are intent on making a scientific inquiry as to the historicity of our ancestors.

What is the criteria for testing and what is the null hypothesis for humans and apes having a common ancestor. It has absolutly none, it was never anything other then a propostional truth that had a loose foundation in naturalistic assumptions.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not at all. Mark suggested that Darwin's motive was to counter theism with this atheistic term. The premise makes little sense if Darwin was a strong theist while he was using the term... This type of EAC conspiracy theory always annoys me because of course you can't PROVE that Darwin DIDN'T really worship Satan and spend his entire life trying to promote atheism... but the utter lack of evidence makes such a CONCLUSION rather silly.

Darwin never gives any indication that he had a remotely theistic worldview at any point of his life or carrier. It was only later in life that he spoke boldly in favor of his private views but there is no indication that his views had changed over the years.

If that were true, I wouldn't have addressed the statement. In fact, it's not even that implicit -- Mark said, "None of the pedantic insinuations that intelligent design or special creation or an afront to modern scientific theory and practice. It doesn't exist here because it does not exist in science." (emphesis mine)

Finally someone is paying attention but you forgot that the standard applies both ways. The same criteria for creationism and intelligent design being psuedo science can be applied to the single common ancestor model.

When is that last time a null hypothesis for apes and humans sharing a common ancestor was proposed? When was the first time for that matter because you won't find one anywhere in the scientific literature and believe me I have looked. It is neither testable nor falsifiable, it is in fact syllogistic logic. All questions regarding human ancestry must be asked in such a way as to give an affirmative answer to the question of human/ape lineage. No alternatives are ever entertained. That is not science, that is suppostion.

 

[notto]

What is the criteria for testing and what is the null hypothesis for humans and apes having a common ancestor.

Finding evidence in the fossil record or the geneti record that falsifies the hypothesis. Finding another explanation for that evidence. There is no other explanation that is scientific or falsifiable. At a certain point we can quit testing because it is apparent that the hypothesis is true and fact.

When was the last time somebody checked to see if the earth was really round? We have moved beyond the hypothesis to a conclusion based on evidence. Now science uses this conclusion to go further and into more detail. Rechecking old facts isn't useful or productive.

It has absolutly none, it was never anything other then a propostional truth that had a loose foundation in naturalistic assumptions.

No, it is a conclusion based on the multiple independent lines of evidence. The actual history of the theory bears this out. You are trying to rewrite it to suit your religious needs with your own assumptions you wish to be true. You use the exact same tactics you are trying to accuse others of.

It is fairly clear that when one has to resort to the tactics you do that the ideas underneath them are not very objective or solid.

You have to redefine science and distort truth in order to do it.

 

[busterdog]

Finding evidence in the fossil record or the geneti record that falsifies the hypothesis. Finding another explanation for that evidence. There is no other explanation that is scientific or falsifiable. At a certain point we can quit testing because it is apparent that the hypothesis is true and fact.

When was the last time somebody checked to see if the earth was really round? We have moved beyond the hypothesis to a conclusion based on evidence. Now science uses this conclusion to go further and into more detail. Rechecking old facts isn't useful or productive.
No, it is a conclusion based on the multiple independent lines of evidence. The actual history of the theory bears this out. You are trying to rewrite it to suit your religious needs with your own assumptions you wish to be true. You use the exact same tactics you are trying to accuse others of.

It is fairly clear that when one has to resort to the tactics you do that the ideas underneath them are not very objective or solid.

You have to redefine science and distort truth in order to do it.

Fighting fire with fire. Some of us are chuckling. It is not quite the same however.

No one but a YEC appreciates the elegance of say Setterfield or Robert Gentry. THe OP finds lots of good stuff in the opposition camp. He is just saying it works fine within its zone of competence and not beyond.

 

[mark kennedy]

Finding evidence in the fossil record or the geneti record that falsifies the hypothesis.

I'd say the hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA has been conclusivly falsified. The prediction was based on the assumption of random mutations accumulating at a continuous rate. At 2 x 10^-8 you will get 60 per generation which comes to roughly 35 million base pairs in 7 million years. Trouble is that the genomes diverge by at least 145 Mb which would require a mutation rate that even viruses couldn't maintain and keep an open reading frame. With this in their face the main stream scientific communitte has done the only thing they can, they have lied through their teeth.

Finding another explanation for that evidence.

Fully formed and independantly created 6000 years ago.

There is no other explanation that is scientific or falsifiable.

Right, there is only one possible conclusion so it's not a question is it? Anything other then decent with modification from preexisting forms are the only naturalistic and therefore scientific explanation. So your definition is based on naturalistic assumptions not conclusions drawn from the evidence.

