[_ Old Earth _] Alright, time for some answers

[lordkalvan]

LOL - genetically "most similar" to birds than what - earthworms?

That would be more similar to birds than earthworms and, of those dinosaurs whose genetic material has been compared with birds, T Rex is the one that meets the criterion specified by Barbarian.

What does that mean, exactly?

It means that the genetic divergence is less between T Rex and birds than between earthworms and birds, to use your own example; in the same way and using the same techniques, 'the genetic difference between the Basques and French is 9.2% and the genetic difference between the French and the English is 0.1% for the RH negative trait' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_distance).

Again, genetic similarity works as well for a common designer as it does for common ancestry.

How and why? Does lack of genetic similarity imply a multiplicity of different designers? If no, why not?

If that's all you have - and it appears it is - you have nothing.

Well, it looks like quite a lot to me; the same techniques that determine that dogs are descended from ancestral wolves, for example, and that most people seem to have little dispute with.

Think real science and present some on this thread. You have only presented "stuff like that" (repeatedly) thus far and that doesn't cut it...

'Real science' being what, exactly? How is molecular genetic analysis and reasoned conclusions based on the resulting evidence not 'real science'? You are aware, are you not, that the theory of evolution is validated by far more evidence than just the genetic similarity between theropod dinosaurs and birds?

 

[zeke]

It is quote mining if the conclusion of the article is, in fact, that the reasoning is not circular; in other words, the quoted statement is a literary device used to introduce a line of reasoning and actually misrepresents the views of the author in order to claim support for a point of view alternative to the one s/he actually holds. And no, absent an elaboration of the argument that index fossils represent circular reasoning, I do not see any reason to suppose that the method of dating is unreliable. You need to present the relevant argument so that we can consider it.

Is it your interpretation then that O'Rourke is not saying that even a layman can see that circular reasoning is used in fossil/rock dating. Do you not see circularity in fossil/rock dating?

 

[zeke]

Lava flows are well-known amongst geologists for trapping Argon-40 in 'bubbles' and preventing it from evaporating, thus dramatically skewing K-Ar dates. This does not provide evidence for a 'young' Earth.

But I am not trying to prove a young earth my friend - I am pointing out that all radiometric dating, including K-Ar dating have basic flaws that render some data useless. Some folks on this thread (Barbarian included) have a rather simplistic answer for very complex questions.

 

[zeke]

That would be more similar to birds than earthworms and, of those dinosaurs whose genetic material has been compared with birds, T Rex is the one that meets the criterion specified by Barbarian.

Surely you are not saying that genetic similarity proves common ancestry? It doesn't of course. Do you also believe theropods evolved into birds?

Does lack of genetic similarity imply a multiplicity of different designers?

Why would it - in your mind? As I have noted - genetic similarity can be used as evidence for a common designer as well as a common ancestor - thus it is not 'proof' for either.

Well, it looks like quite a lot to me; the same techniques that determine that dogs are descended from ancestral wolves, for example, and that most people seem to have little dispute with.

Well, there is a big diference between dogs descending from gray wolves and birds descending from dinos. A dog did not need to magically transform it's forelegs into wings of flight You are not really comparing apples to apples as you well know. Maybe you can help Barbarian provide the required evidence that explains where all the new genetic information came from that transformed reptilian dinosaurs into birds.

'Real science' being what, exactly?

Just that - real science without added pseudoscience.

How is molecular genetic analysis and reasoned conclusions based on the resulting evidence not 'real science'?

Are you saying you have molecular genetic analysis that proves dinos morphed into birds? If you do then present it on this thread and we can see what you have.

You are aware, are you not, that the theory of evolution is validated by far more evidence than just the genetic similarity between theropod dinosaurs and birds?

Again, my friend - I have little problem with the ToE - as a theory I would give it a D+. The problem arises when Darwinian pseudoscience is added and passed off as 'real' science. I think you understand.

Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created..... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. ~ Pierre P. Grassé, L'Evolution du Vivant (former Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris)​

What did Grassé mean when he said "the premises imply the conclusions"? Are you a Darwinist?

