Possible falsification of Darwinism via gene data

[sfs]

You seem to be suggesting that I do not have the right to interpret evolution theory.

Not at all -- you have a complete right to say anything you like on any subject. I'm suggesting that you lack the competence to interpret evolution theory, based on what you've posted in this thread.

I have considerable formal and informal education regarding it. I also have conducted considerable amounts of original research regarding mutations and how they might affect genomes. I would be happy to share the information of how you could reproduce this same kind of research, using some free online resources. Perhaps it would be best to start a new thread for this purpose.

Really? Where are your studies published?

 

[pat34lee]

It would be really good if you understood at least the basics of the science before attempting to criticize it;

Ah, one of those.
"You believe something other than what I believe.
Therefore, you are ignorant of the truth, because I
can not be wrong."

Sorry, but it is very possible to know the facts and
still come to a different conclusion. That is a well-
known rule that every mystery writer lives by.

 

[pat34lee]

Adam and Eve could have had no more than four different alleles for each gene locus between them. Yet most human genes have dozens of alleles. The rest must have evolved by mutation.

Interesting.
When did scientists get hold of DNA from Adam and Eve and test them?
What makes you certain of what their DNA must or must not have?
What does perfect DNA look like?

 

[sfs]

Ah, one of those.
"You believe something other than what I believe.
Therefore, you are ignorant of the truth, because I
can not be wrong."

Sorry, but it is very possible to know the facts and
still come to a different conclusion. That is a well-
known rule that every mystery writer lives by.

I didn't object because somebody said something that I didn't believe. I objected because somebody made a patently false statement about how carbon dating is actually done. If you want to disagree with carbon dating, be my guest. But don't tell people that carbon dating relies on C14 being in equilibrium in the atmosphere, because it doesn't. This isn't a matter of belief; it's a matter of plain, easily verified error.

It seems to me that you have two choices here. You can either show that I was wrong -- that the dating of this wolf was based on an assumption of C14 equilibrium. If you do this, I will happily admit that I was wrong and apologize for having made my complaint. (To aid you in this endeavor, here is the source for the calibration curve that the wolf paper relied on.) Or else you can withdraw your suggestion that I think anyone who disagrees with my beliefs must be wrong and ignorant.

At least those are the only two avenues that I can see in which you maintain intellectual integrity. What do you think? More importantly, what will you do?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Adam and Eve could have had no more than four different alleles for each gene locus between them. Yet most human genes have dozens of alleles. The rest must have evolved by mutation.

Interesting.
When did scientists get hold of DNA from Adam and Eve and test them?

Every individual of our particular species has two copies of each gene. Are you telling me that Adam and Eve were of a different species, and we evolved from them into the species we are today?

What makes you certain of what their DNA must or must not have?

All humans, including other species of humans have two copies of each gene locus. The dozens of others we see today, must have evolved by mutation.

What does perfect DNA look like?

What does perfect protein look like. When you know that, you'll have your answer. Maybe it would be useful for you to learn a few basic things about genetics. It would clear up a lot of confusion for you.

 

[Job 33:6]

I must say, the young earth creationists on this forum really give me the idea that young earthers aren't the smartest group of people.

 

[Dale]

Need some help… been trying to find the actual genomic data from the landmark discovery of the Siberian or “Taimyr wolf” rib DNA which was found in 2014 and ostensibly dated to 35K YBP per carbon-14. I think that this data might represent an ENORMOUS potential for falsifying the Darwinian idea of simple-to-complex progression of life (usually called “evolution”, though without proper definitions, confusion has largely resulted from this word).

If anyone can find a link which tells the actual genomic data, i.e. how many nuclear genes and how many pseudogenes in the ancient genome, please post the link.

Also, since many evolutionists tout their theory as having “predictive powers”, I suggest this challenge to both evolutionists and creationists:

If the theory which you subscribe to is accurate, how many genes would an ancient ancestor to the modern dog have—more genes or less genes? And how many pseudogenes would the ancient ancestor have—more of them or less of them? What would the theory of evolution predict? What would the theory of creation (even via “ancient aliens”) predict?

The OP makes no sense. Species change was known before modern genetics made it possible to identify individual genes. Natural Selection as a cause of species change was a very successful theory to explain species change long before individual genes were identified.

You ridicule the idea that evolution/natural selection has predictive value.

I'll give you an example. When people hear a rattlesnake rattling, they usually kill it. On an island off California, there is a population of rattlesnakes that have very small rattles. In the last few years it has been observed that some of these have lost their rattles completely. Rattlesnakes with no rattles, who give no warning.

This is exactly what an "evolutionist," a believer in natural selection would predict. Rattlesnakes using their rattles leads to death, so natural selection favors small rattles, or no rattles. Instead of being a birth defect, the lack of rattles becomes an asset that leads to longer life and more offspring.

