Possible falsification of Darwinism via gene data

[Job 33:6]

No. Here's my statement: "Carbon dating does not assume that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere was constant." What in that statement suggests that I'm claiming that C14 in the atmosphere is at equilibrium?

hahaha. Hold on, hold on. @sfs are you saying...that the practice of carbon dating is not based upon the assumption that C14 in the atmosphere has been at equilibrium, that this concept, does not equate to you suggesting that C14 in the atmosphere has been at equilibrium during dating practices?

 

[sfs]

hahaha. Hold on, hold on. @sfs are you saying...that the practice of carbon dating is not based upon the assumption that C14 in the atmosphere has been at equilibrium, that this concept, does not equate to you suggesting that C14 in the atmosphere has been at equilibrium during dating practices?

Who knew simple declarative sentences would be so problematic?

 

[WisdomSpy]

The data are and here, but I doubt you want the actual data. I don't think anyone has counted the genes and pseudogenes for you.

The ancient wolf (only it's not really that old, genetically speaking) should have just about as many genes and pseudogenes as a modern wolf.

Yes, I have read the original article and many derivatives of it… all of them apparently focused on clarifying the previously-asserted evolutionary narrative. They are focused on “when” and “where”. I want to focus on “if” and “how”. After considerable searching, it appears that the desired data has not been tabulated or that it has not been published yet. Therefore, it represents a great opportunity to test the rather arrogant (and hopefully outdated) position made by some; that evolution theory is useful for making predictions but creation theory makes no predictions.

Thank-you… your response is the first prediction I have received about genes and pseudogenes in the old wolf sample… and that was one of my primary questions. I would add to this a follow-up question: would you be willing to alter your current beliefs if the actual data demonstrates a substantially different picture than your prediction?

 

[WisdomSpy]

Https://www.nature.com/news/ancient-wolf-genome-pushes-back-dawn-of-the-dog-1.17607

This?

Thank-you... I have read this article and many others. I have found none that reveal the gene count and pseudogene numbers. See previous post.

 

[sfs]

Thank-you… your response is the first prediction I have received about genes and pseudogenes in the old wolf sample… and that was one of my primary questions. I would add to this a follow-up question: would you be willing to alter your current beliefs if the actual data demonstrates a substantially different picture than your prediction?

Of course. I'm always willing to alter my current beliefs in the face of data. What is your prediction for how many genes there should be?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Who knew simple declarative sentences would be so problematic?

Please would you elaborate on your understanding of C14 dating, as mine is that it is based on atmospheric levels of C14 being at equilibrium (and levels in living organisms being in equilibrium with this), and when the organism dies, the C14 within the organism gradually decaying and allowing a date of death to be determined based on the levels of C14 remaining.

 

[WisdomSpy]

What an odd question. Evolution is a process. As such, it has causes and it produces effects. Exactly how many evolutionary biologists have you talked to?

I find it odd that you would consider my question odd, since it hits the heart of a semantics issue which almost no one sees or honestly speaks about.


Darwin made an observation about finch beaks. The prevalence of certain types was not the same, year to year. Hence, he observed a change-over-time. This is “evolution”. It equates to a mere observation of a phenomenon. But it says nothing whatsoever regarding the CAUSE of the phenomenon. Yet, the word evolution has gained a life of its own. I estimate that most people believe that it is a cause, rather than a mere observation or EFFECT of an unspecified and likely unknown cause. Hence, the word evolution has become the vehicle for circular thinking; a classic error of logic.


When a writer’s feet are held to the fire, so to speak, they will admit that, strictly speaking, "evolution" is not a CAUSE… but that when they used that word, they ASSUMED that the audience understood what he really meant (i.e. natural selection, mutations, etc.). Yet, this is very irresponsible. This pattern of incorrect word usage has essentially fostered beliefs in a mysterious underlying process without providing the actual mechanisms and causes for the observations.


