info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
For Navalian: disagreements in science
95 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Norman
Jul 27, 2012, 5:38:02 PM7/27/12
to
If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
"Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-left-dna-in-africa-scientists-report.html?_r=1&hpw
or
http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
and the timing of the move out of Africa. Arguments and disputes over
different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. If there are
two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
be taught; controversy within science.
distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
"Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-left-dna-in-africa-scientists-report.html?_r=1&hpw
or
http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
and the timing of the move out of Africa. Arguments and disputes over
different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. If there are
two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
be taught; controversy within science.
UC
Jul 27, 2012, 5:57:43 PM7/27/12
to
On Jul 27, 5:38�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
> distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
> "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
> Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-lef...
> If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
> distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
> "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
> Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>
> or
> � �http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>
> Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
> molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
> evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
> and the timing of the move out of Africa. �Arguments and disputes over
> different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
> Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. �If there are
> two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
> to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>
> When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
> and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
> be taught; controversy within science.
I am a 'bone man'. The 'mutation clock' is not necessarily a dating
> � �http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>
> Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
> molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
> evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
> and the timing of the move out of Africa. �Arguments and disputes over
> different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
> Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. �If there are
> two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
> to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>
> When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
> and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
> be taught; controversy within science.
mechanism.
Robert Camp
Jul 27, 2012, 6:52:29 PM7/27/12
to
On Jul 27, 2:38�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
> distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
> "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
> Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-lef...
> If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
> distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
> "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
> Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>
> or
> � �http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>
> Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
> molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
> evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
> and the timing of the move out of Africa. �Arguments and disputes over
> different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
> Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. �If there are
> two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
> to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>
> When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
> and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
> be taught; controversy within science.
I think you are addressing the fulcrum upon which much of Nivalian's
> � �http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>
> Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
> molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
> evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
> and the timing of the move out of Africa. �Arguments and disputes over
> different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
> Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. �If there are
> two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
> to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>
> When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
> and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
> be taught; controversy within science.
position hangs (and doing so with the appropriate tone, thanks...it's
a lesson I could take to heart more often). I'm talking about his
unfortunate confusion regarding what constitutes a "worldview." He has
taken an epistemology that derives its "truths" from overarching
absolutes, some of which his conviction considers unfalsifiable, and
conflated that with one that builds upon data and observation from the
bottom up. These are not comparable enterprises.
When paleontologists or evolutionary biologists or geneticists base
their results upon previously vetted work they are not simply bringing
some arbitrary "worldview" to bear on an issue, they are building upon
previous research the same way a bricklayer builds upon courses
already laid down: if done correctly, the wall stands, regardless of
worldview.
Of course the closer we get to the edges of what we know the issues
are less settled. But as your post notes, in those cases there is
disagreement and genuine controversy, and I would submit this is
exactly what we would expect if we were *not* looking at a methodology
driven by some particular worldview.
I think if Nivalian is willing to consider these things objectively he
will realize this is not simply an issue of competing, yet equivalent,
interpretations, but rather of incommensurable approaches to
knowledge. I just hope his worldview can accommodate that kind of
impartiality.
RLC
Nashton
Jul 27, 2012, 7:05:28 PM7/27/12
to
The discussion has more metaphysical ramifications than you can point a
stick at.
Questions of existence cannot be resolved by some method that we have to
experiment with the elements of the material world.
Mujin
Jul 27, 2012, 9:47:01 PM7/27/12
to
scientific method. In addition to those questions which *can* be
approached from the scientific perspective there are many questions
which can only be approached via a philosophical or spiritual road.
The crux of the problem is in learning which questions can be answered
by travelling which road, *and* in remembering that unlike Robert Frost
we need not choose one and be left wondering what the other road would
have led to.
And this is what lies at the heart of most creationists' rejection of
evolution. They have for various reasons chosen to approach the
question "WHY are we here" from the direction of Christian spirituality,
but they have failed to distinguish the question WHY from the question
HOW did we get here, which cannot realistically be approached from the
direction of spirituality.
The result is that they see in every scientific question raised on the
matter as a challenge to their answer to the question WHY, and since
they haven't clearly delineated between the two domains in their minds
they are then forced to twist and distort both their theology and their
perception of reality into a shape that will allow their misconceptions
to survive.
Learning more about how scientific endeavours really work can only help
us find ways to recognise which of the deep questions of existence can
be approached scientifically and which approached spiritually - leading
to more sophisticated approaches to these problems and to life in general.
