Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[Hugh_Farey]

How does random mutation know whether to produce thinner scales or thicker scales ?

You’re having a laugh, aren’t you! I’ve got a tortoise who’s quicker on the uptake than this.

You know very well that we will say that random mutation doesn’t know anything. Nor does random mutation “produce” thicker or thinner scales. It produces changes in the genetic code that, when expressed, will result in thicker or thinner scales. If the ambient temperature doesn’t change much, then a variety of thicknesses of scales will exist among a population, some less than optimal, but still hanging on in there as it takes such a long time for optimal scales to become universal. If the temperature gets slightly cooler, then having thin scales conveys a distinct disadvantage, and animals with them may reduce their reproductive capability, while animals with thicker scales may increase their reproductive capability, Thus animals with genes with thicker scales begin to become more numerous.

So your answer is …evolution has cover all the bases.

Yes, it really does, in a way.

 

[rossum]

How does random mutation know whether to produce thinner scales or thicker scales ?

Your question is meaningless.

A random mutation changes DNA. That changed DNA may, or may not, have an effect of the organism. For example a change in DNA from GCA to GCT will have no effect because both those triplets code for Alanine. A change from GCA to GTA will cause a change because GTA codes for Valine.

Further changes may or may not happen consequent on the change from Alanine to Valine in that particular stretch of DNA.

Random mutations make random changes. They do not “know” anything. They are just changes in DNA which might have an effect on the organism carrying that DNA.

The pool of random changes over a population provides the (name removed by moderator)ut for natural selection to select from.

rossum

 

[benjamin1973]

Here I’d disagree. Evolution doesn’t cover an important base-- psychogony.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Here I’d disagree. Evolution doesn’t cover an important base-- psychogony.

Oh I dare say. I was thinking more in terms of coping with unpredictable environmental changes, which is what I thought Techno was aiming at.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

This is good, and I think reflects pretty accurately exactly what I think, up to the last paragraph. There I differ. I don’t think focussing on morphology as one aspect of creation has led me astray. The theory of evolution, like all science, is indeed an illusion - I have been calling it a model or explanation of reality, not reality itself - and I am certainly not blind to that. Nevertheless, I think it worthwhile trying to refine the illusion, as by it, we may grow to have a better grasp of what reality really is.

 

[buffalo]

I haven’t read ID papers. I have only this forum, pretty much, to explain ID to me. To me, it smacks of religious dogma of the lay variety, and seems both unlikely to be true, and unnecessary to Catholic doctrine. Since I’m open to the idea of God, I’m perfectly willing to change my mind in the future, but so far, I haven’t seen arguments that are strong enough to persuade me.

I have read hundreds and hundreds of both. I have argued them both.

There is a difference between ID, the science and ID, the philosophy.

Even Catholic Theistic Evo’s admit intelligence. They just won’t leave the unintelligent evolutionary process and go all the way.

Actually, until recently all Catholics believed in ID.

 

[buffalo]

How very dishonest. We don’t throw out all the fiction books from our libraries because they aren’t literally true. We don’t throw out Genesis at all. And we don’t “twist” its meaning: Creationists do that, with all their struggling with baramins and the etymology of the Hebrew word for ‘day’ and all that jiggery-pokery. We just say it isn’t literally true, and was never meant to be, and that’s that.

Glark:

It is you who are dishonest. You full well know what the constant and firm understanding of Genesis has been. To be a theistic evolutionist Genesis must be twisted to fit. Even Dawkins stated that and pretty much everyone knows this.

1900 times in the Bible yom means a natural day. It took 1900 years for the pressure from uniformatarianists for the PBC to backpedal slightly and allow it to be longer. Nowhere in Scripture is yom used to mean epochs.

The twisting and turning is done to reconcile the limited fossil record to make it long. It has to. The a priori requirement for evolution is long ages. Current science is putting the squeeze on this thinking.

It is OK. Time will tell.

Everything is a myth that doesn’t fit. That works both ways. The evolution myth is being exposed as just that.

 

[buffalo]

What are you on about? You haven’t read “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex”, Mary H. Schweitzer et al, Science, 2005, but you should.

And now we have more soft tissue findings to contend with. And dino bones with carbon still in them dating to 28000ya.

But no matter the finding evo has a story no matter how absurd.

 

[rossum]

And dino bones with carbon still in them dating to 28000ya.

You need to learn the accurate range of carbon dating. This is another case where your YEC sources are lying to you. If the 28,000 ybp date is correct then YEC is wrong. If the date is incorrect then we cannot make any valid conclusions from the date, it is an error.

