Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

[Orogeny]

The video Hugh provided is not the only piece of information out there. I am certain the dates for ancient times are wrong. I had already picked up enough information years ago to draw that conclusion.

I see. Well, I guess if you already had enough information regarding human/dinosaur footprints, why were you impressed with Hugh’s link?

Peace

Tim

 

[Michaelo]

Yes, that article supports what I posted because it comes from the scientists I quoted.
The part you quoted was refuted by the authors. Some claimed that the footprints were “non-avian” but the authors argue otherwise.

At the end of the paragraph:

These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters.

I don’t think you can jump to conclusions just yet

From the beginning of the article – which you failed to copy and paste:

Actually, if you read my post, you’ll note that I did include the entire paragraph.

 

[Michaelo]

Orogeny

Thank you for the link to that article refuting the Delk print. It was quite interesting to read.

 

[hecd2]

A proposed protocol to demonstrate the construction of a new protein-forming gene via neoDarwinism:

1. 
   *]genome map each bacterial generation until a new non-bacterial organism is produced
   *]transfer of genes between bacteria must be prevented!
   *]show that the new organism differs from the bacteria, using the 4 definitions of species now proposed
   *]show that 90% of micro-biologists agree that the new organism is not a bacterium
   *]using the genome history of each generation,
   1. 
      *]identify the new gene(s) that evolved from the original bacterial strain.
      *]show that the new gene code(s) were not in the introns of the original bacterial strain.
      *]show that point mutations of the original bacterial genome serially changed into the new genes of the new species.

1. 1. 
      Huh? What has (1), (3) or (4) above to do with the construction of a new protein forming gene? Leaving aside those ridiculous requirements (ridiculous because no biologist proposes that the evolution of a single protein leads to a different bacterium, much less an organism that is not a bacterium - any more than the change in a single word leads to a new language), your challenge was met decades ago. You are obviously not familiar with the work of Barry Hall, John Cairns, Patricia Foster et al. For a review see:
      Foster, Mechanisms of stationary phase mutation, Annu Rev Genet 33, 57 - 88.
      

      Here

      That is not publication in the scientific sense.
      

      Radiometry is a bogus dating system, unless you believe that the last eruption of Mt. St. Helens was 2,800,000 years ago.

      Well if radiometric dating is bogus, why on earth are you going to all this absurd effort to carbon date fossils? But then, consistency was never one of the strengths of people from the Kolbe Center.
      
      I assume you are referring to Steve Austin’s very poorly conducted attempt to discredit K-Ar dating. Kevin Henke demolishes it here:
      noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
      
      It’s as silly to use K-Ar to attempt to date new eruptions as it is to attempt to use carbon dating to date dinosaur fossils.
      Furthermore, Austin never explains how expert geochronologists get highly consistent dates using a range of radiometric techniques (K-Ar, U-Pb, Ar-Ar) which are also consistent with astronomical dating based on Milankovitch cycles
      

      C14 is the only chronometer for dating life forms.
      Dinosaurs were life forms.

      You can’t date 65 million year old fossils using a technique that has a maximum scale of 100,000 years at best. You are out by a factor of 650.
      

      The thread rules of evidence here require evidence that’s credible, not necessarily published. We presented a preprint of the data for 9 dino ages , we expected gratitude, not the implied lack of trust and third degree questioning.

      Why should you expect gratitude for doing something that completely ridiculous?
      

      What is sorely needed is the answer to this one question -

      **Where are the DATA, published or un-published, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested? **

      OK. Dinosaur fossils such as hadrosaur and T rex lie below the K-T boundary - there is no instance of an articulated dinosaur fossil lying above the iridium anomaly and change in biota that marks the K-T boundary (and that includes any dinosaur fossils that Hugh Miller has access to). Dinosaurs, along with many other clades of animals (including microscopic animals) and plants also went extinct, but other clades such as mammals and birds survived across the boundary. See, for example, MacLeod et al, The Cretaceous-Tertiary biotic transition, Journal of the Geological Society 154 (2): 265–292 and Fastovsky and Sheehan, The Extinction of the Dinosaurs in North America, GSA Today 15, 4 - 10 and so on.
      
      The date of the K-T boundary has been consistently found to be about 65 - 66 million years using a range of radiometric and astronomic dating methods applied in multitudes of locations all over the world. See for example:
      Kuiper et al, Synchronizing Rock Clocks of Earth History, *Science *320, 500- 504 (2008), where the K-T boundary is found to be 65.95 million years BP using 40Ar-39Ar dating fine-calibrated by the Milankovitch 405k year astronomical cycle.
      
