Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Dec 2005 21:51:58 -0800
John Harshman wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
>
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >
> >>On 2005-11-08, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>>John Harshman wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > God engineered the universe and oversaw everything from Big Bang to
> > today. He made sure that Earth (and maybe some other planets) were
> > hospitable to our kind of life. He "poofed" in some life forms over
> > the next 2-4 billion years as He saw fit and let them evolve. 6,000
> > Years ago, God created human beings (with best DNA, souls, etc.).
> > There were other pre-humans who had evolved from early primates, which
> > would explain how Cain (Genesis) got his wife. Some will call this a
> > fairy tale. But, I think that the data fits such a theory well.
>
> In order to make it fit you need additional assumptions. You first need
> to reconcile the order of events. Remember that? How do you reconcile
> that order? You have never explained this, despite being asked many
> times. Remember? Earth and plants before the sun and sea creatures,
> birds before land animals, etc.?
Yes, we'd have to come to some agreed-upon conclusion about the
sequence of events.
I don't have a problem with the order of events in Genesis. If there
was supernatural involvement from God, then the sequence is not a
problem. I understand that this conflicts with a purely naturalistic
sequence of events. If there is no Supreme Being, then I'd be inclined
to go with the naturalistic sequence.
Honestly, before I try to say more, I need to study more about the
exact science behind the purely naturalistic sequence of events.
>
> Are you saying, by the way, that Cain's wife had no soul? How do you
> account for the identical physical appearance of these non-souled
> pre-humans and the humans created 6,000 years ago? How do you account
> for the apparent worldwide continuity of culture before and after that
> 6,000-year mark? I would have thought the change would be noticeable in
> some way.
Yes, I am saying that Cain's wife didn't have a soul. This assumes
that God didn't create other "living soul" humans apart from Adam and
Eve. This assumes that Cain's wife was a "human" which evolved from
some ape-like species.
There is an apparent continuity of culture before and after the 6,000
year mark because there were human cultures before and after. The
human cultures before Adam and Eve were full of humans which had
evolved from apes.
There is a great change in culture at the 6,000 year mark or so, right?
Isn't that when language and writing began to seriously expand and
flourish?
>
> And finally, where is the evidence for a worldwide flood?
Let's start with this one:
Fossils which are younger than the mountains on which they are found.
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>If we assume that genetic mutations among all the groups in question
> >>>here (gibbons, apes, humans, etc.) occur at generally the same
> >>>frequency, that all groups generally have the same number of animals
> >>>within them at any time, and that any forces outside the group which
> >>>could impact the DNA of the group affect all groups similarly,
> >>>then...yes. That would be the best natural-based conclusion.
> >>
> >>I'm not sure why any of these factors would actually change the analysis
> >>that Harshman has provided. Can you spell it out for me?
> >
> > Well, what would happen if apes, for some genetic or environmental
> > reason, had many more mutations over a given period of time than
> > gibbons? They would evolve faster and throw a kink into the
> > evolutionary model.
>
> No, in fact they wouldn't. The relative rate of evolution among lineages
> doesn't enter into it, because we aren't working with simple similarity
> here but with patterns in the data. A higher rate of evolution along any
> one branch results in more changes on that branch. That means more
> shared sites among species derived from that branch. It can also mean
> more homoplasy (same mutation twice), which just makes more noise. What
> it can't do is result in a stronger differentiation among hypotheses, so
> it is no explanation for my result.
Sure it can result in greater differentiation, can't it? The placement
of species in the evolutionary tree model isn't just determined by
morphology (and genetics if available). It's also determined by the
inferred age of each of the species. Well, if some species evolve far
faster than others, then the placement of the branches would be
affected, right?
For example, we infer than Archy evolved from a dinosaur and evolved
into a bird, right? What happens if it is found that Archy's rate of
mutation is far greater than believed? Wouldn't that skew the believed
age at which birds first appeared on the earth?
>
> > More animals in any one group would probably cause that group to have
> > more mutations and thus a faster rate of evolution.
>
> As it happens, that isn't true. The "more mutations" part is true, but
> it's an interesting result that drift in a large population is slower
> than in a small one, so that the difference balance out exactly,
> resulting in no difference in rates of neutral evolution.
Counter-intuitive, but interesting.
>
> > Solar flares could seriously change the genetic makeup of a group of
> > animals over time. If the effect of the solar flares were localized
> > onto one group of animals but not another, the affected group would be
> > expected to experience higher rates of mutation.
