Tree of life not real (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Friday, September 21, 2012, 20:16 (4423 days ago)
This paper justifies using trees in studying evolution, but admits the trees are not 'real'. More difficult studying the real bushes?- http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9215/1/VelascoFutureSystematics(archive).pdf
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Saturday, April 06, 2013, 15:41 (4227 days ago) @ David Turell
Morphology was the first way to look at an evolutionary tree of life. This is comparison by analogy. The better way is homology of DNA, where it is found that patches of DNA that look human are all over the place:-"Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation . . . [[Abstract, "Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis," PNAS February 13, 2007 vol. 104 no. 7 2043-2049.]"-My theory is a better fit than most of the popular ones. DNA as a standard code has been around since the beginning of life. Because it has an overlay of epigentic mechanisms, now just being elucidated, it can cause variations on the original themes of types, which then tested by natural selection allows for chosing advanced types. However, epigentics works in large jumps, not the itty-bitty gradualism of Darwin. Epigentics doesn't need itty-bitty in time or form. This fits Gould's punc-inc. It also fits the Cambrian Explosion. And it fits the sudden jump to humans from primates over a 20 million year period. The only thing I believe, but cannot prove, is that evolution was guided to arrive at humans. The above abstract finds DNA humanness everywhere. That fits my theory of guidance and also fits with my belief in God.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Thursday, February 13, 2014, 01:30 (3914 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Thursday, February 13, 2014, 01:36
New DNA studies say evolution goes back and forth in complexity through time, eventually more complex from the more simple, but a tortuous route.:-http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk-As Simon Conway Morris noted convergence smells of teleology
Tree of life not real
DAVID: New DNA studies say evolution goes back and forth in complexity through time, eventually more complex from the more simple, but a tortuous route.:-http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk-As Simon Conway Morris noted convergence smells of teleology.- I don't know where convergence comes into this research, let alone teleology. Here is the conclusion:-Perhaps the fact that people are stunned whenever organisms become simpler says more about how the human mind organizes the world than about evolutionary processes. People are more comfortable envisioning increasing complexity through time instead of reversals or stasis. Physicist Sean Carroll calls humans " terrible temporal chauvinists" for this reason, because they desperately want the street from the past to the future to run in one direction. The textbook scenarios on early animal evolution might be correct, but they should be treated as hypotheses built by temporal chauvinists. When new data suggests a rearrangement, it must be considered no matter how perplexing the conclusion seems.-Casey Dunn, an evolutionary biologist at Brown University in Providence, R.I. who took part in the still-contentious comb jelly project, now doubts all notions of increasing complexity. Instead, he says the environment selects whatever form handles the challenges at hand, be it simple, complex, or plain ugly. Mother Nature, with her 4 billion years of experience, does not work like Steve Jobs, continuously designing sleeker versions. When asked whether de-evolution, a reversal from the complex to the simple, happens frequently, Dunn replies, sure. "But," he adds, "I wouldn't call that de-evolution, I'd call it evolution." The utter randomness and unpredictability of the evolutionary process described here speaks of anything but an ultimate purpose, other than individual organisms constantly seeking ways of coping with an ever changing environment.-****-Thank you for this and an array of interesting articles.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Friday, February 14, 2014, 00:02 (3913 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Friday, February 14, 2014, 00:08
DAVID: New DNA studies say evolution goes back and forth in complexity through time, eventually more complex from the more simple, but a tortuous route.: > > http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk-> David: As Simon Conway Morris noted convergence smells of teleology. > > dhw:I don't know where convergence comes into this research, let alone teleology- You have to know Conway Morris' writings. He is not in this article but the findings fit his contentions. Convergence is what is being described, life inventing the same thing over and over and on many different branches of the bush, and C-M opines that this suggests teleology in evolution's advances because the same advances in complexity occur so often. Again, six types of eyes.
Tree of life not real
DAVID: New DNA studies say evolution goes back and forth in complexity through time, eventually more complex from the more simple, but a tortuous route.:-http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk-As Simon Conway Morris noted convergence smells of teleology.-Dhw: I don't know where convergence comes into this research, let alone teleology [,,,] The utter randomness and unpredictability of the evolutionary process described here speaks of anything but an ultimate purpose, other than individual organisms constantly seeking ways of coping with an ever changing environment.-DAVID: You have to know Conway Morris' writings. He is not in this article but the findings fit his contentions. Convergence is what is being described, life inventing the same thing over and over and on many different branches of the bush, and C-M opines that this suggests teleology in evolution's advances because the same advances in complexity occur so often. Again, six types of eyes.-This article is not about convergence. It focuses explicitly on the idea that there is no direct line from simplicity to complexity, but evolution acts like a drunkard (see the wording of the link itself!). I'm surprised that you can extrapolate purpose from this, unless you think your God set out to stagger all over the place. -As for convergence, though, do please explain why a God whose purpose was to produce humans produced six types of eye. Not to mention trilobytes and dinosaurs. And would you not, with your anthropocentrically theistic mindset, have seen the same purpose if your God had produced only one type of eye? Or a thousand types of eye? Might it be possible that, as the article puts it so succinctly, your interpretation tells us "more about how the human mind organizes the world than about evolutionary processes"?
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Friday, February 14, 2014, 20:48 (3912 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: New DNA studies say evolution goes back and forth in complexity through time, eventually more complex from the more simple, but a tortuous route.: > > http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk > > As Simon Conway Morris noted convergence smells of teleology. > > Dhw: I don't know where convergence comes into this research, let alone teleology [,,,] The utter randomness and unpredictability of the evolutionary process described here speaks of anything but an ultimate purpose, other than individual organisms constantly seeking ways of coping with an ever changing environment.- All I can do is quote SCM: On page 128 of "Life's Solution: he describes examples of convergence. He notes that biologists seem surprised and uneasy about the similarities and " I strongly suspect that some of these biologists sense the ghost of teleology looking over their shoulders". The subtitle of his book is "Inevitable Humans in an Lonely Universe". I follow his thinking. Life is programmed to try out many solutions to the challenges of existence. Why God chose this approach I do not know, but I undrstand your interpretation which comes from not being willing to look at teleology as a possibility.
