Posts by hooberus

109

Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

hey gang!

i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.

i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.

hooberus

Hooberus, I have now stated what I think twice.
I am not saying anything about relative levels of support for various Biblical interpretations.
I am saying it is impossible to prove a particular interpretation is right.

Of course its impossible to "prove" absolutely if a particular interpretation is right.

Literalistic Creationists who claim, in effect "if science disagrees with the Bible science is wrong" are not basing this claim on a text with a single undisputed interpretation.
They are claiming that THEY have the correct interpretation
That other Christians who interpret it differently are wrong
But have no way of substantiating this claim.
Why is it necessary for you to evade making a simple answer confirming that is what they are doing, when it is a statement of fact?

Of course AiG believes that their interpretation of Genesis is correct, and that others who interpret it differently are wrong. Though they may not be able to absolutely "prove" their interpretation correct, the fact remains that there is substantial support for it.

Essentially, YEC'er claim all other Christians (who don't believe in YEC) are wrong and they are right. On what basis do they make this claim against their co-religionists?

On the basis of hermeneutic principals and straightforward contextual analysis and comaprison with the rest of scripture.

It would seem my claim that literalistic Creationist's beliefs are all about their opinion, and are not about some indisputable interpretation of the Bible, is true. It is not the Bible against science (as shown below, this IS the presentation YEC'ers make), it is INDIVIDUAL OPINION REGARDING THE MEANING OF A FEW HUNDRED WORDS OF TEXT against science.

This whole bible interpretation "proof" argument has become a waste of time.

63

Evolution of Man

by bavman in

here's a question for all you who have been studying evoluition much longer than me.

i have read in a few places that man has all but stopped evolving.

is this what is really being taught by science and why?

hooberus

Ultimately the Haldane mathmatical issue was specifically about the date of the common ancestor of Chimps and humans. The fossil evidence says something like 6 million years ago humans and other great apes split ways while these calculations based upon averages and speculation and incomplete understanding of genetics says the common ancestor would have been many millions older, too old to fit the fossil evidence. I see the whole thing as a a statistician's quagmire.

Haldane's dillemma is not about the alleged ape-human common ancestor, but instead about evolutionary limits within a lineage. For example the date ReMine uses is not the ape-human date but an older one (10 million years). Haldane's Dillemma is potentially applicable to all higher vertebrate evolution (such as the alleged evolution from a four-legged wolf, cow, hippo, like creature to large sea-going whales).

63

Evolution of Man

by bavman in

here's a question for all you who have been studying evoluition much longer than me.

i have read in a few places that man has all but stopped evolving.

is this what is really being taught by science and why?

hooberus

http://www1.minn.net/~science/index.html

Regulatory genes?

Mutations to regulatory genes can sometimes have a large biological effect. So, are mutations to "regulatory genes" a solution to Haldane's Dilemma? 1 Brief answer: It scarcely affects Haldane's Dilemma.
Evolutionists do not get to choose the substitutions, say, as "mutations to regulatory genes" or as "mutations with a large biological effect" or as "gene clusters". Rather, evolutionists must accept what nature doles out ? and we can observe what nature doles out. The issue is fundamentally empirical and observable, not one of telling stories about regulatory genes. Take the blend of beneficial substitutions observed in nature. The coloring of melanic moths and the beak size of Galapagos finches are noted examples. Those represent the basic building blocks that nature has to work with, the creative 'power' of nature. Leading evolutionists acknowledge (indeed most of them insist) that substitutions with small effect predominate in evolution. Are 1,667 substitutions (like those) sufficient to create all the human adaptations? The tripling of brain size, fully upright posture, language, speech, hand dexterity, hair distribution, and appreciation of music, to name a few.
It scarcely matters what kind of tall-tales one can devise about regulatory genes. What matters is the blend of the beneficial substitutions observed in nature. Are 1,667 of those sufficient for creating all the human adaptations?
Moreover, when Haldane calculated the total cost of a substitution (=30), he assumed selection coefficients approaching zero, which gives the absolute lowest possible total cost of substitution. The figure rises for higher selection coefficients, and rises especially rapidly when selection coefficients get above one-tenth (s>0.1). Therefore, if evolutionary scenarios invoke high selection coefficients (such as mutations for antibiotic resistance or pesticide resistance), then the total cost of substitution gets quite high ? and the number of substitutions (previously at 1,667) goes to a much lower limit.
In summary, whatever the blend of substitutions, (a) they must correspond to what we observe in nature, and (b) they must meet the cost constraints, (higher selection coefficients will lower the plausible number of substitutions).

