As an example to the above some here, seem to have tried to place me in the impossible position of having to first prove the existance of a God which is not subject to observation before I can discuss evolutionary issues. Also it has been implied that before I critique an evolutionary mechanism that I must first provide a creation mechanism even though everyone agrees that creation is not happening today, hense it is impossible for me to prove a specific creation mechanism. Thus I am dialed out before I begin.
hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
172
Evolution or Creation??
by dottie inwell i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.
myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.
so i do find it confusing sometimes .
-
-
-
172
Evolution or Creation??
by dottie inwell i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.
myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.
so i do find it confusing sometimes .
-
-
hooberus
rem said: You can't get around the fact that the creation model is not falsifiable and evolution is. There is nothing less profitable about pointing out that fact and being consistent in dealing with the facts as they relate to each model. To say that one model is just as good as another using sloppy terminology does not help your argument.
rem, I will try do discuss the falsifaction issue from various perspectives.
First of all, lets say for the sake of argument that the above statement is correct and that creation is not falsifable and that evolution is. The following points assume this:
I'm sure that you would agree that this in itself not prove that evolution is true and that creation is false. In fact the issue of origins could still be discussed with evidence appealed to.
Lets say that we have three options for origins:
Option # 1 Evolution
Option # 2 Creation
Option # 3 Other unknowns
Let us now say for the sake of argument that only option # 1 is falsifable. If scientific evidence were to show that option # 1 is indeed falsified, then by defalt one of the others must be true even though they are not falsifable. Thus a beliver in option # 2 or # 3 would not necessarlly have to first provide a creation mechanism in order to critique various proposed evolutionary mechanisms. Thus the idea that I have to fist prove "the theory of god" before I appeal to evidence which may possibly falsify evolution is not valid.
-
172
Evolution or Creation??
by dottie inwell i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.
myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.
so i do find it confusing sometimes .
-
-
hooberus
rem said:
Again, you have trouble understanding what a prediction is. Creation does not predict this. There is no reason why a creator could not have made the embryos look completely different - say a chicken would just look like a miniature chicken and keep getting bigger and bigger. Evolution, on the other hand, states that we are all related, so species that are more related will probably have a more similar embryology. If embryologies were qualitatively different between related species, then evolution would be falsified. Remember, when you say prediction you are talking about falsification.
rem, rather than going into a long discussion here on terms such as prediction, I will re-phrase my argument to "similar embryo development with regards to similar adult morpholgy is a reasonable expectation based on a common creator".
We could go on for hours here discussing the various means of prediction, consistency, support, etc. but basically we are down to two different options when it comes to similaries.
1. Common creator
2. Common ancestors
While its possible to use scientific terminology to a priori define out the first item out of the discussion before evidence is looked at, I think that it is much more profitable to discuss the evidence as it relates to both models, rather than using terminology to exclude one from the start.
-
126
DNA and Man's origin
by D wiltshire in.
i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.
kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..
-
-
hooberus
funky derek said: Hooberus, this is becoming rather an annoying pattern. You make a claim, someone refutes your claim clearly and specifically, you then repeat and rephrase the claim several times underlining irrelevancies ignoring all the evidence thrown at you. You seem to think that just repeating unfounded claims ad nauseum is a substitute for learning about the subject you're discussing and providing evidence and rational arguments to support your claims. It's not. Now make a case or stop wasting everyone's time.
funkyderek, I don't think that my responses involve "underlining irrevelancies" nor do I ignore all the evidence thrown at me. I am trying to learn about the subject that we are discussing. Specifically I am trying to confirm the details of how these dates of 200,000, 853,000, etc are generated by evolutionists. So your above post was unwarranted.
-
126
DNA and Man's origin
by D wiltshire in.
i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.
kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..
-
-
hooberus
For the sake of clarity, here is Earnest's post from page 6 as well as some of my observations from it in a post shortly thereafter (also on page 6).
The date of divergence between the mtDNAs of the Neandertal and contemporary humans is estimated to 465,000 years before the present, with confidence limits of 317,000 and 741,000 years. Taken together, the results support the concept that the Neandertal mtDNA evolved separately from that of modern humans for a substantial amount of time and lends no support to the idea that they contributed mtDNA to contemporary modern humans.
Dates of Divergences. For the estimation of the ages of MRCAs [Most Recent Common Ancestors] of different groups of mtDNAs, the observed nucleotide differences were corrected for multiple substitutions by using the Tamura-Nei algorithm. The resulting genetic distances and the estimated age of the modern human-chimpanzee split of 4-5 million years were used to calculate the substitution rate of 0.94 × 10 7 substitutions per site per year per lineage with 5.92 × 10 8 and 1.38 × 10 7 as the lower and upper confidence limits. These estimates are in reasonable agreement with previous rate estimations for the mtDNA control region. Using these rates, the age of the MRCA of the Neandertal and modern human mtDNAs was estimated to be 465,000 years, with confidence limits of 317,000 and 741,000 years. This age is significantly older than that of the MRCA of modern human mtDNAs, which, by the same procedure, was determined to be 163,000 years, with 111,000 and 260,000 years as confidence limits. Finally, the age of the MRCA of the mtDNAs of the seven chimpanzees and the two bonobos was calculated as 2,844,000 years (confidence limits: 1,940,000 and 4,534,000 years).
However, mtDNA sequences from more Neandertal individuals are needed to obtain a better understanding of the extent of separation between the mtDNA gene pools of Neandertals and modern humans.
These assumptions regarding mtDNA mutation rates, with their margin of error calculations are based on the assumption that humans/chimpanzees shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. However if this did not happen, then not only would the assumed mutation rates be potentially in error, but also the "margin of error" calculation (which is also based on the assumption of a shared common ancestor who lived millions of years ago) would also be invalidated.