So, buffalo, is the date right or is the date wrong? It can’t be both.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

You need to learn the accurate range of carbon dating. This is another case where your YEC sources are lying to you. If the 28,000 ybp date is correct then YEC is wrong. If the date is incorrect then we cannot make any valid conclusions from the date, it is an error.

So, buffalo, is the date right or is the date wrong? It can’t be both.

rossum

Aha, (hugh_fary) so here is rossum doing just what I said.

I and you full well know I know what the limits of carbon dating are. Your a priori bias tells you that it cannot be so because evos know the bones are 65 million years old. It just cannot be so. If it is so, you have to throw in the hat. Combine this with the soft tissue findings and now the story telling comes in. Two different lines of evidence directly challenge your beliefs.

If the dates are correct then either there is another reason for so much carbon being left and we will have to await more data. But once thing is clear, evolution is flat out wrong and unsustainable. We both know even if the dating has some error, there should be no carbon after 65 million years.

The magnitude of error is the issue. In evo time 28000 years is just a blink of the eye. We see evo dates all over the map with errors of millions of years.

The next few years will be very interesting.

 

[rossum]

I and you full well know I know what the limits of carbon dating are.

So the correct thing to do is to retest those fossils, or the surrounding rock, with other methods until the correct dating can be ascertained.

Alternatively, I can offer you a special deal on the wonderful “rossum weight-loss plan”. A set of scales which weighs up to 50 pounds max. Stand on those special scales, and you will never ever weigh more than 50 pounds. Guaranteed! A bargain for $550, reduced from $650 (plus P&P).

Your a priori bias tells you that it cannot be so because evos know the bones are 65 million years old. It just cannot be so. If it is so, you have to throw in the hat. Combine this with the soft tissue findings and now the story telling comes in. Two different lines of evidence directly challenge your beliefs.

I am happy for a second and third test, using different methods. There are reasonable grounds to doubt just a single test. Multiple tests using different methods are more likely to give a correct date.

If the dates are correct then either there is another reason for so much carbon being left and we will have to await more data. But once thing is clear, evolution is flat out wrong and unsustainable. We both know even if the dating has some error, there should be no carbon after 65 million years.

Your misunderstanding of evolution is leading you into error. Finding a recent non-avian dinosaur would be very interesting, but not a problem for evolution. It has already happened before. Coelacanths were thought extinct, but were found to be living. Wollemi pines were thought extinct, but were found to be living. Some mammoths were found to have survived thousands of years longer than previously thought. Long survival does not present a problem for evolution. If you want to give evolution a difficult problem, you need to find something that was living before its ancestors. A Cambrian rabbit is the classic example. The ancestors of rabbits appeared long after the Cambrian, so a rabbit back then could not have had any ancestors. That would be a big problem. A recent dinosaur is well after its ancestors and so is interesting, but not a problem.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

It is you who are dishonest. You full well know what the constant and firm understanding of Genesis has been.

In this very thread, Creationists all disagree quite fundamentally about the “constant and firm and understanding” of Genesis. You go for six literal days, Richca says “I personally believe the ‘days’ of Genesis 1 can indeed mean a certain or indefinite span of time which was the opinion of some of the fathers and modern science appears to confirm this”, Aloysium seemed to go for three billion years; some refuse to comment for fear of rocking the creationist boat further. Although Glark’s “church fathers” didn’t believe in Genesis, they certainly didn’t agree at all about the length of the six days.
Then there’s how many ‘kinds’. You jumped from thousands to six and back again in three posts, Richca went for all the millions of different species there have ever been.
And what about the order of living things in creation? I hate to bang on about it, but what is your “constant and firm understanding” of fruit-trees before marine life. None of you have dared face this at all.
Then there’s the flood. When was it, and what was its extent? You think creationists have a “constant and firm and understanding” of it? No, of course not. Evolutionists do. They think it’s a myth, possibly based on some local event.All of them. Constant and firm, that’s us.

To be a theistic evolutionist Genesis must be twisted to fit. Even Dawkins stated that and pretty much everyone knows this.

Dawkins stated nothing of the kind. He does not twist it at all, he rejects it as historical truth. So do all the theistic evolutionists. Weird interpretations are entirely the province of creationists, trying to fit some version of ‘the literal truth’ of Genesis to the fossil record.

Your personal interpretation of the word ‘yom’ is in distinct disagreement from most creationists, and in particular almost all those who adopt the ID version. Be that as it may, now tell us what your “constant and firm understanding” of fruit-trees being created before marine life is.