Tree of life not real
DAVID: New DNA studies say evolution goes back and forth in complexity through time, eventually more complex from the more simple, but a tortuous route.: http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk As Simon Conway Morris noted convergence smells of teleology.-dhw: This article is not about convergence. It focuses explicitly on the idea that there is no direct line from simplicity to complexity, but evolution acts like a drunkard (see the wording of the link itself!). I'm surprised that you can extrapolate purpose from this, unless you think your God set out to stagger all over the place. -DAVID: All I can do is quote SCM: On page 128 of "Life's Solution: he describes examples of convergence. He notes that biologists seem surprised and uneasy about the similarities and " I strongly suspect that some of these biologists sense the ghost of teleology looking over their shoulders". The subtitle of his book is "Inevitable Humans in an Lonely Universe". I follow his thinking. Life is programmed to try out many solutions to the challenges of existence. Why God chose this approach I do not know, but I undrstand your interpretation which comes from not being willing to look at teleology as a possibility.-I think you have misunderstood my objections. You have drawn our attention to an article which explicitly argues that there is no direct line from simplicity to complexity, and that evolution behaves like a drunkard (i.e. it staggers all over the place = my "higgledy-piggledy"). For some reason you interpret this as supporting your thesis (and SCM's) that evolution has a divine purpose, and when I suggest that it does the exact opposite, "all you can do" is quote SCM, whose teleological convergence plays absolutely no part in the article. I have no quarrel with the argument that life (or rather living organisms) tries out many solutions to the challenges of existence. That is the point of the article, which says explicitly that there is no directionality. What the authors describe is only a higgledy-piggledy array of different solutions. Whether living organisms have been "programmed" by your God is, of course, the great issue, but if they have, the utter randomness and unpredictability of the evolutionary process illustrated by the article you have referred us to scarcely supports your anthropocentric interpretation of his purpose. The fact that you cannot find a reasonable explanation for the approach you insist God chose might perhaps be grounds to look for a different purpose! How about evolution as one vast experiment, setting up the mechanisms to see where they would lead? At least that would explain the higgledy-piggledy nature of life's history. You could even surmise that after a few billion years, your God sort of hit on the idea of an organism with an extra degree of consciousness ... a wonderful new dimension for his experiment. At least that hypothesis would get you out of the impossible tasks of explaining 1) how six types of eye, trilobites and dinosaurs were all part of the divine plan to create human beings, and 2) how an article that expressly focuses on a lack of direction provides evidence of direction.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Saturday, February 15, 2014, 19:01 (3911 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I think you have misunderstood my objections. You have drawn our attention to an article which explicitly argues that there is no direct line from simplicity to complexity, and that evolution behaves like a drunkard (i.e. it staggers all over the place = my "higgledy-piggledy"). ..... That is the point of the article, which says explicitly that there is no directionality. What the authors describe is only a higgledy-piggledy array of different solutions. -I understand your point of view and objections. However the findings described in the article are open to other interpretations if you let the "whiff of teleology" enter your thinking. > > dhw: Whether living organisms have been "programmed" by your God is, of course, the great issue, but if they have, the utter randomness and unpredictability of the evolutionary process illustrated by the article you have referred us to scarcely supports your anthropocentric interpretation of his purpose. ....How about evolution as one vast experiment, setting up the mechanisms to see where they would lead? At least that would explain the higgledy-piggledy nature of life's history. You could even surmise that after a few billion years, your God sort of hit on the idea of an organism with an extra degree of consciousness ... a wonderful new dimension for his experiment. -Your own objective thinking has led to a description of God's purpose that might have a ring of truth. I don't propose to know God's thinking, but what you have suggested may be right on. The point is we have to explain how single celled oganisms complexified through some sort of evolutionary process and ended up as sentient humans which a consciousness that we can describe but cannot explain. If you look at the thousands of examples of convergence in Simon Conway Morris' book it really seems to fit your suggestion. Life keeps adding complexity and seems to go off in every direction at once, but it did arrive at us folks, and that is stong evidence that that end is what was intended. Bacteria are the most successful set of organisms around, lasting 3.5 billion years and with the greatest biomass on Earth. there was no urgent reason for them to attempt complexity, but it was successfully attempted. And this is where I ask the 'why' question, and answer, life had a built-in mechanism to do this as evidenced by convergence. This is SCM's point of view. It is evidence from inference.-By the way, there are other articles coming out now indicating a back and forth in evolutionary history. It appears evolution is a very bumpy road. For example the Permian extinction killed 95% of everything over a sixty thousand year period. And life quickly recovered full blast, but at that point without the poor trilobites who had lasted a quarter billion years from the Cambrian, and we got horseshoe crabs out ot it! Life is tough and won't be killed off, and keeps progressing.-So I reject your opinion. The article does support my point of view and scm's.
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, February 15, 2014, 20:37 (3911 days ago) @ David Turell
Just to throw a monkey wrench into the debate, what happens if you remove the assumption of speciation from this mix?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Saturday, February 15, 2014, 22:52 (3911 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Just to throw a monkey wrench into the debate, what happens if you remove the assumption of speciation from this mix?-Well, how do you get from bacteria to us without it? My position is that evolution did progress from single cell to us but just how it all happened is up for debate. We don't know how speciation occurs and species appear in the fossil record fully developed. Gould pointed this out many years ago. In a way the progression looks almost miraculous as origin of life.
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, February 15, 2014, 23:33 (3911 days ago) @ David Turell
Humor me. Call it a hypothetical situation where we actually look at the evidence and throw away the assumptions which we can not prove(and will never be able to prove).-To me, all that this does is show that complex and simple life have been living side by side for all epochs which we have reliable data for.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Sunday, February 16, 2014, 01:34 (3911 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Humor me. Call it a hypothetical situation where we actually look at the evidence and throw away the assumptions which we can not prove(and will never be able to prove). > > To me, all that this does is show that complex and simple life have been living side by side for all epochs which we have reliable data for.- I'm still p;uzzled. You are going to have to define reliable data. I have travelled the Grand Canyon by raft with an internationally recognized expert on Canyon geology. At the time he was head of the geology department at U. Manitoba. I've seen the layers, heard about the aging. I have touched the Great Unconformity. Bacteria have been around for about 3.5 bilion years. There were no humans around at the time of the Vishnu Shist, two billion years ago, which I have also touched. So I don't know where you are taking me. Is your point that the aging techniques are not at all adequate?
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, February 16, 2014, 05:26 (3911 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: Humor me. Call it a hypothetical situation where we actually look at the evidence and throw away the assumptions which we can not prove(and will never be able to prove). > > > > To me, all that this does is show that complex and simple life have been living side by side for all epochs which we have reliable data for. > > David: I'm still p;uzzled. You are going to have to define reliable data. I have travelled the Grand Canyon by raft with an internationally recognized expert on Canyon geology. At the time he was head of the geology department at U. Manitoba. I've seen the layers, heard about the aging. I have touched the Great Unconformity. Bacteria have been around for about 3.5 bilion years. There were no humans around at the time of the Vishnu Shist, two billion years ago, which I have also touched. So I don't know where you are taking me. Is your point that the aging techniques are not at all adequate?- No, it was just a poorly worded question because I was pressed for time. My point is we do not have this gradual progression from less complex to more complex. Where complex creatures exist, they exist, with no obvious reliable precursors, and they exist alongside simpler forms already existed and did not grow significantly more complex. At least, we have no definitive evidence that one creature grew into a more complex one, only speculation. I am asking what happens to this train of thought if we remove the speculation about one organism metamorphosing into another organism, something which we have no definitive observations of, and simply look at the evidence for what it actually is instead of what we want it to be? Would our perception about the whole thing change?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
TONY: My point is we do not have this gradual progression from less complex to more complex. Where complex creatures exist, they exist, with no obvious reliable precursors, and they exist alongside simpler forms already existed and did not grow significantly more complex. At least, we have no definitive evidence that one creature grew into a more complex one, only speculation. I am asking what happens to this train of thought if we remove the speculation about one organism metamorphosing into another organism, something which we have no definitive observations of, and simply look at the evidence for what it actually is instead of what we want it to be? Would our perception about the whole thing change?-The alternative which I presume you have in mind is separate creation. "Definitive evidence" is perhaps the key expression here. We have no definitive evidence for - or observation of - any form of life that does not descend from existing organisms (disregarding the very first living organisms, about whose origin we know nothing and therefore speculate endlessly). The observation that life descends from life is the basis of "common descent", which in turn is the basis of evolution. The alternative to one organism metamorphosing into another organism has to be not just one original form of life but billions. Even if I put on my theist hat, I would find it hard to believe that God would go to all the trouble of specially creating billions of forms the majority of which literally came to a dead end. From our past discussions, I know you would like to restrict your God's creativity to a few "kinds", and your reservations about defining speciation seem to me to be fully justified ... no-one has ever come up with a satisfactory answer ... but if you are prepared to allow Nature to produce its own variations on the original kinds, where do you draw the line? An evolutionist is prepared to allow Nature to produce innovations as well as variations. An atheist evolutionist will no doubt point out that the lack of "definitive evidence" concerning one organism metamorphosing into another scarcely justifies belief in organisms starting all over from scratch (no definitive evidence or observation), let alone belief in an unknown and unknowable divine power producing new organisms out of nothing (no definitive evidence or observation). In the end, everyone has to opt for what seems to them the most likely of all the speculations, or perch on the picket fence. I myself opt for common descent, but remain open as to how the process of evolution originated and how it actually works.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Sunday, February 16, 2014, 15:35 (3911 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: My point is we do not have this gradual progression from less complex to more complex. Where complex creatures exist, they exist, with no obvious reliable precursors, and they exist alongside simpler forms already existed and did not grow significantly more complex. At least, we have no definitive evidence that one creature grew into a more complex one, only speculation. I am asking what happens to this train of thought if we remove the speculation about one organism metamorphosing into another organism, something which we have no definitive observations of, and simply look at the evidence for what it actually is instead of what we want it to be? Would our perception about the whole thing change? > > dhw: The alternative which I presume you have in mind is separate creation. "Definitive evidence" is perhaps the key expression here. We have no definitive evidence for - or observation of - any form of life that does not descend from existing organisms (disregarding the very first living organisms, about whose origin we know nothing and therefore speculate endlessly). The observation that life descends from life is the basis of "common descent", which in turn is the basis of evolution. The alternative to one organism metamorphosing into another organism has to be not just one original form of life but billions. Even if I put on my theist hat, I would find it hard to believe that God would go to all the trouble of specially creating billions of forms the majority of which literally came to a dead end.-The answer to this debate may lie in the following paper which shows that new species arrive fully developed, without precursors, and then modify just a litle, Darwin predicted a cone, Gould an inverted mushroom, and the current paper a cylinder with little diversification.-http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html-As an aside, dhw has fallen into the trap I warn about: the second bolded comment assumes an anthropomorphized God who thinks like we do. For shame!-The first (in order) bolded statement is an assumption which is not supported from the evolution we see. The issue of common descent is what we are debating. We may descend from somewhat simple (the first cells) to very complex, but it is by huge jumps, by a mechanism we have not discovered. For me it suggests theistic evolution as everyone here knows.
