Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

[itinerant1]

Why should we assume that reason, free will and abstraction have not evolved? Some other primates demonstrate incipient capacities of this sort. And if they have evolved, how will that threaten religious belief?

Whenever Darwin spoke of a human characteristic he would add that animals have possess the same characteristic in a rudimentary form. He was trying to be consistent with the idea of a continuum in nature.

Despite Darwin’s very good attempts at consistency the difference between the voluntary actions of animals and the free will acts of man are not just a matter of degree. And the difference between animal *perceptual *thinking and human conceptual thinking is not a matter of degree.

Regarding the will, if we regard man as a moral agent, that is, one who is responsible for his behavior in a morally culpable sense, his acts must be freely chosen. We do experience many of our acts as freely chosen, and that is not an illusion. If the will is a product of evolution, it would be physical in nature and identified solely as brain function. If this were the case, then human choices would be totally dependent on antecedant causes, as are all physical events. This is tantamount to denying free will and saying that man is not morally responsible for his acts.

To possess a power such as free will, is to possess what we know matter is incapable of: self-causation. That is, the will is a self-causing power and thus is a non-physical characteristic of the human being.

The will is intimately related to the intellect, as we know we make choices based on reason, reasons good or bad. Intellectual knowledge or concepts are universals. For example, the idea of “tree” or “treeness” applies universally to all entitities in that category and not to a particular existing or type of tree. Concepts refer to things indpendent of their existence, that is, whether they exist or not. There is nothing in nature that is a universal. Every existing thing is a particular thing. This dog, this bird, etc. We will never encounter a universal tree or triangle in nature. So we must ask what mode of being universals have in the mind. This tells us something about the nature of the mind itself: that it must be a non-physical power. If the mind were identified with the nuero-physical elements of the brain, then we could not know things through their universal characteristics, i.e. what they have in common.

Have given a few brief reasons why reason and will are non-physical, we then cannot account for their existence solely by the physical processes of nature. Darwin wanted to believe that the moral sense had evolved. He needed to eliminate the natural moral law from his scheme strict of phylogenetic continuity in order to be consistent with his materialistic view of man.

However, if the moral sense is a product of evolution, as Darwin asserted, then the words of St. Paul to the Romans about the law of God (natural law) being written on the hearts of men is false.

The problem is the Darwinian continuum, in which everything disappears into a “grey flux”, as G.K. Chesterton called it. Nature is more correctly viewed as a hierarchy, with grades of being, and phylogentic continuity within those grades.

 

[grannymh]

grannymh;5423018:

There is no evidence they didn’t evolve, no evidence that they were suddenly plunked down on earth ex nihilo

. They would evolve as emergent properties along with increasing neural endowment. Animals show evidence of self-awareness, intentionality, planning, purpose, group dynamics, the ability to choose, etc. These are precursors to reason and free will. None of this is inimical to theology.

Not worried one bit about theology. Evolutionary theory involves matter not spiritual. Thus, it is up to the evolutionist to provide evidence of anything that is being claimed as evolving. Links would be helpful since I don’t always have access to research papers.

 

[StAnastasia]

However, if the moral sense is a product of evolution, as Darwin asserted, then the words of St. Paul to the Romans about the law of God (natural law) being written on the hearts of men is false.

Why is it false? God didn’t write with a pen or pencil – God wrote with evolution.

 

[itinerant1]

Why is it false? God didn’t write with a pen or pencil – God wrote with evolution.

The Apostle would disagree with your assumption. One needs some familiarity with Pauline anthropology to know that he is talking about the natural moral law, which necessarily involves the spiritual and immortal nature of the human soul.

Man, because his soul is spiritual, has an immaterial intellect which can know the dictates of natural law. And because he has free will, an immaterial power, he can choose to obey or contradict the dictates of natural law.

Animals, being non-rational, are not subject to the natural moral law. They obey the law of their natures by instinct. Every species has its species specific, instinctual behavior.

Man, on the other hand, because he is created in the image of God, must make rational choices. He is free to make choices that actualize his being, or choices that are contrary to his nature and to that in which his well-being and happiness consists.

Man’s rational will is ontologically superior to the physical cause and effect events of biological evolution.

 

[StAnastasia]

Man’s rational will is ontologically superior to the physical cause and effect events of biological evolution.

So was this “rational will” it inserted at some point in the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens?