Ironically, the term natural selection is also frequently conflated to be a cause, rather than an effect. The truth is that certain environmental conditions sometimes make certain plants or animals with certain traits more likely to survive and reproduce that those with other traits. Yet, none of this tells us anything about the origins of those traits, which of course means the origins of the genes and the epigenetic regulators of those genes. Darwin’s book, Origins…, represents supreme irony. It is highly revered by those who believe in a naturalistic paradigm of origins, yet it revealed absolutely nothing about the origins of life. It revealed nothing about the origins of finches. It revealed nothing about the origins of the genetic information that is required to produce a finch or a finch beak. Yet, many people, when asked about the origins of such things, will immediately respond that “evolution did it”.

 

[sfs]

Please would you elaborate on your understanding of C14 dating, as mine is that it is based on atmospheric levels of C14 being at equilibrium (and levels in living organisms being in equilibrium with this), and when the organism dies, the C14 within the organism gradually decaying and allowing a date of death to be determined based on the levels of C14 remaining.

Everything about your understanding is correct except the point in question -- the assumption that atmospheric levels of C14 have been at equilibrium. The actual procedure is to compare the fraction of C14 remaining to that seen in samples of known age, using a calibration curve. For the last 12,000+ years, that curve is based on tree rings; for earlier periods it is based on other annual phenomena. This is all covered in the link I provided earlier in the thread.

 

[sfs]

Darwin made an observation about finch beaks. The prevalence of certain types was not the same, year to year. Hence, he observed a change-over-time. This is “evolution”.

That didn't happen. Darwin observed many things, but finch beaks changing from year to year wasn't one of them. (That was the Grants, if it matters.) Darwin's finches are native to the Galapagos, and he only spent a month there. The importance of the finches was their similarity to one another and to birds on the mainland, i.e. it was the biogeography that was the interesting feature, not observed change. Darwin later inferred that nearby species tend to resemble one another because they are closely related and have descended from a common ancestor (the same conclusion reached by Wallace from independent observations).

In the terms we're using here, common ancestry is the cause of the similarities between the species, and evolution is the cause of their differences.

But it says nothing whatsoever regarding the CAUSE of the phenomenon.

Well, of course the name for the phenomenon doesn't say anything about the cause of the phenomenon. "Erosion" and "combustion" are phenomena (and processes) just like evolution, and when we say that the shape of the Appalachians was created by erosion of higher mountains, we don't say what caused the erosion. So what? Erosion is still a cause, and so is evolution.

When a writer’s feet are held to the fire, so to speak, they will admit that, strictly speaking, "evolution" is not a CAUSE

Which writers are you talking about? You seem to be trying to hold my feet to the fire here, and I find your argument completely unpersuasive. Like any physical process, evolution has causes and produces effects. Nothing you've written challenges that view in the least.

Ironically, the term natural selection is also frequently conflated to be a cause, rather than an effect.

You seem to have a decidedly strange notion that phenomena cannot be both causes and effects.

The truth is that certain environmental conditions sometimes make certain plants or animals with certain traits more likely to survive and reproduce that those with other traits.

Yes, that's natural selection. That process in turn causes other phenomena, like a rapid increase in the population frequency of certain alleles.

Yet, none of this tells us anything about the origins of those traits, which of course means the origins of the genes and the epigenetic regulators of those genes.

It also doesn't tell us anything about the meaning of the word "epideictic" or the origin of the infield fly rule in baseball. The list of things that natural selection doesn't tell us about is very long indeed. In what way is this supposed to be an argument against natural selection being viewed as a cause?

I'll ask again: how many evolutionary biologists have you actually talked about these issues with?

Also, what is your prediction for the number of genes in the ancient wolf genome?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Everything about your understanding is correct except the point in question -- the assumption that atmospheric levels of C14 have been at equilibrium. The actual procedure is to compare the fraction of C14 remaining to that seen in samples of known age, using a calibration curve. For the last 12,000+ years, that curve is based on tree rings; for earlier periods it is based on other annual phenomena. This is all covered in the link I provided earlier in the thread.