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, February 16, 2014, 19:40 (3910 days ago) @ David Turell
I think the link from David sums up my point nicely, even if on the surface it still holds with the more traditional assumptions of evolution.- "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on...."A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution..." -Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html#jCp-Leaving God out of it for the moment, as I am not trying to get into the debate over whether or not God exists or whether he created anything (I think he did like its said he did, David thinks it did but not the way it's said he did, and DHW refuses to commit other than to say he can't believe what anyone says), but rather I am just trying to get beyond the hype and actually look at the empirical evidence without the additional burden of speculation and dogma. What do we know without adding speculation into the mix? We know these creatures existed. We know that there is variability within a species, and that there appears to be some very hard limitations on that variability. We know that complex and simple life have lived side by side for long epochs of time. -I am just trying to reframe this discussion in terms of what we know instead of what we believe.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Monday, February 17, 2014, 01:52 (3910 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
tony: We know these creatures existed. We know that there is variability within a species, and that there appears to be some very hard limitations on that variability. We know that complex and simple life have lived side by side for long epochs of time. > > I am just trying to reframe this discussion in terms of what we know instead of what we believe.-We know that bacteria have been here for 3.5 billion years and H. Sapiens for 150-200,000 years or slightly more. I still don't see the point you are trying to create. There is no question that most complex and even the simple one-celled species start out fully devloped without gradual precursors. Modifications then are minor and react to environmental pressures, and this is where natural selection plays a role. The article shows this. This is current accepted fact, not belief. It appears Darwin was generally wrong. It also appears that we really do not know how evolution procedes from single cell to complex humans. And most of all we do not know where consciousness came from and how it currently works, but we do know a functional brain is required. Does the brain create consciousness or is it a receiver of some sort?
Tree of life not real
dhw: [to Tony:] The alternative which I presume you have in mind is separate creation. "Definitive evidence" is perhaps the key expression here. We have no definitive evidence for - or observation of - any form of life that does not descend from existing organisms (disregarding the very first living organisms, about whose origin we know nothing and therefore speculate endlessly). The observation that life descends from life is the basis of "common descent", which in turn is the basis of evolution. The alternative to one organism metamorphosing into another organism has to be not just one original form of life but billions. Even if I put on my theist hat, I would find it hard to believe that God would go to all the trouble of specially creating billions of forms the majority of which literally came to a dead end.-DAVID: The answer to this debate may lie in the following paper which shows that new species arrive fully developed, without precursors, and then modify just a little... -http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html-QUOTE: "Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution. Equally intriguing is the manner in which some groups are able to break free from these constraints.-"Our results hint that this may hinge upon the evolution of new 'key innovations' that enable groups to exploit new resources or habitats, for example dinosaurs growing feathers and evolving wings or fish evolving legs and moving onto land to claim new territory."-(Tony has also quoted the first sentence, but left out the rest, which changes the whole meaning.)-Of course innovations are the key to the evolution of new species, and they would probably not survive if they did not work! This does not mean that new species arrive fully developed without precursors, but that existing organisms change their nature (break free from their constraints), whereas others remain as they were. This is a perfectly conventional view of evolution!-DAVID: As an aside, dhw has fallen into the trap I warn about: the second bolded comment assumes an anthropomorphized God who thinks like we do. For shame!-So it's not anthropomorphic for you to read God's mind and endow him with an anthropocentric purpose, but it's anthropomorphic for me to question the logic of the arguments you present to justify your anthropocentric hypothesis. For shame!-DAVID: The first (in order) bolded statement is an assumption which is not supported from the evolution we see. The issue of common descent is what we are debating. We may descend from somewhat simple (the first cells) to very complex, but it is by huge jumps, by a mechanism we have not discovered. For me it suggests theistic evolution as everyone here knows.-Common descent does not preclude jumps (hence punctuated equilibrium, and the proposal that innovations must work at once if they are to survive). It merely tells us that all living organisms descended from earlier living organisms. The fact that we have not discovered the mechanism does not invalidate the theory, or lend tangible support to theism. We have all seen life descending from earlier life. Has anyone seen life that did not descend from earlier life?
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Monday, February 17, 2014, 15:29 (3910 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Of course innovations are the key to the evolution of new species, and they would probably not survive if they did not work! This does not mean that new species arrive fully developed without precursors, but that existing organisms change their nature (break free from their constraints), whereas others remain as they were. This is a perfectly conventional view of evolution! > > Common descent does not preclude jumps (hence punctuated equilibrium, and the proposal that innovations must work at once if they are to survive). It merely tells us that all living organisms descended from earlier living organisms. The fact that we have not discovered the mechanism does not invalidate the theory, or lend tangible support to theism. We have all seen life descending from earlier life. Has anyone seen life that did not descend from earlier life?-Please read this current review of the 'gaps' and 'jumps' problem. The conventional view of evolution is that no gradualism is ever found! The assumption that life descends from earlier life is what Tony is questioning. We know we get life only from life. There is gradual complexity as we dig though the layers from older to newer. We may have inferred too much from that appearance.-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/gradualism-the-darwinist-article-of-faith/-These quotes are from folks who have accepted Darwin evolution as approaching the truth.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 18, 2014, 00:45 (3909 days ago) @ David Turell
Another comment summarizing Darwin theory's problems. There are many as we have been discussing:-http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/the-trouble-with-darwin
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, February 18, 2014, 01:48 (3909 days ago) @ David Turell
One quote here that struck me as particularly interesting was this
aleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study . . . The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'- That has a strikingly remarkable similarity to the way that civilizations sprung up in various locations all over the earth, 'fully formed'.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 18, 2014, 04:58 (3909 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: That has a strikingly remarkable similarity to the way that civilizations sprung up in various locations all over the earth, 'fully formed'.-Look at the next entry of mine for more damning evidence toward Darwin.
