Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[tas8831]

Ok, this is from the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome:

• Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23%
• The indel differences between the genomes thus total ∼90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ∼3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions

So 1.23% plus 3% comes to 4.23% which means the two genomes are 96% the same. So given those unambiguous numbers that require only the most basic math, did Talk Origins lie about the divergence here?

Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).
​

The divergence is measured in base pairs, not events, the statement is obviously wrong, did they lie?

Chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level. (What Makes Us Different. Not very much, when you look at our DNA. But those few tiny changes made all the difference in the world. Time Oct. 2006)
​

Time was aware of the Chimpanzee Genome paper, they would mention it a couple of paragraphs later. The number they are clearly wrong, is this a lie?

This one is from the announcement by Nature Magazine Web Focus, specifically of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. Again the number they use is clearly and obviously wrong:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. (The Chimpanzee Genome. Nature.com)​

So did they lie? This isn't some obscure speculation about fossil anatomy. This is a complete Chimpanzee genome compared to a complete Human genome. The comparison cites 5 previous research papers that had already confirmed the level of divergence in no uncertain terms.

Have a nice day
Mark

It would be exemplary if you could tell me whether or not you think Mitchell lied or is incompetent.

Mitchell presents herself - and AiG presents her as - as having sufficient expertise in the scientific field in question so as to render an incontrovertible judgment (yet she is but a medical doctor).

Was the person that wrote the Time article presenting him/herself as an expert? Did the reporting attempt to undermine or refute anything?

Is being a few percentage points off the same as misrepresenting something on purpose?

I thought I had seen those numbers bandied about before, and searching this forum, I see that you present this same argument over and over despite the fact that the indel issue had been explained to you repeatedly. I see no reason to go over that material again, since you seem incapable of moving past your errors.

 

[tas8831]

Did I say scientific papers? That nitpiky number represent 90 million base pairs they have no explanation for. The point was that these statements are obviously wrong. Its as simple as 4 plus 1.23 and as many times as I've pointed this out not one evolutionist has honestly admitted to it. Some of these indels are over a million base pairs long which is why evolutionist uniformly ignore and deny them.

Indels are 1 time events.

A million bp insertion is a single mutation.

Counting a million bp insertion as a million mutations is, frankly, naive.

Not one creationist has honestly admitted this.

 

[mark kennedy]

It would be exemplary if you could tell me whether or not you think Mitchell lied or is incompetent.

Neither, I think your melodrama over this obscure quote is underwhelmning

Mitchell presents herself - and AiG presents her as - as having sufficient expertise in the scientific field in question so as to render an incontrovertible judgment (yet she is but a medical doctor).

Was the person that wrote the Time article presenting him/herself as an expert? Did the reporting attempt to undermine or refute anything?

Is being a few percentage points off the same as misrepresenting something on purpose?

I thought I had seen those numbers bandied about before, and searching this forum, I see that you present this same argument over and over despite the fact that the indel issue had been explained to you repeatedly. I see no reason to go over that material again, since you seem incapable of moving past your errors.

Where was all that indignation when Talk Origins failed to add 3 plus 1.23? It's ok for them to grossly distort the truth in in obvious way but some vague generalizations from an obscure paper your livid. Who you think your fooling?

 

[Resha Caner]

Hmmm, you might have to explain - how are you proposing this 'intelligence' be measured? How would you measure this intelligence without formulating an appropriate test and collecting the data as such?

That is where the problem with ID begins to reveal itself, so I'll not claim to have a satisfactory answer. However, you're jumping the gun. I didn't ask questions or make claims about scientific measures of intelligence. I asked if it is legitimate for a scientist to propose a new measure when working with new hypotheses, assuming there is no existing measure to meet his needs?

That you asked this does make me curious, though. Maybe you should clarify your thoughts some more. Given you accept intelligence as a legitimate scientific topic, why do you ask how intelligence is measured? Are you saying no measures of intelligence exist?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

That is where the problem with ID begins to reveal itself, so I'll not claim to have a satisfactory answer. However, you're jumping the gun. I didn't ask questions or make claims about scientific measures of intelligence. I asked if it is legitimate for a scientist to propose a new measure when working with new hypotheses, assuming there is no existing measure to meet his needs?

Of course. This problem you speak of, though, is likely the root of the issue. Whatever method is used has to be measurable, verifiable and repeatable in some reliable way by others.

That you asked this does make me curious, though. Maybe you should clarify your thoughts some more. Given you accept intelligence as a legitimate scientific topic, why do you ask how intelligence is measured? Are you saying no measures of intelligence exist?

Of course there is. I ask because there's likely an infinite amount of quantifiable ways one could measure intelligence. For example, the mean time to problem solve a puzzle, or speed and accuracy of mathematical calculations, so on. It'd be entirely dependent on what it was you want to measure.

 

[Resha Caner]

Of course. This problem you speak of, though, is likely the root of the issue. Whatever method is used has to be measurable, verifiable and repeatable in some reliable way by others.

You've essentially answered the next question I was going to ask, which was what we would require of this measure. I would agree it needs to be repeatable and independent of the one measuring. Though it's not a necessity, the easiest way to do that is to make it a measure of quantity.