Do you not realise that the atmospheric ratio of C12 to C14 should reach equilibrium within 30,000 years? So if this ratio is not in equilibrium, this in itself is proof the Earth is less than 30,000 years old.

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you not realise that the atmospheric ratio of C12 to C14 should reach equilibrium within 30,000 years? So if this ratio is not in equilibrium, this in itself is proof the Earth is less than 30,000 years old.

Surely you are aware that we had the industrial revolution startup in the 1800s.

 

[sfs]

Do you not realise that the atmospheric ratio of C12 to C14 should reach equilibrium within 30,000 years? So if this ratio is not in equilibrium, this in itself is proof the Earth is less than 30,000 years old.

You're confusing two quite different questions. The first is, "Does carbon dating assume that there was a constant level of C14 in the atmosphere?" This question came up because someone asserted that it did make that assumption. The answer to this question is "No". Carbon dating uses C14 data from samples of known age to assign dates to new samples.

The second question is, "Was the level of C14 constant in the atmosphere?" The answer to this one is, "Sort of, prior to humans mucking about with carbon in the atmosphere." C14 production varies with the level of cosmic radiation which has not been constant. What the calibration samples mentioned above reveal is that C14 levels in the past were higher than present levels. As a result, if you simply assume C14 equilibrium, you will underestimate the age of a sample.

So no, C14 gives not the slightest reason to think that the Earth is less than 30,000 years old.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

You're confusing two quite different questions. The first is, "Does carbon dating assume that there was a constant level of C14 in the atmosphere?" This question came up because someone asserted that it did make that assumption. The answer to this question is "No". Carbon dating uses C14 data from samples of known age to assign dates to new samples.

The second question is, "Was the level of C14 constant in the atmosphere?" The answer to this one is, "Sort of, prior to humans mucking about with carbon in the atmosphere." C14 production varies with the level of cosmic radiation which has not been constant. What the calibration samples mentioned above reveal is that C14 levels in the past were higher than present levels. As a result, if you simply assume C14 equilibrium, you will underestimate the age of a sample.

So no, C14 gives not the slightest reason to think that the Earth is less than 30,000 years old.

Under uniformitarian conditions, the C12:C14 in the atmosphere would have stabilised within 30,000 years. It has not, so therefore the uniformitarian assumptions are wrong, and/or the Earth is less than 30,000 years old.

If however, you believe that the C12:C14 in the atmosphere is not constant (non-uniformitarian assumption) then your C14 dating will strongly depend on the base ratio you presume the Earth's atmosphere to have had. As this is not known, anyone can obtain a C14 date depending on what they assume the baseline atmospheric ratio to be.

Any way you want to look at it, it's quite suspicious that the C12:C14 in the atmosphere is not in equilibrium (for an older Earth), and the most reasonable reading of the evidence on this basis alone (i.e. without invoking other theories) is that the Earth is less than 30,000 years in age.

 

[sfs]

Under uniformitarian conditions, the C12:C14 in the atmosphere would have stabilised within 30,000 years. It has not, so therefore the uniformitarian assumptions are wrong, and/or the Earth is less than 30,000 years old.

Sure, if by "uniformitarian assumptions" you mean, "the assumption that nothing has ever been different in the history of the universe". Since no one believes that, why bring it up?

If however, you believe that the C12:C14 in the atmosphere is not constant (non-uniformitarian assumption) then your C14 dating will strongly depend on the base ratio you presume the Earth's atmosphere to have had. As this is not known, anyone can obtain a C14 date depending on what they assume the baseline atmospheric ratio to be.

Are you reading what I'm writing? Because you seem to have completely ignored what I've told you repeatedly. No one "presumes" or "assumes" what the baseline ratio was. It's measured, using samples of known age. This is not a difficult concept. Am I conversing with an actual human here, or with a robot that's outputting programmed soundbites? You sure don't seem to be engaged with what I'm telling you.