--
[NOTE: The above is solely the work of the author and
does not represent the official position of Bureau B]
Mujin
煩 惱 無 盡 誓 願 斷 bon no mu jin sei gan dan
法 門 無 量 誓 願 學 ho mon mu ryo sei gan gaku
Bob Casanova
Jul 28, 2012, 2:27:45 PM7/28/12
to
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:57:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
Too bad that you're not competent to judge. Neither am I,
but I know it.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
but I know it.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
Jul 28, 2012, 2:35:04 PM7/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:47:01 +0900, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mujin <bodwy...@gmail.com>:
Excellent analysis (IMHO), and one I hadn't considered. And
it seems to be supported by what I've read here and
elsewhere. Thanks!
I suspect you'd find that a large percentage of the
"objectors" base their objections in large part on their
insistence on a literal reading of the Bible, where most
mainstream religious authorities and Bible scholars accept
that the Bible is mainly allegory. The literalists, of
course, dispute this.
>Learning more about how scientific endeavours really work can only help
>us find ways to recognise which of the deep questions of existence can
>be approached scientifically and which approached spiritually - leading
>to more sophisticated approaches to these problems and to life in general.
--
in talk.origins, posted by Mujin <bodwy...@gmail.com>:
it seems to be supported by what I've read here and
elsewhere. Thanks!
I suspect you'd find that a large percentage of the
"objectors" base their objections in large part on their
insistence on a literal reading of the Bible, where most
mainstream religious authorities and Bible scholars accept
that the Bible is mainly allegory. The literalists, of
course, dispute this.
>Learning more about how scientific endeavours really work can only help
>us find ways to recognise which of the deep questions of existence can
>be approached scientifically and which approached spiritually - leading
>to more sophisticated approaches to these problems and to life in general.
--
Mujin
Jul 28, 2012, 5:58:37 PM7/28/12
to
but it does seem to explain the steadfast refusal of some creationists
to even read what is given to them with any degree of comprehension.
Their need to fit things to their misconceptions means they can't afford
to do anything but skim for "sound bites" that they can manipulate.
But of course there's a corollary: people who don't recognise that there
are questions that a scientific approach can't handle will do the same
thing with philosophy and religion.
>
> I suspect you'd find that a large percentage of the
> "objectors" base their objections in large part on their
> insistence on a literal reading of the Bible, where most
> mainstream religious authorities and Bible scholars accept
> that the Bible is mainly allegory. The literalists, of
> course, dispute this.
>
>> Learning more about how scientific endeavours really work can only help
>> us find ways to recognise which of the deep questions of existence can
>> be approached scientifically and which approached spiritually - leading
>> to more sophisticated approaches to these problems and to life in general.
--
Bob Casanova
Jul 29, 2012, 2:10:17 PM7/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:58:37 +0900, the following appeared
No argument; they show up here occasionally, usually
trumpeting that "science has disproven the existence of
deities" or something similar. And when it's pointed out
that science can't even address anything which it can't
examine, and that although science can sometimes refute
specific claims about specific deities, that hardly
"disproves the existence of deities", they act remarkably
like religious fundies: selective deafness, arguments from
ignorance and/or incredulity, and the whole panoply of
idiocies. I usually call them "Scientism True Believers";
the last one hasn't been back for a while.
>> I suspect you'd find that a large percentage of the
>> "objectors" base their objections in large part on their
>> insistence on a literal reading of the Bible, where most
>> mainstream religious authorities and Bible scholars accept
>> that the Bible is mainly allegory. The literalists, of
>> course, dispute this.
>>
>>> Learning more about how scientific endeavours really work can only help
>>> us find ways to recognise which of the deep questions of existence can
>>> be approached scientifically and which approached spiritually - leading
>>> to more sophisticated approaches to these problems and to life in general.
--
trumpeting that "science has disproven the existence of
deities" or something similar. And when it's pointed out
that science can't even address anything which it can't
examine, and that although science can sometimes refute
specific claims about specific deities, that hardly
"disproves the existence of deities", they act remarkably
like religious fundies: selective deafness, arguments from
ignorance and/or incredulity, and the whole panoply of
idiocies. I usually call them "Scientism True Believers";
the last one hasn't been back for a while.
>> I suspect you'd find that a large percentage of the
>> "objectors" base their objections in large part on their
>> insistence on a literal reading of the Bible, where most
>> mainstream religious authorities and Bible scholars accept
>> that the Bible is mainly allegory. The literalists, of
>> course, dispute this.