You still havent noticed that no one picked common ancestry as the definition for evolution, even you. Why is that Mr. Scientific evidence, it couldn't be because you know there is a difference between science and supposition? As a matter of fact that is exactly what is going on here with you phantom defintion of evolution it has absolutly nothing to do with actual science and I think you and the rest of the evolutionists on here know that.

At a certain point we can quit testing because it is apparent that the hypothesis is true and fact.

A theory is actually a string of hypothesis leading up to a crucial and precise experiment, demonstration or observation. Once reached the principles are promoted to the status of a valid theory, something common ancestry never did. Instead evolutionists beg the question of proof on their hands and knees much like you are in this thread.

When was the last time somebody checked to see if the earth was really round?

Oh that's right, anyone who believes that God involves himself in history must believe in a flat earth, I almost forgot.

We have moved beyond the hypothesis to a conclusion based on evidence.

Ancient Greeks demonstrated that the earth was round as early as the 3rd century, almost 2 millinium before the advent of experimental method became mainstream science.

Now science uses this conclusion to go further and into more detail. Rechecking old facts isn't useful or productive.

Neither is begging the question of proof.

No, it is a conclusion based on the multiple independent lines of evidence.

No it's not, its an apriori, self evident fact based on exclusivly naturalistic assumptions. Deeply and permenantly opposed to theistic reasoning unless redefined in a Hegelian synthesis where God is simply redefined as something abstract.

The actual history of the theory bears this out.

You never defined the theory or mentioned even the most general of demonstrations. Evolutionists never do, wanna know why? Because evolution as natural history is neither testable, falsifiable, observable or remotely scientific.

You are trying to rewrite it to suit your religious needs with your own assumptions you wish to be true. You use the exact same tactics you are trying to accuse others of.

Horsefeathers! Look at my signiture, there are clearly defined boundries to how much alleles can change in populations over time. Would you like to know what they are because I can support my assertions with fossil and genetic evidence based on the latest research. What is your basis?

It is fairly clear that when one has to resort to the tactics you do that the ideas underneath them are not very objective or solid.

The real problem is that I have learned the science involved. The evidence is telling us something a lot different then we are getting from the scientists. Science has to put the evidence on the table but truth is only as reliable as the one telling it.

Evolution as natural history is either falsified or unfalsifiable.

You have to redefine science and distort truth in order to do it.

Over the last couple of months I have been lied to so much I no longer expect to hear the truth from secular sources. I will go straight to their pubications, they won't be able to lie about it there but in a discussion like this all you are going to get is the party line.

 

[shernren]

I'd say the hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA has been conclusivly falsified. The prediction was based on the assumption of random mutations accumulating at a continuous rate. At 2 x 10^-8 you will get 60 per generation which comes to roughly 35 million base pairs in 7 million years. Trouble is that the genomes diverge by at least 145 Mb which would require a mutation rate that even viruses couldn't maintain and keep an open reading frame. With this in their face the main stream scientific communitte has done the only thing they can, they have lied through their teeth.

(emphasis added)

At least I won't accuse you of lying and be as charitable to you as possible. We've been over the mutation rate a thousand times and if you don't know basic math that's not my problem. But please verify the bolded statement. Are you citing the same source you erroneously cited in the debate with AEA?

"By contrast, HERV-K18, RTVL-Ha, and RTVL-Hb are found only in humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, which are thought to have diverged around 5 million years ago. To estimate the age of each provirus the human/chimpanzee distances from each tree were used to calibrate the rate of molecular evolution at each locus. The most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived approximately 4.5 mya, so divedin the distance between the huyman and chimpanzee siquences (substitutions per site) by this numbner gives rates ranging from 2.3 to 5.0 x 10^-9 substitutions per site per year. These numbers are simular to the estimated rates of evolution for pseudogenes and noncoding regions of mammalian genes.​

(PNAS Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences, 2006)

Put simply, at the upper end of retrovirus reproduction the substitutions per years are 5 per 1 billion base pairs. For the common ancestor starting 7 million years ago (not the 4.5 mya used in the PNAS paper) it would require no less then 20 base pairs per year and all of them would have to be permentantly fixed in the respective genomes. That is why Time and Nature lied, that is why now evolutionists are trying to make a base pair mean either one base pair or a million. The truth does not line up with the evidence so it's just not working.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28522578&postcount=9

Well quit using disproved arguments. I pointed out ( http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28554157&postcount=13 ) that these viruses are hardly actively reproducing viruses. At most, HERV-K18 (as part of the K family) might be actively expressed to produce proteins. That hardly places it on the scale of reproducing: an endogenous retrovirus is almost by definition incapable of reproducing any more, barring a mutation that reactivates it. The report explicitly stated that the mutation rate these proviruses experienced was roughly identical to rates of mutation for pseudogenes and non-coding regions, and the only way a virus can be non-coding is if it is no longer reproducing.

