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

[lordkalvan]

Okay my non-friend.

Just an internet acquaintance.

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

If by 'flaws' you mean that certain RM techniques have recognised limitations in certain circumstances that can be taken into account as necessary, then yes we can agree on that. But if you mean that this invalidates all RM dating techniques, then we will disagree.

Do you really believe that, my friend?

Whoops, there you go again. On your main point, however, Barbarian's posting history on this forum and the knowledge and understanding he has displayed in that history speaks for itself. I notice that so far you have been unable to refute any of the posts he has made in this particular discussion, for example.

 

[Sparkey]

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. 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. I can respect that.

Quoting from Science Magazine (--online site for original science research) 13 June, 1997, Vilà et al., report, "Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog" (http://www.sciencemag.org/site/about/index.xhtml),

"[SIZE=-1]Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences were analyzed from 162 wolves at 27 localities worldwide and from 140 domestic dogs representing 67 breeds. Sequences from both dogs and wolves showed considerable diversity and supported the hypothesis that wolves were the ancestors of dogs. Most dog sequences belonged to a divergent monophyletic clade sharing no sequences with wolves. The sequence divergence within this clade suggested that dogs originated more than 100,000 years before the present.[/SIZE]

I can't help but notice the care used to present evidence that suggests that dogs originated from wolves or the hypothesis that wolves were the ancestors of modern, domesticated dogs. This care is not evident in your reply though, and I must wonder who it is exactly that you refer to when you use the pronoun "we," as in, (quote), "Actually we discovered that Dogs..." and, "WE also were able to find where Dogs, weasles, and bears" (sic).

 

[MarbleShooter]

Quoting from Science Magazine (--online site for original science research) 13 June, 1997, Vilà et al., report, "Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog" (http://www.sciencemag.org/site/about/index.xhtml),
I can't help but notice the care used to present evidence that suggests that dogs originated from wolves or the hypothesis that wolves were the ancestors of modern, domesticated dogs. This care is not evident in your reply though, and I must wonder who it is exactly that you refer to when you use the pronoun "we," as in, (quote), "Actually we discovered that Dogs..." and, "WE also were able to find where Dogs, weasles, and bears" (sic).

I was useing "we" in the context of scientists. I can stop if you like.

 

[Barbarian]

S

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

Turns out it does. We can test it on organisms of known descent, and it works.

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

We can test that, too. Turns out, it means "more distantly related." Again, by testing organisms of known descent.

Why would it - in your mind? As I have noted - genetic similarity can be used as evidence for a common designer

No. For example, a "common designer" could not explain the similarity of genes for proteins like heme and keratin in birds and T. rex. Functionally, very different. But the genetic relationship remains.

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.

Mutation and natural selection. Any new mutation produces new information in a population. I offered to show you, I think, and you declined. Would you like to learn about it, now?

Are you saying you have molecular genetic analysis that proves dinos morphed into birds?

The first birds shared the following major skeletal characteristics with many coelurosaurian dinosaurs (especially those of their own clade, the Maniraptora, which includes Velociraptor):

Pubis (one of the three bones making up the vertebrate pelvis) shifted from an anterior to a more posterior orientation (see Saurischia), and bearing a small distal "boot".

Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed manus (hands).

Large orbits (eye openings in the skull).

Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal (wrist bone).

Hollow, thin-walled bones.

3-fingered opposable grasping manus (hand), 4-toed pes (foot); but supported by 3 main toes.

Reduced, posteriorly stiffened tail.

Elongated metatarsals (bones of the feet between the ankle and toes).

S-shaped curved neck.

Erect, digitgrade (ankle held well off the ground) stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.

Similar eggshell microstructure.

Teeth with a constriction between the root and the crown.

Functional basis for wing power stroke present in arms and pectoral girdle (during motion, the arms were swung down and forward, then up and backwards, describing a "figure-eight" when viewed laterally).

Expanded pneumatic sinuses in the skull.

Five or more vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum (hip).

Straplike scapula (shoulder blade).

Clavicles (collarbone) fused to form a furcula (wishbone).