 

[itinerant1]

So was this “rational will” it inserted at some point in the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens?

I covered this issue in earlier posts. The will is one of the powers or potencies of the intellectual soul that informs the individual human body. The soul is the life of the body. The intellectual or rational soul is also the basis of personhood. It is what makes a human being a person. We do not consider animals to be persons. No matter how intelligent and cute “Fido” may be he is not a person, and so he is not morally resonsible for his acts. People can own dogs because they are not persons. We cannot own a person and treat him as property because he has inalienable rights, which are grounded in his personhood. Chattel slavery is morally reprehensible because it treats humans as non-persons.

While we should reverence all life, the life of a human being has a unique, sacred dignity derived from the spiritual and immortal nature of his soul. Hence, an unjustified killing of a human being is considered morally wrong and the capital crime of murder. The murderer is morally responsible for the act of murder, if freely committed. If humans did not have a rational will, then there can be no culpability for any “crimes” they commit.

If the city’s animal control department puts to sleep unclaimed cats and dogs we do no think of this a Holocaust because cats and dogs are not persons. There is something radically different between exterminating cats and dogs and exterminating Jews. If we view humans as merely different in degree from animals, then we cannot have any moral objection to killing any humans who seem inferior in some degree to other humans.

Everything I have said is based on the common sense experience of mankind. We believe we have free will and intellectual powers higher than animal sense knowledge. We believe in right and wrong, guilt and merit. We believe we are in certain ways superior to animals. These common sense notions can be rationally explicated and justified on both a philosophical and theological level.

On the other hand, there are reasons why Darwin gave the answers he did about the nature of man. Though Darwin was an absolutely brilliant naturalist, he had no talent for philosophical reasoning, which he candidly admitted in a number of letters. As a result of his lack of philosophical training, certain of Darwin’s assertions about the nature of man defy common sense and cannot stand up to philosophical analysis.

 

[StAnastasia]

Though Darwin was an absolutely brilliant naturalist, he had no talent for philosophical reasoning, which he candidly admitted in a number of letters. As a result of his lack of philosophical training, certain of Darwin’s assertions about the nature of man defy common sense and cannot stand up to philosophical analysis.

Which are his assertions that “defy common sense”?

 

[itinerant1]

Which are his assertions that “defy common sense”?

Perhaps I was not being a clear as I should be. Darwin’s position that the mind of man differs in degree only from the mind of anthropoid apes and higher animals is the crux of the issue. This position runs counter to the average perception that man is unique in certain ways which involves his intellectual abilities, spiritual aspirations, and so on.

Of course, the implications of Darwin’s claim are radical and revolutionary. Man has been traditionally viewed as a rational animal by almost every philosopher in the history of western civilization. However, Darwin has made man into a brute animal. Moral values now become relative since the moral sense is viewed as a product of natural processes rather than being objectively based in natural law. Belief in the existence of God is questionable since that belief is now viewed as a product of the blind forces of evolution. How can the belief itself in a supreme being be trusted? Darwin himself raised that question.

 

[StAnastasia]

Perhaps I was not being a clear as I should be. Darwin’s position that the mind of man differs in degree only from the mind of anthropoid apes and higher animals is the crux of the issue. This position runs counter to the average perception that man is unique in certain ways which involves his intellectual abilities, spiritual aspirations, and so on.

Of course, the implications of Darwin’s claim are radical and revolutionary. Man has been traditionally viewed as a rational animal by almost every philosopher in the history of western civilization. However, Darwin has made man into a brute animal. Moral values now become relative since the moral sense is viewed as a product of natural processes rather than being objectively based in natural law. Belief in the existence of God is questionable since that belief is now viewed as a product of the blind forces of evolution. How can the belief itself in a supreme being be trusted? Darwin himself raised that question.

Average perceptions are not very trustworthy, so I don’t put much stock in them. But the bigger question is, if your intuitions are correct (and I don’t find them convincing) how do you account for the fact that so many profoundly religious people – Christian and otherwise – accept evolution? Why do popes and cardinals and bishops and theologians accept the theory?

StAnastasia

 

[itinerant1]

Average perceptions are not very trustworthy, so I don’t put much stock in them. But the bigger question is, if your intuitions are correct (and I don’t find them convincing) how do you account for the fact that so many profoundly religious people – Christian and otherwise – accept evolution? Why do popes and cardinals and bishops and theologians accept the theory?