Tree of life not real
dhw: Of course innovations are the key to the evolution of new species, and they would probably not survive if they did not work! This does not mean that new species arrive fully developed without precursors, but that existing organisms change their nature (break free from their constraints), whereas others remain as they were. This is a perfectly conventional view of evolution! Common descent does not preclude jumps (hence punctuated equilibrium, and the proposal that innovations must work at once if they are to survive). It merely tells us that all living organisms descended from earlier living organisms. The fact that we have not discovered the mechanism does not invalidate the theory, or lend tangible support to theism. We have all seen life descending from earlier life. Has anyone seen life that did not descend from earlier life?-DAVID: Please read this current review of the 'gaps' and 'jumps' problem. The conventional view of evolution is that no gradualism is ever found! The assumption that life descends from earlier life is what Tony is questioning. We know we get life only from life. There is gradual complexity as we dig though the layers from older to newer. We may have inferred too much from that appearance.-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/gradualism-the-darwinist-article-of-f...-These quotes are from folks who have accepted Darwin evolution as approaching the truth.-This is a depressing response. We have long, long, long ago agreed that gradualism is out. You have reproduced my post - "Common descent does not preclude jumps (hence punctuated equilibrium, and the proposal that innovations must work at once if they are to survive)" ... and then ignored it. Please stop flogging this dead horse.-Tony also quoted the first article, but missed out the paragraph which says that some groups stay as they are, whereas others innovate. That article does not support separate creation. The new article also debunks gradualism, as well as other aspects of Darwin's theory that we have long, long, long ago agreed are deficient, such as random mutations. If "we get life only from life", the new species can only be the result of innovations from within existing species. Whether this is as a result of inventive interaction among existing communities of intelligent cells in response to environmental changes, or divine intervention (your God dabbling with existing organisms), makes no difference to the keystone of evolutionary theory, which is that all forms of life are descended from earlier forms.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 18, 2014, 14:50 (3909 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If "we get life only from life", the new species can only be the result of innovations from within existing species. Whether this is as a result of inventive interaction among existing communities of intelligent cells in response to environmental changes, or divine intervention (your God dabbling with existing organisms), makes no difference to the keystone of evolutionary theory, which is that all forms of life are descended from earlier forms.-Your statement is a given. Tony raised the issue. Simple answer: We don't know the mechanism for speciation.
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, February 18, 2014, 20:23 (3908 days ago) @ David Turell
David: Your statement is a given. Tony raised the issue. Simple answer: We don't know the mechanism for speciation.-Correction, we don't even know for certain that it occurs. It is assumed.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 18, 2014, 23:16 (3908 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Your statement is a given. Tony raised the issue. Simple answer: We don't know the mechanism for speciation. > > Tony: Correction, we don't even know for certain that it occurs. It is assumed.-Of course it occurs: Simple logic: on this Earth, as we know it, life can come only from life to quoe dhw recently. We do not know how life originated, but once it did appear, it progressed from single-celled organisms to us complicated conscious humans. Darwin theory obviously does not tell us how evolution causes speciation, but it must have happened. That is why I believe in theistic evolution. Entirely natural processes don't seem capable of developing the complexity of living organic chemistry in the present human genome. But species do appear in the fossil record. Look at the Cambrian layers, including the new one which is 100,000 years older than the earlier discoveries. Even if you doubt aging techniques, new species appear in an order from ancient single forms to the more complex.
Tree of life not real or gradual
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 00:26 (3908 days ago) @ David Turell
This frightens Dawkins who must have gradual:-"Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation." Dawkins, R. (1995) River Out of Eden, Basic Books, New York, p. 83.-And the Cambrian denies:-"Many of the fossils at the new site are better preserved than their quarry counterparts, the researchers report. The new fossils reveal the internal organs of several different arthropods, the most common type of animal in both the new and old Burgess Shale locations. Retinas, corneas, neural tissue, guts and even a possible heart and liver were found." (my bold)-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mother-lode-of-fossils-discovered-in-canada/
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 08:43 (3908 days ago) @ David Turell
David: Your statement is a given. Tony raised the issue. Simple answer: We don't know the mechanism for speciation. > > > > Tony: Correction, we don't even know for certain that it occurs. It is assumed. > > David: Of course it occurs: Simple logic: on this Earth, as we know it, life can come only from life to quoe dhw recently. We do not know how life originated, but once it did appear, it progressed from single-celled organisms to us complicated conscious humans. Darwin theory obviously does not tell us how evolution causes speciation, but it must have happened. That is why I believe in theistic evolution. Entirely natural processes don't seem capable of developing the complexity of living organic chemistry in the present human genome. But species do appear in the fossil record. Look at the Cambrian layers, including the new one which is 100,000 years older than the earlier discoveries. Even if you doubt aging techniques, new species appear in an order from ancient single forms to the more complex.-" .. once it did appear, it progressed from single-celled organisms to us complicated conscious humans. Darwin theory obviously does not tell us how evolution causes speciation, but it must have happened."-This is the difference between certainty and speculation. You say "it must have happened". I say, show me. While that may seem like an unfair challenge, that is the exact same challenge I am faced with when I express my faith in God. I am told to prove that he exists. In fact, this is the same hang up DHW has with believing in something without evidence of it that is tangible. -Fore the record, I am NOT saying you are wrong, only that we all must adhere to the same standards. If theist must 'prove' god exists, then evolutionist must 'prove' speciation can, and has, occurred to a degree significant enough to explain the diversity we see today, within the proposed timeline for the history of the earth. I don't care much for double standards.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 15:27 (3908 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> David: " .. once it did appear, it progressed from single-celled organisms to us complicated conscious humans. Darwin theory obviously does not tell us how evolution causes speciation, but it must have happened." > > Tony: This is the difference between certainty and speculation. You say "it must have happened". I say, show me. While that may seem like an unfair challenge, that is the exact same challenge I am faced with when I express my faith in God. I am told to prove that he exists. In fact, this is the same hang up DHW has with believing in something without evidence of it that is tangible. > > For the record, I am NOT saying you are wrong, only that we all must adhere to the same standards. If theist must 'prove' god exists, then evolutionist must 'prove' speciation can, and has, occurred to a degree significant enough to explain the diversity we see today, within the proposed timeline for the history of the earth. I don't care much for double standards.-This discussion must have some starting point decisions: 1) is the Earth really layered and are those layers related to time? 2) Is the Earth truly 4.5 billion years old? 3) Is it true that life can only come from life? 4) Is it possible that all the existent fossils in the layers of the Earth were placed there to fool us? 5) Is it possible that all the currently existing living species on Earth were created at the same time?-If the answers follow current knowledge, then speciation occurred, again with the proviso that we don't know how it happens. And the pentadactyl pattern for animals suggests a degree of relationship to a basic original design. I don't think faith is involved here.
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 19:36 (3907 days ago) @ David Turell
David: This discussion must have some starting point decisions: 1) is the Earth really layered and are those layers related to time? 2) Is the Earth truly 4.5 billion years old? 3) Is it true that life can only come from life? 4) Is it possible that all the existent fossils in the layers of the Earth were placed there to fool us? 5) Is it possible that all the currently existing living species on Earth were created at the same time? > > If the answers follow current knowledge, then speciation occurred, again with the proviso that we don't know how it happens. And the pentadactyl pattern for animals suggests a degree of relationship to a basic original design. I don't think faith is involved here.-1 Possibly, but there are other explanations that have been tested in laboratory experiments that show that other methods are possible that do not require this to be true or for #4 to be true.-2 we can only speculate about. There is too much disagreement between dating techniques and their application, not to mention circular reasoning to say anything for certain.-3 depends on how you define life. I believe in a creator, but my beliefs dictate that he is the source of life and is alive, so life coming from God would not contradict this statement. -4 is silly, and there is no reason to even suspect that, nor would I ever dream of making that type of statement. -5) Possible, but not required. Even a believer of the bible need not accept that statement as true, because the creation account explicitly sets different time periods for the creation of plants, fish, birds, and land animals. The number of actual separate species(as opposed to variations of the same species) is actually quite small.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Thursday, February 20, 2014, 01:10 (3907 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: This discussion must have some starting point decisions: 1) is the Earth really layered and are those layers related to time? 2) Is the Earth truly 4.5 billion years old? 3) Is it true that life can only come from life? 4) Is it possible that all the existent fossils in the layers of the Earth were placed there to fool us? 5) Is it possible that all the currently existing living species on Earth were created at the same time? > > > > If the answers follow current knowledge, then speciation occurred, again with the proviso that we don't know how it happens. And the pentadactyl pattern for animals suggests a degree of relationship to a basic original design. I don't think faith is involved here. > > Tony: 1 Possibly, but there are other explanations that have been tested in laboratory experiments that show that other methods are possible that do not require this to be true or for #4 to be true.-I think (1) is absolutely true. I've seen the layers up close. > > Tony:2 we can only speculate about. There is too much disagreement between dating techniques and their application, not to mention circular reasoning to say anything for certain.-I know that the dating procedures are in agreement at about a 15-20% difference. That there has been inferential some circular reasoning I admit, but radioactive decay is rather a fixed and fairly accurate method. > > tony: 3 depends on how you define life. I believe in a creator, but my beliefs dictate that he is the source of life and is alive, so life coming from God would not contradict this statement.-There is no really agreed upon definition of life, but let's admit that we know life when we see it. So I think we have to certainly accept tht life comes only from life, which I agree was started by God. > > tony:4 is silly, and there is no reason to even suspect that, nor would I ever dream of making that type of statement. Nor would I be it speaks to your point. > > Tony: 5) Possible, but not required. Even a believer of the bible need not accept that statement as true, because the creation account explicitly sets different time periods for the creation of plants, fish, birds, and land animals. The number of actual separate species(as opposed to variations of the same species) is actually quite small.-99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. There hve been lots of species. So do you believe in a creation that took six days or six eons? I'm still for theistic evolution as the best explanation.
