macroevolution

[jillery]

From the book "Evolution: Making Sense of Life", courtesy of NCSE by
way of PZ Myers, here is its chapter on Macroevolution, that
phenomenon some postert to T.O. say can't happen:

<http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf>

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Steady Eddie]

And again, nowhere are the assumptions upon which macroevolution is based actually tested. The
result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:

"Scientists first developed methods for estimating a and V by using fossils, but more recently, they
have also developed methods for analyzing molecular phylogenies (Harvey et al. 1994; Pyron and
Burbrink 2013). In these analyses, scientists use a MOLECULAR CLOCK (see Chapter 9) to date the nodes. THEY THEN TEST MODELS OF A AND V THAT PRODUCE PATTERNS MOST CLOSELY
RESEMBLING THE ACTUAL PHYLOGENY."

The molecular "clock" itself is a theoretical construct based on the assumption of all life forms appearing by macroevolution.

As usual, their "actual" phylgeny is the one that supports the belief in macroevolution. Conclusions
are based on choosing the pattern out of many that most strongly confirms their assumptions.

Nothing new here.

[RonO]

Just pretend that your arguments above are valid. Where do you find the
evidence that this is actually the case? Why isn't some IDiot that
believes that such arguments mean anything world famous by now? Why
wouldn't someone point out these things and be able to demonstrate that
they mean anything? Scientific creationism is older than the notion of
the molecular clock when we only had protein sequences to go on. Why
hasn't any scientific creationist become world famous for debunking the
actual science? By the time scientific creationism fell on its face in
the 1980s we had developed a way to sequence DNA and the protein
molecular phylogenetics was vindicated. Real science knows that there
are issues with the molecular clock idea, but that is why they have
error bars on their estimates. No one doubts the molecular phylogenies.
Even the ID perps with a clue like Behe and Denton understand that
descent with modification from a common ancestor is fact. No one that
understands the data denies that reality except the guys that might
understand it, but lie to the ignorant, incompetent and fellow dishonest
IDiots like yourself. Denton stopped misinforming people about the
issue in his second book after he understood the criticism of his first
book. Behe never to my knowledge denied the molecular evidence for
common descent and claims that he accepts common descent, and both
Denton and Behe are molecular biologists. What does that tell you? The
IDiots that should understand the data do not deny it.

Just go to the Discovery Institute and determine how they deal with the
molecular data. Obfuscation and denial are just stupid when their own
senior fellows like Denton and Behe can tell them that common descent is
a fact of nature.

All anyone has to do is come up with an alternative that is as good as
what you claim is not good enough and no IDiots nor scientific
creationists before them can do that. Denial isn't just stupid at this
time it is far worse than that for IDiots such as yourself. The only
IDiots left are the ignorant, incompetent, and or dishonest. Guys like
you fit all three categories. There may be hope for the ignorant, but
that is about all ID has going for it at this time.

Really, go to the Discovery Institute and check out how IDiot molecular
biologists like Denton and Behe view the molecular data. You likely
have to dig around to find it because the Discovery Institute is in the
business of lying to most of their IDiot supporters about the issue.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

On 8/29/15, 8:11 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 August 2015 07:08:32 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> From the book "Evolution: Making Sense of Life", courtesy of NCSE by
>> way of PZ Myers, here is its chapter on Macroevolution, that
>> phenomenon some postert to T.O. say can't happen:
>>
>> <http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf>
>>
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>
> And again, nowhere are the assumptions upon which macroevolution is based actually tested.

Of course they are. Frequently.

> The
> result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:
>
> "Scientists first developed methods for estimating a and V by using fossils, but more recently, they
> have also developed methods for analyzing molecular phylogenies (Harvey et al. 1994; Pyron and
> Burbrink 2013). In these analyses, scientists use a MOLECULAR CLOCK (see Chapter 9) to date the nodes. THEY THEN TEST MODELS OF A AND V THAT PRODUCE PATTERNS MOST CLOSELY
> RESEMBLING THE ACTUAL PHYLOGENY."
>
> The molecular "clock" itself is a theoretical construct based on the assumption of all life forms appearing by macroevolution.

No, it's an observation made by Zuckerkandl and Pauling a very long time
ago, and a reasonable rule of thumb. Though actually, few people make
that assumption any more. Instead they use models of varying
evolutionary rates. And the part you put in all caps doesn't mean what
you appear to think it does.

Nor is macroevolution (by which I assume you mean common descent) an
assumption. It's tested many times every year through phylogenetic analyses.

> As usual, their "actual" phylgeny is the one that supports the belief in macroevolution. Conclusions
> are based on choosing the pattern out of many that most strongly confirms their assumptions.

This bears no resemblance to what actually happens, or to what's in the
linked chapter.

[jillery]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 27 August 2015 07:08:32 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> From the book "Evolution: Making Sense of Life", courtesy of NCSE by
>> way of PZ Myers, here is its chapter on Macroevolution, that
>> phenomenon some postert to T.O. say can't happen:
>>
>> <http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf>
>>
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>
>And again, nowhere are the assumptions upon which macroevolution is based actually tested. The
>result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:

Will you specify what you think are the assumptions upon which
macroevolution is based?

Will you specify what tests on macroevolution would satisfy you?

>"Scientists first developed methods for estimating a and V by using fossils, but more recently, they
>have also developed methods for analyzing molecular phylogenies (Harvey et al. 1994; Pyron and
>Burbrink 2013). In these analyses, scientists use a MOLECULAR CLOCK (see Chapter 9) to date the nodes. THEY THEN TEST MODELS OF A AND V THAT PRODUCE PATTERNS MOST CLOSELY
>RESEMBLING THE ACTUAL PHYLOGENY."
>
>The molecular "clock" itself is a theoretical construct based on the assumption of all life forms appearing by macroevolution.
>
>As usual, their "actual" phylgeny is the one that supports the belief in macroevolution. Conclusions
>are based on choosing the pattern out of many that most strongly confirms their assumptions.

Will you specify what other patterns exist in the data?


>Nothing new here.


I agree 100%.

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 29 August 2015 10:48:23 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/29/15, 8:11 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Thursday, 27 August 2015 07:08:32 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> >> From the book "Evolution: Making Sense of Life", courtesy of NCSE by
> >> way of PZ Myers, here is its chapter on Macroevolution, that
> >> phenomenon some postert to T.O. say can't happen:
> >>
> >> <http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >
> > And again, nowhere are the assumptions upon which macroevolution is based actually tested.
>
> Of course they are. Frequently.

Oh? How so?

> > The
> > result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:
> >
> > "Scientists first developed methods for estimating a and V by using fossils, but more recently, they
> > have also developed methods for analyzing molecular phylogenies (Harvey et al. 1994; Pyron and
> > Burbrink 2013). In these analyses, scientists use a MOLECULAR CLOCK (see Chapter 9) to date the nodes. THEY THEN TEST MODELS OF A AND V THAT PRODUCE PATTERNS MOST CLOSELY
> > RESEMBLING THE ACTUAL PHYLOGENY."
> >
> > The molecular "clock" itself is a theoretical construct based on the assumption of all life forms appearing by macroevolution.

> No, it's an observation made by Zuckerkandl and Pauling a very long time
> ago,

Oh? Please refer me to the "observations" upon which the molecular clock is based.

>and a reasonable rule of thumb. Though actually, few people make
> that assumption any more. Instead they use models of varying
> evolutionary rates.

...which themselves are based on the assumption of macroevolution, and round and
round it goes...

>And the part you put in all caps doesn't mean what
> you appear to think it does.
>
> Nor is macroevolution (by which I assume you mean common descent) an
> assumption. It's tested many times every year through phylogenetic analyses.

That is, it's assumed many times every year to enable phylogenetic analyses to support the conclusion of macroevolution.

> > As usual, their "actual" phylgeny is the one that supports the belief in macroevolution. Conclusions
> > are based on choosing the pattern out of many that most strongly confirms their assumptions.
>
> This bears no resemblance to what actually happens,

And I'm supposed to take your word for it? You're the fox with the job of guarding the henhouse.
Sorry, but you have serious conflict of interest problems so your assertions about your own
objectivity are invalid.

or to what's in the
> linked chapter.

Oh, about that:

"By estimating the ages of the earliest and youngest fossils of species, pale- ontologists can measure the lifetime of species. Barnosky and his colleagues
find that the saber-toothed lions, rhinoceroses, and other Pleistocene mammals they uncover typically endure for a million years or more."

On what are the 'estimates' of the ages of these fossils based?

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 29 August 2015 13:38:22 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 27 August 2015 07:08:32 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> >> From the book "Evolution: Making Sense of Life", courtesy of NCSE by
> >> way of PZ Myers, here is its chapter on Macroevolution, that
> >> phenomenon some postert to T.O. say can't happen:
> >>
> >> <http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >
> >And again, nowhere are the assumptions upon which macroevolution is based actually tested. The
> >result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:
>
>
> Will you specify what you think are the assumptions upon which
> macroevolution is based?

The usual of course.
The basic assumption upon which all others are based is that life is not the work of an intelligent
designer of any kind.

> Will you specify what tests on macroevolution would satisfy you?

To my knowledge, universal macroevolution cannot be tested. Can you specify what tests have
satisfied you?

> >"Scientists first developed methods for estimating a and V by using fossils, but more recently, they
> >have also developed methods for analyzing molecular phylogenies (Harvey et al. 1994; Pyron and
> >Burbrink 2013). In these analyses, scientists use a MOLECULAR CLOCK (see Chapter 9) to date the nodes. THEY THEN TEST MODELS OF A AND V THAT PRODUCE PATTERNS MOST CLOSELY
> >RESEMBLING THE ACTUAL PHYLOGENY."
> >
> >The molecular "clock" itself is a theoretical construct based on the assumption of all life forms appearing by macroevolution.
> >
> >As usual, their "actual" phylgeny is the one that supports the belief in macroevolution. Conclusions
> >are based on choosing the pattern out of many that most strongly confirms their assumptions.
>
>
> Will you specify what other patterns exist in the data?