There is a tendency when people see figures such as "confidence limits of 317,000 and 741,000 years" to assume that the creature in question must be at least as old as the lower figure. However this is not necessarily true as even the lower figure is based on assumptions of a shared common ancestor living millions of years ago.
-
126
DNA and Man's origin
by D wiltshire in.
i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.
kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..
-
-
hooberus
Also the quote that Earnest provided also seemed to indicate this:
The date of divergence between the mtDNAs of the Neandertal and contemporary humans is estimated to 465,000 years before the present, with confidence limits of 317,000 and 741,000 years. Taken together, the results support the concept that the Neandertal mtDNA evolved separately from that of modern humans for a substantial amount of time and lends no support to the idea that they contributed mtDNA to contemporary modern humans.
Dates of Divergences. For the estimation of the ages of MRCAs [Most Recent Common Ancestors] of different groups of mtDNAs, the observed nucleotide differences were corrected for multiple substitutions by using the Tamura-Nei algorithm. The resulting genetic distances and the estimated age of the modern human-chimpanzee split of 4-5 million years were used to calculate the substitution rate of 0.94 × 10
7 substitutions per site per year per lineage with 5.92 × 10 8 and 1.38 × 10 7 as the lower and upper confidence limits. These estimates are in reasonable agreement with previous rate estimations for the mtDNA control region. Using these rates, the age of the MRCA of the Neandertal and modern human mtDNAs was estimated to be 465,000 years, with confidence limits of 317,000 and 741,000 years. This age is significantly older than that of the MRCA of modern human mtDNAs, which, by the same procedure, was determined to be 163,000 years, with 111,000 and 260,000 years as confidence limits. Finally, the age of the MRCA of the mtDNAs of the seven chimpanzees and the two bonobos was calculated as 2,844,000 years (confidence limits: 1,940,000 and 4,534,000 years). However, mtDNA sequences from more Neandertal individuals are needed to obtain a better understanding of the extent of separation between the mtDNA gene pools of Neandertals and modern humans.
-
126
DNA and Man's origin
by D wiltshire in.
i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.
kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..
-
-
hooberus
rem said:
This is incorrect. There is no assumption that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor in the mutation rates used. The assumed mutation rate is calibrated against known mutation rates in current populations.
rem my earlier post from an AiG arcticle (the section I posted came from an evolutionist) seems to indicate that the assumption of a human/chimp common ancestor was used in the calculation.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4218tj_v12n1.asp
To estimate the time when the most recent ancestral sequence common to the Neandertal and modern human mtDNA sequences existed, we used an estimated divergence date between humans and chimpanzees of 4–5 million years ago and corrected the observed sequence differences for multiple substitutions at the same nucleotide site. This yielded a date of 550,000 to 690,000 years before present for the divergence of the Neandertal mtDNA and contemporary human mtDNAs. When the age of the modern human mtDNA ancestor is estimated using the same procedure, a date of 120,000 to 150,000 years is obtained, in agreement with previous estimates. Although these dates rely on the calibration point of the chimpanzee-human divergence and have errors of unknown magnitude associated with them, they indicate that the age of the common ancestor of the Neandertal sequence and modern human sequences is about four times greater than that of the common ancestor of modern human mtDNAs.39
-
172
Evolution or Creation??
by dottie inwell i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.
myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.
so i do find it confusing sometimes .
-
-
hooberus
Liberty said:
The fact that you can't see the difference between finding ancient artifacts which are logically atributable to human manufacture and comparing this to finding ancient artifacts which are claimed to be made by invisible spirit entities speaks volumes for your state of mind.
The fact that you didn't grasp the meaning of my tadpole to frog example as proof that life forms can and do change from one form to another also illustrates your inability to grasp the most basic modern biological concepts.
I fear you are making a real effort to cloud the debate rather than just having trouble understanding our points.
Liberty, I have been polite to you as well as trying to give a reasoned reply to some of your points. However your put downs, as well as your accusations are not helpful in a discussion of origins. For example, from the limited information that I have posted on this thread on the issue between macro and micro-evolution you generate an accusation such as:
You are muddying the debate waters with your straw man arguments about the details of micro vs macro evolution.
-
172
Evolution or Creation??
by dottie inwell i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.
myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.
so i do find it confusing sometimes .
-
-
hooberus
rem said: "There is no "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument. "
The top row drawings have been used to try to prove the "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument.
Above, top row: Haeckel’s drawings of several different embryos, showing incredible similarity in their early ‘tailbud’ stage.
Bottom Row: Richardson's photographs of how the embryos really look at the same stage of development.
From left: Salmo salar, Cryptobranchus allegheniensis, Emys orbicularis, Gallus gallus, Oryctolagus cuniculus, Homo sapiens.Many modern evolutionists no longer claim that the human embryo repeats the adult stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors, but point to Haeckel’s drawings (top row) to claim that it repeats the embryonic stages. However, even this alleged support for evolution is now revealed as being based on faked drawings.
The embryo photos used in this article were kindly supplied by Dr Michael K. Richardson. They originally appeared in M.K. Richardson et al., ‘There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development’, Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2):91–106, 1997, © Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co., Tiergartenstrasse, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany. Reproduced here with permission.
-
172
Evolution or Creation??
by dottie inwell i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.
myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.
so i do find it confusing sometimes .
-
-
hooberus
Also the fact that invertebrate embryos look much different than vertebrate embryos, while not disproving evolution in general, does disprove the old "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument.
7 substitutions per site per year per lineage with 5.92 × 10 