>
> Scientifically absurd as an explanation for mutation, but at any rate
> different rates of mutation don't affect my analysis.
Come now. We know that solar radiation can cause skin cancer. That's
a mutation. Significant solar activity, such as solar flares, can
seriously affect the mutation of species who physiology doesn't take
too well to sunlight. Bacteria in ultraviolet light comes to mind.
>
> >>You might also wish to comment on how you might be able to tell which of
> >>two supernatural-based conclusions were better supported by evidence.
> >
> > Actually, I was thinking only of natural-based causes.
>
> You might want to think about how to tell the causes you favor from the
> ones the rest of us favor.
>
> [snip]
>
> >>When you ask John why he believes that humans are related to African
> >>apes, and in particular why he draws this tree the way he does, he has
> >>an answer for you, and one which is not principally based upon some
> >>some desire to show a particular relationship. He carefully has laid
> >>out the data, and the particular conclusion he arrives at is drawn
> >>directly from reasoning on the data. His conviction isn't personal,
> >>nor is it arbitrary: it is derived precisely from what the evidence
> >>tells him.
> >
> > Well, the response I get is that the DNA and/or morphology is too
> > similar to be a coincidence.
>
> Not just similarity. A pattern of similarities and differences.
>
> > That's inference or best guess at best
> > and wishful thinking at worst. Furthermore, this is combined with the
> > declaration that science has not uncovered evidence of any other cause.
> > It's not that the evolutionary evidence is so convincing, solid, and
> > gap-free. It's that this evolutionary evidence is all that there is.
> > Not that bad. But, not that good either.
>
> You still don't understand science. I hope we have, elsewhere, disposed
> of the idea that "inference" means "guess". The *only* way science works
> is by comparing alternatives. It's always at least theoretically
> conceivable that an alternative we haven't thought of explains the data
> better than anything we have thought of so far. That's why all science
> is provisional. But the same can be said for hydrogen atoms and
> everything else we know; there is no difference.
>
> [snip]
>
> > IF one analyzed and objectively concluded that the Bible is as accurate
> > as can be tested and IF one scientifically believed that the DNA of
> > humans could not have come naturally from primates, then the religious
> > reasons would be as objective as any analysis of a fossil. It's a big
> > if.
>
> Note that you are once more confusing two separate issues: common
> descent (which is all I'm arguing for in my little post) and the
> mechanism by which changes take place (which I hadn't been considering);
> whether that mechanism was natural or not is irrelevant to common
> descent itself.
>
> I would be willing to examine your scientific reasons why the DNA of
> humans could not have come naturally from primates, though. What are
> those reasons?
I have only supernatural, unscientific reasons which would mean little
here.
>
> > If one doesn't believe in any religion, and certainly not the Bible,
> > then it wouldn't be objective at all.
>
> "Believe in" and "objective" don't fit well together in the same sentence.
You believe that your senses are accurate when you study a specimen.
You believe that your logical mind is really being logical when you
make deductions. You believe that your equipment is accurate and
precise. You believe that the car you drive will work when you turn
the key. You believe that the airplane in which you fly is reliable
even though you have never analyzed the maintenance records, seen the
equipment for yourself, nor can repair or fly the plane yourself.
It always comes down to trust and belief. I guess my trust and belief
just gets extended beyond my five senses and what is testable in a lab
under controlled conditions. Does this open me up to increased error?
It can. But, it also opens me up to increased learning of that which
does not lend itself to testing under controlled conditions.
>
> >>>I think that God created us separate from other
> >>>animals (eventhough we appear genetically similar). As there are
> >>>undoubtably some science-religion conflicts which may never be
> >>>resolved, let's concentrate first on life forms which don't raise as
> >>>many conflicts.
> >>
> >>Actually, this question has been resolved, you simply didn't like the
> >>answer. If you aren't willing to accept the conclusions that man is
> >>related to other african apes, it seems silly for you to accept the
> >>equally compelling evidence that dogs, cats, bears, weasels, civets and
> >>hyenas are all related.
> >
> > There is no separation creation account for dogs, cats, bears, weasels,
> > etc. as there is for human beings.
>
> So why were you just claiming that all carnivores are not related?
Because, with God in the picture as described in the Bible, it is no
longer a necessary conclusion that all carnivores are related through
evolution.
>
> And if the creation account overrules physical evidence, we have nothing
> to discuss. We have no agreement on the most basic nature of evidence
> and cannot proceed.