Any way you want to look at it, it's quite suspicious that the C12:C14 in the atmosphere is not in equilibrium (for an older Earth)

Utter nonsense.

and the most reasonable reading of the evidence on this basis alone (i.e. without invoking other theories) is that the Earth is less than 30,000 years in age.

The most reasonable reading is that you have no idea how C14 dating is done and that the professionals who do it for a living do.

 

[WisdomSpy]

That didn't happen. Darwin observed many things, but finch beaks changing from year to year wasn't one of them. (That was the Grants, if it matters.) Darwin's finches are native to the Galapagos, and he only spent a month there. The importance of the finches was their similarity to one another and to birds on the mainland, i.e. it was the biogeography that was the interesting feature, not observed change. Darwin later inferred that nearby species tend to resemble one another because they are closely related and have descended from a common ancestor (the same conclusion reached by Wallace from independent observations).

In the terms we're using here, common ancestry is the cause of the similarities between the species, and evolution is the cause of their differences.

Well, of course the name for the phenomenon doesn't say anything about the cause of the phenomenon. "Erosion" and "combustion" are phenomena (and processes) just like evolution, and when we say that the shape of the Appalachians was created by erosion of higher mountains, we don't say what caused the erosion. So what? Erosion is still a cause, and so is evolution.

Which writers are you talking about? You seem to be trying to hold my feet to the fire here, and I find your argument completely unpersuasive. Like any physical process, evolution has causes and produces effects. Nothing you've written challenges that view in the least.

You seem to have a decidedly strange notion that phenomena cannot be both causes and effects.

Yes, that's natural selection. That process in turn causes other phenomena, like a rapid increase in the population frequency of certain alleles.

It also doesn't tell us anything about the meaning of the word "epideictic" or the origin of the infield fly rule in baseball. The list of things that natural selection doesn't tell us about is very long indeed. In what way is this supposed to be an argument against natural selection being viewed as a cause?

I'll ask again: how many evolutionary biologists have you actually talked about these issues with?

Also, what is your prediction for the number of genes in the ancient wolf genome?

So, change occurs over time—everyone agrees with that. However, assigning one cause for all change is fallacious and it leads to incorrect beliefs.

Let’s use an analogy: automobiles have changed over time. This has been called “the evolution of the automobile”. Yet, to suggest that “evolution” is the cause of this is ludicrous. Observations of change are only observations—they have no power to change or create anything.

In actuality, two very different kinds or categories of changes have occurred in automobiles over time. Go to any junk yard and you can see the kinds of changes which occur to individual automobiles. One of the causes for this category of change is ultraviolet radiation, for example. That’s a “natural” thing. Shall we then assume that all changes to automobiles have been caused by “natural” processes? No. That would be ridiculous. Human intelligence is the cause of the origins of each new model of automobile over time.

It would be helpful to see that one category of “change-over-time” (aka evolution) can be called “uphill” as opposed to the other category which can be called “downhill”. Each category has different causes.

Most evolutionists and also creationists agree that if you selectively breed wolves you can eventually get a poodle. But you cannot do the reverse. Why not? The answer resides in the genomes. It is well-known that all dogs have less “genetic diversity” than wolves. What does this mean? It means that the genome of the wolf contains more diversity of alleles (aka gene forms) and perhaps even higher numbers of genes as well as higher orders of complexity in epigenetic DNA regions. So, the change from wolf to dog has been a “downhill” slide, genetically speaking. Such a slide should never be conflated with the presumed “uphill” genetic changes which would be required to produce the gray wolf genome in the first place.


Darwin’s proposed “tree of life” would necessarily require many many uphill genetic events, i.e. from prokaryote to eukaryote. How did that happen? It is ludicrous to offer “evolution” as an answer to that. It would be ridiculous to appeal to the downhill changes in many groups of life-forms, such as the wolf-dog continuum.