Why do you keep using arguments that have already been proven wrong, without addressing why they are right? I won't accuse you of lying the way you so liberally accuse others but if you keep this up I may not know what else to say you're doing. It certainly isn't apologetics because it's a very bad way to represent the faith by repeating defeated arguments on a base of defective biology.

 

[busterdog]

I'd say the hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA has been conclusivly falsified. The prediction was based on the assumption of random mutations accumulating at a continuous rate. At 2 x 10^-8 you will get 60 per generation which comes to roughly 35 million base pairs in 7 million years. Trouble is that the genomes diverge by at least 145 Mb which would require a mutation rate that even viruses couldn't maintain and keep an open reading frame. With this in their face the main stream scientific communitte has done the only thing they can, they have lied through their teeth.



Fully formed and independantly created 6000 years ago.



Right, there is only one possible conclusion so it's not a question is it? Anything other then decent with modification from preexisting forms are the only naturalistic and therefore scientific explanation. So your definition is based on naturalistic assumptions not conclusions drawn from the evidence.

You still havent noticed that no one picked common ancestry as the definition for evolution, even you. Why is that Mr. Scientific evidence, it couldn't be because you know there is a difference between science and supposition? As a matter of fact that is exactly what is going on here with you phantom defintion of evolution it has absolutly nothing to do with actual science and I think you and the rest of the evolutionists on here know that.



A theory is actually a string of hypothesis leading up to a crucial and precise experiment, demonstration or observation. Once reached the principles are promoted to the status of a valid theory, something common ancestry never did. Instead evolutionists beg the question of proof on their hands and knees much like you are in this thread.



Oh that's right, anyone who believes that God involves himself in history must believe in a flat earth, I almost forgot.



Ancient Greeks demonstrated that the earth was round as early as the 3rd century, almost 2 millinium before the advent of experimental method became mainstream science.



Neither is begging the question of proof.



No it's not, its an apriori, self evident fact based on exclusivly naturalistic assumptions. Deeply and permenantly opposed to theistic reasoning unless redefined in a Hegelian synthesis where God is simply redefined as something abstract.



You never defined the theory or mentioned even the most general of demonstrations. Evolutionists never do, wanna know why? Because evolution as natural history is neither testable, falsifiable, observable or remotely scientific.



Horsefeathers! Look at my signiture, there are clearly defined boundries to how much alleles can change in populations over time. Would you like to know what they are because I can support my assertions with fossil and genetic evidence based on the latest research. What is your basis?



The real problem is that I have learned the science involved. The evidence is telling us something a lot different then we are getting from the scientists. Science has to put the evidence on the table but truth is only as reliable as the one telling it.

Evolution as natural history is either falsified or unfalsifiable.



Over the last couple of months I have been lied to so much I no longer expect to hear the truth from secular sources. I will go straight to their pubications, they won't be able to lie about it there but in a discussion like this all you are going to get is the party line.

There is shop talk here I am not familiar with. Could you elaborate a little.

 

[mark kennedy]

There is shop talk here I am not familiar with. Could you elaborate a little.

You are probably running into the same thing with biology and genetics that I'm running into with physics and radiometric dating. This is actually pretty simple, here are a couple of visual aids, note that they are completly neutral with regards to the creation/evolution controversy.

This is about as basic as it gets, the DNA is replicated, then it's unzipped and the RNA is translated into proteins. That's biology, that is genetics and it has absolutly nothing to do with evolution. About 150 years ago Christian thinking was falling out of favor with the academic world. An alternative to Christian cosmology and biology was needed and that is where evolution came in. Everything descending from a single common ancestor was the criteria for determining all lineage back to the first primordial organisms. There is just one problem with that, life doesn't work that way.

By the 1930s evolution was really on the ropes while genetics was growing by leaps and bounds. Evolutionists (aka Darwinians) were desperate to come up with a scientific basis for evolution, a genetic basis. The only way was if the DNA is simular enough that mutations could account for changes over time.

They have studied fruit flies and bacteria endlessly, the beneficial affects from mutations has been their primary proof. Darwinians believe that the formula mutations+natural selection=evolution explains how things changed over time. The definition for evolution became, 'the change of alleles in populations over time'.

There is a good reason for this, it's because the adaptations that organisms experience are the result of the change of alleles, not changes in the genes. If you can understand that then you can understand why evolution the way the evolutionist is using it has nothing to do with evolution as science.

Evolution is defined scientifically as the change of alleles in populations over time. The way they want to use it and for you to understand it is that everything traces their lineage back to a common ancestor if you go back far enough. I can give you an example of how this has been decisivly disproven, chimapnzees and humans could not possibly have had a common ancestor.

In September of 2005 the Chimpanzee Genome Project finished the Chimpanzee genome and published it in Nature Magazine. They found that the differences between chimpanzees and humans amounted to 145 million base pairs. There was just one problem with this, mutations (alterations of the DNA) happen at a measurable rate. Usually it averages around 2 x 10^-8 which means every human (ape or whatever) is born with 60 mutations permantly fixed in their genome.