Ask the authors of the link you provided. They're the ones that brought it up.

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 29 August 2015 13:38:22 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 27 August 2015 07:08:32 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> >> From the book "Evolution: Making Sense of Life", courtesy of NCSE by
> >> way of PZ Myers, here is its chapter on Macroevolution, that
> >> phenomenon some postert to T.O. say can't happen:
> >>
> >> <http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >
> >And again, nowhere are the assumptions upon which macroevolution is based actually tested. The
> >result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:
>
>
> Will you specify what you think are the assumptions upon which
> macroevolution is based?
>
> Will you specify what tests on macroevolution would satisfy you?

Correction: the assumed mechanism behind universal macroevolution can and has been tested.
The results are negative.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

[jillery]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 29 August 2015 13:38:22 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 27 August 2015 07:08:32 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> >> From the book "Evolution: Making Sense of Life", courtesy of NCSE by
>> >> way of PZ Myers, here is its chapter on Macroevolution, that
>> >> phenomenon some postert to T.O. say can't happen:
>> >>
>> >> <http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf>
>> >>

>> >And again, nowhere are the assumptions upon which macroevolution is based actually tested. The
>> >result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:
>>
>>
>> Will you specify what you think are the assumptions upon which
>> macroevolution is based?
>
>The usual of course.
>The basic assumption upon which all others are based is that life is not the work of an intelligent
>designer of any kind.

You told me what you think it is not. I asked what you think it is.
Apparently you don't know the difference. No surprise there.

>> Will you specify what tests on macroevolution would satisfy you?
>
>To my knowledge, universal macroevolution cannot be tested. Can you specify what tests have
>satisfied you?

Since no test will satisfy you, your posts are assertions of absolute
conviction. That makes you a zealot, where no evidence or reason can
alter your beliefs. Given that, there's no point putting much effort
into answering your questions.

But unlike you, I will answer the question you asked: as just one
example; ring species. If you're really interested, look it up.

>> >"Scientists first developed methods for estimating a and V by using fossils, but more recently, they
>> >have also developed methods for analyzing molecular phylogenies (Harvey et al. 1994; Pyron and
>> >Burbrink 2013). In these analyses, scientists use a MOLECULAR CLOCK (see Chapter 9) to date the nodes. THEY THEN TEST MODELS OF A AND V THAT PRODUCE PATTERNS MOST CLOSELY
>> >RESEMBLING THE ACTUAL PHYLOGENY."
>> >
>> >The molecular "clock" itself is a theoretical construct based on the assumption of all life forms appearing by macroevolution.
>> >
>> >As usual, their "actual" phylgeny is the one that supports the belief in macroevolution. Conclusions
>> >are based on choosing the pattern out of many that most strongly confirms their assumptions.
>>
>>
>> Will you specify what other patterns exist in the data?
>
>Ask the authors of the link you provided. They're the ones that brought it up.

Incorrect. You're the one who asserted they chose a pattern based on
their assumptions. Don't you know what their other choices were?

[John Harshman]

On 8/29/15, 3:06 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 August 2015 10:48:23 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/29/15, 8:11 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 27 August 2015 07:08:32 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>>>> From the book "Evolution: Making Sense of Life", courtesy of NCSE by
>>>> way of PZ Myers, here is its chapter on Macroevolution, that
>>>> phenomenon some postert to T.O. say can't happen:
>>>>
>>>> <http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>>>
>>> And again, nowhere are the assumptions upon which macroevolution is based actually tested.
>>
>> Of course they are. Frequently.
>
> Oh? How so?

Tell me an assumption, and I'll tell you how it's tested.

>>> The
>>> result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:
>>>
>>> "Scientists first developed methods for estimating a and V by using fossils, but more recently, they
>>> have also developed methods for analyzing molecular phylogenies (Harvey et al. 1994; Pyron and
>>> Burbrink 2013). In these analyses, scientists use a MOLECULAR CLOCK (see Chapter 9) to date the nodes. THEY THEN TEST MODELS OF A AND V THAT PRODUCE PATTERNS MOST CLOSELY
>>> RESEMBLING THE ACTUAL PHYLOGENY."
>>>
>>> The molecular "clock" itself is a theoretical construct based on the assumption of all life forms appearing by macroevolution.
>
>> No, it's an observation made by Zuckerkandl and Pauling a very long time
>> ago,
>
> Oh? Please refer me to the "observations" upon which the molecular clock is based.

Read this:

http://lectures.molgen.mpg.de/phylogeny_ws05/papers/zuckerkandl_pauling.pdf

>> and a reasonable rule of thumb. Though actually, few people make
>> that assumption any more. Instead they use models of varying
>> evolutionary rates.
>
> ...which themselves are based on the assumption of macroevolution, and round and
> round it goes...

No, the models are just models. They are tested against data, i.e. the
DNA sequences we observe in the present.

>> And the part you put in all caps doesn't mean what
>> you appear to think it does.
>>
>> Nor is macroevolution (by which I assume you mean common descent) an
>> assumption. It's tested many times every year through phylogenetic analyses.
>
> That is, it's assumed many times every year to enable phylogenetic analyses to support the conclusion of macroevolution.

Only to the degree that one assumes a question for the sake of argument
when testing it. Does it explain the data better than other assumptions?
Turns out it does.

This is usually implicit rather than explicit, but see this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html

>>> As usual, their "actual" phylgeny is the one that supports the belief in macroevolution. Conclusions
>>> are based on choosing the pattern out of many that most strongly confirms their assumptions.
>>
>> This bears no resemblance to what actually happens,
>
> And I'm supposed to take your word for it? You're the fox with the job of guarding the henhouse.
> Sorry, but you have serious conflict of interest problems so your assertions about your own
> objectivity are invalid.

Best I can do. You aren't equipped to understand a full explanation. The
chapter does it well enough.

>> or to what's in the
>> linked chapter.
>
> Oh, about that:
>

> "By estimating the ages of the earliest and youngest fossils of species, paleontologists can measure the lifetime of species. Barnosky and his colleagues

> find that the saber-toothed lions, rhinoceroses, and other Pleistocene mammals they uncover typically endure for a million years or more."
>
> On what are the 'estimates' of the ages of these fossils based?

Stratigraphy anchored by radiometric dates.

[jillery]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:59:18 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 29 August 2015 13:38:22 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 27 August 2015 07:08:32 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> >> From the book "Evolution: Making Sense of Life", courtesy of NCSE by
>> >> way of PZ Myers, here is its chapter on Macroevolution, that
>> >> phenomenon some postert to T.O. say can't happen:
>> >>
>> >> <http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
>> >
>> >And again, nowhere are the assumptions upon which macroevolution is based actually tested. The
>> >result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:
>>
>>
>> Will you specify what you think are the assumptions upon which
>> macroevolution is based?
>>
>> Will you specify what tests on macroevolution would satisfy you?
>
>Correction: the assumed mechanism behind universal macroevolution can and has been tested.
>The results are negative.
>http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4
>http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

I bet you have no idea what the above articles actually mean. Since
you almost always just handwave away anything anybody posts, normally
I would just let you keep digging yourself into a hole. But right now
I feel the need to do some affirmative action.

Mariclair A. Reeves, Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe made comparisons
of different enzymes within a biochemically homologous group, and
guessed how many mutations it would take to get from a common base
enzyme to another one in the family. If they guessed it took more
than two mutations, they were declared too improbable to happen by
unguided evolution.

This is little different from Behe's argument for IC, or Hoyle's
tornado in a junkyard. The cheat in all these cases lies in looking
at events that have already happened, and calculating odds for them
based on probabilities for events that have yet to happen.

Evolution doesn't work by starting from scratch each time in the hope
it comes up with a particular combination. Evolution works by
starting with an existing arrangement, and making more-or-less random
changes to it. The new arrangements that have a positive effect,
whatever that effect might be, is more likely to be preserved for the
next round. Artificial selection works the same way. The only
difference is people choose which organisms will breed the next
generation. With natural selection, the environment makes that
choice.

What's so controversial about that?

[Steady Eddie]

While I admit I didn't re-read the studies before posting the above links, my recollection is that
these experiments were not about starting from scratch; they took two of the most similar proteins
they could find, what are called 'homologues', which are assumed by evo's to have evolved from
each other naturalistically, and tried to determine how many point mutations would be required to
get from one to the other. I believe they stopped at six or seven after not being successful,
because six or seven mutations without a resultant new functional protein was calculated to be
mathematically impossible given actual population sizes and time frames.

I used the disclaimer "naturalistically" above because I may have more common ground with you
and John than I had realized (John, this is directed to you as well):

I've been thinking: If God created the "kinds" and pre-loaded the first members with all the genetic
variety for them to evolve into all the species and sub-species we have today, that might explain
much of John's detection of common ancestry between many modern species.

If, for arguments sake, God created the Kinds at a very high level, say Families, then every
member of the same family should be able to trace its ancestry back to a common ancestor - the
original member(s) of the Family. So, John should be able to find much common ancestry when he
compares the genomes of extant species. Not back to a UNIVERSAL common ancestor, mind you,
but conceivably quite far up the taxonomic scale.

This is a bit of a back-tracking for me, as I think I've been unnecesarily stubborn in denying ANY
of John's results of common ancestry PER SE. I've always granted that evolution did occur to get
the species we have today from the original Kinds, it's just not Darwinian evolution i.e. the raw
genetic variation was not through random mutations, but was carefully pre-loaded into the
genomes of the original members of each Kind by the Creator.

As far as I know, the results may appear the same; branching tree patterns tracing the probable
sources of the modern members of each Kind, conceivably going so far back that scientists like
John can be forgiven for just assuming they go all the way back to one single universal ancestor.

So, my carte-blanche denials of common ancestry were unfounded according to my pet theory of genetic pre-loading of members of each Kind.

