World Population

RC Tent said:

Just my opinion here, but this is not very polite - it certainly is not good science or philosophy.

Click to expand...

You're right, perhaps I should not laugh at the suggestion that "there could be no direct connections between genetics and evolution".

RC Tent said:

I am not inferring that God is doing anything in my post. I was just trying to find out if there was an experiment which you envisaged which could demonstrate evolution as described.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying. I don't have an experiment in mind, but would imagine these kinds of discussions go on within theistic evolutionary circles to conceive of how/when God may have provided the volition behind evolution.

I find the concept totally inadequate myself. Given an infinite universe, then there would be time, but that is not part of the current paradigm.

Click to expand...

Yes the concept of random mutation + natural selection as an unguided process (neo-Darwinism), is now being described as passé--out of date. In some of the videos I linked on Meyer he referenced in a fairly recent meeting of the Royal Society in London that many of the leading scientists at the meeting were calling for a new mechanism for evolution [implicit is that the current mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism are insufficient].

While I'm not specifically an adherent to ID, I do feel it effectively sheds light on why some atheists, and creationists alike have been critiquing for some time. I'm not one for making predictions, but I will not be surprised if over the next decade we find a larger and darker cloud of doubt hanging over classical views of evolution (in the meaning of all life arising from a universal common ancestor), with more and more turning away, as is already occurring.

What is disappointing, and Meyer brings this up as well, is that the Church and the education system (being slow to catch on) is ironically pushing for Christians to accept evolution if they are to be deemed intelligent/relevant/credible witnesses, and that schools still parrot these old beliefs that have been unraveling and shown to just be wrong for decades now.

To paraphrase Meyer - there is no natural process that creates information... natural processes can only transmit information, to create information requires an intelligent agent. A good friend and colleague of Meyer, Doug Axe, has also shared the likelihood of random mutations actually producing beneficial change... and I may be off on the details, but this was like for a protein of like 150 amino acids (on the smaller side from what I understand), and what is estimated to be about 10^40 life on Earth since creation (and I believe they were operating under the conventional age of approx. 4.5 billion years), that the probability of producing a beneficial mutation was like 10^77, so not even 1 time would this have happened in all of history on earth for all organisms. This was like a 14-yr project Axe worked on at Cambridge University.

KomatiiteBIF said:

You're right, perhaps I should not laugh at the suggestion that "there could be no direct connections between genetics and evolution".

Click to expand...

It is the way that known genetics has to be extrapolated backwards into vast time periods that is being questioned here, the scientific viability of that idea - on the grounds that it takes too long to be observable. I doubt that the point was intended to be that there is no connection between the two in the theory. The issue, which you are not dealing with at all, is the unscientific nature of the extrapolation to back into multi-millions of years, that genetics has to be stretched far beyond observable things and reliable evidence in order to work as support for long term, "macro evolution".

Again, if I am wrong NobleMouse is welcome to correct me.

KomatiiteBIF said:

What is physically real, isnt really dependent upon anyones interpretation of scripture.

Click to expand...

Your posts, in which you repeatedly declare opposing opinions to your own do not specify physical anywhere. They simply say "not a real argument".

Every one that has been posted is actually a very real argument, they are simply arguments that are consistent with the Bible as historical truth.

Maybe you are unaware that people discuss the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ (or not), the reality of His death on the cross, the historicity of His existence gets questioned, the figurative or actual existence of the two stones that the 10 Commandments appeared on... This list is hardly exhaustive, and I am afraid I cannot post supportive links until later (when I will do), but I cannot think of anything more relevant to the issue of "what is physically real" than a person's interpretation of the Bible.

(My last point would be different if this was not an exclusive section for Christians.)

RC Tent said:

It is the way that known genetics has to be extrapolated backwards into vast time periods that is being questioned here, the scientific viability of that idea - on the grounds that it takes too long to be observable. I doubt that the point was intended to be that there is no connection between the two in the theory. The issue, which you are not dealing with at all, is the unscientific nature of the extrapolation to back into multi-millions of years, that genetics has to be stretched far beyond observable things and reliable evidence in order to work as support for long term, "macro evolution".

Again, if I am wrong NobleMouse is welcome to correct me.

Click to expand...

