ReMine's latest distortion of science

[SLPx]

Writes the electrical engineer creationist ReMine (http://www.nmsr.org/tccsadbt.htm):

"2. Evolutionists use fossil-ages to "calibrate" the molecular clock - thereby guaranteeing a "match" between the two."

This is a blatant misrepresentation and a sad attempt at disinformation.

Here is how fossil calibration points are REALLY used:

An "agreed" upon fossil date is used to set a starting (calibration) point. FROM that point, the divergence dates of other species are calculated using molecular data.

These divergence dates often are congruent with dates inferred via other methods, such as other fossils (see Mol Phylogenet Evol 1999 Nov;13(2):348-59 Molecular phylogeny of Old World monkeys (Cercopithecidae) as inferred from gamma-globin DNA sequences. Page SL, Chiu Ch, Goodman M.

or

Mol Phylogenet Evol 2001 Jan;18(1):14-25
Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade. Page SL, Goodman M.).

ReMine is implying, as desperate creationists are wont to do, that there is some foul play afoot.

What is really afoot is ReMine's blatant dishonesty and ignorance.

I suggest that Walter ReMine, creationist electrical engineer, actually learn a LITTLE about what he prattles on about. The more he carries on, the bigger an ass he makes of himself.

[Socratism]

First we see some ad hominen attacks.

Then we note a defense of what is actually done.

Amazingly, what is claimed is actually done agrees with what Remine said!!!!!

Go figure.

[QED]

Socratism - let me explain:


Remine: "Evolutionists use fossil-ages to "calibrate" the molecular clock"

This part is true.

Remine: " - thereby guaranteeing a "match" between the two."

This part is patently false. Whether through his own misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "calibrate", or whether through intentional dishonesty, he has made a very false claim. The calibration process emphatically does not guarantee a match between molecular the molecular clock and the fossil clock as applied to phylogeny. The calibration is done only on the "starting" time. It is, if you will, how they effect the "starting gun" to make for a fair race.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 07:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70176#post70176)
QED:

Socratism - let me explain:


Remine: "Evolutionists use fossil-ages to "calibrate" the molecular clock"

This part is true.

Remine: " - thereby guaranteeing a "match" between the two."

This part is patently false. Whether through his own misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "calibrate", or whether through intentional dishonesty, he has made a very false claim. The calibration process emphatically does not guarantee a match between molecular the molecular clock and the fossil clock as applied to phylogeny. The calibration is done only on the "starting" time. It is, if you will, how they effect the "starting gun" to make for a fair race.

I would agree that Remine has oversimplified the "match" situation.

To be more accurate Remine should have mentioned that there is an additional step in the "match" process, namely rejecting data that doesn't "fit" the expected pattern. This is similar to why matches are frequently obtained using radiometric data.

I fully expect that this sort of anti-scientific behavior will some day be seen by future generations of scientists to have been as fraudulent as Haeckel's embryos.

[SLPx]

Yesterday @ 08:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69862#post69862)
Socratism:

First we see some ad hominen attacks.

Then we note a defense of what is actually done.

Amazingly, what is claimed is actually done agrees with what Remine said!!!!!

Go figure.

I see you don't understand it either.

Perhaps if I use a larger font? Perhaps if I use more words? Smaller words? Might it then actually sink in?

Did you bother to check the citations to see why ReMine's claims are in error? Of course not! Internet creationists ALWAYS swallow the tripe spoon fed them by those professional creationists without question ! That is a rule of some sort, isn't it?

Though it has already been tried, I will TRY to walk you through it:

ReMine writes:


2. Evolutionists use fossil-ages to "calibrate" the molecular clock - thereby guaranteeing a "match" between the two

Well, what two? It would appear that ReMine is stating the following:

We have a fossil. We then use this fossil to calibrate a starting time for molecualr clock calculations. we then take the molecular clock and say "Look, the same date as with the fossil."

That is utterly ridiculous, and laughably false on the face of it.

As it is clear that you will not/cannot access scientific paspers and most likely could not understand them anyway, here is what REALLY happens:

A well established fossil date is used to calibrate the molecular clock. Subsequent divergence events as indicated by molecular analyses can then be 'dated'. In the papers I cited, dates inferred by molecular means are congruent to - that is, similar to -
dates inferred for the same divergences by fossils (and other molecular means as well).


So, we use a fossil to establish time A. We then use molecular data to infer times B, C, D, and E.

ReMine will have you believe that we use fossils to GET times B, D, and E, so of course they would agree! What nonsense!

So, is ReMine really that incompetent, or is he that desperate to score rhetorical points in a debate submission that he knows will not be rebutted and whose target readership is folks that will most likely not know any different and will certainly not bother to find out?


So, "Socratism", are you as aghast at the continual ad hominems spewed forth by your 'friend' Socrates, or are you a typical double-standard YEC?

[SLPx]

Today @ 01:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70797#post70797)
Socratism:



I would agree that Remine has oversimplified the "match" situation.

To be more accurate Remine should have mentioned that there is an additional step in the "match" process, namely rejecting data that doesn't "fit" the expected pattern.


Why should he have mentioned that? that is false, also. Do you and Socrates just make things up as you go along?


This is similar to why matches are frequently obtained using radiometric data.

? Care to expand on this. That is, care to actually provide some supporting LEGITIMATE documentation? Can you?


I fully expect that this sort of anti-scientific behavior will some day be seen by future generations of scientists to have been as fraudulent as Haeckel's embryos.

It already has - the claims of the likes of ReMine and the folks at AiG was long ago exposed as anti-science. That is one of the many reasons that, for example, ReMine's book is a laughingstock among those that actually are familiar with the primary source literature.

[tgamble]

Today @ 01:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70797#post70797)
Socratism:

To be more accurate Remine should have mentioned that there is an additional step in the "match" process, namely rejecting data that doesn't "fit" the expected pattern. This is similar to why matches are frequently obtained using radiometric data.


So basically you're making accusations of fraud.

You got anything to back it up or is it just the typical hot air of creationists?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Note

SLPX - the broad brush characterizations will cease. For example:


Internet creationists ALWAYS swallow the tripe spoon fed them by those professional creationists without question ! That is a rule of some sort, isn't it?

and


Do you people just make things up as you go along?

It isn't satirical, it isn't helpful, it isn't even clever... it is simply rude for the sake of being rude.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Continud Moderator Note

Further...


Please respect any comments/warnings by the Moderators. Any grievances with their action should be addressed to the Forum Administrators in Private Message, Email or in the Dean's Office. If you feel you must repetitively complain, whine, or otherwise bellyache, please take it to the Janitor's Closet.

So, like everyone else who ignores this, here is your place to complain...


SLPX's Rant Thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=70866#post70866)

[DivineOb]

[i]Today @ 01:38 PM I fully expect that this sort of anti-scientific behavior will some day be seen by future generations of scientists to have been as fraudulent as Haeckel's embryos.

the broad brush characterizations will cease. It isn't satirical, it isn't helpful, it isn't even clever... it is simply rude for the sake of being rude.


Well, I can dream can't I :ahem:

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70859#post70859)
tgamble:

So basically you're making accusations of fraud.

You got anything to back it up or is it just the typical hot air of creationists?

The tragedy is that people do not consider the rejection of data to be fraud because they feel they have sufficient reasons for rejecting the data.

Biology is characterized by massive amounts of data.

People try to find patterns, trends and "laws" using this massive data base. Unfortunately these attempts have not been as successful as similar attempts in the physical sciences.

Because of this existence of "messy" data that is hard to fit into rigid patterns or relationships there has grown up a tendency to go with the majority of the data (or what is perceived to be the majority) and find reasons to downgrade or explain away data that does not fit the accepted paradigm.

Finally, there is no effective way to keep track of the totality of the data and determine how widespread is the tendency to fail to report rejected data. Thus, only extreme cases of data rejection or unwarranted data manipulation are, or can be, detected.

In such an atmosphere it is probably never considered "fraud" to reject data provided some subjective.rationalization can be imagined to reject the data.

The situation is probably not that different from what happens in business where certain practices are not considered fraudulent because they have been going on for so long and are done by practically everybody so that they have become merely "normal business practice".

[geochron]

Finally, there is no effective way to keep track of the totality of the data and determine how widespread is the tendency to fail to report rejected data. Thus, only extreme cases of data rejection or unwarranted data manipulation are, or can be, detected.


It would seem that either...

These rejected data were suppressed so we can never know whether they really existed or not.

or

Your theory is based on knowledge of data that was rejected, in which case the data weren't suppressed very well.

In the first case your theory would seem to be unsupportable in principle, in the second the data are reported so allegations of fraud are surely inappropriate.

Speaking personally (since you mentioned radiometric dating earlier on) - the only data from my lab that has not been published was acquired in a search for an exciting deviation from expected results but yielded a 'boring' confirmation of existing theory. Deviations from expectation are what we seek since they are the stuff of high profile publications.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you everyone for devling into the substantive issues.

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70930#post70930)
geochron:

It would seem that either...

These rejected data were suppressed so we can never know whether they really existed or not.

or

Your theory is based on knowledge of data that was rejected, in which case the data weren't suppressed very well.

In the first case your theory would seem to be unsupportable in principle, in the second the data are reported so allegations of fraud are surely inappropriate.

Speaking personally (since you mentioned radiometric dating earlier on) - the only data from my lab that has not been published was acquired in a search for an exciting deviation from expected results but yielded a 'boring' confirmation of existing theory. Deviations from expectation are what we seek since they are the stuff of high profile publications.

Please elaborate on what radiometric method was used and what rationalization "solved" the apparent discrepancy.

I will take your word for it that you never "reject" data but always publish all measurements regardless.

[SLPx]

Today @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70925#post70925)
Socratism:



The tragedy is that people do not consider the rejection of data to be fraud because they feel they have sufficient reasons for rejecting the data.

So it looks like the real answer is:

"No, I have no documentation to back up my charge, but it must be true because that is what I have been told by professional creationists."


Biology is characterized by massive amounts of data.

People try to find patterns, trends and "laws" using this massive data base. Unfortunately these attempts have not been as successful as similar attempts in the physical sciences.

Another unsupported charge. Is this a pattern?


Because of this existence of "messy" data that is hard to fit into rigid patterns or relationships there has grown up a tendency to go with the majority of the data (or what is perceived to be the majority) and find reasons to downgrade or explain away data that does not fit the accepted paradigm.

Why, yes it is!


Finally, there is no effective way to keep track of the totality of the data and determine how widespread is the tendency to fail to report rejected data. Thus, only extreme cases of data rejection or unwarranted data manipulation are, or can be, detected.

Well, since this occurs and it is so easy to detect, surely upi will be posting many such examples for us, lest we consider your charges to be false witness bearing...


In such an atmosphere it is probably never considered "fraud" to reject data provided some subjective.rationalization can be imagined to reject the data.

"rationalization"? Hmmm...


The situation is probably not that different from what happens in business where certain practices are not considered fraudulent because they have been going on for so long and are done by practically everybody so that they have become merely "normal business practice".


No support, just rude, inflammatory, ad hominem charges.

[SLPx]

The substantive issue in this thread is the exposure of creationist Walter ReMine's 1. deceptive practice or 2. his incompetence. (take your pick)

I documented that with citations. The Creationist avenger then burst onto the scene with some accusations and error-filled charges that have yet to be substantiated.


Where is the substance from the Creationist Avenger?

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71082#post71082)
SLPx:

The substantive issue in this thread is the exposure of creationist Walter ReMine's 1. deceptive practice or 2. his incompetence. (take your pick)

I documented that with citations. The Creationist avenger then burst onto the scene with some accusations and error-filled charges that have yet to be substantiated.


Where is the substance from the Creationist Avenger?

Where is the substance from Evolutionist Avenger?

You "documented" nothing. You simply posted a citation that purportedly proves that molecular phylogenies agree with fossil evidences. One could post examples where they don't, which is the point.

The potential different sets of data are great, so single examples which happen to agree are not very impressive, particularly when there are other sets that don't.

The potential problem of data selection (selecting those data which support a hypothesis) has arisen in the medical profession and been squarely faced by establishing the practice of "double blind" experiments where no directly interested parties have knowledge of treatment method or effect.

Something similar needs to be adopted in origins research where subjective evaluatiuon and/or data selection is rampant.

[geochron]

Today @ 05:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70949#post70949)
Socratism:

Please elaborate on what radiometric method was used and what rationalization "solved" the apparent discrepancy.

I will take your word for it that you never "reject" data but always publish all measurements regardless.

Mostly I do noble gas analyses.

I'm afraid there has been a misunderstanding. The stuff that hasn't been published yet is the stuff that doesn't reveal a discrepancy (because it is not as exciting - nothing to explain). A replication of the age for a sample that is bang in line with other ages from similar samples is just not as interesting and less worth the effort of publishing. When we do these things we hope to find a difference. That way we can learn something about the whole system.

I was illustrating that your 'only data confirming the theory get published' model isn't in complete accord with my experience. A lot of data that confirm the model never get published.

When we've found ages that have been 'harder' to account for, we've written them up quite speedily (along with our 'rationalisations' of the discrepancy, of course). But it isn't left there, 'rationalisations' have to be tested against what else they predict. Nobody would be satisfied with...

"it doesn't fit what we expect but here's an idea for why that would be thank you and goodnight".

...we also have to consider things like...if the explanation is true, what consequences can be predicted and sought? What effects would the same process have in other systems? In short, the explanation is tested, not just accepted.

I'm not going to illustrate with specific examples from my own research since they are published and I value some anonymity here. However, I'll take as an example the work on zircons criticised here...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1308.asp

As the footnote 'notes', the Jack Hills zircons are detrital, and the interpretation of the spectrum of ages was that they date formation in generations of previous rocks. We predict that the oldest zircons should also turn out to be the oldest in other systems, and work continues to see if this is true - for instance, Pu-Xe analyses presented in Nice recently correlate well with U-Pb ages.

[Socratism]

When we've found ages that have been 'harder' to account for, we've written them up quite speedily (along with our 'rationalisations' of the discrepancy, of course). But it isn't left there, 'rationalisations' have to be tested against what else they predict. Nobody would be satisfied with...

"it doesn't fit what we expect but here's an idea for why that would be thank you and goodnight".

I don't think the situation is as simple as you are portraying here.

[SLPx]

Today @ 08:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71098#post71098)
Socratism:



Where is the substance from Evolutionist Avenger?

You "documented" nothing. You simply posted a citation that purportedly proves that molecular phylogenies agree with fossil evidences. One could post examples where they don't, which is the point.

You keep writing things like that but have yet to provide any references. And you are also trying - subtly - to change the topic. The issue is not and never was that not all molecular and morphological analyses agree 100% - they do not, and there are valid reasons for that. The issue is that ReMine misrepresented the methodology, I point this out, and you sprang to his defense withour even knowing what the issues were.

I posted citations ot two papers in which the methods I described are used which contradict reMine's propagandistic claim. It would appear that, as I predeicted, you have not and will not ever read them, much less understand them.

Oh and Evolution Avenger - wow. That was so clever...


The potential different sets of data are great, so single examples which happen to agree are not very impressive, particularly when there are other sets that don't.

See above. Where's the beef? I keep seeing assertions, but no documentation.


The potential problem of data selection (selecting those data which support a hypothesis) has arisen in the medical profession and been squarely faced by establishing the practice of "double blind" experiments where no directly interested parties have knowledge of treatment method or effect.

Another attempt to change the topic. I suppose at this point it is your only face-saving recourse.


Something similar needs to be adopted in origins research where subjective evaluatiuon and/or data selection is rampant.

Origins research? Who has mentioned that?

Strike three. And STILL no references supportive of the many inflammatory charges. I'm aghast!

[Warcraft3]

The hostility level seems to be rising in this thread. Another discussion turned into:fight: :argue:

Everyone here should try to not take things so personally.


Russ

[geochron]

Yesterday @ 10:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71170#post71170)
Socratism:



I don't think the situation is as simple as you are portraying here.

I agree. It is a large scale human endeavour with all sorts of behaviour patterns going on. It does resist characterisation in simple terms by either side of the debate. I don't pretend to speak even for all geochronologists (who are a very varied group), I just want to dispel a little the notion that there is a conscious or unconscious conspiracy to suppress uncomfortable data (uncomfortable from the 'mainstream' point of view, I mean).

It's also far from all wrapped up, which is what I love about it.

[Woman]

Socratism:

Biology is characterized by massive amounts of data.

People try to find patterns, trends and "laws" using this massive data base. Unfortunately these attempts have not been as successful as similar attempts in the physical sciences.

Life sciences are not mere exercises in creativity. I'd be interested in specific issues you have with them in general and biology in particular.

[SLPx]

Today @ 12:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71236#post71236)
steadele:

The hostility level seems to be rising in this thread. Another discussion turned into:fight: :argue:

Everyone here should try to not take things so personally.


Russ

Better yet, if certain creationists are going to make charges of fraud and defend the incompetence of other creationists, they should be prepared to actually support such sharges rather than try to change the topic repeatedly.

Baseless accusations and underhanded 'debate' tactics are hardly positive contributions.

[SLPx]

04-18-2003 @ 01:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71905#post71905)
SLPx:



Better yet, if certain creationists are going to make charges of fraud and defend the incompetence of other creationists, they should be prepared to actually support such sharges rather than try to change the topic repeatedly.

Baseless accusations and underhanded 'debate' tactics are hardly positive contributions.

Shall I conclude that there are no more defenses of ReMine's claims?

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 10:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95206#post95206)
SLPx:



Shall I conclude that there are no more defenses of ReMine's claims?


2. Evolutionists use fossil-ages to "calibrate" the molecular clock - thereby guaranteeing a "match" between the two."

No further defense is required since it was already admitted that this is done "as a starting point from a 'well-established' fossil date.

The most ReMine could be accused of is oversimplfying the situation.

[SLPx]

Today @ 05:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95772#post95772)
Socratism:





No further defense is required since it was already admitted that this is done "as a starting point from a 'well-established' fossil date.

The most ReMine could be accused of is oversimplfying the situation.


No legitimate defense was offered in the first place.
For the third time, I will point out ReMine's tactic/ignorance:


"2. Evolutionists use fossil-ages to "calibrate" the molecular clock - thereby guaranteeing a "match" between the two"

The very quote you used. Unfortunately, you used it in a completely erroneous way.

ReMine is in fact utterly misrepresenting the methodology employed in an attempt to cast doubt on its use.

That or he is monumentally ignorant of how it works.

That you are still defending him is just plain sad.