      So dinosaurs became extinct at or before the K-T boundary and so are at least 65 million years old. Thus it is absurd, and a waste of time to attempt to date them with a technique that has a maximum scale of 100,000 years. You will only get spurious results.
      
      Alec
      evolutionpages.com

 

[Michaelo]

Alec

What are your thoughts on the recent discovery at OSU regarding dinosaur-bird evolution?

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

 

[hecd2]

Alec

What are your thoughts on the recent discovery at OSU regarding dinosaur-bird evolution?

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

I think the jury is still out, although the weight of evidence is for theropod - bird transition. These guys say that the hip joint does not support the possibility of avian respiration but there is other evidence of transition from bellows to flow through system and the development of air-sacs in theropods.
O’Connor and Claessens, *Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation oin non-avian theropod dinosaurs, *Nature 436, 253 - 256 (2005)
Serono, *The Evolution of dinosaurs, * Science 284, 2137 - 2147 (1999)
http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

However, it’s not a done deal as I am sure Alan Feduccia will tell you.

By the way, one of the major issues with the theropod ancestry of bird hypothesis, the identity of the digits in the hand (I, II, III in basal theropods; II,III,IV in development of extant birds) is on its way to being resolved as a developmental frameshift in a paper published today. Xu et al, A Jurassic ceratosaur from China helps clarify avian digital homologies, *Nature *459, 940-944.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

 

[Alethios]

…the claim by some evolutionists is that “evolution is not random” – except the parts of it that are random.

Aha! Evol. uses random natural selection … except when it doesn’t.

Now the reason we demand logical consistency should be clear.

I would like to hear some predictions on homo sapiens evolution.

1 Western humans will evolve ways to deal with the uncharacteristically rich western diet. See Apolipoprotein A-I Milano for one such example.

We find no support for saying the Milano ‘mutant’ is anything more than a variant of the Apolipoprotein A-I protein.That is, no proof is given that the Milano protein has never existed in the human genome or that it ‘mutated’ recently in response to selection pressure. They say mutant, we say variant.

2 Humans in malarial areas will evolve better ways to deal with the malaria parasite, see HbC as an example.

HbC is another variant that is termed 'mutant" by assumption - w/o support. One puzzling question is why the HbC gene is not more prevalent. Tishkoff, the HbC researcher, said, “If the HbC gene has such a great advantage and provides such high protection against malaria, then you would expect everyone in Africa, or at least Burkina Faso, to have this version of the gene”.
When the HbC gene ‘mutated’ has not been tested, which means it could always have been latent in the genome, or just undiscovered until now.
From Tishkoff again, “I would be very interested in knowing the age of the [HbC] mutation”.
So would we…

3 Humans in areas with AIDS and little access to modern drugs will evolve more resistance to AIDS.

Hasn’t worked out so far, has it? AIDS has been arrested - but not cured - with drugs, not human genetic changes.
When will we evolve resistance to the major infectious diseases?
The evolution of resistance to cancer- how’s that going?

Provided the warming trend is continued long enough then we will see:

1 A tendancy towards better ways to deal with a higher ambient temperature - moves towards being thinner and taller with less subcutaneous fat.

The media has been reporting just the opposite - maybe we should all live in the tropics or a sauna to reverse the obesity trend?

2 If there is increased sunlight then a tendancy towads darker skin.

The media has confirmed this evol. prediction; the skin tone of US presidents has recently turned darker.

In short, evolution follows the environment. If we can forecast the long term environment then we can also make reasonable forecasts as to what evolution might do in the long term.

Who can forecast the long-term environment? No one we know.

AMDG

 

[grannymh]

That is indeed so. He points out that the philosophical/religious idea that intention arises in some non-physical spiritual domain and uses the physical brain as a tool to realise the action has been increasingly challenged by the evidence:
“A central question in the study of human behavior concerns the origin of willed actions. Where in the brain are intentions formed? How do we become aware of these intentions? According to the dualist philosophy (1), our encephalon is just the recipient of conscious intentions formed elsewhere in a nonphysical realm. This implies that conscious intention comes first, as the leading cause of our actions. Although appealing from a spiritual point of view, this hypothesis was progressively challenged by a large set of studies (2–4). Results showing that the decision to move did not precede, but instead lagged, the onset of brain activity signaling motor preparedness were especially convincing (5–7). Thus, researchers suggested that conscious intention of a movement emerged as a consequence of increased neural activity in a premotor-parietal circuit, which elaborates motor plans before action.”