I apologize for missing this important point of common ground that we may share.

[RonO]

This argument doesn't hold water if you thought about it for just a few
seconds. All life on earth is not just related to each other back to
the family level. The same relationship binds all mammals, all
amniotes, all vertebrates, etc. If you acknowledge one you get them
all. Behe tried this approach and ended up with the common ancestor of
all life being front loaded, but what is wrong with front loading? Why
was it such a bad idea? Front loading just will not work for what you
want to do. One clue is that if you go back to the family level you get
all apes including humans being related to a common ancestor. Family
hominidae includes all the great apes.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:00:37 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>While I admit I didn't re-read the studies before posting the above links, my recollection is that
>these experiments were not about starting from scratch; they took two of the most similar proteins
>they could find, what are called 'homologues', which are assumed by evo's to have evolved from
>each other naturalistically, and tried to determine how many point mutations would be required to
>get from one to the other. I believe they stopped at six or seven after not being successful,
>because six or seven mutations without a resultant new functional protein was calculated to be
>mathematically impossible given actual population sizes and time frames.

You missed, or ignored, the point. "starting from scratch" refers to
any basis of comparison. In Gauger's case above, that's her
presumptive base proteins. In your case below, that's your
presumptive front-loaded genomes.

Apparently you don't understand that biological populations don't
throw away intermediate results each time, which is the basis for
Gauger's "impossible" odds, but rather build on them.

>I used the disclaimer "naturalistically" above because I may have more common ground with you
>and John than I had realized (John, this is directed to you as well):
>
>I've been thinking: If God created the "kinds" and pre-loaded the first members with all the genetic
>variety for them to evolve into all the species and sub-species we have today, that might explain
>much of John's detection of common ancestry between many modern species.
>
>If, for arguments sake, God created the Kinds at a very high level, say Families, then every
>member of the same family should be able to trace its ancestry back to a common ancestor - the
>original member(s) of the Family. So, John should be able to find much common ancestry when he
>compares the genomes of extant species. Not back to a UNIVERSAL common ancestor, mind you,
>but conceivably quite far up the taxonomic scale.
>
>This is a bit of a back-tracking for me, as I think I've been unnecesarily stubborn in denying ANY
>of John's results of common ancestry PER SE. I've always granted that evolution did occur to get
>the species we have today from the original Kinds, it's just not Darwinian evolution i.e. the raw
>genetic variation was not through random mutations, but was carefully pre-loaded into the
>genomes of the original members of each Kind by the Creator.
>
>As far as I know, the results may appear the same; branching tree patterns tracing the probable
>sources of the modern members of each Kind, conceivably going so far back that scientists like
>John can be forgiven for just assuming they go all the way back to one single universal ancestor.
>
>So, my carte-blanche denials of common ancestry were unfounded according to my pet theory of genetic pre-loading of members of each Kind.
>
>I apologize for missing this important point of common ground that we may share.

I commend you on your willingness to change your thinking. But it's
unclear what you think are the differences and similarities between
separate populations with front-loaded genomes, and a single
population with a common genome from which differences developed. Will
you elaborate?

[Steady Eddie]

I don' know what you're talking about.

> Apparently you don't understand that biological populations don't
> throw away intermediate results each time, which is the basis for
> Gauger's "impossible" odds, but rather build on them.

Don't forget, populations don't automatically conserve non-functional intermediate results, either.
To suggest that these intermediates are routinely conserved and built upon repeatedly until a new function arises is straying into special pleading.
Just think of what the term "conserved" generally means in Evo-speak: it means functional.

The clear difference is that intentional front-loading of a Kind is not done by accident.

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 29 August 2015 18:48:22 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> On 8/29/15, 3:06 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Saturday, 29 August 2015 10:48:23 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/29/15, 8:11 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 27 August 2015 07:08:32 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> >>>> From the book "Evolution: Making Sense of Life", courtesy of NCSE by
> >>>> way of PZ Myers, here is its chapter on Macroevolution, that
> >>>> phenomenon some postert to T.O. say can't happen:
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >>>
> >>> And again, nowhere are the assumptions upon which macroevolution is based actually tested.
> >>
> >> Of course they are. Frequently.
> >
> > Oh? How so?
>
> Tell me an assumption, and I'll tell you how it's tested.

The assumption that is untestable, and I maintain is false, is that all organisms descended from one or a few life forms through the Darwinian mechanism.

On the positive side, as I've said to Jillery, I agree that probably all extant species descended
naturalistically from their parent Kind, by the outworking of natural selection on the (purportedly
pre-loaded) genome. That would produce inheritance trees back to the level of the original Kind,
which could conceivable be quite high in the hierarchy of life.

So, my objection to your claim of common ancestry, per se, was unfounded - perhaps your work
can lead to identifying what the taxonomic level of the created Kinds may have been.

> >>> The
> >>> result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:
> >>>
> >>> "Scientists first developed methods for estimating a and V by using fossils, but more recently, they
> >>> have also developed methods for analyzing molecular phylogenies (Harvey et al. 1994; Pyron and
> >>> Burbrink 2013). In these analyses, scientists use a MOLECULAR CLOCK (see Chapter 9) to date the nodes. THEY THEN TEST MODELS OF A AND V THAT PRODUCE PATTERNS MOST CLOSELY
> >>> RESEMBLING THE ACTUAL PHYLOGENY."
> >>>
> >>> The molecular "clock" itself is a theoretical construct based on the assumption of all life forms appearing by macroevolution.
> >
> >> No, it's an observation made by Zuckerkandl and Pauling a very long time
> >> ago,
> >
> > Oh? Please refer me to the "observations" upon which the molecular clock is based.
>
> Read this:
>
> http://lectures.molgen.mpg.de/phylogeny_ws05/papers/zuckerkandl_pauling.pdf

That was an interesting article, but I was thinking more of how actual time frames can be attached
to this "clock". Here they just point out that the genome would be the best source for building such a clock.

How do you know that a given ancestral relationship indicates a given passage of time between
the two? (I hope that was a clear enough question)
I assume your timelines would be based on the assumption of the relationships being the pure result
of the Darwinian mechanism.

> >> and a reasonable rule of thumb. Though actually, few people make
> >> that assumption any more. Instead they use models of varying
> >> evolutionary rates.
> >
> > ...which themselves are based on the assumption of macroevolution, and round and
> > round it goes...
>
> No, the models are just models. They are tested against data, i.e. the
> DNA sequences we observe in the present.

So, how do you get models of "varying evolutionary rates"?
How do you decide when and how the rates varied?
If you can't rely on some estimate of constant mutation rates, what do you rely on to build your time scales?

> >> And the part you put in all caps doesn't mean what
> >> you appear to think it does.
> >>
> >> Nor is macroevolution (by which I assume you mean common descent) an
> >> assumption. It's tested many times every year through phylogenetic analyses.
> >
> > That is, it's assumed many times every year to enable phylogenetic analyses to support the conclusion of macroevolution.
>
> Only to the degree that one assumes a question for the sake of argument
> when testing it. Does it explain the data better than other assumptions?
> Turns out it does.
>
> This is usually implicit rather than explicit, but see this:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html

See this:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html
and this:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/douglas_theobalds_test_of_comm041071.html

After all the 'esoterica' is finished, Theobald doesn't even compare UCA to common design.

> >>> As usual, their "actual" phylgeny is the one that supports the belief in macroevolution. Conclusions
> >>> are based on choosing the pattern out of many that most strongly confirms their assumptions.
> >>
> >> This bears no resemblance to what actually happens,
> >
> > And I'm supposed to take your word for it? You're the fox with the job of guarding the henhouse.
> > Sorry, but you have serious conflict of interest problems so your assertions about your own
> > objectivity are invalid.
>
> Best I can do. You aren't equipped to understand a full explanation. The
> chapter does it well enough.

I repent of my charge of fabricating 'common ancestry' from full cloth. My objection only remains
to UNIVERSAL common ancestry.
As I've clarified, common ancestry to the created Kinds is not contested.
So, kudos to you and your research into molecular phylogeny - to a point.

> >> or to what's in the
> >> linked chapter.
> >
> > Oh, about that:
> >
> > "By estimating the ages of the earliest and youngest fossils of species, paleontologists can measure the lifetime of species. Barnosky and his colleagues
> > find that the saber-toothed lions, rhinoceroses, and other Pleistocene mammals they uncover typically endure for a million years or more."
> >
> > On what are the 'estimates' of the ages of these fossils based?
>
> Stratigraphy anchored by radiometric dates.

Yes, I assumed that would be the case.
Now, on what assumptions are radiometric dates based?

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 18:28:14 UTC+3, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Monday, 31 August 2015 19:58:16 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>
> > Apparently you don't understand that biological populations don't
> > throw away intermediate results each time, which is the basis for
> > Gauger's "impossible" odds, but rather build on them.
>
> Don't forget, populations don't automatically conserve non-functional intermediate results, either.

Nothing is conserved. Result does disappear nowhere regardless it being
neutral, beneficial or detrimental. Organism does struggle to survive
with its properties and if it manages to give offspring then that will
inherit organism's genome with more mutations.

> To suggest that these intermediates are routinely conserved and built upon repeatedly until a new function arises is straying into special pleading.

Why anyone needs to suggest that? Lets take any clearly important property
of human. For example sight that is main sense of human. We see large number
of humans with eyeglasses or contact lenses every day. They manage so their
weak sight is good enough for inheriting that terrible perk to their
kids.

> Just think of what the term "conserved" generally means in Evo-speak: it means functional.

Where that "conserved" entered the picture? Human's less than 20000 protein
coding genes transcribe more than 50000 different proteins. If some
are good for nothing then that may indeed cause genetic disorders but
rare are outright lethal. There are billions of people each crippled
in several ways. That is large potential for some beneficial
mutation arising from their massive misery and nuisances.

[jillery]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 08:26:42 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

I don't know what you're confused about. Do you not describe below
your presumption of front-loaded genes? Does Gauger not describe
above a family of proteins which includes a presumptive base protein?

