The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

bonkey

Wicknight wrote: »

You think being a scientist makes someone special?

You don't respect the vast majority of scientists out there, any particular reason you hold "YEC scientists" in some particular high esteem?

While I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to point out this inconsistency, I would argue that those supporting the scientific side of the argument would be remiss to brush off a scientific opinion. To do so would be to engage in the very same tactics that you are here (rightly) criticising.

2Scoops

bonkey wrote: »

While I agree that it is perfectly reasonable to point out this inconsistency, I would argue that those supporting the scientific side of the argument would be remiss to brush off a scientific opinion. To do so would be to engage in the very same tactics that you are here (rightly) criticising.

Very true. However, scientists who are creationists have thus far failed to put forward a scientific argument. When, or if, they do we should all sit up and take notice. :pac:

Ekancone

2Scoops wrote: »

Very true. However, scientists who are creationists have thus far failed to put forward a scientific argument. When, or if, they do we should all sit up and take notice. :pac:

I would be delighted if they put forward a scientific argument. I find the tactics they use instead to be extremely underhanded and nasty. Very unchristian i'm sure people here will agree.

Ekancone

Human line 'nearly split in two'
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News


Ancient humans started down the path of evolving into two separate species before merging back into a single population, a genetic study suggests.

The genetic split in Africa resulted in distinct populations that lived in isolation for as much as 100,000 years, the scientists say.

This could have been caused by arid conditions driving a wedge between humans in eastern and southern Africa.

Details have been published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

It would be the longest period for which modern human populations have been isolated from one another.

But other scientists said it was still too early to reconstruct a meaningful picture of humankind's early history in Africa. They argue that other scenarios could also account for the data.

At the time of the split - some 150,000 years ago - our species, Homo sapiens , was still confined to the African continent.


We don't know how long it takes for hominids to fission off into separate species, but clearly they were separated for a very long time
Dr Spencer Wells, Genographic Project

The results have come from the Genographic Project, a major effort to track human migrations through DNA.

The latest conclusions are based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA in present-day African populations. This type of DNA is the genetic material stored in mitochondria - the "powerhouses" of cells.

It is passed down from a mother to her offspring, providing a unique record of maternal inheritance.

"We don't know how long it takes for hominids to fission off into separate species, but clearly they were separated for a very long time," said Dr Spencer Wells, director of the Genographic Project.

"They came back together again during the Late Stone Age - driven by population expansion."

Family tree

Although present-day people carry a signature of the ancient split in their DNA, today's Africans are part of a single population.

The researchers compiled a "family tree" of different mitochondrial DNA groupings found in Africa.

A major split occurred near the root of the tree as early as 150,000 years ago.

On one side of this divide are the mitochondrial lineages now found predominantly in East and West Africa, and all maternal lineages found outside Africa.

On the other side of the divide are lineages predominantly found in the Khoi and San (Khoisan) hunter-gatherer people of southern Africa.

Many African populations today harbour a mixture of both.


Although there is very deep divergence in the mitochondrial lineages, that can be different from inferring when the populations diverged from one another
Dr Sarah Tishkoff, University of Pennsylvania

The scientists say the most likely scenario is that two populations went their separate ways early in our evolutionary history.

This gave rise to separate human communities localised to eastern and southern Africa that evolved in isolation for between 50,000 and 100,000 years.

This divergence could have been related to climate change: recent studies of ancient climate data suggest that eastern Africa went through a series of massive droughts between 135,000-90,000 years ago.

Lead author Doron Behar, from the Rambam Medical Center in Israel commented: "It is possible the harsh environment and changing climate made populations migrate to other places in order to have a better chance of survival.

"Some of them found places where they could and - perhaps - some didn't. More than that we cannot say."

Back together

Dr Wells told BBC News: "Once this population reached southern Africa, it was cut off from the eastern African population by these drought events which were on the route between them."

Modern humans are often presumed to have originated in East Africa and then spread out to populate other areas. But the data could equally support an origin in southern Africa followed by a migration to East and West Africa.