Hingelike ankle joint, with movement mostly restricted to the fore-aft plane.

Secondary bony palate (nostrils open posteriorly in throat).


To which can be added:
Feathers on many small dinosaurs.

Keratin in those feathers as in birds.

Avian-style lungs in some theropods.

Pneumatized bones in many theropods

Heme molecules from T. rex most like that of birds.

Lots of stuff.

If you do then present it on this thread and we can see what you have.

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.

You need to hit the books. You've clearly been given a lot of misconceptions.

 

[Barbarian]

"Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences were analyzed from 162 wolves at 27 localities worldwide and from 140 domestic dogs representing 67 breeds. Sequences from both dogs and wolves showed considerable diversity and supported the hypothesis that wolves were the ancestors of dogs. Most dog sequences belonged to a divergent monophyletic clade sharing no sequences with wolves. The sequence divergence within this clade suggested that dogs originated more than 100,000 years before the present.

Likely so, although wolf genes continue to be added to the pool from time to time. The deep symbiosis between man and dog is quite ancient. Anyone who counts a dog as a friend, and learns its ways, is richly rewarded by the insights into his own being.

 

[Barbarian]

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?

DNA phylogenies, based on the same testing used to determine human descent (even paternity):

Fossil record:
Cynodictus and Amphocyon were a two examples of numerous species of early carnivores, looking like a blend of dog and bear. The two lines diverged from these early caniforms, to become dogs and bears.

 

[Sparkey]

Barbarian, I remember something else from the OP video - one of the things mentioned was that the dinosaur bone being examined was from a pregnant female. This conclusion about the unknown (dinosaurs) was drawn from observations of the know (birds). The scientist in the video recognized the bone structure she was familiar with and knew what it meant.

That also seems strong evidence for the conclusion you've come to. Ultimately, I am persuaded that the position of "I am not sure and cannot conclude in favor of either side," is the best one (for me). Still, it is remarkable to discover such links between entirely different species such as dinosaurs and birds.

 

[Barbarian]

That also seems strong evidence for the conclusion you've come to. Ultimately, I am persuaded that the position of "I am not sure and cannot conclude in favor of either side," is the best one (for me). Still, it is remarkable to discover such links between entirely different species such as dinosaurs and birds.

In the long run, it doesn't matter, does it? God expects us to be right about the things that matter, and the rest we can differ over. The ancestry of birds is fun to investigate and argue about, but it doesn't mean a thing to our salvation.

 

[zeke]

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.

Then we agree - those folks like Barbarian who insist genetic similarity proves common ancestry are not in reality - scientifically speaking. Very good my friend. You're on the right track and maybe Barbarian will catch up some day.

 

[zeke]

Turns out it does. We can test it on organisms of known descent, and it works.

Wrong once again. Genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry - never has. This is just one more of the many errors floated by true-believers who buy into Darwinian mythology. Even our good friend kalvan admits such similarity does not prove common ancestry. The late-great-atheist-marxist-evolutionist, Stephen Gould recognized that fact long ago. For the record - who agrees with you and where exactly do you get such misinformation? Does your Magisterium teach this?

 

[zeke]

Cynodictus and Amphocyon were a two examples of numerous species of early carnivores, looking like a blend of dog and bear. The two lines diverged from these early caniforms, to become dogs and bears.

Lol - that only happened in the third episode of Land of Giants. Don't confuse fact with science fiction television. Cynodictus is a dead-end carnivore - neither dog nor bear.

 

[zeke]

Are you arguing that it isn't evidence of ancestral relationships?

Not at all. Just as there is evidence that you are related to your ancestors but there is no evidence that proves chimps are related to your ancestors. And your point is...?

In my mind genetic similarity or lack of it has no consequence on the idea of an intelligent designer as the cause of either.

Are you saying a Designer could not have used existing species in situ as the blueprint for more advanced species. If not, why not?

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?

The fact remains my friend - genetic similarity is as much evidence for common design as common ancestry. What lack of genetic similarity are you imagining here?

Why wouldn't it be evidence for a multiplicity of designers, for example?