>> Apparently you don't understand that biological populations don't
>> throw away intermediate results each time, which is the basis for
>> Gauger's "impossible" odds, but rather build on them.
>
>Don't forget, populations don't automatically conserve non-functional intermediate results, either.
>To suggest that these intermediates are routinely conserved and built upon repeatedly until a new function arises is straying into special pleading.
>Just think of what the term "conserved" generally means in Evo-speak: it means functional.

I make no such suggestion. It's sufficient that pseudogenes simply
hang around for several generations, accumulating mutations. Don't
forget that, of the 3 billion base pairs in your genome, at least 20%
have no biological function. And for many species, that percentage is
even higher. Pseudogenes are the original welfare class.

>The clear difference is that intentional front-loading of a Kind is not done by accident.

You just restated your assumption. How do you identify "not done by
accident"?

[Steady Eddie]

Well, it's refreshing to find someone here that takes the ENCODE project's results seriously (Dr. Moron would call you a fool), and don't worry; research is apace to discover the function of the remaining 20% of the genome.

I identify "not done by accident" the same way any science delineates between accidental and
intentional causation - if the probability of a result occurring "by accident" is sufficiently low, the
proper inference is that it was caused intentionally by an intelligent agent.

How do you identify "done by accident"?

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 08:49:35 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>Well, it's refreshing to find someone here that takes the ENCODE project's results seriously (Dr. Moron would call you a fool), and don't worry; research is apace to discover the function of the remaining 20% of the genome.

I guess you missed the "at least" part. Not only is it likely much
higher than 20% in humans, but different species have different
amounts of DNA with no biological function.

And you still evade the point. Gauger's probability calculations are
based on an assumption that all of changes have to happen at once.
Even at only 20%, there's lots of room for organisms to accumulate
changes without any effect.

>I identify "not done by accident" the same way any science delineates between accidental and
>intentional causation - if the probability of a result occurring "by accident" is sufficiently low, the
>proper inference is that it was caused intentionally by an intelligent agent.

There are very few scientists who distinguish between accidental and
intentional DNA. Of those few that do, ex. Craig Venter, do so
because they make DNA themselves.

>How do you identify "done by accident"?

You assert a false equivalence. My hypothesis assumes that all DNA is
assembled using unguided natural processes, I have no need to make
that distinction.

OTOH your hypothesis assumes there are two kinds of DNA; 1.
purposefully assembled by Intelligence, and 2. assembled using
unguided natural processes. So, once again, how do you tell the
difference between them?

[John Harshman]

On 9/1/15, 9:49 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 August 2015 18:48:22 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/29/15, 3:06 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 29 August 2015 10:48:23 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/29/15, 8:11 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 27 August 2015 07:08:32 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> From the book "Evolution: Making Sense of Life", courtesy of NCSE by
>>>>>> way of PZ Myers, here is its chapter on Macroevolution, that
>>>>>> phenomenon some postert to T.O. say can't happen:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>>>>>
>>>>> And again, nowhere are the assumptions upon which macroevolution is based actually tested.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they are. Frequently.
>>>
>>> Oh? How so?
>>
>> Tell me an assumption, and I'll tell you how it's tested.
>
> The assumption that is untestable, and I maintain is false, is that all organisms descended from one or a few life forms through the Darwinian mechanism.

That's not an assumption, nor is it a single claim. It's at least two
claims, one about descent and another about the mode of evolution. The
first, descent, is not an assumption; as I've mentioned before, it's
been well tested. The second, "the Darwinian mechanism", is not clearly
stated and as such is probably not testable. What is "the Darwinian
mechanism"?

> On the positive side, as I've said to Jillery, I agree that probably all extant species descended
> naturalistically from their parent Kind, by the outworking of natural selection on the (purportedly
> pre-loaded) genome. That would produce inheritance trees back to the level of the original Kind,
> which could conceivable be quite high in the hierarchy of life.

How high? Because we have good evidence of this descent that covers all
levels of the hierarchy. We have particularly good evidence (just
because it's been the subject of so many studies) for the relationships
among primates, including humans. How does that fit your ideas?

> So, my objection to your claim of common ancestry, per se, was unfounded - perhaps your work
> can lead to identifying what the taxonomic level of the created Kinds may have been.

Indeed it can, and has: all life is a single kind, whether created or
otherwise.

>>>>> The
>>>>> result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Scientists first developed methods for estimating a and V by using fossils, but more recently, they
>>>>> have also developed methods for analyzing molecular phylogenies (Harvey et al. 1994; Pyron and
>>>>> Burbrink 2013). In these analyses, scientists use a MOLECULAR CLOCK (see Chapter 9) to date the nodes. THEY THEN TEST MODELS OF A AND V THAT PRODUCE PATTERNS MOST CLOSELY
>>>>> RESEMBLING THE ACTUAL PHYLOGENY."
>>>>>
>>>>> The molecular "clock" itself is a theoretical construct based on the assumption of all life forms appearing by macroevolution.
>>>
>>>> No, it's an observation made by Zuckerkandl and Pauling a very long time
>>>> ago,
>>>
>>> Oh? Please refer me to the "observations" upon which the molecular clock is based.
>>
>> Read this:
>>
>> http://lectures.molgen.mpg.de/phylogeny_ws05/papers/zuckerkandl_pauling.pdf
>
> That was an interesting article, but I was thinking more of how actual time frames can be attached
> to this "clock". Here they just point out that the genome would be the best source for building such a clock.

It also refers to a number of bits of actual data, among which if I
recall is cytochrome c sequences.

> How do you know that a given ancestral relationship indicates a given passage of time between
> the two? (I hope that was a clear enough question)

It wasn't, but I'll try anyway. It's hard to know that, and for testing
the molecular clock we don't care. All we care about is that the number
of mutations separating a number of species from their mutual common
ancestor must be equal if there's a clock. The age of that ancestor
isn't relevant to the question.

> I assume your timelines would be based on the assumption of the relationships being the pure result
> of the Darwinian mechanism.

Once again, "the Darwinian mechanism"?

>>>> and a reasonable rule of thumb. Though actually, few people make
>>>> that assumption any more. Instead they use models of varying
>>>> evolutionary rates.
>>>
>>> ...which themselves are based on the assumption of macroevolution, and round and
>>> round it goes...
>>
>> No, the models are just models. They are tested against data, i.e. the
>> DNA sequences we observe in the present.
>
> So, how do you get models of "varying evolutionary rates"?
> How do you decide when and how the rates varied?
> If you can't rely on some estimate of constant mutation rates, what do you rely on to build your time scales?

The main way to do this is by anchoring certain points on the
evolutionary tree to events of known age, usually but not always
fossils. Then we examine the fit of the data to various hypotheses of
varying rate and pick the one that's the best. This is a very
computation-intensive process. One program used for the purpose is
called BEAST, which you can probably look up.

>>>> And the part you put in all caps doesn't mean what
>>>> you appear to think it does.
>>>>
>>>> Nor is macroevolution (by which I assume you mean common descent) an
>>>> assumption. It's tested many times every year through phylogenetic analyses.
>>>
>>> That is, it's assumed many times every year to enable phylogenetic analyses to support the conclusion of macroevolution.
>>
>> Only to the degree that one assumes a question for the sake of argument
>> when testing it. Does it explain the data better than other assumptions?
>> Turns out it does.
>>
>> This is usually implicit rather than explicit, but see this:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
>
> See this:
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html
> and this:
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/douglas_theobalds_test_of_comm041071.html

You really can't keep citing creationist web sites as if they're
scientific publications.

> After all the 'esoterica' is finished, Theobald doesn't even compare UCA to common design.

It's hard to compare one model to another model that doesn't exist. What
are the expectations of common design, if any? But in fact Theobald
tested one model of common design: no relationship. I actually suggested
to him that he might test another model: what's known as a star
phylogeny. And he responded that he wasn't interested in testing
creationist models; his paper wasn't about creationism. I find that
perfectly reasonable. Of course any creationists could simply take his
methods and test these alternative models if they really wanted to. Any
takers?

>>>>> As usual, their "actual" phylgeny is the one that supports the belief in macroevolution. Conclusions
>>>>> are based on choosing the pattern out of many that most strongly confirms their assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> This bears no resemblance to what actually happens,
>>>
>>> And I'm supposed to take your word for it? You're the fox with the job of guarding the henhouse.
>>> Sorry, but you have serious conflict of interest problems so your assertions about your own
>>> objectivity are invalid.
>>
>> Best I can do. You aren't equipped to understand a full explanation. The
>> chapter does it well enough.
>
> I repent of my charge of fabricating 'common ancestry' from full cloth. My objection only remains
> to UNIVERSAL common ancestry.
> As I've clarified, common ancestry to the created Kinds is not contested.
> So, kudos to you and your research into molecular phylogeny - to a point.

What would that point be? You remain very vague. Whatever point you
pick, I can present evidence that common descent goes beyond that point.
Now my own work involves only birds and crocodiles, and I can attest
that each of those groups is a single "kind". I would have to cite the
work of others to show that birds and crocs both belong to the same
"kind", or that all amniotes do, or all vertebrates, and so on. What's
your sticking point?

>>>> or to what's in the
>>>> linked chapter.
>>>
>>> Oh, about that:
>>>
>>> "By estimating the ages of the earliest and youngest fossils of species, paleontologists can measure the lifetime of species. Barnosky and his colleagues
>>> find that the saber-toothed lions, rhinoceroses, and other Pleistocene mammals they uncover typically endure for a million years or more."
>>>
>>> On what are the 'estimates' of the ages of these fossils based?
>>
>> Stratigraphy anchored by radiometric dates.
>
> Yes, I assumed that would be the case.
> Now, on what assumptions are radiometric dates based?

There are various different assumptions for different methods. But those
assumptions can all be tested. Do you in fact deny the validity of
radiometric dating?