>>
>>> Learning more about how scientific endeavours really work can only help
>>> us find ways to recognise which of the deep questions of existence can
>>> be approached scientifically and which approached spiritually - leading
>>> to more sophisticated approaches to these problems and to life in general.
--
jillery
Jul 29, 2012, 6:07:43 PM7/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:10:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
Boy, does that sound familiar.
wrote:
Bob Casanova
Jul 30, 2012, 2:05:56 PM7/30/12
to
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:07:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
I thought it might; he was a regular for quite a while. IIRC
it was when multiple posters who actually "do science" for a
living pointed out to him the errors in his assertions that
he disappeared. If only his counterparts from the other end
of the spectrum would do the same...
>>>> I suspect you'd find that a large percentage of the
>>>> "objectors" base their objections in large part on their
>>>> insistence on a literal reading of the Bible, where most
>>>> mainstream religious authorities and Bible scholars accept
>>>> that the Bible is mainly allegory. The literalists, of
>>>> course, dispute this.
>>>>
>>>>> Learning more about how scientific endeavours really work can only help
>>>>> us find ways to recognise which of the deep questions of existence can
>>>>> be approached scientifically and which approached spiritually - leading
>>>>> to more sophisticated approaches to these problems and to life in general.
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
it was when multiple posters who actually "do science" for a
living pointed out to him the errors in his assertions that
he disappeared. If only his counterparts from the other end
of the spectrum would do the same...
>>>> I suspect you'd find that a large percentage of the
>>>> "objectors" base their objections in large part on their
>>>> insistence on a literal reading of the Bible, where most
>>>> mainstream religious authorities and Bible scholars accept
>>>> that the Bible is mainly allegory. The literalists, of
>>>> course, dispute this.
>>>>
>>>>> Learning more about how scientific endeavours really work can only help
>>>>> us find ways to recognise which of the deep questions of existence can
>>>>> be approached scientifically and which approached spiritually - leading
>>>>> to more sophisticated approaches to these problems and to life in general.
jillery
Jul 30, 2012, 3:44:34 PM7/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:05:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
Actually I am thinking of a curent topic, so we are likely not
thinking of the same person.
thinking of the same person.
Bob Casanova
Jul 31, 2012, 3:08:12 PM7/31/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:44:34 -0400, the following appeared
Likely not, unless he's returned under a different "nom de
post". What's the subject line in the topic you referenced?
>>>>>> I suspect you'd find that a large percentage of the
>>>>>> "objectors" base their objections in large part on their
>>>>>> insistence on a literal reading of the Bible, where most
>>>>>> mainstream religious authorities and Bible scholars accept
>>>>>> that the Bible is mainly allegory. The literalists, of
>>>>>> course, dispute this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Learning more about how scientific endeavours really work can only help
>>>>>>> us find ways to recognise which of the deep questions of existence can
>>>>>>> be approached scientifically and which approached spiritually - leading
>>>>>>> to more sophisticated approaches to these problems and to life in general.
post". What's the subject line in the topic you referenced?
>>>>>> I suspect you'd find that a large percentage of the
>>>>>> "objectors" base their objections in large part on their
>>>>>> insistence on a literal reading of the Bible, where most
>>>>>> mainstream religious authorities and Bible scholars accept
>>>>>> that the Bible is mainly allegory. The literalists, of
>>>>>> course, dispute this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Learning more about how scientific endeavours really work can only help
>>>>>>> us find ways to recognise which of the deep questions of existence can
>>>>>>> be approached scientifically and which approached spiritually - leading
>>>>>>> to more sophisticated approaches to these problems and to life in general.
Nivalian
Aug 2, 2012, 8:33:31 PM8/2/12
to
Boikat
Aug 2, 2012, 8:55:30 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 7:33�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
> > If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
>
> > distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
>
> > "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
>
> > Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-lef...
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
> > If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
>
> > distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
>
> > "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
>
> > Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>
>
> > or
>
> > � �http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>
> > Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
>
> > molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
>
> > evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
>
> > and the timing of the move out of Africa. �Arguments and disputes over
>
> > different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
>
> > Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. �If there are
>
> > two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
>
> > to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>
> > When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
>
> > and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
>
> > be taught; controversy within science.
>
> The problem is they "assume" evolution to be true.
It's an assumption based upon the evidence. Evidence you apparently
> > or
>
> > � �http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>
> > Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
>
> > molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
>
> > evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
>
> > and the timing of the move out of Africa. �Arguments and disputes over
>
> > different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
>
> > Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. �If there are
>
> > two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
>
> > to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>
> > When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
>
> > and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
>
> > be taught; controversy within science.