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, February 20, 2014, 02:22 (3907 days ago) @ David Turell
David: This discussion must have some starting point decisions: 1) is the Earth really layered and are those layers related to time? 2) Is the Earth truly 4.5 billion years old? 3) Is it true that life can only come from life? 4) Is it possible that all the existent fossils in the layers of the Earth were placed there to fool us? 5) Is it possible that all the currently existing living species on Earth were created at the same time?-> > > > Tony: 1 Possibly, but there are other explanations that have been tested in laboratory experiments that show that other methods are possible that do not require this to be true or for #4 to be true. > > David: I think (1) is absolutely true. I've seen the layers up close. > > -I'm not denying layers exist. See: http://creation.com/sedimentation-experiments-nature-finally-catches-up and http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Floods/description_floods.html http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/move.html-Layers and their contents are not good indicators of absolute chronology. -> > Tony:2 we can only speculate about. There is too much disagreement between dating techniques and their application, not to mention circular reasoning to say anything for certain. > >David: I know that the dating procedures are in agreement at about a 15-20% difference. That there has been inferential some circular reasoning I admit, but radioactive decay is rather a fixed and fairly accurate method.-An example of WHY I don't trust dating techniques:-New 40K-40Ar and fission-track ages from volcanic ash partings in coal beds of the Eocene Puget Group of western Washington indicate a time span of about 41.2 ± 1.8 to 45.0 ± 2.1 (2σ) m.y. for the 1,890-m section of sediments exposed in the Green River area. These age data do not entirely support the previous early Eocene through early Oligocene paleobotanical age estimates for this section and for the four paleobotanical stages defined within it. Radiometric dating of floras assigned to the same stages outside the type section appears to be partially inconsistent with radiometric ages from the type section.(Turner, Frizzle, Tripplehorn, Naeser, 1983)--> > Tony: 5) Possible, but not required. Even a believer of the bible need not accept that statement as true, because the creation account explicitly sets different time periods for the creation of plants, fish, birds, and land animals. The number of actual separate species(as opposed to variations of the same species) is actually quite small. > > 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. There hve been lots of species. So do you believe in a creation that took six days or six eons? I'm still for theistic evolution as the best explanation.-This depends on how we define species, as DHW pointed out, and I am not in agreement with the common usage because it does not differentiate between breedable and non-breedable groups, only between those that DO breed, and those that don't. In an environment where the choice is present, individuals tend to stick to those most similar to themselves, which does not preclude them from mixing if the choice is removed.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Thursday, February 20, 2014, 05:45 (3907 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > Tony:I'm not denying layers exist. > See: http://creation.com/sedimentation-experiments-nature-finally-catches-up and > http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Floods/description_floods.html > http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/move.html > > Layers and their contents are not good indicators of absolute chronology. -You are straining. I don't accept creation sites,because I know the true translation of Genesis. 'Yom' is any segment of time, not simply a day, and Christian creationists are confused by the KJV misinterpretation of yom. I've been on the Canyon and at rapid Lava Flow there is some jumbling, but not the other 220 miles. So I admit where appropriate volcanism can confuse layers, but lots of the world has identified layers which is why the great unconformity is identified at the canyon. Sorry, but I'm sticking with the generally accepted geology which I have been taught and seen and the general aging concepts. > > Tony An example of WHY I don't trust dating techniques: > > New 40K-40Ar and fission-track ages from volcanic ash partings in coal beds of the Eocene Puget Group of western Washington indicate a time span of about 41.2 ± 1.8 to 45.0 ± 2.1 (2σ) m.y. for the 1,890-m section of sediments exposed in the Green River area. These age data do not entirely support the previous early Eocene through early Oligocene paleobotanical age estimates for this section and for the four paleobotanical stages defined within it. Radiometric dating of floras assigned to the same stages outside the type section appears to be partially inconsistent with radiometric ages from the type section.(Turner, Frizzle, Tripplehorn, Naeser, 1983)-Two-three million years gap does not confuse the overall time lines. And besides this is an area where the Pacific plate and the North Americal plates are in a subduction zone where things get very jumbled. I've been on a river in that area where it was jumbled and the petrolium geologist with us was quite clear about that reasoning. And you are quoting a 1983 link. When was drift and subduction zones recognized finally, 1950's or 60's? And this link is 20 years later. Sorry, won't buy the complaint in the referrence which is just an isolated area. > > TONY: This depends on how we define species, as DHW pointed out, and I am not in agreement with the common usage because it does not differentiate between breedable and non-breedable groups, only between those that DO breed, and those that don't. In an environment where the choice is present, individuals tend to stick to those most similar to themselves, which does not preclude them from mixing if the choice is removed.-Absolutely agreed. The definition of species is fuzzy. but my point is the same. 99% of all species are gone. Not all the exiting species are identified. More are found every month. Species appear and disappear. Therefore, despite the inadequacies of the Darwin theory to explain it, speciation occurs. I think God helps it along. What is your point? It still is fuzzy to me. Your and I still have 3.5 billion years of life to deal with or are you still implying YEC or OEC to try and fit into a mistraslation of Genesis?