[Steady Eddie]

You misunderstand the point.
Gauger's calculations are based on the fact that all of the changes have to be in one single organism at
once, regardless of when they happened.

If a single person wins seven powerball lotteries in a row, it doesn't matter if the draws were years
apart, or the same day. The odds against it are the same.

There are thousands of scientists that routinely distinguish between unguided and intelligent
causation, in the field of forensics alone.

And no, you don't get off without knowing how to distinguish between the two - you 'assume that
all DNA is assembled using unguided natural processes'. How can you come to that assumption
if you don't know how to tell between guided and unguided assembly?

[Steady Eddie]

Your methodology obviously hasn't given you any insight into the different ancestries of the created
Kinds, which returns me to wondering what an objective observer would find in genome comparisons.

> > So, my objection to your claim of common ancestry, per se, was unfounded - perhaps your work
> > can lead to identifying what the taxonomic level of the created Kinds may have been.
>
> Indeed it can, and has: all life is a single kind, whether created or
> otherwise.

Sure, you could call it the "living" kind. But that doesn't mean it all descended unguided from a
single life form.

> >>>>> The
> >>>>> result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Scientists first developed methods for estimating a and V by using fossils, but more recently, they
> >>>>> have also developed methods for analyzing molecular phylogenies (Harvey et al. 1994; Pyron and
> >>>>> Burbrink 2013). In these analyses, scientists use a MOLECULAR CLOCK (see Chapter 9) to date the nodes. THEY THEN TEST MODELS OF A AND V THAT PRODUCE PATTERNS MOST CLOSELY
> >>>>> RESEMBLING THE ACTUAL PHYLOGENY."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The molecular "clock" itself is a theoretical construct based on the assumption of all life forms appearing by macroevolution.
> >>>
> >>>> No, it's an observation made by Zuckerkandl and Pauling a very long time
> >>>> ago,
> >>>
> >>> Oh? Please refer me to the "observations" upon which the molecular clock is based.
> >>
> >> Read this:
> >>
> >> http://lectures.molgen.mpg.de/phylogeny_ws05/papers/zuckerkandl_pauling.pdf
> >
> > That was an interesting article, but I was thinking more of how actual time frames can be attached
> > to this "clock". Here they just point out that the genome would be the best source for building such a clock.
>
> It also refers to a number of bits of actual data, among which if I
> recall is cytochrome c sequences.

So what?

> > How do you know that a given ancestral relationship indicates a given passage of time between
> > the two? (I hope that was a clear enough question)
>
> It wasn't, but I'll try anyway. It's hard to know that, and for testing
> the molecular clock we don't care. All we care about is that the number
> of mutations separating a number of species from their mutual common
> ancestor must be equal if there's a clock. The age of that ancestor
> isn't relevant to the question.

My intention in questioning said clock was to find out how it keeps time.
And, do you claim to know that all extant species are an equal number of mutations removed from
the first life form?
And, there's only a clock if it can keep time.

> > I assume your timelines would be based on the assumption of the relationships being the pure result
> > of the Darwinian mechanism.
>
> Once again, "the Darwinian mechanism"?
>
> >>>> and a reasonable rule of thumb. Though actually, few people make
> >>>> that assumption any more. Instead they use models of varying
> >>>> evolutionary rates.
> >>>
> >>> ...which themselves are based on the assumption of macroevolution, and round and
> >>> round it goes...
> >>
> >> No, the models are just models. They are tested against data, i.e. the
> >> DNA sequences we observe in the present.
> >
> > So, how do you get models of "varying evolutionary rates"?
> > How do you decide when and how the rates varied?
> > If you can't rely on some estimate of constant mutation rates, what do you rely on to build your time scales?
>
> The main way to do this is by anchoring certain points on the
> evolutionary tree to events of known age, usually but not always
> fossils. Then we examine the fit of the data to various hypotheses of
> varying rate and pick the one that's the best. This is a very
> computation-intensive process. One program used for the purpose is
> called BEAST, which you can probably look up.

How do you know the ages of your chosen fossils?

What do you base your "various hypotheses of varying rate" on?

How do you pick the one that's "BEST"?

> >>>> And the part you put in all caps doesn't mean what
> >>>> you appear to think it does.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nor is macroevolution (by which I assume you mean common descent) an
> >>>> assumption. It's tested many times every year through phylogenetic analyses.
> >>>
> >>> That is, it's assumed many times every year to enable phylogenetic analyses to support the conclusion of macroevolution.
> >>
> >> Only to the degree that one assumes a question for the sake of argument
> >> when testing it. Does it explain the data better than other assumptions?
> >> Turns out it does.
> >>
> >> This is usually implicit rather than explicit, but see this:
> >>
> >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
> >
> > See this:
> > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html
> > and this:
> > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/douglas_theobalds_test_of_comm041071.html
>
> You really can't keep citing creationist web sites as if they're
> scientific publications.

You really can't let go of the illusion that only those who agree with you are scientists, can you?

> > After all the 'esoterica' is finished, Theobald doesn't even compare UCA to common design.
>
> It's hard to compare one model to another model that doesn't exist. What
> are the expectations of common design, if any? But in fact Theobald
> tested one model of common design: no relationship. I actually suggested
> to him that he might test another model: what's known as a star
> phylogeny. And he responded that he wasn't interested in testing
> creationist models; his paper wasn't about creationism. I find that
> perfectly reasonable. Of course any creationists could simply take his
> methods and test these alternative models if they really wanted to. Any
> takers?

Again, Theobold's alternative models were all unguided, and of no use in distinguishing between
UCA and common design, which was what you said it did.

Just another Darwinian cite-bluff.

> >>>>> As usual, their "actual" phylgeny is the one that supports the belief in macroevolution. Conclusions
> >>>>> are based on choosing the pattern out of many that most strongly confirms their assumptions.
> >>>>
> >>>> This bears no resemblance to what actually happens,
> >>>
> >>> And I'm supposed to take your word for it? You're the fox with the job of guarding the henhouse.
> >>> Sorry, but you have serious conflict of interest problems so your assertions about your own
> >>> objectivity are invalid.
> >>
> >> Best I can do. You aren't equipped to understand a full explanation. The
> >> chapter does it well enough.
> >
> > I repent of my charge of fabricating 'common ancestry' from full cloth. My objection only remains
> > to UNIVERSAL common ancestry.
> > As I've clarified, common ancestry to the created Kinds is not contested.
> > So, kudos to you and your research into molecular phylogeny - to a point.
>
> What would that point be? You remain very vague. Whatever point you
> pick, I can present evidence that common descent goes beyond that point.
> Now my own work involves only birds and crocodiles, and I can attest
> that each of those groups is a single "kind". I would have to cite the
> work of others to show that birds and crocs both belong to the same
> "kind", or that all amniotes do, or all vertebrates, and so on. What's
> your sticking point?

Okay, you might help me out here:
At what taxonomic level are you creating if you create different kinds of birds?

And if your work tells you that birds and crocodiles are the same kind, you need to find another
line of work.

> >>>> or to what's in the
> >>>> linked chapter.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, about that:
> >>>
> >>> "By estimating the ages of the earliest and youngest fossils of species, paleontologists can measure the lifetime of species. Barnosky and his colleagues
> >>> find that the saber-toothed lions, rhinoceroses, and other Pleistocene mammals they uncover typically endure for a million years or more."
> >>>
> >>> On what are the 'estimates' of the ages of these fossils based?
> >>
> >> Stratigraphy anchored by radiometric dates.
> >
> > Yes, I assumed that would be the case.
> > Now, on what assumptions are radiometric dates based?
>
> There are various different assumptions for different methods. But those
> assumptions can all be tested. Do you in fact deny the validity of
> radiometric dating?

I question the methodology of radiometric dating. This is science, remember, not some religion
which forbids the questioning of its core dogma.

And I use the term "Darwinian" in the same sense that Richard Dawkins has been using it for four
decades.
Trying to weasel out of a discussion by declaring ignorance of the terms is just another Darwinian
rhetorical deflection.

And again, universal common descent is an assumption that has not been confirmed, except in the minds of the Darwinian establishment.
You can demonstrate universal commonalities among all life, but you can't put a time to it, or a mode, by your methods.

Anyway, my 2 main points are:

1. I could pinpoint the maximum taxonomic levels of the created Kinds in birds: Orders. Jehovah
could have created birds at as high a level as order (but I think no higher than Family), because He said that he created "Kinds" of birds, or, He created each bird (Class Aves) "according to its kind".
So, that answers your question.

2. I would very much like to look into the methodology of dating fossils. If I have any questions, I'll
let you know.

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>You misunderstand the point.


I'm confident that I did not, and you did.

>Gauger's calculations are based on the fact that all of the changes have to be in one single organism at
>once, regardless of when they happened.

Incorrect. You didn't read your own cite.

>If a single person wins seven powerball lotteries in a row, it doesn't matter if the draws were years
>apart, or the same day. The odds against it are the same.

Not even wrong. Each lottery has its own odds of winning, and there
are many lotteries playing at the same time. The odds of winning
seven lotteries at the same time is much lower than winning seven
lotteries in a lifetime, just as the odds of flipping seven coins as
heads at once is much lower than flipping seven coins as heads in a
lifetime.

>There are thousands of scientists that routinely distinguish between unguided and intelligent
>causation, in the field of forensics alone.

Forensics distinguishes between unguided natural causes and a known
intelligent agent, ie humans. That's different from showing the
existence of an unknown, unseen, undefined intelligent agent.

>And no, you don't get off without knowing how to distinguish between the two - you 'assume that
>all DNA is assembled using unguided natural processes'. How can you come to that assumption
>if you don't know how to tell between guided and unguided assembly?

I agree that I make that assumption, and that it may be incorrect. But
having made that assumption, I don't need to tell the difference
between guided and unguided assembly in order to test hypotheses based
on my assumption.