>
> The problem is they "assume" evolution to be true.
have decided to ignore. And don't bother giving me the old "What
evidence?" BS. It's easy enough to find on the web if you have a
brain.
>�The problem goes away when you don't.
Ignorance is bliss.
Boikat
Nivalian
Aug 2, 2012, 9:13:45 PM8/2/12
to
Let me know if you are able to access this link:
http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Ortholog?g=ENSG00000177575;r=12:7623409-7656489
I'm not sure if it takes you to a home page or not but if you read Gene CD163 at the top of the page let me know. We'll continue the mapping of the genome using ensemble.com This is real live data.
Boikat
Aug 2, 2012, 9:55:12 PM8/2/12
to
>
> I'm not sure if it takes you to a home page or not but if you read Gene CD163 at the top of the page let me know. We'll continue the mapping of the genome using ensemble.com This is real live data.-
To what end and what purpose? Do you imagine there is something there
which refutes evolution? Is there something thee that supports
YECism? Please be specific, since I am not a geneticist.
Boikat
Nivalian
Aug 2, 2012, 9:52:04 PM8/2/12
to
On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
If you want to see actually data in genetics, open this genome browser:
http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Ortholog?g=ENSG00000177575;r=12:7623409-7656489
If evolution is true, you should get similiar phylogenetic trees comparing orthologues of a particular gene.
The data is clear that evolution is falsified and has been for a long long time.
Boikat
Aug 2, 2012, 10:08:27 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 8:52 pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
> > If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
>
> > distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
>
> > "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
>
> > Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-lef...
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
> > If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
>
> > distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
>
> > "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
>
> > Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>
>
> > or
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>
> > Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
>
> > molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
>
> > evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
>
> > and the timing of the move out of Africa. Arguments and disputes over
>
> > different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
>
> > Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. If there are
>
> > two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
>
> > to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>
> > When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
>
> > and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
>
> > be taught; controversy within science.
>
> Contradicting evidence between paleoanthropology and genetics just means there theory is not correct. If genetics is right, then the fossil record is wrong. If genetics (attempting to prove common descent) is also wrong, then evolution is history.
>
> If you want to see actually data in genetics, open this genome browser:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Ortholog?g=ENSG00000...
> > or
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>
> > Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
>
> > molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
>
> > evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
>
> > and the timing of the move out of Africa. Arguments and disputes over
>
> > different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
>
> > Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. If there are
>
> > two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
>
> > to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>
> > When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
>
> > and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
>
> > be taught; controversy within science.
>
> Contradicting evidence between paleoanthropology and genetics just means there theory is not correct. If genetics is right, then the fossil record is wrong. If genetics (attempting to prove common descent) is also wrong, then evolution is history.
>
>
> If evolution is true, you should get similiar phylogenetic trees comparing orthologues of a particular gene.
>
> The data is clear that evolution is falsified and has been for a long long time.
Could you explain exactly where the contradiction is?
> If evolution is true, you should get similiar phylogenetic trees comparing orthologues of a particular gene.
>
> The data is clear that evolution is falsified and has been for a long long time.
Boikat
Nivalian
Aug 2, 2012, 10:12:58 PM8/2/12
to
>
> > I'm not sure if it takes you to a home page or not but if you read Gene CD163 at the top of the page let me know. �We'll continue the mapping of the genome using ensemble.com �This is real live data.-
>
>
>
> To what end and what purpose? Do you imagine there is something there
>
> which refutes evolution? Is there something thee that supports
>
> YECism? Please be specific, since I am not a geneticist.
>
>
> you
> > I'm not sure if it takes you to a home page or not but if you read Gene CD163 at the top of the page let me know. �We'll continue the mapping of the genome using ensemble.com �This is real live data.-
>
>
>
> To what end and what purpose? Do you imagine there is something there
>
> which refutes evolution? Is there something thee that supports
>
> YECism? Please be specific, since I am not a geneticist.
>
>
> Boikat
You don't need to be a geneticist.
If you are on the Gene CD163 page, scroll down until you see the heading "Orthologues" and the Summary of orthologues of this gene.
Click "show details" in the species set for Primates.
Scroll down and you'll see a list of species in a order that are closer to humans. Let me know once you are there.
Harry K
Aug 2, 2012, 10:45:21 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 5:33�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
> > If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
>
> > distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
>
> > "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
>
> > Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-lef...