63

Evolution of Man

by bavman in

here's a question for all you who have been studying evoluition much longer than me.

i have read in a few places that man has all but stopped evolving.

is this what is really being taught by science and why?

hooberus

Well it looks like Haldane was using alleles as the basic units. Mutations to alleles can involve more than one nucleotide substitution (point mutations). So its sort of misleading and disingenous for Remine to say the model puts a theoretical limit of about 1,667 nucleotide substitutions in a 10 million year stretch. The number of nucleotide changes with each mutation event is different, so he shouldn't be so dogmatic about the number.

I don't think that ReMine made the claim that all the substitutions would have to be single nucleotide substitutions. I believe in his book (my copy is on loan) that he discussed the other types possible (including insertions, deletions, etc.). However, ReMine states that according to evolutionists that substitutions in generally are "typically" single nucleotides, not whole new genes (in the sense of new large DNA blocks).

http://www1.minn.net/~science/index.html

Are the substitutions "genes"?

The thrust of my argument does not speak of a limit of "1,667 gene substitutions." Rather my argument focuses on typical substitutions, which ? according to evolutionists ? are almost always point mutations (a single nucleotide). Yet evolutionists traditionally discussed Haldane's Dilemma in terms of "gene substitutions," which created the false impression that large blocks of new DNA are being replaced, rather than just a single mutation (typically one nucleotide). That habit further obscured the severity of Haldane's Dilemma from public view. In fact, a well-known evolutionary genetics professor from Cornell University expressed shocked resistance when I first explained this point to him: The 1,667 substitutions are typically single nucleotides, not 1,667 whole genes. The substituting 'thing' is a mutation, not a gene. It's a simple concept when explained clearly, though it was habitually overlooked even by professionals at the time. The traditional focus on "gene substitutions" is one of many factors that garbled Haldane's Dilemma for so long.

109

Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

hey gang!

i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.

i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.

hooberus

Thus the whole presentation by Creationists of a very literal bent, such as YEC'ers, is not what they make it seem.
It is not the Bible versus science.

YEC's do not present the creation/evolution issue as "the Bible verses science" (actually this is the way evolutionists like to present the issue). In fact YEC's believe that the hard facts of science are generally compatible with the Bible.

It is their opinion of what the Bible means against science.
It is all about them.
It is all about the sanctification of their own opinion as divine truth.

Once again YEC's are not "against science." Also, they use for a guide a straightforward reading of scripture not merley "their own opinion."

Their unprovable claim that they have the sole correct interpretation of an ancient text leads them to make claims about what other parts of the Bible mean - claims which are again unprovable,

No "interpretation" of the Bible can be proved absolutely, however this does not mean that one should not try to discern correct doctrine (in fact the Bible states that we should). Also the "interpretation" of the Bible held by YEC's is highly substantiated by sound biblical exegis (and as I pointed out earlier even a NAS publication gives a fairly similar one).

109

Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

hey gang!

i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.

i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.

hooberus

The latter; what literalists take literally, others (with just as much 'faith' as a literalist) see allegorically.

While some do take Genesis allegorically, the fact remains that there is very strong substantial biblical support for a literal straightforward interpretation of Genesis (even the National Academy of Sciences publication "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science" interprets Genesis fairly similar to AiG).

Therefore the implication (if you intended to make it) that there is no support for AiG's Biblical exegesis is incorrect.

... but I'd like you to respond on the other points as well.

Regarding your claims:

Now, whilst it might suit your argument to concentrate on evolutionists who exclude any possibility of a creator, this is not representative.