StAnastasia

As I indicated in a previous post, the Darwinian view of man does not stand up to philosophical scrutiny. Nonetheless, my point is being missed if you think this is a criticism of evolution in itself. There is not just a single theory of evolution. As Pope John Paul II correctly stated “We should speak rather of theories of evolution.”

Not every theory of evolution is acceptable. I can name any number of Catholic hierarchy and theologians who specifically reject the materialist interpretation of evolution, as should every Christian.

The problem has been well explicated by Fr. Stanley Jaki, the current pope, and Cardinal Schönborn. There is a need to separate the Darwinian ideology that has been grafted onto evolutionary science. In fact, many neo-Darwinians take their ideology for science.

Historically, ever since the rise of evolutionary theory through the tremendous efforts of Darwin, the Huxleys, and others, evolutionary investigations have oscillated between periods when evolutionists stay within strict scientific methods, to periods when they engage in ideological speculations that are not grounded in sound philosophical thinking. As Einstein once noted, the man of science makes a poor philosopher.

The current situation calls for Catholics to be critical thinkers, accepting what is true while discarding the rest. For guides to a Catholic understanding of evolution you could look for the following books:

1. Evolution & Creation by Rev. William Kramer;
2. Angels, Apes, and Men, by Stanley L. Jaki;
3. Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith, by Cardinal Schoenborn
4. Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo

 

[Alethios]

Do you know the technical reason why you don’t date limestone using C14?

There is no technical reason not to date limestone - it’s composed of calcium carbonate from shellfish.

original:
The wood has to be C14 dated - the inorganic radiometry dates are discordant.

Give us a reference to the peer-reviewed, published paper that documents the collection technique, the handling, the testing and the analysis of the results. .

Whoa, there.
We have noted that this thread requires experimental evidence from any credible source.
The peer reviews of mainstream science enforce a policy of filtering out dissident evidence on ideological - not scientific - grounds. See prior posting of the confessions of a former reviewer and his observations.
The dating of recent lava with inorganic radiometry is simple and uncontroverted evidence that the conventional peer review process is a farce.

original:
The limestone is carbon-based, so it also can be C14 dated.

So you admit that you don't understand C14 testing. Fine. You should not use C14 for your argument when you don't understand how it works.

We claim limestone is carbon-based. You claim we don’t understand this.
Explain to all readers, then, why limestone is NOT carbon-based, and why we don’t understand how it works.

original:
Coal has been C14 dated with AMS to < 50,000 years, far less than the megayears claimed by MS science.

There are technical reasons that there are problems with radiocarbon dating of coal that have nothing to do with the accuracy of the method as a whole. Do you know what they are?

Nothing of relevance to the original statement.

original:
We asked why the dinosaur bones filling museum storerooms haven’t been RC dated…

 If you took some time to learn the science behing radiocarbon dating, you would have your answer.

What is the answer? We have posted dino fossil RC dates < 40 Kyr BP, and asked … several times…

Where are the DATA, not claims, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

original:
Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

You have been given that information and have chosen to ignore it.

It was ignored because it’s missing.
Where are the DATA, not claims, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

original:
The RATE reference was used in Post 437 (not 436) only for their documentation of errors discovered in inorganic radiometric dating based on recent vulcanism, not for their theory of accelerated nuclear decay or any other testing …
Read the posted evidence again and please stick to the issue raised. No diversions, please.

Their "evidence" has been refuted. Do you really want to rely on it?

The dating evidence of recent lava with inorganic radiometry cited in prior posts is simple and uncontroverted proof of its invalidity as a clock.
We have presented the evidence, as the thread rules require.
Where are the DATA, not claims, showing dating evidence of recent lava with inorganic radiometry gives valid modern dates?
If modern dates are too low for the rock datings, then why did the geo labs return millions of years as the age, instead of saying the lava was outside the radiometry range?
If the age was modern, but not independently known from history, then the absurd dates of the rock dating would have been accepted…

Puck: “What fools these mortals be!”

original:
Did we even mention accelerated nuclear decay? Radiocarbon Decay? Polonium Halos? Geothermal Energy? Isochron Discordances? NO NO NO NO NO

 You referenced RATE and that is a major part of their argument. Why didn't you mention those items?

Why were they mentioned? Because a reader ATTEMPTED TO CREATE A FALSE STRAWMAN, by associating all of the RATE claims with our single claim of the false volcanic dates.

original:
ASA and Isaac say nothing about the volcanic rock dating contradictions; indeed, what could they say?