The genetic data show that populations came back together as a single, pan-African population about 40,000 years ago.

This renewed contact appears to coincide with the development of more advanced stone tool technology and may have been helped by more favourable environmental conditions.

"[The mixing] was two-way to a certain extent, but the majority of mitochondrial lineages seem to have come from north-eastern Africa down to the south," said Spencer Wells.

But other scientists said different scenarios could explain the data.

Dr Sarah Tishkoff, an expert on African population genetics from the University of Pennsylvania, said the Khoisan might once have carried many more of the presumed "East African" lineages but that these could have been lost over time.

"Although there is very deep divergence in the mitochondrial lineages, that can be different from inferring when the populations diverged from one another and there can be many demographic scenarios to account for it," she told BBC News.

She added: "As a general rule of thumb, when mitochondrial genetic lineages split, it will usually precede the population split. It can often be difficult to infer from one to the other."

The University of Pennsylvania researcher stressed it was not possible to pinpoint where in Africa the populations had once lived - complicating the process of reconstructing scenarios from genetic data.

The Genographic Project's findings are also consistent with the idea - held for some years now - that modern humans had a close brush with extinction in the evolutionary past.

The number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.

Paul.Rincon-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk



Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7358868.stm

Published: 2008/04/24 17:32:42 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

As I mentioned above, I think that DNA provides the strongest evidence of all for evolution.

robindch

daithifleming wrote: »

I think that DNA provides the strongest evidence of all for evolution.

And prior to changes in DNA being observed, the evidence from geographical distribution was the front runner. Interestingly, I don't recall any creationists attempting to rebut that particular line of evidence, though I'm sure a few must have.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, I know evolutionists are not talking about sudden total changes a la frog/prince. For proof of their type I expect either fast-breeding bugs to be observed to produce non-bugs

robindch
You'll probably need to be around for millions of generations to see this change take place.

....which is a reply that amounts to little more than "trust me I'm an Evolutionist!!!":)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by robindch
Antibiotic resistance is the easiest one.

Follow the instructions here and culture a dish of bacteria in the presence of some mild antibiotic agent. Over successive generations, looking through the microscope, take the most energetic looking bacteria and culture them on successive new dishes.

Over time, the bacteria will become less and less affected by the antibiotic.

Bingo -- evolution in action.


daithifleming
But it didn't turn into a lion...

......or anything else......either!!!!!:pac::):D

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Yes, but the evolution of whales is the orthodox view of science. The avst majority of scientists believe it over the number who don't. Should we place our trust in many scientists or just a few?

Science isn't a popularity contest!!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

As for the concept of 'kinds'. surely the links about whale evolution are specific enough? Surely this:

is a different kind to this:


Simply, this 'kind' of evolution probably wont be observed in a single life time.

it won't be observed in a single life time.....or EVER!!!!:):D
......because it NEVER occurred!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

...Looks like a type of Sealion or Otter to me!!!!

Tomk1

Somr of you should get religeon
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBmfmfm3eQg
Regards Humanist Tom

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

Science isn't a popularity contest!!!!

.....or EVER!!!!:):D

Indeed! Nor is it an unpopularity contest.

The real contest, if any, lies in the data. Do the scientists who are creationists actually have any? :pac:

J C

wrote:

The Genographic Project's findings are also consistent with the idea - held for some years now - that modern humans had a close brush with extinction in the evolutionary past.

.....AKA Noah's Flood!!!:D

wrote:

The number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.

.....only EIGHT people!!!:)

daithifleming wrote: »

As I mentioned above, I think that DNA provides the strongest evidence of all for evolution.

......DNA actually provides considerable evidence for the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood!!!!:D

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Indeed! Nor is it an unpopularity contest.

The real contest, if any, lies in the data. Do the scientists who are creationists actually have any? :pac:

The real contest lies in the interpretation of the data!!!:pac::):D

wolfsbane

bonkey wrote: »

It all looked so good. We agreed on a set of conditions....we agreed what we wouldn't discuss. It seemed so simple...neither of us would mention the micro/macro issue for the week to ten days that it wouild take me to provide the links of where the issue had been discussed before, so we could avoid going over old ground.