 

[The Barbarian]

The OP makes no sense. Species change was known before modern genetics made it possible to identify individual genes. Natural Selection as a cause of species change was a very successful theory to explain species change long before individual genes were identified.

You ridicule the idea that evolution/natural selection has predictive value.

I'll give you an example. When people hear a rattlesnake rattling, they usually kill it. On an island off California, there is a population of rattlesnakes that have very small rattles. In the last few years it has been observed that some of these have lost their rattles completely. Rattlesnakes with no rattles, who give no warning.

This is exactly what an "evolutionist," a believer in natural selection would predict. Rattlesnakes using their rattles leads to death, so natural selection favors small rattles, or no rattles. Instead of being a birth defect, the lack of rattles becomes an asset that leads to longer life and more offspring.

That sort of matches up with African elephants, the males of which are showing smaller tusks or no tusks at all, under pressure of killings by ivory poachers. Again, natural selection at work.

 

[pat34lee]

I didn't object because somebody said something that I didn't believe. I objected because somebody made a patently false statement about how carbon dating is actually done. If you want to disagree with carbon dating, be my guest. But don't tell people that carbon dating relies on C14 being in equilibrium in the atmosphere, because it doesn't. This isn't a matter of belief; it's a matter of plain, easily verified error.

It seems to me that you have two choices here. You can either show that I was wrong -- that the dating of this wolf was based on an assumption of C14 equilibrium. If you do this, I will happily admit that I was wrong and apologize for having made my complaint. (To aid you in this endeavor, here is the source for the calibration curve that the wolf paper relied on.) Or else you can withdraw your suggestion that I think anyone who disagrees with my beliefs must be wrong and ignorant.

At least those are the only two avenues that I can see in which you maintain intellectual integrity. What do you think? More importantly, what will you do?

Here is the original issue.

Andrew77 - The issue with carbon dating is that it relies the equilibrium of carbon 14 in the environment.

sfs - No, it really doesn't. Carbon dating relies on a calibrated correlation between apparent C14 age and actual age, based on objects of known age.
------------------------------------------------------------
Could Andrew77 be correct, or at least partially correct?

"Carbon-14 Datable Materials
Not all materials can be radiocarbon dated. Most, if not all, organic compounds can be dated. Some inorganic matter, like a shell’s aragonite component, can also be dated as long as the mineral’s formation involved assimilation of carbon 14 in equilibrium with the atmosphere."
https://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm

"In the absence of any historical data concerning the intensity of cosmic radiation, Libby simply assumed that it had been constant. He reasoned that a state of equilibrium must exist wherein the rate of carbon-14 production was equal to its rate of decay, dating back millennia. (Fortunately for him, this was later proven to be generally true.)"
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/radiocarbon-dating.html

 

[pat34lee]

That sort of matches up with African elephants, the males of which are showing smaller tusks or no tusks at all, under pressure of killings by ivory poachers. Again, natural selection at work.

Lamarckian evolution has long been discredited.
Even the Darwinians had to throw it out.

Remember the thing about gametes? Inherited
characteristics die with the animal. They cannot
be passed on to the offspring.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That sort of matches up with African elephants, the males of which are showing smaller tusks or no tusks at all, under pressure of killings by ivory poachers. Again, natural selection at work.

Lamarckian evolution has long been discredited.
Even the Darwinians had to throw it out.

That's not Lamarkian, it's Darwinian evolution.

Remember the thing about gametes? Inherited characteristics die with the animal. They cannot
be passed on to the offspring.

Wrong. Acquired characteristics are not passed on. Inherited characteristics are passed on.

In the case of elephants, poachers are killing the ones with larger tusks. So tusks are getting smaller or are even absent. Those with smaller tusks are more likely to live long enough to reproduce.

 

[The Barbarian]

"In the absence of any historical data concerning the intensity of cosmic radiation, Libby simply assumed that it had been constant. He reasoned that a state of equilibrium must exist wherein the rate of carbon-14 production was equal to its rate of decay, dating back millennia. (Fortunately for him, this was later proven to be generally true.)"
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/radiocarbon-dating.html

Here's the calibration curve from Lake Suigetsu varves:

Pretty good fit, um?

 

[sfs]

Here is the original issue.

Andrew77 - The issue with carbon dating is that it relies the equilibrium of carbon 14 in the environment.

sfs - No, it really doesn't. Carbon dating relies on a calibrated correlation between apparent C14 age and actual age, based on objects of known age.
------------------------------------------------------------
Could Andrew77 be correct, or at least partially correct?

Not if you read what Andrew77 actually wrote, no.