Steve Austin has been exposed for selecting geologic samples that he knows will give anomalous dates (because he DOES understand the science behind the testing) in the past. Why would ASA need to re-iterate that?

Where is the reference for this evidence of ‘exposure’, where Austin knowingly chooses samples that will give anomalous dates?
The key word is evidence, not opinion.

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

Look, if you want to run away from RATE, I wouldn’t blame you.

There’s no point in defending an entire research project of several years when most of the other topics are not relevant nor is it necessary to cite only RATE for the experimental data.

"it has now been established that K-Ar ages for a glauconite should be considered suspect as too old, due to possible incorporation of radiogenic argon along with potassium at the time of glauconite formation
Odin, Giles S. and Martin H. Dodson. 1982. Zero isotopic age of glauconites. In Odin, Giles S., op. cit., Part I, pp. 277-305.

"Volcanics associated with organic material that can be dated by radioactive carbon generally have a K-Ar age much greater than that given by radiocarbon for the eruption "
Stapor, F. W. and W. F. Tanner. 1973. Errors in pre-Holocene carbon-14 scale. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 57(9):1838.

“…the 485,000 K-Ar age for volcanics from a Mt. Rangitoto eruption …destroyed trees less than 300 C-14 years old”
McDougall, I., A. A. Pollach, and J. J. Stipp. 1969. Excess radiogenic argon in young subaerial basalts from Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 33:1485-1520.

RATE is just one of many sources … so let’s call off the RATE witch hunt…

Altethios, no one was silenced at STOQ for expressing what he or she believed. We had a very rich discussion over five days. The only incident was taking the microphone back from someone who had grabbed it out of order, and was attempting to monopolize the discussion and steal time from the next speaker.

But the tape link previously provided doesn’t show anyone grabbing the mike out of order, but just asking a question which challenged the ‘rich’ discussion. The speaker was physically removed from the mike after about one minute.
Are we even referring to the same conference and the same incident??

original :
Another gem from the Evol. STOQ conference? Can one soul go to heaven and the other… oh, never mind.

No -- that is from my own research. I wish it had been discussed at STOQ, but it wasn't. The fusion of two fertilized ova into one blastocyst would seem to present an interesting challenge, if souls are infused at the moment of conception. Either the one blastocyst has two souls from the two separate conceptions, or one soul is removed after the fusion

This is an interesting theodicy - challenging God to conform to our own conceptual limitations.
The question doesn’t even consider the obvious reply - that divine preknowledge of the zygote splitting would delay infusion of the soul(s) into the multiple embryos until the splitting was complete. Or would that be too hard for the omnipotent God?

Anyway, Catholic traditional theology holds that the moment of insoulation is unknown. Because it may be at the moment of conception, the aborting of the egg at any time after conception is a potential homicide.
Because of the potential existence of human life, the sin is mortal.

Evolution is the central organizing principle of biological sense, without which little in biology makes sense, especially the differentiation of species. That’s why biologists – including Christians – use the theory of evolution in their work,…

None of our family doctors thought evol helped their own practice or understanding of medicine. How does random chance explain anything?
When we told our dermatologist that dinos have been dated by us to as little as 7000 years ago, she said that makes sense… because they keep finding so many of their bones! How’s that for common sense.

How does the differentiation of species make sense, when no evidence consistent with the thread rules has been presented supporting that conjecture?

…why have not biologists who do not accept evolutionary principles recently made any significant contributions to the field?

We had no idea such a survey existed… Since this is a thread that features evidence, please back up this statement with specifics:
names and significant contributions of those who accept evolutionary principles.
names and insignificant contributions of those who do not accept evolutionary principles.

AMDG

 

[StAnastasia]

But the tape link previously provided doesn’t show anyone grabbing the mike out of order, but just asking a question which challenged the ‘rich’ discussion. The speaker was physically removed from the mike after about one minute.
Are we even referring to the same conference and the same incident?

Yes – it was the same incident – I was at the conference. The issue was that Babuna was pressing his question in the slot between plenary speakers, rather than at a the appropriate discussion time, which was after the plenary speakers. He was speaking out of order, and when he was told to sit down so that we could all listen to the next speaker, he childishly left in a huff and did not bother to come back to ask his question during the appropriate general discussion forum.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

This is an interesting theodicy - challenging God to conform to our own conceptual limitations. The question doesn’t even consider the obvious reply - that divine preknowledge of the zygote splitting would delay infusion of the soul(s) into the multiple embryos until the splitting was complete. Or would that be too hard for the omnipotent God?