OTOH you assume there are different causes of assembly. I don't ask
you to test that assumption. I ask you to say how you tell the
difference between guided and unguided assembly. If you can't tell
the difference, then your assumption makes no meaningful distinction.

[John Harshman]

By "objective observer", you seem to mean a person who accepts your
interpretation of Genesis as unquestionable truth. I would propose a
different definition.

>>> So, my objection to your claim of common ancestry, per se, was unfounded - perhaps your work
>>> can lead to identifying what the taxonomic level of the created Kinds may have been.
>>
>> Indeed it can, and has: all life is a single kind, whether created or
>> otherwise.
>
> Sure, you could call it the "living" kind. But that doesn't mean it all descended unguided from a
> single life form.

Of course not. What means that is the evidence we have, not the words we
choose.

>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> result is a nice trip down the rabbit-hole of question-begging and circular reasoning:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Scientists first developed methods for estimating a and V by using fossils, but more recently, they
>>>>>>> have also developed methods for analyzing molecular phylogenies (Harvey et al. 1994; Pyron and
>>>>>>> Burbrink 2013). In these analyses, scientists use a MOLECULAR CLOCK (see Chapter 9) to date the nodes. THEY THEN TEST MODELS OF A AND V THAT PRODUCE PATTERNS MOST CLOSELY
>>>>>>> RESEMBLING THE ACTUAL PHYLOGENY."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The molecular "clock" itself is a theoretical construct based on the assumption of all life forms appearing by macroevolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's an observation made by Zuckerkandl and Pauling a very long time
>>>>>> ago,
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh? Please refer me to the "observations" upon which the molecular clock is based.
>>>>
>>>> Read this:
>>>>
>>>> http://lectures.molgen.mpg.de/phylogeny_ws05/papers/zuckerkandl_pauling.pdf
>>>
>>> That was an interesting article, but I was thinking more of how actual time frames can be attached
>>> to this "clock". Here they just point out that the genome would be the best source for building such a clock.
>>
>> It also refers to a number of bits of actual data, among which if I
>> recall is cytochrome c sequences.
>
> So what?

You asked for observations. Those are observations.

>>> How do you know that a given ancestral relationship indicates a given passage of time between
>>> the two? (I hope that was a clear enough question)
>>
>> It wasn't, but I'll try anyway. It's hard to know that, and for testing
>> the molecular clock we don't care. All we care about is that the number
>> of mutations separating a number of species from their mutual common
>> ancestor must be equal if there's a clock. The age of that ancestor
>> isn't relevant to the question.
>
> My intention in questioning said clock was to find out how it keeps time.
> And, do you claim to know that all extant species are an equal number of mutations removed from
> the first life form?
> And, there's only a clock if it can keep time.

This is a complicated question. There is in fact no singe molecular
clock. There are many of them, with different rates for different parts
of the genome and different taxa. Some of them are more nearly constant
than others, and none is exact. But as I've said, we can gauge their
accuracy by using phylogenetic trees. If none of the tips stick out from
the others, there's a good clock. We may or may not be able to decide
how fast it ticks.

>>> I assume your timelines would be based on the assumption of the relationships being the pure result
>>> of the Darwinian mechanism.
>>
>> Once again, "the Darwinian mechanism"?
>>
>>>>>> and a reasonable rule of thumb. Though actually, few people make
>>>>>> that assumption any more. Instead they use models of varying
>>>>>> evolutionary rates.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...which themselves are based on the assumption of macroevolution, and round and
>>>>> round it goes...
>>>>
>>>> No, the models are just models. They are tested against data, i.e. the
>>>> DNA sequences we observe in the present.
>>>
>>> So, how do you get models of "varying evolutionary rates"?
>>> How do you decide when and how the rates varied?
>>> If you can't rely on some estimate of constant mutation rates, what do you rely on to build your time scales?
>>
>> The main way to do this is by anchoring certain points on the
>> evolutionary tree to events of known age, usually but not always
>> fossils. Then we examine the fit of the data to various hypotheses of
>> varying rate and pick the one that's the best. This is a very
>> computation-intensive process. One program used for the purpose is
>> called BEAST, which you can probably look up.
>
> How do you know the ages of your chosen fossils?

We've been over that: stratigraphy and radiometric dates.

> What do you base your "various hypotheses of varying rate" on?

You just pick a whole bunch and try them on for size.

> How do you pick the one that's "BEST"?

This is a question that calls for many pages of explanation. To make it
really short, you pick the answer that makes the data you have the most
likely to be observed.

>>>>>> And the part you put in all caps doesn't mean what
>>>>>> you appear to think it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor is macroevolution (by which I assume you mean common descent) an
>>>>>> assumption. It's tested many times every year through phylogenetic analyses.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is, it's assumed many times every year to enable phylogenetic analyses to support the conclusion of macroevolution.
>>>>
>>>> Only to the degree that one assumes a question for the sake of argument
>>>> when testing it. Does it explain the data better than other assumptions?
>>>> Turns out it does.
>>>>
>>>> This is usually implicit rather than explicit, but see this:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
>>>
>>> See this:
>>> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html
>>> and this:
>>> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/douglas_theobalds_test_of_comm041071.html
>>
>> You really can't keep citing creationist web sites as if they're
>> scientific publications.
>
> You really can't let go of the illusion that only those who agree with you are scientists, can you?

Only those who do science are scientists. Evolution News & Views is not
a place to find science.

>>> After all the 'esoterica' is finished, Theobald doesn't even compare UCA to common design.
>>
>> It's hard to compare one model to another model that doesn't exist. What
>> are the expectations of common design, if any? But in fact Theobald
>> tested one model of common design: no relationship. I actually suggested
>> to him that he might test another model: what's known as a star
>> phylogeny. And he responded that he wasn't interested in testing
>> creationist models; his paper wasn't about creationism. I find that
>> perfectly reasonable. Of course any creationists could simply take his
>> methods and test these alternative models if they really wanted to. Any
>> takers?
>
> Again, Theobold's alternative models were all unguided, and of no use in distinguishing between
> UCA and common design, which was what you said it did.

You are conflating at least two ideas here: guided evolution and
separate creation. I don't think you have any clear idea what your
hypothesis might be or how it could be modeled. He tested one model of
what separate origins might look like. If you or any creationist can
come up with another, you are free to test that. But I don't think you
will, because your model would end up being something that would give
exactly the same data as common descent.

> Just another Darwinian cite-bluff.

I don't think you understand any of this.

>>>>>>> As usual, their "actual" phylgeny is the one that supports the belief in macroevolution. Conclusions
>>>>>>> are based on choosing the pattern out of many that most strongly confirms their assumptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This bears no resemblance to what actually happens,
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'm supposed to take your word for it? You're the fox with the job of guarding the henhouse.
>>>>> Sorry, but you have serious conflict of interest problems so your assertions about your own
>>>>> objectivity are invalid.
>>>>
>>>> Best I can do. You aren't equipped to understand a full explanation. The
>>>> chapter does it well enough.
>>>
>>> I repent of my charge of fabricating 'common ancestry' from full cloth. My objection only remains
>>> to UNIVERSAL common ancestry.
>>> As I've clarified, common ancestry to the created Kinds is not contested.
>>> So, kudos to you and your research into molecular phylogeny - to a point.
>>
>> What would that point be? You remain very vague. Whatever point you
>> pick, I can present evidence that common descent goes beyond that point.
>> Now my own work involves only birds and crocodiles, and I can attest
>> that each of those groups is a single "kind". I would have to cite the
>> work of others to show that birds and crocs both belong to the same
>> "kind", or that all amniotes do, or all vertebrates, and so on. What's
>> your sticking point?
>
> Okay, you might help me out here:
> At what taxonomic level are you creating if you create different kinds of birds?

That's a meaningless question. If pigs could fly, how high would they go?

> And if your work tells you that birds and crocodiles are the same kind, you need to find another
> line of work.

Note that I've already told you my work doesn't tell me that; it's the
work of other people that tells me that. But what's wrong with that
idea? How do you know it isn't true? (Sure, you explain below: because
if we admit that, your book is wrong. Not something a scientist would
accept.)

>>>>>> or to what's in the
>>>>>> linked chapter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, about that:
>>>>>
>>>>> "By estimating the ages of the earliest and youngest fossils of species, paleontologists can measure the lifetime of species. Barnosky and his colleagues
>>>>> find that the saber-toothed lions, rhinoceroses, and other Pleistocene mammals they uncover typically endure for a million years or more."
>>>>>
>>>>> On what are the 'estimates' of the ages of these fossils based?
>>>>
>>>> Stratigraphy anchored by radiometric dates.
>>>
>>> Yes, I assumed that would be the case.
>>> Now, on what assumptions are radiometric dates based?
>>
>> There are various different assumptions for different methods. But those
>> assumptions can all be tested. Do you in fact deny the validity of
>> radiometric dating?
>
> I question the methodology of radiometric dating. This is science, remember, not some religion
> which forbids the questioning of its core dogma.

What exactly about that methodology do you question? It appears you know
little or nothing about the subject. I suggest it isn't the methodology
you question, but the result, which once again contradicts your book (or
your reading of that book, which isn't quite the same thing.)

> And I use the term "Darwinian" in the same sense that Richard Dawkins has been using it for four
> decades.

What sense is that?

> Trying to weasel out of a discussion by declaring ignorance of the terms is just another Darwinian
> rhetorical deflection.
>
> And again, universal common descent is an assumption that has not been confirmed, except in the minds of the Darwinian establishment.
> You can demonstrate universal commonalities among all life, but you can't put a time to it, or a mode, by your methods.

You don't have to put either a time or mode to it in order to show
universal common descent.

> Anyway, my 2 main points are:
>
> 1. I could pinpoint the maximum taxonomic levels of the created Kinds in birds: Orders. Jehovah
> could have created birds at as high a level as order (but I think no higher than Family), because He said that he created "Kinds" of birds, or, He created each bird (Class Aves) "according to its kind".
> So, that answers your question.