 

[Sparkey]

It is said that DNA studies suggest that wolves are the ancestor of domestic dogs. I'm not at all sure about it. Call me skeptical, but really? I know of cases where foxes (blue fox?) were selectively bred and domesticated for their fur (in Russia, I believe). The way they did it was to stick their padded arm into the cage and kill the aggressive ones, breed the ones that didn't bite, and although I don't know how many generations it took, it didn't take long before they were able to breed them so they could be handled by humans.

But this is a far cry from producing anything but a fox from foxes. Now, I did own a couple dogs that were part wolf. They can interbreed but the only thing that happens when two breeds are mated is a hybrid. They progress more toward "mutt" and less toward "purebred".

What known method can produce a Cocker Spaniel or a Poodle from a wolf? How does that work, exactly?

View attachment 2274

Making a new breed of dog takes considerable effort. You can't just put a couple dogs together and shake them up, viola! That's one of the reasons that the "designer dogs" aren't considered breeds - because you can't mate a couple "labradoodles" to produce another, you still have to breed the lab and the poodle to get the mix. It's possible to make new breeds (even today) but it could take as many as 50 generations of selection and purposeful effort.

In summary, although DNA studies may suggest that dogs came from wolves, it seems to me that this is an assumption and not a proof. As such, it does not satisfy when it is extended as evidence for evolution of all species. If the argument for the canine is weak, the extension of the argument is weak.

 

[lordkalvan]

Is it your interpretation then that O'Rourke is not saying that even a layman can see that circular reasoning is used in fossil/rock dating.

So have you read O'Rourke's article and is its conclusion that index fossils involve circular reasoning? If it isn't, then the cited quotation is a quotemine, i.e. it misrepresents O'Rourke's actual opinion on the subject.

Do you not see circularity in fossil/rock dating?

I'm still waiting for you to explain it so we can consider the merits of this argument.

 

[lordkalvan]

But I am not trying to prove a young earth my friend...

Um, you haven't yet earned the privilege of calling me your friend.

...I am pointing out that all radiometric dating, including K-Ar dating have basic flaws that render some data useless.

There is a difference between a technique being useless and a technique having recognizable, understood and accounted for limitations. RM dating remains useful, accurate and consilient with a range of other, quite infependent dating methodologies that imbue the techniqque with a great deal of confidence.

Some folks on this thread (Barbarian included) have a rather simplistic answer for very complex questions.

Really? Barbarian's knowledge about many complex questions seems to be quite extensive.

 

[zeke]

It is said that DNA studies suggest that wolves are the ancestor of domestic dogs. I'm not at all sure about it. Call me skeptical, but really? I know of cases where foxes (blue fox?) were selectively bred and domesticated for their fur (in Russia, I believe). The way they did it was to stick their padded arm into the cage and kill the aggressive ones, breed the ones that didn't bite, and although I don't know how many generations it took, it didn't take long before they were able to breed them so they could be handled by humans.

But this is a far cry from producing anything but a fox from foxes. Now, I did own a couple dogs that were part wolf. They can interbreed but the only thing that happens when two breeds are mated is a hybrid. They progress more toward "mutt" and less toward "purebred".

Are you saying that with all the dog breeding studies you have seen you have never seen dogs sprouting feathers and all observed dogs were wingless?

 

[zeke]

So have you read O'Rourke's article and is its conclusion that index fossils involve circular reasoning?

You didn't answer my questions - is it your interpretation that O'Rourke is not saying that even a layman can see that circular reasoning is used in fossil/rock dating. Do you not see circularity in fossil/rock dating?

You didn't answer my other question - what did Grassé mean when he said "the premises imply the conclusions"?

Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created..... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. ~ Pierre P. Grassé, L'Evolution du Vivant (former Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris)​

You do understand what circular reasoning means - yes? Are you a Darwinist?

 

[zeke]

Um, you haven't yet earned the privilege of calling me your friend.