The problem then becomes identifying the specific neural circuit which gives rise to the experience of free-will and intention, which he addresses in this paper. To cut a long story short, stimulation of specific regions of the pre-motor regions causes movement without the experience of an intention to move (or indeed an awareness of movement), while stimulation of specific regions of the inferior parietal regions created an intention to move and with a higher intensity of stimulation, a belief that movement had occurred, even if it hadn’t. Their conclusion:

“Our study suggests that motor intention and awareness are emerging consequences of increased parietal activity before movement execution. The subjective (and potentially illusory) feeling that we are executing a movement does not arise from movement itself, but it is generated by prior conscious intention and its predicted consequences.”

See also: “The Volitional Brain; Towards a neuroscience of free will”, ed Libet et al, Imprint Academic, ISBN 1355 8250 (1999).

Also, the Journal of Consciousness Studies (which sponsored the above book) is a very prestigious journal covering physics, biology, neurobiology, philosophical and social aspects of the study of human consciousness. See, for example Haggard and Johnson, Experiences of Voluntary Action, J Consciousness Studies 10, 72 - 84 (2003)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thanks Alec for the explanation of what I was not allowed to read. This is appreciated and helpful.

I can understand why this paper was chosen to demonstrate intentionality, i.e., a conscious intention of a movement emerging as a “consequence of increased neural activity [by electrical stimulation?] in a premotor-parietal circuit, which elaborates motor plans before action.” Of course, I am curious if the same experiment was performed on anyone else or on any other vertebrates.

As long as I am into strange (for me) words, may I ask a favor? When I misuse a word or words, or slip into a malapropism, please offer a correction or corrections. I don’t mind your laughter; rather I look forward to it as laughter often puts things in perspective and lifts my spirit.

Back to this paper. It addresses motor intention and awareness which, appears to me, is in the physical body rather than coming from some non-physical spiritual domain. This paper asks: “Where in the brain are intentions formed?” If my understanding is correct, then I can understand this paper’s reasonableness provided all scientific protocol was exercised during the experiment on the seven patients undergoing awake brain surgery.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[edwest2]

I see. Well, I guess if you already had enough information regarding human/dinosaur footprints, why were you impressed with Hugh’s link?

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim,

I had not seen that particular video before. I was impressed because I had worked in an X-Ray department and am familiar with the techniques involved. You know, Tim, I found it really disappointing to read the stupid and childish comments that accompanied this video. And, unfortunately, it represents a rather common mind set on other internet forums, with this one being a rare exception.

The techniques used were sound and the conclusions were sound. The only conclusion I can draw is that man and dinosaurs were contemporaries. There are also ancient depictions of dinosaurs in metal. The critics would like to say that these were just mythical or fantasy creations of the artists. I really don’t think so.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Michaelo]

The techniques used were sound and the conclusions were sound. The only conclusion I can draw is that man and dinosaurs were contemporaries. There are also ancient depictions of dinosaurs in metal. The critics would like to say that these were just mythical or fantasy creations of the artists. I really don’t think so.

Did you read the article that he provided?

paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm

 

[edwest2]

Did you read the article that he provided?

paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm

The author of that article comes to the wrong conclusions. I have just picked up a book with another author doing the exact same thing to a more recent event. A lot of pages but again, the absolutely wrong conclusions.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Michaelo]

The author of that article comes to the wrong conclusions. I have just picked up a book with another author doing the exact same thing to a more recent event. A lot of pages but again, the absolutely wrong conclusions.

Can you specifically describe why his refutation of the Delk print is faulty?

 

[rossum]

Aha! Evol. uses random natural selection … except when it doesn’t.

Random mutations are not the same as natural selection. Both are parts of the evolutionary process. Random mutations are indeed random with respect to their effect on the phenotype. Natural selection is not a random process.

We find no support for saying the Milano ‘mutant’ is anything more than a variant of the Apolipoprotein A-I protein.That is, no proof is given that the Milano protein has never existed in the human genome or that it ‘mutated’ recently in response to selection pressure. They say mutant, we say variant.

The Apo A-I Milano mutation has been traced back to a single couple who moved to Limone in the 18th century. It started life as a mutation; if you want to think of it currently as an inherited variant then that is your perogative. For myself I prefer to think of variants as being more widespread, like blue eyes or lactose tolerance. Every variant starts as a mutation.