Perhaps you are refering to quotes that I have given such as those by Evolutionist Todd (Kansas State University) in a letter to Nature:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

My quotes of those such as Todd are not to state that they exclude the mere "possiblity of a creator," but instead to demonstrate their methological bias when it comes to origins research - a bias which does in fact result in only naturalistc options being considered in origins, (and thus excludes creation from a real practical consideration). Furthermore I think also that you will find that "methodological naturalism" in origins is representative of many in the evolutionary establishment.

It is wrong to paint all people who believe in a creator god as being YEC'ers; some may believe everything of science's interpretation of physical evidence, but still believe in god's guiding hand. Others believe something 'twixt the two poles.

I don't belive that I (nor AiG) have done this.

It is wrong to paint evolutionists as people who exclude the existence of a 'god'. Many people who believe in the evolutionary process also believe in god; their interpretation of what the Bible says is simply different to a YEC'er.

I haven't painted evolutionists as people "who exclude the existence of a 'god'." I have however pointed out that the methodology practiced by many in the evolutonary establishment involves the practical consideration of only "naturalisitc explanations" for the origin of the various animal creatures. Such a methodology of couse makes some type of evolutionary scheme a virtually inevitable conclusion.

109

Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

hey gang!

i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.

i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.

hooberus

I'll try (Lord willing) to respond to your claims. However I might do it a section at a time. I would also appreciate it if you would allow me to defend against some of your above claims before you post new charges on this particular thread.

The Creationists I quote assume THEIR interpretation of the Bible is correct, for a start. There is no proof of this.

Are you saying that the interpretation of the Bible held by AiG has no support from proper biblical exegesis? or merely that it cannot be absolutely proven to be a correct interpretation of the intent of the text?

109

Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc

by seattleniceguy in

jw
friends

hey gang!

i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.

i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.

hooberus

Abaddon, many creationists (such as AiG) and many evolutionists have presuppositions (if you seach the word "presuppositions" in the AiG search engine you will see that they admit that they do). For Biblical creationists (such as AiG) the Bible is generally considered to be a starting axiom.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

Many evolutionists also have presuppositions (such as the belief that origins must be "naturalistic" to be science). However in the creation-evolution debate some evolutionists occasionally attempt to give the impression that they are somehow "dispassionate", "objective" scientists who "follow the evidence wherever it leads" -unlike the "presupositionalist" creationists. My pointing out the bias of these evolutionists is primarily to to respond to their facade of pure objectivity, not to necessarily condemn presuppositionalism per se.

Anyway, the fact remains that many in the evolutionary establishment are just as subject to presuppositionalism as even Biblical Creationists are.

In reality there are realy only three basic options for life as wee see it today -they are:

1. creation

2. evolution/naturalsim

3. some combination of the previous two

Creationists such as AiG are up front about their beliefs. However some evolutionists (such as Talk Origins) tend at times to give the impression that they are somehow free of presuppositions (for example note their masthead "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy"), when in fact they publish only pro-evolution/ anti-creation arcticles.

83

Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

kansas is holding a debate to decide.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/education/05/02/life.evolution.reut/index.html.

topeka, kansas (reuters) -- evolution is going on trial in kansas.. eighty years after a famed courtroom battle in tennessee pitted religious beliefs about the origins of life against the theories of british scientist charles darwin, kansas is holding its own hearings on what school children should be taught about how life on earth began.. the kansas board of education has scheduled six days of courtroom-style hearings to begin thursday in topeka.

hooberus

A theory which requires complex things to have an intelligent designer and fails to explain how the complexity of the intelligent designer arose is far closer to Ug the caveman than science.

The point that you are attempting to make seems to be that design cannot be scientifically inferred for the origin of an object -unless the origin of its proposed designer can also be explained. I think that this is incorrect.

For example: If an observer in space were to come across the voyager spacecraft adrift would they first be required to explain how the complexity of its designer came about before theorizing and seeing evidence that it was a product of intelligent design?

63

Evolution of Man

by bavman in

here's a question for all you who have been studying evoluition much longer than me.

i have read in a few places that man has all but stopped evolving.

is this what is really being taught by science and why?

hooberus

I'll try to post some more here when I get a little more time.