Of course there is. I ask because there's likely an infinite amount of quantifiable ways one could measure intelligence. For example, the mean time to problem solve a puzzle, or speed and accuracy of mathematical calculations, so on. It'd be entirely dependent on what it was you want to measure.

Yes, there are many facets to intelligence. It's actually a very hard thing to measure. The possible measures you mention above are typical in that they often require the person being tested to be present. IOW, the lab creates the event it wants to measure. But is that always necessary? Is it scientifically legitimate to measure the effects of an event even if the one measuring was not present to witness it in real time?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You've essentially answered the next question I was going to ask, which was what we would require of this measure. I would agree it needs to be repeatable and independent of the one measuring. Though it's not a necessity, the easiest way to do that is to make it a measure of quantity.

Yes, there are many facets to intelligence. It's actually a very hard thing to measure. The possible measures you mention above are typical in that they often require the person being tested to be present. IOW, the lab creates the event it wants to measure. But is that always necessary? Is it scientifically legitimate to measure the effects of an event even if the one measuring was not present to witness it in real time?

Well, any academic exam can generally be measured without the tester actually having to be there (aside making sure industrious self-serving students aren't looking over someone else's shoulder, that is...), so it is of course possible. With any & all unattended tests though, we have a well-documented base to draw from in linking unattended results with the intelligence being tested (i.e. we have plenty of evidence prior witnessing an intelligence under said test conditions), otherwise, how would you be able to link cause and effect? This is a necessary step to remove assumption & bias. In fact, without having evidence of this necessary link, how would we know if the intelligence was even involved, and that some other process is causing an illusion of intelligence?

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, any academic exam can generally be measured without the tester actually having to be there (aside making sure industrious self-serving students aren't looking over someone else's shoulder, that is...), so it is of course possible. With any & all unattended tests though, we have a well-documented base to draw from in linking unattended results with the intelligence being tested (i.e. we have plenty of evidence prior witnessing an intelligence under said test conditions), otherwise, how would you be able to link cause and effect? This is a necessary step to remove assumption & bias. In fact, without having evidence of this necessary link, how would we know if the intelligence was even involved, and that some other process is causing an illusion of intelligence?

Again, the question was general, not specific. Further, as I said, I was moving away from a set of questions asked directly to a person and moving toward post-event observations in the field: If we study a bird's next, what does that tell us about birds; what does a beaver dam tell us about beavers; what does pottery left by the Harappans tell us about them?

And we're basically at that point where we're ready for step 1 - to make some observations with the application of the general rules we've established:
* Intelligence is a valid scientific topic for these observations
* It is legitimate that we set out to measure intelligence,
* that we may use a new measure to do it,
* that the measure should be repeatable and independent of the one measuring,
* that preferably it be quantitative,
* that we need not bring the being into a lab to ask it questions,
* but rather we can make our observations in the field,
* and we can observe what that being has done after the event - artifacts left behind

You can probably take it from here.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Again, the question was general, not specific. Further, as I said, I was moving away from a set of questions asked directly to a person and moving toward post-event observations in the field: If we study a bird's next, what does that tell us about birds; what does a beaver dam tell us about beavers; what does pottery left by the Harappans tell us about them?

And we're basically at that point where we're ready for step 1 - to make some observations with the application of the general rules we've established:
* Intelligence is a valid scientific topic for these observations
* It is legitimate that we set out to measure intelligence,
* that we may use a new measure to do it,
* that the measure should be repeatable and independent of the one measuring,
* that preferably it be quantitative,
* that we need not bring the being into a lab to ask it questions,
* but rather we can make our observations in the field,
* and we can observe what that being has done after the event - artifacts left behind

You can probably take it from here.

...and take it, I shall. So, in your examples, have we prior experience of seeing birds make nests, beavers make dams and homo erectus/sapiens/neanderthal/denisovans/cro-magnum making pottery and utensils? This might mean we have to revisit our science for a refresher because all of these things are things we have prior experience of - and even then, that's not to say we are unassailable on our prior experience, because for example, is every nest made by a bird? Should we assume that because it looks like a bird's nest, that it was made by a bird? We still have to verify that we are indeed justified in connecting the phenomenon to the intelligence. For example, here's some nests:

if I were to just go ahead and analyse this as if it were birds nests, I'd have some unusual findings because of it since these aren't birds nests. If I had made the assumption up front, then I would've wasted all my time and effort categorising this 'bird' without verifying it was actually a bird in the first place.

Same with fairy rings, am I scientifically justified in assuming fairies cause these?

​

As scientists (or laypeople practising the scientific method), it is our duty to make as few assumptions as possible. and yes, that's literally what scientists do, they question even their fundamental positions on their research. If ever you go look at the citations of a scientific paper, you'll likely find it cites papers that cite papers that cite papers all the way back to some scientific research paper somewhere that researched how people come to reliable observations in the first place... like this one here http://eurotas.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/valideng_full.pdf

We look at some of these research papers and giggle at the basics being researched and how seemingly obvious it should be (and how much money is wasted doing these'obvious' things), but this is just the point, it isn't obvious and can't be taken for granted scientifically as demonstrated here in this conversation - not entirely by you personally, of course but by ID proponents and religious people everywhere expecting their 'evidence' and 'valid science' to be taken seriously. We can't just take these 'observations' and call them the product of intelligence without this verification. That's just not science.