...

Yesterday, in work, my schedule was turned on its head. Today, more crises in work. I'm looking at working through most of the weekend.

I felt bad about having to sacrifice some of the time I wanted to spend on compiling this list, but hoped I could catch up. I didn't want to disappont wolfsbane, after he had been so courteous and agreeable to my suggestion, and insisted that he was looking forward to seeing the finished work. I honestly thought that we might finally be able to move this debate to a new level, rather than rehashing the same old, time after time after time.

This evening, I finally found time to come back and have a look at where things had gone, to see if anything interesting was happening while wolfsbane and I were both agreed that neither of us would mention the whole micro/macro issue....I said to myself that I could affor dhte 5 minutes before starting into that compilation work.

This is what I found...










It seems wolfsbane has done nothing but discuss micro/macro evolution in my absence.

There I was, feeling bad about how I was already falling behind, but preparing for a long night of catch-up. Now I feel a lot better, knowing I haven't already wasted hours of work.

Thanks pal. I appreciate it. Its...enlightening...to see how seriously you took my offer.

Ah, we seem to have misundertood one another. My apologies.

I assumed you meant our debate, not the whole debate. If it were the latter, I would have thought all the members involved would have to agree - otherwise they would be raising points that would involve a macro-micro response.

Let me know how you want to proceed.

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

......DNA actually provides considerable evidence for the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood!!!!:D

I backed my assertion with evidence, where is yours? Please do not link to journalists. I want a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ah, we seem to have misundertood one another. My apologies.

I assumed you meant our debate, not the whole debate. If it were the latter, I would have thought all the members involved would have to agree - otherwise they would be raising points that would involve a macro-micro response.

Let me know how you want to proceed.

If both of you agree on this I am willing to drop the micro/macro topic. Anyone else?

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

If both of you agree on this I am willing to drop the micro/macro topic. Anyone else?

Well considering that my understanding of the Creationist use of macro-evolution was evolution from species to species (really is there any greater jump?), something the Creationists now appear to accept whole heartly, I'm really not following what their massive objection to "macro-evolution" was in the first place.

If a species can evolve into a different species it can pretty much evolve into anything given enough time. Muck to man as it were

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ah, we seem to have misundertood one another. My apologies.

I assumed you meant our debate, not the whole debate.

Whereas I was hoping that when others started commenting, you'd say "I'm sorry, I agreed not to discuss that until bonkey comes back with his list. Maybe we could pick it up then" rather than what happened.

Given that you were the one effectively leading us back into those territories, I thought it would suffice if you refused to engage.

As it happens, its fortuitous given my change in work schedule.

If it were the latter, I would have thought all the members involved would have to agree - otherwise they would be raising points that would involve a macro-micro response.

It takes two people to hold a discussion. A response of "that would be in the micro-macro area, and as you know...." is a micro-macro response, which is asking anyone else who makes the comment to wait.

No matter.

Let me know how you want to proceed.

I suggest we abandon the idea. I'll go and compile the list in my own time, and the next time that this happens, I won't have to ask for a "wait period", but rather can present the material straigt up.

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote: »

Well considering that my understanding of the Creationist use of macro-evolution was evolution from species to species (really is there any greater jump?), something the Creationists now appear to accept whole heartly, I'm really not following what their massive objection to "macro-evolution" was in the first place.

If a species can evolve into a different species it can pretty much evolve into anything given enough time. Muck to man as it were

No, you see the genes 'know' that they are the genes of a lion, and therefore take the neccessary measures to stop the lion mutuating into a non-lion. Of course the fact that all mammals share much of the same genes doesn't seem to affect this.

bonkey

I think you are confusing natural selection with speciation based on information gain. Creationism holds that natural selection involves loss of information, if anything.

Let me try to simplifiy it for you:
Creationism holds to natural selection.
Creationism does not hold to information gain.