The term “genetic erosion” describes the “downhill” processes which have undoubtedly occurred over time in many different “kinds” or continuums of life. Yet, where did all of these “kinds” originate from? Appealing to gene/allele-destroying processes such as selection and bottlenecking etc. in order to explain a requisite gene-building (and epigenetic-building) process is fallacious.

Hence, I reiterate that “evolution” represents only an observation of change over time, having nothing to say about causation. And “evolution” (downhill) should always be clearly distinguished from the notion of “evolutionary origins” (uphill). The mechanisms for wolf > poodle “evolution” should not be confused with or conflated to be the same mechanisms that would have been required to produced the wolf from a population of ancestors which were genetically less-diverse than the wolf.

 

[WisdomSpy]

Also, what is your prediction for the number of genes in the ancient wolf genome?[/QUOTE]

My prediction is that IF Darwinism is correct, the ancient wolf genome compared to a modern wolf genome should follow the general outline of Darwin's (and other evolutionist's) so-called "tree of life". In other words, the evidence should support the notion of naturalistic generation of progressively more complex and useful genomes. And if such evidence is eventually shown, it should be combined with a credible and sufficiently-detailed explanation of causes, not simply a glib appeal to "evolution".

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, what is your prediction for the number of genes in the ancient wolf genome?

My prediction is that IF Darwinism is correct, the ancient wolf genome compared to a modern wolf genome should follow the general outline of Darwin's (and other evolutionist's) so-called "tree of life". In other words, the evidence should support the notion of naturalistic generation of progressively more complex and useful genomes. And if such evidence is eventually shown, it should be combined with a credible and sufficiently-detailed explanation of causes, not simply a glib appeal to "evolution".[/QUOTE]

You said that naturalistic generation should produce progressively more complex and useful genomes. Of course changes as a product of mutations, have been observed to benefit the fitness of organisms in which they occur. Beneficial mutations have also been observed to fixate via natural selection, thereby resulting in genetic changes which are useful to the organism in allowing it to out-compete its ancestors, and even render its ancestors extinct in the process as it takes over. And of course this has been physically observed to occur, in thousands of experiments.

So, to confirm, you said "the evidence should support the notion of naturalistic generation of progressively more complex and useful genomes", fixation of beneficial mutations via natural selection has been observed to increase fitness of biological organisms, resulting in more "useful" genomes.

Regarding complexity, also in thousands of experiments, gene duplication and subsequent point mutations have been observed in which the genomes of these same mutated organisms are numerically more complex than their predecessors. And beyond this, you have mutations that reverse prior changes, in which case, you have mutations resulting in both numerically more simple, and numerically more complex genomes.

If the above does not fit your definition of "useful" and "complex", then feel free to specify what you mean with respect to these terms.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you want to have some real fun, walk into a room of evolutionists and ask if anyone can tell you whether "evolution" is a cause or an effect.

You'd get a lot of amused smiles. Evolution is a process, a natural phenomenon. Specifically, it's a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So is that a cause or an effect?

Random mutations and natural selection make this happen, so in that sense, it's an effect. On the other hand, fitness in a population tends to increase over time, due to evolution, so it's also a cause. You might consider whether the American revolution was a cause or an effect. If you know anything about it, you'd know it was both.

Hint: in so many "scientific" as well as lay articles, "evolution" is used as an ostensible cause.

See above. Increased fitness is indeed caused by evolution. On the other hand, increased fitness will lead to speciation, extinction of other populations caused by fitness of the population in question, meaning that fitness is also an effect.

Think about it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ah, I see.

To me, you just contradicted yourself. Well thanks for chatting, but I just lost interest in this conversation, since you have nothing to offer that I haven't heard before.

Have a good one.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are quite a number of ways to calibrate C-14. Here's a good one:

Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/201...tsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/