True. It's just that the physical evidence does not demand that the
entire tree of evolution has to have occurred. Of course, now we're
getting into the "God did it" theories.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I have to start somewhere with this theory. I'm sure that Darwin
> > didn't start out with the same evolutionary tree as when he had been
> > studying for many years.
>
> Yes, but what Darwin had was a means by which he might test his
> hypotheses and so refine them. You don't seem to have anything like that.
My tests would have to show that speciation is limited in nature at
times...the genetic island thing.
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>OK. Place all bears, dogs, and cats together.
> >>
> >>Given that the divergence of humans from other primates occurred much
> >>more recently than the divergence of bears, dogs and cats, it seems
> >>like the only reasonable way to label your criteria is "arbitrary".
> >
> > Yes.
>
> If so, there is no way to go forward. Arbitrary criteria can't be tested
> or argued.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Why are the chances of gaining a fatal mutation so low?
>
> They aren't necessarily that low. It's just that many of these mutations
> are weeded out early, in the gamete, zygote, or embryo stage, and we
> never find out about them. Now, it's true that too high a lethal
> mutation rate would cause extinction of a population. Your cells have
> means to keep that mutation rate at acceptably low levels, by
> proofreading and editing. Any species that allowed its proofreading and
> editing to become too lax would become extinct; thus selection at the
> individual and species level both would act to prevent this. There is
> presumably a balance between the costs and benefits of proofreading and
> mutation.
>
> But the important point is really that lethal mutations happen in single
> individuals and don't spread through the population.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Not true. I consider all evidence. We're discussing genetic islands,
> > remember? I am very much open to change my beliefs about their
> > existence. And my feelings are irrelevant. My beliefs are based on
> > logic. If they were based on feelings, then I'd have come into this
> > forum, made a few snide comments about ungodly atheists pushing their
> > evolutionary religion, and left.
>
> You have just agreed that your genetic islands are arbitrary, so in what
> way are those beliefs based on logic?
They are no more arbitrary than scientists coming up with the
kingdom/phylum/class/order/family/genus/species system of
classification. It's all in how one wants to group life forms.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Most logical conclusions or beliefs take time to develop.
>
> But they need to have some process of logical development. We see no
> such process in you, just arbitrary notions that change for arbitrary
> reasons.
>
> >>>We can place rabbits with rodents for now. But, birds are separate
> >>>from crocodiles.
> >>
> >>Why? What specific features of birds distinguish them from crocodiles
> >>to suggest that they aren't related to birds? What set of features for
> >>rabbits suggest that they do share common ancestors with rodents?
> >
> > Because birds have feathers and crocodiles don't have wings. Such a
> > difference would make my analysis easier.
>
> Congratulations. You have proven common descent is impossible by
> assuming that evolutionary change is impossible. I do the opposite, in a
> way: I show that evolutonary change must be possible by showing (not
> assuming, mind you) that common descent has happened. That refutes your
> argument quite nicely. But if you want more, we have a nice series of
> intermediate fossils showing how crocodile-like limbs turned into wings
> over the course of 150 million years or so. Not so much for feathers,
> since they are seldom preserved, but we have some intermediates there too.
OK. Let's start with the evidence that crocodle limbs turned into
wings.
>
> > Rabbits, morphologically,
> > look similar to rodents. You know, fur, four legs, similar size. The
> > typical arbitrary stuff.
>
> I suspect you don't really think this is arbitrary. But you have to
> present reasons why it isn't.
Because it would take a relatively small number of changes in DNA to
turn a rodent into a rabbit. How many changes? I don't know. Maybe a
thousand. We can analyze the changes needed in DNA to go from a rodent
to a rabbit a whole lot easier than to go from a bacteria to a human.
>
> > Hey! If all animals are decendants from a single common ancestor, then
> > it shouldn't really matter where we start this analysis.
>
> What analysis? I think I'm missing something here. If you're talking
> about determining the "islands", it doesn't matter where we start. But
> we do have to agree on some way of telling whether islands exist or not.
> That's why we're asking for your criteria. If you have no criteria,
> there is no way to go.
Well, then let's make all genetic islands based at the order level,
just to start. So then, the Carnivora order will all be on the same
island. Thus, some proto-weasel evolved into dogs, bears, and cats.
>
> [snip]
Geez. You guys are getting me all stressed out here...making me do my
research. No wonder I took three weeks off around Thanksgiving. :-)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: Stuart
- Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Prev by Date: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
- Next by Date: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
- Previous by thread: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Next by thread: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