I’m not talking about “theodicy.” Are you sure you know that that word means?

You’re contradicting yourself if you say both that God infuses the soul at the moment of conception and that the fusion is delayed until embryonic splitting is complete.

 

[Alethios]

Mach’s principle has nothing to do with “relative rotation equivalence”. .

Mach’s principle is that mass there determines inertia here: in other words, the compass of inertia on earth (the local inertial frame) …

…the surface of the earth is a non-inertial frame where Coriolis and centrifugal forces are experienced owing to the rotation of the earth with respect to the local compass of inertia (these forces can be derived by any competent physicist by the departure of a test point on the earth’s surface from a straight line, or in relativity, a geodesic).

You are simply wrong when you claim that same effects that support rotation of the earth once per day, can be used to support rotation of the universe once per day.

You have not been able to derive centrifugal and Coriolis forces on a static earth…

Your answer is irrelevant to my challenge - to show the derivation of the Coriolis and centrifugal forces on a static earth
…Any competent physicist can derive the forces by considering the acceleration caused by the departure from a straight line of a test particle at the earth rotating surface.

SR and GR predictions are tested daily in particle accelerators, GPS systems, astronomical observations and elsewhere. Many observations have been made that could falsify SR, GR or both, but have so far failed to do so. That is why physicists the world over accept both SR and GR as accurate theories within their range of applicability.

This subject is off topic, but is within the scope of another thread.
Look for the responses to these rants at the first Crackpot Challenge - on geocentrism.

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

I have some philosophical questions about the general concept of the Scientific Method – seriously.

1. Is this correct? … there is the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to test the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. Should anything be added or subtracted from this definition?

Yes. The Scientific Method(SM) of Aristotle and Bacon has been put on solid philosophical grounds; see Karl Popper’s work on logic applied to science.
Key concepts -
Inconsistency : any intrinsic contradictions in a hypothesis, which render it logically meaningless.
Falsifiability: hypothesis must be testable by actual performance of experiments, not by just thinking of the possible results.
Repetition; the hypothesis events must occur more than once (to be testable).
The SM distinguishes between an experiment that supports an hypothesis and one that proves it.
‘support’ is used when an experiment is one of many causes that predict the result; it is sufficient but not necessary for the result/effect to be produced.
E.g., Darwinian macro-evolution changes can also all be explained by design/creation.

‘proof’ is used when an experiment is the only cause that predicts the result; it is sufficient AND necessary for the result/effect to be produced. The result must imply the cause, as well as the converse. A common fallacy is to claim a proof - a unique cause - where there is merely support - from multi-causation.

The SM is empirical and inductive, so:
Just one refutation of a hypothesis invalidates it.
Absolute proof requires performing all possible experiments, which is not possible. So an absolute proof with the SM is impossible.

1. Are there two meanings of “repetition”?

Confirming a hypothesis is a broad subject: Test protocols must test all claims and all limits of the hypothesis and replicate its environment during the test. .
This itself is a major obstacle to empirical progress.
E.g., repeat testing may not get the same results as the first test, but the original tester may claim that the later testing never duplicated the first test exactly or correctly… see gravitational wave hypotheis.

1. What exactly does “cannot be falsified” mean? And what does that entail? What does the reference that something is falsifiable mean …?

“cannot be falsified” => is not testable for theoretical or practical reasons.

E.g., claiming that fossils reveal the structure of animals in the distant past… when that is only testable IN THE DISTANT PAST.

or that the age of buried deposits is directly proportional to their depth, which requires observation at the time of burial.

or that the present genome records genetic changes in the past, when there were no observers technically able to measure the genetic changes more than 50 years ago.

ALL THESE VIOLATE THE SM.

Claiming that the laws of physics and cosmic motion are the same on the Sun as on Earth requires physical presence on the Sun for testing by SM. But putting an observer, human or remote device, on the Sun is a practical impossibility.
THIS CLAIM VIOLATES THE SM.