This notion of "information", for me, lies at the heart of the manner in which the entire issue is clouded.

What is this information that Creationists hold cannot be gained?

The reason I'm asking this is I'm not entirely sure what, in the Creationist model, constitutes information loss. For example, if a child is born to parents, and due to a genetic mutation has some trait that wasn't inherited....does that constitute information loss?

If we were, for example, to determine that a genetic mutation was the cause of webbed feet, then a human with webbed feet (due to mutation, as opposed to having inherited it from one or both parents) would constitute information having been lost. However, if we had two humans with webbed feet, then the Creationist model would demand that any child of theirs must have webbed feet, and, in addition, that it would be impossible for the same mutation to occur in reverse. After all, it would be logically inconsistent (to put it mildly) to suggest that it was "uphill both ways" so to speak.

To simplify...if a genetic mutation causes a species to move from state A to state B, then the "loss of information" notion requires that this mutation cannot occur in reverse....that it is impossible for as much as a single case to exist where the same mutation occurs in reverse...from state B to state A.

Now, given that wolfsbane is arguing that Creationists accept that adaption is not only possible, but that it occurs, it must follow that the processes involved in adaption do not constitute information loss. They cannot, as species have been observed to adapt from one environment to another and then back again. I would therefore conclude that the genetic changes involved in adaption should be accepted as not involving a loss of this ill-defined information.

So the first thing we need to examine with respect to the Creationist argument is what this "information" is, and when we are dealing with cases that constitute information loss and when not.

The reason I believe that this is important, is that I'm not convinced that anyone supporting the Creationist model will be able to define what constitutes information. Such a definition would allow us to undertsand what constitutes information loss, but would additionally define what would constitute information gain, and allow us to falsifiably test the assertion that information cannot be gained.

So how about it....would someone defending the Creationist model like to pin down what constitutes information? After all, if we cannot define information, then the concept of information gain cannot be falsifiably tested, and therefore cannot be scientific. The implication here should be ovbvious...either what constitutes information can be defined, or it should be clear that any argument which relies on such a term is inherently non-scientific.

For the record, I do not believe that evolutionary models rely on any such term* If they do, and the Creationist model is using the same definition, then I'd be equally appreciative of being corrected on this point by being pointed to the definition that both sides are using.

* And please...lets all remember that a negative cannot be proven, merely shown to be false. If someone wishes to say my understanding is wrong, then the onus is not on me to prove evolutionary models do not rely any such term, but rather on them to demonstrate that it does.

bonkey

Just as a brief follow-up to that last post...

I would additionally add that if the notion of what constitutes information cannot be defined in a manner that is falsifiably testable, then any argument based on this non-falsifiable notion can equally have no merit as a critique of an evolutionary model.

And lest anyone have forgotten, allow me to remind one and all that the scientific evolutionary model is just that....a scientific model. Whether one believes or accepts that it is what actually happened is seperate from the question of its quality as a a scientific model...so lets just ignore any exclamation-and-smilie-ridden interjections about how its ridiculous to believe that its what happened. Such distractions have nothing to do with the examination of the scientific model.

Feynman perhaps said it best:

They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

Science isn't a popularity contest!!!!

You are correct sir. I somehow forgot to mention that the scientists in favor of evolution also have a lot more substantial evidence in their favor.

J C wrote: »

it won't be observed in a single life time.....or EVER!!!!:):D
......because it NEVER occurred!!!:D

Put up or shut up J_C. Saying something is wrong isn't a very strong argument. You should counter my arguments, not just deny them.

J C wrote: »

...Looks like a type of Sealion to me!!!!

Convergent evolution. I think I've explained this several times to you already.

wolfsbane

bonkey wrote: »

Whereas I was hoping that when others started commenting, you'd say "I'm sorry, I agreed not to discuss that until bonkey comes back with his list. Maybe we could pick it up then" rather than what happened.

Given that you were the one effectively leading us back into those territories, I thought it would suffice if you refused to engage.

As it happens, its fortuitous given my change in work schedule.