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, February 20, 2014, 07:39 (3907 days ago) @ David Turell
David: You are straining. I don't accept creation sites,because I know the true translation of Genesis. 'Yom' is any segment of time, not simply a day, and Christian creationists are confused by the KJV misinterpretation of yom. I've been on the Canyon and at rapid Lava Flow there is some jumbling, but not the other 220 miles. So I admit where appropriate volcanism can confuse layers, but lots of the world has identified layers which is why the great unconformity is identified at the canyon. Sorry, but I'm sticking with the generally accepted geology which I have been taught and seen and the general aging concepts. > > -Maybe i shouldn't accept atheist sites, but I do, as long as the science is sound and they are not mucking around with the data and interpretations. I work in applied geophysics. While that does not qualify me as an expert, it's safe to say that I have had fairly extensive training in it. The number of ways that the Earth's layers can be formed, changed, twisted, and generally mucked about are many and varied. -Also, you missed the point of the volcano link (though I have more that provide better examples perhaps). It wasn't that the volcano mucked things up, but the LAKE that mucked things up. The lake bed, filled with all sorts of critters that had been there for ages, was transported away and deposited ON TOP OF more recent layers. A geologist from the future might look at the new sedimentary layers and assume, based on superpositioning, that the newly deposited lake bed material was formed AFTER the layers below it, despite the fact that we KNOW they were formed earlier. This has nothing to do with creationism, though I do not deny it lends credence to it. This is about what we have OBSERVED versus what we SPECULATE about. And that is the source of my real complaint here. -We routinely ignore what we have observed because it does not fit the 'consensus of scientist'. Well, the earth being round did not fit the consensus of scientist at the time either, but that didn't make it less true.- >David: Two-three million years gap does not confuse the overall time lines. And besides this is an area where the Pacific plate and the North Americal plates are in a subduction zone where things get very jumbled. I've been on a river in that area where it was jumbled and the petrolium geologist with us was quite clear about that reasoning. And you are quoting a 1983 link. When was drift and subduction zones recognized finally, 1950's or 60's? And this link is 20 years later. Sorry, won't buy the complaint in the referrence which is just an isolated area. > > -Ok.. -Non-Volcanic natural earth layer transference. http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/move.html http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Lahars/description_lahars.html http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Hydrology/framework.html http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Floods/description_floods.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_lake_outburst_flood- Is 20 million years a big enough difference? What about 45 million? What about when they discard the data they don't want to see? http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/123_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr123_30.pdf--Another example of discarding evidence that doesn't fit the theory. Notice how 'early dates' were considered contamination and discarded because they didn't fit the theory. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/1439/1443- "The comparison of the results shows considerable discrepancies between all three techniques but also inconsistencies between the results of the radiometric dating study with the assumed geological position of the samples. (HEY! These rocks aren't where they are supposed to be!!!) Problems of ESR seem to lie in AD estimation and problems of U-series dating in open system behaviour of the samples. The study implies that samples have to be very carefully selected in order to perform a meaningful dating comparison." (QUICK! Pick samples that fit the theory!)-http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027737919290063E- Now, tell me again why I should trust this garbage?- > David: The definition of species is fuzzy. but my point is the same. 99% of all species are gone. Not all the exiting species are identified. More are found every month. Species appear and disappear. Therefore, despite the inadequacies of the Darwin theory to explain it, speciation occurs. I think God helps it along. What is your point? It still is fuzzy to me. Your and I still have 3.5 billion years of life to deal with or are you still implying YEC or OEC to try and fit into a mistraslation of Genesis?-Just to use a different term here to be more clear, did the 'kind' go extinct, or only a variant of a 'kind'. Because I do not doubt for a moment that 90% of all variants are extinct. -As for the other, no, I do not believe in a literal 6 day creation some 6000 years ago. As you rightly pointed out, the word used in Genesis means 'period of time' not a literal 24 hour period. In fact, it absolutely states that it does not mean a literal 24 hour period since those weren't established until the 'fourth day'.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Thursday, February 20, 2014, 15:16 (3907 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
This is a partial reply to Tony, but I haven't had time to dig into the sites he has offered me to study. Tony is teaching me. I've raised the issue of subduction zones and this article discusses them in detail with the point I make that layers are compared all over the world to arrive at present theory. The end of the article also throws in some hopeful garbage about origin of life which seems to be obligatory:-http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2014/02/dawn-plate-tectonics-"The team realized not only do both rocks carry the same geochemical signature, but in comparing the Mariana and the Nuvvuagittuq, they also discovered the rocks and the geochemistry of both sequences change in the exact same way, they report in the current issue of Geology. This finding bolstered the theory that the Nuvvuagittuq sequence is an ancient subduction zone. "Seeing the evolving chemical signature," Turner says, "was much more robust than just saying there is or isn't niobium.'"
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Thursday, February 20, 2014, 20:14 (3906 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: Maybe i shouldn't accept atheist sites, but I do, as long as the science is sound and they are not mucking around with the data and interpretations. I work in applied geophysics. While that does not qualify me as an expert, it's safe to say that I have had fairly extensive training in it. The number of ways that the Earth's layers can be formed, changed, twisted, and generally mucked about are many and varied.-I understand how well trained you are and I am a novice trying to learn, but I still have my point of view. -> Tony: Ok.. > > Non-Volcanic natural earth layer transference. > http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/move.html > http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Lahars/description_lahars.html > http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Hydrology/framework.html > http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Floods/description_floods.html > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_lake_outburst_flood-Of course sites like these quoted will get mucked up, but what I have been taught is that the layers are all over the Earth and therefore can be compared and reasonable assessments about them can be arrived at through the comparisons.That makes good sense to me. > > > Tony:Is 20 million years a big enough difference? What about 45 million? What about when they discard the data they don't want to see?-> http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/123_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr123_30.pdf-For the sake of your argument I've reviewed a number of articles on radiometric time measurement. They make perfect mathematical sense to me and are very useable. Do they fully agree, pretty much. Can they be misused, like using carbon dating for something too old, of course. > > > > Tony: Another example of discarding evidence that doesn't fit the theory. Notice how 'early dates' were considered contamination and discarded because they didn't fit the theory. > https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/1439/1443-This is again a single example of carbon dating problems. I don't think it supports your point of view since it is an isolated example of struggling with data. I don't think you are looking at the whole picture of the science, but finding disconnects to prove a point of view. > > Tony: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027737919290063E > > > Now, tell me again why I should trust this garbage?-I could only see the abstract. I understand your point that they were looking at ways around the problem, but I don't think this evidence destroys a whole scientifc approach to radiometric dating. >> > Tony; As for the other, no, I do not believe in a literal 6 day creation some 6000 years ago. As you rightly pointed out, the word used in Genesis means 'period of time' not a literal 24 hour period. In fact, it absolutely states that it does not mean a literal 24 hour period since those weren't established until the 'fourth day'.-Exactly correct. Thank you for the discussion. This website of dhw's is dedicated to avoiding fundamentalism. The Bible needs proper tranlation and interpretation and you have done just that.
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, February 20, 2014, 20:29 (3906 days ago) @ David Turell
I could list study after study after study that demonstrates my point, but you seem rather determined not to see it, which is, ironically, actually my point. Scientist are so hung up on their theories that they can not see the forest for the trees. All of the data staring them in the face that tells them that they are wrong and they ignore it or discard it because it doesn't fit their precious theories. -I think the fact that I am a biblical theist tends to lead to the assumption that every argument I make has to do with creationism or religion. The truth is. This is just bad science. Its no different than the religious fundamentalism of the YEC. Do I think we have the age of the Earth right? No, but it doesn't really make a difference to me either way. It could be a little older, or a lot younger, who knows. The one thing I do know for certain is that the theory of evolution has poisoned the scientific well, and every discipline that has drunk deeply from that well has become sick and twisted, discarding their reason and ethics in favor of dedication to an ideal.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Thursday, February 20, 2014, 21:24 (3906 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: I could list study after study after study that demonstrates my point, but you seem rather determined not to see it, which is, ironically, actually my point. Scientist are so hung up on their theories that they can not see the forest for the trees. All of the data staring them in the face that tells them that they are wrong and they ignore it or discard it because it doesn't fit their precious theories. > > I think the fact that I am a biblical theist tends to lead to the assumption that every argument I make has to do with creationism or religion. The truth is. This is just bad science. Its no different than the religious fundamentalism of the YEC. Do I think we have the age of the Earth right? No, but it doesn't really make a difference to me either way. It could be a little older, or a lot younger, who knows. The one thing I do know for certain is that the theory of evolution has poisoned the scientific well, and every discipline that has drunk deeply from that well has become sick and twisted, discarding their reason and ethics in favor of dedication to an ideal.-No, I do see your point, but I prefer to trust science generally. I don't care either tht the age of the Earth is 4.5 or 4.7 years old. I don't think the average scientist is as twisted as you imply. But in theoretical science string theory is swallowing a huge number of careers, and they are fighting tooth and nail to save it and their livelihoods, and that is intellectually dishonest On another tack, you are absolutely correct about theoretical evolutionary theories and Darwinist type scientists. Just like the stringy folks.