Agreed. To say that "macro evolution" (in the sense of neo-Darwinian evolution describing all life arising from a universal common ancestor) has been proven through genetics is unquestionably unscientific since making this assertion requires confirming events and linking relationships that allegedly occurred not just millions, but billions of years ago. Such assertion cannot be corroborated through the study of genetics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamentally what has in effect occurred is that similarities in DNA (or we could say the same for similarities in physiology/morphology) have been defined as an antecedent to confirming an evolutionary relationship. This has been invented as a perceived logical approach or rationale by which we can connect all living things back to the first living organism on earth. The problem is that the antecedent (the thing that naturally precedes or perceivably "makes true" the other... that is, believing [genetic similarity/morphology/location in the fossil record/whatever you want to put...] = [connected by evolution] has never been confirmed/scientifically observed. It is always limited to being an inference, a presumption. This "universal common ancestor" was never observed suddenly branching out into all of the already-complex life forms as found in the Cambrian layer. If this had been observed either directly, or could be repeated in a lab and genetic analysis performed, then I think there would be more credibility. But alas, such has never been observed or repeated such as to give credence to the antecedent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that this will be received as me being 'charitable', but in some fairness, I think almost everyone will agree that evolution does occur in the sense of minor variations. Evolution does a good job of explaining the variation in beak sizes of finches in the Galapagos, but does not explain how birds arrived in the first place--another paraphrase I took from Meyer.

Now don't take my word above as being true just because I wrote/paraphrased it; scientists doing research are confirming that there is no way that the materialistic/naturalistic mechanisms of random mutation + natural selection are capable of producing new life forms - this is what Meyer and the ID camp, creationist scientists, and others are all raising up (as if to say, "whoa, stop the show... this clearly isn't working anymore - we need to develop a new hypothesis.). This precludes the rhetoric suggesting things like tiktaalik are a "transitional" fossil. #1: it wasn't observed 'transitioning' and #2: the immense complexity and new information needed to make a new life form does in fact not happen through any natural process.

KomatiiteBIF said:

And thats what the theory of evolution is all about. It is a scientific theory, therefore, we must defer to science to judge it.

Click to expand...

No, not if we are not actually conducting science we do not. If we are people, discussing the world population and the indications for evolution of the current population, we do not have to restrict our arguments to just science.

But, we are scientists, so typically speaking, we arent simply going to ignore science.

Click to expand...

"We" are not scientists, and this a discussion that includes philosophy, religious beliefs and science. This conversation is a chat between human beings, it is not a science seminar.

An example being of him randomly bringing up the lenski experiments, which are of scientific research.

Click to expand...

This did not happen, because that was not random.

RC Tent said:

No, not if we are not actually conducting science we do not. If we are people, discussing the world population and the indications for evolution of the current population, we do not have to restrict our arguments to just science.

Click to expand...

If we want to know the truth, we will.

"We" are not scientists, and this a discussion that includes philosophy, religious beliefs and science.

Click to expand...

No. The population of the world over the ages is not dependent on what philosophy we might hold, or what our religion might be. It's about facts. And so we have to gather facts and then decide based on that. Science, in other words.

This conversation is a chat between human beings, it is not a science seminar.

Click to expand...

This is how the anti-vaccine people have harmed countless kids:

"It's not about the science; we prefer our own beliefs."

NobleMouse said:

.
This is how the anti-vaccine people have harmed countless kids:

"It's not about the science; we prefer our own beliefs."

Click to expand...

No, it is really possible to question science without refusing vaccination.

It is also possible for science to be used as grounds to harm countless kids. Do you know what eugenics is? Or does that not count because they are not able bodied and healthy children?

You just have not got any point there at all.

It reads like "but someone else said something else about something else entirely, so you are hurting countless children".

RC Tent said:

No, it is really possible to question science without refusing vaccination.

Click to expand...

Sure, but the anti-vaccine people question science and are harming kids by rejecting what science has learned.

It is also possible for science to be used as grounds to harm countless kids. Do you know what eugenics is?

Click to expand...

It's not science. Darwinian scientists like Darwin, Punnett, and Morgan showed that it was not only "overwhelming evil" (Darwin's term) but also scientifically wrong. The eugenics movement was largely the attempt by the "right people" to justify bad treatment of the "wrong people."

In the case of vaccine protestors, they endanger not only their own children but those children whose health is impaired and are particularly vulnerable to diseases.

Or does that not count because they are not able bodied and healthy children?

Click to expand...

I guess you'd have to ask them and their parents. Before measles vaccines, those kids were either severely damaged or died. And there's another thing...

Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a rare form of chronic progressive brain inflammation caused by measles virus. The condition primarily affects children and young adults. It has been estimated that about 1 in 10,000 people who get measles will eventually develop SSPE.[1] However, a 2016 study estimated that the rate for babies who contracted measles was as high as 1 in 609

SSPE is characterized by a history of primary measles infection, followed by an asymptomatic period that lasts 7 years on average but can range from 1 month to 27 years. After the asymptomatic period, progressive neurological deterioration occurs, characterized by behavior change, intellectual problems, myoclonic seizures, blindness, ataxia, and eventually death.
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis - Wikipedia

You get measles, it's a lottery after that.

You just have not got any point there at all.

Click to expand...

Seems like a valid concern to me.

It reads like "but someone else said something else about something else entirely, so you are hurting countless children".

Click to expand...

Just saying. Sometimes, it pays to know what things are about. The point is, reality is not dependent on what we think if it.

KomatiiteBIF said:

"Also since genetic material does not last very long, there could be no direct connections between genetics and evolution"

hahaha. Oh gosh, this is too much. This is just comical.

" (especially because you insist hundreds of millions of years have passed and most researchers indicate that genetic material would not be reliable beyond 1.5 million years)"

Nobody suggests that fossils need to have DNA in them to be corroborated with genetic phylogeny.

Genetics have been used to predict the locality of fossils (such as in the case with tiktaalik). Which is something that you have yet to offer an explanation for. All you are doing now is blindly suggesting that there is no link.

Again I ask, are you suggesting that the discovery of tiktaalik was just...pure blind luck? Or do you have an explanation for why the fossil succession and genetics produce identical phylogenetic trees?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you are fully aware of what you seem to be indicating in this point. Quote from Wikipedia:

"A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities—their phylogeny (/faɪˈlɒdʒəni/)—based upon similarities and differences in their physical or genetic characteristics." [emphasis added]

Since there is no genetic information in tiktaalik (because it is allegedly ~380ish ma old), we can rule out genetic characteristics, thus by process of elimination leaving us with just interpretations of physical characteristics. Phylogeny would only utilize genetic data when genetic data is present.

Please read the following article:
Predicting Fossil Finds

Notice what the author states, "What I hadn’t fully appreciated was that the scientists decided to look where they did based on how old they thought the fossil should be. In other words, they were able to use the theory of evolution to predict where to find the fossil they were looking for."

I did not see any reference to genetics at all, but it was stated scientists found the fossil on the basis of how old they thought the fossil would be. My understanding is that the estimated age assigned to a yet-to-be-found fossil is typically determined by plotting relative to what paleontologists believe are the ages of related precursors and successors to the missing fossil.

I don't believe the find for Tiktaalik was pure blind luck, but that its find was not the result of the reasons/predictions you've been citing. First, many scientists still indicate Tiktaalik was a lobe-finned fish. So the fact it is found among other fossils of fish and shallow-water tetrapods is not all that startling. Second, as I stated in post #105, the connection of fossils and making them evolutionarily related is the result of inventing a set of antecedent criteria that perceivably makes the relationship true, though cannot be corroborated through actual scientific observation, but only by inference... so there is no credence to the antecedent actually meaning what is otherwise implied to mean.

RC Tent said:

No, it is really possible to question science without refusing vaccination.

It is also possible for science to be used as grounds to harm countless kids. Do you know what eugenics is? Or does that not count because they are not able bodied and healthy children?

You just have not got any point there at all.

It reads like "but someone else said something else about something else entirely, so you are hurting countless children".

Click to expand...

Did I write that? I may have... just isn't jogging in my memory - do you have the post # I can refer back to?

NobleMouse said:

I'm not sure you are fully aware of what you seem to be indicating in this point. Quote from Wikipedia:

"A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities—their phylogeny (/faɪˈlɒdʒəni/)—based upon similarities and differences in their physical or genetic characteristics." [emphasis added]

Since there is no genetic information in tiktaalik (because it is allegedly ~380ish ma old), we can rule out genetic characteristics, thus by process of elimination leaving us with just interpretations of physical characteristics. Phylogeny would only utilize genetic data when genetic data is present.

Please read the following article:
Predicting Fossil Finds

Notice what the author states, "What I hadn’t fully appreciated was that the scientists decided to look where they did based on how old they thought the fossil should be. In other words, they were able to use the theory of evolution to predict where to find the fossil they were looking for."

I did not see any reference to genetics at all, but it was stated scientists found the fossil on the basis of how old they thought the fossil would be. My understanding is that the estimated age assigned to a yet-to-be-found fossil is typically determined by plotting relative to what paleontologists believe are the ages of related precursors and successors to the missing fossil.