The twisting and turning is done to reconcile the limited fossil record to make it long. It has to. The a priori requirement for evolution is long ages. Current science is putting the squeeze on this thinking.

What on earth is this about? The chronology of the fossil record is determined exclusively by observation. Genesis has had nothing to do with it. Most creationists, including the ID sect, agree with it. That’s why they have to distort Genesis to make it fit. Evolutionists don’t need to. We think Genesis is a myth.

Everything is a myth that doesn’t fit. That works both ways. The evolution myth is being exposed as just that.

This is Creationist methodology again. Evolution is an explanation for observed phenomena. Its only justification is that it fits the observed phenomena. As the observations increase, so evolution is refined.

 

[Techno2000]

It produces changes in the genetic code that, when expressed, will result in thicker or thinner scales. If the ambient temperature doesn’t change much, then a variety of thicknesses of scales will exist among a population, some less than optimal, but still hanging on in there as it takes such a long time for optimal scales to become universal. If the temperature gets slightly cooler, then having thin scales conveys a distinct disadvantage, and animals with them may reduce their reproductive capability, while animals with thicker scales may increase their reproductive capability, Thus animals with genes with thicker scales begin to become more numerous.

Finally we might be getting somewhere. So the creature would have to be experiencing the actual temperature changes in its own body, for the genetic code to produce these changes… Yes or no ?

 

[Techno2000]

Oh I dare say. I was thinking more in terms of coping with unpredictable environmental changes, which is what I thought Techno was aiming at.

Yes, that is correct .

 

[edwest211]

Unpredictable and for how long before any changes to occur?

 

[buffalo]

Alternatively, I can offer you a special deal on the wonderful “rossum weight-loss plan”. A set of scales which weighs up to 50 pounds max. Stand on those special scales, and you will never ever weigh more than 50 pounds. Guaranteed! A bargain for $550, reduced from $650 (plus P&P).

Will it accurately weigh something that is 28lbs? or do I need to shop elsewhere? # easy payments too?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Aha, (hugh_farey) so here is rossum doing just what I said.

I and you full well know I know what the limits of carbon dating are

I do. You don’t have any idea. You just hope there are some.

Your a priori bias tells you that it cannot be so because evos know the bones are 65 million years old.

What are you talking about? What cannot be so? How do you think we know the bones are 65 million years old.

It just cannot be so. If it is so, you have to throw in the hat. Combine this with the soft tissue findings and now the story telling comes in. Two different lines of evidence directly challenge your beliefs.

You’re terribly muddled here, and I can’t quite work out how.

If the dates are correct then either there is another reason for so much carbon being left and we will have to await more data. But once thing is clear, evolution is flat out wrong and unsustainable. We both know even if the dating has some error, there should be no carbon after 65 million years.

Aha! I think I’ve got it. You are confusing radiometric dating generally with radiocarbon dating specifically aren’t you? You think that by, say K-Ar dating the dinosaurs are 65 million years old, but by C14 dating they come out much younger. Is that correct?

Oh you poor boy. The soft tissue of the dinosaurs was radiocarbon tested, and there was no C14 in it at all. There was plenty of C12, but that’s irrelevant. That means the bones must be older than it takes for all the C14 to decay. Depending on the size of the sample, this takes about 50,000 years. Once all the C14 has gone, there is no way of assessing how much older the specimen is, using radiocarbon dating.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Finally we might be getting somewhere. So the creature would have to be experiencing the actual temperature changes in its own body, for the genetic code to produce these changes… Yes or no ?

Not quite. So the creature would have to be experiencing the actual temperature changes in its own body, for it to enjoy greater reproductive success.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Finally we might be getting somewhere. So the creature would have to be experiencing the actual temperature changes in its own body, for the genetic code to produce these changes… Yes or no ?

Not quite. So the creature would have to be experiencing the actual temperature changes in its own body, for it to enjoy greater reproductive success.

It produces changes in the genetic code that, when expressed, will result in thicker or thinner scales. If the ambient temperature doesn’t change much, then a variety of thicknesses of scales will exist among a population, some less than optimal, but still hanging on in there as it takes such a long time for optimal scales to become universal.

 

[buffalo]

A Cambrian rabbit is the classic example. The ancestors of rabbits appeared long after the Cambrian, so a rabbit back then could not have had any ancestors. That would be a big problem. A recent dinosaur is well after its ancestors and so is interesting, but not a problem.

Yeah right. Another tale would be spun. I doubt evos would throw the towel in.

Pollen found in rock supposedly much older is simply explained away as contamination. Could the dating of the rocks be wrong? No way they say.