This is the thing, it would require over 400 per generation (20 years) for 7 million years. Evolutionists have no answer for how this is possible so they lie about it or just don't talk about it at all. They also like to pretend that creationists don't know what they are talking about but the truth is they are pushing an impossible transition.

I hope that helps to clarify because this is a fascinating area of study. There are tons of stuff you can get online from exclusivly secular sources, biology and genetics are very user friendly for creationists.

 

[mark kennedy]

(emphasis added)

At least I won't accuse you of lying and be as charitable to you as possible. We've been over the mutation rate a thousand times and if you don't know basic math that's not my problem. But please verify the bolded statement. Are you citing the same source you erroneously cited in the debate with AEA?

You should realize that you posts are becoming increasingly obscure. The specifics and particulars are getting harder and harder to find. I'm not chasing down every detail you challenge me on and begging the question of proof by refering to other discussions sounds like a diversionary tactic to me.

"By contrast, HERV-K18, RTVL-Ha, and RTVL-Hb are found only in humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, which are thought to have diverged around 5 million years ago. To estimate the age of each provirus the human/chimpanzee distances from each tree were used to calibrate the rate of molecular evolution at each locus. The most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived approximately 4.5 mya, so divedin the distance between the huyman and chimpanzee siquences (substitutions per site) by this numbner gives rates ranging from 2.3 to 5.0 x 10^-9 substitutions per site per year. These numbers are simular to the estimated rates of evolution for pseudogenes and noncoding regions of mammalian genes.​

(PNAS Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences, 2006)

I'm not sure what the point of this quote is but notice the mutation rate is a per year substitution rate. Only viruses mutate on that level and that particular mutation rate is a virus. I'm still trying to figure out how you come to the conclusion that 8% of the human genome is the result of viruses for one thing. I am also wondering what possible arguement you think is concieved of here with the mutation rate of viruses.

Put simply, at the upper end of retrovirus reproduction the substitutions per years are 5 per 1 billion base pairs. For the common ancestor starting 7 million years ago (not the 4.5 mya used in the PNAS paper) it would require no less then 20 base pairs per year and all of them would have to be permentantly fixed in the respective genomes. That is why Time and Nature lied, that is why now evolutionists are trying to make a base pair mean either one base pair or a million. The truth does not line up with the evidence so it's just not working.

Ok, it sounds like you are quoting me here but like I said your posts are getting increasingly obscure.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28522578&postcount=9

[note: I have no intention of following this link]

Well quit using disproved arguments. I pointed out ( http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28554157&postcount=13 ) that these viruses are hardly actively reproducing viruses.

Quit using circular arguements and I am not chasing your links in circles around arguements you couldn't make stick elsewhere. I have actually been looking at mutation rates for viruses, microbes, eukaryotes...etc. Obviously you have no clue what the signifigance of mutation rates are here so let me break it down to you. Humans and chimapnzees diverge by no less then 145 million bases. For that to happen it would require a mutation rate that is impossible for viruses or at least at their upper limit. Got it?

You are being irrelevant, whether or not retroviruses reproduce means absolutly nothing.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In September of 2005 the Chimpanzee Genome Project finished the Chimpanzee genome and published it in Nature Magazine. They found that the differences between chimpanzees and humans amounted to 145 million base pairs. There was just one problem with this, mutations (alterations of the DNA) happen at a measurable rate. Usually it averages around 2 x 10^-8 which means every human (ape or whatever) is born with 60 mutations permantly fixed in their genome.


The most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived approximately 4.5 mya, so divedin the distance between the huyman and chimpanzee siquences (substitutions per site) by this numbner gives rates ranging from 2.3 to 5.0 x 10^-9 substitutions per site per year. These numbers are simular to the estimated rates of evolution for pseudogenes and noncoding regions of mammalian genes.

I'm not sure what the point of this quote is but notice the mutation rate is a per year substitution rate. Only viruses mutate on that level and that particular mutation rate is a virus. I'm still trying to figure out how you come to the conclusion that 8% of the human genome is the result of viruses for one thing. I am also wondering what possible arguement you think is concieved of here with the mutation rate of viruses.

i must be missing something.
in the first quote the mutation rate MK quotes is: 2 x 10^-8

in the second quote the rate is given as: 2.3 to 5.0 x 10^-9

which is 1/10 of the rate in the first.

Yet MK says that only viruses mutate at this rate, in reply. Implying that it is faster than mammals (for instance), yet clearly it is much slower than the usual figure given for humans.

now it is possible that the first figure is per generation and the second is per year. in that case, taking 20 years per generation then the second number is twice as fast as the first. in either case, i feel like i am missing something in the argument.

please help.
tia.