 

[Resha Caner]

So, in your examples, have we prior experience of seeing birds make nests, beavers make dams and homo erectus/sapiens/neanderthal/denisovans/cro-magnum making pottery and utensils?

We do, and I understood the implications of that before this conversation even started.

I understand you're disagreeing with me. The odd thing is I still can't discern whether you're disagreeing with the point I'm trying to make or a point I'm not trying to make. I can't really tell if you know what point it is that I'm chasing.

Should we assume that because it looks like a bird's nest, that it was made by a bird?

The implications of that statement are broader than bird's nests, applying to any scientific endeavor undertaken after the fact. I skipped over this several times, and it's so tempting the way you keep dangling this tidbit in front of me, but I'm going to decline again.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

We do, and I understood the implications of that before this conversation even started.

I understand you're disagreeing with me. The odd thing is I still can't discern whether you're disagreeing with the point I'm trying to make or a point I'm not trying to make. I can't really tell if you know what point it is that I'm chasing.



The implications of that statement are broader than bird's nests, applying to any scientific endeavor undertaken after the fact. I skipped over this several times, and it's so tempting the way you keep dangling this tidbit in front of me, but I'm going to decline again.

Well, help me understand the point you're making, I'm not perfect by any means and I'm all for being corrected. So you might help in correcting my thinking, I reasoned that you wanted to assess the product of intelligence without a prior connection that it is actually a product of one, similar to how many centuries ago fairies were blamed for neatly formed rings of mushrooms. Would this be right?

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, help me understand the point you're making, I'm not perfect by any means and I'm all for being corrected. So you might help in correcting my thinking, I reasoned that you wanted to assess the product of intelligence without a prior connection that it is actually a product of one, similar to how many centuries ago fairies were blamed for neatly formed rings of mushrooms. Would this be right?

No.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

No.

Great, then help me understand.

 

[Resha Caner]

Great, then help me understand.

I tried. I don't know how else I would rephrase it, and I don't see the point in repeating myself.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I tried. I don't know how else I would rephrase it, and I don't see the point in repeating myself.

k... -_-

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Again, the question was general, not specific. Further, as I said, I was moving away from a set of questions asked directly to a person and moving toward post-event observations in the field: If we study a bird's next, what does that tell us about birds; what does a beaver dam tell us about beavers; what does pottery left by the Harappans tell us about them?

And we're basically at that point where we're ready for step 1 - to make some observations with the application of the general rules we've established:
* Intelligence is a valid scientific topic for these observations
* It is legitimate that we set out to measure intelligence,
* that we may use a new measure to do it,
* that the measure should be repeatable and independent of the one measuring,
* that preferably it be quantitative,
* that we need not bring the being into a lab to ask it questions,
* but rather we can make our observations in the field,
* and we can observe what that being has done after the event - artifacts left behind

You can probably take it from here.

Since I missed the mark then, You hold my hand and take me where you would go.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Science isn't objective. That's true of YEC science and evolutionary science. As has been noted, "Every instance of scientific inquiry, every study, rests on a vast submerged set of political, moral, and ultimately metaphysical assumptions."

Furthermore, scientific "programs grow out of an extended dialogue within a community of scientists, or due to funding pressures, and either way are the product of the norms, values, and interests of broader society. Thus these norms and values shape not only what qualifies as evidence, but what evidence is even available to be considered in need of explanation." So, YEC science is a product of its community as is secular evolutionary science.

And yet, planes fly, meds cure and nukes explode.

 

[DogmaHunter]

YEC science and evolutionary science are biased.

Agreed.

Evolutionary science is biased towards getting to accurate answers and usefull explanations.
YEC "science" is biased towards their religious beliefs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And secular scientists interpret the data based on secular pre-conceived notions shared by their followers

Indeed. Things like the importance of independent verifiability, predictability, falsifiability, usefulness, practical application and actually getting accurate answers to valid questions.

Whereas YEC "scientists" are only interested in preaching their religion.

There's no dishonesty. Both sides are quite open about it.

Some are.
Like the "statement of faith" like found on answers in genesis.
Others are not that honest, like the ones at the Discovery institute who literally have a hidden agenda. You can read all about it in the infamous leaked Wedge document, where they plainly state that the ultimate goal is to kick science out of science classes and replace it with mythical tales taken from a 2800 year old book called genesis.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not going along with status quo could be a career risk for a YEC or evolutionary scientist, if that entails challenging underlining belief assumptions about creation or evolution held in either group.

Not if you actually have evidence to support your case. In that case, fame and glory and immortality in name will be yours. That's when streets, towns, events, universities and even entire science branches are named after you.

This is why we remember the likes of Gallilleo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Farrady, etc.
All people who challenged the status quo and turned entire fields of science on their heads, or even kickstarted entirely new scientific fields.

The difference with YECs, is that those guys could actually support their claims with independently verifiable data.