Okay my non-friend.

There is a difference between a technique being useless and a technique having recognizable, understood and accounted for limitations. RM dating remains useful, accurate and consilient with a range of other, quite infependent dating methodologies that imbue the techniqque with a great deal of confidence.

Well - we can agree that all radiometric dating, including K-Ar dating have basic flaws - yes?

Really? Barbarian's knowledge about many complex questions seems to be quite extensive.

Do you really believe that, my friend?

 

[Sparkey]

Are you saying that with all the dog breeding studies you have seen you have never seen dogs sprouting feathers and all observed dogs were wingless?

Are you speaking to ME? If I mentioned feathers anywhere, and I mean anywhere, show me. I am able to speak for myself and if I wanted to speak to my friends here in condensending tones, I would.

 

[Sparkey]

We used to think that domesticated dogs may have had coyote or fox ancestors but what the DNA studies show is that this isn't possible (its likelihood is too low). It is through a logical process of elimination that brings the conclusion that wolves were their only possible ancient ancestors. But that very process only considers things that can be measured and thus eliminates God from the equation.

This is the sort of thing that I see as "circular" where the assumption that only those things seen and empirically known are taken into consideration leaves out the fact that Christians are promised that they will (one day) see God and know Him (and all things), even as they are known. At that time, science (knowledge) will pass away. If one speaks about visible evidence seen from the past -- a very specific viewpoint is established. If, on the other hand, one speaks about what may be rightly concluded from a future perspective, and "clouds" his/her thinking with facts promised by God? Well, it's a very different viewpoint, to say the least.

My thought is that it takes two eyes to gain perspective and I honestly believe that harmony is obtainable between the two different views. The only way that we can walk toward this is to take the real commands of our Lord as truth - We are commanded to love one another. Respect is a sub-set of Love, is it not? I personally believe that it is up to God fearing Christians to take the first steps in this process as we follow the steps of our Prince of Peace.

 

[Sparkey]

Pardon the digression but there is another factor to consider ...

Would it be possible for Abraham Lincoln (or a man of similar background, log cabin, "honest Abe," and all) to become President today? I saw a homeless man on the side of the road with a sign, "Running for President," on my way to school the other day. Could he make it?

In much the same manner, the term "Scientist" today is fairly exclusive (as it should be). But I fear that we lose something in the process. To end the "digression" here, I'd like to quote TED.com. Here are some "rules" they've developed:

1. Thou Shalt Not Simply Trot Out thy Usual Shtick.
2. Thou Shalt Dream a Great Dream, or Show Forth a Wondrous New Thing, Or Share Something Thou Hast Never Shared Before.
3. Thou Shalt Reveal thy Curiosity and Thy Passion.
4. Thou Shalt Tell a Story.
5. Thou Shalt Freely Comment on the Utterances of Other Speakers for the Sake of Blessed Connection and Exquisite Controversy.
6. Thou Shalt Not Flaunt thine Ego. Be Thou Vulnerable. Speak of thy Failure as well as thy Success.
7. Thou Shalt Not Sell from the Stage: Neither thy Company, thy Goods, thy Writings, nor thy Desperate need for Funding; Lest Thou be Cast Aside into Outer Darkness.
8. Thou Shalt Remember all the while: Laughter is Good.
9. Thou Shalt Not Read thy Speech.
10. Thou Shalt Not Steal the Time of Them that Follow Thee.

View attachment 2275

The homeless man running for President will NOT be allowed to run. He wasn't 35 years old and thus prohibited by law... As for Science? It is my hope that our selection process realizes its limitation and creative imagination is given the priority it deserves.

 

[MarbleShooter]

We used to think that domesticated dogs may have had coyote or fox ancestors but what the DNA studies show is that this isn't possible (its likelihood is too low). It is through a logical process of elimination that brings the conclusion that wolves were their only possible ancient ancestors. But that very process only considers things that can be measured and thus eliminates God from the equation.