I don't believe the find for Tiktaalik was pure blind luck, but that its find was not the result of the reasons/predictions you've been citing. First, many scientists still indicate Tiktaalik was a lobe-finned fish. So the fact it is found among other fossils of fish and shallow-water tetrapods is not all that startling. Second, as I stated in post #105, the connection of fossils and making them evolutionarily related is the result of inventing a set of antecedent criteria that perceivably makes the relationship true, though cannot be corroborated through actual scientific observation, but only by inference... so there is no credence to the antecedent actually meaning what is otherwise implied to mean.

Click to expand...

From your link

"This find is also important because it is based on a prediction made by evolutionary theory. Around 390 million years ago, the only vertebrates were fish. By 360 million years ago, there were four-footed vertebrates on land. So the scientists looked in a place that was 375 million years old."

"First, many scientists still indicate Tiktaalik was a lobe-finned fish. So the fact it is found among other fossils of fish and shallow-water tetrapods is not all that startling." ~Noble Mouse

You're speaking under the pretext that it doesn't have amphibian traits. Sure regular fish are found in many places in the rock record. But fish with unfused skulls, flat heads, spiracles and robust limbs are not present everywhere in the rock record.

It's important to note that tiktaalik is superpositionally of the earliest batch of fish with tetrapod traits. So its not just about fish being in the fossil succession, its about where they appear and what traits they have.

But you have already been told this many times.

If the first fish with tetrapod features appeared say...in the mesozoic (triassic, jurassic, cretaceous), or the cenozoic, or the cambrian, or the carboniferous, or the permian or the ediacaran or anywhere else in the precambrian, it would demonstrate evolution to be false.

But instead, tiktaalik is where the theory suggests it ought to be.

So no, its not just about one fish being found in a succession of fishes that exist everywhere in the fossil record, as you claim it to be.

And ive already addressed your second point by simply asking you, what other explanation could there be for how the location of tiktaalik was predicted?

Your response is insufficient as tiktaalik isnt just a regular everyday fish. Your response also doesnt acknowledge that if tiktaalik were found in the other 99% of the geologic column, evolution would be proven wrong, but instead tiktaalik is found in the 1% where evolutionary theory predicts that it ought to be.

RC Tent said:

No, not if we are not actually conducting science we do not.

Click to expand...

If you aren't conducting the science, then your opinion might not hold weight, as someone not familiar with the science being performed by the rest of us.

RC Tent said:

No, not if we are not actually conducting science we do not. If we are people, discussing the world population and the indications for evolution of the current population, we do not have to restrict our arguments to just science.



"We" are not scientists, and this a discussion that includes philosophy, religious beliefs and science. This conversation is a chat between human beings, it is not a science seminar.



This did not happen, because that was not random.

Click to expand...

I agree with Barbarian. Questions around the population on planet earth are indeed based on facts and observation. These are things that exist independently of personal religious beliefs.

The same goes with questions of science, such as "does tiktaalik superpositionally appear after fish but before reptiles?". The answer is, yes it does. And while people like Noble Mouse might not acknowledge it due to religious beliefs, religious beliefs do not somehow just make it not true.

The same goes with chinese history. Just because someone has religious beliefs that the planet is 6000 years old, that doesnt just magically erase 10,000 years of chinese history. Hence why no chinese historians are young earthers, because they know better. I suppose the same could be said for perhaps 99% of historians otherwise.

NobleMouse said:

Since there is no genetic information in tiktaalik (because it is allegedly ~380ish ma old), we can rule out genetic characteristics, thus by process of elimination leaving us with just interpretations of physical characteristics. Phylogeny would only utilize genetic data when genetic data is present.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. We can, for example, look at living members of that group, such as lungfish and two modern species of coelacanths.

The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution

• Chris T. Amemiya
• , Jessica Alföldi
• Kerstin Lindblad-Toh

Nature volume 496, pages 311–316 (18 April 2013)
Abstract
The discovery of a living coelacanth specimen in 1938 was remarkable, as this lineage of lobe-finned fish was thought to have become extinct 70 million years ago. The modern coelacanth looks remarkably similar to many of its ancient relatives, and its evolutionary proximity to our own fish ancestors provides a glimpse of the fish that first walked on land. Here we report the genome sequence of the African coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae. Through a phylogenomic analysis, we conclude that the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods.

A finding inexplicable to creationists, but predicted by evolutionary theory, it has been shown that lungfish are more closely related to land animals than they are to other fish.

This is quite similar to the finding that dinosaurs are biochemically more like birds than they are like other reptiles, a finding also predicted by evolutionary theory.