HbC is another variant that is termed 'mutant" by assumption - w/o support. One puzzling question is why the HbC gene is not more prevalent. Tishkoff, the HbC researcher, said, “If the HbC gene has such a great advantage and provides such high protection against malaria, then you would expect everyone in Africa, or at least Burkina Faso, to have this version of the gene”.

That depends on when the mutation first happened. A fairly recent mutation would not have had time to spread very far.

When the HbC gene ‘mutated’ has not been tested, which means it could always have been latent in the genome, or just undiscovered until now.

We have tested enough human genomes to know that HbC is not the usual variant. The usual human haemoglobin has Glutamic Acid at position six on the beta chain, while HbC has Lysine in that position instead.

From Tishkoff again, “I would be very interested in knowing the age of the [HbC] mutation”.
So would we…

An interesting question indeed. Though it is worth pointing out that she calls HbC a “mutation” and not a “variant” as you would have it.

I can also quote Dr Tishkoff:Human geneticist Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland in College Park said the study offers “striking evidence that the HbC provides resistance against malaria.” Other studies have shown that in regions where malaria is endemic, genetic mutations have arisen that confer resistance against the disease. This study is valuable because it identifies another gene that provides resistance to malaria.

Source: Anti-Malaria Gene Found in Africa.
It seems that she supports my position.

Hasn’t worked out so far, has it? AIDS has been arrested - but not cured - with drugs, not human genetic changes.

Some people are already wholly or partly genetically resistant to AIDS. See Genetic HIV Resistance Deciphered.

When will we evolve resistance to the major infectious diseases?

We have done and are doing so. Europeans had evolved resistance to smallpox, which Native Americans had not, hence the devastating effect of smallpox on Native American populations when they first encountered it.

The media has confirmed this evol. prediction; the skin tone of US presidents has recently turned darker.

So G. W. Bush is Obama’s father then? Hmmm, so the US had a Muslim President for eight years and nobody noticed.

Who can forecast the long-term environment? No one we know.

Which is why it is very difficult to make long term evolutionary forecasts. Evolution is driven by the environment so in order to know what evolution will do we need to know what the environment will do.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Can you specifically describe why his refutation of the Delk print is faulty?

He says it was carved. That was considered and rejected in the video. A removal of material would not have left the compression density in the sample.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Michaelo]

He says it was carved. That was considered and rejected in the video. A removal of material would not have left the compression density in the sample.

The “CT Scans” section thoroughly addresses the compression density.

 

[Alethios]

Can you tell us what the creationist or ID prediction for the HbS and HbC variants in central West Africa is with any more accuracy?

Creationist refers to a (Catholic) religous position given primacy over all others. Creationism accepts credible evidence from all knowledge domains that does not contradict the Magisterium and a primoliteral reading of Scripture. In science evidence dased on biological evolution, cosmic evolution(Big Bang) and certain interpretations of quantum mechanics are rejected as contradictory to Revelation.
So… creationist predictions accept and use the micro-evolution theory of King Bio, excluding any reasons that are purely neoDarwinian.

Both HbS and HbC that were mentioned earlier in this thread are mutations that help humans deal with Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

Just change mutations(unproven) to variations(generically acceptable), and this will be fine.

Do you really mean to state that Einstein’s work was absurd?

absurd
adjective - utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false
noun - the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world.

Yep, that’s a good word to capsulize relativity, including the original version of Big Al.
The contradictions are abundant:
the twins that are each younger than the other;
the freedom to choose any rest frame of reference … except the Earth, since that’s geocentrism.
As Scripture always stated and science now is discovering, there’s an absolute system right under our feet.

This was established in the original Crackpot Challenge thread (of Copernicanism)

…I am positive that there is good cause to consider the posiibility that the current human species evolved separately from its cousin chimps or other shirttail animal cousins. To me, it would be a fun-type brain challenge to explore the differences between branches of the alleged family tree or trees.

We have considered the possibility of human evolution from other than human descendants, but have found it contradicts the faith, reason and the scientific method. What is the good cause that’s consistent with the rules of evidence here?

We also enjoy the brain challenge of a good mystery story or science-fiction. But this thread is about the challenge of truth - much more exciting. Let’s not confuse the two: speculation vs. validation.

…there is still the evidence of wood stoves and air conditioners which have been brain-devised to compensate for slow mutations of the human genome.