I suppose it does. It just shows that we have no basis for discussion,
because I think we should look at the world itself when trying to
understand it, while you think that your interpretation of a book is a
better guide, and that the world itself is not particularly relevant. I
can bring up all the evidence I like, and you will just tell me that it
contradicts your book.

> 2. I would very much like to look into the methodology of dating fossils. If I have any questions, I'll
> let you know.

You probably shouldn't use creationist web sites as your main or sole
course of information. Would you like to know a good source?

[Steady Eddie]

And around and around it goes.

Sure.

[The Masked Lapavenger]

So now looking for the model that best fits the data is circular reasoning?

[Steady Eddie]

Yes, when you are only looking in one place.

[Steady Eddie]

The most basic question is: how would you know what the "initial" concentrations of the isotopes
were in any particular case?

[John Harshman]

Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies, by G. Brent Dalrymple. Probably at a
library near you.

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Earth-Skies-Cosmic-Surroundings/dp/0804749337

[John Harshman]

I just told you that the method looks in "a whole bunch" of places.
There is no circular reasoning. I simply described, very briefly, what
is known as maximum likelihood estimation. Your arrogance is unfounded.

[John Harshman]

There are many ways. Some require the assumption that no decay products
were present initially and that there was no additional gain or loss.
The isochron method, however, requires no such assumptions. And these
assumptions are generally borne out anyway by comparisons of dates
derived by different methods.

Read Dalrymple.

[The Masked Lapavenger]

Presumably, Eddie finds the fact that the bunch of mutation rates you are testing does not include "God dun it" an intolerable omission. God, as we all know, is a mutation rate.

[John Harshman]

Eddie is certainly free to propose a model for testing. So far, not.

[Steady Eddie]

Oh, I'm far from proposing models-I have just begun to investigate it!

How about we try something fun:
John, can you think of one good, well-documented example of a fossil that has been given an
absolute date?

[John Harshman]

Odd that no other creationist has come up with a model, isn't it? Casey
doesn't mention one, though I believe I can construct a model that fits
what he claims: it's a simple star phylogeny, in which all orthologous
sequences were originally created identical and then diverged randomly
over time.

> How about we try something fun:
> John, can you think of one good, well-documented example of a fossil that has been given an
> absolute date?

Of course. I can think of hundreds. Of course all dates come with error
bars, but the range is generally small. Might as well start with
Archaeopteryx. It's from the Solnhofen limestone, which is Tithonian in
age, between 150.8 and 145.5ma. It's correlated with rocks of similar
age based on ammonite index fossils and magnetic polarity chronozones.
And this is tied to absolute ages with radiometric dates from other areas.

[Steady Eddie]

What exactly do you mean by a "model"?

> > How about we try something fun:
> > John, can you think of one good, well-documented example of a fossil that has been given an
> > absolute date?
>
> Of course. I can think of hundreds. Of course all dates come with error
> bars, but the range is generally small. Might as well start with
> Archaeopteryx. It's from the Solnhofen limestone, which is Tithonian in
> age, between 150.8 and 145.5ma. It's correlated with rocks of similar
> age based on ammonite index fossils and magnetic polarity chronozones.
> And this is tied to absolute ages with radiometric dates from other areas.

Which specimen?

[Earle Jones27]

*
Eddie: Greetings!

For a thorough look at radiometric dating methodologies, their limits
and applications, try Brent Dalrymple's book, "The Age of the Earth."
Or his more recent, "Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and
its Cosmic Surroundings."

Both are very readable.

earle
*

[Steady Eddie]

Thanks Earle - that is the same man that John recommended I read. Looking into it...

[John Harshman]

A mathematical description of the topology of a tree, as well as
probabilities for observing particular transition types along each
branch. In this case the topology is a star, with each branch radiating
independently from a center. The most likely model of transition
probabiities would be some kind of stochastic one, since the original
sequence would be assumed to be exactly what the creator wanted, and
departures from it either neutral or slightly deleterious. But feel free
to suggest a different model.

>>> How about we try something fun:
>>> John, can you think of one good, well-documented example of a fossil that has been given an
>>> absolute date?
>>
>> Of course. I can think of hundreds. Of course all dates come with error
>> bars, but the range is generally small. Might as well start with
>> Archaeopteryx. It's from the Solnhofen limestone, which is Tithonian in
>> age, between 150.8 and 145.5ma. It's correlated with rocks of similar
>> age based on ammonite index fossils and magnetic polarity chronozones.
>> And this is tied to absolute ages with radiometric dates from other areas.
>
> Which specimen?
>

All the specimens are found in the Solnhofen and thus all fall within
that age range. But if you like, let's pick the London specimen.

[Bill]

Just an observation: you refer to evidence without presenting it. You say
that this or that has been tested without showing what the tests are and how
they validate the hypothesis being tested. All you show are indirect
references to indirect evidence.

Bill

[John Harshman]

Just an observation: you don't know what you're talking about. I've
linked to two papers full of evidence. That's where the information
you're looking for is. Why should I rewrite those papers for your
benefit? You should be able to look them up. Of course you won't.

[Bill]

Since the post is authored by you I assumed you had your evidence handy
without pointing to google. A summary will do, no need for an encyclopedic
dissertation.

Bill

[Steady Eddie]

+1
It may be that this is the only level at which Darwinists are willing to reveal their methods in
radiometric dating.

[Steady Eddie]

You said Theobold told you that a star phylogeny is some sort of Creationist claptrap, didn't you?

[John Harshman]

My evidence of the observations on which the molecular clock is based
would be the cytochrome c sequences referenced by Zuckerkandl and
Pauling. My evidence that universal common descent is not merely an
assumption is the much better likelihood values for common descent
models vs. no common descent models determined by Theobald. What else
are you asking for?

[John Harshman]

That seems like an odd claim to make, given that I have provided you so
far with three radiometric dating papers and a reference to a book that
explains it all very well. Nor does radiometric dating have anything to
do with "Darwinists".

[John Harshman]

No. I said nothing of the sort. I said he wasn't interested in testing
specifically creationist models, which a star phylogeny would be.

[erik simpson]

You learn about as much as the effort you put in. If you're not willing
to find out what the methods are, how they are used and what the uncertainties
are, why should anybody waste time arguing with you.

[Vincent Maycock]

We'll be talking about Bill's theism in a non-judgmental way so he
won't feel like people are out to discredit him.

So if Bill has theist roots (and is presumably still a theist), how
does it show up in his posts?

Well, here we find him siding with someone who apparently has issues
with radiometric dating, a stance that's been a staple of creationist
literature for decades.

> All you show are indirect
>references to indirect evidence.

And here we find him apparently recycling the creationist mantra of
"Were *you* there?"

So it's just these kind of off-hand remarks by Bill that help us place
him in the correct socio-literary background.

I should add that his main posts, the ones about observers creating
reality and life being unique in the universe don't bear much in the
way of traces of theism (a belief system which is okay for him to
believe in); they're just silly, inane, and often-rebutted all on
their own.

One more thing: I would challenge Bill to produce the "religious
implications" of his main posting projects. I've never been able to
see why he thinks they have any sort of religious implications,
whether they're or good ones or bad ones.

[Steady Eddie]

Don't lets fool ourselves; Darwinists have had full intellectual "ownership" of the radiometric
dating "industry" since its inception.

And your papers are written for a specialist only, so they have to be reviewed by a trusted expert.

And I looked for Dalrymple's book at the library, but all I found was this:
"Nature's Clocks" by Doug MacDougall, ucpress, 2008.

Does this seem like a reliable, Darwinian source to you?

[John Harshman]

You know nothing about this. It's just because you're a young-earth
creationist that you classify everyone who thinks the earth is old as a
"Darwinist".

> And your papers are written for a specialist only, so they have to be reviewed by a trusted expert.

Meaning what? That the trusted experts are lying?

> And I looked for Dalrymple's book at the library, but all I found was this:
> "Nature's Clocks" by Doug MacDougall, ucpress, 2008.
>
> Does this seem like a reliable, Darwinian source to you?

I refuse to answer such an insulting question. But at least it's
published by a reputable scientific publisher, assuming "U.C." is either
University of California or University of Chicago.

[Steady Eddie]

I'm not a young-earth creationist. The Bible gives no age for the earth.

It's LIFE that I'm concerned with. Specifically the ages of the fossils. It just so happens that these
ages are co-mingled and the only way they can be dealt with separately is first to deal with the
age of the earth.

> > And your papers are written for a specialist only, so they have to be reviewed by a trusted expert.
>
> Meaning what? That the trusted experts are lying?

What trusted experts?

>
> > And I looked for Dalrymple's book at the library, but all I found was this:
> > "Nature's Clocks" by Doug MacDougall, ucpress, 2008.
> >
> > Does this seem like a reliable, Darwinian source to you?
>
> I refuse to answer such an insulting question. But at least it's
> published by a reputable scientific publisher, assuming "U.C." is either
> University of California or University of Chicago.

From the first chapter of the book, it appears that the "enlightenment" was the catalyst for the
systematic ignoring of the Bible account of the history of the earth, resulting in the gradualist
method of inquiry.
Don't get me wrong; the gradualist model is correct, I'm sure, for most of the earth's history. But
if you ignore the Bible's accounts of the creation of earth, initially covered in water
and clouds, then surrounded by an immense water canopy which fell as the Flood, you won't get the right results, no matter how fancy your technology is.

[John Harshman]

I don't know what that meant. If you aren't a young-earth creationist,
why are you rejecting radiometric dates? Perhaps you're a young-life
creationist?

>>> And your papers are written for a specialist only, so they have to be reviewed by a trusted expert.
>>
>> Meaning what? That the trusted experts are lying?
>
> What trusted experts?

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the people who reviewed the
papers before pubication. Do you mean that they have to be reviewed by
creationists?