Ignoring the SM means the supposedly scientific theory of evolution isn’t scientific at all; it is actually a theory of history of imagined past events. Evols accept Darwinism as a doctrine regardless of the lack of supporting evidence, which means that Darwinism is an ideology, not a science.
Theistic evolutionists use an atheistic and unscientific system as their point of departure in the search for truth, twisting and revising Revelation and the Magisterium’s teachings to accomodate the evol ideology. TE is the attempt to baptize a pagan belief system into Catholic doctrine.

The theory of evolution and its attendant hypotheses have been tested, re-tested, modified and confirmed progressively since 1859. That is why biology continues to investigate evolution, and to provide additional support for the theory.

Since 1859, you say? Then 150 years is the limit of its applicability, as discussed in the SM response above!

Popper’s definitions … here are irrelevant to the discussion, as the Big Bang theory satisfies them all - it is self-consistent, it excludes many statements which are not provable from it and it is testable.
Big Bang theory satisfies them all - it is self-consistent, it excludes many statements which are not provable from it and it is testable.

… There is no Big Bang “origin” that we are expanding from, any more than than there is a centre for the expansion of the surface of a balloon (the latter being a two dimensional analogue of three dimensional space.

This is not a velocity of expansion but a local velocity caused by the rotation of the sun about the galaxy and galactic peculiar motions - they are not cosmological.

Big Bang is irrelevant to this topic : biologic evolution … We were wrong to continue this diversion of the main topic.
Our apologies to the patient readers.

So, brother, please move the expanding balloon with no center and all of this BB fantasy to a thread that caters to illogic and prefers speculation to evidence. Thanks.

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

…multiple studies preclude the possibility that human ancestry ever passed through an extreme bottleneck of two individuals.

Claims that the present genome records genetic changes in the past, when there were no observers technically able to measure the genetic changes  more than 50 years ago, VIOLATES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Such 'studies' have all the credibility of a gypsy reading tea leaves.

In other words, the story of Adam and eve is just that - a story. It cannot be literally true.

…And it misses the theological point to insist naively on its literal truth.

This claim violates the primoliteral principle of this thread’s religious belief.

original:
Secretary of State Clinton saw it recently and asked, who painted it? The Church has declared that it was not painted by human hands.

Nevertheless, it was painted.

Nevertheless, the Church has evidence, which trumps your lack of evidence.

… if we were the offspring of two people then science could discover it - it would have left an unmistakeable signature on our genome. However that signature is not there and all the evidence points away from it - we are not descended from two sole parents.

Such faith in science… what is this unmistakeable signature that is not there? Why has this been kept secret?
We know who knows… the man who wasn’t there!

As I was going up the stairs,
I met a man who was not there,
He wasn’t there again today,
I wish that man would go away!

Eve was created from Adam’s side. There is no symbolism there. None. Just as Jesus Christ raised the dead, there is no symbolism there. These are things God can do.

As the case with many verses of Scripture, they can be BOTH literal and symbolic.
Eve was physically formed from Adam’s side, not from the dirt, as Adam was… and… this symbolizes the unity of man and woman as husband and wife; they are of one flesh.

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

Original
Calling evolution a selection of a sequence of mutated genes is just a sophism;

It’s not a sophism at all. It is exactly what evolution is - descent with variation and selection.

Thanks for pointing out the sophism - replacing variation with mutation!

original-
what makes the macro change in 'species" is the last change of protein/enzyme - a single change.

That’s not so - very few if any speciations are the consequence of a single protein change. Speciations generally result from the accumulation of several or many changes over time.

Oh well, back to the basic errors: what is a species? or speciation?

Well, there are many reasons why recent lava flows could give anomalous dates, but the most pertinent one here is the extreme incompetence of the people collecting the samples and analysing the data.

This broad indictment of the whole modern science establishment is unfair. There are a few who recognize the contradiction in radiometric claims and reality.

Well if the best authority that you have to offer are two Vedic cranks who believe that humans have been around for hundreds of millions of years (how does that fit in with your belief that the world is 6000 years old?),

Why so cranky? Having total possession of the truth should make you bubbling with joy.

The researchers belief in reincarnation and timeless ages affected their interpretation of the anachronistic data, just as evol. ideology colors their analysis of the same data. Prolific archaeological and geological evidence of human presence was found in strata claimed to be megayears before the ascent of man. The authors falsely conclude that man has existed forever; the evols just ignore their overwhelming evidence, which supports ages of humans and all other life forms for millennia, not gigayears.

We believe not in their analysis but in evidence, which, if not surmised yet, is what this thread is all about.