Why would it - exactly? Please be specific - you may be confused regarding your multiplicity of designers.

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.

Lol - I think it would take magic for dogs to have evolved into flying animals. Kind of like reptilians evolving into flying pigs - or birds.

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?

And as you have noted above we do not see dogs morphing wings and flying back to the future. Again, genetic similarity can be evidence for a common designer.

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.

Has common ancestry ever been proven in a court of law? Has common ancestry been proven by science? Negatory to both questions - yes?

What 'new genetic information' is that, then, or do you suggest that no changes in genetic coding can have morphological consequences?

The new genetic information required to evolve dino forelegs into wings. Not an easy task unless one has the Darwinian god of Time and a lucky rabbits foot.

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. On the other hand - Darwinian lore is not science.

I 'imagine' Grassé was being truthful. Biological evolution is a fact and not a hypothesis.

 

[Barbarian]

Wrong once again. Genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry - never has.

There's no point in denying it, Zeke. We can (and do) test it on organisms of known descent, so we know it works. Paternity tests, or example.

This is just one more of the many errors floated by true-believers who buy into Darwinian mythology.

Chanting slogans won't change reality, Zeke.

Even our good friend kalvan admits such similarity does not prove common ancestry.

I doubt if he said that we couldn't comfirm common ancestry, but if he did, he's demonstrably wrong. Edit: Found the statement. He said it was evidence for common descent. Which is true. You see, science never "proves" things. It's inductive, and makes inferences from evidence.

The late-great-atheist-marxist-evolutionist, Stephen Gould recognized that fact long ago.

He was an agnostic, BTW. And he once suggested that there might be a God Who made intelligent beings so that He'd have someone to share it all with. And he acknowledged the importance of genetic data in phylogenies. I suppose you have some evidence for your belief?

For the record - who agrees with you and where exactly do you get such misinformation?

Learn about it here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139044/

http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/dna_tests.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081223172751.htm

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1999/mayjun/articles/cavalli_sforza.html

Does your Magisterium teach this?

Christian theology makes no determinations about common descent of living things.

 

[Barbarian]

Lol - that only happened in the third episode of Land of Giants.

It might be distasteful to you, but the fossils are there.

Don't confuse fact with science fiction television. Cynodictus is a dead-end carnivore - neither dog nor bea

In fact, it would be remarkable if we happened to find the precise population that gave rise to dogs and bears. This one is almost certainly just close to the place where the divergence took place.

 

[lordkalvan]

Then we agree - those folks like Barbarian who insist genetic similarity proves common ancestry are not in reality - scientifically speaking. Very good my friend. You're on the right track and maybe Barbarian will catch up some day.

If you take from my comment that I agree with you, then you are misunderstanding my intent. Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence. The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that genetic similarity supports the understanding of common ancestry derived originally from other lines of evidence and reasoning. Also, I have requested you not use a particular phrase when addressing me; I would be grateful if you would respect my wishes in this matter.

 

[lordkalvan]

Wrong once again. Genetic similarity does not prove common ancestry - never has. This is just one more of the many errors floated by true-believers who buy into Darwinian mythology. Even our good friend kalvan admits such similarity does not prove common ancestry.

And now you are misrepresenting the substance of my argument to support your various assertions. How does this add credibility to your claims?

The late-great-atheist-marxist-evolutionist, Stephen Gould recognized that fact long ago. For the record - who agrees with you and where exactly do you get such misinformation? Does your Magisterium teach this?

Perhaps you can provide references to support your various assertions here? Otherwise they look rather like a combination of libel and misrepresentation. I have read extensively amongst Gould's popular science articles and nowhere derive the understanding that he was either atheist or Marxist, or that he doubted evidence from molecular genetic analysis supported the idea of common ancestry.

 

[lordkalvan]

Not at all. Just as there is evidence that you are related to your ancestors but there is no evidence that proves chimps are related to your ancestors. And your point is...?

That the same techniques produce the same types of evidence that supports the various conclusions in both cases. Why do you accept it in the one instance and not in the other? Also, the molecular genetic evidence that supports ancestral relationships between humans and chimps does not stand alone, as Linnaeus recognised centuries ago.