Is this ‘evidence’ a fanciful way of saying our mental capabilities to produce new technology exceed the pace of (beneficial) physical mutations of our genome?
If so, there are a few points:
There are no beneficial gene mutations observed; only negative and at best neutral changes.

The origin of our technical skills is found in Revelation. The command to multiply and fill the earth - made to Adam and Noah - implies that the Father will support population growth with developing technology. One farm can feed thousands of people; one textile factory can clothe the same. One construction crew can house hundreds of people. Our self-centered pride in our engineering and technology accomplishments is misdirected; they are manifestations of the Father’s support for us and what He commands.
Matthew 6:8 … your Father knows what you need, before you ask Him.

AMDG

 

[grannymh]

Sure - at least with regard to freedom and intentionality:
Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans, Science 324 811 – 813 (2009)

Alec

In addition, to my reply, post 348, I have a few questions about this paper. Did it mention or refer to research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota? www.mayoclinic.org/awake-brain-surgery/brain-mapping,html

Were the patients being treated for a tumor or epileptic seizures? What was the age and sex of the patients? Were other details about the patients given in the paper?

What kind of sedatives were given to the patients? The abstract describes which regions were stimulated–how long was the stimulation and how long was the questioning period?

Because the procedures of the surgeons are obviously different than the researches, I am curious how the researches made use of their opportunity. Was the entire brain mapping observed and recorded by the researchers? Were the questions by the speech pathologist or the instructions given the neurologist plus the responses recorded by the researches?

It still appears to me that the paper is basically concerned with the physical body and not something intangible like the concept of free will. However, since eventually I will propose that free will is one of the essential characteristics of humans – which leads to my position that humans may possibly have evolved separately – do you think that this would be the appropriate time to discuss it?

Thank you for your kindness in answering.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Orogeny]

Hi Tim,

I had not seen that particular video before. I was impressed because I had worked in an X-Ray department and am familiar with the techniques involved. You know, Tim, I found it really disappointing to read the stupid and childish comments that accompanied this video. And, unfortunately, it represents a rather common mind set on other internet forums, with this one being a rare exception.

The techniques used were sound and the conclusions were sound. The only conclusion I can draw is that man and dinosaurs were contemporaries. There are also ancient depictions of dinosaurs in metal. The critics would like to say that these were just mythical or fantasy creations of the artists. I really don’t think so.

Peace,
Ed

Well, Ed, you would have believed it regardless of what refutation was provided because you need it to be true.

The CT scan is not what Hugh wants it to be. The tracks are fakes.

Peace

Tim

 

[Alethios]

ID is falsified since there is abundant evidence of macroevolution (biological definition)

ID is half falsified. Irreducible complexity as mark of a Designer is true; ignorance of the Designer’s identity (whether true or feigned) is false - an insult to the Father of all creation.

Again, the word evidence draws instant attention… evidence consonant with the thread rules is rarely presented.We look forward to seeing the abundant evidence of species change… when the meaning of species is well-defined as a single universal definition, applicable to all life forms.
All should be aware of the ''species problem

Species is a category within a classification system. That system has changed from Aristotle up to modern times. So the meaning has shifted historically.

Then we have 3 criteria for classifying: form, function and genotype. A species definition must resolve the present differences between these three.

To prove that there was microbe to man evolution demands a single species definition. Else, some unscrupulous evols may change the definition along the way to suit their ideology (it could happen). Then we would have an evolution of the meaning of species.

Even Mayr listed 5 interpretations of species. Then there were added 26 more species "concepts", as the attempt to define species was abandoned.

There was an attempt to classify a type of Pacific salmon as an endangered species. Why did it take ten(10) years to decide this in court? Because no one could agree on the definition of species , or sub-species…

Some relevant quotes, from evols all:

“… I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties” Darwin 1859

“No term is more difficult to define than “species,” and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word”. Nicholson (1872)

“Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized” Dobzhansky (1937)

“The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms” Haldane (1956)

“The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word ‘species’.” Hey (2001)

“First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require-but cannot be settled by-empirical evidence.” Pigliucci (2003)

“An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)” Bonde

Sophists may try to claim macro-evolution by picking a few of the 31 species concepts and passing them off as the definition of species.

Do not fear, reader! The thread police will protect you and enforce the rules of evidence until we - or the thread - dies.

AMDG

 

[Michaelo]

Irreducible complexity as mark of a Designer is true

Even if evolution is incapable of generating the natural phenomena that you deem irreducibly complex, IC still relies upon a major logical fallacy to support ID.