…professional geochronologists use multiple radioactive species and multiple techniques in many locations around the world to arrive at concordant dates for major events such as the K-T transition. These techiques include K-Ar, Ar-Ar and U-Pb (including U-Pb of zircons partly reset by the bolide).

The volcanic dating errata belie the credibility of any inorganic radiometric dates, professional geochronologists notwithstanding.

original
65 Ma is an assumption.

No - it’s a measurement.

Please cite the experimenter who made this measurement 65,000,000 years ago. Oh, and the publication.

original:
Inorganic radiometric dating has already been rejected, but please tell us more about astronomic chronologies?

Radiometric dating has not been rejected except by those like you, who refuse to accept the science for ideological reasons.

We reject rock-dating claims that volcanic lava known historically to have been formed in the last few centuries formed megayears ago.
This is what rational scientists do. Believe evidence. Reject contradictions. It’s the scientific way.

As for the astronomic fine-tuning of radiometric dates, I suggest that you begin by looking up Milankovitch cycles.

Please cite the experimenters who made the Milankovitch measurements contemporaneous with the orbital and climatic changes over the past 100,000 years. Oh, and the publication.

original:
Mammoth fossils in the K-T layer have been C14 dated between 9 and 11 Kya!

The K-T is not a layer, but a boundary between two layers (the Cretaceous and the Tertiary).

“Evidence for the impact extinction theory includes a LAYER of iridium at the K-T boundary LAYER, and a large crater in the area of Chicxulub, Mexico .”

We find the denial of our factual statements tiresome, not impressive.

Can you direct us to a paper in a respectable journal that reports mammoth fossils in the Cretaceous period?

Respectable journals don’t include those having agenda-driven peer reviews for filtering out dissident or establishment-conflicting data .

Why must we do your research? Evidence of the K-T extinction event of megafauna < 13 Kya can be found by your own initiative and practice of scientific objectivity.

Here’s a book to practice with:
amazon.com/Cycle-Cosmic-Catastrophes-Stone-Age-Changed/dp/1591430615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247461545&sr=1-1

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

Original
That’s not consistent with the rules of evidence here

I’m afraid…

your rejection of properly cited work as evidence disqualifies you from determining what is valid evidence and what is not.

We have answered the challenge of refuting evol. by establishing rules of evidence in the knowledge domains of faith, philosophy and science. The purpose is to prevent the mindless vapid claims made on other threads and let the readers know that there is a path to the truth amidst all the bloviation, speculation and pontification.

The rules chosen are not arbitrary but those that have guided Western civilization for 2500 years.

If you want the rules changed from the deposit of faith, scientific method and scholastic logic… explain why.

Else follow the rules of order and supply evidence for any evol. conjectures.

Citation of published work is worthless as proof, if the research doesn’t follow the rules of evidence - the scientific method.

original:
From a scientific perspective, we reject evol. because it is not a science ; not testable, not falsifiable and contrary to the scientific method … see prior posts.

… it is clearly science and accepted as such by the vastly overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists and philosophers of science.

This is the logical fallacy of appeal to the majority.
Fourscore years ago the majority of Germans chose Hitler as their leader…

Present evidence that is conformable to the thread schema and you will be heard.

Furthermore it is testable (it has been tested)

What scientific tests were made before the scientific age?

and it is falsifiable - just find us a rabbit and T rex fossil in the same non-reworked stratum,

If evol is falsifiable, then repeat by demonstration the evol. of a rabbit into Tyrannosaurus… or was it T. Rex into a rabbit?

…or show us how organisms have arbitrary characteristics that cannot be categorised or nested.

Organisms have been arbitrarily classified by Aristotle and Linnaeus, by form and function and now by genotype… they don’t agree!

original:
How can there be testable molecular evidence back over thousands (millions? billions?) of years. The technology to do genetic testing is only a few decades old.

because genomics uncovers aspects of our genomes that have clearly evolved over millions of years.

Clear to whom? If testing was done over millions of years then it would be clear to us, the scientists using the scientific method.
To those with faith, it will never be clear, being contrary to inerrant Revelation.

original:
The comparison of matching genomes is specious… One codon in the epigenome can turn a gene on or off, make a gene into an anti-gene.

How does epigenetics make comparative genomics “specious”? Try to be specific.