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
> > If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
>
> > distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
>
> > "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
>
> > Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>
>
> > or
>
> > � �http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>
> > Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
>
> > molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
>
> > evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
>
> > and the timing of the move out of Africa. �Arguments and disputes over
>
> > different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
>
> > Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. �If there are
>
> > two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
>
> > to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>
> > When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
>
> > and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
>
> > be taught; controversy within science.
>
> The problem is they "assume" evolution to be true. �The problem goes away when you don't.
The problem is that you seem to be trolling.
> > or
>
> > � �http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>
> > Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
>
> > molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
>
> > evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
>
> > and the timing of the move out of Africa. �Arguments and disputes over
>
> > different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
>
> > Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. �If there are
>
> > two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
>
> > to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>
> > When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
>
> > and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
>
> > be taught; controversy within science.
>
> The problem is they "assume" evolution to be true. �The problem goes away when you don't.
Harry K
jillery
Aug 2, 2012, 10:49:18 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
By 'they', you don't say, so I assume you mean scientists who use ToE
in their scientific work. If so, they don't assume evolution.
Instead, its value is established by material evidence.
By 'the problem', you don't say, so I assume you mean the one cited by
the OP, that different groups of scientists use different evidence and
come up with different dates. So how do you think assuming evolution
isn't true make any difference here? All of the dates are on a scale
of hundreds of thousands of years, and by no means can be used to
argue for a 6,000 year old humanity, with or without evolution.
wrote:
in their scientific work. If so, they don't assume evolution.
Instead, its value is established by material evidence.
By 'the problem', you don't say, so I assume you mean the one cited by
the OP, that different groups of scientists use different evidence and
come up with different dates. So how do you think assuming evolution
isn't true make any difference here? All of the dates are on a scale
of hundreds of thousands of years, and by no means can be used to
argue for a 6,000 year old humanity, with or without evolution.
jillery
Aug 2, 2012, 11:00:11 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
>> If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
>>
>> distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
>>
>> "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
>>
>> Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-left-dna-in-africa-scientists-report.html?_r=1&hpw
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>>
>>
>>
>> Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
>>
>> molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
>>
>> evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
>>
>> and the timing of the move out of Africa. Arguments and disputes over
>>
>> different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
>>
>> Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. If there are
>>
>> two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
>>
>> to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>>
>>
>>
>> When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
>>
>> and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
>>
>> be taught; controversy within science.
>
>
>Contradicting evidence between paleoanthropology and genetics just means there theory is not correct.
Not at all. Even if the evidence is contradicting, meaning that only
one can be valid, that doesn't make the theory incorrect. The theory
may be incomplete. Or the evidence is incomplete. And even if one
theory is invalid, that doesn't show that your preferred theory works
any better. So how does Young Earth handle this evidence? I'm
betting not very well.
wrote:
>On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
>> If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
>>
>> distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
>>
>> "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
>>
>> Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-left-dna-in-africa-scientists-report.html?_r=1&hpw
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>>
>>
>>
>> Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
>>
>> molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
>>
>> evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
>>
>> and the timing of the move out of Africa. Arguments and disputes over
>>
>> different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
>>
>> Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. If there are
>>
>> two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
>>
>> to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>>
>>
>>
>> When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
>>
>> and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
>>
>> be taught; controversy within science.
>
>
>Contradicting evidence between paleoanthropology and genetics just means there theory is not correct.
one can be valid, that doesn't make the theory incorrect. The theory
may be incomplete. Or the evidence is incomplete. And even if one
theory is invalid, that doesn't show that your preferred theory works
any better. So how does Young Earth handle this evidence? I'm
betting not very well.
Rolf
Aug 3, 2012, 4:14:24 AM8/3/12
to
"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a2f904f-7fce-4522...@googlegroups.com...
operandi.
Ernest Major
Aug 3, 2012, 5:19:53 AM8/3/12
to
In message
<1188f799-a7a5-4556...@r7g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> writes
It doesn't support YECism. I don't see why he would think that it would
challenge common descent either. (The distance measures don't line up
perfectly with phylogenetic trees, but that's not unusual - raw distance
measures are poor guides due to rate variation between lineages (and the
effects of deletions and duplications). If he wants to make a case he
needs to do a cladistic analysis. Ideally he wants to do a cladistic
analysis including paralogs, so he doesn't produce phylogenetic
artefacts resulting from misidentification of paralogs as orthologs.