"Carbon-14 Datable Materials
Not all materials can be radiocarbon dated. Most, if not all, organic compounds can be dated. Some inorganic matter, like a shell’s aragonite component, can also be dated as long as the mineral’s formation involved assimilation of carbon 14 in equilibrium with the atmosphere."
https://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm

True, but quite irrelevant to the argument Andrew77 was making:

Carbon 14 is created and is destroyed constantly over time. If the Earth is millions or billions of years old, the amount of carbon 14 in the environment should be stable.

Based on this, they assume how much carbon 14 was in the Siberian Taimyr Wolf, when it was alive. Then based on how much Carbon 14 is left in the wolf's bones, they can determine how old it is.

The entire concept hinges on them knowing how much carbon 14 was there to begin with.

But carbon 14, has not reached equilibrium. Carbon 14 was increasing before the start of the nuclear age, and the amount of carbon 14 has not decreased after the end of atmospheric nuclear testing, to the levels we had before the nuclear age began.

Meaning, it was not at an equilibrium. Which therefore indicates that level of Carbon 14 in the past, could have been drastically lower.

If the levels of Carbon 14 in say 4,000 BC, were drastically lower than they are today, then when we dig up the bones of an animal that was alive just several thousand years ago, it would appear (based on the assumption it had as much Carbon 14 then as we do today), to be millions of years old. This would be a false estimation.

His claim was that atmospheric C14 levels could have been much lower in the past. He wasn't talking about objects that aren't in equilibrium with the atmosphere.

"In the absence of any historical data concerning the intensity of cosmic radiation, Libby simply assumed that it had been constant. He reasoned that a state of equilibrium must exist wherein the rate of carbon-14 production was equal to its rate of decay, dating back millennia. (Fortunately for him, this was later proven to be generally true.)"
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/radiocarbon-dating.html

And Libby was wrong, as it turns out. The levels of C14 in the atmosphere haven't varied dramatically, but they have varied. Which is why modern dating with C14 -- including the case under discussion -- use calibration curves rather than relying on an assumption of equilibrium.

So try again: how was I simply assuming that anyone who disagrees with my beliefs is wrong and ignorant?

 

[pat34lee]

That's not Lamarkian, it's Darwinian evolution.

Wrong. Acquired characteristics are not passed on. Inherited characteristics are passed on..

Sorry, I meant acquired, not inherited. Such as changes in tusk size or
in Darwin's case, change in beak size.

 

[pat34lee]

Not if you read what Andrew77 actually wrote, no.

I quoted him directly from the post you were addressing.

Andrew77 - "The issue with carbon dating is that it relies the equilibrium of carbon 14 in the environment."

So, why would you say I didn't read what he wrote?

So try again: how was I simply assuming that anyone who disagrees with my beliefs is wrong and ignorant?

It's very similar to saying that I didn't read what Andrew77 wrote, when I posted it word for word.

If you think Libby was wrong, you have to argue with the chemistry website.

 

[pat34lee]

Here's the calibration curve from Lake Suigetsu varves:

Pretty good fit, um?

I can't get images to post either. Maybe they banned them on CF?

 

[The Barbarian]

I can't get images to post either. Maybe they banned them on CF?

If you click "reply" on my post, you should be able to see it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, I meant acquired, not inherited. Such as changes in tusk size or
in Darwin's case, change in beak size.

Those are inherited, not acquired.

 

[sfs]

I can't get images to post either. Maybe they banned them on CF?

You have to use the "Upload a file button" below the post.

 

[sfs]

I quoted him directly from the post you were addressing.

Andrew77 - "The issue with carbon dating is that it relies the equilibrium of carbon 14 in the environment."

So, why would you say I didn't read what he wrote?

Because the rest of what he wrote -- the larger context that I quoted -- shows that the meaning you assigned to his words was incorrect. I wasn't suggesting that you hadn't read the whole thing, by the way. I was trying to say that if one reads the entire thing, your interpretation of his words is not valid

It's very similar to saying that I didn't read what Andrew77 wrote, when I posted it word for word.

Except that I didn't say that you hadn't read what Andrew77 wrote. I see that my statement could be taken that way, so I've clarified what I meant. You, on the other hand, did level an accusation against me, and have failed to clarify or retract it, and have not backed it up.

If you think Libby was wrong, you have to argue with the chemistry website.

Huh? Libby wasn't wrong that C14 can be used for dating, or about C14 being roughly in equilibrium in the atmosphere. His assumption that it was perfectly constant (an assumption he had to make at the time) turned out not to be true. More to the point here, it is an assumption that is not made in current C14 dating, including the dating of the wolf that is the subject of this thread. That's the claim that's at issue here.

So try again: how was I simply assuming that anyone who disagrees with my beliefs is wrong and ignorant?