Actually we discovered that Dogs are offshoots of ancestral wolves when we discovered Gene sequencing. Geneticists were able to catalouge Wolves, Foxes, Coyotes, African Wild Dogs, Domesticated Dogs, etc by their Genomes. Dogs are a direct offshoot of wolves, wolves and coyotes diverged from each other, and both Foxes and African Wild Dogs diverged really early. Phylogenetic is really awesome. WE also were able to find where Dogs, weasles, and bears diverged off from each other. Heck we think we found the basil species that showed the origins of the split between felines and cainiforms.

This is the sort of thing that I see as "circular" where the assumption that only those things seen and empirically known are taken into consideration leaves out the fact that Christians are promised that they will (one day) see God and know Him (and all things), even as they are known. At that time, science (knowledge) will pass away. If one speaks about visible evidence seen from the past -- a very specific viewpoint is established. If, on the other hand, one speaks about what may be rightly concluded from a future perspective, and "clouds" his/her thinking with facts promised by God? Well, it's a very different viewpoint, to say the least.

It can be, but considering how science is just a tool, it (shouldn't), (oops needed to add that), shake your faith that much. We are just unearthing what we thought we knew and figuring out what happened slowly.

My thought is that it takes two eyes to gain perspective and I honestly believe that harmony is obtainable between the two different views. The only way that we can walk toward this is to take the real commands of our Lord as truth - We are commanded to love one another. Respect is a sub-set of Love, is it not? I personally believe that it is up to God fearing Christians to take the first steps in this process as we follow the steps of our Prince of Peace.

I can respect that.

 

[theLords]

Um, you haven't yet earned the privilege of calling me your friend.

Let's not be petty and reject the extension of peaceful words.

I can respect that.

This is good example of exchanging peaceful debate and dialogue. The first attitude will not get anyone very far.

 

[zeke]

Are you speaking to ME? If I mentioned feathers anywhere, and I mean anywhere, show me. I am able to speak for myself and if I wanted to speak to my friends here in condensending tones, I would.

Whoa horsey - I just asked a question.

 

[zeke]

WE also were able to find where Dogs, weasles, and bears diverged off from each other.

Would it shake your faith in Darwinism if bears were always bears? Do you have evidence of the scientific kind that proves dogs, weasles, and bears ever had a shared common ancestor or are you simply projecting again?

 

[MarbleShooter]

Would it shake your faith in Darwinism if bears were always bears?

I have no faith in Darwinism, so anymore accusation of the sort will be ignored. Also the term bear is a human term used to explain a classification of caniforms. So Bears always being bears is just as relevant as bears always being caniforms.

Do you have evidence of the scientific kind that proves dogs, weasels, and bears ever had a shared common ancestor or are you simply projecting again?

My evidence is phylogenetic evidence from the Genomes of caniforms mixed with homology studies of caniform structure. Not to mention that there are no "bears" found before the splitting of caniforms and felaforms, or even before weasels. If you don't consider that evidence, and don't have a testable, defined, theory to back up your assertion, then I won't waste my time any further. Do you respect that position?

 

[lordkalvan]

Surely you are not saying that genetic similarity proves common ancestry?

Nope, but taken in conjunction with other evidence and what we know about genetic divergence and variation amongst closely related groups, it is strong evidence for exactly that conclusion.

It doesn't of course.

Are you arguing that it isn't evidence of ancestral relationships? Do you think that the 250+ monkey species are all related to one another? If yes, why; if no, why not? What about the 350,000+ beetle species? Does genetic divergence amongst these organisms tell us anything about the relationships amongst them? What about shared and unique traits? How do those inform our understanding?

Do you also believe theropods evolved into birds?

There appears to be ample evidence to support that conclusion. Of course, this is not to say that new discoveries will not cast a different light on our understanding of that evidence, but that's what science mostly does - it progresses.

Why would it - in your mind?

In my mind genetic similarity or lack of it has no consequence on the idea of an intelligent designer as the cause of either. You have suggested that genetic similarity is as much evidence for common design as common ancestry, so I am asking you what you regard lack of genetic similarity as evidence for? Why wouldn't it be evidence for a multiplicity of designers, for example?