--
alias Ernest Major
<1188f799-a7a5-4556...@r7g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> writes
challenge common descent either. (The distance measures don't line up
perfectly with phylogenetic trees, but that's not unusual - raw distance
measures are poor guides due to rate variation between lineages (and the
effects of deletions and duplications). If he wants to make a case he
needs to do a cladistic analysis. Ideally he wants to do a cladistic
analysis including paralogs, so he doesn't produce phylogenetic
artefacts resulting from misidentification of paralogs as orthologs.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Aug 3, 2012, 5:23:35 AM8/3/12
to
In message <8c1cb5d6-08df-486d...@googlegroups.com>,
Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com> writes
And you do (get similiar phylogenetic trees comparing orthologues of
particular genes).
--
alias Ernest Major
Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com> writes
particular genes).
>
>The data is clear that evolution is falsified and has been for a long
>long time.
>
Where's the cladistic analysis of that locus?
>The data is clear that evolution is falsified and has been for a long
>long time.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Aug 3, 2012, 7:19:45 AM8/3/12
to
In message
<1188f799-a7a5-4556...@r7g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> writes
<1188f799-a7a5-4556...@r7g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> writes
<URL:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=none;
db=core;g=ENSG00000177575;r=12:7623409-7656489>.
As I suspected it's one of those genes where gene duplication gives the
opportunity to confuse paralogs and orthologs, but it still matches the
standard phylogenetic tree to a great degree.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
Aug 3, 2012, 7:54:54 AM8/3/12
to
On Aug 3, 4:19 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <1188f799-a7a5-4556-8640-42457d8fe...@r7g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
There is something screwy about this gene comparison. They may have
mixed up taxa. The Gibbon and Gorilla values seem to be switched. I
did the BLAST and the Gibbon sequence was 95% similar to humans and
not 98%.
1RCWGJEU01N
This is the code for my BLAST comparison. You have to go to the NCBI
BLAST web page and paste it in to see the results of the comparison of
the Gibbon sequence compared to the database.
You have to go to this page:
http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Click on "recent results" at the top of the page and paste in the
search ID above to get the protein comparison.
The BLAST ID will only be good for a couple days before the results
are dropped off the server.
Ron Okimoto
> In message
> <1188f799-a7a5-4556-8640-42457d8fe...@r7g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
mixed up taxa. The Gibbon and Gorilla values seem to be switched. I
did the BLAST and the Gibbon sequence was 95% similar to humans and
not 98%.
1RCWGJEU01N
This is the code for my BLAST comparison. You have to go to the NCBI
BLAST web page and paste it in to see the results of the comparison of
the Gibbon sequence compared to the database.
You have to go to this page:
http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Click on "recent results" at the top of the page and paste in the
search ID above to get the protein comparison.
The BLAST ID will only be good for a couple days before the results
are dropped off the server.
Ron Okimoto
Mark Isaak
Aug 3, 2012, 1:58:40 PM8/3/12
to
On 8/2/12 5:33 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
>> If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
>> distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
>> "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
>> Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>>
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
>> If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
>> distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
>> "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
>> Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>>
>> Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
>> molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
>> evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
>> and the timing of the move out of Africa. Arguments and disputes over
>> different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
>> Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. If there are
>> two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
>> to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>>
>> When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
>> and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
>> be taught; controversy within science.
>
> The problem is they "assume" evolution to be true.
Sorry, no. Your position fails a simple sanity check.
>>
>> Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
>> molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
>> evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
>> and the timing of the move out of Africa. Arguments and disputes over
>> different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
>> Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. If there are
>> two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
>> to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>>
>> When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
>> and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
>> be taught; controversy within science.
>
> The problem is they "assume" evolution to be true.
The theory of evolution by natural selection came on the scene
relatively suddenly, in a society that, for the most part, did not want
it (and still does not), and yet it rose to dominance quickly and has
eclipsed all competitors so completely that most people cannot even name
any alternatives, excepting magic. That does not happen because people
"assume" it to be true.
For something to be accepted simply by assumption, two conditions must
hold: First, the position has to have been around a long time, probably
centuries. Evolution might qualify on that count today, but it
certainly did not when it was first proposed. Second, the position has
to be non-controversial. Evolution is not even close to qualifying there.
> The problem goes away when you don't.
At some level, you know the evidence is far and away in favor of
evolution, but you have an emotional need to deny it, so you look for
excuses outside the evidence. In the process you make up false
evidence, such as your claim of assuming evolution to be true. God
would not approve.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Boikat
Aug 3, 2012, 3:00:10 PM8/3/12
to
anything, other than that you can "cherry pick" information. I expect
no less from "clever" creationsits.
Boikat
0 new messages