Are you saying a Designer could not have used existing species in situ as the blueprint for more advanced species. If not, why not?

This isn't my idea, it's yours. I'm asking you to support your assertion that genetic similarity is evidence supporting the hypothesis of a common designer.

The fact remains my friend - genetic similarity is as much evidence for common design as common ancestry.

You continue to assert this, but offer no evidenced argument to support your assertion.

What lack of genetic similarity are you imagining here?

If you believe that all organisms are as genetically similar to one another as all other organisms, I would be happy to see your evidence that supports this. Absent such evidence, I ask again whether you think that, if the existence of genetic similarity supports the idea of a common designer, whether the existence of genetic dissimilarity suggests the existence of a multiplicity of designers and, if no, why not?

Why would it - exactly? Please be specific - you may be confused regarding your multiplicity of designers.

You have asserted that close genetic similarity is evidence of a common designer for those organisms that are identified as genetically close to each other. So what is the existence of organisms that are genetically dissimilar to one another evidence for? If not a multiplicity of designers, why not?

Lol - I think it would take magic for dogs to have evolved into flying animals. Kind of like reptilians evolving into flying pigs - or birds.

You seem to have a somewhat cartoon-like understanding of evolutionary theory and evidence that supports it. Again, there is nothing magical about this.

And as you have noted above we do not see dogs morphing wings and flying back to the future. Again, genetic similarity can be evidence for a common designer.

Evolutionary theory would not propose that dogs would suddenly 'morph' wings. Please demonstrate how genetic similarity is evidence for a common designer and why genetic dissimilarity is not evidence for a multiplicity of designers.

Has common ancestry ever been proven in a court of law? Has common ancestry been proven by science? Negatory to both questions - yes?

I note you miss the point. The techniques are the same and the conclusions drawn are based on exactly the same methodological evidence. So why do you regard the one conclusion as valid and the other as invalid?

The new genetic information required to evolve dino forelegs into wings. Not an easy task unless one has the Darwinian god of Time and a lucky rabbits foot.

Please explain why mutations in genetic coding do not add new and/or different information to developmental processes.

I 'imagine' Grassé was being truthful. Biological evolution is a fact and not a hypothesis.

What do you mean by 'biological evolution'?

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings, my "internet acquaintance," known to some as lordkalvan,

I did some quick research (Wiki is our friend, errrr... internet acquaintance? hmmm... ) where Stephen Gould is said to be self-described as "agnostic" as well as "Jewish agnostic". (1997) "Nonoverlapping magisteria". Natural History 106 (March): 16–22.)

He has also stated that his father's [Marxist] politics were "very different" from his own. (2002) Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. He did describe himself under oath as tending toward "left of center". (1981). [URL="http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/depos/pf_gould_dep.htm"]"Official Transcript for Gould’s deposition in McLean v. Arkansas".[/URL]

-----> Just wanted to thank you guys (yeah, you too zeke) for the entertaining (and at times, educational) conversation.

 

[lordkalvan]

Greetings, my "internet acquaintance," known to some as lordkalvan,

I did some quick research (Wiki is our friend, errrr... internet acquaintance? hmmm... ) where Stephen Gould is said to be self-described as "agnostic" as well as "Jewish agnostic". (1997) "Nonoverlapping magisteria". Natural History 106 (March): 16–22.)

He has also stated that his father's [Marxist] politics were "very different" from his own. (2002) Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. He did describe himself under oath as tending toward "left of center". (1981). [URL="http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/depos/pf_gould_dep.htm"]"Official Transcript for Gould’s deposition in McLean v. Arkansas".[/URL]

-----> Just wanted to thank you guys (yeah, you too zeke) for the entertaining (and at times, educational) conversation.

Thanks for that, Sparrow. Given our extensive, generally good-natured posting history, I am happy to be regarded by you as, if not a friend, at least a good neighbour ;-).

 

[Barbarian]

I would be proud to call Sparrowhawke and Lord Kalvan my friends, BTW. I have reasons to admire both of them, based on what I've seen of their writings here.