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, February 20, 2014, 22:35 (3906 days ago) @ David Turell
There are a couple of different ways that scientist get twisted, and not all of them are intentional. Either:-A) Their entire life they have been told something is true, regardless of evidence, and so they believe it whole-heartedly, regardless of evidence. This in turn shapes their perspective on what they see and choose not to see. -B) The are afraid of being ex-communicated from the academic world, loosing their careers that they have worked hard for. -C) They have invested so much of their life and research into an idea that they are loathe to let it go. -D) They have some sort of personal antagonistic bias against religion (i.e. Dawkins)-A & C to me are the least offensive of the four, and the two that I would consider not necessarily the fault of the individual, per se.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Thursday, February 20, 2014, 23:49 (3906 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: There are a couple of different ways that scientist get twisted, and not all of them are intentional. Either: > > A) Their entire life they have been told something is true, regardless of evidence, and so they believe it whole-heartedly, regardless of evidence. This in turn shapes their perspective on what they see and choose not to see. > > B) The are afraid of being ex-communicated from the academic world, loosing their careers that they have worked hard for. > > C) They have invested so much of their life and research into an idea that they are loathe to let it go. > > D) They have some sort of personal antagonistic bias against religion (i.e. Dawkins) > > A & C to me are the least offensive of the four, and the two that I would consider not necessarily the fault of the individual, per se.-I have to be mainly an A. I was in medicine for 41 years, and I gave some to thought to our discussion before you presented this comment. To do the best for my patients I had to accept the basic tenets of the medical science of the pathophysiology of humans. Obviously I developed my own thoughts as I developed experience, that is, I started as A and then modified. This is the reason I approach physcial sciences as I do. I was trained to trust science and understood it could be modified. Science combined with the art of practicing it. -Your analysis of scientists is right on. A's don't learn to think. B's are the Darwinists, and I've actually been approached by a Darwin research doctoral candidate who was hiding his theism, and secretely wanted some references from me! C's are the stringy ones and they are trapped. And D's misuse science because of their agenda.
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, February 21, 2014, 00:12 (3906 days ago) @ David Turell
I hope that gives some context to my arguments here. Science, even evolution, is not particularly contrary to my faith, so I have no reason to be antagonistic to it on those grounds. Rather, I am just tired of seeing bad science. I'm tired of them taking speculation as scientific fact. I'm tired of them ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories. I've come across numerous instances where this has happened at the expense of their peers, reaching out and crushing their careers to save their theories.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Friday, February 21, 2014, 01:18 (3906 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
tony: I hope that gives some context to my arguments here. Science, even evolution, is not particularly contrary to my faith, so I have no reason to be antagonistic to it on those grounds. Rather, I am just tired of seeing bad science. I'm tired of them taking speculation as scientific fact. I'm tired of them ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories. I've come across numerous instances where this has happened at the expense of their peers, reaching out and crushing their careers to save their theories.-You are describing incompetent, immoral people. Perhaps that is why the sciences are populated with so many atheists; no basis in ethical living. And you are describing deliberate incompetent thought. Medicine is somewhat different, at least at the practice level: folks might have a good background of training but can't think their way out of a paper bag. I know of one instance when the professors spotted that in one of the fellows in my internship group. They talked him into going into research instead of practice, and he made a wonderful research scientist. Considering how this country has changed, I doubt that can be done now. I am thinking of the grade creep, every one is marvelous fallacy, no competition environment caused by all the liberals who run establishment education. I suspect that you and I are very similar in our philosophy of life.
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, February 21, 2014, 02:22 (3906 days ago) @ David Turell
David: You are describing incompetent, immoral people. Perhaps that is why the sciences are populated with so many atheists; no basis in ethical living. And you are describing deliberate incompetent thought. Medicine is somewhat different, at least at the practice level: folks might have a good background of training but can't think their way out of a paper bag. I know of one instance when the professors spotted that in one of the fellows in my internship group. They talked him into going into research instead of practice, and he made a wonderful research scientist. Considering how this country has changed, I doubt that can be done now. I am thinking of the grade creep, every one is marvelous fallacy, no competition environment caused by all the liberals who run establishment education. I suspect that you and I are very similar in our philosophy of life.-Quite probably. I have no faith in public education anymore, even at the undergrad+ level. Education no long teaches how to think, but rather what to think. So many of the students I have been in classes with over the last few years are what I would consider borderline mentally handicapped (trying to be a little PC here) for their age. Unfortunately, I doubt that many of them even recognize the ethical implications of their actions. The world philosophy at this point is 'fake it til you make it' and 'get everything you can no matter the cost'. -The unfortunate side-effect is that the people moving into the research positions are coming up with that attitude, and it is ruining what should be an objective field.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Friday, February 21, 2014, 14:49 (3906 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: The world philosophy at this point is 'fake it til you make it' and 'get everything you can no matter the cost'. > > The unfortunate side-effect is that the people moving into the research positions are coming up with that attitude, and it is ruining what should be an objective field.-And the climate change phony "science used for politics" ploy is a great example:-http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, February 21, 2014, 20:35 (3905 days ago) @ David Turell
Agreed.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real: for dhw
by David Turell , Saturday, February 22, 2014, 01:17 (3905 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: The world philosophy at this point is 'fake it til you make it' and 'get everything you can no matter the cost'. > > > > The unfortunate side-effect is that the people moving into the research positions are coming up with that attitude, and it is ruining what should be an objective field. > > David: And the climate change phony "science used for politics" ploy is a great example: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/... Tony: Agreed-This is part of an infuriating picture. Science is being used very non-objective ways.
Tree of life not real
TONY: I am just tired of seeing bad science. I'm tired of them talking speculation as scientific fact. I'm tired of them ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories...-DAVID: You are describing incompetent, immoral people. Perhaps that is why the sciences are populated with so many atheists; no basis in ethical living.-Much as I sympathize with the attack on bad science, this correspondence is now bordering on the fundamentalism you both deplore in people like Dawkins. The claim that atheists have no basis in ethical living is almost libellous. We needn't go into the basis of ethics here (I will later if you want me to), but it will suffice to say that I've never heard of Dawkins exhorting his followers to go out and kill those who do not share his disbelief. I don't think either of you would want all religions to be tarnished by the actions of the fundamentalists, and although unquestionably there are bad scientists who deliberately ignore or suppress evidence that goes against their theories, they are no different from theists who have continued to do the same throughout history. -You have referred to Darwinism in this context. The agnostic Darwin was scrupulously fair in his assessment of the evidence, and agonized over some of his conclusions, but just like Dawkins and yourselves, he was convinced that his theory was right. However, just like Dawkins and yourselves, in order to embrace such convictions he had to brush aside those areas of his belief that were not based on available scientific evidence (and was honest enough to acknowledge it). That is the nature of all beliefs, because science itself is not equipped to cover every aspect of life and its history. At least agnostics do not have to resort to faith, but atheists and theists do, and that means ignoring the gaps in the scientific evidence. -Our hope is always that successive generations will put right the errors of their bad or mistaken predecessors. This is happening now with Darwin, but we can be quite certain that future generations will also find errors in the work of our current scientists, even the best of them. That is how science works and progresses. It is right to attack deliberate falsification, but scientists on both sides of the fence may also have sincere beliefs and disbeliefs that influence their judgement. That is why we have so many books that deal with the same evidence and come to different conclusions. The discussion on the reliability of scientific evidence is genuinely enlightening. I also share the fears David and Tony are expressing about current trends in the academic world, which of course denote a pendulum swing against the equally iniquitous bias when religion held the upper hand. (Tony complains that education no longer "teaches how to think, but rather what to think". Is it or was it ever any different in religious societies?) But the assumption that ethics are the province of the godly is a step too far for me, and it blinds us to the fact that all parties are equally guilty of ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories. That, I'm afraid, is common to beliefs in every walk of life.
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, February 21, 2014, 20:34 (3905 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Much as I sympathize with the attack on bad science, this correspondence is now bordering on the fundamentalism you both deplore in people like Dawkins. The claim that atheists have no basis in ethical living is almost libellous. We needn't go into the basis of ethics here (I will later if you want me to), but it will suffice to say that I've never heard of Dawkins exhorting his followers to go out and kill those who do not share his disbelief. I don't think either of you would want all religions to be tarnished by the actions of the fundamentalists, and although unquestionably there are bad scientists who deliberately ignore or suppress evidence that goes against their theories, they are no different from theists who have continued to do the same throughout history. - Did I say anything about atheists? Did I make any comment about one particular group of people at all?- > >DHW: You have referred to Darwinism in this context. The agnostic Darwin was scrupulously fair in his assessment of the evidence, and agonized over some of his conclusions, but just like Dawkins and yourselves, he was convinced that his theory was right. However, just like Dawkins and yourselves, in order to embrace such convictions he had to brush aside those areas of his belief that were not based on available scientific evidence (and was honest enough to acknowledge it). That is the nature of all beliefs, because science itself is not equipped to cover every aspect of life and its history. At least agnostics do not have to resort to faith, but atheists and theists do, and that means ignoring the gaps in the scientific evidence. > -The difference with Darwin was that he admitted, repeatedly, the flaws with his theory. Modern evolutionist do not, touting it as fact rather than theory. The same is true with fundamentalist YEC's, who don't even acknowledge what the bible says, much less science.- >DHW: Our hope is always that successive generations will put right the errors of their bad or mistaken predecessors. This is happening now with Darwin, but we can be quite certain that future generations will also find errors in the work of our current scientists, even the best of them. That is how science works and progresses. It is right to attack deliberate falsification, but scientists on both sides of the fence may also have sincere beliefs and disbeliefs that influence their judgement. -Which is precisely what I have said and done. I even stated sincere belief as the least offensive reason for not acknowledging the evidence stacked against a theory. ->DHW:That is why we have so many books that deal with the same evidence and come to different conclusions. The discussion on the reliability of scientific evidence is genuinely enlightening. I also share the fears David and Tony are expressing about current trends in the academic world, which of course denote a pendulum swing against the equally iniquitous bias when religion held the upper hand. (Tony complains that education no longer "teaches how to think, but rather what to think". Is it or was it ever any different in religious societies?) But the assumption that ethics are the province of the godly is a step too far for me, and it blinds us to the fact that all parties are equally guilty of ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories. That, I'm afraid, is common to beliefs in every walk of life.-I do not think I have ever said that ethics were the province of the godly. In fact, that wouldn't even be in line with my faith or what the bible teaches(contrary to popular belief).-I am speaking about a certain subset of a particular group; namely, scientist who simultaneously espouse science's openness to correction and new evidence that falsify it's claims while turning a blind eye from the evidence that would falsify their theories for the sake of financial or social gain.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
TONY: I am just tired of seeing bad science. I'm tired of them talking speculation as scientific fact. I'm tired of them ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories...-DAVID: You are describing incompetent, immoral people. Perhaps that is why the sciences are populated with so many atheists; no basis in ethical living.-Dhw: Much as I sympathize with the attack on bad science, this correspondence is now bordering on the fundamentalism you both deplore in people like Dawkins. The claim that atheists have no basis in ethical living is almost libellous... etc.-TONY: Did I say anything about atheists? Did I make any comment about one particular group of people at all?-Tony, that was a reply to David. You obviously didn't read his comment. In all these discussions, it's essential that we quote the comments we are replying to, and that each of us reads the quotes. Otherwise it's all too easy to get sidetracked. Later in the same post, you wrote: "I do not think I have ever said that ethics were the province of the godly." Same problem, and you will see that in his latest post David has graciously withdrawn his "poorly thought out off-hand comment".-In fact, the only difference between us in this particular discussion, Tony, seems to be the implication that somehow things are different now than they used to be. You complained that education no longer "teaches how to think, but rather what to think". I pointed out that this is and usually has been the case in religious societies, and I'd go so far as to say that throughout history it's caused far more damage than that done by individual scientists pursuing their own careers. Eventually there is every chance that they will be exposed, but it's far more difficult to expose the falseness of religious fundamentalism (if indeed it is false, since nobody knows the mind of God, if he exists). However, that's no excuse for the culprits. I am as sickened by bad science as you are, but we should keep things in perspective, and I am heartened by David's more moderate comment that he is sure "95% or more of atheists and agnostics are honorable folks." I expect it's about the same with theists.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Saturday, February 22, 2014, 15:21 (3905 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: but it's far more difficult to expose the falseness of religious fundamentalism (if indeed it is false, since nobody knows the mind of God, if he exists). However, that's no excuse for the culprits. -Plucked out of a long discussion from the picket fence (if....if...if...if...), but there is a different point to make. Religious fundamentalism definitely leads some people to declare their religion is better than any other one, which ib turn has led to wars, bigotry, discrimnination, etc. I wonder how much fundamentalism exists in 'my science is better than your science' as shown in biased peer review. I don't know if it all seems worse now that society is more complex, more interdependent, more politically contrived (global warming) or is really that way. I know, being older, every old person says things were simpler when I was a kid. Just musing
Tree of life not real
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, February 23, 2014, 01:51 (3904 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Tony, that was a reply to David. You obviously didn't read his comment. In all these discussions, it's essential that we quote the comments we are replying to, and that each of us reads the quotes. Otherwise it's all too easy to get sidetracked. Later in the same post, you wrote: "I do not think I have ever said that ethics were the province of the godly." Same problem, and you will see that in his latest post David has graciously withdrawn his "poorly thought out off-hand comment". >-I read his comment, but that part didn't jump out at me. My apologies for the misunderstanding. >DHW: In fact, the only difference between us in this particular discussion, Tony, seems to be the implication that somehow things are different now than they used to be. You complained that education no longer "teaches how to think, but rather what to think". I pointed out that this is and usually has been the case in religious societies, and I'd go so far as to say that throughout history it's caused far more damage than that done by individual scientists pursuing their own careers. Eventually there is every chance that they will be exposed, but it's far more difficult to expose the falseness of religious fundamentalism (if indeed it is false, since nobody knows the mind of God, if he exists). However, that's no excuse for the culprits. I am as sickened by bad science as you are, but we should keep things in perspective, and I am heartened by David's more moderate comment that he is sure "95% or more of atheists and agnostics are honorable folks." I expect it's about the same with theists.-As I have said before, I think, generally speaking, people WANT to be good people, and mostly succeed to varying degrees. I won't lay any numbers on that comment, though. I think a lot of the problem comes from institutionalism, whether it is religious, secular, or political. The entire concept of institutionalizing something is to create a 'common framework' or 'common set of beliefs', and there in lies the problem. Once you have a 'common' anything, it is very, very difficult to derail it, and this is particularly true when the object that needs to be derailed is a 'thought' or a pattern of thinking.- **Edit** This is particularly true when that pattern of thinking is supported by heavy investments in terms of time, money, or resources. Just look at how we cling to fossil fuels despite the abundance of 'free' energy.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tree of life not real
by David Turell , Saturday, February 22, 2014, 01:10 (3905 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: You have referred to Darwinism in this context. The agnostic Darwin was scrupulously fair in his assessment of the evidence, and agonized over some of his conclusions, but just like Dawkins and yourselves, he was convinced that his theory was right. -I am aware that Darwin was very troubled about his agnostic decision. He went ot church with Emma until he died, because she never lost her faith. Of course he was a very honorable man, as is Dawkins, who may be somewhat intellectually dishonest in his presentation of science, but I'm sure he never has done the things Tony is describing.-> > dhw: But the assumption that ethics are the province of the godly is a step too far for me, and it blinds us to the fact that all parties are equally guilty of ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories. That, I'm afraid, is common to beliefs in every walk of life.-I apologized for dashing off a reply to Tony that did not reflect my complete thoughts. Lets try again: Tony was describing unscrupulous scientists who were undercuttng rivals. This action has to be understood within the context of knowledge of scientific grants and what that means. Today to survive as an academic research scientist you must obtain grants for supplies, assistents, your salary, etc. To get grants, mainly from the government, you have to produce innovative ideas for research, produce interesting results, and lots of papers about those results. The mosst successful scientists develop a degree of fame. If you don't get a series of grants your career dies. -I have presented here much evidence of fraud in the science literature, problems with peer review, which is just some evidence of the tension involved.-With that background, let me add that over 90% of the American Acadamy of Science members are atheists by self-admission. In the soft sciences like medicine the rate is 60%. -Given the subset of characterists Tony was describing, the odds are overwhelming that 99% of this group are atheists.- On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that 95% or more of atheists and agnostics are honorable folks. You are right to remonstrate me for a poorly thought out off-hand comment, but it reflects the anger I have, as Tony has also, about the people he was describing. I have written this without reviewing his comments.