It takes two people to hold a discussion. A response of "that would be in the micro-macro area, and as you know...." is a micro-macro response, which is asking anyone else who makes the comment to wait.

No matter.


I suggest we abandon the idea. I'll go and compile the list in my own time, and the next time that this happens, I won't have to ask for a "wait period", but rather can present the material straigt up.

Yes, I see how the confusion arose. And your last idea is a good one. I look forward to the results whenever you get them.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

So how about it....would someone defending the Creationist model like to pin down what constitutes information? After all, if we cannot define information, then the concept of information gain cannot be falsifiably tested, and therefore cannot be scientific. The implication here should be ovbvious...either what constitutes information can be defined, or it should be clear that any argument which relies on such a term is inherently non-scientific.

A bit beyond my abilities to argue myself, but I'm searching for sites that may give you answers. Here's one:
Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

bonkey said:

A bit beyond my abilities to argue myself, but I'm searching for sites that may give you answers. Here's one:
Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

Given that that is a (rather annoying) conversation between two people that is approx 32 pages (printout) long, perhaps you could narrow down where in that very long discussion they define "information"

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......DNA actually provides considerable evidence for the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood!!!!

daithifleming
I backed my assertion with evidence, where is yours? .

....you backed your assertion with an 'ultra-orthodox' Evolutionist interpretation of the evidence.

wrote:

daithifleming
Please do not link to journalists. I want a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

.....like I said ....you want an 'ultra-orthodox' Evolutionist interpretation of the evidence.....to satisfy your religious sensibilities......but, as the evidence is actually incontrovertable that an inordinate Intelligence designed life, I must point this out.....even if you find it personally unpalatable !!!!:D:)

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

[/B]....you backed your assertion with an 'ultra-orthodox' Evolutionist interpretation of the evidence.


.....like I said ....you want an 'ultra-orthodox' Evolutionist interpretation of the evidence.....to satisfy your religious sensibilities......but, as the evidence is actually incontrovertable that an inordinate Intelligence designed life, I must point this out.....even if you find it personally unpalatable !!!!:D:)

Like I said, peer-reviewed paper or you're blowing hot air.

J C

bonkey wrote: »

To simplify...if a genetic mutation causes a species to move from state A to state B, then the "loss of information" notion requires that this mutation cannot occur in reverse....that it is impossible for as much as a single case to exist where the same mutation occurs in reverse...from state B to state A.

The damage, caused by a mutation, can of course be undone......by the cellular genetic 'correction' systems.....to 'reverse' the original mutation.....and this is actually further evidence for Intelligent Design!!!!:D

Equally, mutations are sometimes 'reversed' by being 'masked' by a dominant allelele in a subsequent generation!!!

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Like I said, peer-reviewed paper or you're blowing hot air.

.....like I said ....your need for a 'peer-reviewed paper' is just an expression of your need for an 'ultra-orthodox' Evolutionist interpretation of the evidence.....to satisfy your religious sensibilities......

....something like in the 'old days' when Roman Catholics would believe nothing in relation to their faith ....unless it was 'peer-reviewed' by their Bishop......

.....anyway, as the evidence is actually incontrovertable that an infinite Intelligence designed life, somebody just has to tell you.....even if you find it personally unpalatable !!!!:D:)

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

.....like I said ....your need for a 'peer-reviewed paper' is just an expression of your need for an 'ultra-orthodox' Evolutionist interpretation of the evidence.....to satisfy your religious sensibilities......

....something like in the 'old days' when Roman Catholics would believe nothing in relation to their faith ....unless it was 'peer-reviewed' by their Bishop......

.....anyway, as the evidence is actually incontrovertable that an infinite Intelligence designed life, somebody just has to tell you.....even if you find it personally unpalatable !!!!:D:)

Blowing hot air. Please stop using science to defend your faith then. Just say you believe god did it and leave it at that, eh? Quit lining the pockets of these con-men:

robindch

hmmm... the first two I know, but who's the last bloke? Seems very earnest whoever he is.