#1: “Turn on - gene 1 and gene 2 and gene 3 and gene 4 and gene 5 and gene 6 and gene 7 and gene 8.”
#2: “Turn off - gene 1 and gene 2 and gene 3 and gene 4 and gene 5 and gene 6 and gene 7 and gene 8.”

If the first sequence is human code and the second ape, then they agree in 97 of their 100 characters. Evols would say humans and apes only differ in 3% of this code sequence.
But the semantics are 100% opposite in meaning…
Thus the the interpretation of meaning by comparison of almost matching genomes is specious: apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: pleasing to the eye but deceptive.

original:
We trust that the work of the co-authors, Dr. Josef Holzschuh and Dr. Jean de Pontcharra, is found to be convincing.

No, it’s garbage.

Outstanding evidence!

original:
Repeat:where are your DATA, not reference diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

Dinosaur fossils such as hadrosaur and T rex lie below the K-T boundary - there is no instance of an articulated non-avian dinosaur fossil lying above the iridium anomaly and the change in biota that marks the K-T boundary :

Try to stay focussed: The request is simple: lab data was presented of RC dating of dinosaurs from 7 to 35 kya.

The request is simple: If dinosaurs all went extinct 65 Mya, then show us the AMS C14 test data indicating no C14 present in their fossils.

The data is missing, readers, because C14 dating would show that most dinos died less than 13,000 years ago, not all 65,000,000 years ago.

So gullible does the science establishment think we are, that the T Rex bone marrow containing soft tissue, blood and cells recently discovered by Mary Schweitzer et al are said to be 65,000,000 years old!

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

The date of the K-T boundary has been consistently found to be about 65 - 66 million years BP using a range of radiometric and astronomic dating methods applied in multitudes of locations all over the world.

Inorganic radiometry is contradicted by the discordant volcanic lava sdates… analyzed before…

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

.
Refusal to test the dino bones is not the scientific meth-od, but an attempt to perpetuate the scientific myth-hood
please don’t change the subject…
Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

original:
If the [GULO] gene is broken, it’s testimony to the genome corruption following the original sin in Eden.

Is that why it’s broken in exactly the same way in all haplorrhine primates including man?

This was a religious reference, valid as evidence on this thread to Catholic readers.

Original:
There’s your answer to the ‘magnetic pole reversals’ claim. No polar flips… no deep ages for formation.

…Across entire strata (the effect of lightning strikes on the magnetism of cooling molten rock is extremely localised)? Your hypothesis simply doesn’t stand up.

The mid-ridge magnetic pattern could be caused by either local current flows or polar flips.
Neither can be eliminated as causes ; neither is really relevant to the thread topic; neither proves or disproves evol.

Original
Genetic science is only science when it follows the scientific method , testing the present, because the past is no longer available and testable. When it follows the scientific myth-od, then it is evol. science.

But you don’t get to define what is science and what is not.

We don’t. The scientific method does.

The past is testable through the effects it leaves on the present (that’s how we do crime detection, forensic chemistry and pathology, history, archaeology, palaeontology, comparative genomics, systematics and phylogenetics, galactic and stellar science, geology, cosmology, and so on).

Then, to the extent these tests fail to reproduce the environment of the hypothesis, they fail to satisfy the SM.

the fusion of ancestral chromosomes - as is clearly the case with the fusion of the two ancestral chromosomes that make up human chromosome 2
…if two ancestral chromosomes had fused telomere to telomere

An assumption about the fusion of ancestral chromosomes is passed off as fact.
We seek evidence, not science myths.

… there are enormous differences between parrots and other animals; between Moray eels and other animals; between Praying mantises and other animals. These differences may be accounted for without resorting to “sole parents.” You will never, ever find a zoological reason to postulate this, nor genetic eidence of its having happened. Nor is there a theological reason to postulate it.

True enough - Genesis can only be affirmed, not ‘postulated’.

There are many differences between elephants and ants. What is the source of these differences? As with any lineage the “source” is allele variation, operated on by natural selection. That goes for ape-chimp/human as for any succession. no need to find a different operator to explain human erect walking.

Allele variation refers only to micro-evol. The evidence for elephants evolving to ants is MIA, sister.

These are, of course, mere assertions…

Indeed, confession is good for the soul.

all of the attributes that are assigned to the rational soul, are present only where there is a working human brain - the physical brain is necesssary for these cognitive processes, and there is no reason to think …

no comment

AMDG