>>> And I looked for Dalrymple's book at the library, but all I found was this:
>>> "Nature's Clocks" by Doug MacDougall, ucpress, 2008.
>>>
>>> Does this seem like a reliable, Darwinian source to you?
>>
>> I refuse to answer such an insulting question. But at least it's
>> published by a reputable scientific publisher, assuming "U.C." is either
>> University of California or University of Chicago.
>
> From the first chapter of the book, it appears that the "enlightenment" was the catalyst for the
> systematic ignoring of the Bible account of the history of the earth, resulting in the gradualist
> method of inquiry.
> Don't get me wrong; the gradualist model is correct, I'm sure, for most of the earth's history. But
> if you ignore the Bible's accounts of the creation of earth, initially covered in water
> and clouds, then surrounded by an immense water canopy which fell as the Flood, you won't get the right results, no matter how fancy your technology is.

The bible mentions no immense water canopy that fell as as the Flood,
and such a canopy is in fact physically impossible. What the bible
mentions is a universe filled with water except for a space between the
land and the roof above it. And the bible is irrelevant to science.

Further, you can't explain how any of this would affect a radiometric date.

[Steady Eddie]

I'm not rejecting anything here, I'm merely investigating the methods by which Darwinists arrive at
dates for the fossils, which is entirely dependent on their estimation of the age of rocks, i.e. the
earth.

Incidentally, as you should know by now, I believe the Genesis creation account, which gives no
time frame for the age of the earth, only relative time frames for the creation of plants and animals,
and gives an absolute time frame only for the creation of man.

So, I'm a "young-man" supporter.

> >>> And your papers are written for a specialist only, so they have to be reviewed by a trusted expert.
> >>
> >> Meaning what? That the trusted experts are lying?
> >
> > What trusted experts?
>
> Sorry, I thought you were referring to the people who reviewed the
> papers before pubication. Do you mean that they have to be reviewed by
> creationists?

Not necessarily.
Just by scientists or trained academics that don't have a vested interest in maintaining the Darwinian paradigm. It just so happens that most or all of them I have found are Creationists
(young-earth supporters by definition).
I don't support or deny their claim of a young earth; I just read their critiques of the current dating
methods, and take what makes sense and leave the rest.
At any rate, they can be relied on to give a cogent criticism of the consensus view.

> >>> And I looked for Dalrymple's book at the library, but all I found was this:
> >>> "Nature's Clocks" by Doug MacDougall, ucpress, 2008.
> >>>
> >>> Does this seem like a reliable, Darwinian source to you?
> >>
> >> I refuse to answer such an insulting question. But at least it's
> >> published by a reputable scientific publisher, assuming "U.C." is either
> >> University of California or University of Chicago.
> >
> > From the first chapter of the book, it appears that the "enlightenment" was the catalyst for the
> > systematic ignoring of the Bible account of the history of the earth, resulting in the gradualist
> > method of inquiry.
> > Don't get me wrong; the gradualist model is correct, I'm sure, for most of the earth's history. But
> > if you ignore the Bible's accounts of the creation of earth, initially covered in water
> > and clouds, then surrounded by an immense water canopy which fell as the Flood, you won't get the right results, no matter how fancy your technology is.
>
> The bible mentions no immense water canopy that fell as as the Flood,
> and such a canopy is in fact physically impossible. What the bible
> mentions is a universe filled with water except for a space between the
> land and the roof above it. And the bible is irrelevant to science.
>
> Further, you can't explain how any of this would affect a radiometric date.

You have your interpretation of the Genesis account; I have mine.
At this point I'm just trying to understand what assumptions the consensus radiometric time scale
are based on.
And, by the way, are any of the isotopes used for radiometric dating water soluble, by chance?

[John Harshman]

Agreed. Of course my interpretation fits the text, while yours doesn't.

> At this point I'm just trying to understand what assumptions the consensus radiometric time scale
> are based on.
> And, by the way, are any of the isotopes used for radiometric dating water soluble, by chance?

Sure. Of course, being locked inside a crystal inside a big igneous rock
prevents water from reaching them. And if you're trying to make a case
for massive changes in content, let me remind you that in those
circumstances there will not be a linear isochron.

[erik simpson]

You still haven't looked up what 'isotope' means.

[John Harshman]

Why do you say that? Because he used "isotope" rather than "element"?
Because he implies that some isotopes of a given element might be water
soluble and others not?

[Steady Eddie]

Let me suggest that if changes in content (whether massive or not) were fairly uniform throughout
the sample, you will still get a linear isochron, with a false date.

[erik simpson]

My reason for objection was the same as if he'd used the term 'atom'. The
soluability of minerals is different. I suppose it's a quibble, and some of
the radioactive decay products are noble gases, and it's legitamate to
question how well thy're retained. As you've pointed out, isochrons don't
appear if chemical or physical alterations have taken place.

[John Harshman]

You can suggest that, but it would be wrong. You would actually need
those changes in content to be very systematically non-uniform.

[Steady Eddie]

Are you quite sure about that?
Even if the alterations took place consistently across all of your samples?

[Steady Eddie]

Ok, I'll bite: Why?

[John Harshman]

Let's try. What particular uniform changes would you like to see?

[Steady Eddie]

You're quite smugly certain of that, are you?

Here's an interesting account of Lyell's methods of convincing others of gradualism:

"Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs ever published by an advocate ... Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes; rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.
~ Gould, Prof. Stephen Jay, Prof. of Geol. at Harvard; Natural History, Feb. 1975, pp. 16-17"

[John Harshman]

Yes indeed. Note that you make no attempt at explaining. It would be
hard to be any smugger than I am now.

> Here's an interesting account of Lyell's methods of convincing others of gradualism:
>
> "Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the
> most brilliant briefs ever published by an advocate ... Lyell relied
> upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as
> the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. In
> fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than
> Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes; rocks
> are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To
> circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination
> upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely
> imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably
> infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed
> empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists. ~
> Gould, Prof. Stephen Jay, Prof. of Geol. at Harvard; Natural History,
> Feb. 1975, pp. 16-17"

Yes, that's interesting, but it doesn't seem relevant to radiometric dating.

[Steady Eddie]

The point is that the basis for the old age "results" that scientists get today, i.e. uniformitarianism,
what from the outset a sly trick by a lawyer who wanted to bury the Bible's catastrophism out of
sight of science and, by extension, society.

[Steady Eddie]

And your problem is that you can't explain how events recorded in the Bible would affect a
radiometric date, either.

[John Harshman]

Which events are you talking about? How would any of them affect a
radiometric date? Anyway, since none of those events actually happened,
we have no problem, even hypothetically.

[John Harshman]

Quote-mining Gould is certainly a cottage industry among creationists.
Of course you understand that it isn't biblical catastrophism Gould was
talking about: no worldwide flood but a series of local and worldwide
events of many sorts. You have no clue.

And yes, this has nothing to do with radiometric dating, whose only
uniformitarian assumption is about the rates of nuclear decay. And we
can easily test that assumption.

[Steady Eddie]

There's the flood,
there's the fact that the primordial earth was covered in water
and there's the fact that the earth was surrounded by a layer of water until a few millennia ago.

[John Harshman]

Which never happened, but if it did, how would it affect radiometric dates?

> there's the fact that the primordial earth was covered in water

It's possible that this is mostly true, prior to about 4 billion years
ago. How would that affect radiometric dates?

> and there's the fact that the earth was surrounded by a layer of water until a few millennia ago.
>

This is not only untrue but physically impossible. But if it were
possible and true, how would it affect radiometric dates?

[Earle Jones27]

*
Eddie: Get another library, you twit!

earle
*

[Nick Roberts]

In message <rsSdnai9gMv3NJ3L...@giganews.com>

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> On 9/21/15, 5:53 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> > On Sunday, 20 September 2015 10:57:14 UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:

[Snip for focus]

> > > Which events are you talking about? How would any of them affect
> > > a radiometric date? Anyway, since none of those events actually
> > > happened, we have no problem, even hypothetically.
> >
> > There's the flood,
>
> Which never happened, but if it did, how would it affect radiometric
> dates?
>
> > there's the fact that the primordial earth was covered in water
>
> It's possible that this is mostly true, prior to about 4 billion
> years ago. How would that affect radiometric dates?
>
> > and there's the fact that the earth was surrounded by a layer of
> > water until a few millennia ago.
> >
> This is not only untrue but physically impossible. But if it were
> possible and true, how would it affect radiometric dates?

If Steadly's god did arrange the the earth to be "surrounded by a layer
of water until a few millenia ago", with all tearing up of historical
evidence and physical laws that would be implied, then pissing around
with radioactive decay rates is so trivial as to be hardly worth
mentioning.

All Steadly has to do is to admit that he rejects all of modern
science, and that everything was caused by a miracle, and he's off the
hook. I find it quite hard to understand why creationists don't just do
that.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[John Harshman]

Because they think having the support of science gives them prestige and
respectability. It's a cargo cult, in other words.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:A_KdnVG5d_P54JzL...@giganews.com:

That's not consistent with creationists' obvious contempt for science,
is it? It seems to me that creationists think of science as a product
that Secular Humanists manufacture and sell to the unwary. New, Improved
Creation Science is meant to be a competing brand.
--
S.O.P.

[jillery]

Creationists' contempt of science is about as consistent as their
application of plain and/or literal understanding of the Bible. IOW
if it fits their preconceived notions, it's true. If it doesn't, it's
false. I have to admit, it's much easier to keep track of things that
way.

[John Harshman]

No, they love science, or at least the idea of science, but mostly they
envy the authority and credibility science has. They have no idea how it
works, but they want that authority. So they make their own imitation
science in hopes of attracting some authority cargo.

[nmann...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 7:03:23 PM UTC-4, Steady Eddie wrote:

> Correction: the assumed mechanism behind universal macroevolution can and has been tested.
> The results are negative.
> http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4
> http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

Why do you think new enzyme functions are a necessity for macroevolution?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 08:45:19 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nmann...@gmail.com:

Why do you think he's capable of thought?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov