Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Yet even MORE supporting evidence ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yet even MORE supporting evidence ...

    No empirical evidence - I repeat, NONE - could ever *prove* that the Biblical Creation Model (i.e., a young creation, in the thousands of years) is true. The reason for this is simple: it is always possible for the evidence to either be ignored or for alternate interpretations to be proposed for that empirical evidence (which is the never-ending strategy of the naysayers). I have stated that since day one.

    I have also stated that, the above being true, there is nonetheless plenty of empirical evidence that supports the Biblical Creation Model. Over the years I've presented lots of this evidence but, true to their religious calling, the naysayers have never acknowledged any of it.

    Pushing on, here's a recent one from the field of genetics. The essence of it involves a study of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). In a nutshell, here's that evidence:

    Mother egg cells transmit their mtDNA into the cellular mitochondria of their children. Copying errors occur and scientists have measured the rate of this—about one mutation every 6 generations. There are genetic differences between every major people group around the globe. A molecular biologist - Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson - downloaded publicly available human mitochondrial genome sequence data to compare YEC predictions (for about 6,000 years) and Evolution predictions (for about 200,000 years) with actual measurements.

    The results? See for yourself. http://www.icr.org/article/9325


    So here is yet MORE of the allegedly "non-existent" empirical data that supports the Biblical Creation ("YEC") Model and, as a consequence, throws dirt on the Evolutionary Model.

    I am certainly not expecting any acknowledgement or serious thought on this empirical evidence from the Fanatical Evo-Faithful that haunt this place. I expect only dismissal, denial, frantic arm waving and name calling in the form of grunts and howls. Yup, that's what those people do best.

    Jorge

  • #2
    We went through this the last time you posted a paper by the same guy. His premise is fundamentally flawed. He takes a measure of the rate of mutation, and then assumes that every single one of those mutations will be preserved (i.e., appear in modern populations). The reality is that most mutations are going to be dropped due to things like selection and drift; only a small subset will survive.

    I can't be bothered to look up the critique i wrote at the time, but i have confirmed it's the same "researcher." He needs to go take a population genetics class. And you need to stop citing his work in a form inhabited by actual biologists.

    Some more technical issues:

    If it's anything like the last paper, he's also taking the mutations rate for a region of the mitochondrial genome that's under relaxed selection, and assuming it will apply to the entire mitochondrial genome, most of which is under very strong pressure, since almost all of it encodes genes.

    There is no basis for "three branches" in that paper that i can find. He seems to have just eyeballed it and said "hey, this tells me what i wanted to see!" And his eyeballs seem to have been defective, since one of the locations of the arrows shows FOUR distinct lineages branching off. No idea what the hell is going on there.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      No empirical evidence - I repeat, NONE - could ever *prove* that the Biblical Creation Model (i.e., a young creation, in the thousands of years) is true. The reason for this is simple: it is always possible for the evidence to either be ignored or for alternate interpretations to be proposed for that empirical evidence (which is the never-ending strategy of the naysayers). I have stated that since day one.

      Jorge
      More mindless drivel from although this did catch my attention. In the "paper" the clueless boob YEC Jeanson posted this

      These results underscore the biblical model of human origins in which the major ethnic groups originate simultaneously at the Tower of Babel event, and these findings simultaneously undercut the validity of the evolutionary out-of-Africa model.
      I always though the Biblical claim was the three sons of Noah went their separate ways after Ararat and each founded one of the supposed three major ethnic groups. Where did this latest twist about the Tower of Babel come from?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        No empirical evidence - I repeat, NONE - could ever *prove* that the Biblical Creation Model (i.e., a young creation, in the thousands of years) is true. The reason for this is simple: it is always possible for the evidence to either be ignored or for alternate interpretations to be proposed for that empirical evidence (which is the never-ending strategy of the naysayers). I have stated that since day one.

        I have also stated that, the above being true, there is nonetheless plenty of empirical evidence that supports the Biblical Creation Model. Over the years I've presented lots of this evidence but, true to their religious calling, the naysayers have never acknowledged any of it.

        Pushing on, here's a recent one from the field of genetics. The essence of it involves a study of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). In a nutshell, here's that evidence:

        Mother egg cells transmit their mtDNA into the cellular mitochondria of their children. Copying errors occur and scientists have measured the rate of this—about one mutation every 6 generations. There are genetic differences between every major people group around the globe. A molecular biologist - Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson - downloaded publicly available human mitochondrial genome sequence data to compare YEC predictions (for about 6,000 years) and Evolution predictions (for about 200,000 years) with actual measurements.

        The results? See for yourself. http://www.icr.org/article/9325


        So here is yet MORE of the allegedly "non-existent" empirical data that supports the Biblical Creation ("YEC") Model and, as a consequence, throws dirt on the Evolutionary Model.

        I am certainly not expecting any acknowledgement or serious thought on this empirical evidence from the Fanatical Evo-Faithful that haunt this place. I expect only dismissal, denial, frantic arm waving and name calling in the form of grunts and howls. Yup, that's what those people do best.

        Jorge
        FYI, Jeanson is a YEC, but an unusually civil, reasonable, and intelligent one who is willing to have dialog with non-YECs. At the last ETS meeting he shared a session with Darryl Falk of BioLogos. What struck me was that they both started with different, conflicting data. The problem was not so much the interpretation of the data, but the data itself.
        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jorge the welcher
          [typical YEC BS deleted]
          Hey WELCHER! Why haven't you paid yet?
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            We went through this the last time you posted a paper by the same guy. His premise is fundamentally flawed. He takes a measure of the rate of mutation, and then assumes that every single one of those mutations will be preserved (i.e., appear in modern populations). The reality is that most mutations are going to be dropped due to things like selection and drift; only a small subset will survive.

            I can't be bothered to look up the critique i wrote at the time, but i have confirmed it's the same "researcher." He needs to go take a population genetics class. And you need to stop citing his work in a form inhabited by actual biologists.

            Some more technical issues:

            If it's anything like the last paper, he's also taking the mutations rate for a region of the mitochondrial genome that's under relaxed selection, and assuming it will apply to the entire mitochondrial genome, most of which is under very strong pressure, since almost all of it encodes genes.

            There is no basis for "three branches" in that paper that i can find. He seems to have just eyeballed it and said "hey, this tells me what i wanted to see!" And his eyeballs seem to have been defective, since one of the locations of the arrows shows FOUR distinct lineages branching off. No idea what the hell is going on there.
            Was it this from Here?:
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            The essence of the article involves measurements of the mutation rate in the entire mitochondrial DNA genome. Previous studies had been limited to roughly 7% of the mitochondrial DNA genome. The bottom line is that the measurements are quite consistent with the young-earth (6,000 year) timescale. In fact, even projecting out to 50,000 years yields strong disagreement with the (observed) measurements. Needless to say, millions of years is out of the question.
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            So, the problem here is that the mitochondrial genome is extremely gene-dense. That information is available right in the Wikipedia entry: "Eighty percent of mitochondrial DNA codes for mitochondrial RNA, and therefore most mitochondrial DNA mutations lead to functional problems, which may be manifested as muscle disorders". Thus, the majority of the mutations in the mitochondrial genome would be selected against - people with them wouldn't live long enough to reproduce for most of humanity's history*.

            As a result, you can't use the predicted mutation rate over time to estimate the number of mutations you'll see in the present, as the harmful mutations are disappearing all the time. You can only do that in regions of the genome that are not under selective pressure. That's precisely why the D-loop of mitochondria (mentioned in that document) is used for these studies - it appears to be about the only region of the entire mitochondrial genome that's not under rigorous selection.

            Since harmful mutations end up getting lost, this has the effect of making it appear as if there are fewer mutations occurring. As he's calculating time based on the number of mutations present, it makes it appear as if less time has passed.

            And millions of years was never in question. All evidence so far indicates the last common mitochondrial ancestor of modern humans lived about 100,000 years ago. So, at most, 100,000 years is what you are capable of looking at with this source of data.

            TL;DR: by switching to looking at the whole genome and using methods that don't work on it, the author pretty much ensured that he'd come up with a bogus answer.

            *It's a bit more complicated than that, given that each mitochondrion carries up to a dozen genomes, and each cell has thousands of mitochondria. So, there may be selection on the cellular level as well, and the inheritance isn't binary as it is with regular genes - you can inherit a mixed population of healthy/mutant mitochondria, and each mitochondrion could have a mixture of healthy/mutant genomes. But over time, selection against harmful mutations would still act to minimize their presence.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Was it this from Here?:
              And here i was told that the TWeb search was unreliable. Nice find.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post

                I am certainly not expecting any acknowledgement or serious thought on this empirical evidence from the Fanatical Evo-Faithful that haunt this place. I expect only dismissal, denial, frantic arm waving and name calling in the form of grunts and howls. Yup, that's what those people do best.
                Jorge
                Based on the received responses, I vote to be nominated as the resident PROPHET.
                .
                .
                .

                On other news ...

                For KB: "Jeanson ... unusually civil, reasonable, and intelligent one who is willing to have dialog with non-YECs."

                Insinuation clear. The fact (which you will undoubtedly never confess to) is that folks like me BEGIN "civil and reasonable" in our dialogs with non-YECs. Shortly after that we realize that the reason why "civility" was being demanded from us was because they knew that they would be bombarding us with tons of BS and underhandedness. Figuratively speaking, they'd be spitting at us and demanding that we accepted it was rain. Then, if we act "civil" and accept their BS and abuse, we play into their hands; if we protest then we are "uncivil and unreasonable". Heads, they win; tails, we lose -- that has always been the non-YEC strategy.

                I keep reminding you that I've been at this far too long --- dialogued with countless non-YECs --- to be bamboozled or rattled by your accusations. Try your tactics against the younger Biblical Creationists - you know, the ones graduating from grade school this month. I'm quite sure that you can get one of them to blush in shame.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  Based on the received responses, I vote to be nominated as the resident PROPHET.
                  It was certainly easy enough to predict you'd cluck victory then run away.

                  Insinuation clear. The fact (which you will undoubtedly never confess to) is that folks like me BEGIN "civil and reasonable" in our dialogs with non-YECs. Shortly after that we realize that the reason why "civility" was being demanded from us was because they knew that they would be bombarding us with tons of BS and underhandedness. Figuratively speaking, they'd be spitting at us and demanding that we accepted it was rain. Then, if we act "civil" and accept their BS and abuse, we play into their hands; if we protest then we are "uncivil and unreasonable". Heads, they win; tails, we lose -- that has always been the non-YEC strategy.
                  We all know the YEC drill . It doesn't matter if you lie your tail feathers off as long as you do it politely.

                  I'm quite sure that you can get one of them to blush in shame.
                  We realized long ago you have no sense of shame

                  Speaking of no shame, when will stop welshing and pay the bet you lost to Roy?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Bless his heart.
                    "The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it."

                    Navin R. Johnson

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jorge the welcher View Post
                      Insinuation clear. The fact (which you will undoubtedly never confess to) is that folks like me BEGIN "civil and reasonable" in our dialogs with non-YECs.
                      Because it's not true. Jorge was uncivil in his 2nd ever post on Tweb.
                      I'm quite sure that you can get one of them to blush in shame.
                      You lost your sense of shame years ago.

                      Jorge Porge chicken and cheat
                      Made a wager that led to defeat
                      Then, when it was time to pay
                      Jorge Porge ran away.
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        Hey WELCHER! Why haven't you paid yet?
                        In terms of lacking ethics, morality and integrity, you are in the same class as Bill and Hillary Clinton. Just in case you don't know what that means, it basically puts you in a lower sub-human category. But do keep trying ... perhaps you will evolve to the level of a leech before you die.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          I am certainly not expecting any acknowledgement or serious thought on this empirical evidence from the Fanatical Evo-Faithful that haunt this place. I expect only dismissal, denial, frantic arm waving and name calling in the form of grunts and howls.

                          Based on the received responses, I vote to be nominated as the resident PROPHET.
                          No, i've accepted the empirical evidence that you've discovered someone who doesn't understand biology.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            In terms of lacking ethics, morality and integrity, you are in the same class as Bill and Hillary Clinton. Just in case you don't know what that means, it basically puts you in a lower sub-human category.
                            That's stil much better than being a castrated invertebrate.

                            You made the challenge, I accepted it as written, you failed to do what I had said you couldn't do.

                            You welched.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              In terms of lacking ethics, morality and integrity, you are in the same class as Bill and Hillary Clinton. Just in case you don't know what that means, it basically puts you in a lower sub-human category. But do keep trying ... perhaps you will evolve to the level of a leech before you die.

                              Jorge
                              Jorge - I don't know why you made the bet. But really, it would have been in the best interests of 'avoiding the appearance of evil' if you had paid it. NO-ONE here - YEC or otherwise - sees this a something you actually won. You really should just take your medicine and pay up.

                              Jim
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X