Support for Lungfish as the Closest Relative of Tetrapods by Using Slowly Evolving Ray-Finned Fish as the Outgroup
Naoko Takezaki Hidenori Nishihara
Genome Biology and Evolution, Volume 9, Issue 1, 1 January 2017, Pages 93–101,
In this study, instead of the fast evolving ray-finned fish, teleost fish (TF), in the previous data sets, by using two slowly evolving RF, gar and bowfin, as the outgroup, we showed that the sister relationship of lungfishes and tetrapods was reconstructed with high statistical support. In our analysis the evolutionary rates of gar and bowfin were similar to each other and one third to one half of TF. The difference of the amino acid frequencies of the two species with other lineages was larger than those of TF. This study provides a strong support for lungfishes as the closest relative of tetrapods

Ill add one more thing to the above.

Traits of tiktaalik that are tetrapod traits, such as its unfused neck and flat head, these are not subjectively understood qualities. They are measured qualities that objectively exist.

Its not like someone picks up a skeleton and uses their imagination to guess whether or not the neck is fused. It either is or it is not, as a physically measured trait.

So the question of if tiktaalik has tetrapod traits, is not up for debate. It is by its physical nature, a tetrapodomorph, a fish and tetrapod, in one. Something part aquatic but also terrestrial.

And while it is true that lobe finned fish exist in modern times, such as the above mentioned ceolacanth, what is significant isnt jut the qualities that tiktaalik had, but also the strata in which it was discovered.

Only through an understanding of common descent, would anyone guess where such a fossil would be. There are fresh water streambed rocks all over the planet, and fish fossils all over the planet. But Tiktaalik is a particular fish that has tetrapod features, that was found in a very particular locality of a very particular position in the geologic column.

People dont just go out into their back yard where there are fish fossils, and pull out a tiktaalik. Thats just not how it works. And to suggest that tiktaalik is "just a regular everyday fish" found in "regular everyday rocks where there are fish fossils" simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of paleontology.

NobleMouse said:

Did I write that? I may have... just isn't jogging in my memory - do you have the post # I can refer back to?

Click to expand...

You did not write that at all, The Barbarian said it in post 107.

I have no idea why my reply has ended up saying you said it. Sorry, maybe I pressed the wrong buttons making my reply.

The Barbarian said:

Sure, but the anti-vaccine people question science and are harming kids by rejecting what science has learned.

Click to expand...

Yes. My point is that harm is possible both ways, people can suffer because they question science, they can also suffer because they trusted it too much. I have worked in a country where scientific totalitarianism was applied to the whole population, it definitely is a harmful way to go.

It's not science.

Click to expand...

You are saying that, fine - but that is not what even most scientists did say when it was in widespread practice in the places where it was used. The same principle, that of regarding disabled people's live as worth less than others, is also the basis of a lot of harm done still now. If you argue that people must not question science, or medical advice, ever, then you enable people to enact harmful policies by using science to justify them.

I guess you'd have to ask them and their parents. Before measles vaccines, those kids were either severely damaged or died. And there's another thing...

Click to expand...

I am very likely to die entirely if I catch measles. Is you own life in danger from other people's vaccine refusal? Having worked in a place where attempts were used at mind control, and Christianity was illegal (before I was there, not while I was there) all on account of "scientific truth" I am a pretty big fan of freedom of thought and belief as well.

The point is, reality is not dependent on what we think if it.

Click to expand...

The point is reality is not necessarily exclusive to science and currently understood science is not the edge of reality.

KomatiiteBIF said:

I agree with Barbarian. Questions around the population on planet earth are indeed based on facts and observation. These are things that exist independently of personal religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

The issue was not "How many people are on the earth?". That question can be answered regardless of religious belief, yes, but it is not the issue in the OP of this thread.

The question was "How many people should be on the earth if evolution were true?" I would say the current human population is irrelevant to the issue, but it is not a simple matter of facts and observation at all...it is a matter of applicability to the age of the earth, the origin of life, and evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life. So, apart from the actual numbers of people alive now, which was not in question, where do you think "facts and observation" come into it?

KomatiiteBIF said:

The same goes with questions of science, such as "does tiktaalik superpositionally appear after fish but before reptiles?". The answer is, yes it does. And while people like Noble Mouse might not acknowledge it due to religious beliefs, religious beliefs do not somehow just make it not true.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that anyone's religious beliefs can make anything true, but then again, science does not wield the power to make anything true either.

I am talking about people having the freedom of thought to form their own ideas about what is true on whatever they see as the best basis. I agree that can lead to people being harmed. The problem is, failing to question what is deemed to be true, can also cause harm, whether the basis is scientific, religious or something else.