As I have noted - genetic similarity can be used as evidence for a common designer as well as a common ancestor - thus it is not 'proof' for either.

You have yet to show how it is evidence for a common designer. What is lack of genetic similarity evidence for?

Well, there is a big diference between dogs descending from gray wolves and birds descending from dinos.

Yes, greater variation and more time in which to see it develop.

A dog did not need to magically transform it's forelegs into wings of flight

As far as I am aware no one is proposing that any descendant species of dogs have evolved into flying animals. And if they did, there would be no magic involved. You are aware that the bones that form the wings in birds, bats and pterosaurs are almost exactly the same bones as you have in your hand and arm, but simply adapted and modified for other purposes?

You are not really comparing apples to apples as you well know.

I am pointing out that the same techniques of molecular biology are used to determine relationships amongst different species as are used to establish relationships amongst individuals of the same species, techniques that are robust enough to stand the test of a court of law.

Maybe you can help Barbarian provide the required evidence that explains where all the new genetic information came from that transformed reptilian dinosaurs into birds.

What 'new genetic information' is that, then, or do you suggest that no changes in genetic coding can have morphological consequences? If so, on what grounds do you suggest any such thing?

Just that - real science without added pseudoscience.

This tells me nothing about either what you classify as 'real science' (and why) and what you classify as 'pseudoscience' (and why).

Are you saying you have molecular genetic analysis that proves dinos morphed into birds? If you do then present it on this thread and we can see what you have.

Nope, I'm saying that the techniques of molecular genetic analysis that allow conclusions to be drawn about individuals of the same species and amongst closely related species are exactly the same that allow us to draw similar conclusions about more distantly related species. Molecular genetic analysis indicates that the morphological evidence and reproductive behaviour that suggests birds may be descended from theropod dinosaurs (three-toed feet, wishbones, air-filled bones and feathers and egg-brooding) has additional substance to it.

Again, my friend - I have little problem with the ToE - as a theory I would give it a D+.

On what grounds?

The problem arises when Darwinian pseudoscience is added and passed off as 'real' science. I think you understand.

You have yet to explain what 'Darwinian pseudoscience' is and why it is, indeed, 'pseudoscience'.

Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created..... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. ~ Pierre P. Grassé, L'Evolution du Vivant (former Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris)​

What did Grassé mean when he said "the premises imply the conclusions"? Are you a Darwinist?

If you want to play duelling quotations, what do you imagine Pierre-Paul Grassé meant when he said in the same book that you are quoting here, 'Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world...'? And you are aware that Grassé was a champion of Lamarck, whose own theory of evolution was simply different from Darwin's. In other words, Grassé did not oppose evolutionary theory at all, but rather simply Darwin's particular version of the mechanisms and forces driving it.

 

[lordkalvan]

You didn't answer my questions...

Yes, I did. You may not like the answers, but I most certainly gave them. By the way, have you answered mine?

...is it your interpretation that O'Rourke is not saying that even a layman can see that circular reasoning is used in fossil/rock dating. Do you not see circularity in fossil/rock dating?

Read what I said, which is that O'Rourke concludes no such thing in his paper and note my suggestion that he is using the technique of introducing the argument he intends to expose as faulty by presenting it as if it is an incontrovertible truth. And I point out again that using cherry picked sentences to misrepresent the understanding that someone actually holds amounts to quote mining.

You didn't answer my other question - what did Grassé mean when he said "the premises imply the conclusions"?

Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created..... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. ~ Pierre P. Grassé, L'Evolution du Vivant (former Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris)​

See above. This second question was in a later post of yours that I had not yet had the time to address.

You do understand what circular reasoning means - yes?

I do, do you? You have yet to explain why you regard index fossils as evidence of circular reasoning, seeming to be content simply to assert this is so and rely on what seems to be a quote mine to support your argument.

Are you a Darwinist?

More like a Modern Synthesist, I would think. What are you?